Reply With Quote
So multi-national negotiatons on goal setting are extremely complex,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions take serious effort,
and some countries fail to meet goals.
What is your "interesting" point?
Seeings the resident libs here like bagging on Bush for not signing on, I found this interesting...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weeken.../?id=110007665
On the other hand, even those who support radical cuts in carbon-dioxide emissions are realizing that the Kyoto Protocol is a failed instrument for achieving their goals. "The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge," says British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
He can say that again. India and China, which are exempt from Kyoto's emissions cuts, have no plans to submit to those mandates any time soon, though China is the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. has also consistently rejected Kyoto. This has been true throughout the Bush years, but it was equally so during the Clinton ones. In 1997, the U.S. Senate adopted the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by 95-0, urging the Clinton Administration not to sign any climate-change protocol that "would result in serious harm to the economy." In 1998 Al Gore signed the Protocol. Yet President Clinton, who was in Montreal yesterday to scold the Bush Administration for its inaction, never submitted it to the Senate.
And then there is the performance of Kyoto's signatories in meeting their own targets. Kyoto requires developed nations to bring their total greenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by 2012. Yet in 2003, emissions were above the 1990 baseline by more than 10% in Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland and Canada, and more than 40% in Spain.
Germany and Britain have met their Kyoto targets, but this is the result of one-time events: the collapse of British coal and the shuttering of much of the former East Germany's industrial base. Given Germany's anemic economy and Britain's reduced growth forecasts, the appe e in either country for costly environmental virtue is not likely to increase.
So multi-national negotiatons on goal setting are extremely complex,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions take serious effort,
and some countries fail to meet goals.
What is your "interesting" point?
I posted it for the twits like you who continuously call out "Shrub" for not signing on to it while claiming he is not doing it to take care of his oil buddies.
Sorry, I guess there was too many big words in this article for you.
Shrub is still taking care of his criminal oil buddies though and not listening to the great Ray Taliaferro on KGO am 810 at raytal.com Cheney is stealing Billions through his corrupt companies.
Yea and you don't drive a car? STFU if you do... how does that saudi juice feel when it's in your injectors? You know you are on the crack too ....
I claim no such bull . Typical lies from less twerp AHF, to go along with his content-free attacks, and complete refusal to discuss any issues, or offer any counters.
dubya/ head won't sign, or even make an effort, on emissions, nor on oil conservation, because compliance would cost the Repub-owning energy industry too much in costs and profits.
The ice on earth melted 4 times before... before any humans where burning ...
How the to they explain that? There is a sun btw... and the earth is in constant change.. it does not stay the same? Sure we should burn clean but giving China a pass.. they are 4000 years old.. no ing "Developing country"... translated they can't ing force china to do .. why? BECAUSE THEY ARE SOME ING COMMIE BAS S that don't have to listen to the UN so the UN just some ing pass out of there ass in Kyoto...
It's all the s in 3rd world countries with mopeds that shoot out clouds of .. them too mother ers...
The interesting point is that Canada, a signatory to Kyoto, has failed miserably -- experiencing a huge increase in greenhouse gases -- while, the United States of America, a non-signatory to Kyoto, has actually reduced its greenhouse emissions.
Some countries pay lip service and attend global conferences that bash the USA -- the USA just does what needs to be done.
Yeah, whenever I look at Canada I see dirty poluted lands. Blame Canada goddam it
funny how liberals can't look past this president to find out the treaty was rejected by the senate in 1997 .. 95-0... I guess dubya was president then...?
Position of the United States
The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is non-binding over the United States until ratified.
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
dubya/ head have done ABSOLUTELY nothing to promote conservation or protect the environment.
All their major moves in both areas are anti-conservation, anti-environment, pro-business, the consumer.
They did give $15B to the energy cos for "research", which will never be accounted for, and will show no results. That's $15B the Gulf Coast won't see.
Typical lies from less twerp AHF, to go along with his content-free attacks, and complete refusal to discuss any issues, or offer any counters.
Refusal to discuss any issues? I discuss them every day. I guess unless I agree with you that "shrub" is a " head", I'm not discussing them
It would also help if you would actually DISCUSS an issue, instead of going on some tourret's syndrome induced trashing of Bush 24/7 with all your posts.
Get off the swing set, quit playing chicken on the monkey bars and maybe we'll talk.
Ummm.... I don't really know that I got anything from this post because I can't see through the ridiculous amount of obscenities.... wow... after so many they kinda lose their oomph.
Care to read this little column on who has reduced CO2 and who hasn't.
And I love the paragraph on your favorite person, Clinton.
Forget Emissions – Let’s Cut the Phony Rhetoric
By Rich Tucker
Dec 16, 2005
Last year’s Vanity Fair essay contest challenged readers to “explain the character of the American people to the rest of the world.” It was clear the judges wanted an entry that would zing Americans. They got it.
“We champion civil liberties and deny them to those we perceive as enemies,” wrote Liz Richardson, a 23-year-old Peace Corps volunteer. “We celebrate peace while we wage a costly and perhaps unjustifiable war in Iraq.” If she had it do over a year later, perhaps she’d even edit out the word “perhaps.”
But one could win this contest with five words: “Americans mean what we say.” Directness is a trait common to most Americans. Sadly, global elites simply don’t get that. Consider the talks aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions to supposedly reduce global warming.
Representatives from almost 200 countries met recently in Montreal to congratulate themselves on having signed (even though they then ignored) the Kyoto Treaty. The United States was not on the official guest list, because President Bush has always opposed Kyoto. “I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American workers,” he announced in 2001 as he pulled out of the treaty.
Compare that to the European Union. There’s supposedly no better “global citizen” than the EU, but as the BBC reported last month, “The European Environment Agency says that the 15 longest-standing members of the EU are likely to cut emissions to just 2.5 percent below 1990 levels. This falls well short of their target[ed] 8 percent cut.”
For some reason, even though most countries are falling short of the pledges they’ve already made, they’re eager to make even more. Before leaving Montreal, delegates agreed to hold new talks “aimed at producing a new set of binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions that would take effect beginning in 2012,” as The Washington Post put it. “We should not underestimate the strength of this package,” Stavros Dimas, the European Union’s commissioner for the environment, said about the new deal. “Kyoto is alive and kicking.”
Not really.
Once again, the U.S. declined to participate in the charade. Our clarity was, apparently, confusing. “If it walks like a duck and talks like duck, it’s a duck,” American climate negotiator Harlan Watson told the other delegates when they tried to lure him into a new round of talks. That was too much for foreign delegates. “I don’t understand your reference to a duck. What about this do ent is like a duck?” one reportedly asked.
Maybe if Watson has tap danced around the truth a bit, said something such as “we’ll sign the agreement as long as we don’t have to abide by it,” the Europeans would have understood. Sort of like what Bill Clinton did while president. “Keep in mind, I supported Kyoto,” Clinton told the conference on its final day.
Indeed, he supported it so strongly that he signed it, then slipped it into his desk. He never bothered to submit the treaty to the Senate, where it would certainly have been voted down resoundingly. Still, the disingenuous Clinton is an international hero, while the honest Bush is a pariah.
You see, to global elites, Kyoto is like a lousy Christmas gift: It’s the thought that counts. “It was signed up to by every single nation on earth, and if America now tries to walk away ... I think this is not just an environmental issue, it’s an issue of transatlantic global foreign policy.”
British Environment Minister Michael Meacher said back in 2001.
Today, though, Meacher’s boss has come around to the American view. “I would say probably I’m changing my thinking about this in the past two or three years,” Prime Minister Tony Blair announced at the Clinton Global Initiative in September. “I don’t think people are going, at least in the short term, to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto.”
He’s right. World leaders may be happy to attend global gabfests and preen for the cameras, but no country is going to willingly cut its economic growth to deal with the supposed threat of global warming. Host nation Canada is the perfect example. By 2012, our northern neighbor has promised to cut CO2 emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels. However, its own government admits “Canada’s emissions in 2003 were about 24 percent above 1990 levels.” An “A” for the effort though, eh?
As Kyoto wheezes on, the United States is working to actually lower carbon dioxide emissions. Since 2000, the EPA says they’ve dropped .8 percent. We’re developing ways to bury carbon deep in the earth. Technology and good old-fashioned American ingenuity will provide the solution, if indeed there is a CO2 problem. We’d just better not expect to win any awards for our success, because this contest, too, is rigged.
================================================== =======
Sorry to burst another of your bubbles.
Well? What say you now?
They cant can't say anything. Because they are wrong on all issues.
all most them want to do is destroy what others have built for them.
What a bunch of losers we have on this forum. They know nothing of
history and little of what goes on in the world today. I am not in a good
mood today with these bunch of twerps.
^^^ Let's be easy on Gtown today.
Easily. The carbon cycle. Just like there is a hydro-cycle (water is on the surface of the earth, water evaporated, water returns to the surface of the earth in the form of rain) the carbon cycle exists.
Carbon is on the surface of the earth (part of organic matter), carbon is burned and reintroduced to the atmosphere, carbon is taken from the atmosphere via plants, the cycle starts again.
What is going on now is the process is being accellerated compared to the natural cycle that has occurred many times before.
Oh, my. Normal cycles. You do admit that their are normal cycles. You mean
their are going to be more and we wont be here to explain them. What a shame.
Well yeah the cycles will continue with or without us. The accelleration is what is being debated. Eventually the sun will burn out too you know.
Do we really, really know this. I am of the belief, oh please forgive me, but
I think God will decide that and may have already. But I wont presume to
know what his intentions are. I know scientist have made so many
predictions/findings and have been wrong so many times that there word is
just that: words. Sometimes they are correct but more often than not,
they aren't. Remember acid rain. Also stem cell research in Korea.
Well I am Christian and believe Christ will return eventually too. We are not told when so the best bet is to make this place as habitable as possible until His return.
I don't subscribe to the let's try and bring the Rapture by doing crazy things in the Middle East, I just have my religious faith. My political slant is just that, politics.
What has the middle east got to do with this discussion. Rapture is a whole
other discussion and no place here. I to have the same thoughts as you.
That is, my political slant is just that, politics. But the ending of the
universe is in God's venue, not yours or mine. The cycles of earth have
always occurred and there are many opinions on what may/will/have
occurred and unfortunately or fortunately we are just along for the ride.
Humans give themselves too much credit. We can mess up a small portion of the earth, but if you will go out in the countryside and look at
areas we have "supposedly" destroyed you will find Mother Nature doing
her thing and cleaning up the mess, if you wish to call it that. I will agree
we can, short term, screw things up, but not long term. Nature has only
that ability.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
