[Mr Ti]

Why can't the US see that the environmental issues facing the WORLD need dealing with NOW, I don't like to flame a country, the US has some policies I wish we had in the UK, but surely this is a no brainer.

The biggest producer of the WMD that is CO2 emissions, and they choose to be selfish. Long live the planet! Wake up Mr Bush you silly silly man.

[ironknee]

wrong place

but the reason is bush doesn't believe any of that stuff...and besides, jesus is coming soon...you know jesus martinez...

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Mr Ti

Why can't the US see that the environmental issues facing the WORLD need dealing with NOW, I don't like to flame a country, the US has some policies I wish we had in the UK, but surely this is a no brainer.

The USA has zero obligations to follow some stupid policies and ideas made by other people in other countries. You take care of yours, and we'll take care of ours.

The whole "environmental" thing is just an exaggeration which certain people like to whine about.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The USA has zero obligations to follow some stupid policies and ideas made by other people in other countries. You take care of yours, and we'll take care of ours.

The whole "environmental" thing is just an exaggeration which certain people like to whine about.

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The USA has zero obligations to follow some stupid policies and ideas made by other people in other countries. You take care of yours, and we'll take care of ours.

The whole "environmental" thing is just an exaggeration which certain people like to whine about.

You're weird.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Hugi

You're weird.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The USA has zero obligations to follow some stupid policies and ideas made by other people in other countries. You take care of yours, and we'll take care of ours.

The whole "environmental" thing is just an exaggeration which certain people like to whine about.

If the policies of the US would only affect the US I'd say I agree with you. Unfortunately that's not the case.

However, at least in the US there are people who are fighting for a more reasonable attitude. The nation really to worry about when it comes to pollution is China.

Anybody who still refuses to see the correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming is a fool.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The USA has zero obligations to follow some stupid policies and ideas made by other people in other countries. You take care of yours, and we'll take care of ours.

The whole "environmental" thing is just an exaggeration which certain people like to whine about.

very nationalist of you.

[James L]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The USA has zero obligations to follow some stupid policies and ideas made by other people in other countries. You take care of yours, and we'll take care of ours.

The whole "environmental" thing is just an exaggeration which certain people like to whine about.

[spatterson]

Uhhh wrong forum, but yeah... Bush is bullheaded... Your right

[spatterson]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The USA has zero obligations to follow some stupid policies and ideas made by other people in other countries. You take care of yours, and we'll take care of ours.

The whole "environmental" thing is just an exaggeration which certain people like to whine about.

Wow, how very ignorant of you

[Y3a]

Since the weathermen can't even tell you accurately whats gonna happen 2 weeks away why would you think the science can predict whats gonna happen and why 200 years from now? The climate models are at BEST guesses. You should be ashamed of yourselves for not being able to put 2 and 2 together about this.

Has a link been absolutely established regarding human output vs natural occurances? Such has been extrapolated with questionable math, but since we aren't sure about the measurements from 250 years and further back we really have no accurate data. Why was the climate different when dinosaurs were around? Why was the climate different 15,500 years ago? What effect does clouds of interstellar dust play in how much energy we get rom the sun? volcanos produce gasses that go into the atmosphere and dust. the dust rains out of the atmosphere within a few years. what changes do the gasses make? what about UNDERSEA volcanos? forest fires? plain fires? what happens to the jet stream after a volcano? what happens to it after forest fire?

WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

So why should we sign onto some treaty involving pop science? In the 70's it was a global winter.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by spatterson

Wow, how very ignorant of you

Says the guy who links to SORRYEVERYBODY.COM, and has a sig that says ignorance won the election.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Since the weathermen can't even tell you accurately whats gonna happen 2 weeks away why would you think the science can predict whats gonna happen and why 200 years from now? The climate models are at BEST guesses. You should be ashamed of yourselves for not being able to put 2 and 2 together about this.

Has a link been absolutely established regarding human output vs natural occurances? Such has been extrapolated with questionable math, but since we aren't sure about the measurements from 250 years and further back we really have no accurate data. Why was the climate different when dinosaurs were around? Why was the climate different 15,500 years ago? What effect does clouds of interstellar dust play in how much energy we get rom the sun? volcanos produce gasses that go into the atmosphere and dust. the dust rains out of the atmosphere within a few years. what changes do the gasses make? what about UNDERSEA volcanos? forest fires? plain fires? what happens to the jet stream after a volcano? what happens to it after forest fire?

WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

So why should we sign onto some treaty involving pop science? In the 70's it was a global winter.

This is total, utter nonsense. The informed consensus in the scientific community, including the US, including the Bush administration, is that global warming is a reality. We do indeed have extremely accurate data on the effect COS emissions have on the environment. We know that biodiversity is under threat because of human intervention. The main reason that Bush doesn't ratify Kyoto is not because he doesn't believe the data, it's because he thinks the solution offered is wrong.

Calling the data the Kyoto agreement is build upon 'pop science' doesn't undermine it at all, it just shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[GSixZero]

Most people who think global warming is crock science want intelligent design taught in biology class. Crazy huh?

[BasketofPuppies]

Hint: the U.S. Senate wouldn't have voted 95 to 0 against the concept of the concept of such a treaty unless there were something seriously wrong with it.

The Kyoto Accord, in its current form, is a bad treaty. It lets developing nations off the hook for their pollution and ignores the giant forests in the United States, which produce plenty of greenhouse gases naturally.

[spatterson]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Says the guy who links to SORRYEVERYBODY.COM, and has a sig that says ignorance won the election.

ohhh did I hurt your feelings... I am so very sorry...

BTW, my sig is true... ignorance did win the election

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government
when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

[BasketofPuppies]

What fun. Another person who thinks people with opinions that differ from his own are ignorant.

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies

It lets developing nations off the hook for their pollution and ignores the giant forests in the United States, which produce plenty of greenhouse gases naturally.

Forests absorb greenhouses gasses, not produce them. You must be confusing forests and cars again.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by spatterson

ohhh did I hurt your feelings... I am so very sorry...

BTW, my sig is true... ignorance did win the election

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government
when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

Nope, it will take much more than the lunatic rantings of one ignorant dumbass to hurt any of my feelings.

[spatterson]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies

What fun. Another person who thinks people with opinions that differ from his own are ignorant.

Well lets take a look...

The USA has zero obligations to follow some stupid policies and ideas made by other people in other countries. You take care of yours, and we'll take care of ours.

Humm... does something in that quote just seem wrong... You mean that the United States has "zero" obligations to follow policies that protect the world, and would help slow global warming.

I dislike when people just spout out that the United States can do whatever it wants, and it doesn't affect anyone. And to me that is very ignorant thinking.

[spatterson]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Nope, it will take much more than the lunatic rantings of one ignorant dumbass to hurt any of my feelings.

How polite of you

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by spatterson

You mean that the United States has "zero" obligations to follow policies that protect the world, and would help slow global warming.

That's right, the USA has no obligation to sign on to any unfair treaties.

[spatterson]

Originally Posted by PacHead

That's right, the USA has no obligation to sign on to any unfair treaties.

What exactly is unfair? That we cut greenhouse emissions? I understand that by doing this can severely harm our economy. But what about harming our environment? Bush has too many friends in the oil industry to do anything to curtail their profits. Meanwhile, we are to develop new technologies to reduce these emissions...

[Y3a]

<< We do indeed have extremely accurate data on the effect COS emissions have on the environment >>

That goes back HOW FAR?? You intend to do trend analysis with that short of an interval of data??

You also seem to paint the environmentalists as all walking in lockstep, which is also NOT THE CASE.

I suggest you don't understand the actual data vs implied data and you seem to believe that assumptions on parts of the science means they understand every aspect and can predict it. there is no proof, only speculation. You also didn't read my first post either, or you, like many other "Pop Scientists" can't answer the other questions which pertain not to speculation of the future, but the past.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

Most people who think global warming is crock science want intelligent design taught in biology class. Crazy huh?

This right here is why you people are morons. The two things are unrelated and no logical correlation between the two can be drawn yet there you go trying to do so.

I doubt any of you have actually read the Kyoto Treaty. I am positive none you hold both degrees in Climatology and Economics. In fact I doubt anyone here took more than 100 level courses in both fields. I am sure some of you can go on at length about the theoretical benefits of reducing CO2 but you can not do so with any level of understanding of the related effects on national and global economics. So the problem in idiots around here talking about this is that you don't grasp the complexities of any of this. You are myopic and most of you are that way based on a two column piece on the topic you read in the New York Times.
Kyoto has become a rallying point for the sake of having one without any of you really wrapping your minds around the fact that it is both inadequate for your tree-hugging goals and that it does not put equal burden on all countries. You like to completely ignore the fact that it does not target India or China sufficiently which ironically if you were really interested in accomplishing anything you talk about you would start with them since they have the least developed infrastructure and are the fastest growing polluters.

At the end of the day Kyoto is junk. I am surprised none of you have figured out yet that if you are serious about any of this you need to scrap the treaty and start again with something more intelligent. But since its become such a battlecry I know won't happen because its more important to bitch about a bad plan so you can blame others for seeing that it is than coming up with a new one which may actually accomplish something.

[Railroader]

It's funny that you people are blaming President Bush for all of the environmental woes. Why didn't Clinton cure it all in the near decade he was in office?

Wanna blame the Republicans? Nixon created the EPA.

[spatterson]

Originally Posted by Railroader

It's funny that you people are blaming President Bush for all of the environmental woes. Why didn't Clinton cure it all in the near decade he was in office?

Wanna blame the Republicans? Nixon created the EPA.

We need to reduce the amount we consume and that is the critical issue which no one is brave enough to address

[Y3a]

At least I worked as a consultant for NASA at Goddard Space Flight Center and had a chance to talk to some of the folks collecting data. ERBS etc.

[brapper]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The USA has zero obligations to follow some stupid policies and ideas made by other people in other countries. You take care of yours, and we'll take care of ours.

The whole "environmental" thing is just an exaggeration which certain people like to whine about.

[BasketofPuppies]

I'm enjoying how everyone has ignored the fact the U.S. Senate in 1997 voted 95 to 0 against the concept of Kyoto.

You normally don't get votes like that unless they're for vague, nonbinding resolutions saying the Senate is in favor of education and against crime.

[Mr Ti]

apologies for wrong forum,


here's for the doubters,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...ing/html/1.stm

some nice pics showing our changing landscape,

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Nope, it will take much more than the lunatic rantings of one ignorant dumbass to hurt any of my feelings.

Aren't you the one whining in feedback about being called names?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies

The Kyoto Accord, in its current form, is a bad treaty. It lets developing nations off the hook for their pollution and ignores the giant forests in the United States, which produce plenty of greenhouse gases naturally.

Case in point: China burns more coal, almost twice as much, in one year than the U.S. did at the peak of coal usage in the late 1950s. And a huge proportion of it is low grade stuff we seldom bothered with here in the States. China thus produces more incidental polutants, such as sulfur dioxide and soot, as well as more CO2, than the U.S., even though we get ridiculed for using more oil than other countries. Here's the kicker: China counts as a "developing country" and doesn't have to even think about reducing their emmissions under Kyoto. India is similarly classed as a developing country, so they can blow out more greenhouse gasses than they do today and not have to worry about repercussions under Kyoto.

On the other hand, the U.S. is held as not just a developed nation, but at the top of the pile because we use more oil, so we would be required to reduce emmissions dramatically, even though the reduction requirements under Kyoto are not based on something that CAN NOT BE DONE in the U.S. within the timeframe allowed.

There's a reason the U.S. consumes that much oil; per capita we produce more than any other country on the planet, even with a trade deficit. I'm not discounting the mega-SUV drivers who probably get "gallons to the mile" performance out of their rides, but the majority of oil used here is used in industry-and most industries here have been cleaning themselves up for decades, something that can't be said in most other places.

And not only do our forests produce some greenhouse gasses naturally (the Great Smoky Mountains are called that because of the naturaly hydrocarbons released by their particular mix of trees) but the VAST MAJORITY of our forests actually take up CO2, thus reducing the quantity that stays in the atmosphere. So do the enormous farm fields that also produce food for the world. But the "uptake" issue died in flames during the Kyoto discussions-probably because Europe has managed to make trees an endangered species there.

Me ticked about this? ME? Nah! It's your imagination.

[Mastrap]

From Wikipedia. A pretty balanced and fair view in my opinion.

The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified.
On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasises the uncertainties he asserts are present in the climate change issue [8]. Furthermore, he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the U.S. (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). Even though China is currently exempted, it has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is expected to declare itself an Annex I country within the next decade and make itself no longer be exempted. In fact, China's per capita emission is among the lowest ones in the world. The U.S. Natural Resources Defense Council stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".
In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol. Later that year, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol's object and purpose, and that while the President probably can not implement the Protocol alone, Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative.[9]
The prospect of the U.S. staying outside the agreement influenced a number of other countries including Australia, Japan, and Canada to discuss whether they should ratify the agreement, putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the U.S. While Japan and Canada ultimately decided to ratify the protocol, Australia's current government has said it will not ratify. Although the major opposition parties have committed to ratification if in a position to do so, Prime Minister Howard was reelected in the 2004 election so it seems unlikely that Australia will support the treaty in the near future.
In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the US stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor. [10]
At the G-8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for "practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies". According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18 percent by 2012. [11]

And:

Cost-benefit analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol, it is necessary to compare global warming with and without the agreement. Several independent authors agree that the impact of the Kyoto protocol on global warming is likely to be very small. Even some defenders of the Kyoto Protocol agree that the impact of it is small, but they view it as a first step with more political than practical importance, for future reductions, perhaps of up to 70%. The UNEP says the effectiveness of Kyoto really depends on whether it lays a good foundation for the climate convention process, which might lead to greater reductions later. [12].
It is possible to try to evaluate the Kyoto Protocol by comparing costs and gains. Though there are large uncertainties. Economic analyses disagree as to whether the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than the global warming that it avoids; the recent Copenhagen consensus project, whilst not ranking it very highly, nonetheless found it to have an overall benefit. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue however that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future. Also, they demonstrate commitment to the precautionary principle. [13]
[edit]
Opposition to Kyoto

The two major countries opposed to the treaty are the USA and Australia, based on the public statements of their governments. Some public policy experts who are skeptical of the global warming hypothesis see Kyoto as a scheme to either retard the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative.
Some critics say there are problems with the underlying science (see global warming controversy). For example, Russia's influential Academy of Sciences (RAN) said the government's decision to approve the Kyoto Protocol was "purely political," and that it had "no scientific justification." [14] The Russian experts told president Putin that Kyoto was scientifically unfounded nonsense. [15] Andrei Illarionov, Putin's economic policy advisor, compared the Kyoto Protocol to fascism. [16]
Some critics state that the protocol will prevent or damage economic growth.
American Council for Capital Formation [17]
United States Department of Energy [18]
National Bank of New Zealand [19]
John Lawrence Daly (deceased), author of The Greenhouse Trap, August 2002 [20]
U.S. President George W. Bush [21]
The 1997 Leipzig Declaration called the Kyoto Protocol "dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living". However, most of the signers of the Leipzig Declaration were non-scientists or lacked credentials in the specific field of climate research.
In June 2003, an open letter[22] was written to Canada's then-future prime minister, Paul Martin, signed by 46 climate experts from six countries—Martin has yet to respond. A open letter previously was signed by 27 climate experts and sent to then-current Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien.
Some argue that the protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions (Niue, The Cook Islands, and Nauru added notes to this effect when signing the protocol [23]), and the standards it sets would be ineffective at curbing or slowing climate change. In addition, there have been recent scientific challenges to the idea of carbon credits, planting "Kyoto forests" or plantations to reduce total carbon dioxide output. Recent evidence shows that this may in fact increase carbon dioxide emissions for the first 10 years, due to the growth pattern of young forests and the effect it has on soil-trapped carbon dioxide. Several industrial countries have made carbon credits an important part of their strategies for reducing their net greenhouse gas outputs, further calling into question the effectiveness of the protocols.
Beyond other arguments some theorists [24] predict that even if the world's leading industrial nations agree to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by the Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that there would be no net change in emissions worldwide. If the industrialized countries cut their demand for fossil fuels to meet the emission reduction responsibilties, the law of supply and demand would tend to cause the world prices of coal, oil and gas go down, making fuel use more affordable for poorer nations. These theorists predict increased fuel use (primarily coal) in the "non-Annex I" countries, tending to offset the reductions of the "Annex I" countries.
It is argued by many that Kyoto fails to address larger issues of sustainability. While one may agree with establishing an international precedent for regulation of greenhouse gasses, failing to address other sustainability issues, such as typically rapid population growth [25] among "non-Annex I" countries, suggests to some that Kyoto represents an anti-industrial agenda rather than a fair attempt to mitigate climate change.

[slimshady023]

Gawwwd! Why does the USA have to support all of those developing nations? Damn, I like the quality those little kids make my phatt Nike Jordans -- can you imagine having to pay $200 for them if they were made here in the United States? That would suck ass.

And don't start complaining about G.B's logging, you tree huggers. Let's face it, if those trees weren't so damn flammable, there would be absolutely no reason to cut those suckers down. It's the trees fault, really.

Emissions will be taken care of. That's why I have energy saver on my dual G5, and drive my hummer at a slow 40 miles per hour around school zones. So don't start yo bitchin.

You guys are all taking away time from sitting around with my PS2 and watching the Real World. Ooh, did you guys catch that last episode where that dude got his face mashed in, broke his eye bone? Hahaha, that was classic. Life don't get no realer than that, man.

GTA time!!! Whooooooo!

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Aren't you the one whining in feedback about being called names?

Aren't you the one who keeps replying to topics, for the sole purpose of commenting on and whining about me ?

Yep, that would be you.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by ghporter

per capita we produce more than any other country on the planet.

Sorry, but I seriously doubt that. What are you producing in the US at all? A few cars for your domestic market maybe but what else...

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Aren't you the one who keeps replying to topics, for the sole purpose of commenting on and whining about me ?

Yep, that would be you.

Seems to be the other way round, fanboy.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Seems to be the other way round, fanboy.

Anybody who has two functioning eyes can see that you are lying, since you are the one who first quoted me in this thread, thus making you the fanboy/stalker.

[James L]

<QuestionDodge>

Originally Posted by PacHead

Aren't you the one who keeps replying to topics, for the sole purpose of commenting on and whining about me ?

Yep, that would be you.

</QuestionDodge>

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

From Wikipedia. A pretty balanced and fair view in my opinion.

Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Your opinion is worth sh!t when you cite a BS source
Now go google the manipulated statistics you need to support your argument. It doesn't change the fact Kyoto is a worthless, flawed, and fundamentally stupid treaty.
Never use that as a source and think it has much weight.

[ihatesuvs68]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.


Your opinion is worth sh!t when you cite a BS source
Now go google the manipulated statistics you need to support your argument. It doesn't change the fact Kyoto is a worthless, flawed, and fundamentally stupid treaty.

I don't know much about the Kyoto treaty, but I do know that I used to think global warming was utter hippie ********. Then I read the 'global warming' issue of national geographic. It's changed my tune. I don't think we need to abandon the internal combustion engine and wear hemp clothing, but I do think that buses, semis, etc need to have more stringent regulations, as they're less than 10% of hte traffic, but account for over 25% of the pollution, 2 stroke engines need to be STOPPED, they spew out so much more garbage compared to a 4 cylinder it's not even comparable (jet skis, lawn mowers, ATVs, etc).

Check out that issue if you haven't seen it yet. It's really well done.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Sorry, but I seriously doubt that. What are you producing in the US at all? A few cars for your domestic market maybe but what else...

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in millions of 2000 normalized dollars:
Durable goods industries 83,047
Wood product manufacturing 4,051
Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing 4,987
Primary metal manufacturing 6,143
Fabricated metal product manufacturing 10,483
Machinery manufacturing 12,466
Computer and electronic product manufacturing 17,181
Electrical equipment appliance and component manufacturing 3,030
Transportation equipment manufacturing 14,385
Motor vehicle and parts manufacturing6 7,000
Other transportation equipment manufacturing 7,394
Furniture and related product manufacturing 2,832
Miscellaneous durable goods manufacturing8 7,686
Nondurable goods industries 90,244
Food manufacturing 18,774
Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing 3,705
Textile mills 2,203
Textile product mills 2,787
Apparel manufacturing 4,543
Leather and allied product manufacturing 885
Paper manufacturing 7,454
Printing and related support activities 3,132
Petroleum and coal product manufacturing 8,920
Chemical manufacturing 27,069
Plastics and rubber product manufacturing 10,958

More than just a few cars for the domestic market.

Per BLS statistics, the U.S. has slipped some in leading "productivity per capita" but mainly because the BLS leans heavily on manufacturing. The U.S. has been moving toward a service/professional economy for many years, and it's hard to rank productivity in software development or medical treatment. Still, over the last five years, the U.S. has been in the top THREE for manufacturing productivity, ignoring the non-manufacturing output.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies

The Kyoto Accord, in its current form, is a bad treaty. It lets developing nations off the hook for their pollution and ignores the giant forests in the United States, which produce plenty of greenhouse gases naturally.

woa...let's get it straight

mammals breath IN oxygen and breath OUT carbon dioxide (poisonous to us)

Plans, trees breath IN carbon dioxide and releases oxygen...


not enough trees and no oxygen...too many people...more carbon dioxide

[ihatesuvs68]

Originally Posted by ironknee

woa...let's get it straight

mammals breath IN oxygen and breath OUT carbon dioxide (poisonous to us)

Plans, trees breath IN carbon dioxide and releases oxygen...


not enough trees and no oxygen...too many people...more carbon dioxide

Engines produce CO2 also.

[ironknee]

6 you are right sir

[ghporter]

Carbon dioxide is NOT poisonous to humans or just about anything else. It is NECESSARY in triggering the breathing reflex. However, too much of it traps heat at the Earth's surface, something called the "greenhouse effect" because you can make it happen in a closed greenhouse full of plants.

HOWEVER the big problem is that many developing countries do not do anything to control deforestation or the reduction of grasslands to grazinglands (very different things-a grassland can be as much as two meters deep in grass, but livestock can't graze there because it's too dense), resulting in a net reduction in CO2 uptake/O2 release in those regions. In contrast, the U.S. has more green space today than it did 30 years ago, and the trend is increasing.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by ghporter

In contrast, the U.S. has more green space today than it did 30 years ago, and the trend is increasing.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I'm certainly surprised by this.
Could you provide a source?

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Your opinion is worth sh!t when you cite a BS source
Now go google the manipulated statistics you need to support your argument. It doesn't change the fact Kyoto is a worthless, flawed, and fundamentally stupid treaty.
Never use that as a source and think it has much weight.

I suggest that you'd read the, fair and balanced, article before posting.