or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Should the US join the Kyoto protocol?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should the US join the Kyoto protocol?

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
Should the US, the country responsible for the largest proportion of the worlds CO2 emissions accept some responsibility for these emissions and try to do something about it? Is it irresponsible of George W Bush to not ratify the joining of the US to a treaty which many other emissions producing nations have joined and try to cut down on this huge output of emissions? Is he creating a bad impression of the people of the US by not joining?
post #2 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Vargas:
<strong>Should the US, the country responsible for the largest proportion of the worlds CO2 emissions accept some responsibility for these emissions and try to do something about it? Is it irresponsible of George W Bush to not ratify the joining of the US to a treaty which many other emissions producing nations have joined and try to cut down on this huge output of emissions? Is he creating a bad impression of the people of the US by not joining?</strong><hr></blockquote>
i don't know is the US should join the Tokyo protocol, but they rather try to limit their emissions.
post #3 of 34
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
i don't know is the US should join the Tokyo protocol, but they rather try to limit their emissions.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

It may seem better in the eyes of the world if the US did join the Kyoto protocol. It would also enable the US and other nations to collaborate and set down some emissions control guidelines to help make emission control a more uniform initiative.
post #4 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Vargas:
<strong>

It may seem better in the eyes of the world if the US did join the Kyoto protocol. It would also enable the US and other nations to collaborate and set down some emissions control guidelines to help make emission control a more uniform initiative.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I was kidding , but more seriously acts are better than promises, if countries only sign a protocol and did not respect it ; it's worthless.
Howeve the problem of the emissions is a serious issue

[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
post #5 of 34
Thread Starter 
It's good to know that the people of the US care about the threat of emissions. The president may not be doing anything about the problem but the people can, and probably will, act upon it.
post #6 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Vargas:
<strong>It's good to know that the people of the US care about the threat of emissions. The president may not be doing anything about the problem but the people can, and probably will, act upon it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unfortunately i come from France.
post #7 of 34
no, i live at 6000 feet and i am hoping that continued green house effects will get me beach front property someday ...

of course we should sign and we should be doing much more to combat global warming and global pollution....g
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
post #8 of 34
no
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #9 of 34
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>

Unfortunately i come from France.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's okay. Your views still matter to the world. France has been trying several schemes to reduce emissions. Are they still doing that scheme where they ban all cars with an odd numbered registration from being on the roads for a day, then the even numbers?
post #10 of 34
Thread Starter 
To reinforce my point I suggest you go to my "Is the world doomed?" thread and look at the excellent graphic posted by MiMac.
post #11 of 34
You should note that Bush is in the oil business. There is a lot of money in ignoring the environment
post #12 of 34
"Is it irresponsible of George W Bush to not ratify the joining of the US to a treaty which many other emissions producing nations have joined and try to cut down on this huge output of emissions?"

George Bush cannot ratify treaties. Any treaty that Bush signs must be presented to the Senate for ratification. This is spelled out in the Constitution and it has been this way for over 200 years. Even if Bush were to sign Kyoto (or the Rome Treaty for the ICC for that matter) there is no doubt that Kyoto would be defeated in the Senate. Many Europeans would love to heap all of the blame on everyone's favorite blithering idiot for not supporting Kyoto and he is an easy target. But his lack of support is far from the only obstacle in the way of US acceptance of Kyoto. On the other hand, his general lack of interest in doing anything at all about some of the issues involved is certainly his responsibility and one which he has shirked so far.
post #13 of 34
Absolutly not!

I heard recently that over 17,000 of the world's scientists do not necessarily agree whether the 2 to 3 % of additional CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans is enough to cause global warming. Plus, if the U.S. signed it, many jobs would be transferred to developing nations who are exempt from the Kyoto protocol.
post #14 of 34
1. Bush cannot ratify anything. The Senate can.

2. The perception that George W. Bush is "doing nothing" about the environment is just that, a PERCEPTION, mostly by the liberal left. This is equivalent to the PERCEPTION that Clinton was great for the envirnoment, which he wasn't. What If I told you that the recent wildfires in the West were worsened because of federal anti-logging regulations? I know this for a fact. The lumber industry was not allowed to cut (not even the dead trees) in many federally protected areas. These regulations were passed under the Clinton administration, sometimes putting entire towns out of work because of saw mill closures. The Clinton administration was as much endeared to the environmental lobby as people say Bush is to the oil industry. But, what people fail to see is that the lumber industry plants more tress every year than it cuts down. There are also more trees in the US today than during the revolutionary war. The PERCEPTION was different.

3. Kyoto Sucks. It exempts 80% of the world's largest polluters, including China I believe. None of this matters anyway because there is widespread opposition to it in the Senate, as there should be.

4. Global warming is not fact.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 34
Thread Starter 
Clinton's policy on logging is one thing but what has Bush done to dispel the perception that he doesn't care for emissions reduction, bearing in mind he is involved in the oil industry and so would benefit from inaction?
Although the Kyoto protocol may not include many polluting contries it is a step towards total, worldwide emissions control. The fact remains that the US contributes most to world emissions and has been given the chance to try to reduce them. If Bush cannot ratify this protocol then the question is why doesn't the senate?
post #16 of 34
I'm sure it is all "bad science". Let's continue the debate until its too late.
Grandma yelled, "Praise Gawd!".

From "The Grapes of Wrath"
Reply
Grandma yelled, "Praise Gawd!".

From "The Grapes of Wrath"
Reply
post #17 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Vargas:
<strong>Clinton's policy on logging is one thing but what has Bush done to dispel the perception that he doesn't care for emissions reduction, bearing in mind he is involved in the oil industry and so would benefit from inaction?
Although the Kyoto protocol may not include many polluting contries it is a step towards total, worldwide emissions control. The fact remains that the US contributes most to world emissions and has been given the chance to try to reduce them. If Bush cannot ratify this protocol then the question is why doesn't the senate?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, the Senate won't either because of the serious flaws in the treaty. It would harm US businesses, exempt many nations, etc. It won't happen. And, from what I understand, it isn't even a close vote. I think the last vote on it was 99-0.

I agree Bush hasn't done much to dispel the notion he is against emissions reduction. He really should. The CO2 thing was a little overplayed, because he proposed reducing many other pollutants. But, the environmental people went nuts because he originally included it in a longer list of "pollutants" in one speech. All of a sudden, he's "breaking his pledge" or "reversing" himself.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Vargas:
<strong>

That's okay. Your views still matter to the world. France has been trying several schemes to reduce emissions. Are they still doing that scheme where they ban all cars with an odd numbered registration from being on the roads for a day, then the even numbers?</strong><hr></blockquote>

you refer to the green card (la pastille verte), this card is not very often use in practice, during days of great pollutions in huge town , speed is limited. The use of the green card or even number is exceptionnal.
France has not a very high rate for an industrial country compared to the others due to the high number of nuclear plants which furnish us 80 % of our electrecity. Nuclear brings some problems : the radioactive garbages, but solve some of them : the emission of CO2.
post #19 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Vargas:
<strong>The fact remains that the US contributes most to world emissions and has been given the chance to try to reduce them....
If Bush cannot ratify this protocol then the question is why doesn't the senate?</strong><hr></blockquote>

1. It is so gracious of the eco-Nazis to give us this opportunity. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

2. The senate would never sign it because they know the treaty and the "science" behind it are crap.

I suggest you get a civics book and learn a little about our democratic process.
post #20 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Vargas:
<strong>Should the US, the country responsible for the largest proportion of the worlds CO2 emissions accept some responsibility for these emissions and try to do something about it? Is it irresponsible of George W Bush to not ratify the joining of the US to a treaty which many other emissions producing nations have joined and try to cut down on this huge output of emissions? Is he creating a bad impression of the people of the US by not joining?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The US should sign it only after exempt countries like *China* (who are in the WTO and the largest manufacturing country with 1 billion poeple) *also* sign it.
post #21 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by eat@me:
<strong>

The US should sign it only after exempt countries like *China* (who are in the WTO and the largest manufacturing country with 1 billion poeple) *also* sign it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly. And, all the folks out there that think we are a great big, industrial nation should realize that we are NO LONGER an industrial nation. 80% of our economy is service based. We can't exempt friggin' China, who is a huge polluter. To me, this isn't about bad science. It's about an unfair and potentially damaging treaty.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #22 of 34
[quote] To me, this isn't about bad science. It's about an unfair and potentially damaging treaty. <hr></blockquote>

so at least we can agree on the science part right?? even the Bush administration's own funded report accepts global warming and mentions that coastline cities are at grave risk....so where do we go from here to stop/reverse this? g

but hey, like i said, i'm at 6000 feet...let the waters rise, baby...say 1 to 2 thousand feet...that would get rid of the east coast, the far left coast, the whole midwest, most of texas, florida...and that is just the states...less humans, more water....we've had that before in history right?

[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
post #23 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by thegelding:
<strong>
so at least we can agree on the science part right?? </strong><hr></blockquote>

No. It's about an unfair and potentially damaging treaty and it's bad science.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #24 of 34
but the Bush adminstration own report admits to global warming....
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
post #25 of 34
Go here ...

<a href="http://www.grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/" target="_blank">http://www.grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/</a>

...for an excellent and informative site on global emissions and check out your part of the world
Here is a repeat of the graphic as detailed above...



...and YES, the USA should join the treaty, it's in the worlds interest for them to do so, but it all comes down to the almighty Dollar in the end doesn't it?
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
post #26 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by thegelding:
<strong>but the Bush adminstration own report admits to global warming....</strong><hr></blockquote>

I admit that global warming is occuring. We simply do not know if this is a consequence of human activity or not. (We also do not know how fast the earth is warming.) "Fixing" this problem will cost money. It will also cost some people their livelihoods. What if we are trying to "fix" something that is a natural phenomenon? Does that make any sense?
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #27 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>

I admit that global warming is occuring. We simply do not know if this is a consequence of human activity or not. (We also do not know how fast the earth is warming.) "Fixing" this problem will cost money. It will also cost some people their livelihoods. What if we are trying to "fix" something that is a natural phenomenon? Does that make any sense?</strong><hr></blockquote>

C'mon spaceman. You cannot seriously believe that global warming is not a consequence of human activity. No offense, but haven't you been reading the papers over the last several years. And no, we're not going to have a science debate again (especially after a series of scientific studies have been commissioned and completed numerous times).

My point and the US point and objections here are often not reported in the EU and the US's position has not been expressed over here. One of the main objections is that certain, fast growing, populous countries such as China and others, who after gaining entry into the WTO, are exempt from Kyoto under the guise that they are developing nations.

China, with over 1 Billion people, is THE world's manufacturing base, is going to be rapidly escalating on the pollution front. Not only is this not fair, as US contends, but it pits its economy against China at an unfair advantge. BTW, China is growing at 8% growth rate which is HUGE.

That is only one issue, but this never gets reported in Europe and US should say, yes, we are for the principals of Kyoto and reducing CO2 emmission but we need to balance this so that it is a level playing field without harshly penalising the US economy radically. This is an environment vs economy discussion and fairness across a level playing field when you boil it down.

But to questions if it is a result of human interaction is a rat hole. Don't go down there again and again.......
post #28 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>I admit that global warming is occuring. We simply do not know if this is a consequence of human activity or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>Bush's EPA website says that most of the global warming is due to human activities.

We know for a fact that:
1. Human activities produce greenhouse gases.
2. Greenhouse gases trap heat.
3. The Earth is warming.

We know the mechanisms. We know the result. To argue that there are uncertainties is no more informative than arguing that we are not omniscient.

It's the same thing as the cigarette companies denying that smoking is bad for your health. We knew that smoking puts poisons in your body, we knew that smoking-related health problems were on the rise. But there are uncertainties about it, as there are in all science. Then you have a very rich industry with an economic interest in fighting the reality.

And the epa website isn't the only indication that Bush does believe human activities cause global warming. Clearly, he's not a flat-earther on the issue.
post #29 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by eat@me:
<strong>
C'mon spaceman. You cannot seriously believe that global warming is not a consequence of human activity. </strong><hr></blockquote>

You are aware, are you not, that there have been periods of warming and cooling throughout the history of this planet.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #30 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>

You are aware, are you not, that there have been periods of warming and cooling throughout the history of this planet.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Of course I am aware. Are you aware of numerous scientific studies commissioned by each president for the past decade (at least). Are you aware that even GW Bush has now aknowledged that global warming is a result of human activity.

Are you aware that this planets has been warming at its fastest ever rate since in the modern era (and i mean in the last 10,000 years)

Again, no offense spaceman, but you are clearly in the minority here and well behind the curve. Open you mind a little, read about it a little more and think about it a little.....this is NOT a naturally occuring phenomenon as you seem to believe.
post #31 of 34
[quote] Are you aware that this planets has been warming at its fastest ever rate since in the modern era (and i mean in the last 10,000 years <hr></blockquote>

That hasn't been proven. We don't have weather records worth a shit more than 200 years back.

Global warming is a theory. Here is the data from the past century:

Temperature-
Global temperatures are rising. Observations collected over the last century suggest that the average land surface temperature has risen 0.45-0.6°C (0.8-1.0°F) in the last century.

Precipitation-
Precipitation has increased by about 1 percent over the world's continents in the last century. High latitude areas are tending to see more significant increases in rainfall, while precipitation has actually declined in many tropical areas.

Sea Level-
Sea level has risen worldwide approximately 15-20 cm (6-8 inches) in the last century. Approximately 2-5 cm (1-2 inches) of the rise has resulted from the melting of mountain glaciers. Another 2-7 cm has resulted from the expansion of ocean water that resulted from warmer ocean temperatures.

Now, there are measurable changes. But 1 degree over a hundred years? Are we sure that is significant? Answer: We don't know.

[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #32 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by eat@me:
<strong>
Again, no offense spaceman, but you are clearly in the minority here and well behind the curve...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Being in the majority doesn't make you right nor does being in the minority mean that I'm wrong.

[quote]<strong>Open you mind a little, read about it a little more and think about it a little.....this is NOT a naturally occuring phenomenon as you seem to believe.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've done plenty of reading which is why I say we simply do not know. Really now, what makes you so sure my mind is closed about this? Because I'm in the minority? There are people smarter than me who study meteorology for a living who are at least as skeptical as I am.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #33 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
Global warming is a theory...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep. And it's not just about greenhouse gases either. The theory also requires a feedback loop to occur which is pure speculation.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #34 of 34
I got this from a weather.com <a href="http://www.weather.com/newscenter/specialreports/hotplanet/manvnature.html" target="_blank">article</a>.

Interesting stuff.

[quote] "About 100 billion tons of carbon get exchanged by the biosphere in natural processes each year. We humans are adding to that about 7 billion per year. But because the natural fluxes cancel each other out, our 7 billion has made a huge difference in the concentration of carbon dioxide," Severinghaus explained.

He added, "It's gone up over 30 percent since before the industrial revolution, which is an unprecedented change in the concentration. We haven't seen anything like this in at least the last 400,000 years, and we know that because we've looked at the bubbles that are trapped in the ice, in the ice cores. So there's no doubt that human beings have caused that change. It's not a natural change."
<hr></blockquote>
"If evolution is outlawed, only the outlaws will evolve."
-Jello Biafra
Reply
"If evolution is outlawed, only the outlaws will evolve."
-Jello Biafra
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Should the US join the Kyoto protocol?