Discuss. Yeah, I know I should provide my opinion first, but Ive got stuff to do
Don't understand why you don't sign up to something you helped support...
I especially don't get why AUSTRALIA doesn't sign up where we are allowed an EIGHT PERCENT INCREASE in greenhouse gases from 1990 - 2012.
I especially don't get why AUSTRALIA doesn't sign up where we are allowed an EIGHT PERCENT INCREASE in greenhouse gases from 1990 - 2012.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I don't get why countries have problems signing it, because they are... ...stupid?
Because of investments needed in the industry to limit greenhouse gases. And the sanctions in an exceeding of given emission quota as purhcases of Carbon Credits.WilhelmSissener wrote:
I don't get why countries have problems signing it, because they are... ...stupid?
Last edited by DonFck (2006-11-22 00:21:17)
I need around tree fiddy.
I do believe that if Australia were to grow a fucking spine and break away from America's knob and sign it, then America would have no choice but to sign it or look bad.
Because Howard is Bush's bitch. We're doing better at meeting treaty obligations that we didn't agree to than Europeans are doing for ones they did agree to, though.Spark wrote:
I especially don't get why AUSTRALIA doesn't sign up where we are allowed an EIGHT PERCENT INCREASE in greenhouse gases from 1990 - 2012.
The United States already look bad for, as being a "western nation", not ratifying the protocol. The US and Aus have signed it, but decline ratification. As large industrialized nations go, China and Russia have both ratified the protocol. Although they have a different standpoint, as the protocol is formed to match a nations capabilities to invest in the limiting of greenhouse gases, it would definitely be preferrable for the U.S to ratify.Sarrk wrote:
I do believe that if Australia were to grow a fucking spine and break away from America's knob and sign it, then America would have no choice but to sign it or look bad.
SourceThe U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels; primarily because US economy is the largest in the world and meets 85 percent of energy needs through burning fossil fuels.
It is vital that all developing countries would be included in the near future (most have already ratified):
World Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Region, 2001-2025 Source
Last edited by DonFck (2006-11-22 00:19:40)
I need around tree fiddy.
That can't be the only reason. Even Blair signed it and we all know what a Bush fanboy he is.Bubbalo wrote:
Because Howard is Bush's bitch. We're doing better at meeting treaty obligations that we didn't agree to than Europeans are doing for ones they did agree to, though.Spark wrote:
I especially don't get why AUSTRALIA doesn't sign up where we are allowed an EIGHT PERCENT INCREASE in greenhouse gases from 1990 - 2012.
Australia is somewhere in the 40's in ranking for greenhouse emmisions produced or so says radio national I guess it would hardly be anything at all if we stopped. But agreed Howard is Bushes bitch.
That's kind of missing the point though. The limits put in place by Kyoto are so minor as to be meaningless. The whole point is really about unilateral international cooperation, which is the only way to approach climate change. Without all countries cooperation no solutions will work.spray_and_pray wrote:
Australia is somewhere in the 40's in ranking for greenhouse emmisions produced or so says radio national I guess it would hardly be anything at all if we stopped. But agreed Howard is Bushes bitch.
donfck's chart pretty much sums it up, the "ky" protocol does nothing but force already industrialized nations to foot the bill for the development of the up and comers, the more industry you've got, the more money you pay for those that don't, no matter how much less you pollute in proportion to your industrial output. it's a pitiful bill promoting global communism under the guise of ecological concern so you can be labeled an evil person/nation if you don't go along with it. italy uses it's entire years worth of carbon credits by april last i heard, yet compared to their output they'd have to contribute next to nothing.
bullshit.
bullshit.
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-11-22 08:14:37)
The Kyoto protocol does a lot more than that. The Cold War is over, communism isn't a threat anymore, and the finer parts of the ideology could and should be taken into consideration in a global economic/industrial/environmental system. In a situation that the U.S. would actually ratify the bill, the worst thing that could happen, would be forced investments into environmentally friendlier production. As every agreement, adjustments are made also to this one. It wouldn't just be a global welfare programme of the rich giving to the poor. Wait.. that really.. doesn't sound wrong to my ears at all..kr@cker wrote:
donfck's chart pretty much sums it up, the "ky" protocol does nothing but force already industrialized nations to foot the bill for the development of the up and comers, the more industry you've got, the more money you pay for those that don't, no matter how much less you pollute in proportion to your industrial output. it's a pitiful bill promoting global communism under the guise of ecological concern so you can be labeled an evil person/nation if you don't go along with it. Italy uses it's entire years worth of carbon credits by April last i heard, yet compared to their output they'd have to contribute next to nothing.
bullshit.
As for your prime example of Italy using up carbon credits by April, where did they purchase more from? From countries who didn't exceed the quota (and don't tell me Italy doesn't produce anything). So, what's the absolutely positively worst thing that can happen if you get with the program and even do better than expected? You get money from the ones that "flunked" this year.
Last edited by DonFck (2006-11-22 08:36:21)
I need around tree fiddy.
so how about china and india get put in it?
chiina's possibly the worst industrial polluter in history. what's the name of that new dam they're putting online? it's flooding dozens and dozens of toxic waste and haz-mat sites, not to mention countless villages and towns, including some sites containing radioactive waste. if you look at the actual logistics of the treaty, all it does is take money from the nations that have the most industry, and allow 'developing nations' like poor widdle china to produce and pollute with impunity.
chiina's possibly the worst industrial polluter in history. what's the name of that new dam they're putting online? it's flooding dozens and dozens of toxic waste and haz-mat sites, not to mention countless villages and towns, including some sites containing radioactive waste. if you look at the actual logistics of the treaty, all it does is take money from the nations that have the most industry, and allow 'developing nations' like poor widdle china to produce and pollute with impunity.
For all you Huggers that cry a bout the US not signing Kyoto...do you know why? Most likely not! Try reading it first and then see if you like it.You know that China and India would not have to abide by it. There is more...just READ it!.....duh!
The idea behind signing it is more a symbolic gesture of international cooperation to combat climate change. The restrictions imposed by Kyoto are so small as to be meaningless.CC-Marley wrote:
For all you Huggers that cry a bout the US not signing Kyoto...do you know why? Most likely not! Try reading it first and then see if you like it.You know that China and India would not have to abide by it. There is more...just READ it!.....duh!
China have never polluted as much as the US at any point in history. To date they only pollute about half as much as the US (based on figures from 2005). Yet China has a population more than quadruple that of the US.kr@cker wrote:
so how about china and india get put in it?
chiina's possibly the worst industrial polluter in history. what's the name of that new dam they're putting online?
Check your facts before throwing accusations around.
China is #2 CO2 emitter in the world and a developing nation. Enough said. Germany's coal industry would also be exempt from the Protocol. Also implementing it could very well collapse our(US) economy. Either way they are valid arguements to not sign and implement. The US does not just sit by and do nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Pacif … nd_Climate
That seems like symbolic gesture of international cooperation to combat climate change to me.
That seems like symbolic gesture of international cooperation to combat climate change to me.
Kyoto is a scam, pure and simple. Kr@cker said it right - it's designed to transfer wealth to developing countries, not fight global warming. As such, Kyoto does not give donor countries much control over how the money is spent, or if targets will be met. Since tax dollars are being used here, it is only common sense that people stand up against Kyoto. It is not the only way to combat global warming. (Assuming, of course, it even exists in the first place.)