[TETENAL]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3943727.stm

Russia's lower house of parliament has ratified the Kyoto Protocol - the international treaty on climate change.

The United Nations treaty, already backed by 126 countries, needed Russia's support before it could come into force.

[TETENAL]

It is now up to the USA to show some global responsibility and join the Kyoto protocol!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
It is now up to the USA to show some global responsibility and join the Kyoto protocol!

Why?

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why?

To help prevent global warming.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Logic:
To help prevent global warming.

Prove to me that global warming is happening because of humans and not just a normal climate change.

[Logic]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Prove to me that global warming is happening because of humans and not just a normal climate change.

Ask any respected scientist in the world. Global warming is happening(old people here on Iceland has already seen the effects) no matter how often Blind Bush tries to deny it.

edited to add: http://www.ipcc.ch/ check out this link

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
To help prevent global warming.

Then reopen the treaty. We have already rejected the one you have. We are not going to sign a bad treaty just because you think it is a good idea.

[chris v]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why?

You probably haven't noticed because you don't live near a glacier, or on a low-lying atoll, but the glaciers and ice sheets are all melting, and the sea levels are rising at an alarming rate. This group of people called (an epithet apparently) ... scientists... have been carefully studying the problem, and there's a growing consensus that this phenomenon is being caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that a good quantity of this carbon dioxide comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

Color me crazy, but when the best minds in a particular discipline (I know some of these people personally, and I don't find them to be stupid) all over the world dedicate years and years to identifying a cause of a problem, far be it from me, a t-shirt printer and computer enthusiast, to tell them that they're flat-out wrong.

I think I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to toying with global calamity, anyway, even if it turns out that the industrial causes of global warming were overblown.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Then reopen the treaty. We have already rejected the one you have. We are not going to sign a bad treaty just because you think it is a good idea.

What is bad about the treaty?(Or do you label it as bad just because your government said so?)

[djohnson]

Originally posted by chris v:
...that this phenomenon is being caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the admosphere, and that a good quantity of this carbon dioxide comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

So you admit yourself that this is not just happening because of the burning of fossil fuels.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Logic:
What is bad about the treaty?(Or do you label it as bad just because your government said so?)

Since you kow something about the treaty, why not list what the treaty says or does not say?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So you admit yourself that this is not just happening because of the burning of fossil fuels.

A good quantity of carbon dioxide is coming from carbon dioxide dissolved in oceans who can't solve as much carbon dioxide any more because of the warming. I guess the world wide reduction of forest areas also plays a role.

[Logic]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So you admit yourself that this is not just happening because of the burning of fossil fuels.

Of course not just because of that. But we are speeding up the process and will probably make it even worse.

[chris v]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So you admit yourself that this is not just happening because of the burning of fossil fuels.

I myself am not dead certain that global warming is caused solely by burning fossil fuels, no. I just know what I've read and heard. But then again, I'm a t-shirt printer, and not a global warming specialist. I have seen a curve (Probably in that far-left wing-nut publication National Geographic) that correlates the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere nearly exactly with the rise in the burning of fossil fuels, from approximately the beginning of the industrial revolution up to now. It's a pretty blatant comparison if you've ever seen it. I have a pretty good friend who has dedicated her life to studying this phenomenon, and in her exact words, "It's here, and we're causing it." There wasn't much if any doubt in her voice that I could detect.

[Logic]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Since you kow something about the treaty, why not list what the treaty says or does not say?

Educate yourself: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

[SimeyTheLimey]

We do this over and over again. The treaty was examined, and rejected. Even Kerry voted against it, and still says it is flawed. You do not sign a bad and ineffective treaty just because it is there.

Saying that global warming is a bad thing is not an argument for signing a bad treaty. Cancer is a bad thing too. But that doesn't make attaching leeches to your arm a cure for cancer. Just "doing something" doesn't make that "something" effective or a good idea.

So the answer for the 100th time the answer to this particular treaty is no. And it will stay no until the other parties finally realize that they wrote a bad treaty and need to reopen it and fix its problems. At that point, when there is a better treaty, we should look at it again. But not until then, there isn't any point.

[TETENAL]

Simey, what is bad about the Kyoto treaty? Did the USA propose something different to protect the climate?

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We do this over and over again. The treaty was examined, and rejected. Even Kerry voted against it, and still says it is flawed. You do not sign a bad and ineffective treaty just because it is there.

Saying that global warming is a bad thing is not an argument for signing a bad treaty. Cancer is a bad thing too. But that doesn't make attaching leeches to your arm a cure for cancer. Just "doing something" doesn't make that "something" effective or a good idea.

So the answer for the 100th time the answer to this particular treaty is no. And it will stay no until the other parties finally realize that they wrote a bad treaty and need to reopen it and fix its problems. At that point, when there is a better treaty, we should look at it again. But not until then, there isn't any point.

So you say it's bad because the US government said so. Thanks for clarifying that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Simey, what is bad about the Kyoto treaty? Did the USA propose something different to protect the climate?

It has been a number of years since I looked at the details, but the primary ones (from memory) that the Clinton Administration cited at the time were the exclusion of China and the rest of the developing world, and the choice of baseline year for emissions that basically allowed competitor countries to increase their emissions while requiring the US to cut its economic output. One of the reasons that countries like Russia are OK with it is because their economies collapsed since the early 1990s, so their emissions are not impacted.

The suspicion is that a large part of the appeal of Kyoto to our competitors is that it forces the US to make itself relatively less competitive while not altering their competitiveness. The EU is a particular target of that suspicion. One of the negotiating advantages the EU had was it has many "votes" in negotiation while the US only has one. Basically, Clinton got hammered at the negotiating table. He knew it, which is why he never submitted the treaty.

There are also serious questions about cost/benefit in terms of cost to the US economy relative to tiny actual cuts in greenhouse gas emissions -- especially given the exclusion of countries like China.

However, this is all off the top of my head. I did a quick google and all it pulled up was crap from both sides. The terms of the treaty has been basically a dormant settled issue in the US as far as serious policymakers are concerned. A vote of 95 to zero in the senate isn't a surmountable vote. So interest went away, which means you would have to go to the library to get serious textual analysis of the treaty.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
allowed competitor countries to increase their emissions while requiring the US to cut its economic output.

Cut its economic output? You mean cut CO₂ emission.

The USA are the largest producers of greenhouse gases. If the goal is to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases then it is inevitable that the USA ought to reduce theirs. You also would have to allow third world countries to somehow increase their CO₂ production. Or do you expect them to voluntary remain in poverty?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Cut its economic output? You mean cut CO₂ emission.

The USA are the largest producers of greenhouse gases. If the goal is to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases then it is inevitable that the USA ought to reduce theirs. You also would have to allow third world countries to somehow increase their CO₂ production. Or do you expect them to voluntary remain in poverty?

Do not bash the US too much. China is right behind us...

http://www.tamug.tamu.edu/labb/image...ntries%203.gif

Anyone know how to scale an image with the img tags?

[Logic]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Anyone know how to scale an image with the img tags?

Not sure it's possible but it would be great if that was possible. Perhaps ask in the feedback lounge?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Do not bash the US too much. China is right behind us...

With almost 5 times the population.

I'm not bashing the USA. I'm just saying that if we want to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases, the countries that produce the most definitely have to reduce their emission substantially. In my opinion that also includes the EU countries, so I don't understand why Simey says the EU is using Kyoto as a tool to hinder the US economy. If Kyoto would allow Germany or the UK to further increase their CO₂ emission, I would criticise that as well. But I don't think it does. Who should reduce CO₂ emission if not us?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
With almost 5 times the population.

I'm not bashing the USA. I'm just saying that if we want to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases, the countries that produce the most definitely have to reduce their emission substantially. In my opinion that also includes the EU countries, so I don't understand why Simey says the EU is using Kyoto as a tool to hinder the US economy. If Kyoto would allow Germany or the UK to further increase their CO₂ emission, I would criticise that as well. But I don't think it does. Who should reduce CO₂ emission if not us?

Do not get me wrong, I am all for fixing the ecology of the world. However, I do not support cutting back emissions at the cost of the economy. If cleaning the enviroment cuts back on the number of jobs, how do you justify that we have made the world a better place to live?

[Joshua]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Cut its economic output? You mean cut CO₂ emission.

The USA are the largest producers of greenhouse gases. If the goal is to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases then it is inevitable that the USA ought to reduce theirs. You also would have to allow third world countries to somehow increase their CO₂ production. Or do you expect them to voluntary remain in poverty?

Here is an article on Kyoto from Harvard Magazine. To summarize:

1. Kyoto doesn't take China into account, and China is set to pass the US in CO2 emissions by 2012;

2. The treaty gives an unfair advantage to the EU by setting the cut-off year as 1990, before East Germany was cleaned up and before the UK transitioned from Coal to Natural Gas. The result is that the EU countries can shuffle pollution allotments in a way that a single large country like the US cannot;

3. The timescale forces economically inefficient measures because equipment currently in use would have to be retired while still productive.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Here is an article on Kyoto from Harvard Magazine...

Best part:

"The Kyoto Protocol may come into force even without U.S. participation," says Pratt professor of business and government Robert N. Stavins, "but the effects on climate change will be virtually nonexistent." (He calculates 2 to 3 percent emission reductions by 2050, well within the margin of error—and trivial compared to carbon sequestration by the marine and terrestrial biosphere.) "The scientific and economic consensus," he says, "points to the need for a credible mitigation strategy."

I still believe that the Kyoto Accords are meant to shut down the United States prosperity vs. the rest of the world.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Do not get me wrong, I am all for fixing the ecology of the world. However, I do not support cutting back emissions at the cost of the economy. If cleaning the enviroment cuts back on the number of jobs, how do you justify that we have made the world a better place to live?

Preserving the environment does come with a cost. There's no doubt about it. We just have the option to pay the cost now or pay it one, two, or some generations in the future. I'm convinced that delaying the cost into the future will just increase that cost. I could say that I don't care because then I'm dead, but I don't think that's right.

I also don't think that if done as a global effort that it would cost many jobs. There are still "free" resources to save energy: Small car instead of SUV, less air-condition, PowerPC instead of Intel etc. The switch to alternative energy sources is also a chance for new jobs. Some coal miners will lose their jobs, but we might create new ones in developing and producing alternative energy sources.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Preserving the environment does come with a cost. There's no doubt about it. We just have the option to pay the cost now or pay it one, two, or some generations in the future.

"We"? You mean us.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Prove to me that global warming is happening because of humans and not just a normal climate change.

From the Bush admin's EPA web site, under "What's Known for Certain."

What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

[thunderous_funker]

We won't limit greenhouse gasses for the same reason we didn't put secure cockpit doors in airplanes in the 70's--it would cost too much.

I suppose after we have the first ecological "9/11" we might change our minds about that. Who knows?

One things is probably certain. Just like the short-sightedness of not making secure cockpit doors 20 years ago, it won't be private industry who end up footing the bill 20 years from now.

[tie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
"We"? You mean us.

Say what? Let's work together, Simey, and maybe we can derail this thread.

Hey everybody, I just found Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction!! Look, it's on Fox News!

Personally, I think global warming will be great. I hate Floridians, and think stronger hurricanes serve them right. Ditto for the British, hopefully we'll screw up the currents and snow England under. Those silly Africans, always fighting among themselves, what they really need are some more droughts. All those tourists going to Australia to see the Great Barrier Reef -- let's destroy the reef and keep them home here in America.

Everyone says global warming will cost trillions so we should do something to stop it (not to mention the moral obligation not to mess up this beautiful earth) -- but they're forgetting that economics is a zero-sum game. The US is uniquely positioned to benefit most from global warming. Only farmers, Floridians and Alaskans need worry.

[CreepingDeth]

Hmmm…
I remember reading somewhere that Earth has cycles! Imagine that!
We our axis spins around once every 26,000 years, we have a seasonal weather cycle, we have times of hot and times of cold. We've had many ice ages, and many times where it all melted away into the ocean.

I'm no scientific genius, but we haven't been monitoring the global temperatures long enough to get accurate study. It's like conducting a survey of 10 people. It is foolish to say there's a tread in such a short period of time.

Besides, while there most likely is an effect, "mother nature" account for the vast majority of CO2. Ask a volcano.


And don't forget the problems that business will have if they have to comply with this garbage. The Kyoto Protocol makes as much sense as the Earth Charter.

You guys should really stop reading stuff put out by ELF.

[SubGeniux]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why?

To not act like hypocritical loonies? Just guessing here, but why shouldn't they do the decent thing? Or is backing out of treaties (such as weapons ones) only the prerogative of the States? If so, then can any country say "*** You!!!" to past agreements, or international efforts to create harmonious agendas such as nuclear non-proliferation, and this Kyoto one?

Hey, how about Iran says "screw you UnKlE Sammy" I kinda want my nukes now, to hell with international accords we signed up to.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
To not act like hypocritical loonies? Just guessing here, but why shouldn't they do the decent thing? Or is backing out of treaties (such as weapons ones) only the prerogative of the States? If so, then can any country say "*** You!!!" to past agreements, or international efforts to create harmonious agendas such as nuclear non-proliferation, and this Kyoto one?

Hey, how about Iran says "screw you UnKlE Sammy" I kinda want my nukes now, to hell with international accords we signed up to.

We haven't "backed out" of Kyoto. The US never ratified it.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We haven't "backed out" of Kyoto. The US never ratified it.

We didn't back out of the treaty itself, like we did the ABM treaty, but we did back out of international negotiations on it. Whether you use the term "backing out" of Kyoto or something else, there was a change in US policy that occurred under Bush. We could have kept trying to modify the treaty. We can debate about whether that was the right thing to do or not, but there was a "backing out" of the ongoing international talks on climate change by the US under Bush.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
We didn't back out of the treaty itself, like we did the ABM treaty, but we did back out of international negotiations on it. Whether you use the term "backing out" of Kyoto or something else, there was a change in US policy that occurred under Bush. We could have kept trying to modify the treaty. We can debate about whether that was the right thing to do or not, but there was a "backing out" of the ongoing international talks on climate change by the US under Bush.

Believe me, Clinton tried. He reached an impasse. It happens sometimes in negotiations. We simply reached a point where both sides could not compromise on fundamentally irreconcilable positions. That is why Clinton refused to submit the treaty for ratification, and why he called it flawed.

The US is still technically a signatory. That was forced by the treaty rules which required signature by a certain date. However, the Senate vote (voted for virtually unanimously, including by Kerry) almost certainly constituted repudiation under the Vienna Convention. Thus the US is not in any way bound by it, although the door could theoretically be still open. But that would require the other treaty partners to agree to reopen the treaty, which they refuse to do. Given that refusal and the unmistakable voice of the Senate from both parties, there really isn't anything left to talk about.

By the way, the US is still part of the UN climate change treaty process. Official Link People pretend that Kyoto is the only game in town, but that is incorrect.

[TETENAL]

[Scientist]

This conversation is depressing. I think civilization may be fundamentally incompatible with the health of this planet.

[tie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
By the way, the US is still part of the UN climate change treaty process. Official Link People pretend that Kyoto is the only game in town, but that is incorrect.

There are perhaps good reasons for the US not to sign onto Kyoto. But there are no good reasons for doing nothing. And that is what Bush is doing.

I believe the US should not only not do nothing, but the US should show some leadership. The current administration hasn't shown any world leadership abilities, though, so I'm not holding my breath.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by TETENAL:

Let me guess, they needed something as big as an H2 to fit the hydrogen fuel system.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Do not get me wrong, I am all for fixing the ecology of the world. However, I do not support cutting back emissions at the cost of the economy. If cleaning the enviroment cuts back on the number of jobs, how do you justify that we have made the world a better place to live?

But then again, what's the point in having a "great economy" when the world we live in goes down the drain?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Do not get me wrong, I am all for fixing the ecology of the world. However, I do not support cutting back emissions at the cost of the economy. If cleaning the enviroment cuts back on the number of jobs, how do you justify that we have made the world a better place to live?

See what happens now with the oil prices almost twice as high as a couple of years ago: fossil energy is getting increasingly expensive and alternative energies increasingly competitive. Even if it costs some jobs in the short term -- which it doesn't have to -- (something bad if you want to win an election), it's an investment into the future and industries of the future.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Hmmm…
I remember reading somewhere that Earth has cycles! Imagine that!
We our axis spins around once every 26,000 years, we have a seasonal weather cycle, we have times of hot and times of cold. We've had many ice ages, and many times where it all melted away into the ocean.

I'm no scientific genius, but we haven't been monitoring the global temperatures long enough to get accurate study. It's like conducting a survey of 10 people. It is foolish to say there's a tread in such a short period of time.

Besides, while there most likely is an effect, "mother nature" account for the vast majority of CO2. Ask a volcano.


And don't forget the problems that business will have if they have to comply with this garbage. The Kyoto Protocol makes as much sense as the Earth Charter.

You guys should really stop reading stuff put out by ELF.

Excuse me? Scientist do study the weather patterns of the past (e. g. with ice samples or sea floor sediments). Whereas there are `natural cycles', the scientific consensus is that the anthropogenic contribution does exist and is partly responsible for global warming.

Cutting down the rain forest among other things does not help, especially if the CO2 emissions increase.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Prove to me that global warming is happening because of humans and not just a normal climate change.

Prove to me that global warming isn't happening because of humans and is just a normal climate change. Once we have a smoking gun it will be too late! We must preemptively declare war on global warming before it becomes a threat!

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by chris v:


Color me crazy, but when the best minds in a particular discipline all over the world dedicate years and years to identifying a cause of a problem, far be it from me, a t-shirt printer and computer enthusiast, to tell them that they're flat-out wrong.

And the same minds, long ago, told us the world was flat!

If any of you are so concerned about global warming, then, feel free to turn off your computer (since it uses electricity) and go hang yourself so that you won't burden the planet with your existence.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Prove to me that global warming isn't happening because of humans and is just a normal climate change. Once we have a smoking gun it will be too late! We must preemptively declare war on global warming before it becomes a threat!

I suppose you have a butt plug large enough to plug up volcanoes when they erupt? I recall a long time ago when there was little to no oxygen in the atmosphere, for example, and yet here we are!

Global warming is the most wretched crap to ever spew out of science's collective mind since the theory that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe.

The great thing about science is that it's very often wrong.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Global warming is the most wretched crap to ever spew out of science's collective mind since the theory that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe.

Preemptive war has been wage based upon equally wretched crap before ... what makes this wretched crap more wretched than that wretched crap?

[Millennium]

Is this environmentalism, or is it terraforming? That's the real question here.

If global warming is mostly due to humans (for example, the burning of fossil fuels), then Kyoto is in fact true environmentalism. If, however, the process is mostly due to natural processes, then Kyoto is nothing but terraforming.

What carries most of the blame for global warming? The fact is, we don't know. It's happenning -of this there is no doubt- but we don't know yet if it's possible, or even desirable, to stop it.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Preemptive war has been wage based upon equally wretched crap before ... what makes this wretched crap more wretched than that wretched crap?

What association does the drop in a bucket of time war have to do with changes that may take thousands of years to measure?

[thunderous_funker]

What happened to the Precautionary principle?

I guess it goes out the window when Arthur Anderson accountants object that it will cost too much.

Like I said, when the ecological shyt hits the fan 10-20 years from now (or even sooner), it won't be the corporations who refused to pay today that end up footing the bill for fixing the problem in the future.