Kyoto Protocol

[13788]

Banjax: Now that the Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 141 countries producing 55% of greenhouse gases and come into force, when will the world's number one polluter get its act together and sign the treaty?

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by Banjax@Feb 18 2005, 05:52 PM
Now that the Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 141 countries producing 55% of greenhouse gases and come into force, when will the world's number one polluter get its act together and sign the treaty?

[post=284382]Quoted post[/post]​

Here's my guess: never.

The only time the Kyoto treaty was presented to the Senate, it was unanimously rejected. I believe the vote was something like 97-0. No Democrat even voted for it, which is one indication of how bought and sold they all are to big business. I don't see that changing any time soon, so I don't imagine the Senate will approve it even if there were a president that supported it.

I CAN imagine that a president in the next couple decades would take some steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but I really doubt it will go as far as Kyoto, which doesn't really go that far in its current form.

 

[KinkGuy]

If it (or anything else, for that matter) is going to cost Big business money, it isn't going to pass. We're also going to drill for oil (very small relative amounts) in Alaska protected wilderness, clear cut thousands of acres of Washington, remove environmental standards from off shore drilling, raise the power plant emission standards, cut down trees in National Forests, raise all pollution and toxin limits in our air..................not joining the Kyoto treaty must be part of the "clear skies" initiative. cough, cough.

 

[jonb]

The irony, KinkGuy, is that there isn't enough oil in Alaska to produce the energy required to extract the oil. All I have to say is what I say to all supply-siders: To quote Homer Simpson, "In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics, young lady."

 

[Royal_T]

Originally posted by jonb@Feb 19 2005, 04:15 PM
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics, young lady."

[post=284523]Quoted post[/post]​

Love that line. Im actually suprised Bush hasnt tried to appoint someone to work on creating perpetual-motion-based economy. Supposedly, several have been approved by the U.S. patent office over the years. ^_^

 

[TheOverlord]

Originally posted by Royal_T+Feb 20 2005, 11:56 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Royal_T &#064; Feb 20 2005, 11:56 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Feb 19 2005, 04:15 PM
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics, young lady."

[post=284523]Quoted post[/post]​

Love that line. Im actually suprised Bush hasnt tried to appoint someone to work on creating perpetual-motion-based economy. Supposedly, several have been approved by the U.S. patent office over the years. ^_^

[post=284892]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

I&#39;m all for keeping the air clean, and nature preserved...but i dont think global warming is caused by the greenhouse affect.

Considering there is a hole in the ozone...wouldn&#39;t that just let out any extra heat?

 

[big_peter]

When we adopt the metric system and balance the budget&#33;

No, actually, it&#39;s in our interest to be a part of the agreement... Numerous companies cannot prosper overseas (GE, GM, Ford...) if they try to ignore the requirements... and many measures that are a part of the accords are finding their way back into American Industry.

Try to make 2 lines of state-of-the-art propulsion systems, or electric power plants... Then question what the purpose of such development is... being loyal to shareholders and profits means the larger market (= Kyoto) wins&#33;

If only politics were as simple.

 

[big_peter]

Originally posted by aloofman@Feb 18 2005, 09:08 PM

The only time the Kyoto treaty was presented to the Senate, it was unanimously rejected. I believe the vote was something like 97-0. No Democrat even voted for it, which is one indication of how bought and sold they all are to big business. I don&#39;t see that changing any time soon, so I don&#39;t imagine the Senate will approve it even if there were a president that supported it.

[post=284397]Quoted post[/post]​

Actually the treaty was flawed in the metrics they used... a country was required to reduce emissions from 199? levels by x% regardless of whether they were in prospering times or recession... and it was designed to be a burden on the US.

Thus, the lopsided vote - wer I there, I think I&#39;d have done the same, and I consider myself an environmentalist....

But if the federal govenrment said... no funds for your project unless it has a solar power comntribution to the energy demand... that might start the change.

(not with this oil/coal-centric administration)

 

[jonb]

We&#39;d adopt it in 1866 and the mid-1990s? The former is the year Congress formerly adopted the metric system, and it&#39;s still used on most federal business. (In fact, the Departments of State and Defense don&#39;t use any other system at all.) Scientists and those involved in international trade use metric units as well, since those are the most common you&#39;ll see internationally.

Personally, I&#39;ll use whatever&#39;s easier to say. A metre&#39;s easier to say than three feet three inches, but a foot&#39;s easier to say than thirty centimetres.

 

[Royal_T]

Originally posted by TheOverlord+Feb 21 2005, 06:36 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheOverlord &#064; Feb 21 2005, 06:36 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Royal_T@Feb 20 2005, 11:56 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-jonb

@Feb 19 2005, 04:15 PM
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics, young lady."

[post=284523]Quoted post[/post]​

Love that line. Im actually suprised Bush hasnt tried to appoint someone to work on creating perpetual-motion-based economy. Supposedly, several have been approved by the U.S. patent office over the years. ^_^

[post=284892]Quoted post[/post]​

I&#39;m all for keeping the air clean, and nature preserved...but i dont think global warming is caused by the greenhouse affect.

Considering there is a hole in the ozone...wouldn&#39;t that just let out any extra heat?

[post=284932]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Well, weather is so extremely complex that it is hard to be abolutely certain about long term-effects. The ozone blocks some solar radiation, so more gets in to us. But if the total amount of pollutants and CO2 that increase can do alot. It all comes down to the fact that weather is one of many systems that can have a large change in behaviour, from a small change in conditions.

Does this make any sense to anyone but me? DOes anyone ever care? -_-

 

[jonb]

Butterfly flapping its wings, hurricane in Sumatra. We all know about chaos theory. That is, everyone except neocons, who are trying to repeal the entire 20th century anyway. Or even part of the 19th.