International Climate Negotiations Pt. 1 (merged)

[jaws]

Hahaha yeah Canada is the worst. The government is promoting a "one-ton" challenge asking people to voluntarily reduce their emissions by one ton a year. They're still building plenty more roads and suburbia. And in Alberta we're rapidly expanding the most polluting form of petroleum production ever.

[okek]

Bush bagged the Kyoto Protocol because is was economically harmful to the US and BTW rejected by Congress and the Senate even before Shrub took office.

Kyoto is more about redstribution of wealth than environmental protection. A global environmental plan should involve just that, the globe and not exclude polluting countries just because they are *developing*. If reducing emissions is really the goal that is.

[sameu]

luckily increased number of hurricanes due to higer sea temperatures aren't causing any economical damage

it's rather simple, either you restore the balance, or nature does it for you
and nature doesn't give a rats ass about fucking economics

[okek]

luckily increased number of hurricanes due to higer sea temperatures aren't causing any economical damage. it's rather simple, either you restore the balance, or nature does it for you and nature doesn't give a rats ass about fucking economics

Mama Nature doesn't give a rat's patoot about economics but she also doesn't hate the US's pollution any more than she hate's China's or India's or Mexico's.
Soooo, we ALL need to stop polluting our environment. If polluting so called develping countries aren't bound by the Kyoto Protocol's rules then it really isn't about emissions at all. Please offer something concrete to rebut what I've said about developing country emissions.

[Dukat_Reloaded]

Bush did the right thing. Why should America cut down on their emissions while China and India are immune in the Kyoto treaty and are allowed to increase emissions as much as they want. USA cutting down on emissions will transfer more of the manufactoring base to countries which have no limits on co2 emissions in the 3rd world and the american puiblic will then buy those items from the 3rd world countries instead of manufactoring them at home. Smart move bush!, who here wants to help China and India become great industralised nations with 2 billion people sucking more fossil fuels every year. China and India have already benifted by the green movement to produce products for americans because the companies were forced to go overseas to countries which do not have virtually any enviromental laws at all. I think it's time to stop this nonsense.

[Micki]

Well 2 wrongs hardly makes one right.
Who ever can reduce emissions should do so independently of what other nations do.
Not reducing emissions is however ecological terrorism and should be treated so by the other nations.

Personally I think Bush was thinking about the CO2 released when turning oil shale into oil. He wont' hesitate to pollute if there is an oil squeeze.

[aldente]

Dukat,
Number one, with your current avatar you run a high risk to being banned (I know what I am talking about since I have been banned for 5 weeks not too long ago).. and no, that picture from Japan has been circulated for quite some time and is not news anymore - as much as it describes the current state of our economic system - the truth will set you free, yes, your message stands....

Number two: The reason why Kyoto is not being signed by the US of A is because they can't afford it. The only way electricity can be generated in the near future is through coal fueled power plants, and these are being build currently in a hurry!

[okek]

[quote="Micki"]Well 2 wrongs hardly makes one right.
Who ever can reduce emissions should do so independently of what other nations do. [/url]
Yup, no argument from me here. However, per the Kyoto Protocol, penalizing the US for emissions and GIVING US $$ to developing countries based on $$ determined by the very develping countries who are EXEMPT FROM BEING PENALIZED FOR THEIR OWN EMISSIONS is global redistribution of wealth, however you choose to categorize it.
I can't stand Bush but totally agree with him and btw Clinton before him and the US congress and senate on this issue. THe DEVELOPING NATIONS need to be forced to comply with the Protocol, otherwise it is nothing more than a way to take $$ away from the US, plain and simple.

[sameu]

no no, you can buy 'clean air' in these developing countries, but only by investing in clean technolgies in these countries
and tell me, howcome all the other countries who signed kyoto aren't whining about economical damage? maybe they're not so conservative and more inventing, you tell me

and yes, some developing countries like china are excused, I'd like to see otherwhise, but, the western countries already have thad heir more than fair share of polluting don't you agree? So don't complain about others 'privileges' for the moment, when the united states historically burned more fossils then china or india together.

[okek]

no no, you can buy 'clean air' in these developing countries, but only by investing in clean technolgies in these countries and tell me, howcome all the other countries who signed kyoto aren't whining about economical damage? maybe they're not so conservative and more inventing, you tell me.
You didn't answer my question. No surprise. Again, why are they exemp if emission reduction is truly the goal? and yes, some developing countries like china are excused, I'd like to see otherwhise, but, the western countries already have thad heir more than fair share of polluting don't you agree? So don't complain about others 'privileges' for the moment, when the united states historically burned more fossils then china or india together.

Who is complaining? I'm talking about pollution here and now and what we globally need to do about it. All of us. I see you haven't rebutted my post with actual facts. I'll rebut about *privileges* when you offer actual facts per se. The facts for now are that developing countries are given a free pass when it comes to polluting simply because they are developing. The US will NEVER sign on the Kyoto Protocol until the large develping (and Polluting) countries also have to comply, plain and simple. Until then you are pissing backwash.

OkEk..

[sameu]

yes yes, the poor kid recieves a lollypop and the fat kid whines about it

but hey, as long as those hurricanes hit the us and not europe
go ahead

[okek]

yes yes, the poor kid recieves a lollypop and the fat kid whines about it

but hey, as long as those hurricanes hit the us and not europe
go ahead

Well, from what I understand, Decatur street is still there (in NO).

I spent some time in an apt there. Fun times:)

Tell me how this translates to the Kyoto protocol other than to make my point that is it's purpose is to take $$ from the rich (US) and give to the poor..... any whining would be because it was taken without permission.

Why not just admit it??

THe US would be waaaay more receptive to abject honesty than covert bull-dukey.

[DesertBear2]

Could it be that the reason Bush did not sign the Kyoto Protocol is that he knew the world was running out of oil anyway? Maybe he was thinking that it will be forced to reduce greenhouse gas emissions simply due to a lack of oil to burn and/or a significant reduction in population.

There are some good reasons why Kyoto won't be provide much in the way of permanent solutions to the greenhouse problem.

The big issue is Bush and the right-wing ideoloques who have taken over the GOP and the nation. These folks are whacked and do not believe in any kind of environmental values or protections. To them the rapture is more real than greenhouse warming. They do not care about these issues and will not do anything of substance to address them....unless maybe their big GOP contributors demanded it.

[NeoPeasant]

Dukat,
Number one, with your current avatar you run a high risk to being banned

It appears the genetalia have been digitally obscured to avoid the possibility of offending anyone.

[dbarberic]

Based on the fact that Matt Simmons was part of VP's Energy Task force, I believe that W is peak oil/NG aware.

My guess is that he knows that the United States is going to have to switch to nuclear/coal for its power generation once the NG runs out or gets to high in price. There is no way that the US could go back to more coal generated electric plants if it signed Kyoto.

[Clouseau2]

Actually I read somewhere (sorry don't have a link) that while Canda's emissions have gone up 23% from 2000 to 2003, the emissions of the United States have actually gone down slightly, .3% or something like that.

The reason? We're outsourcing all of our manufacturing to China, they are doing the polluting for us ...

[dukey]

bush wouldn't sign because it would damage the economy
and his popularity if he did

simple as that

[donshan]

One of the basic problems in the Kyoto Protocol is the solution to reduce CO2 emmisons was placed on the "developed" world, with nothing required of the rest of the "developing" countries. Thus the attempts to solve the CO2 release and global problem are not a world wide shared responsibility, but rather a "have not" vs. "have" struggle, which unfortunately brought out motives for economics and power, well beyond just the global warming issue.

The protocol is at:

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/ ... s/1349.php

Look at the Annexs I & II lists of countries agreeing to commit to do something about reducing CO2 emmisions. Missing from the signing the Accord to do anything are countries in most of Asia except Japan. The US signed, but Bush rejected it.

If one looks at CO2 Emissions by regions and countries the following data are available by searching at:

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_d ... lect_years

Climate and Atmosphere — CO2 : Total emissions (source: WRI)
Units: Thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide

Asia (excluding Middle East) 7,837,017.0
North America 6,283,458.0
Europe 6,071,020.0
Middle East & North Africa 1,531,548.0
Central America & Caribbean 507,456.0
South America 796,871.0
Sub-Saharan Africa 492,131.0
Oceania 369,147.0


China 3,473,597.0
India 1,007,979.0
S.Korea 470,020.0
Taiwan 226,066.0
Thailand 171,697.0

Asia is the number one area with CO2 release and massive air pollution. True, it is mostly due to burning biomass, such as burning the rice/wheat stubble before replanting, cooking fires and third world manufacturing. However Asia is rapidly increasing power plants and petrol fueled vehicles, just like the rest of the world. They should not be exempt.

In 1999 I was in Thailand, Nepal, and India for two months. The air pollution was so bad the sun was never seen except as a faint disk through the brown smog. In Nepal I never saw the Himalayas even though I was high above Kathmandu. Hospitals were full of lung ailments, and people were dying. My throat and lungs burned. Awful!

We just saw the tip of Mt. Everest sticking above the smog when our plane left.

This annual problem is reported at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/ ... 8323.shtml

I am no expert on the Kyoto negotiations. However as I understand the US position, China, India, and the other countries have to sign on to do something too.

I am firmly in the camp that mankind is in this boat together and a Global solution to CO2 emissions is urgently needed. However everyone in the boat must do at least something to help. Some effort by China and India is required too.

I have not been following this, so maybe China and India have done something. If so what?

[fluffy]

I am no expert on the Kyoto negotiations. However as I understand the US position, China, India, and the other countries have to sign on to do something too.

I am firmly in the camp that mankind is in this boat together and a Global solution to CO2 emissions is urgently needed. However everyone in the boat must do at least something to help. Some effort by China and India is required too.

I have not been following this, so maybe China and India have done something. If so what?

First, you should try dividing your figures by population. That itself would answer most of your questions - the US per capita emissions are vastly higher then those of India or China.

It is perfectly possible for the US to reduce CO2 emissions by around 60-70% whilst eliminating oil and NG imports, and at the same time maintaining current lifestyles. However, that would require all sides to act in a mature and responsable manner, and actually acknowledge reality and science.

[donshan]

First, you should try dividing your figures by population. That itself would answer most of your questions - the US per capita emissions are vastly higher then those of India or China.

It is perfectly possible for the US to reduce CO2 emissions by around 60-70% whilst eliminating oil and NG imports, and at the same time maintaining current lifestyles. However, that would require all sides to act in a mature and responsable manner, and actually acknowledge reality and science.

I was suggesting that if the world wants to get a CO2 agreement, Asia has to cut CO2 too.

The higher US per capita energy use creates greater productivity, which is the source of our higher income. In every recession, energy use drops along with GDP. I don't see how we can maintain the "current lifestyle" if energy use drops, without massive changes to our transportation system and use, and our mix of electrical power plants. This in turn affects an enormous number of jobs and will take decades.

There is a remarkably constant statistic, that since WWII the US economy has generated about $3.5 of GDP per vehicle mile driven. One could argue which is "chicken vs. egg", but if we change that vehicle mile statistic, the US lifestyle changes. Increasing vehicle fuel efficiency about 30% since the 1970s increased total fuel use per vehicle, rather than reduced it, since we drove more miles per vehicle per year- Jevons paradox and oil imports soared. In other words greater vehicle fuel efficiency created more freeways and more oil use, not less.

If we were to build 1000 nuclear power plants, and use that electricity to retire the coal and natural gas electrical plants, and start building electric trains and vehicles we could make a start. I support solar and wind technologies too, but they can't provide enough power 24/7. Any solution without more nuclear power involves dramatic changes in the American home. You can't run 240 volt 6Kw A/C, ranges, and clothes dryers on solar panels today. Solar array systems with controls I have seen in a catalog I have run $9000 per KW. That would be $54,000 to power a full home A/C. Some would say, do without the A/C, but that is a lifestyle change.


To bring the US back to the energy use of 1990 ( The Kyoto accord level) would produce massive effects on the present economy, IMHO. With the present and growing population, we would be moving towards a slower Cuba type lifestyle. This would be political suicide. It will take a true crisis to get a solution I fear.