[Bobboau]

and here I thought you might be willing to back down over this. but no, your actualy going to try to lay a guilt trip on us because we don't endorse a treaty that basicly does nothing but restricts us without anyone else haveing to make any sacrifices (other than aulstrailia and *parts* of europe). yes we happen to be the highest users of energy in the world, as you can also see in that little image I found we also provide nearly a quarter of the worlds manufacturing, we are emiting because we are makeing stuf, it's not like were just liteing oil drums on fire for fun. and if the protocalls have so minimal of an impact on industry, why is it such a big deal to extend them to everyone, not just us.

and one of the wonderfull things about not being an ideolog is that just because Bush says something you can still agree with it if you think it's correct.

and I can see by "almost every other country/continent" you mean europe, (good for them by the way, but) that's hardly every one else.

[Bobboau]

and look at that chart, if you take china India and southeast asia, the reagons I mostly think of in terms of places that should be getting an equal sized stick, they add up to be about the same output as us, also as good as europe may have done in curtailing it's emmissions, if you combine east and west europe (interesting how it was split up) they'r still produceing more than us, acording to your own sources.

now even though we are the biggest minority, we are still a minority, how is this suposed to have any real effect on the environment if it only effects 25% of the total emmissions, anything it calls for will only be 1/4th as effective as it would appear to be, so is it realy that absurd for us to demand it encompases everyone before we sign on to it? is it realy that horable that we ask everyone to to make the same sacrafice as us?

further examination of the chart reveials that the most dramatic drops in CO2 were in the former soviet states during and after the time that the USSR was colapseing, obviusly if your economy goes down the drain, you aren't going to be doing much manufacturing, and thus your not going to be emitting too much.

[karajorma]

So what is the US doing instead then Bobboau? Cause all I see the USA doing is sticking it's head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. If you have a problem with China being exempt lobby for a version of the protocol which China isn't exempt from.

What the US is doing is saying "It's not fair. China don't have to do it" and then completely ignoring the problem!. The whole thing with China is just an excuse to stop the US from having to show some responsibility. It's nothing to do with China and everything to do with the fact that the US doesn't want to have any limits on their pollution. If China was the problem we'd hear a lot more from the US about making a fair version of the protocol.

Originally posted by Prophet
However, the theory makes sense. Doesn't it?

Not really. Look at Venus. Lots of very thick cloud cover and yet it's actually hotter than Mercury despite being further away from the sun.

Originally posted by Mongoose
-Most importantly of all the points I've made, I want to reinforce that far too many people are calling for changes to be made without explaining exactly how they are going to be made.  Let me put it bluntly:  it is economically impossible (not infeasible, impossible) to eliminate fossil fuels as a source of energy.  Go ahead, try doing it; then watch the global economy collapse to hell.  I don't have any easy answers as to what should be done; in fact, there aren't any.  However, blaming policies of the past few years is just a waste of air.

*Points at Iceland and their move towards a hydrogen economy* With the price of oil being what it is now they're doing quite well out of it no doubt.  Yes it's impossible to get rid of fossil fuels but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. That's what I see being done.

[Bobboau]

so explain to me again why cutting emmisions falls exclusively upon  America's sholders? You've got to think were prety freacking stupid if we're going to just unilateraly place additional burdens upon our industry. haveing just the US cut it's emissions isn't going to solve the problem, though it might hold the US econimy down for a while, while letting everyone else 'catch up', but na... that couldn't posably have any effect on the politics of the situation (I am specificly refering to the suporters here, obviusly)

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by Bobboau
and I can see by "almost every other country/continent" you mean europe, (good for them by the way, but) that's hardly every one else.

Actually, by "curbed their emmissions by 2000", I wasn't saying their emmissions would drop drastically, I simply meant that emmissions in the time approaching 2000 began to level off and/or drop. As you can see in the graph, "almost every other country/continent" includes everyone except India/Southeast Asia (that doesn't include China obviously), and to a lesser extent the Middle East.

Originally posted by Bobboau
and look at that chart, if you take china India and southeast asia, the reagons I mostly think of in terms of places that should be getting an equal sized stick, they add up to be about the same output as us, also as good as europe may have done in curtailing it's emmissions, if you combine east and west europe (interesting how it was split up) they'r still produceing more than us, acording to your own sources.

Now, that's just a little be silly. You're comparing completely different Geographical areas, meaning different climates, landmasses, and amount of developed land. Not to mention you're ignoring the stark differences in population and such present between the areas you described.

I agree with you here, if you add up India/Southeast Asia and Communist China, you do get the pretty much the same emmissions as the US, there's no denying that. However, the populations differ greatly between that combined area and the US. Adding the two zones, you get roughly the same approximate landmass, on which Industry can be stationed, that seems fair doesn't it? Except for the fact that the population of that area would be many, many times larger than that of the US, meaning that while these areas are roughly producing the same amount of Greenhouse emmissions, they're supporting a much larger population, on the order of hundreds of millions (and perhaps Billions). Regarding combing East & West Europe, it's the same case. Their emmissions rival your own, but in doing so, they are supporting a much larger population in a much harsher climate (Siberia anyone). The point is, the US is not only the highest emmission producer on the planet, but it possesses the highest emmission count per capita in the world (aside from Australia, but that's an entirely different case altogether). Now then, that comparison isn't really fair, is it...?

Originally posted by Bobboau
now even though we are the biggest minority, we are still a minority, how is this suposed to have any real effect on the environment if it only effects 25% of the total emmissions, anything it calls for will only be 1/4th as effective as it would appear to be, so is it realy that absurd for us to demand it encompases everyone before we sign on to it?

I'm not entirely sure of your arguement here, but if you're argueing that only a 25% drop in your Emmission level - as stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol - would not be very big, think again. One quarter of US & Canada's emmissions (most of which likely comes from the US) is around the same amount as Central & South America's emmissions combined. So, think about it for a second; adhering to the Kyoto Protocol would effectively cancel out the emmissions of the rest of the Americas. Call me crazy, but that's quite a bit right there.

Originally posted by Bobboau
further examination of the chart reveials that the most dramatic drops in CO2 were in the former soviet states during and after the time that the USSR was colapseing, obviusly if your economy goes down the drain, you aren't going to be doing much manufacturing, and thus your not going to be emitting too much.

Well, i'll concede to this, you've got me here. It's really quite logical that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the area would be thrown into such disarray that manufacturing and power production - both of which contribute heavily to emmission levels - that levels would continue to drop regardless of what happened, and Russia likely signed only for the trade and diplomatic benefits afforded to it by the Protocol.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Bobboau
so explain to me again why cutting emmisions falls exclusively upon  America's sholders? You've got to think were prety freacking stupid if we're going to just unilateraly place additional burdens upon our industry. haveing just the US cut it's emissions isn't going to solve the problem, though it might hold the US econimy down for a while, while letting everyone else 'catch up', but na... that couldn't posably have any effect on the politics of the situation (I am specificly refering to the suporters here, obviusly)

Where did I say that China shouldn't cut their emissions? What I said is that if that was the US's only objection and they really wanted to cut emissions they'd be lobbying for a different version of the Kyoto Protocol.

Instead the US is hoping the problem will go away without them doing anything. That's obvious proof that the US doesn't care about reducing its emissions and that the whole complaint about China is simply a smokescreen.

[Bobboau]

we may be the worlds highest per capita poluters, but were also the worlds highest per capita producers, we aren't any more waistfull than anyone else, we just do a lot more.

"you get roughly the same approximate landmass, on which Industry can be stationed, that seems fair doesn't it?"
yes, that seems perfictly fine, what doesn't seem fair is there industry doesn't count for some reason because there larger population is on average poorer,I doubt the industrial people are signifigantly worse off than our industrial people, and even if they were I don't see how being poor makes your polution less damageing. and what's so silly about compareing the emmissions of a roughly equivilant sized reagon? these are the reagons that will go unscathed by Kyoto, what is silly about saying that it's going to totaly ignore equivilant polution elseware in the world, I think that's actualy a rather good reason to recognise it as impotent to the problem it is suposed to solve.

and Ill admit that China's graph there does seem to be going down at the moment, but that could easily be a sort term thing, and probly will be, China is going to be on par with us in a few decades. asside from Europe everyone else, to me, seems to be on the same uninterupted growth paturn, I don't think environmentalism played any role in the shapes of there charts.

and as far as the largest minority thing goes, let me put it this way,
Kyoto says we cut what? 5% (I think that's it) of our greenhouse gasses, if Kyoto only applys to 25% of the total polution created then the actual reduction will only be 1.25%.

on top of that Kyoto is simply impotent period, it won't do anything meaningfull, the most optamistic projections are that it will reduce global temperature by about a fourth of a degree, were the temperature change is expected to be somewere on the order of 10 degrees. the only purpose it serves is political.

[Bobboau]

the thing about China (and elseware) is a legitimate problem with the protocall, no we aren't to terably axious about reduceing our emmissions, but isn't the fact that it targets us unfairly a decent reason for us not to get involved in it?
the fact that your focusing so much on us and not all the other people who are getting a free ride shows that you only want this as a political stick. no we aren't going out of our way to do anything about it, but asside from parts of Europe, neither is any one else. why are we getting singled out?

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by Bobboau
we may be the worlds highest per capita poluters, but were also the worlds highest per capita producers, we aren't any more waistfull than anyone else, we just do a lot more.

Well, charts and graphs seem to be all the rage, so let's see it...i'll take any other sort of evidence...

Originally posted by Bobboau
"you get roughly the same approximate landmass, on which Industry can be stationed, that seems fair doesn't it?"
yes, that seems perfictly fine, what doesn't seem fair is there industry doesn't count for some reason because there larger population is on average poorer,I doubt the industrial people are signifigantly worse off than our industrial people, and even if they were I don't see how being poor makes your polution less damageing. and what's so silly about compareing the emmissions of a roughly equivilant sized reagon? these are the reagons that will go unscathed by Kyoto, what is silly about saying that it's going to totaly ignore equivilant polution elseware in the world, I think that's actualy a rather good reason to recognise it as impotent to the problem it is suposed to solve.

Things brings us back to Kara's arguement; using the excuse that China doesn't have to adhere to the Protocol - something that could be changed in the near future, not unlike the changes currently being debated in The Hague - is just a cheap way of 'passing the buck' if you will. Again, comparing the North America's emmissions to India & China's emmissions, means absolutely nothing, as the population and standards of development are completely different. It's like comparing the amount of rubbish your household outputs to a squatter settlement of comparable size. They're too different to draw any accurate conclusions from.

Originally posted by Bobboau
and Ill admit that China's graph there does seem to be going down at the moment, but that could easily be a sort term thing, and probly will be, China is going to be on par with us in a few decades. asside from Europe everyone else, to me, seems to be on the same uninterupted growth paturn, I don't think environmentalism played any role in the shapes of there charts.

Does that mean that we should all just give up on the planet? Ignore the problem until the Pacific Ocean is lapping at our doorstep, or Hurricanes like Katrina are knocking down our neighbourhoods? (not to say that Katrina was in any way related to Global Warming, i'm just using it as an example)

Originally posted by Bobboau
and as far as the largest minority thing goes, let me put it this way,
Kyoto says we cut what? 5% (I think that's it) of our greenhouse gasses, if Kyoto only applys to 25% of the total polution created then the actual reduction will only be 1.25%.

on top of that Kyoto is simply impotent period, it won't do anything meaningfull, the most optamistic projections are that it will reduce global temperature by about a fourth of a degree, were the temperature change is expected to be somewere on the order of 10 degrees. the only purpose it serves is political.

Actually, the Kyoto Protocol calls for a drop of 5.2% in emmission levels as measured in 1990, but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut. Just because it's a small decrease doesn't mean it's insignifigant or not worth doing. By starting the process, our children or our children's children could grow up in a world where we contribute negligable amounts of Greenhouse Gases to the Atmosphere, and where Global Warming will be something seen only in the history books...

[Bobboau]

alright the sun is comeing up I am sleepy, sence we seem to have diverged from the central argument, I'll reclarify it, is the US realy so evil for not going along with this particular plan?

currently I am against us signing on to it because of all the nations that would be exempt, if that was removed I'd be nutral because it would be fair (in principal anyway, probly not in practice) but still innefectual, so if you fix what's wrong with it, it still doesn't mean there'd be anything right in it, honestly we should probly just start over, focusing more on infastructure changes were posable rather than simple emmission reduction.

[Kosh]

Bob, China has been able to more or less curb it's emissions. If a poor country with 1.2 billion mouths to feed can do it, why can't the richest country in the world? It hasn't crippled the economy here. The economy here is still growing 2 or 3 times faster than the american economy.


Face it, Bush is just using it as an excuse to do nothing about it. They want to destroy the environment because it would, theoretically, bring on the second coming (despite the fact that they are supposed to take care of the environment). Where do I get this stuff from? Just look at James Watts famous quote to Congress.

[castor]

Well, nobody wants to change their way of living (and nothing else helps here) until forced to do that.
Forced by governments or forced by the nature itself, the outcome is the same, only the level of ugliness changes.
We don't need to do anything we don't want to.

[Kosh]

But something the US needs to wake up to is that this is the 21st century and a lot of things are going to change for everyone. You can either adapt (in their case making lifestyle adjustments), or be left in the dust.

[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by karajorma


Absolute nonsense. If it's not human industry what is it? And if you say volcanoes you're going to feel like a right prick when I prove you wrong with the evidence I've already linked to twice before on these forums.

Well before you declare it nonsense look at research done by Harvard CFA that revealed temperatures between the ninth and fourteenth centuries were much higher than today. Funnily enough, history for that period does not document the presence of factories, cars and power stations.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html

I don't know how valid the research was but the only denial of validity I've so far seen came from the IPCC which is an organisation guilty of bias and misinformation.

[Rictor]

OK, so even if we give the critics the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of conversation, is that any reason to throw caution to the wind? Alright, so the sh*t wont hit the fan tommorow, but what about the day after? I don't think anyone is arguing that human industry is having no effect, and with much of the world industrtializing this will likely increase dramatically

Is it better to wait until it's too late? There is absolutely no reason not to take action, even if you accept the critic's arguements.

[IceFire]

Originally posted by Bobboau
the thing about China (and elseware) is a legitimate problem with the protocall, no we aren't to terably axious about reduceing our emmissions, but isn't the fact that it targets us unfairly a decent reason for us not to get involved in it?
the fact that your focusing so much on us and not all the other people who are getting a free ride shows that you only want this as a political stick. no we aren't going out of our way to do anything about it, but asside from parts of Europe, neither is any one else. why are we getting singled out?

You know the whole protocol thing doesn't target the US specifically...it targets the biggest polluters.  Which is the US and Canada combined.

The local industry around here (I live in a steel town as they call it) has changed quite a bit in the last 10 years.  Where there used to be piles of stagnant water, they have planted reids and created swamps that channel potentially hazardous water through natures own filtration system.  They have planted trees all around the industry (tree's love them CO2's) and they have installed new technology that have supposedly cut emissions by 50%.  The steel they sell still remains amongst the most profitable and best around (lots of you driving American made cars were probably built using some or all of the steel produced in my home city).

Now its still kinda bad around here but things are starting to improve.  Fish that have not been seen in the wetland areas for 15 or 20 years are returning in great numbers and some of the local species that had been dying off has been starting to return.  There are definate improvements to the areas ecological health and the economy is not any worse for wear.

So while most of this has been voluntary, Kyoto and all that seems to be taking hold as a responsibility in Canada (so has the 1 ton challenge which seems to have had some effect), so lots of us are asking why hasn't the US.  We're both responsible for the worst polution on the planet and we need to do something about that.

If China, India, and other countries can curb their emissions (and seemingly Canada is starting to although very slowly) then why can't the impressive, dynamic, techologically advanced United States?  Its a matter of personal and political willpower.  Frankly Democrats and Republicans alike should be making environment and economy their top issue.  Economy is but environment hasn't been linked yet...it should be.

I have some hope...the political changes abound since 911 have had some positive effect.  Many right wing conservatives in the U.S. are calling for alternative fuel supplies (which are also clearner) because they say that the oil reliance just feeds money to terrorists.  In the face of that sort of thinking, many of the Oil companies are starting to think about changing what they do...alternative fuel supply options could be just as or more profitable than their current setups.

[SadisticSid]

I don't disagree that our CO2 emissions contribute to the effect, I'm just skeptical of the extent to which it does. But what I think most people have forgotten is that global warming is just one of many issues caused by industrial and consumer pollution.

Off the top of my head there's also acid rain, the effects on health of intense concentrations of polluted air - Kuala Lumpur and LA come to mind. Ozone depletion is arguably far worse an issue than global warming; unfiltered UV radiation will kill you, as opposed to making life more/less convenient.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by SadisticSid


I don't know how valid the research was but the only denial of validity I've so far seen came from the IPCC which is an organisation guilty of bias and misinformation.

David E. Wojick;

Host of climatechangedebate.org

 Science adviser to the Greening Earth Society Editor of WashingtonPest.com Greening Earth Society is a PR organization dedicated to discrediting global warming theories.  It is funded by Western Fuels Association, an alliance of coal burning companies

 News analyst for Electricity Daily Electiricty Daily is an offshoot of the Electricity Journal, which is the leading policy journal of the US electricity industry

Wojick is a consultant to industry and corporate-funded groups such as the Heartland Institute, Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. His clients have included several government agencies, trade associations such as the International Pest Management Association, and corporations ranging from U.S. Steel Corp to CitiBank. Source: http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/clients.html


I'll focus on the thinktanks....

Heartland Institute - ran as a mouthpiece for industry, including reprentatives from tobacco companies, General Motors and Exxon on the board
Cato Institute - Libertarian  (although supported restriction on civil liberties by the Bush government) thinktank with strong connections to the Republican party; main funders include Exxon (again), Chevron, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute
Citizens for a Sound Economy. - Another industry funded think tank.   85% of funding in 1998 came from big industry like moco, Bell Atlantic, Citibank, General Electric and General Motors.  One notable case is opposing FDA drug regulation procedures, blaming 4,000 deathson slow FDA certification of nitrazepam in a speech to congress members.  When asked what nitrazepam was for, the representative didn't actually know (insomnia).

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Bobboau
the thing about China (and elseware) is a legitimate problem with the protocall, no we aren't to terably axious about reduceing our emmissions, but isn't the fact that it targets us unfairly a decent reason for us not to get involved in it?
the fact that your focusing so much on us and not all the other people who are getting a free ride shows that you only want this as a political stick. no we aren't going out of our way to do anything about it, but asside from parts of Europe, neither is any one else. why are we getting singled out?

And here we go again with the anti-americanism defense just by another name. Bob your country is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases. It has refused to do anything about this at all and in fact until last year continually denied that the problem even existed.

THAT is why you're being singled out. Once America admits that there is a problem. Once America realises that new technologies aren't going to be available to save us in time. Once America stops being part of the problem and tries to be part of the solution (Something which China is doing) then you'll find no one is picking on you.

If you don't like Kyoto fine, work on a better solution. What Americans like you are doing however is saying I don't like Kyoto do all the work for me on another protocol so that I can reject that too for equally spurious reasons.

Originally posted by Bobboau
I'll reclarify it, is the US realy so evil for not going along with this particular plan?

As I've pointed out before and reiterated about, what makes you so evil is that you don't want to go along with it because you think you can keep ignoring it until the problem goes away. The problem is nothing to do with Kyoto and everything to do with the fact that the US wants to do nothing

Originally posted by SadisticSid
Well before you declare it nonsense look at research done by Harvard CFA that revealed temperatures between the ninth and fourteenth centuries were much higher than today. Funnily enough, history for that period does not document the presence of factories, cars and power stations.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html

Well Aldo's already shown why it's ridiculous to claim that the IPCC is biased based on the word of a corporate mouthpiece like Wojick so I'll point out some of the flaws in the rest of the study and your other comments.

1) If it's not due to mankinds influence why is the temperature rising? Global temperature change doesn't occur simply because the planet feels like moving closer to the sun. So if you're saying that the planet is coming out of an ice age I ask you why? What's changed?

2) This medieval warm period you mention may not have been a global phenomenon. Despite claims that it lasted from ~800AD to 1300AD the fact remains that antartic ice cores show that temperatures 1000 to 900 years ago were actually quite cold.
Other studies put the temperature of the medieval warm period as lower than that which the Harvard study claims and many others claim that the medieval warm period was neither global nor as severe as current climate change even if it was.

3) None of that takes into account the effect of global dimming which has had the effect of hiding from us the worst effects of global warming. Climatologists are only recently realising that their models of global warming were actually too optimistic since they didn't realise that they were using a false baseline as it was causing around a 10% drop in the effective amount of warming caused by the sun. Global dimming has reversed since the 1990's and this will result in global warming being far worse than predicted.

Originally posted by SadisticSid
I don't disagree that our CO2 emissions contribute to the effect, I'm just skeptical of the extent to which it does. But what I think most people have forgotten is that global warming is just one of many issues caused by industrial and consumer pollution.

Off the top of my head there's also acid rain, the effects on health of intense concentrations of polluted air - Kuala Lumpur and LA come to mind. Ozone depletion is arguably far worse an issue than global warming; unfiltered UV radiation will kill you, as opposed to making life more/less convenient.

CFCs which cause ozone depletion are actually very potent greenhouse gases too. That means that we should be taking steps to eliminate them as much as possible I agree. However the world has taken steps to reduce the emissions of CFCs and the general consensus appears to be that the hole is repairing itself. However global waming is actually likely to reverse that trend and create more ozone holes.

As for acid rain etc. sulphur dioxide is a large cause of global dimming. I'm all for removing it and ending the problem but at the moment it's mitigating the effects of an even larger problem so we need to tackle them both at the same time or otherwise we risk solving one problem to have a bigger one bite us in the arse.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Kosh
Face it, Bush is just using it as an excuse to do nothing about it. They want to destroy the environment because it would, theoretically, bring on the second coming (despite the fact that they are supposed to take care of the environment). Where do I get this stuff from? Just look at James Watts famous quote to Congress.

Yeah...you just keep wearing that tinfoil hat there

Originally posted by Sadistic Sid
I don't disagree that our CO2 emissions contribute to the effect, I'm just skeptical of the extent to which it does. But what I think most people have forgotten is that global warming is just one of many issues caused by industrial and consumer pollution.

Off the top of my head there's also acid rain, the effects on health of intense concentrations of polluted air - Kuala Lumpur and LA come to mind. Ozone depletion is arguably far worse an issue than global warming; unfiltered UV radiation will kill you, as opposed to making life more/less convenient.

Actually, those other problems aren't as bad as you might think.  Industrial pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide have dropped substantially from their highest levels thanks to new technologies like catalytic converters; most are now relatively easily managed.  I just heard a story about a week ago saying that it's now thought that the ozone hole will start to shrink over the next couple of years, due to the severe decreases in CFC usage by developed countries.  Things like smog and acid rain aren't as bad as they used to be; the CO2 emissions is definitely the major issue when it comes to pollution.

To many of you, why do you automatically assume that, just because the US hasn't signed Kyoto, we're not taking other steps to start to reduce CO2 emissions?  Using that particular protocol isn't the only way to go about things.  From what I've heard, many large industries (Shell, for instance) are voluntarily cutting back their emissions.  Individual states are developing stricter regulations for industry.  The hybrid car market, although admittedly small at the moment, will continue to pick up (even if I personally think that at least one of the Big Three should have the balls to declare one single brand entirely hybrid).  Things are being done; we Americans aren't doing anything as ridiculous as pretending that climate change isn't an important issue.  This is where I think that some of you are showing at least some level of bias; you're making blanket statements about all Americans that are completely ignoring the facts.