The Kyoto Treaty enforced

[fushigi]

As of today - thanks to participation by the Russian Federation - the treaty is now enforceable. (In the countries that chose to ratify it.)

http://afr.com/articles/2005/02/15/1108229988851.html

So, does this put any more pressure on the U.S. to sign up? Or is it business as usual in the land of the free, the home of 25% of the world's carbon emissions?

[rmnunez]

Its in effect and enforceable (enforcible?) where ratified. Is China in the program?

[Zeebadee]

Ludicrous. Exactly who is going to enforce compliance? The plan is to penalize countries that don't meet their assigned goals by increasing their required cuts in emissions?? Are we really to believe that a country that couldn't meet it's primary goal has a serious chance of meeting expanded requirements?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Junk Science, meet hype, hype meet Junk Science.

Kyoto is, absoluetly a worthless POS. EVEN if, the USA signed, and every country on the list met it's goals, 3rd world nations, China and India as well, would be exempt from cutting emissions. China has the worlds fastest growing economy, and they really don't have much in the way of an EPA. India also shows less care about pollution then it does bringing it's industry standards up.

3rd World Nations ARE going to see some nice benifits from Kyoto. All those manufacturing jobs in Russia, the EU and such.. Guess where they are gonna move if forced to choose between spending billions on meeting "emissions standards" and moving thier jobs to a country without such.

Gee.... I wonder.

And what good will come from this? The elitist will sit in thier houses, with SUV's in the garage, private jets waiting to fly them to global warming conferences, and feel they did something good for the planet. And the only thing that will change... is unemployment rate in the now "enviromentally friendly" countries that adopted this POS.

[gr8fuldaniel]

55% of the Industrialized WORLD, signs on. But NOT Bushs America. Russia is a better neighbor than us, when it comes to the health of all.
I hope this will be televised tomorrow:

BuzzFlash Gore: Bush Administration displays "a stunning display of moral cowardice" dealing with Global Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol

"During the seven years since Kyoto was first drafted," Gore said, "we've learned a great deal: 1. The scientific evidence for global warming is stronger (in a study, in Science Magazine, of 928 peer-reviewed articles on global warming, not a single one disagreed that current climate change is caused by human actions); 2. scientists returning from Greenland reported dramatic changes in the ice cap; and 3. in the last seven years we have learned that industry solutions are cheaper and easier than thought when Kyoto was first drafted."

"Bush directs the nation to false crises, but ignores this real crisis," said Gore, calling Bush's efforts enabling global climate change "a stunning display of moral cowardice."

Touche'.
Bush is so bad for the environment on so many levels. You would think folks would rise up in Revolution just so we could order a medium rare hamburger again. Let alone the need to terminate his clear skys initiatives that clears the skys of birds and letting environmental criminals off the hook for fines due. As Seymour Hersch said on Jon Stewart, "They are screwin the pooch". We are the pooch. Kyoto Protocol is another way Bush is showing world leadership......Leading by negative example.

Other Links:
Kyoto Protocol set to take effect (BBC)

Russian Ministry Submits Plan to Implement Kyoto Protocol (MosNews)

[gr8fuldaniel]

SMOG

Remember how bad the smog got before UnLeaded fuel? I lived in L.A. in the 60's and 70's. We had to chew the air before inhaling. But seriously? My eyes burned and teared up from smog in So Cal. almost daily, when I lived in Downey (Industrial area)

Bush wants the world to end so his religion will make sense. So the air quality here wont matter after his mythical "rapture". The real rapture happens at the instant of transformation from carnal to spirit controlled entity.
Little does he realize:
Being an unjust steward, he will never see Gods reward.

The Passage: Luke 16:1-13 The Parameters A steward is one who manages another’s wealth. He does not own it, he uses it for the profit of his master. As Christians we are stewards of what God has given us. We do not own it.

The Earth is ours on loan. If we abuse it, Dads gonna be pissed.
Check Dominionist (Bushs religion) ideology here:

Yet it's estimated 35-million plus American Christians subscribe to Dominionism in the U.S., and don't even realize themselves how heretical, how seditious their goals are,.........more"

[gr8fuldaniel]

Here is an Excellent article, fortunately archived here:The Ungreening of America

Osha Gray Davidson, “Dirty Secrets,” Mother Jones, September/October 2003 at page 53. “The Bush administration has been gutting key sections of the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, laws that have traditionally had bipartisan support and have done more to protect the health of Americans than any other environmental legislation.” The subtitle reads: “No president has gone after the nation’s environmental laws with the same fury as George W. Bush and none has been so adept at staying under the radar.”

[Mr.Vicchio]

Kyoto would do NOTHING, why do you people keep bowing to the alter of ignorance?

Kyoto is bad science, bad economics, IT DOES NOTHING> I cannot wait, figure about 2-4 years for all industries effected by this in signatory countries to move to places where they arne't forced to operate under heavy red tape and expense. Net change, employment up in 3rd world and non-Kyoto treaties, pollution from said business is the same, employment down in origin countries.

What does that SOLVE?

Nothing.

[Evil Baby]

There are many things U.S. citizens can do to try and reach the Kyoto plans without hurting the U.S. economy.

Obviously if I was Bush and it was discovered that there is no way the U.S. could reach Kyoto agreement without hurting the economy I'd tell them to jump in a river as well, but I would still make as much as an effort as possible to reduce green house gasses as much as possible.

Here is something Canada has initiated. the "One tonne challange"
http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/plan_...ada/challenge/


I'm sure there is more that the Canadian government could do but at least its a start.

[Samildanach]

It doesn't SOLVE anything SHORT term which is how you like to think Vic, however LONG term you may be able to get the other countries to sign if you can make it worth their while to do so or apply enough prssure.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Kyoto would do NOTHING, why do you people keep bowing to the alter of ignorance? Kyoto is bad science, bad economics, IT DOES NOTHING> I cannot wait, figure about 2-4 years for all industries effected by this in signatory countries to move to places where they arne't forced to operate under heavy red tape and expense. Net change, employment up in 3rd world and non-Kyoto treaties, pollution from said business is the same, employment down in origin countries. What does that SOLVE? Nothing.

You're right on one thing, the Kyoto Treaty isn't enough to prevent the climate change that artificial activity has induced, however, it is a small stepping stone towards the real goals of greenhouse gas emission reductions. You have to start somewhere.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Climate change that... here's a shocker for you Pooey, happens every day, every year, every decade, every century, every millenium...

The climate, is never stable, it's always changeing... 200 years ago the world was in the grasp of a mini ice age, it started crawling out of it during the 19th century. While yes C02 levels ARE higher because of Man, this no one can argue, they have been higher in the past, and the Earth still works.

Amazing thing that. Also not a single forecasting computer model can tell you what the climate is going to be 40, 50.. 100 years from now. NOT ONE. How can I be so sure?

They cannot even do it with 30 year runs, based on all known variables. I.E. not a single forecast model has been able to take the known climate, circa 1970, with known C02 increases, all that, and reach anything close to wha the reality was in 2000. They were all OFF, by 3+ degrees celsius. 3 was the LOW miss.

Now tell me, why do you accept these doomsday predictions and dire warnings, when they are based on such faulty premis?

[Samildanach]

Ok even if a doomsday scenario will probably not happen are you saying we should not try to mitigate our effect on the environment just on the off chance you might be wrong?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Climate change that... here's a shocker for you Pooey, happens every day, every year, every decade, every century, every millenium...

Erm, now you claim to be a metereologist, but somehow you got the same misconception wrong. Weather changes from day to day, but if your climate changed even weekly, it'd wreak havoc on the current biosphere and alot of organisms would've evolved differently. Think again before you make such a silly statement.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio The climate, is never stable, it's always changeing... 200 years ago the world was in the grasp of a mini ice age, it started crawling out of it during the 19th century. While yes C02 levels ARE higher because of Man, this no one can argue, they have been higher in the past, and the Earth still works.

That's true, but did the current lifeforms exist at that time when CO2 levels and global temperature were higher?

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Amazing thing that. Also not a single forecasting computer model can tell you what the climate is going to be 40, 50.. 100 years from now. NOT ONE. How can I be so sure? They cannot even do it with 30 year runs, based on all known variables. I.E. not a single forecast model has been able to take the known climate, circa 1970, with known C02 increases, all that, and reach anything close to wha the reality was in 2000. They were all OFF, by 3+ degrees celsius. 3 was the LOW miss. Now tell me, why do you accept these doomsday predictions and dire warnings, when they are based on such faulty premis?

Seems like you've made up your mind by reading Michael Crickton's State of Fear. Funny how it conflicts with the scientific consensus.
If global warming wasn't a reality, then why does the UK and EU allow with Russia view it as an incoming problem that needs solving. What benefits do these countries gain by imposing emissions cuts which inevitably could damage the profitability of some large companies (especially those involved in energy)? I'll leave you to think about that.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Claim to be a meterlogist?

Pooey, news flash I AM ONE! How about that, weather is how Vic draws a paycheck. Amazing thing that.

Gee pooey, I dunno, some died out, yep.. sorry couldn't ahve saved them even WITH zoos. Some adapted, changed, migrated.. it's called.. Nature, and that's how it works. Stunning eh?

Have you read the book? Not, have your ead a synopsis posted online, but actually READ the book?

And as for the rest, it's called Politics, perfect example; Eugenics was all the rage over 100 years ago, even touted by a sitting US President... All the scientst agreed on it... and they were all wrong.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Claim to be a meterlogist? Pooey, news flash I AM ONE! How about that, weather is how Vic draws a paycheck. Amazing thing that.

Yeah, almost as amazing as that your claim that climate change happens daily...

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Gee pooey, I dunno, some died out, yep.. sorry couldn't ahve saved them even WITH zoos. Some adapted, changed, migrated.. it's called.. Nature, and that's how it works. Stunning eh?

Yes, evolution is brilliant, but we're shaping the world by changing the equilibrium in the environment, even without global warming. A lot of species are going extinct because of our actions whether direct or indirect. Why are we so special that all other wildlife has to suffer? What's wrong with living in a bit more harmony with nature?

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Have you read the book? Not, have your ead a synopsis posted online, but actually READ the book?

The book is fictional, I have no interest in it currently.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio And as for the rest, it's called Politics, perfect example; Eugenics was all the rage over 100 years ago, even touted by a sitting US President... All the scientst agreed on it... and they were all wrong.

Show me. As far as I know, only a few nations have ever approved of eugenics and most scientists, especially in the past wouldn't have been so bold and unethical as to back such an idea especially when they didn't even know what a gene really was.

[Mr.Vicchio]

No, you missed the point, the CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGEING. It is never ever static.


Thus the comment, what the weather is today, is just transitory. It wouldn't remin the same 100 years from now, if men had never climbed out of the trees...

Living in harmony means what? For every action man takes, whether intentional or not... it effects everything else. I suppose you want man to go back to being more like the Native Americans who were in touch with Nature then? (I hate to break this to you, but they abused the land, the wildlife.. burned whole forests.. to suit thier needs)


http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/ Click the Eugenics Popularization, read the flahs bit, it's... enlightening.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Kyoto would do NOTHING, why do you people keep bowing to the alter of ignorance? Kyoto is bad science, bad economics, IT DOES NOTHING> I cannot wait, figure about 2-4 years for all industries effected by this in signatory countries to move to places where they arne't forced to operate under heavy red tape and expense. Net change, employment up in 3rd world and non-Kyoto treaties, pollution from said business is the same, employment down in origin countries. What does that SOLVE? Nothing.

Kyoto is neither "science" nor "economics", among civilised nations to address the causes of the global warming threat. Of course Bush is not civilised, and I have my doubts about the USA, period.

The USA has a far higher CO2 emissions than any other nation, indeed the USA accounts for 20% of CO2 emissions.

As for your foolish suggestion that Kyoto will in some way be an economic dampener then you are wrong. This kind of agreement leads to investment in alternative energy sources and research. As fossil fuels are limited investing at this stage is anything but economically unsound. It will be far cheaper to invest now, than pay the consequences later. But while that moron is in the White House progress will always be limited by default, on all issues, after all being stuck in the inefficent past is what conservatism is all about.

But of course neo-conservatives ever have been interested in the short term, and have never looked at the big picture. Typical among the small minded, selfish, individuals who share the neo-conservative mindset.

I also love the fact that you, who knows absolutely nothing about the subject has the nerve to call it “bad science”, when the vast majority of real scientists are in open support of direct action in combat of this threat.

[Mr.Vicchio]

No, you're conclusions are clearly marred by your hate of Bush. Everything else you had to say was twisted by your inability to see past that.

Investment in new enrgy sources? Oh boy, that's really gonna help manufacturing cut pollution! Wow, so now the power going to the plant is "clean" (assuming that an alternative energy source can meet demands, which they have not) but, what's this? The plant has to spend 20% more a year to operate "clean"....

Or they could move their business to X country without such restrictions...

20% more to produce a product, or make it cheaper without all the hassle...

Doesn't take a genius to see which will prevail.

America produces 20% of the worlds C02 emmissions you say. 20%. 80% is produced from? If my source is correct (no not Crightons book, I closed the link after some digging and I will leave to some else to refute me) comes from:

3rd world nations, China and India. I think it was around 40% projected to reach 60% in 10 years.
And those countries... wouldn't be subjected to Kyoto Restrictions....

Yes Kyoto is a very useful and important treaty, it shows the fallacy of hysteria masking as science.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Kyoto is, absoluetly a worthless POS. EVEN if, the USA signed, and every country on the list met it's goals, 3rd world nations, China and India as well, would be exempt from cutting emissions. China has the worlds fastest growing economy, and they really don't have much in the way of an EPA. India also shows less care about pollution then it does bringing it's industry standards up. 3rd World Nations ARE going to see some nice benifits from Kyoto. All those manufacturing jobs in Russia, the EU and such.. Guess where they are gonna move if forced to choose between spending billions on meeting "emissions standards" and moving thier jobs to a country without such.

I'm pretty sure Russia ratified because - due to the ass-whooping their economy took in the '90s - their production levels - and therefore emissions - are already way below 1991 levels. So they could sell their emissions allowance surpluses to developed countries.

But aren't we missing something with Kyoto here? That is, American leadership. The U.S. is often the only country with the guts to stand up and lead the world in the right direction. Remember the ozone layer problem? The U.S. led a worldwide campaign to eliminate CFCs (the Montreal Protocol), and it really worked. By 2050, the ozone layer is projected to make a full recovery. I'd say it's time for the U.S. to show some leadership on CO2 emissions too.