Environmentalists: Please confirm this about the Kyoto Accord!

[Joez]

Can this be true? Can it be that the stupid, chimp, fascist Bush is not the only one in the world against the accord that will save our planet?

"The United States is not alone in balking at Kyoto," Bill Sammon reports in The Washington Times. "Of the more than 100 nations that have signed the accord, only Romania has actually ratified it."

What? Oh Canada, where are you on this important oneworld step into the future? Where are you Britian? The peace-loving peoples of Communist China?

Can it be that only Romania is bright enough to sign this accord?

Please straighten me out here; I thought only the evil rogue Satan America failed to ratify.

[signu459]

Could it be that America will pay the most if it ratify's, and since Romania is classified as a developing nation it will pay nothing??? Hmmmmm? I wonder if I am correct?

[DanConnor]

So whats your point- you don't think us humans have any responsibility to protect the planet?

But anyway, thanks, you made my day. From now on I will be sure to refer to W as "stupid, chimp, fascist Bush ". :)

[hartman]

Joez,

I don't know about how many countries have ratified. China can't ratified since they and others like India are not even included in it.


Listen to this, I was listening to NPR over the weekend and they had a piece on Kyoto. The head of the U.N. Environmental wing that is pushing the Kyoto saying the following about the treaty.

We need not to look at as an environmental issue but as a fairness issue. He stated than northern hemisphere countries will stand to benefit from global warming over the next 75 year while poor developing countries of the southern hemisphere is be hurt. He believe that warmer temps will increase our usable land will reducing everyone else. So this is not fair and that is why Kyoto must be passed. I paraphrased

If this does not make you wonder about goals of the Kyoto treaty we might as well close up shop and go home :)

Hartman

[hartman]

Here is a great link from NASA. They have recorded all the CO produce and where via satellite over the last year. Very interesting to see where all the ozone deleting is occurring, guess what it is NOT the U.S.

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?8086

[DanConnor]

What??? You must be kidding! He thinks global warming will increase or usable land? Thats a crock- all the projections I have seen indicate that it would cause major droughts across the central US.

[DanConnor]

hartman:
I think you neglected to read the caption:

Carbon monoxide is a gaseous byproduct from the burning of fossil fuels, in industry and automobiles, as well as burning of forests and grasslands. Notice in the April 30, 2000, image that levels of carbon monoxide are much higher in the Northern Hemisphere, where human population and human industry is much greater than in the Southern Hemisphere. However, in the October 30, 2000, image notice the immense plumes of the gas emitted from forest and grassland fires burning in South America and Southern Africa.

[hartman]

DanConnor,

It shows air popultion and the greatest maker of this are in South Amer and Africa

Hartman

[Joez]

Thanks Dan and all!

Let me start out by saying that I am a stupid, stupid man.

So take me through this slowly; maybe I can learn something. Any man is my superior in that I may learn from him.

There are how many countries in the world? Hold on, let me check this. I think I just counted 197, but I thought there were more than that.

OK, no matter. let's say 200 countries.

So, only half of the countries in the world signed this treaty? Hmmm. That means that most of the people in the world (some of the non-signers are from populous countries) live in countries that did not sign onto this treaty. Why? It sounds so obviously wonderful.

Then out of that 100, only one country, one percent of the signatories, one-half percent of the countries at large, little Romania, actually ratified the treaty. And, Romania doesn't actually need to do anything based on signing the treaty.

But the media had me thinking that the U.S. was alone in destroying the world by not agreeing to this flawed treaty.

If anyone is still wondering what my point is, it's this: I think international propaganda machines, including some of our home-grown "news" media, are working really hard to portray the U.S. as a lone, retrograde destroyer of the environment.

CNN failed to mention that only one country actually ratified this treaty. I know they have plenty of time to get that story on the air; they're on 24 hours a day, and they have time for lots of stories, some of them "softer news".

How do you think CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and others missed that report?

So like I said, I'm admittedly dumb as a doornail on some things. I will be grateful if you can educate me on this. Why haven't the enlightened Europeans led the way here?

I'd appreciate any help on this. In the meantime, I'm going to be skeptical about what I see portrayed as news.

Thanks.

[Kahuna Tuna]

I heard the same stat Joe, that only Romania has actually signed on. And why bash Bush on this one, there was a senate resolution on Kyoto and it was voted down 95-0 with five obstaining, when was the last time you saw our senate agree on anything. This treaty is a crock as it allow the three of the dirtiest countries to get off scott free(China, india, and Indonesia) and I say dirtyiest because they produce almost ALL of their energy through the burning of coal which is the most pollution causing energy source(greenhouse gases aren't the only form of pollution) there is. If this thing was ever actually ratified by our congress(and it wont be, even democrats aren't that dumb), it would absolutely kill our economy and plunge the US into a depression that would make the 1930's look like a picnic.

[Joez]

You're probably right KT.

You know, when the same thing keeps being said over, and over, and over, it starts to sound like it must be true. Like this thing about the U.S. and the Kyoto accord.

You're right that 95 to 0 is an incredible consensus; I couldn't name when our Senate was in such agreement. And this is not a Senate that often agrees heavily about things.

Last week, they NARROWLY approved an amendment to an education bill that requires that the Boy Scouts be afforded the same opportunity as other groups to use public school rooms, after school, to hold meetings. Leading Senators, like my two Boxer and Feinstein, voted against the Boy Scouts. These two Senators, along with some politicians and entertainment people have branded the Boy Scouts a hate group, and un-American.

But I digress.

My point is that I know some of the popular mantras are nothing but bs, but when the media, and part of the population are bent on ensuring these falsehoods are accepted as true, then they take on a life of their own.

Like this Kyoto thing. Go down the street and ask the first 20 people you meet if it's the U.S. that scuttled the accord. I'll wager that almost all of them agree with that statement. Ask around at work, I'm sure the same thing will be revealed. Ask the Baldwin brothers and Barbara Streisand!

In another thread, people were asked to provide evidence that George Bush is stupid like the talkshow hosts and others portray him. All I saw was that he sometimes makes mistakes when speaking (Please don't write down what I say in the course of a year, I'm sure I'd be comitted as a moron). Still the folklore continues that he is a village idiot.

Well, I'm still hoping that some learned individuals can straighten me out about this Kyoto thing' either I don't understand it, or lots of people are trying to mold our perceptions.

[olgakurt]

Although almost all EU countries have not officially ratified the treaty, the EU is projected to meet the goals of the treaty ahead of time with respect to CO2 targets, the same can not be said of the US.

[hesaias]

I dont have a clu what the treaty says, or hopes to achieve. Can someone point me to a link to a concise run thru?

On this note, I think the US does a bang up job on protecting the air. Working in the Industrial sector, I have dealings with the EPA regs on emmissions from my plant regularly. If it escapes my plant, its cleaner than it was when we got it. (thats not to say its clean enough, but better than it was when we got it)

[olgakurt]

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/actions/cop5/kyoto_99.html

or

http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/fs_kyoto_climate_980115.html

[signu459]

This is a load of crap, everyone know that all the Republicans (insert bush) want to do is polute the air and water and destroy the planet. C'mon folks this is as clear as day, Rape, Pillage and plunder that is the Republicans mantra. Heck me being a republican I have set a goal of poisoning my yet unborn child with poluted water and air by the time he is 20.

Any of you right wing whacos want to join in it'll be fun.


Originally posted by DanConnor

But anyway, thanks, you made my day. From now on I will be sure to refer to W as "stupid, chimp, fascist Bush ". :)

Since Dan made a comment based soley on feeling and zero fact as well as showing a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of Fascist, I will do the same.

Here goes,

Dan thanks for the enlightening statement, you made my day. From know on i will refer to you as "Stupid, Ameba Commy Dan". :p :)

[Kat]

hartman, while the link you provided was interesting and informative, it only highlighted one gaseous factor for us all to consider. Carbon monoxide isn't the only pollutant out there that is causing global warming, and it certainly isn't the only pollutant out there that is degrading our protective ozone layer. To make a broad-ranging statement about global warming based upon measurements of one gas isn't really good science, at least not in my opinion; you have to take all the factors into consideration.

And no, it isn't just the USA that is producing all of these greenhouse gases. However, proportionately, the industrialized countries (which includes the US) produces most of the most harmful gases which contribute to global warming and the degredation of the ozone layer, and the industrialized (1st world) nations are the primary consumers of the products produced in other countries that contribute to the worsening global climate crisis.

Besides which, the Kyoto pact isn't really going to effectively decrease emissions all that much, even if every country out there ratified it. It's simply a gesture. It's the amount of industrial productivity that the international community, for the most part, is willing to sacrifice in order to somewhat slow the process of global warming. But at least it's a step in the right direction.

[hartman]

Kat,

Your correct about Carbon monoxide isn't the only pollutant out there that is causing global warming. I just posted the link cause I'm tired of the U.S. "being" the root of all the worlds problems.
We all share the blame and unless everyone works towards a solution we should not be forced to pay the price

Yes we here are creating pollution, but everything we humans do creates pollution and in the US we work really hard to do as little harm as possible.

Kat will you admit that today we do not totally understand the the cause and affects of global warming that while it seems to make sense there are no hard facts linking anything. Even the current GW (global warmers) number of 1.4 degrees has been shown to be wrong the the increase is really only .4. Also there are re so many other things like that the SUN is in a hotter than normal period that could last 50 years.

While I don't believe in the fact that we are the cause of GW I do believe that we can and should try to reduce pollution as much as possible. I just don't think we need punitive treaties to "get even" with wealthy countries.

Hartman

P.S. Kat have a good vacation??

[Kat]

hartman, it's more of a working vacation. Long story. After I complete my duties in the mornings, I'm free to enjoy the northern wilderness. And apart from the blood sucking insects, I'm having a darn good time. The area literally swarms with deer and moose. Great wildlife around here. Going fishing this afternoon.

Anyhow, of course I'll admit we don't know everything about greenhouse gases. There's a lot of things we don't know everything about. Take gravity, for instance. We all know that under normal circumstances, if you drop a rock it'll fall back down to earth. But we don't have a clue about exactly how it works: the dynamics are a mystery. There aren't any real, provable facts about gravity, but it's undeniably real. Such is the dilema with global warming: we are fairly sure what's going on, but as to how specifically, and along what timeline - well, your guess is as good as mine...

You can choose to regard the Kyoto treaty as some kind of 'punitive measure' or you can see it as a compromise between industrial production and concern for the environment on a global scale. There are islands in the Pacific ocean which are vanishing under the waves as global sea levels rise by inches every year; the peoples who live on these islnds are going to have their homelands vanish in a matter of decades if things keep heating up as they are now. You could just as well argue that the peoples who live on these islands view the industrialized nations' refusal to sign a treaty which would help ensure their future - and the very existence of their land and nation - as a rather nasty punative measure indeed.

If it were happening to you, if the USA were in danger of slipping beneath the waves because global sea levels were rising, I'm sure you'd be one of the first in line to call for action. And I'm also sure you would approve measures and sanctions against those who endanger your life and nation with their selfish actions. If you lived in one of these endangered island states, I'm sure your view of the issue would be different indeed: do the industrialized nations have any right to continue practices that endanger the very existence of other (unindustrialized) nations and cultures?

You could even interpret the refusal of the industrialized world to minimize the effects of global warming as an unconscionable act of aggression against nations unable to defend themselves from such actions.


JIMHO

[signu459]

This an interesting article from the NY Times. I have copied the full text of the article, even though only a small part has to do with Kyoto. I do not want to be accused of quoting out of context. The areas about Kyoto are in bold.

June 17, 2001


Europe Builds Itself Up at Bush's Expense

By GREGG EASTERBROOK



Reuters


WASHINGTON — THOUSANDS of protesters chanted against President Bush during his stops in Spain, Belgium and Sweden last week, some baring their rear ends; European leaders spoke condescendingly of America's president; the European press depicted him as a cowboy hayseed. In other words, from the European perspective, the Bush visit could not have gone better.

As the European Union struggles to expand, to "harmonize" its thousands of overlapping rules, to manage its uncountable internecine jealousies and to formulate a new understanding of what it means to be European, there is one thing all Europeans seem to agree on. It is faux horror about the United States.

For all their pretenses of being dismayed by Mr. Bush, if European Union leaders were to describe their dream American president for this moment in time, they might well specify someone exactly like Mr. Bush — seemingly, at least to European eyes, unsophisticated, swaggering and brash, all the qualities the European Union can unite on in dreading the United States.

"The European Union has a hormone problem," says Jeffrey Gedmin, a Europe scholar who runs the New Atlantic Initiative at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "They are developing a sense that whatever diminishes the stature of the United States is of benefit to Europe."

During Mr. Bush's visit, President Jacques Chirac of France, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany and Prime Minister Wim Kok of the Netherlands all criticized his positions on global warming and missile defense, breaking the taboo that heads of state do not air disagreements during state visits. The Council of Europe, roughly analogous to the Organization of American States, was so underwhelmed that the American president was in its jurisdiction that by midweek the front page of its Web site had no mention of his presence. Instead, the major news was, "Parliamentary Assembly to Observe Elections in Bulgaria."

Such slights against the leader of the best friend Europe has ever had were intended to inflate the European Union's collective ego. For great issues have recently made the European Union fractious: proposed expansion from 15 to 27 member nations (basically all the former Eastern Europeans states want in, and Ireland just voted no to that); whether Turkey should become part of Europe (if it qualifies for the European Union, Turkey would receive huge subsidies); whether there should be a European meta-government that supersedes national capitals. And with the demise of the Soviet Union, Europe now has no enemy to unite its competing states.

In such a context, Europe might find it useful to have a common antagonist. Enter Mr. Bush.

The Bush administration's rejection of the Kyoto global warming treaty, supposedly bad news, actually could not have been scripted better. European Union leaders got to repeatedly denounce Mr. Bush for saying the United States will not ratify Kyoto — though no European Union nation has ratified it, either. After the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio, when Mr. Bush's father declared that the United States would not accept mandatory greenhouse-gas reductions, he was lambasted by European leaders, who vowed prompt, decisive action to impose restrictions on their own. They did nothing.

Last week, after deriding the Bush position on Kyoto, the European Union again vowed prompt greenhouse action, promising to ratify Kyoto on its own. Yet no European nation other than Denmark has any serious greenhouse-reduction strategy even in the planning stages, while a stand-alone European Union ratification of Kyoto is a million-to-one shot. From the Europeans' standpoint, the ideal outcome was for the Kyoto treaty to collapse but for Washington to take the blame. Now Europe gets to act outraged, while being spared the hard work and cost of actual reform.

Indeed, despite European protestations, American ecological standards are far more strict than European rules, and have been for 20 years or more. "Europe is now the world leader on environmental issues," the Swedish environment minister, Kjell Larsson, said as Mr. Bush arrived in his nation. But Paris today has worse smog than Houston; water quality, especially of rivers, is lower in Europe than in the United States; acid rain reduction has been more rapid in the United States than in Europe; European Union nations like Greece, Italy and Portugal still discharge huge volumes of untreated municipal waste water, a practice all but banned in America. In addition, the European Union did not act against leaded gasoline till more than a decade after the United States; the forested percentage of the United States is higher than the forested percentage of most European countries, while America has fewer threatened species than Europe; and many other environmental indicators favor the United States.

It is true that Europe is more energy-efficient than America. And moreover, as Bjorn Lomborg, a professor at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, demonstrates in the forthcoming book "The Skeptical Environmentalist," smog is declining and water quality improving everywhere in the West, Europe and America alike. But the idea that Europe is ahead on environmental matters is a convenient fiction of European politics.

TRYING to build up Europe by acting outraged against America has become the European national sport on many fronts. One is anger about globalization by American companies, though European firms are themselves active globalizers.

European diplomats harp on America's refusal to agree to a global treaty banning land mines. (The Pentagon maintains that its defense of the North-South Korean border rules out a land-mine ban.) Land-mine reduction is an important goal, but pales on the arms agenda compared with reduction of nuclear warheads — something that, inconveniently, Washington is pursuing.

On no subject is Europe's internal need to feel superior to the United States more clear than capital punishment. Outlawing capital punishment is now a condition of European Union membership, and European commentators like to suggest there is a huge values gap between Europe and America. Always skipped is that 12 American states ban the death penalty, while polls show public pro-and-con views regarding capital punishment are nearly identical in the United States and the European Union. When the French politician Jack Lang was campaigning for mayor of Paris, he ostentatiously traveled to Texas to meet with a death- row prisoner; he was lauded in France. (Imagine if a candidate for mayor of Dallas traveled to Paris to meet with poor North African immigrants to discuss French racism.) Something besides moral opposition to the death penalty underlies this European obsession.

That something may extend to a realignment of American-European relations. Speaking in France before Mr. Bush's visit, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger said the European allies now perceive a need to check American strength. Using the balance-of- power calculations that are the mainstay of traditional European diplomacy, Europe worries that America is too strong, and wants to bring it down a notch.

Mr. Gedmin of the American Enterprise Institute thinks the day may not be far off when Europe sides with Russia or even China against America on some key issue. A possible preview: When Mr. Bush first decided to review North Korea policy, the European Union sent a delegation to Pyongyang to confuse the situation.

It seems certain there's more Euro-static coming, because for the moment, many European leaders believe that making small of America is in their interest.

Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor of The New Republic and visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the author of "A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism."

here is the link, although I don't think it will work because you need to register to use the web site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/17/weekinreview/17EAST.html?searchpv=day02

[hartman]

Here is a very interesting read on CO2 produced by nature.

http://water.wr.usgs.gov/rep/wrir984217/WRIR_98-4217.pdf

This non-active volcano produces about 213,181 Tons of CO2 per year. During the year after MT. St. Helena blow it was putting out on average about 3500 metric tons a day for 2 years or about 1 million tons a year. So now take into account that their are about 175 active volcano now that is about 175 Million metric tons per year. Currently the US total is 88 million ton (1994) down from 105 in 1998.

I'm not saying that we can't do better but nature produces just as much if not more that humans do.

Kat,
There are islands in the Pacific ocean which are vanishing under the waves as global sea levels rise by inches every year" Sea levels change naturally over time. I read this article (can't recall what paper) Where they found a sea level marking stone in the Mediterranean Sea from over 500 years ago the shows sea level something like 5 feet high that today.

The world is a changing place and scientist can show changes far more dramatic that 1 degree change in temp of 100 years. The Ice age, The Mediterranean Sea once may have been a swap at one point, deserts in Africa with fossils of huge rain forest, the list goes on and on. For all we know the world may go in cycles of hot and cold that last for thousands of years.

If the earth is believed to be over 2 billion years old and if we believe that is has been struck by asteroids that have devastated the entire plant and it survived to what we have today then we do we believe that a slow minimal change in temperature over 100-200 years is going though the Earth environment into chaos?

Hartman

[Joez]

"You could even interpret the refusal of the industrialized world to minimize the effects of global warming as an unconscionable act of aggression against nations unable to defend themselves from such actions."

No, I couldn't.

[hartman]

Kat,

you said

"Besides which, the Kyoto pact isn't really going to effectively decrease emissions all that much, even if every country out there ratified it. It's simply a gesture."

Why even bother on something that is going to actual do nothing but make us feel good? I personally prefer substance over symbolism. That is why I attack (not you personal) environmentalist that would prefer just to protest and complain incessantly vs actual working productively to help solve our problems. Do we actual think burning people house down, research lab, and spiking tree to kill lumber works actual helps anything?

Hartman

[DanConnor]

signu456-

"Since Dan made a comment based soley on feeling and zero fact as well as showing a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of Fascist, I will do the same.
Here goes,
Dan thanks for the enlightening statement, you made my day. From know on i will refer to you as "Stupid, Ameba Commy Dan".

Holy cow! Is this a flame? Hey they weren't my words, I was just quoting Joez. But how did you know I was an Amoeba, however you spell it?

[jimhobbs]

http://www.gifs.net/animate/warning.gif
Ok guys!
While I'm pretty sure you guys are enjoying the debate and weren't offended by the name calling; I do have to point out that such is a personal attack, and would normally be removed...

Like I said,
I'm pretty sure no one was offended, but you were just in the spirit of debate:)...If I didn't mention it, someone would cry "favoritism" and I'd have to deal with that:D;)

Keep it clean guys!:)

[Joez]

Dan,

I did have an impression that you are amoeboid, but I was shy to say anything about it. Thanks for just admitting it.

I feel comfortable now admitting to you all that I am in fact trilaterally symmetrical. There, I said it and I'm glad I did.

[Kat]

hartman, nature doesn't produce many flurocarbons at all, one of the main gases causing the degredation of the ozone layer. Like I said before, it's a complex situation, with many gases interacting with one another to create an accelerated greenhouse effect. Isolating carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide as the sole culprits is not only misleading, once again it is bad science. You could even find information pointing toward methane gas emissions (naturally created) as the culprit of global warming; the largest emitter of methane gas globally are cattle, most of which are destined for the N.A. market. Perhaps doing your part to help slow global warming would be as simple as turning down that steak or burger. But then again, that would be over-simplifying things, wouldn't it? Bad science! ;)

"Sea levels change naturally over time."

Yes, the key element to your statement being time. These sorts of changes occur over tens of thousands of years at nature's hands. However, with a little help from mankind, this natural process has been sped up to a matter of decades. This isn't a natural process at all, don't kid yourself.

May I also add that your empathy for others whose homelands are threatened by rising sea levels globally is less than overwhelming. Imagine for a moment that your nation was threatened by some environmental disaster that could possibly be averted if some other nation simply cut back on their industrial activities, or if they enacted some more environmentally-friendly methods of production. How would you feel? And when these Pacific Islanders have no more homeland to call their own, will you welcome them with open arms? Where do you expect these people to go when the ocean buries their lands?

Why even bother on something that is going to actual do nothing but make us feel good?

Well, don't get me wrong, if the conditions of the Kyoto treaty are met, it will lessen the overall amount of pollutants and thus help to slow down the global warming effect. However, it isn't anywhere near close the cutbacks that should be enacted in order to halt this breakneck process of global warming. The Kyoto treaty is a compromise (like I wrote previously) between industrial productivity and concern for the global environment. It's a step in the right direction. A gesture, yes, but a meaningful one.

"Do we actual think burning people house down, research lab, and spiking tree to kill lumber works actual helps anything?"

Where do you get that from? I have never, nor would I ever, advocate any such activities. Furthermore I would not only not associate with anybody who does advocate or practice such things, I would do my best to see that they receive the punishment they deserve for their criminal activities. And what does any of this have to do with the Kyoto treaty?

If you're going to stereotype people who voice concern for the environment, don't be surprised if you get stereotyped in return. I for one don't appreciate being lumped stereotyped into a group of people who feel that dangerously criminal behaviour is acceptable. I'm not a tree-hugger, and I'm not a member of Greenpeace (which I distinctly dislike).

[hartman]

Kat,

My "burning down" comment was not directed at you in any ways, sorry I tend to jump around in my brain faster than I type. :) It is more at the people that seems to represent the environmentalist like Green Peace and Earth and Animal Liberation Front and the rest of the loser types.

I believe there is a need to balance environmental issue more with our 21st century life styles. I just don't feel that basically un proven science should be given the same level of respect as proven scientific facts.

For example:

Over the last 22 years NASA has been recording high and med altitude air temps and currently the temp has not changed even .1 of a degree.

400 years ago the sun was in a hotter cycle cause temps to rise and then the temp declined till about the 1920. Now the sun is again getting hotter thus what some believe is causing the surface temp to rise again. While this is not totally proven since records 400 years ago are not very accurate they are no less or more proven that today assumptions the we are causing it.

I just want people to realize the people and scientist who believe in global warming can not actual prove that anything we are doing is causing it all they can do is make theories but they cannot prove it. That is a fact they are not even willing to make. And when someone who cannot prove beyond a reasonable dough but is unwilling to even suggest that there might be other causes it cast big issues of trust.

It is like a person sitting in a car that stops running, and they get out and see that no exhaust is coming out so they declare "Yep it is 100% out of gas". Without ever checking the gauge or even understanding how the engine works. Yeah sure it could be out of gas, or the fuel injection could have died, or the electric system died, etc.. you get my point

Hartman

[Kahuna Tuna]

I for one am sick and tired of the European Union. These EU yahoo's are nothing more than the fourth reich as far as I am concerned. Look at the way they are beating up Ireland for daring to vote against them. Then they beat up on Bush over the ridiculous Kyoto accord to deflect the fact that nobody in Europe other than Europe's political leaders even want an EU.

Signu459- I read that article as well, brilliant. The Euro's are a bunch of hypocrites and Kyoto is nothing more than a pact based on bad science and aimed squarely at destroying the American economy and thereby creating opportunities for the nations who will not be effected by Kyoto standards. I for one am glad we have a president with enough nads to stand up to these third way facists.

[Joez]

The Russians say this:

“Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, we will endeavour to exploit new technologies into without damaging Russia’s economic interests,� Alexander Bedritsky told Gazeta.Ru. “For the climate does not really care what plans we use to reduce emissions. The climate is effected by carbon dioxide emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere, and not by signatures on documents, no matter how important those documents are.�

According to the article, Russia won't ratify it, the U.S. won't ratify it, and China never even signed it.

[olgakurt]

IMO, Bush was appropriately chastised more over INTENT of the goals rather than whether the US would ratify the treaty or not. While the EU has not ratified the treaty either, they (many countries in general)have indicated their intent to meet the goals and in fact (grouped as a whole) are ahead of emission reduction targets. Russia has a good point that the end results are what matters, partly along the lines of what Bush was saying, the difference is that Bush has indicated he has no intent to meet the goals of the treaty.

[Joez]

So the EU's heart is in the right place, they are on track or ahead of the accord, but they won't codify it?

Sorry, I don't get it.

I think the INTENT of the Europeans is to let the U.S. scuttle the thing so the EU leaders can walk away with clean hands and stay in power.

[signu459]

Joe as usuall you are exactly correct! The EU leaders knew they would get blasted if they backed off. And as usuall they waited for the US to bail them out of a another sticky situation.

Olga,

If what you said is true then why are the majority of the EU members so drasticly behind the US in their environmental standards? When are they gonna start? Is it next year with a new years resolution to clean up their act? The simple fact is that the US is the world leader in in both self regulation and generating new technology to make our world cleaner. If everyone would just keep pace with us the world will be fine! That is of course if you really think the world is in peril

[olgakurt]

I work in the environmental field. First as a marine scientist now on Air policy and regulations. I agree that the US is ahead of the Europeans in MANY areas, unfortunately, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions/individual or GNP is NOT one of them. Again, it is widely believed in env. reg. fields that the EU is ahead of schedule to meet the goals of the Kyoto treaty (w/respect to greenhouse emissions) whereas the US (Bush) has indicated no intent to TRY to meet them given his energy policies

[signu459]

News Flash News Flash.


I just figured it all out!!!

It is a big conspiracy. The libs are correct on this one fellas, and they have good reason. You see all the rightwing activists are openly dumping CFC and other green house gasses into the atmosphere in hopes of excellerating global warming. But why would they want to do that? Well if you just look at that map of the US that came out shortly after the election and you can figure it out by yourself. The map was a sea of blue or Republican in the middle, minus Chicago and Detroit. But on the east and west coast you see a high concentration of Red or Democrat. If the conservative could just get that ocean to rise up only a few inches they could wipe out all the liberals on the coast.

Attention JOEZ and Kahuna Tuna, start building your arc's right now, you are in the path of destruction.

[olgakurt]

Conservatives might not want to face facts. but according to the Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (which most would deem conservative itself). US CO2 emissions are projected to increase by 34% by 2010 over 1990 levels. I believe the Kyoto treaty would have required a 7% reduction over 1990 levels. Europe is on target to meet their reductions while the gluttony US is on way to a 34% increase

In 1990, total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States were 1,618 million metric tons carbon equivalent. Of this total, 1,346 million metric tons, or 83 percent, consisted of carbon
emissions from the combustion of energy fuels. By 1996, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions had risen to 1,753 million metric tons carbon equivalent, including 1,463 million metric tons of carbon emissions from energy combustion. EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 1998 projects that energy-related carbon emissions will reach 1,803 million metric tons in 2010, 34 percent above the 1990 level. Because energy-related carbon emissions constitute such a large percentage of the Nation’s total greenhouse gas emissions, any action or policy to reduce emissions will have significant implications for U.S. energy markets.

There are three ways to reduce energy-related carbon emissions: reducing the demand for energy services, adopting more energy-efficient equipment, and switching to less carbon-intensive or noncarbon fuels. To reduce emissions, it has been proposed that a carbon price be applied to the cost of energy.

[signu459]

Olga,

How much is the US's population predicted to increase over the same period?

[olgakurt]

That's really irrelevant considering the US has one of the highest per capita energy consumption rates in the world. BUT, PER CAPITA ENERGY USE is expected to INCREASE 0.7% per year until 2010 then flatten out until 2020 due to projected technology improvements.

[signu459]

Oh I see, so we should worry abouyt growing any extra corn, building more houses and hospitals, or more cars.

Gee don't you think that if there are more people there just might be more emissions of all sorts? It is completely relevant, if our population increases more than the 34% increase in carbon based emissions you site then our per capita rate decreases.

[olgakurt]

The FACT is as I posted above, it is expected (by DOE) that per capita energy use will increase 0.7% per year, this takes into account growth factors.

I said it was irrelevant because the US could still REDUCE per capita energy consumption (by holding energy use constant while population grows) and we still would NOT be at the levels (per capita)of most other industrialized nations. We're energy hogs.

[salty toes]

i'm all for global warming.....


:D

[Joez]

Hey Olga, I'm enjoying your opinions and information, but I have a problem with one assumption you made a little earlier. For some reason you said that most would deem the DOE a conservative organization?

Why?

This is the same organization that has arranged field trips for our enemies to tour our most secret facilities. The same organization that lost track of lots of secrets, and can't seem to control employees using DOE computers to host porn sites.

I know some of them have been replaced in the last four months, but the majority are the same that have been installed over the previous eight years.

[olgakurt]

Joez,

Unfortunately for the sake of time I guess I have not been clear in some of my post. Glad to put in a different view point. Kind of passionate about these issues as I work on them day in and day out. We can not come up with a solution until everyone realizes that THEY are part of the problem. I don't like labels, but when I was using the label conservative above, it was directed only towards environmental attitudes.

Any environmental regulation proposed by EPA must go to OMB for other agency review (USDA, DOE ,etc.). Generally it can be said that DOE fights any environmental regulation that impacts energy irregardless of the potential benefits. Most environmentalists consider this attitude VERY conservative even within Democratic administrations.

THIS administration has squeezed EPA even farther by requiring and energy impact statement with any environmnetal regulation proposed; however, EPA is generally restricted from law to consider costs when proposing regulations-hence denial of the California waiver.

[Joez]

I thought energy impact statements were good?

[olgakurt]

Unfortunately, energy impact statements are only selectively being done by the administration to slow things down, they have very little legal authority in regards to environmental regulations which are required by acts of congress. It was a kind of presidential tit-for-tat for the environmental impact statements which are required for any large permit application (i.e. utilities, refineries, etc.). Recently (last 10 years), most environmental regulations have resulted from EPA being sued (under the clean aair and clean water acts) for not doing their job (being stringent enough) rather than the regulations originating from EPA. It will be interesting where the MTBE ban goes. The ban is being done by EPA under the toxics substances control act but would have a huge impact on loss of gasoline volume, the administration has not weighed in whether they will require an energy impact statement for that rule but have supported moving forward with delivering the rule to OMB for review.

[Joez]

Well, to my simple-minded way of thinking, any person, agency, or government should consider the pluses and minuses and impacts of an action.

We do it all of the time, right?

I want this, or I think this is important. OK, so if I go that route, this will be the impact. Then I decide what is right based on those things.

Being an insider, you may be partial to the goodness of what your organization does regardless of the impact on other areas. That's fine, and I'd want zealous people working in all of the agencies. But, when it comes to putting it all together and balancing needs and desires, then I want the government to consider all sides of conservation with development.

These one-world, stick-it-to-America schemes are not the way we're going to run our country.

No Kyoto Treaty.

No U.N. Tax to redistribute wealth.

Like I said at the start of this thread: Why haven't the other 99 signatories ratified this agreement? Why didn't one Senator stand up for it? Because it stinks.

Most of those countries would enjoy becoming the fourth branch of our government. Not going to happen if I can help it.

[olgakurt]

Obviously, I have a different opinion than some and will just have to leave it at that. I was not defending the treaty; only the 'intent' which Bush has chosen to ignore although he campaigned to cap CO2 emissions. While the treaty did not receive ANY Senate support; there have been many initiatives proposed to meet the intent.

[hartman]

Here is a interesting chart from http://www.energy.gov/

It list all the Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations levels.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Can someone confirm that these are right? Not the levels just the gases

Hartman

[olgakurt]

The list looks basically correct. My references have a slight difference in the magnitude of some of the numbers, but usually less than 10%.

They left out some of the Halons (fire extinguishers) CBrClF2, and CBr3F which have been increasing in the atmosphere at very high rates recently.

[hartman]

Here is a great study on the effect of Global warming

http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf

It seems to basically debunk most "Global Warming Alarmist"


Hartman

[olgakurt]

I had agreed to disagree with some here, but information like in the link above burn me up (no pun intended :) .

The following link does the best job explaining how 'skeptics'and 'alarmists' have misused scientific data in projecting their views.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

For completeness here are some sites where skeptic views have been raised:

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html
http://www.globalwarming.org/

..and finally some sites where hopefully you can find an objective determination of the facts...

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.unfccc.de/
http://www.usgcrp.gov/

lastly, you'll notice I have kept out the 'enviro' sites where only the other side of the debate is presented.

I happen to believe global warming is a serious issue with much scientific support; albeit much uncertainty associated with various feedback mechanisms.

Happy reading.

[hartman]

olgakurt,

I will read them tonight. I have the solution but the Environmentalist will scream bloody murder. Yeah the corps might complain also but with a little work they would come over.

1) Build nuclear plants to make hydrogen
2) Force all car/trucks etc to use hydrogen
3) Buy ICBM from manufactures and launch all nuke waste into the sun.

This will remove almost all pollution and the risk is so very small. Even if the rocket crashed they could make a container to survive the re-entry.

Hartman

[olgakurt]

Hartman,
The firsr link I gave is the most informative, it shows how both sides of the debate have used bits and pieces of information to better get their point across.

I agree something needs to be done with alternative energy, but I think we need to move cautiously with nuclear due to the lifetime of the waste products.

Seems Europe's clean fuel is not so clean and we're detecting it in the rain here.

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-a/35/i11/html/11news2.html