Global Warming

[Freakshow]

Are you sure we're first? I'm skeptical of that claim.

Yep, we're first.
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=193&org_name=NTU

But other nations that are in the top 5, and that are increasing their output as their economies grow, are excluded. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the Kyoto agreement is not SOLELY about the environment?

 

[Mycroft]

Yep, we're first.
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=193&org_name=NTU

But other nations that are in the top 5, and that are increasing their output as their economies grow, are excluded. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the Kyoto agreement is not SOLELY about the environment?

Damn you and your evidence!!!

Okay, j/k. Are you aware of anything that breaks it down per capita?

 

[a_unique_person]

I am not advocating "you first". I am advocating "we together".

Yes, we are first. But some of the other top producers are excluded. Why is that? Why do you object to their being included?

When did I object to their being included? IIRC, they are to be cincluded, and indeed must be included, (since China has a massive expansion of it's coal fired power system planned), once the 'West' got it's act together. Similar to the successful protocol followed with CFCs.

However, the Western nations cannot get their act together. The spoiling tactics of sections of the energy industry (BP, for example, is right behind moves to control AGW), are hugely successful.

Instead the US, Australia and China have just reached an agreement that will see, what they call, a 20% reduction in AGW gas production. Which is a fraudulent claim, as it is only a 20% reduction of what would otherwise be 'normal'. 'Normal' is more than doubling output of greenhouse gases. Kyoto, on the other hand, is being pilloried for only halting increases and stopping us getting anywhere near doubling output. The power, and self delusion, of spin.

 

[Freakshow]

When did I object to their being included?

You object to our not ratifying the treaty, which we do based on the fact that these other nations do not, at the same time we do, have to reduce their emissions. That is your objecting to their being included. You object to their being forced to start at the same time we do.

If you do not object, then what problem do you have to my opposition to the treaty? Would you be okay with modifying it so that these other nations have to start the reductions at the same time we do?

 

[a_unique_person]

The objection is that it is delaying necessary action, for reasons that do nothing to address the actual problem.

 

[Freakshow]

The objection is that it is delaying necessary action, for reasons that do nothing to address the actual problem.

That is where we have a different perspective on this. You only care about the environment, and have no concern at all about the US economy. I do care about the environment too (although not nearly as much as you do), but I also care about the economy. I am not going to sacrifice the economy for the environment, when I think there are other solutions that are possible.

 

[a_unique_person]

That is where we have a different perspective on this. You only care about the environment, and have no concern at all about the US economy. I do care about the environment too (although not nearly as much as you do), but I also care about the economy. I am not going to sacrifice the economy for the environment, when I think there are other solutions that are possible.

Which are?

 

[Freakshow]

Which are?

• Goals that are less ambitious than the Kyoto treaty. I question whether or not the amount of reduction it calls for is practical.
• All nations must take the same actions at the same times. Nations like China and India have to start participating at the same time the US and other nations do.

That is my counter-offer.

 

[a_unique_person]

• Goals that are less ambitious than the Kyoto treaty. I question whether or not the amount of reduction it calls for is practical.
• All nations must take the same actions at the same times. Nations like China and India have to start participating at the same time the US and other nations do.

That is my counter-offer.

Well, the US, China, Australia and others just got together to set up an alternative to Kyoto, which sets not targets, and achieves nothing worthwhile, with no intention to actually improve on that nothing, as disctinct to Kyoto, which starts off with a soft target then moves on to the hard stuff.

So the counter-offer has already been made, and it is useless.

 

[Freakshow]

Well, the US, China, Australia and others just got together to set up an alternative to Kyoto, which sets not targets, and achieves nothing worthwhile, with no intention to actually improve on that nothing, as disctinct to Kyoto, which starts off with a soft target then moves on to the hard stuff.

So the counter-offer has already been made, and it is useless.

"The counter-offer" you say, as opposed to MY counter-offer. You are arguing against something that I didn't say.

 

[peptoabysmal]

You probably haven't seen that latest research that has found that plants emit methane. And CH4 is a much more powerful forcing agent than CO2.

And what you will note that it is C1 in and C1 out => one molecule of carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere to produce one molecule of the more powerful grenhouse gas, methane.

Oh, good greif, I have now.

We're screwed.

So, who is the world's largest producer of plants?

 

[Orwell]

You probably haven't seen that latest research that has found that plants emit methane. And CH4 is a much more powerful forcing agent than CO2.

And what you will note that it is C1 in and C1 out => one molecule of carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere to produce one molecule of the more powerful grenhouse gas, methane.

This is a sceptics board, right? Soooo....


What research? Whose research? Links? References?

 

[Mycroft]

"The counter-offer" you say, as opposed to MY counter-offer. You are arguing against something that I didn't say.

Did you know that while the Kyoto Protocol would require a 7% reduction in greenhouse gasses for the US, it would permit an 8% increase for Australia?!

No wonder we won't ratify that!

 

[Freakshow]

Did you know that while the Kyoto Protocol would require a 7% reduction in greenhouse gasses for the US, it would permit an 8% increase for Australia?!

No wonder we won't ratify that!

That's the point that I keep making, that just doesn't seem to be sinking in.

Why does it exclude some countries? Why do India and China get such a free pass, while we have to damage our economy trying to comply?

Like you said: "No wonder we won't ratify that!"

It is an obvious shot at the US economy. If it wasn't, it would hold the other major offenders to similar standards. I guess since the anti-US crowd can't bring down the US any other way, they will try environmental treaties.

 

[DavidJames]

If it wasn't the point, then why does it exclude some of the major emitters? What other reason can there be, other than choosing to single out particular nations (for reasons other than the environment), and not others? Why do that, if not to deliberately target some nations?

If it was really solely about the environment, then shouldn't it hold all the major offenders to similar standards?

So in other words you can't support your point, other then guessing & speculation. k.

 

[a_unique_person]

It is an obvious shot at the US economy. If it wasn't, it would hold the other major offenders to similar standards. I guess since the anti-US crowd can't bring down the US any other way, they will try environmental treaties.

That Australia weasled it's way out of cuts was disgraceful, (it did so by pulling a procedural manovure at the last minute), but given the small size of the population, not significant.

However, the US and Australian were quite happy backslapping each other at the 'alternative' conference just a week ago, at which it was agreed that fossil fuels would stay the major energy source for the next generation.

As to your last point, what actual proof do you have that Kyoto is a shot at the US economy?

 

[Freakshow]

That Australia weasled it's way out of cuts was disgraceful, (it did so by pulling a procedural manovure at the last minute), but given the small size of the population, not significant.

However, the US and Australian were quite happy backslapping each other at the 'alternative' conference just a week ago, at which it was agreed that fossil fuels would stay the major energy source for the next generation.

As to your last point, what actual proof do you have that Kyoto is a shot at the US economy?

"Proof"? As in, a psychic ability to read the minds of the Kyoto supporters? None. A decent guess, based on not being able to figure out a good reason why some countries are excluded? Yep.

AUP...what if...the Kyoto treaty would remain exactly as it is now in its reduction for the US, but it also held other nations to similar standards. Would that be okay with you? It would certainly get me at least listening.

 

[Freakshow]

So in other words you can't support your point, other then guessing & speculation. k.

Yes, you are right. Since I cannot read minds, and since I cannot find some secret tape recording of conversations revealing people's motives, I have no way whatsoever at figuring things out, and must walk around in a comatose blank-mind state, not thinking anything about anyone. After all, without rock-solid proof that you can bet your life on, you really can't do anything in life, can you?

If you always take what people say at face value, and are so trusting of people, I really hope you don't run into anyone that wants to run a scam on you. You'd be an easy target.

 

[DavidJames]

That is where we have a different perspective on this. You only care about the environment, and have no concern at all about the US economy. I do care about the environment too (although not nearly as much as you do), but I also care about the economy. I am not going to sacrifice the economy for the environment, when I think there are other solutions that are possible.

I recall the same doomsday prophesies back when emissions standards for cars and industrial pollution scrubbers were being debated. Not only were they wrong, but whole new industries were created. Engineering, manufacturing, pollution control and management industries spring up, creating jobs, contributing to the GNP. I would expect to see more of that as people genuinely get serious, put politics aside, and get their knees out of their chests.

 

[Freakshow]

I recall the same doomsday prophesies back when emissions standards for cars and industrial pollution scrubbers were being debated. Not only were they wrong, but whole new industries were created. Engineering, manufacturing, pollution control and management industries spring up, creating jobs, contributing to the GNP. I would expect to see more of that as people genuinely get serious, put politics aside, and get their knees out of their chests.

I am all for using technology to reduce polution and CO2 emissions! That's great! But let's not exclude some of the major offenders. Especially when those major offenders are also major competitors in the global economy. It is the uneven application that bothers me the most.