Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Shrike on September 03, 2002, 12:36:15 am
-
So what are your opinions on it?
-
Linky?
-
tell me about it.
-
In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was successfully created, with the vast majority of all the world's nations being happy to set targets in order to successfully reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions in hope of significantly reducing Global Warming.
Bush withdrew the US from the agreement in 2001. Another reason I don't like him...
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Bush withdrew the US from the agreement in 2001. Another reason I don't like him...
(http://www.politicalstrikes.com/.images/strikes599.jpg)
Another reason... :blah:
-
Uh...
Anyway. Absolutely ineffectual, because the US, as one of the world's biggest polluters, is paying it no mind. Also because now that we're not, nobody else is gonna feel obligated to. It's rare for nations to take a moral stance when they can make money, when they have the choice, but sometimes it happens, so I won't say it's necessarily COMPLETELY ineffective yet.
-
I voted yeah, though the US has failed (yet again) to lead by example, it is my hope that in this area other nations will rise to the occasion... (Let's have a military coup! :cool: Can I get a promotion?)
-
All you people who voted yes, please tell the class exactly what the Kyoto agreement will do.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
All you people who voted yes, please tell the class exactly what the Kyoto agreement will do.
wasn't it about putting filters on a fraction of the polluters? (the industrial buildings, powerplants and such...)
-
I think a new pact should be made to research Fusion power with all nations. :p Then America should be left out of the loop. The world will have Fusion power and america will still have conventional power... :D
-
barring a miracle we'll all be running of nukes in 30 years whether anyone likes it or not anyway..
and they'll be making jewelry out of coal.
-
Well, you all can be running nuclear plants, we here will stick to hydroelectrical until a good form of fusion is created. ;)
And the point of the agreement is to reduce the emmission of carbon dioxide and other nocive elements into Earth's atmosphere. Simple really - it's just an evironmental commitment, that would require a bit of good will and money to be accomplished. Unfortunately, some "developed" countries (how really "developed" are they, one should ask) are refusing to abide by it. I just wish there was a way to keep all of the pollution created by a country inside its own borders.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Well, you all can be running nuclear plants, we here will stick to hydroelectrical until a good form of fusion is created. ;)
And the point of the agreement is to reduce the emmission of carbon dioxide and other nocive elements into Earth's atmosphere. Simple really - it's just an evironmental commitment, that would require a bit of good will and money to be accomplished. Unfortunately, some "developed" countries (how really "developed" are they, one should ask) are refusing to abide by it. I just wish there was a way to keep all of the pollution created by a country inside its own borders.
Good idea. Lets build a shield!
-
the cash that implementing the Kyoto treaty would cost would be better spent researching fuel cells or fusion power,
I would like nothing better than to some day soon have solar powered hydrogen stations to refill my fuel cell car on the corner of my street
-
I dont know the details of the protocol but its been developed for years and its the only current solution that could involve all countries at once. Its the only thing like it that will be around for a while and if people dont sign up we are missing a great opertunity to try and reduce some of the damage we have done.
Otherwise depending on were you live its going to get very hot or cold or be totally underwater. We are fast coming to the point where we cant just ingnore all this and hope someone else sorts it out. You can see if from space now the planet is turning grey.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the cash that implementing the Kyoto treaty would cost would be better spent researching fuel cells or fusion power,
I would like nothing better than to some day soon have solar powered hydrogen stations to refill my fuel cell car on the corner of my street
That would be fantastic but American companys have bought most of the tech for that stuff to keep the current system in place.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the cash that implementing the Kyoto treaty would cost would be better spent researching fuel cells or fusion power,
I would like nothing better than to some day soon have solar powered hydrogen stations to refill my fuel cell car on the corner of my street
The problem is, that cash is not going that direction, and will never go that direction if it's up to the american corporations that forced the government to withdraw from the protocol. They don't care if they deplete the planet's resources or you get lung cancer from pollution if they have their profits. In fact, they'll do practically anything from stopping you, or anyone else, from developing that kind of technology efficiently.
Now, if you trust the corporations to do what's best for you, then good luck... :rolleyes:
-
Canada will be following the accord, as stated in the news today. Our Primeminister announced this recently. I voted ya, because it can't hurt the environment if everyone else followed it. Stupid Bush. You think I guy named after a plant would respect the environment more?
-
Originally posted by Thor
Canada will be following the accord, as stated in the news today. Our Primeminister announced this recently. I voted ya, because it can't hurt the environment if everyone else followed it. Stupid Bush. You think I guy named after a plant would respect the environment more?
No? How about the fact that instead of actually cleaning up polluters can simply buy emission credits from countries with 'excess' pollution capacity. So instead of solving the problem of pollution it just becomes glorified foreign aid.
And this is supposed to help the environment?
-
I think profits should be banned.
-
Kyoto may be founded in very sound and noble principles but when its implimented in every day life it will be a farce.
Even Governments who have signed up are more interested in maintaining tax revenue and keeping mass population under control than actually reducing pollution or doing anything useful for that matter.
My infamous saying: "Governments exist to protect both the people and interests of the people of the nation they govern" is forgotten by these people. Sure, we all want to be living in a clean world and be nice and friendly to each other but due to the napoleonic-style mindset that has infected almost all men of power, we can never have a truely "good" world. Governments are too busy legislating to secure their next term in office to actually change anything in the world.
Alright - sometimes we do have to do nasty things, like war, to preserve our own good way of life, but our current leaders around the world are more interested in thier own image and power than what the people they work for (US!) want.
Let us be the generation to change this!
(http://www.vyper.web1000.com/union.png) (http://www.vyper.web1000.com/saltire.png)
-
Originally posted by vyper
Kyoto may be founded in very sound and noble principles but when its implimented in every day life it will be a farce.
Even Governments who have signed up are more interested in maintaining tax revenue and keeping mass population under control than actually reducing pollution or doing anything useful for that matter.
My infamous saying: "Governments exist to protect both the people and interests of the people of the nation they govern" is forgotten by these people. Sure, we all want to be living in a clean world and be nice and friendly to each other but due to the napoleonic-style mindset that has infected almost all men of power, we can never have a truely "good" world. Governments are too busy legislating to secure their next term in office to actually change anything in the world.
Alright - sometimes we do have to do nasty things, like war, to preserve our own good way of life, but our current leaders around the world are more interested in thier own image and power than what the people they work for (US!) want.
Let us be the generation to change this!
(http://www.vyper.web1000.com/union.png) (http://www.vyper.web1000.com/saltire.png)
UP THE REVOLUTION!!!
I wonder what happens when there's more "terrorists" than "normal people" in the world?
-
I don't give a rodent's posterior
-
Originally posted by wEvil
I wonder what happens when there's more "terrorists" than "normal people" in the world?
The, obviously, the definition of "terrorist" will be changed... :p
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
I don't give a rodent's posterior
:nod:
Though that was before actually reading the thread, only the first post. And I knew nothing about it back then, now I think it's good, I guess. :p
-
Originally posted by Redfang
:nod:
Though that was before actually reading the thread, only the first post. And I knew nothing about it back then, now I think it's good, I guess. :p
Good, bad, whatever, my nation didn't sign it and probably won't have anything to do with it. So it in no way affects my day to day life.
-
there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere that nothing we do could make a difference.
-
Exactly, Cars caused a 1% increase :p.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Exactly, Cars caused a 1% increase :p.
seems 1% is enough, go ask german people, they love those floodings...
-
:rolleyes: They were the worst floods in a hundred years, not the worsts floods Ever.
-
Fix whats causing the problem and you wont have to worry about this Kyoto crap....
-
Don't volcanos contribute to the majority of pollution? some volcanic eruptions have caused more environmental harm than we ever have.. and i'm talking yesterday in geologic terms. i recall hearing of one volcanic eruption in the early 1800s that effectively prevented summer from happening. The only way we could do that is a nuclear war and nuclear winter is still a theory (thank god)
-
I'm more worried about those CFC's tearing that huge hole in the ozone layer in Antarctica.
-
the kyoto agreemant has nohing to do with pollution. it's smaller countries jealous of the bigger, more powerful countries. (especially America) they just want to find a way to have power over us.
deny it as you may, it is the truth.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
seems 1% is enough, go ask german people, they love those floodings...
Yah, because every natural disaster is our fault. We didn't have floods til recently, blame pollution. :rolleyes:
-
I won't even reply to you coz you don't know what you're talking about: so shut up.
-
And do you have proof that those floods are happening because of cars?
-
Originally posted by Shrike
And do you have proof that those floods are happening because of cars?
did I say cars? it's pollution. Just look at France. for the past 10 years, the rain factor has never stop increasing, summers are everyday more and more warm, and winter more and more cold. What has changed? the pollution factor has increased by the same rates. I don't believe in coincidences.
Anyway, just to tell you, I'm not worried about the future, I'm not running around screaming "doomsday's coming!!!!!". I'm not stopping using my car, I'm not yelling (except when it stinks in my home ) at my neighbour who keeps burning stuff in his garden all day long ( stuff that often happens to contain plastic, by the smell of it... ) What have to happen will happen, that's all. What I say is that it's cowardly denying it's our fault. Nature won't change like that in 10 years on its own. Nature changes, but not that fast.
-
Originally posted by Carl
the kyoto agreemant has nohing to do with pollution. it's smaller countries jealous of the bigger, more powerful countries. (especially America) they just want to find a way to have power over us.
deny it as you may, it is the truth.
Well thats a total load of crap. Developing countries (which I guess is what you mean) would have a hard time sticking to it because of the massive amount of growth they are going through.
Many of these countries are the ones we need to win over, and they dont want to bother if America cant be bothered.
With views like your yours America is going to become increasingly isolated from Europe. We cant afford to ignore it because all the popution is having an effect here and causing loss of life and huge amounts of damage that costs millions to repair.
EDIT: And you people who doupt cars effect, just look it up, its a scientific fact. Although on the last check planes produced more pollution.
-
I'm inclined to agree with Tiger, adhering to the agreement costs money and will therefore hit developing countries harder than it will countries such as America or those in Europe, to say that it forces other countries to have power of America is rubbish, how does forcing them to put in place proper pollution monitoring efforts etc, give other people power over them? That's paranoia if anything else...
-
Umm we (the US)... dropped LOTS of bombs back in the late 40's early 50's...
So....What long term effects did it have on: Weather, Weather patterns, the ozone layer... Cancer rates...Ect... Blah blah blah... (good questions but so many more to post..) .
Anyone got anwsers??? :confused:
:doubt: :nervous: :shaking: :mad2: :eek: :eek2: :wtf:
-
Probably won't change much one way or another
This is what I think of it. Bush should have signed it anyway just to keep the other nations from having an excuse to complain about the US (:D), but it is not going to make much of a difference as far as the environment goes.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
This is what I think of it. Bush should have signed it anyway just to keep the other nations from having an excuse to complain about the US (:D), but it is not going to make much of a difference as far as the environment goes.
Hmm, environment. Humans have -1 of it, so that's not too good, but Tecanoids, on the other hand, have +2.
*runs*
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
With views like your yours America is going to become increasingly isolated from Europe.
good.
-
Originally posted by Carl
good.
Thats a sad attitute.
-
i know, but true none the less.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020903/ts_nm/attack_europe_usa_dc_1
-
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps America might be partly to blame? Obviously not directly but in some small way it might have pissed someone off just a little to much?
I'm - of course - not saying that what happened was a good thing.
-
Gee... ya think?
Oh, maybe the Islamic militants really hate us because of our FREEDOMS, and because we're innately GOOD and they're EVIL, and they know it and thus want to kill us. :lol:
...OR, it could be because we sponsor a nation that was created artificially to house a people they already didn't like, kicking hundreds of thousands of people who'd lived there in the first place off of their land, and then embarked on what can pretty much be described as a series of genocidal campaigns against them. OR, it could be because we won't let our allies trade with many of their nations, thus slowly starving the people to death while the leaders hoard what money they can get in order to remain in power. OR it could be because we seem to be forcing our (to them, and to a degree to everyone) morally bankrupt culture on their people. OR it could be because the only nations we don't starve have governments that are outright puppets of our own, and allow their nations to be bled dry by our oil companies.
Nah, they hate us because we're FREE.
-
Anyway, considering how developing nations, since they can't afford any "clean" energy sources, generally pollute a hell of a lot more than we do (though we used to just as much as they), I don't think new energy treaties are anything like in their best interests. For the US and a handful of relatively wealthy nations, ecological protection means the annoyance of having to pay a bit more for our power and fuel, and thus take often bothersome measures not to waste it. And, sometimes, not to destroy quite so much of our land, when we can recycle most raw materials for about twice the cost. For "developing", or poor-ass, nations, it simply means their power gets shut off, and they can't develop any more. Or even use 90% of the industry they have, since their three trades are high-pollution industries, their natural resources, and their cheap, essentially slave, sweatshop labor, making the cheaper of the products we consume. It's not a conspiracy, dude, or if it is, it's self-inflicted.
-
I blame foriegners(sp)....
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Anyway, considering how developing nations, since they can't afford any "clean" energy sources, generally pollute a hell of a lot more than we do.
Yes, but not every family in a developing country owns five cars, and developing countries are less industrialised.
Its up to the rich countries to make sure the poorer countries dont develop as they did.
-
And every person in a developed country does own 5 cars :wtf: Excuse me while I go wash my fleet of luxury cars
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
And every person in a developed country does own 5 cars :wtf: Excuse me while I go wash my fleet of luxury cars
its was an exageration :rolleyes: duh...
-
Originally posted by Carl
good.
I wouldn't care, 'cept that US pollution (the greatest per-capita rate IIRC) is helping kill the rest of the world. Over here, for example, the seasons are actually changing - summer is effectively coming in autumn, and we're getting record flooding and rainfall. Not to mention that, if the icecaps melt, it'll cool the gulfstream and really screw up Scotland.
-
Oh great another blame the americans again...wow we must screw up everything and never do anything correctly.