EU Ratifies Kyoto Treaty 870
An anonymous submitter sends: "Yahoo! News is reporting that all 15 member states of the European Union have just ratified the Kyoto treaty to cut greenhouse emissions by 8% over the next ten years (the US agreed to 7%.)"
5% below of the level from 1990 (Score:4, Informative)
angel'o'sphere
Re:5% below of the level from 1990 (Score:2)
Furthermore, its not "agreed to", but "did not agreed to".
> Germany allready lowerd the emissions by about 10%.
Well, this is mostly due to the collapsed industry in the eastern part (ex. GDR), which consisted mostly of inefficient industry in the ex-communist part (welcome to capitalism
So it's not quite as impressive as it sounds, but still better than nothing.
In contrast, Japan, which ratified the protocol on 2002/05/22, increased its greenhouse by 7%.
But several parts [asahi.com] of its industry signaled support in attaining the goal.
Hope, the goverment will not give in to the lobbying of opposing companies in implementing the regulations.
Squeezing the balloon (Score:2, Insightful)
No matter what happens over the next 20+ years we will require industry to produce and transport the consumer goods we can no longer live without.
Subsequently, we will need factories and low labor cost countries to produce our 'necessities'.
Germany cut emissions? Guess what? It moved to China/Malaysia/Eastern European States, etc.
Analogous to the so called 'drug problem' in South America. We require drugs, they are farmed in S. America.
Then we spend tens of millions of dollars going after farmers who supply demand to. Then it shifts to another region.
Guess what? We still use the drugs: squeezing the balloon.
?sp
Shame on the US ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes life just isn't fair
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, while the U.S. hasn't agreed to the Kyoto Treaty, the U.S. still participates in cutting all forms of pollution, most of which is done volunteeringly by various corporations. The problem in cutting such pollutants is that it costs money, and the industries which create the most pollutants (e.g. steel) are already hurting due to steel imports from Europe (hence the recent increase in import taxes on steel).
Another factor is that there will be some corporations, with already minimal profit margins, who will simply be unable to make such changes to their systems and would be forced out of business therefore possibly putting thousands of people out of work at a time. This will immediately effect the U.S.'s economy, and inevitably the economy of both Europe and East Asian producing nations.
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly enough, their combined population is about 8 times that of the US. Don't blame the third world; while their industries are less equipped to deal with pollution control/reduction of any kind, the sheer volume of industries in more developed nations makes them much bigger polluters.
Oh, and sorry about the Geoshitties link.
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:2, Insightful)
People always come down on the US for pollution. Using the GDP number again the pollution per factory is lower.It's higher than everyone else because our GDP dwarfs everyone else. Thus we PRODUCE MORE. How many nations rely on our grain exports? That factors into our emmissions. Maybe we should cut back food produciton and just feed ourselves?
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:2, Insightful)
Hint: CO2 isn't even REMOTELY the worst kind of pollution. It's just the one that the U.S. can be bashed on, and thus is a good target for the anti-U.S., anti-West, anti-rationalist, and ultimately anti-human agenda of the envirowhacko fringe.
I won't even go into your gullibility in accepting numbers from a Geocities web site.
You have serious problems, my friend. You should do something about that.
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:2)
You are implying, the steel industry cannot reduce its pollution, because they have no money.
The reason why they have no money is due to steel imports from Europe (who ratified the protocol).
Hence, the US raises import taxes on steel.
This should strengthen the nation steel industry.
The European ratified the protocol, so the European industry has to undertake similar measures (and have similar costs) like US one.
So there is no disadvantage in ratifying the protocol, just a missing advantage.
Furthermore, the US goverment considers (like many other nations and the EU) rising tariffs as an appropriate mean to protect their industry.
So why shouldn't that work when implementing the protocol?
>Another factor...
Try to consider it from the other side from the pond. There are some corporations "with already minimal profit margins, who will simply be unable..."
But I think the market is quite able to accomodate such changes, and lastly a corporation, which is not able to adapt is not worth to be supported.
The work-force of its employees is better put at a more promising place.
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the biggest polluters are third world nations. The biggest polluters are nations like China and India who cannot afford to put in the more advanced technology of various industries to cut down on waste.
Basicly wrong, but the question is how you measure.
Do you measure in totals? Than probably China causes more CO2 "pollution" than e.g. Canada. If you measure per person than a US citizen produces about 100 times the CO2 polution a Indian citizen does.
Bottom line: 280M US citizens * 100 is not even close to 850M Indian citizens * 1.
If you switch from CO2 emissions to the word "polution" this indicates you are reffering to waste. In this case its true that countries like India and Taiwan produce far more waste than a country like germany per citizen. However if you compare now Italy or Switzerland with US
Another factor is that there will be some corporations, with already minimal profit margins, who will simply be unable to make such changes to their systems and would be forced out of business therefore possibly putting thousands of people out of work at a time.
You are free to make your laws for reducing CO2 emssion in any way. Only the bottom line counts. If you like to protect a certain industry from such a law you make the law accordingly.
This will immediately effect the U.S.'s economy, and inevitably the economy of both Europe and East Asian producing nations.
The number of people put out of work by lost jobs in existing industries will be compensated by the jobs created in new industries. Reduction of CO2 emissions means in the first place paying a reasonable price for energy. Currently a hughe amount of energy consumed in the western world is bought for ridiculous prices from antidemocratic regiemes in third world countries. (Anti americanism, anti globalsm, you have heared about that?)
If you start to pay a reasonable price for energy the energy costs get visible in the final products(and help the countries providing the raw resources to develop). Suddenly consumer prices get comparable or compeete wich each other. BTW: jobs will be crafted in industries where devices or processes for energy reduction are produced. Like insulation materials for houses, windmills solar cells, fuel cells, electric engines, H2 storing devices
An example for energy costs in endproducts: in germany we have a big discussion if all kinds of bottles and cans for drinks should have a deposite and get recycled.
A prime example is milk. We have basicly 3 compeeting containers for milk:
a) glass bottles which have deposite attached and get cleaned and reused
b) paper boxes with plastics at the inner side to make them water proof
c) a plastic sack, like a baloon, filled with milk
We had endless discussions which way is better for the environemnt. b) and c) get mainly deposited as waste. a) gets cleaned and reused as long as the bottles "look good" and then they get melted and new bottles are produced from the glass. c) is in rare cases burned (in waste burning power plants) or recycled to other plastic products.
Think about beer you should know that on (nearly) all bottles we have deposite in germany. But not on metal cans. Over the previous 5 years the sale of cans increades by about 100%. Customers enjoyed to buy a can and to throw it away when empty. Now we have the discussion if cans should get deposite also. For deposite collection facilities and transportation to recycle plants need to be set up.
For the cases above, a) to c) the discussion which kind of way is best for the environment never got into an aprooved or "scientific accepted" conclusion.
Problems are: energy consumed in transportation. Glass is more heavy than plastic sacks. So a truck carries more milk in plastic sacks for the same weight. Empty bottles need to be carryed back for cleaning and refilling, emty, consuming space on a truck for nothing. OTOH whine bottles have no deposite and are collected and transported as broken glass, not as empty bottles, and recycled by melting them and producing new bottles.
So the transport is better cost wise but the melting now takes energy.
Paper boxes with plastic inside are hard to recycle because you can't easy seperate the paper and the plastics later. If you can seperate them from the other waste at all. Plastic sacks are not easy to seperate from the other waste like paper boxes.
So, what to do? Well germany run mad in issuing laws how to treat waste.
It would have been far easyer to increase the energy costs
Instead of paying 50 cents for a gallon of milk, regardless in what containment we would then pay 90cents in containment A, 110 cents in containment B and 85 cents in containment C.
The customer would descide that containment B is to expensive. Simple.
The same was true for every product where a high energy consuming process for production is compeeting with a low energy process.
As energy is put into every stage of production, minig raw resources, refining raw resources to pure resources, mixing pure resources to first level products, creating parts, mounting parts to final products, and all the transportations in between the stages, we suddenly had much better competition of economies.
As the waste and energy interlock would be losened, far better living and working conditions for all workers involved would get established.
Anyway
angel'o'sphere
Re:Shame on the US ! (OT) (Score:2)
Re:Shame on the US ! (OT) (Score:2)
Yeah, how dare those pesky employees ruin their bodies working a company and then want to get a decent pension out of it? Don't they understand that it reduces the shareholders profits? Sounds very communistic to me, damn unions putting people ahead of profit, down right unamerican I say!.
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:2)
You forgot to mention 25% of the world's total GDP. It's not exactly surprising that the country that makes a quarter of the world's stuff also makes a quarter of its emissions, is it?
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:4, Insightful)
You forgot to mention 25% of the world's total GDP. It's not exactly surprising that the country that makes a quarter of the world's stuff also makes a quarter of its emissions, is it?
Makes and consumes a quarter of the world's stuff. It's not like the US is doing the rest of the world a favour.
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:3, Interesting)
You are free to sit in your wind powered house and enjoy your enviroment friendly life. I will enjoy mine and if you try to come accros forcing me to abide by your view of how things should be I will kill your ass.
Fair enough ?
Yup.
As the saying goes "your right to wave your fist stops at the place where my nose starts."
As long as the pollution from your lifestyle stays on your property, then that's fine by me.
If you send poison across the fence to my house, forcing me to abide by your view of how things should be, do I have the right to "kill your ass" to stop you messing with my lifestyle ?
Calling the kettle black (Score:5, Informative)
Over 90% of Europe's rivers have high nitrate concentrations, mostly from agrochemicals, and 5% of them have concentrations at least 200 times greater than nitrate levels naturally occurring in unpolluted rivers (203). In Poland three-quarters of the country's river water is too polluted even for industrial use.
Over half of Europe's lakes are eutrophied from a glut of agricultural and municipal nutrients (202). Eutrophication is a process that occurs when excess nutrients stimulate the growth of algae, which, when they die and decay, rob the water of oxygen. In Europe eutrophication has become one of the most serious problems affecting freshwater and near-shore marine environments (1).
Groundwater pollution in Europe is worsening. Within 50 years some 60,000 square kilometers of groundwater aquifers in western and central Europe are likely to be contaminated with pesticides and fertilizers (125). Of Hungary's 1,600 well fields tapping groundwater, 600 of them are already contaminated, mostly with agricultural chemicals (83). In the Czech Republic 70% of all surface waters are heavily polluted, mostly with municipal and industrial wastes. Some 30% of the country's rivers are so fouled with pollutants that no fish survive (121)
And to put things into further perspective:
Over three-quarters of China's 50,000 kilometers of major rivers are so filled with pollution and sediment that they no longer support fish life (1). In 1992 China's industries discharged 36 billion metric tons of untreated or partially treated effluents into rivers, streams, and coastal waters (208). In 1986, along sections of the Liao River, which flows through a heavily industrialized part of northern China, almost every aquatic organism within 100 kilometers was killed when over 1 billion tons of industrial wastes were dumped into the river in a period of three months (90). Source for all of this: Johns Hopkins School of Public Health [jhuccp.org]
So please, dismount you holier than thou horse and take responsibility for your share of this crap. I'm not saying the US is innocent by any means, but the idiocy you're spouting is really uncalled for. And where did that 5 come from!? LOL... Truely sad...
I'll assume its your education... (Score:5, Insightful)
But Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are not members of the EU. As anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the last 50 years history will know the old Eastern Block has a huge problem with environmental issues, as the communist goverments didn't care and just destroyed the environment.
The EU however has already commited outside of Kyoto to many measures that will reduce pollution, which countries like Poland, Hungary et al will have to sign up to if they want to join the EU.
So while I admire your ability to perform one search, I suggest another link to give you get more in the way of enlightenment the EU environment page [eu.int] should help you along. Note that the FORMATION of the EU includes the idea of environmental protection.
So yes we do get to be smug and point at the worlds largest polluter with disgust.
Assume what you want. (Score:3, Insightful)
So be smug and discusted, but watching me care might get a little boring.
Re:Amen to that! Parent is DEAD ON. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh btw, the Senate is controlled by the Democratic party now.
Re:I wish I had mod points (Score:2)
Democrats are elected mostly by high-populated areas which also happen to be the areas of the country with the most pollution and largest polluting industries (e.g. NYC, Detroit, Los Angeles).
If the Democrats wanted to support such a thing, then it would mean the end of their pollitical career since it would be the the people in THEIR distrcits and the companies in THEIR districts mostly affected by such government requirements.
This is the problem... there hsa *Never* been any interest from EITHER side of the house to sign this treaty nor will there be.
Re:Amen to that! Parent is DEAD ON. (Score:2, Informative)
Climate is an extremely complex, chaotic, coupled, non-linear, time-dependent system
with massive, external, naturally-occuring inputs and wide variability in measurables.
Therefore,
To say we can control it by tweaking a small set of factors is ridiculous on its face.
Kyoto Paradox II:
Climate is an extremely complex, chaotic, coupled, non-linear, time-dependent system
with massive, external, naturally-occuring inputs and wide variability in measurables.
Therefore,
You can no more successfully predict the outcome of doing something than you can of
not doing something. In other words, the impact of trying to "fix" a climate problem
is as unpredictable as the impact of ignoring it.
At any given time, the temperature is either going up, or it's going down. It never stays the same.
The real goal of the Kyoto Treaty has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
30 years ago, all of the major environmentalists and environmental groups were 100% sure that global cooling was on the way. They were just so sure that it was coming. Their proposed "solution" was to have the government set limits on economic growth, limits on the use of natural resources and fossil fuels, and other government restrictions on economic activity.
We ignored their advice. Since then, the world GNP has more than doubled, and we burn a lot more fossil fuels today than we did 30 years ago. But the global cooling never came.
Now they are worried about global warming. But their proposed "solution" is the same. They want the same kinds of government controls now that they wanted 30 years ago.
Since the temperature is always either going up or going down, the radical doomsayer environmentalists will always either be scared about global warming, or scared about global cooling. They will always be scared about one of the two. And they will always use this as an excuse to try to have the government impose more and more restrictions and controls on people's lives.
In the real world, economic growth and capitalism have actually been very good for the environment. The richer a country is, the better its environment is. And in the real world, the countries in Eastern Europe, which adopted the massive government controls on the ecomomy that the radical left is so fond of, became the worst polluted area that the world has ever had.
Studies of tree rings in fossils of very old trees show a very strong correlation between increased sunspot activity, and global warming. Global warming is caused by the sun. The doomsayers have been pretty silent about this.
Right now, Mars is experiencing global warming. The doomsayers haven't really offered much comment on this, either.
For a lot of the radical environemntal doomsayers, the real goal has nothing to do with the environment. Instead, the real goal is to have as much government control of the economy and people's lives as possible. The doomsayers hate capitalism. They hate private property rights. They hate economic freedom. They hate economic growth.
The people who supported communism and socialism in the past, are the very same people who have embraced the ideas of the radical environemntal doomsayers today. In both caes, the real goal is to have the government do more and more to control people's lives.
A rich, prosperous society is always much better able to deal with environemtnal catastrophe than a poor, third world country. In the news, we often read about floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, hurriacanes, etc., in third world countries, and thousands of people get killed. That's because poor societies can't really deal well with these kinds of things. But when that kind of weather happens in the U.S., the death toll is always much smaller. That's because a rich society can better handle these things.
If sea levels are going to rise along U.S. coasts, it will happen very gradually over many decades, and there will be plenty of time for us to deal with it. And even then, it will be only by a few meters, at most. The scenarios in the movie "A.I." where skycrapers were covered in water is not going to happen.
According to computer models, the Kyoto Treaty won't stop global warming. Without the Kyoto Treaty, the temperature is predicted to rise 2.1 degrees Celcius over the next 100 years. But with the Kyoto Treraty, that same amount of warming will happen over 106 years instead of 100. So the Kyoto Treat gives no real benefit.
But the cost of the Kyoto Treaty would be enormous. And since a richer society is better able to deal with environmental problems, the Kyoto Treaty would ultimately make the environment worse off.
It's precisely because we IGNORED the adivce of the doomsayers 30 years ago that things got better. A rich, growing, prosperous capitalist economy made it easier and easier to protect the environment. The doomsayers predicted that before the year 2000, most people in the world would die of starvation, the pollution would be so bad that everyone would have to wear a gas mask, and there would be no oil, copper, gold, or aluminum left. Their "solution" was to have the government set limits on economic growth, and limits on the use of natural resources. We ignored their advice. The world GNP got bigger, and we increased our use of natural resources. But it's precisely because of economic growth that we could afford to invent and use technology to make things better. Obesity rates keep going up. The air and water have gotten cleaner in all the rich countries. Known reserves of oil and other natural resources is bigger now than 30 years ago.
The doomsayers say that we need to "conserve" resources because they don't understand the function of prices. When prices are controlled by the free market, then if a resource starts to become scarce, its price will rise, and people will voluntarily conserve.
We could end water shortages simply by allowing the price of water to rise to the free market rate. People would respond to higher prices by using less water. Suppliers would respond to higher prices by increasing the supply of water, such as by using desalinization, which now costs about $3 for 1,000 gallons.
But the doomsayers don't like my idea of letting the price of water rise. Instead, they prefer a law that outlawed toilet tanks that hold 3.5 gallons, and set a limit at 1.6 gallons. The doomsayers also like laws that make it illegal for people to water their lawns and wash their cars and fill their swimming pools. This is because the doomsayers love having the government control people's lives.
Government mandated reclying of paper doesn't save trees. Paper comes from tree farms, where the trees are grown specifically for the purpose of making paper. So when people recycle paper, the tree farmers plant fewer trees. But the doomsayers like government mandated reclying of paper, because they like to have the governemnt tell people what to do.
In fact, governemnt mandated reclying wastes more resources than it saves. It's bad for the environment. But the doomsayers like the idea of having the government tell people what to do.
All the garbage that the U.S. will make over the next 100 years would all fit in one square landfill that's less than 20 miles on a side. But the doomsayers want to scare people into believing that we are running out of landfill space.
Capitalism and econoomic growth are good for the environment. In rich countries, environemntal conditions are getting better and better. Once a country's per capita GNP reaches about $4,000, people can afford to start protecting the enviornment. And the richer they are, the better off the environemnt becomes.
It's only in the communist areas that the environmental conditions got worse. In areas that had huge amounts of government control over the economy, things really did get worse.
Capitalism and private property rights and economic growth are good for the environment. Excessive government control of economic activity is bad for the environment. But the doomsayer environmentalists want more and more governemnt control of the economy. Thus, their real goal isn't to protect the environment. Their real goal is to make the government bigger.
Wealth is the single best way to protect the environment. Rich, first world countries have much better environments than poor, third world countries.
If environmentalists really did want to stop global warming, there are ways to do it that are much better and cheaper than the Kyoto Treaty. Planting billions of trees to absorb carbon dioxide is one way. Seeding the ocean with iron to absorb the carbon dioxide is another way. But neither of these ways involves massive increases in governemnt control over people's lives. And neither of these things would be a threat to capitalism. That's why the doomsayers prefer the Kyoto Treaty instead. They like the Kyoto Treaty because it gives them an excuse to increase government control of people's lives.
Earlier this year, scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory announced that quicklime can be used to remove carbon dioxide from the air, and the cost equivalent is only 20 cents to remove 100% of the carbon dioxide that comes from burning one gallon of gasoline. This quicklime process is far more effective at getting carbon dioxide out of the air, and far less costly, than the Kyoto Treaty. If supporters of the Kyoto Treaty were truly interested in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, then they would have expressed great joy at this announcement. Instead, they were silent. Why were they silent? Because this process with quicklime takes away their excuse to use the Kyoto Treaty as an excuse to have the government take control of the economy. This is proof that the radical environmentalists aren't really interested in getting carbon dioxide out of the air. Instead, their real agenda is to have the government take control of the economy. That's why they were silent about this quicklime process. They aren't interested in a real world workable solution, which is what this quicklime process is. Instead, they want the Kyoto Treaty, which won't solve anything. Let there be no doubt about it. Their true goal is not to help the environment. Instead, their true goal is to have the government take control of the economy.
Re:Amen to that! Parent is DEAD ON. (Score:2)
Ie. What does the quicklime process convert the CO2 into? How much disease would be created from planting billions of trees -- keeping in mind we tend to plant only a small number of types of trees.
Every positive has a negative, every negative has a positive. The only way to truely stay neutral is simply not to partake. Death to all humans isn't an option -- but is the only option we can use to avoid changing our surroundings in some form or another.
Re:Amen to that! Parent is DEAD ON. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, that's certainly a big sentance with lots of big words, but it's also totally false. Yes, weather is complex, but that in no way means that we can't predict how certain factors will affect it with some amount of certainty. Increasing the CO2 ratio in our atmosphere to that of Venus would certainly increase our surface temperature significantly -- and we can say that despite the complexities of weather simulation.
The richer a country is, the better its environment is.
We're among the richest countries in the world, and yet we're one of the leading contributers of greenhouse gasses.
In the news, we often read about floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, hurriacanes, etc., in third world countries, and thousands of people get killed. That's because poor societies can't really deal well with these kinds of things.
Actually, and particularly with earthquakes, it's usually due to poor government oversite of (or simply lax) building codes. MORE government involvement and regulation would actually help these countries survive these disasters better.
Instead, the real goal is to have as much government control of the economy and people's lives as possible. The doomsayers hate capitalism. They hate private property rights. They hate economic freedom. They hate economic growth.
This is just patently absurd. Why in the world would the "doomsayers" want any of these things? Why hate property rights? Why hate economic freedom? Why hate economic growth? If you're going to base your argument on this point, you need to provide some basis for these ridiculous claims.
People would respond to higher prices by using less water.
Here in Austin we have water controls that restict when people can water. We also have a tiered pricing system under which the price per gallon rises steeply with increased water use. Yet even with that, that actual cost isn't equal for those with different incomes, and those with money would end up using enough water on non-essential uses like lawns and pool that everyone would be in jeopardy of water service disruptions.
Paper comes from tree farms, where the trees are grown specifically for the purpose of making paper.
Do these tree farms actually sufficiently supply all the paper used by the country? Given the rate at which trees are replaced and the rate at which we use paper, I'd be very surprised if we weren't losing trees in the process.
In rich countries, environemntal conditions are getting better and better.
How much of the US's environmental improvement over the last 30 years is a result of rich companies willingly putting money towards environment improvement, and how much is due to governmental programs that encourage or mandate envronmental controls? Exactly how is it in the best interest for a rich country and rich corporations to improve the environment?
Planting billions of trees to absorb carbon dioxide is one way...neither of these ways involves massive increases in governemnt control over people's lives.
Well, the government would certainly need some land to plant those trees on, which almost certainly would intrude on property rights...
FWIW, I'm a moderate democrat who supports Kyoto, supports regulation of the environmental impact of businesses, and that's not because I'm somehow evil and don't want people to make money or want the government to intrude into people's lives.
It's because I recognize that there are certain common resources (air, water, etc) that it is in the best interest of the public to preserve, and that it's not in the best intrest of business to preserve. I also recognize that immediate gain will often be chosen (both by individuals and businesses) over long-term gain, even when the long-term gain is an overall win. I believe it's in everyone's best interest for the government to recognize that and impose the proper restrictions.
There may be some folks who are genuinely interested in the wacko things you think all the "doomsayers" are, but you're doing yourself a disservice if you think that most supporters of Kyoto and environmentalism in general are of that ilk. It may be easier to dismiss them if you make them wholly irrational, but that's just laziness on your part.
Reality Check, please (Score:2)
All the garbage that the U.S. will make over the next 100 years would all fit in one square landfill that's less than 20 miles on a side.
My question: how do you "fit" it? Since I've personally seen landfill extending over more than 20 square miles (10 dumps, 1 mile by 2 miles each? Heck yeah, I saw better in NM) I assume you didn't mean landfilling as it is practiced now. Did you mean a cube 20 miles on each side? (Mt.Everest is 8848 meters - 5.3 miles - high.) Or what did you mean, exactly?
Thanks in advance, if you get around to clarifying...
Appendium (Score:2, Insightful)
Global warming as a science is less than 100 years old (Not really, but lets just say it is). The Earth and it's climate have been changing for millions of years. I know technology is advanced, but damn, they're basing their predictions after studying the earth for less than 1% of it's history? I'm sure man is having some impact on the climate and it's always good to cut down on pollution, but to say they accurately know what that impact is is beyond arrogance. Even if they have detailed records dating back to 1000 AD, that's STILL less than 1%, and they don't. It's guesswork.
And if you wanted to look beyond our planets, Mars and Venus are naturally suffering from Global Warming... Um, hello, but aren't those planets uninhabited? What? A natural occurance!? COULD IT BE!?!?!?? Guess they should have had a Kyoto treaty too.
Re:Amen to that! Parent is DEAD ON. (Score:4, Informative)
This is untrue. I stopped reading your diatribe at this point. Life's too short to bother reading a pack of lies
Hint:some scientists suggested that global cooling was "on the way". It never had anything like the consensus of climatologists or the attention of environmental organizations as is true of global warming. Science killed off that hypothesis very quickly. Just the opposite of the global warming hypothesis, which started out as a hypothesis with little support but which, to the surprise of most researchers who began to look into it, turned out to be substantiated by data right and left.
Re:Amen to that! Parent is DEAD ON. (Score:2)
Re:Amen to that! Parent is DEAD ON. (Score:2)
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Strange how the American government has no problems with laws like NAFTA (or the DMCA) that are used to subordinate the US Constitution to the interests of big business -- but along comes a treaty that has the interests of the environment at heart, and all of a sudden everybody's a "Live Free or Die" absolutist....
Eventually, technology will overcome all this. Don't forget, that today's appliances, for example, do the SAME job as those made 10-20 years ago, but use far less energy to do it! As technology advances it gets more efficient, therefore, it pollutes less.
You seem to think that technological advances are something that happen for their own sake. Wrong. Technological advances only happen when people work to make them happen. People only work to make them happen when they have an incentive to do so. In many cases, that incentive is provided by the market (people will buy the more advanced product), but in the case of pollution, that's not typically the case. Pollution suffers from the 'tragedy of the commons' problem, in that MY buying pollution-free technology doesn't really help me or anyone else -- it's only helpful if large numbers of people buy it, since the pollution is diffused throughout the environment. Which is why some sort of regulation is necessary if we are to spur the development of pollution-free technology.
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:2)
Isn't that off topic? I mean a lot of countries have similar constitutions and similar law agencies. So what do you wan't to say with that?
Which was and IS still the best framework for
creating a good government and a productive citizenry than ANY other ever written.
LOL, so all Europeans and Australians and Indians live in
Which is why the USA's economy is larger than that of all the EU. And we are a single country.
Hm
Whether or not global warming exists or NOT, the fact is technology does not exist yet that can correct the problem
LOL again. A wind mill, especialy a off shore windmill in the ocean costs nearly nothing to build(energy wise) and produces energy for free.
Surely with such mills you could correct the problem.
And where it does, it's too expensive. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT, not amputation, is the ultimate solution.
Ah, now you get a clue. So you like to argue that technologies which are more energy efficient than YOUR existing technologies are not ADVANCED?
All what is needed top keep your industrial advantage over the third world can be bought in europe for reasonable prices. Just because YOU can not craft a car wich consumes a reasonable amount of fuel or a plane which consumes a resaonable amount of fuel or a power plant which is more efficient does not mean that they do not exist.
The united states are only in VERY FEW technological areas leading in the world. To bad that you lack any perspective where you realy are. Because you never look outside you do not realy see what is going on outside. As long as the US is a super power, and respected like that, you simply have not the economic pressure to adjust your course to evolving global conditions.
And sure: for a single country with such a population and that free space you have freedoms where europe is limited. Create an artificial desert in the US by land erossion (emphasized by global warming)... just move 2 million farmers plus family, of lets say Montana, to a differnt state, you have enough space.
Everywhere mainly the same law
But that view is IMHO far to narrow minded.
E.g. in most european countries a worker has about 30 days vacation. In US only 14 days. I think we love to give up some of your ADVANCED stuff you are seeking for, for hanging out at the beach
angel'o'sphere
Clinton-Gore transgressions (Score:3, Insightful)
- Killing the Integral Fast Reactor program at Argonne Nat'l Lab. This reactor design would recycle fuel, reducing the amount of waste produced.
- Killing transmutation experiments which might have been used to treat existing waste.
- Stalling waste disposal programs e.g. Yucca Mountain.
Re:Clinton-Gore transgressions (Score:2, Informative)
a) It produces so much power at such a low (apparently) cost that it actively discourages the development and implementation of alternative truly renewable energy sources as solar, wind and water power. Just like with oil, we can run out of "nuclear fuel".
b) It leaves a highly toxic, radioactive and extremely expensive heritage to our children.
Re:Clinton-Gore transgressions (Score:3, Informative)
With regard to developing so-called renewable sources: Continuing to burn fossil fuels is having the same effect. It's cheaper and already in place, so why switch? And what is wrong with saving money?
Solar power? Hmm, good choice, but do you know how they make solar cells? Current technology uses (IIRC) gallium arsenide crystals and fluorinated solvents. So there is a disposal problem there during manufacturing and at the end of working life. The sun only delivers 2400 watts / m^2 maximum -- do some calculations, you'd need a lot of cells to supply the average household, let alone business! And what do you do at night or on a cloudy day?
Wind power: the best solution until it shows up in your backyard. Which it will have to, again due to amount of power you can extract: the wind isn't always blowing, and you don't want to lose too much in transmission from the wind mill.
Water power: (GASP!) Tide power or river dams? Either way, the fish of the world thank you for your support!
It leaves a highly toxic, radioactive and extremely expensive heritage to our children.
But a relatively small amount compared to greenhouse gas emissions. Actually, an extremely small amount compared to the amount of coal we strip out of the ground. Go re-read my comment, it's possible to recycle waste now, and new designs will use fuel more efficiently. And do some research into the amount of natural radiation, you'll be surprised. We would never have discovered nuclear energy if there weren't so much uranium strewn about already...
Also, could you post figures to back up your claim that we'll run out of nuclear fuel?
Re:Clinton-Gore transgressions (Score:4, Insightful)
Solar power? Hmm, good choice, but do you know how they make solar cells? Current technology uses (IIRC) gallium arsenide crystals and fluorinated solvents. So there is a disposal problem there during manufacturing and at the end of working life. The sun only delivers 2400 watts / m^2 maximum -- do some calculations, you'd need a lot of cells to supply the average household, let alone business! And what do you do at night or on a cloudy day?
I do not check the numebrs and I do not show some flaws you made here in the most common materials for solar power
I like to show your flaw in THINKING.
you'd need a lot of cells to supply the average household
So: reduce the need for energy of the average household.
Got it? Kyoto is about ENERGY REDUCTION. Not only about REPLACEMENT OF ENERGY SOURCES.
Of course it is a problem if EVERY Chineese household suddenly is rich enough to afford a fridge. Because every one will buy a fridge.
And suddenly everyone will consume more energy and produce more CO2. So a part of the solution is to build fridges wich use less energy. Europe does so, US not.
China will do it automaticaly by buying the best and cheapest fridges available with the lowest energy consumption.
Basicly China and India CANT reduce their CO2 exhaust. They definitly WILL INCREASE IT over the next 50 years.
USA *CAN* reduce it, for nothing in the long run and with great economic benefits. But the USA prefere to let Europe do it and buy the needed technologies in 10 to 30 years from Europe.
angel'o'sphere
Re:Clinton-Gore transgressions (Score:2)
Sure.... I'll just go out and buy a new TV ($600), computer ($1500), monitor ($500), and refrigerator ($1000) right away. Oh, wait... I can't afford to drop $3600 on stuff immediately, and I make good money. What about the people who can barely pay their electric bill as it is?
The changeover can't happen at the consumer level as fast as many people like to think, so industry has to handle the changes. Changes need to be made in materials for energy transmission, changes in the use of fuels, adoption of nuclear energy, and research into fusion power. No form of power generation is perfectly clean because of what goes into manufacturing, but we can encourage high-efficiency, low-pollution methods. Wind, tide, and solar may work for some areas, but not for all. The only reason that people fear nuclear energy is the irrational FUD that is rampant in the general populace. As it stands, much of the material (theoretically) destined for Yucca Mountain could well be recycled, and we may find further methods of recycling until all we have is a fraction of the radiation danger and some cool sculptures in the Nevada desert.
It's been 16 years since Chernobyl. The place is a borderline paradise now, and tours bring you within 30-50 meters of the exploded reactor. That's a far cry from the wasteland most people imagine when they think of it. Nuclear energy is safe and effective, and is only expensive because every time someone proposes building one, dozens or hundreds of lawsuits are prepped to be filed to block it. Until we all go back to living in caves, we have to come up with something, and nuclear is the best way for industry to address the issue.
Re:Clinton-Gore transgressions (Score:2)
Paradoxically, building more efficient appliances often increases total energy use, especially if demand is elastic. Inefficient refridgerators are expensive to use, so they don't get used as much. Efficient refridgerators are cheap to use, so people use them more.
If you want to reduce the total energy used for refridgeration, mandate that refridgerators be extremely inefficient. If running a refridgerator for a month added $1000 to the electric bill, people would quickly find alternatives.
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:2)
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Turned out that most Americans didn't care much either way.
Re:Shame on your education! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Shame on your education! (Score:5, Informative)
Percentage of world CO2 emissions:
USA: 24% (4.6% of world population)
EU: 14% (6.3% of world population)
China: 13% (21% of world population)
Russia: 6.2% (2.5% of pop.)
Japan: 5% (2% of pop)
India: 4% (17% of pop)
You want it per capita? (metric tons per year)
USA: 20.1
EU: 8.5
China: 2.3
Russia: 9.6
Japan: 8.9
India: 0.99
By all means, the USA is the biggest polluter in the world. And the USA, instead of ratifying a protocol to cut emissions, denies the existence of the problem. These are facts.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/
Re:Shame on your education! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Shame on your education! (Score:2)
Now, you can call it pollution or whatever, but if we don't fight the greenhouse effect, nothing nice will happen in the near-term future to our earth.
Of course, having lead on drinking water is much more dangerous, but we're not talking about this other kinds of pollution here: the Kyoto treaty is there to prevent the climate change, and CO2 is an important part of the problem.
Re:Shame on your education! (Score:2)
The problem with 'Dealing with Air Polution in a Pragmatic Manner' is you actualy have to do something first. Wringing your hands and saying 'Better Technologies!' if you dont actualy invenst much in finding better polution reduction methods or give much incentive to companies to use a more expensive system over a poluting system.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Solar power really isn't as ineffective as you make it out to be. I can't find the article now, but last year I read a lengthy piece by someone in Chicago who converted his home to solar power. With just the panels on the roof, he actually gathers enough energy to sell some back to the power company at times, and almost never has to fall back to buying from them. This is _Chicago_; just imagine what you could do in places like Arizona.
(note that I agree with you about nuclear power also being a good solution, but I didn't want to see solar sold short.)
Re:Shame on your education! (Score:4, Informative)
Now, if you'd like to go the other way, we can use coal-fired plants (and the associated land and water damage they cause), oil plants (and the associated land, water, and political damage they cause), or hydroelectric (and the associated land and water damage they cause. Factor this in, too: Take all of the waste products from the coal, gas, and oil-fired plants and try to tuck them into Yucca Mountain. YOU CAN'T. Yes, the rods are radioactive for a long time. Yes, they're dangerous to be near. But at least the dangerous parts are located in one spot. Combine this with the enclosures to be used -- 10 tons of uranium inside a 170-ton, steel-reinforced concrete cask.
Speaking of pollution, let's quickly discuss energy efficiency. One pellet of uranium -- about 2cm long and 1cm in diameter -- produces as much energy as:
140 gallons of oil
150 gallons of gasoline
2000 pounds of coal
17,000 cubic feet of natural gas And there's a lot less of various gasses and liquids coming off of the nuclear reactions.
In addition, on the safe transportation issues, check out the requirements for Type B packaging (the kind used for transport). Type B packages range from small, single vehicle packages to the above-mentioned 170-ton containers.
Water spray for one hour to simulate rainfall of two inches per hour
Compression of at least five times the weight of the package
Penetration test where a 13-pound, 1.25-inch diamter bar is dropped vertically onto the package from 3.3 feet
A 30-foot drop onto a flat, unyielding surface so that the package's weakest point is struck
A 40-inch free frop onto a 6-inch diameter steel rod at least eight inches long, striking the package at its weakest point
Exposure of the entire package to 1475 degrees F (787 degrees C) for 30 minutes
Immersion of the package under 15 feet of water for at least eight hours
Those are from the DoE training manual (http://tis.eh.doe.gov/fire/trainingdocs/rmem2.pdf ) if you want to learn other interesting facts.
Personally, I'm all in favor of setting up a nice network of nuclear reactors and blowing up Hoover Dam to let the Colorado River flow naturally and put a little life back into the southern portion of the flow.
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:2)
Because the American car manufacturers can only make retardedly large 4 wheelers that no one really needs.
Um, no one stops Americans from buying those tiny little "efficient" cars. Yet people continue to buy the "retardedly large" cars. I guess they disagree with you whether they are needed or not?
Here's a clue: I own big cars, and I like big cars. I like to be able to haul things around. I like my family being able to survive an accident.
If you want to drive around some little tin-box death trap, that's your own business. But stop with these insanely stupid conspiracy theories, particularly when modern large cars hardly even produce much pollution. You're still living in the 1960s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:2)
"The US should make it's own decisions. We don't won't a "world government", we want to be free to run our own country. Get US out of the UN! [getusout.org]
Yeah, I want to be free to go into a restaurant and smoke all I want, it's my decision. Screw everyone else who has to breathe the same air as me.
Re:Shame on the US ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it has been frequently attacked by the environmentalists because it doesn't coincide with their agenda. Even the link you provided above indicates that a NASA tracker, even taking into account for the correction, still states that it shows a slight cooling trend.
It turns out that Wentz, the person responsible for the environmentalists "now satellites show warming" paper, wrote that the satellites showed a +0.8C warming trend. However, he, too, made errors that NASA later pointed out. Check out NASA [nasa.gov] for more information. The cooling isn't as pronounced as originally suggested, but still amounts to -0.1C per decade. This cooling rate coincides nicely with the radisonde record that shows -0.2C per decade cooling (Same reference). I love it when TWO distinct and independent sources come to basically the same conclusion.
Sorry, the "orbital decay" argument is environmentalist propaganda. Yes, it was a problem and, no, adjusting for it doesn't create global warming. Wentz said the corrected data was +0.08C/decade. Wentz was wrong. The corrected data was -0.1C per decade. Check above link for additional data and explanation of Wentz' error.
but here is another interesting one for you: ATOC [ucsd.edu] which is an attempt to accurately measure ocean temperatures. The results from this show a slight warming over the past 20 or 30 years.
It's also not what we're talking about. We're talking about atmospheric global warming.
I know that, since the global warming debate isn't working out for the environmentalists that they'd like to spin it and go for ocean temperature. I admit I haven't investigated that at all.
However, that's not the point. Human-induced global warming from burning carbon fuels is supposed to create warming in the ATMOSPHERE. It's not. Any changes in the ocean temperature may be interesting but do not change the fact that the atmosphere is not warming.
All data taken over the past few decades do show a warming, regardless of whether or not you theoretically think it is there
Please review above NASA link. There is NO GLOBAL WARMING in the last 23 years, as much as you'd like there to be. Both the satellite and radiosonde records, the two most reliable ways of taking atmospheric temperature, indicate slight global cooling. In fact, NASA's correction of the Wentz correction produced a satellite record that coincides with the radisonde record even closer than the original data--reinforcing both the radiosonde and satellite data.
The interactions are far more complex than this... a slight heating of the atmoshpere will increase the amount of water vapour, which will in turn have unknown effects... more clouds = more greenhouse? or more clouds = more sunlight reflected away?
Thank you! You've admitted the interactions are far more complex. I agree. No-one knows how complex and exactly how the system works. I am in favor of continuing to STUDY it.
We do know, however, that there hasn't been any global warming in the last 23 years. Period.
In the absence of reliable scientific data showing global warming and lacking a full understanding of the mechanics of the atmosphere, I'm opposed to taking any action that would damage the economy short- or long-term... Doing so could seriously harm billions of the poorest people and reduce the effiency of our economy making it harder to take care of those that most need it.
If the environmentalists provide some facts, let's talk. If the satellites show a significant warming trend, let's talk. But I'm not going to wreck economies based on unreliable surface data that the climate scientists themselves have to "massage" manually to take into affect what THEY consider to be the reasonable local heat-island affect. On what do they base their massaging? Could it be they massage it too much? Too little? Why not just use satellites that don't have to be massaged...
In summary, your arguments are based on incorrect data and vast simplifications of the physics of the atmosphere. I do not propose that we are all going to die and global warming is necessarily a huge problem (i think it is far over hyped too), but selective use of data and invalid assumptions do not an argument make.
I'm not using selective data--only selective in that I choose to use RELIABLE data. Satellite data is reliable. Please see above link. The kinks have long since been worked out. I would much rather take the world's temperature based on a scientific method that uses the exact radiation observed uniformly around the globe than to depend on earth-based stations unequally distributed around the world, some in the field, some in cities, that are in varying states of maintenance, and subject to the climatologists themselves modifying the data to take into account their guess as to the local heat-island effect.
I believe we should continue to study the phenomenon. But we haven't observed anything to-date that suggests with any reasonable level of certainty that reductions such as those by the Kyoto Protocol are useful nor that they will work.
And that is why the U.S. has rejected Kyoto. It's not based on science. It's a political document, not a scientific one.
So... (Score:2)
/Janne
Uhhm.. what article did you read? (Score:2, Insightful)
The pact would have required the United States, which accounted for 36 percent of the industrialized world's greenhouse gas emissions in 1990, to trim emissions by 7 percent from 1990 levels. But the Bush administration has instead announced policy changes likely to push them up by 30 percent by 2010, the European Commission said.
The keyword here is "would." The US isn't ratifying squat, but who's surprised? Financing election campaigns is a costly business, and you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Bush is just behaving like the good boy he promised to be.Bush: the facts (Score:5, Interesting)
Bush couldn't ratify Kyoto even if he wanted to, since the Senate voted against it 95-0 [globalwarming.org] in 1997 (admittedly it was non-binding, but it needed 67 votes to pass). Clinton signed the treaty, but during his term, he did nothing to try to implement it.
Re:Uhhm.. what article did you read? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do moderators mod up blatantly false posts? For the benefit of those in the audience, like the poster, who did not pass third grade civics, IT'S NOT THE PRESIDENT'S JOB TO RATIFY TREATIES. Presidents sign them (which Clinton did), and they go to the Senate, which must pass them by a 2/3 margin. The Senate voted 95-0 to not ratify the treaty.
So, one more time for our slower readers: Unless George W. Bush cloned himself 67 times and got those clones elected to the Senate, there is no possible way for him to ratify the treaty even if he wants to.
What about China? (Score:3, Insightful)
If this is a global question, why isn't their anything approaching global participation? Shouldn't the largest country on earth be bound by it as well?
And for a 2nd perspective, there is a lot of controversy in my Province over a proposed Alternative strategy to CO2 reduction being developed in Alberta. Most people supporting Kyoto say "NO! Do Kyoto NOW! It's the only way!" Well Mr and Mrs Environmentalist, if other plans don't reduce enough, fast enough, then you must be in favor of mass genocide of all polluters! In fact, wipe out 99% of the world's population! That'll put a big dent in CO2 production! Or if not mass deaths right away, how about banning the use of all types of fuels that produce CO2! "Sorry Mr Freezing person. Your wood campfire doesn't follow Zero Emmissions Guidelines. You'll need to freeze in winter. Sorry." Anybody can see both of these are unreasonable (well i HOPE everybody thinks these are unreasonable...), but we have to realize that Kyoto is not necessarily the best way of doing things.
There ARE better ways that reduce CO2 emmissions, perhaps not as fast, but not as devastating to economies traditionally dependant on "dirty" fuels. And ignoring other countries that aren't developed yet, just makes them more dependant on CO2, and doesn't help long-term. Get solutions for them implemented right away, because it is easier to change an infrastructure that isn't there yet, rather than try and make a dramatic shift.
Erioll
Re:What about China? (Score:3, Insightful)
Regarding China - their argument is that developed countries like Canada, US, European countries etc. became developed through massive industrialization in this and preview centuries, causing enormous CO2 emissions. Is it really fair for us, now that we have burned our way to the top of the heap, to turn around to countries below us and say - "sorry, you have to stop industrializing now". While I don't necessarily agree with their argument, you have to admit it is convincing.
Re:What about China? (Score:2)
I do take issue with comparing a campfire's emissions to gas guzzling SUVs and other fossil fuel use that is absolutely indulgant and wasteful.
Rapify the treaty (Score:2)
I'm going to instead "rapify" the Kyoto treaty:
We've agreed to cut back on our greenhouse emissions
Maybe use something clean like nuclear fission
The only thing now that this rapper be dissin'
Is the US of A, 'cos the point they be missin'.
graspee
Kyoto is ludicrous because.. (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps we could call all of their colonic (heh) Queens into some room somewhere, and demand that they chill for a while?
No? Didn't think so.
Duh.
better than nothing (Score:2, Interesting)
you are in a sinking vessel, do you refuse to bail out the water just because the deck is not below water? do you refuse to bail out the water because other people is not bailing out the water? do you refuse bailout the water just because you can't realistically save the ship? do you refuse to throw out the bagage on the ground that you don't want to reduce your comfort of living?
The truly important things in this world are never profitable economically, but without them we wouldn't be here.
This should make Enron very happy! (Score:4, Informative)
As we all know what is good for Enron [truthnews.net] is good for the environment and for America. Lets not be confused in our goal of supporting Enron and the Kyoto treaty by those pesky scientists that hate Kyoto and Ken Lay [capitalismmagazine.com] and will manipulate science to debunk the treaty's effects on Global Warming with facts, studies and research.
Environmentalists and Enron on the same team! Go Greenies!
It's not a treaty... (Score:3, Informative)
Since some people think I'm making this up... (Score:2, Informative)
Only YOU and I can do something about it (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to do something you need to change yourself and the sytem will bend to accomodate your need.
To start with stop buying V8s till there will be more enviromental friendly and powerfull vehicles on the market. On the other hand stop purchasing products that involve high polution in their creation.
A more rational response to global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
While science is far from proving that the current warming is caused by mankind, let us assume that in fact the hypothesis is correct. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, especially compared to the greenhouse gas called water vapor, but the actions of man have indeed caused CO2 to increase by over 30% in the last 150 years. So... assuming this increase will cause further warming, what should we do about it?
Kyoto attempts to simply reduce the warming. Environmental advocates also advocate a simple (if terribly expensive) strategy of stopping the warming and maintaining the status quo.
However, actually stopping the increase in CO2 is impossible without a massive reduction in population (i.e. a massive human catastrophe or global war). It won't happen for a number of reasons, the most important of which is the resistance of people, especally in developing countries, to the measures necessary to do so.
A more rational approach follows the following principles and facts:
The most rational approach is to accept that global warming is inevitable (if we believe any predictions at all from the imperfect science). We should:
Re:I'm still glad (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice to hear that you are willing to sacrifice my children's future for your short term benefit.
Re:I'm still glad (Score:2, Informative)
When everyone made fun of Bush for declaring he'd withdraw from Kyoto, few pointed the the facts.
1. The Senate had not ratified it.
2. The Senate made it clear they had no intentions of a 66 vote majority on the subject.
Lastly, I want to see unbiased and clear evidence that CO2 is what is indeed causing global warming. There simply isn't that evidence at this time.
Re:I'm still glad, I'm not. China/India CO2 is FUD (Score:2)
1. The Senate would have NEVER ratified the treaty. In August 1997, the Senate, by a vote of 95-0, put the Clinton administration on notice that it would not ratify any treaty that: a) excluded developing countries such as China and India, the world's number-two and number-two greenhouse-gas emitters, or b) did serious economic harm to the United States.
At first, the developing countries are not excluded. The Kyota Contract explicitly covers how to approach them and how to help them to participate in the reduction. In the long run the developing countries will be the winners as they will not suffer from the increasing energy prices like the US will in 15 to 30 years.
However: the above claim is utterly wrong.
The United States of Amerca are responsible for 25% of the TOTAL CO2 EMISSION OF THE WHOEL WORLD POPULATION.
Ok, got it? The world has 6.000.000.000 people and produces 100 units of CO2.
The US have 280.000.000 people and produce 25 units. That means for every US citzens CO2 production are roughtly 22 people on the rest of the globe producing the same amount TOGETHER.
A US citizen produces about 5 times to ten times the CO2 of a European citizen. A US citizen produces about 25 times the CO2 a Chineese citizen does and about 100 times the CO2 a Indian citizen does.
a Quote from worldwatch.org:
Limiting emissions...
for urther reading: http://www.worldwatch.org/alerts/010314.pdf
angel'o'sphere
Re:Hot tub too hot - bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
The period from about A.D. 1350 to A.D. 1900 is referred to as the Little Ice Age, where temperatures decreased a couple of degrees on the average, worldwide. It was a major climatic shift.
The period of about 1000 A.D. to 1350 A.D. is referred to as the Medieval Warm Period. During this time the Thule people of the Greenland coast migrated inland and into Arctic Canada. Temperatures rose so much on the average that "warm weather" crops like grapes were grown as far north as Scandanavia.
If you want to dig deeper, you'll find the Roman Warm Era and Dark Ages Cold Period, again defined by temperature shifts similar to the Midieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
Like it or not, human conceit or not, the Earth has a long history of temperature fluctuation. It has now been about 100 years since we left the Little Ice Age, and time for another warming period to start.
That isn't even covering the multiple Ice Ages that occurred, and the interviening "warm periods" -- like the one you now live in. Want to blame those on auto exhaust, too?
Get used to it. Your ancestors did.
http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node5.
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v5_edit/v5n13ed
Re:Hot tub too hot - bullshit (Score:2)
Again, I agree with the notion that the earth goes through climatic changes and this right now is most likely a natural occurance. Lowering emissions and pollutants doesn't hurt though, and I'd love to see the world less polluted.
No its not Bullshit, its Cattle Flatulence (Score:2)
Wasn't there more animals back then to make up for the lower population of humans? Cattle farts alone contribute greenhouse gases in large quantities. We should thank the Buffalo hunters would helping reduce those emissions back in the old west. Imagine if those massive herds were still running around the plains, just letting them rip left and right. Lets not even get started with the massive threat that is Elephant flatulence.
The United States depends on the WORLD not ourselves. It will take very little to disrupt this 'system' of 'human life' we have. Since so many aspects of 'humanity' are not very well thought out - they will easily be wiped out.
I hear ya brotha!
Kumbya my Lord, Kumby ya
Kumbya my Lord,Kumby ya
Kumby ya my Lord, Kumby ya
Oh Lord Kumby ya
Re:Hot tub too hot - or not (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good for the USA (Score:2)
Uhm, I think, a point is that a large part of money will be spent in another place. As in enviromentally friendlier businesses will grow, it's not wasted money, it's money moved away from traditionally powerful companies that wish to keep going about things the same way they have for 200 years. But then, of course they will make it sound as an impossible task and that the Kyoto treaty is unamerican and could also pose a threat to national security.
Yes, it will give the US an advantage, just as your low taxes (compared to Eu) promote buying the industries products, just like your labour laws give the employer a lot of security and the employee a lot less. Low taxes, few labour laws, few restrictions means industry can bloom and keep prices low, of course, it all has a price that might not be obvious at first.
Re:Good for the USA (Score:2)
Actually, I am going to the US shortly, and no, I have no intentions of trying to impose my stupid rules. I would like to understand the american way of thinking, but it seems that it is impossible to get an american to share the basis for their views and thinking, they rather quickly resort to namecalling or childish arguments if anything about their lifestyle or system is questioned.
Didn't you read the article (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Didn't you read the article (Score:2)
Germany should get great praise in reducing emissions and it certainly is laudable. However, Germany had a bit *easier* time of it being that it was divided into East and West. The West side had pollution controls, a very healthy economy and all that jazz... The East side had abysmal pollution controls and a very crappy economy. Under the reuinification, many of East Germany's factories were closed down or revamped entirely. France, the UK, the US, and the rest of the countries don't have that convenience.
Russia could *possibly* get that type of improvement IF it was annexed by a country with a very nice economy to pay for all of the improvements.
Re:Didn't you read the article (Score:2)
Re:Didn't you read the article (Score:2)
Re:Didn't you read the article (Score:2)
It's economy isn't exactly rosy, is it? Keep in mind one pertinent fact about Germany. They can AFFORD to spend money on such things, for one reason, they don't have to defend themselves.
Guess who provides it for free to them? The USA.
Re:Didn't you read the article (Score:2)
One of the reasons being that contrary to the US we don't go warmongering around the planet, thus we have less enemies. As a matter of fact, I couldn't name a single country as one.
If you want to speak about US protectionism, talk about Japan. Germany was never demilitarized to the extend that Japan was. The Bundeswehr is quite a capable force, it's just verboten to use it as an offensive weapon by our constitution.
Large armies and extensive military budgets are almost never because you need to defend yourself. Check out the history of Switzerland, one of the best-defended countries for most of the past 1500 years.
Huge military costs are always the result of a countries wish to play the global power game.
Re:Didn't you read the article (Score:2)
I was speaking of countries, not individual people. Yes, there are always people who hate you, sometimes quite a lot. But that and a country as a whole pretty much considering you prime evil is still quite a difference.
I just can' believe your capacity to blame a country that stood by you and practically brought you back to life ( Marshall Plan) from the fucking grave you dig yourself into.
Does that mean we are not entitled to any criticism for the rest of eternity?
Re:Didn't you read the article (Score:2)
Last I checked, the year was 2002, not 1950.
If it weren't for US army you would have been swalowed by the Russian pig 50 years ago.
Possible. However, even though you may not have noticed, the world has changed since then.
Re:Didn't you read the article (Score:2)
Prove me wrong and name a country that considers Germany it's enemy en masse.
I've been on all continents except Australia, and I've never met hostility because of my nationality. I'm just guessing here, but it may be because we haven't bombed anyone since WW2.
Re:Didn't you read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a very misleading statistic -- Germany reduced emissions by 19% simply by taking those monstrous inefficient East German power plants offline.
Re:Good for the USA (Score:2, Insightful)
Not nearly so much as you think. Every time environmental regulations are imposed, people say that the economy will tank as a result. It just doesn't happen.
For instance, when CFCs were banned, some companies discovered they could use water or lemon juice in place of CFCs and actually wound up saving money, and the economy wasn't hurt by the end of CFCs either. Congress imposed new mileage restrictions during the oil crisis and while Japanese car makers innovated to meet them, American car makers sued and didn't. The result was it helped the Japanese to seize a huge portion of the global car market, causing major harm to the American economy. Business has cried wolf too many times about this sort of thing; everytime it turns out it's better for them to quit their whining and find a way to make money and help the environment.
The long-term trend is toward getting more and more $GDP out of a certain amount of fossil fuel anyway, and a large portion of Kyoto is just to give this an international shove forward. A lot of fossil fuel is burned pointlessly in the US. Emissions could be reduced substantially IMHO if SUVs had to meet real fuel economy standards and the nation's railways and mass transit systems were adequately funded and upgraded. Also, US reliance on foreign oil has never done anything good for it, and alternative energy sources offer the only way out. Kyoto would definitely encourage them, so from a political as well as environmental standpoint Kyoto makes sense. The treaty is good for the US, it just takes foresight to see it.
Re:Good for the USA (Score:2)
I'm not kidding, look it up.
Re:Good for the USA (Score:2)
But then, to the "true believers" of the "green" movement, ANY ARGUMET against them is "off topic".
I also note that anyone not bashing the USA for NOT ratifying Kyoto are having their posts modded down. If this is the attitude of
The facts are facts. Kyoto would have caused SERIOUS damage to the US economy. Which means fewer jobs. Which is why the Senate voted 95-0 to send a message to Clinton not to bother sending the thing up for ratification.
Now, we will see that they were right to do so. IF the EU actually impliments this thing, not just symbolically, we will get to see how right or wrong it is for economic development.
BTW, Kyoto exempts countries like China and India, and other "developing" countries who collectively pollute more than the US/EU ever dreamed of.
Re:Good for the USA (Score:2)
This will give American companies an economic advantage. The Kyoto restrictions, if implimented, would bring any industrialized nation's economy to it's knees. Does anyone have any CLUE as to how expensive it will be to reduce all emissions 8%?
Germany follows the Koyto "restrictions" since the talks are over. The former german governmnet and the actual government field laws to direct the economy in that direction.
We suffer not at all by the economic changed based on CO2 reduction. We suffer far more from the dot com crash in the US as our economy likes the exhaustive living of teh US consumers buying our products.
You see, the money to do all that will come from somewhere. Largely from money that would have been used to build and grow companies, and thus, employ more people...
You can build and grow companies producing materials to reduce energy consumption.
You can build and grow companies producing H2 technology.
You can build and grow companies producing Solar Power technology.
You can build and grow companies producing Wind Power technology.
You can build and grow companies producing recycling technology.
You can build and grow companies producing low energy air conditioning technology.
[... furhter 30 to 100 technology areas ommitted]
I would bet in one or the other of such companies a job or two would be available.
Tzss
angel'o'sphere
Re:Why Kyoto is a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
Cato has the credibility of the Flat Earth Society, at this point. And the paper you linked to has no references to back it up, either.
Re:Wow - We are saved... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad to say that there's currently a long US waiting list for the BMW Mini [miniusa.com], which is a truly fun car to drive (hint: it doesn't roll over when you go around corners).
To return to matters vaguely relevant to Kyoto, the nihilist "it's hopeless so why bother" argument IS dealt with by the treaty - Kyoto is part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [greenpeace.org.uk], not a single set of regulations but a mechanism to establish fair rules as required. The hard part is establishing the level playing field, not playing the game.
The USA is the world's biggest polluter, both in total and, by a huge margin, per capita - it has a responsibility to lead. Do you really think that the US, Europe and Japan would be unable to bring remaining countries into line when necessary?
Re:Wow - We are saved... (Score:2)
But its true. The gasoline taxes in Europe are extortionate. The fact that some European small cars are fun to drive does not negate the facts that Europe has a much higher percentage of people driving tiny cars with high mileage than the US - people make rational choices and it is rational to trade off some amount of safety for some amount of freedom as represented by the increased mileage of the tiny cars (although most environmentalists will deny us that freedom in any other areas). However, that choice is significantly dictated by the governments which set standards including the cost of gasoline.
Don't forget that big Mercedes and BMW's are also very popular exports to the US. And there is nothing like driving on the Autobahn and seeing the big European owned, gas guzzling Mercy's and Beamers zipping by at >200 kph. Of course, only those rich enough to afford them and the gas can drive them in Europe. In the more democratic US, our gas taxes are low enough that almost anyone can have a big car and drive it fast, if that is their choice.
In matters relevant to Kyoto, the "its hopeless so why bother" is not the US argument at all. But you imply that the Kyoto treaty is rational, when in fact it is not. Yes, now that the absurdities of the treaties have been shown, environmentalists are at last admitting that it is only the first step. Steps that would really make a difference (assuming that the science and other projections are correct) are obviously even more onerous, or they would have been put into the treaty in the first place!
The US is only the worlds biggest polluter if you consider CO2 to be pollution (not a totally unreasonable assumption). But we are not nearly the largest polluter relative to our productivity, which is a more rational measure. Every time somebody in the world uses a US product (including information/service products) they are benefiting from that pollution, but it does not get credited to us. Your use of internet technology and PC technology was directly subsidized by the pollution produced by our technologists!
Furthermore, Kyoto ignores China and India. If the US faces onerous charges for pollution, we will export much of our pollution to those countries, which are not required to reduce theirs. Net result: more pollution, since they are less efficient due to less capital available for technology.
What is fair in your mind is massive sacrifies by the US compared to Europe, and no sacrifices by rapidly growing, non-democratic countries such as China. This is fair?
Also, you ignore the points I made originally. Kyoto is based on global warming science. But that science is not in very good shape. Ignored is the fact that it has yet to come close to proving that the recent warming is anthropogenic, although I will grant that it possibly is. But more important is the highly bureaucratic assumption that somehow the magic signing of such a treaty will actually compel the world's population, for the next 100 years, to change their behavior even when it is against their best interests! In other words, it imagines that people will willingly suffer the degradation of their economies based on these treaties, and will continue to do so in the next 100 years.
Tell me, it were 1902 and you had the same science, would you be so confident in the treaty?
There were a few surpises during the subsequent 100 years that would have made the treaty meaningless: World Wars I and II, the rise of fascism, the rise of communism (the worst environmental disasters occurred in the USSR and Eastern Europe - I saw many of these myself in 1991), the development of the automobile, aviation, electronics, telecommunications, nuclear energy, etc.
Of course, you will say, it is part of a framework. This hardly inspires confidence.
The general increase in faith in the power of bureaucratic entities and international organizations seems inversely proportional to the ability of the faithful to enforce that power.
Finally, once again, you are pointing out what is the biggest problem with Kyoto.
Kyoto does nothing significant for the environment without further measures anticipated by its framework. Which leads one to the question of:
Why should we sign on to it, which clearly requires causes us more economic damage than the rest of the world, when even its proponents admit it won't do any good except to further the procedural path?"
Re:Wow - We are saved... (Score:4, Insightful)
Kyoto is nothing more than another European inspired attempt at hobbling the United States and improving European competitive position. Europe, because of its much greater population density, needs less fuel than the US.
This is such a bullshit, that I can't resist. Europe isn't pushing the Kyoto protocol, because they want to "hobble" the US. Come on guys, it's not always about you... Europe is pushing Kyoto, because they actually care about the environment! What many Americans don't get is that environmental concerns are far more common and usual in Europe than in the US. And I'm not talking about environmental extremist. People DO care about pollution and the environment in general here. BY FAR more than in the US. (Yes, and I've been and worked in both places...)
Furthermore, its citizens already drive in tiny cars (due to extortionate fuel taxes and other laws)
Bullshit Nr. 2. Yes, people drive smaller cars. (I do [smart.com], for sure.) But it's not only because of the fuel taxes and "other laws", but more because most Europeans don't feel the need to have two meters of steel around you. I (and no European I know) never understood the American affection for SUVs (especially in Texas. Why do you need all that trucks??). And people look for cars with high mileage not only because of the costs, but mainly because it's perceived as bad for the environment, if the car uses to much gas.
There's actually a lot of research going in this field. VW just presented the first one-liter-car (translates to about 230 miles per gallon) as a prototype.
and already suffer a much higher traffic death rate per mile.
Would you care to back this claim with some official numbers?
Re:Wow - We are saved... (Score:2)
Oh, and people care about the environment here in the US also. But we also care about freedom, and we would like our environmental sacrifices to be meaninful and likely to produce success.
Regarding smaller cars, your motives are fine. But you are you, and are not representative of all Europeans. Of course some people drive smaller cars out of environmental reasons (and they do in the US also). But there are other reasons (narrow streets in old European towns for example). You cannot deny that economics has a significant effect on the choices people make, however.
You ask about SUV's. I own two - one made by the Japanese (Toyota). I can tell you exactly why Americans drive SUV's - safety and comfort.
You ask... why SUV's?
Because of environmentalist-pushed regulations!
"WHAT?" You say.
Environmentalists pushed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law. This requires manufacturers to have an ever rising average fuel economy in the fleet of cars that they sell. However, light trucks were exempted, and SUV's are light trucks.
Thus, Americans who desired larger and safer automobiles were forced by the environmentalist regulations to buy SUV's!
Environmentalists, and statist in general who try to use the coercive force of government to alter individual behavior too often ignore The Law of Unintended Consequences, as this shows so well.
Of course, a reasonable question at this point is why Americans want larger cars. I have already mentioned safety. The National Academy of Science estimates that several thousand American lives are lost each year due to smaller cars resulting from CAFE. Americans understand this instinctively and they know that larger cars are safer (and they are).
Okay... but beyond safety, there is another reason that Americans want large cars. One of America's greatest innovations, and a significant reason for our very high standard of living, is our innovations in the consumer distribution network. In this case, supermarkets, large department stores (now almost obsolete), shopping malls, and large discount outlets (Walmart, Costco) have greatly reduced the cost of distribution to consumers by eliminating middlement and bringing wholesale prices to the final buyer. A side effect of this is that consumer goods are concentrated in central points, and these central points are a significant distance from where most people live. In comparison, in European cities (and older US cities), one can walk to the grocery store, the bakery, etc. But Americans, if they want to be efficient in their shopping (and coincidentally fuel efficient) need larger cars just to carry home the results of the shopping trips. This is also why mass transit is a loser of an idea in the US.
Another reason for larger cars is the fact that the US is a very big country. I just returned from an 8000 mile driving trip (hunting tornados). And yet I only touched a small part of the US. Just driving across Texas is equivalent to driving the length of Europe! And when you must drive long distances, comfort is important! Most foreign cars and even US CAFE limited cars are too small for a significant percentage of Americans (who on average are fairly tall) to drive long distances in.
Now, Europeans, with their provincial viewpoint don't realize most of these factors. They want us to follow the same rules that they, with their high population densities and inefficient retail systems must follow.
I will post another direct reply to the main article on what I consider to be a rational response to global warming.
Re:Wow - We are saved... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, got it. Surprises me nevertheless, because I've seen quite some cars in the US, which I would consider "big" (I never said, everybody is driving a SUV). So why are SUVs excluded? Sounds pretty stupid...
The National Academy of Sciences, not exactly a biased group, has estimated that somewhere between 2 and 3 thousand Americans die every year due to CAFE.
At this point, it would be really interesting to see some reliable figures of traffic deaths per capita or per car in the US vs. Europe. Unfortunately, at least my quick google search didn't turn up anything official... Anybody?
When I lived in Paris, I could buy all of my daily needs within a block. I didn't need to make a shopping trip. Americans, OTOH, need to go miles typically just to buy groceries.
When I lived in San Francisco, I could buy all of my daily needs within a block (ok, actually two). I didn't need to make a shopping trip. You're comparing the wrong places. If you live in rural areas in Europe you have to drive to a shopping center too... However, as I said before, I agree that this is more often the case in America than in Europe. But still I don't see, why you would need a SUV for that...
What Europeans tend to be is "superior" in that Americans are constantly getting lectured by you guys (at least in the media).
Right. But it's not like Americans never feel like they know how we Europeans should proceed... :-)
I would argue that Europeans have the luxury of worrying about such things because it doesn't cost them much personally to do so.
You said that before, and I still don't get it. Why would it cost you more to care about the environment? The Kyoto protocol want relative reducement! Nobody says, the US should have the same level of car emissions as Europe. And honestly: The height of the emission per captia figure of the US (2.5 times as high as Europe or Japan) can't really be explained with more transportation usage... So there should be a big area of possible improvement.
I also would argue that the Europeans are much more likely to approve of government regulating their lives and in general interfering more in their economy.
True. On of the fundamental differences in European and American culture. Not a bad thing in my opinion. I never understood this "don't trust your government"-attitude some Americans have.
pollution problems cannot be solved without the intervention of government, because the costs are not felt by the polluter and thus market mechanisms are not sufficient. The difference is that I have far less faith in governments to make correct interventions than Europeans seem to have.
I agree with both points. As I said, I don't know where this gerenal government distrust of many Americans comes from... (And before somebody flaims: There's a big difference between trusting your government in certain area and not questioning anything it does...).
And in the case of global warming, a good argument can be made that no action other than research is appropriate at this time. The uncertainties are too high as I have mentioned in previous posts.
No. First off, there's already disagreement about if there are any uncertainties about global warming. But let's say there are. Let's assume, we don't know for sure if global warming is happening. Then it's still not worth the risk! Reducing emissions now is the only way to assure we're not destroying the environment (well, not more than we already do, anyway).
Re:Wow - We are saved... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, got it. Surprises me nevertheless, because I've seen quite some cars in the US, which I would consider "big" (I never said, everybody is driving a SUV). So why are SUVs excluded? Sounds pretty stupid...
It is, but government often does stupid things. This is one of the reasons for American distrust of government (which you asked about elsewhere). It was, of course, a political compromise, which is what democracies do.
At this point, it would be really interesting to see some reliable figures of traffic deaths per capita or per car in the US vs. Europe. Unfortunately, at least my quick google search didn't turn up anything official... Anybody?
I agree. I have read the statistics in the past. I don't have anything current. As of the time I read it, the European rate was quite high. Actually a death rate per mile/km would be more meaningful than per capita.
However, as I said before, I agree that this is more often the case in America than in Europe. But still I don't see, why you would need a SUV for that...
Yes, it is much more the case because so much of our country was developed more recently, and because we have so much land. The reason for the SUV is simply size and safety. And again, I think there would be a lot fewer of them if we didn't have the silly CAFE rules.
Oddly enough, SUV's are also a status symbol. Why, I don't know. I guess for the same reason that many urban Americans who have never been close to a live bovine wear cowboy boots and dress. Sort of odd. I own SUV's strictly for safety and comfort, and also at because I sometimes go into country where I truly need a powerful vehicle with four wheel drive. I live in Arizona and we have plenty of wilderness left.
Right. But it's not like Americans never feel like they know how we Europeans should proceed... :-)
True enough. The difference is that our own media is mostly Europhile and continuously agrees with you guys.
You said that before, and I still don't get it. Why would it cost you more to care about the environment? The Kyoto protocol want relative reducement! Nobody says, the US should have the same level of car emissions as Europe. And honestly: The height of the emission per captia figure of the US (2.5 times as high as Europe or Japan) can't really be explained with more transportation usage... So there should be a big area of possible improvement.
It is because of our dependence on automobile transport, which is where the majority of the reductions would come. You guys are already paying the high taxes on gas and the high taxes for train systems, etc. We are not, but would have to. So the delta is large for us, but not for you.
True. On of the fundamental differences in European and American culture. Not a bad thing in my opinion. I never understood this "don't trust your government"-attitude some Americans have.
This is hardly the place to get into it in detail, but it is a major difference. I know why I don't trust government, but I don't know why you would trust it. I view government as a necessary evil, which means that prudence to me dictates as little government as necessary. I do not view government as an instrument for moral good, but only as an instrument to prevent harm. I value my freedom from coercion, and I deeply resent the already large amount of interference that the US government has in my life (but I recognize the need for that government, of course).
No. First off, there's already disagreement about if there are any uncertainties about global warming. But let's say there are. Let's assume, we don't know for sure if global warming is happening. Then it's still not worth the risk! Reducing emissions now is the only way to assure we're not destroying the environment (well, not more than we already do, anyway).
Ah, here we get to the heart of the matter. Here are some issues to ponder:
These are effects in the human system, which are even harder to predict than the climate itself! Thus my version of the precuationary principle is to avoid such major changes without a good idea of the harm they may cause!
My objection to Kyoto is that it can only be one of two things:
Overall, I do not object to emissions reductions. I object to doing it in a dumb way. For example, in the US we have not built any nuclear power plants since 1979, due to illogical and hysterical reactions fired by environmental extremists. And yet nuclear power is by far the cleanest large scale power source available - i.e. the only one that can make a major difference. The other "power source" that is significant is conservation, but the US has already taken major steps in this direction, with little effect at all! It seems that the more efficient we make things, the more we use them!
An ideal solution would be a hydrogen powered transportation system. Unfortunately, this would require tens of trillions of dollars of investment, just for the US. Furthermore, hydrogen power is far less energy efficient than gasoline (hence my desire for nuclear plants - to produce the electricity necessary to prepare the hydrogen). It may be that over time, we are able to evolve in this direction.
What I will fight is anything that compromises the safety of myself and others so that the people in 2100 can wait until 2106 to get the same amount of global warming. And I will also object to schemes which are likely to result in vast deaths in the third world due to economic losses resulting form those schemes. I would rather see a few degrees of temperature rise (and related sea level rise) if those people can be brought into the second or first world! And that is one of the possible tradeoffs - in spite of the Kyoto attempts to adjust the balance. First... a meta-comment. Thanks for the tone of your post. I just responded to one that was quite disrespectful (of course I responded in kind). Yours is a breath of fresh air.
Ok, got it. Surprises me nevertheless, because I've seen quite some cars in the US, which I would consider "big" (I never said, everybody is driving a SUV). So why are SUVs excluded? Sounds pretty stupid...
It is, but government often does stupid things. This is one of the reasons for American distrust of government (which you asked about elsewhere). It was, of course, a political compromise, which is what democracies do.
At this point, it would be really interesting to see some reliable figures of traffic deaths per capita or per car in the US vs. Europe. Unfortunately, at least my quick google search didn't turn up anything official... Anybody?
I agree. I have read the statistics in the past. I don't have anything current. As of the time I read it, the European rate was quite high. Actually a death rate per mile/km would be more meaningful than per capita.
However, as I said before, I agree that this is more often the case in America than in Europe. But still I don't see, why you would need a SUV for that... Yes, it is much more the case because so much of our country was developed more recently, and because we have so much land. The reason for the SUV is simply size and safety. And again, I think there would be a lot fewer of them if we didn't have the silly CAFE rules.
Oddly enough, SUV's are also a status symbol. Why, I don't know. I guess for the same reason that many urban Americans who have never been close to a live bovine wear cowboy boots and dress. Sort of odd. I own SUV's strictly for safety and comfort, and also at because I sometimes go into country where I truly need a powerful vehicle with four wheel drive. I live in Arizona and we have plenty of wilderness left.
Right. But it's not like Americans never feel like they know how we Europeans should proceed... :-)
True enough. The difference is that our own media is mostly Europhile and continuously agrees with you guys.
You said that before, and I still don't get it. Why would it cost you more to care about the environment? The Kyoto protocol want relative reducement! Nobody says, the US should have the same level of car emissions as Europe. And honestly: The height of the emission per captia figure of the US (2.5 times as high as Europe or Japan) can't really be explained with more transportation usage... So there should be a big area of possible improvement.
It is because of our dependence on automobile transport, which is where the majority of the reductions would come. You guys are already paying the high taxes on gas and the high taxes for train systems, etc. We are not, but would have to. So the delta is large for us, but not for you.
True. On of the fundamental differences in European and American culture. Not a bad thing in my opinion. I never understood this "don't trust your government"-attitude some Americans have.
This is hardly the place to get into it in detail, but it is a major difference. I know why I don't trust government, but I don't know why you would trust it. I view government as a necessary evil, which means that prudence to me dictates as little government as necessary. I do not view government as an instrument for moral good, but only as an instrument to prevent harm. I value my freedom from coercion, and I deeply resent the already large amount of interference that the US government has in my life (but I recognize the need for that government, of course).
No. First off, there's already disagreement about if there are any uncertainties about global warming. But let's say there are. Let's assume, we don't know for sure if global warming is happening. Then it's still not worth the risk! Reducing emissions now is the only way to assure we're not destroying the environment (well, not more than we already do, anyway).
Ah, here we get to the heart of the matter. Here are some issues to ponder:
My objection to Kyoto is that it can only be one of two things:
Overall, I do not object to emissions reductions. I object to doing it in a dumb way. For example, in the US we have not built any nuclear power plants since 1979, due to illogical and hysterical reactions fired by environmental extremists. And yet nuclear power is by far the cleanest large scale power source available - i.e. the only one that can make a major difference. The other "power source" that is significant is conservation, but the US has already taken major steps in this direction, with little effect at all! It seems that the more efficient we make things, the more we use them!
An ideal solution would be a hydrogen powered transportation system. Unfortunately, this would require tens of trillions of dollars of investment, just for the US. Furthermore, hydrogen power is far less energy efficient than gasoline (hence my desire for nuclear plants - to produce the electricity necessary to prepare the hydrogen). It may be that over time, we are able to evolve in this direction.
What I will fight is anything that compromises the safety of myself and others so that the people in 2100 can wait until 2106 to get the same amount of global warming. And I will also object to schemes which are likely to result in vast deaths in the third world due to economic losses resulting form those schemes. I would rather see a few degrees of temperature rise (and related sea level rise) if those people can be brought into the second or first world! And that is one of the possible tradeoffs - in spite of the Kyoto attempts to adjust the balance.
Re:Wow - We are saved... (Score:2, Insightful)
-
Europe has recently engaged in many meaningless gestures in order to enhance its "moral" standing over the US. Europe has yet to understand that it is no longer the center of world affairs. It has no military worth discussing, and no will to create one. It has a living standard 2/3rds that of the US. It has a demographic problem that is causing its population to rapidly age and diminish relative to most of the rest of the world.
-
Europe will not change its behavior as a result of the signing, so it is a no-cost effort.
-
The EU is a bureaucracy, not a democracy. The Brussells bureaucrats are far removed from the votes of individuals in Europe, and acts on its own. Bureaucracies have significant intertia and often do irrational things just because they appeared rational when the process was started (see Laws of Bureaucracy [tinyvital.com]).
-
It is not clear that the US will never sign the treaty. We have had previous fits of insanity, and as long as the treaty is out there, it could be signed in the future if we ended up with a sufficiently foolish senate. Furthermore, European signing of the treaty makes it easier for US environmental organizations to pressure the US into signing it. It is a no cost effort by Europe that could pay off big in the future.
Oh, btw... I am not a Europe hater. I have spent much time in Europe including living in France. I am, however, distressed at the irrational behavior of Europe in recent times.Furthermore, Europe has been losing other moral edges it had over the US. For example, the violent crime rate in Britain and France is now significantly higher than that in the US. The recent anti-semitism should be a source of great shame in Europe, but the rapidly rising percentage of muslims in France and England (see demographics above - the muslims are having more children) has muted the reaction to this.
Due to all of these factors, Europe is humiliated, and is reacting by attacking the United States wherever it can in the realm of ideology and international affairs.
Re:right (Score:4, Flamebait)
Having used European mass transit extensively, I think I am in a position to argue that it would not work well for Americans. The biggest reasons are our very low population density, and our highly concentrated (and efficient) retail distribution, which means that people need to be able to bring back a significant amount of goods per trip when they shop, because they have to go a significant distance to do so. In Europe, one is much more likely to have a short distance to go to a store, because they are not efficiently concentrated.
As far as reducing reliance on oil, the best way to do that is nuclear power, which is consistently blocked by environmentalists. We have not had a new nuclear plant started since 1979!
Many americans drive mid-sized cars. Hybrids are microscopic, they are kludges (extra parts). Many American drive small cars. However, unlike Europe, we seem to have more of a belief that freedom is a virtue, not a sin.
Re:Self-proclaimed scientific authorities on slash (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing in science is beyond serious dispute; as that is the nature of science. Good science, anyway. Even someting as simple, elegant, and obviously correct as Sir Newton's theory of gravity was improved upon, and will likely be further refined in the future. I certainly think the science behind climate change is in its infancy, and if our present models of it are correct enough to make predictions centuries into the future then it is so only by some bizzare coincidence. We do not have nearly the amount of data we need to have refined our models that well through deliberate efforts.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should reveal that I am not a computer scientist. I worked for 5 years as an environmental enginneer doing research on air pollution from stationary sources. I now work for the "evil" oil industry (the one that builds the giant Gaia destroying, oil spraying robots that Capt. Planet fights in the cartoons... you may be surprised to discover that besides fighting the forces of Mother Nature, we also have a small side business providing the fuel that powers almost all the transporation in the modern world).
Re: Global freezing theory set to return (Score:2)
Look at all those old scientific theories coming back - the heliocentric theory is totally discredited, the Milky Way is the only galaxy in the universe, and the electronic signals generating this message propogate through the ether - or was that pholgiston, I dunno, these old theories come back so often.
And I am sure you follow Bishop Ussher's view of cosmology, as that never went out of fashion with the sort of right wing morons you must hang around with.
Re:Popular does not mean Right (Score:2)
The USA of Roosevelt and Stimson was one that saw the importance of establishing international law. The United Nations was a American idea (Churchill and Stalin didn't care much about it), one intended to replace the principle of 'might is right' with proper justice. As were the Nuremberg trials. The America of Bush and Cheney shares virtually none of these principles and can claim no inheritance or credit for them.
Re:what if... (Score:3)
There was a medieval warm period during 1200-1400 AD that was around 2 degrees hotter than it is today and a mini ice age around 1600 AD that was around 2-3 degrees cooler. These are well documented events that are largely ignored today because they don't fit in with the greenhouse effect science.
We need solid unbiased science, not politics. For all we know CO2 emissions help the environment by increasing plant growth.