 |
|
11-26-2007, 12:59 AM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 2,252
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upton
The cutting back on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions is a good thing. The Kyoto Protocol's stated objective is to achieve, "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." Sounds like a goal worth striving for.
|
How does one 'stabalize' H2O? |
11-26-2007, 03:22 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,344
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upton
The cutting back on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions is a good thing. The Kyoto Protocol's stated objective is to achieve, "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." Sounds like a goal worth striving for.
|
One of the major reasons we didn't sign it (Clinton had the chance to do this but wisely decided not to) is that India and China are NOT impacted by this. They give off more greenhouse emissions as most other countries which Kyoto does apply to and don't face any of the penalties.
Get China and India included and you might see the US government entertain the idea of signing. |
11-26-2007, 01:44 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington state
Posts: 3,740
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dom1
One of the major reasons we didn't sign it (Clinton had the chance to do this but wisely decided not to) is that India and China are NOT impacted by this. They give off more greenhouse emissions as most other countries which Kyoto does apply to and don't face any of the penalties.
Get China and India included and you might see the US government entertain the idea of signing.
|
Since when do we take our lead from such countries as China? Should we not demonstrate our commitment in the reducing of greenhouse gas emissions? In signing the pact we would be doing just that.
Americans make up approximately 5% of the world's population, yet we create upwards of 20% of the world's greenhouse gases. American energy corporations, who have much to lose economically, are leading the opposition to the signing of Kyoto. Considering 89% of all oil company campaign donations went to Republicans in 2006, it's no surprise that the right has fallen in line, in opposing the Kyoto Protocol.
|
11-27-2007, 12:50 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,344
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upton
Since when do we take our lead from such countries as China? Should we not demonstrate our commitment in the reducing of greenhouse gas emissions? In signing the pact we would be doing just that.
Americans make up approximately 5% of the world's population, yet we create upwards of 20% of the world's greenhouse gases. American energy corporations, who have much to lose economically, are leading the opposition to the signing of Kyoto. Considering 89% of all oil company campaign donations went to Republicans in 2006, it's no surprise that the right has fallen in line, in opposing the Kyoto Protocol.
|
We aren't taking our lead from China, China signed the damn thing. The fact is that China, although they produce a shit load of greenhouse gases, are not subject to the penalties - neither is India.
I just said that Clinton didn't sign Kyoto even though he had the chance, so it looks like it is more than just the right.
Do you have some sort of comprehension problem? I mean, is that why you thought I said we were getting our lead from China? Is that why you can't understand that China is not subject to the penalties in Kyoto despite giving off a lot of greenhouse gases? Is that why you failed to comprehend that Clinton didn't push very hard to have Kyoto signed either?
|
11-27-2007, 01:32 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 2,252
|
|
Global warming is a myth... filled with religious Mother Earth cultists. There's no proof of global warming and no proof that if it did exist, we could do a damned thing about it.
|
11-27-2007, 02:20 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington state
Posts: 3,740
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dom1
We aren't taking our lead from China, China signed the damn thing. The fact is that China, although they produce a shit load of greenhouse gases, are not subject to the penalties - neither is India.
I just said that Clinton didn't sign Kyoto even though he had the chance, so it looks like it is more than just the right.
Do you have some sort of comprehension problem? I mean, is that why you thought I said we were getting our lead from China? Is that why you can't understand that China is not subject to the penalties in Kyoto despite giving off a lot of greenhouse gases? Is that why you failed to comprehend that Clinton didn't push very hard to have Kyoto signed either?
|
It is you with the "comprehension problem". China, India, and other developing countries are not subject to the limitations of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change.
You suggested that because China is not subject to those limitations, we shouldn't sign it. Now, you can argue that's not, literally, taking our lead from China, but it sure is using them as an excuse.
|
11-27-2007, 10:57 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,221
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upton
After his party's sweeping election victory, Labor party leader Kevin Rudd promised some changes. One of the biggest changes will be in Australia's approach to climate change. Rudd has nominated the issue as his top priority, and promises to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. The US will then become the only industrialized country not to have signed the pact. |
WRONG!!! The United States DID sign the Kyoto Treaty, and it remains signed to this day. Bush said he opposed the treaty but didn’t un-sign it. The only thing stopping the Kyoto treaty from becoming US policy is that the Democrat controlled Senate chooses not to ratify it. They could hold a vote at any time but they choose not too.
Assuming Australia does and sign ratify they Kyoto treaty it is unlikely they will meet the requirements just like all the other countries that signed it.
TheStar.com | News | Canada: Poor to pay price of weak climate accord, UN says
Canada joins anti-Kyoto bloc
theparliament.com - Italy breaks EU ranks on Kyoto
Japan emissions to rise, reaching Kyoto goals hard | Reuters
The Truth about Al Gore and Kyoto
__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Coyote Blog
New Law Trashes Genetic Science
|
11-27-2007, 11:03 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,221
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upton
It is you with the "comprehension problem". China, India, and other developing countries are not subject to the limitations of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change.
You suggested that because China is not subject to those limitations, we shouldn't sign it. Now, you can argue that's not, literally, taking our lead from China, but it sure is using them as an excuse.
|
That's what Al Gore said:
" We will not submit this [Kyoto Protocol] for ratification until there's meaningful participation by key developing nations."
- Al Gore, 1997
__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Coyote Blog
New Law Trashes Genetic Science
|
11-27-2007, 11:11 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington state
Posts: 3,740
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyote
|
Your quibbling over semantics, Clinton's signing, without ratification, means absolutely nothing. Bush could have submitted to a Republican Congress a recommendation for ratification anytime during his first six years. Like the good oil man and loyal Republican he is, he actively opposed the pact.
|
11-27-2007, 11:26 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,221
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upton
Your quibbling over semantics, Clinton's signing, without ratification, means absolutely nothing. Bush could have submitted to a Republican Congress a recommendation for ratification anytime during his first six years. Like the good oil man and loyal Republican he is, he actively opposed the pact.
|
What’s Clinton’s excuse? Congress doesn't need Bush to do anything. All they need to do is vote on it. However congress already unanimously passed a law rejecting Kyoto.
Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98) Expressing the Sense of the Senate Regarding Conditions for the U.S. Signing the Global Climate Change Treaty
Quote:
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--
(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and
(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.
|
__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Coyote Blog
New Law Trashes Genetic Science
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
