quote:

Originally posted by imokruok It's easy. Just read the Protocol. The US must reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below the 1990 level. I don't think I need to tell you that our economy has grown massively since then. Environmental technology has gotten better too, but it hasn't gotten good enough to return a much, much larger economy to some arbitrarily set emission level.

Countries such as sweden is following the protocol. their economys has grown a lot to.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok No. All foreign treaties that are signed by the President have no effect until they are ratified by the Senate. No Senate, no treaty. Which is why what Bush did meant absolutely nothing from a legal perspective.

What if the president push for a resolution? I've heard that when he push for a decision for the second time the senate is wihout power to stop him? If not, then please tell me what powers the US president actually posess?

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok It's easy. Just read the Protocol. The US must reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below the 1990 level. I don't think I need to tell you that our economy has grown massively since then. Environmental technology has gotten better too, but it hasn't gotten good enough to return a much, much larger economy to some arbitrarily set emission level. Thus, you will need to close factories outright in order to be in compliance. Nevermind that the treaty was crap to begin with. The US shouldered much of the CO2 and emissions reduction burden, with developing nations completely free to continue their poisonous manufacturing techniques. (like China's chemical dust storms that travel over the Pacific and land in the US.)

I think that you are mixing things up here: Poisonous clouds of chemicals from China have nothing to do with CO_2 emissions. Poison is poison - people die from inhaling or digesting it. CO_2 is something else. You don't die from that immediately, but the concentration of it in the atmosphere regulates the average temperature in areas around the globe. A few houndred thousands of cancer cases stemming from China is most likely peanuts compared to the problems derived from global temperature changes.
As to the US shouldering much of the reduction burden to begin with, I think that we should keep in mind that the US is responsible for more than 25% of the current oil-to-carbon-dioxide processes. A number which is way too high considering the US population's fraction of the world population. And, yes, you will need to close some factories, but why don't you take into account the new jobs arising in the windmill or public transportation industry? And is more than one in a hundred americans really employed in a factory whose only existence justification is the exploitation of non-renewable resources?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Countries such as sweden is following the protocol. their economys has grown a lot to.

Accidentally! You are nothing but a bunch of primitive lumberjacks. Remember that. *Real* countries do a cost/benefit analysis before committing to a specific course of action. You and your idealistic code of conduct is nothing but a bump on the road to normal countries with a selfish agenda. Bush laughs at you and your "efficiency".

Biggest Bush blunder: increasing the deficit and debt.

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.