Somone mentioned the US in reference to the Kyoto accord. Which counties have yet to sign on? Actually signed not just preached about it? We know the US position. What about some others?
The Canadian government done alot of preaching but still hasn’t signed. Of course we are Satans little friend as someone said so that probably explains it.
Any others?
Regards
By: Hand87_5 - 2nd September 2002 at 09:19
RE: Kyoto Accord. Who has signed i
Mixtec,
I’m afraid you’re right !!!
By: mixtec - 31st August 2002 at 19:33
RE: Kyoto Accord. Who has signed i
Hand87- Please read over this entire thread. Youll see theres really only two points of view, either that the US is the worlds largest polluter and that they have to curb their pollution under the kyoto standards or that the whole kyoto treaty is a bunk sceme by europe to compete industrially at that kyoto treaty does not accurately measure pollution at all nor does it address any kind of pollution reduction. Theres no middle ground, theres nothing to discuss, kyoto is either bunk or its not.
By: Hand87_5 - 31st August 2002 at 17:23
RE: Kyoto Accord. Who has signed i
Scooter ,
I don’t think that’s an other american bashing posting.
That’s a very important topic, and I’d like to have your point of view.
By: Arabella-Cox - 29th August 2002 at 17:04
RE: Kyoto Accord. Who has signed i
Just another America Bashing Posting………………
By: mixtec - 27th August 2002 at 19:14
RE: Natural gas…
Geforce- Just want to let you know that Im not buying your 30% pollution stats for the US. Yes its true that fad for driving these huge SUVs that get 10 miles to the gallon and most of which have never been on dirt is really rediculas. But on the other hand your not going to strongarm the US into driving these compact cars with a .6 liter engine, your not even going to get motorcycle riders to use engines that small. The US has very good pollution standards compared to the rest of the world, standards which other countrys would do well to live up to. Lima Peru with a pop of 8 million, and a very large population of cars probably pollutes more than 1/4 of the cars in the US. Thats no exageration if youve seen the millions of cars that belch smoke there, and are familiar with how bad a place like los angelos was 30 years ago, before higher emmisions standards were in place.
By: Geforce - 27th August 2002 at 15:28
RE: Natural gas…
That’s true, not coming to the WSSD will regret the Americans later. Bush’s foriegn policy is a mess untill now and whoever may proceed him, he’ll have a hell of a job.
By: Hand87_5 - 27th August 2002 at 15:00
RE: Natural gas…
Interesting discussion.
Anyway I do respect your point of view Djcross.
By: djcross - 27th August 2002 at 13:39
RE: Natural gas…
Paleoclimatologists have discovered signs of dramatic fluctuations of median temperatures – as high as 30 centigrade. Rain forest fossils have been found in frozen areas, warm-weather grape vineyards in northern Scotland, ocean animals in deserts, glaciers covering most of the northern hemisphere – there is plenty of evidence of climate fluctuation. The present temperature rise started 300 years ago, before any significant industrialization began. It is curious how certain factions are willing to jump to the conclusion that humans are the cause of climate fluctuations in face of contrary evidence. Those factions want to stampede the unknowledgable in a direction that suits their political agendas.
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th August 2002 at 11:50
RE: Natural gas…
Dj… you are wrong… ice cores going back several millenium have been looked at and tested and they show that co2 is much higher now than it has been for a very long time.
(In Antarctica there are some of the “driest” areas in the world. In one area there has been no precipitation (ie rain/snow etc) for at least 3 million years… ice cores being ideal of atmosphere samples due to the high air content of ice.)
As another little footnote I should mention that the increase in temperature that I gave was an average increase of 8 degrees.
To put it in perspective during the last iceage the average temperature on Earth was 9 degrees colder than it is now… New York was under 3km of ice…
By: Arthur - 27th August 2002 at 08:25
RE: Natural gas…
Consider this a footnote, but China ratified Kyoto last week.
By: Hand87_5 - 27th August 2002 at 08:13
RE: Natural gas…
Yes Geforce , my point is not to point out USA as bad guys.
I just mean that it pisses me off that Bush doesn’t even wnat to consider to make an effort. Europe does , Japan does and many other.
By: Geforce - 27th August 2002 at 07:41
RE: Natural gas…
What Hand says is true, 30 % of the pollution is due the Americans only. Ofcourse, Europe does not come far behind, so there’s no reason to blame eachother. In Europe, the taxes on gas and oil are so high (3 times the US), people HAVE to think twice before they use their car. The distances in Europe are ofcourse far less extreme than in the United States, but the industry is as polluting here as it is in the US : Ruhrgebied, North-England, Northern-Italy, Pas-de-Calais …
By: Hand87_5 - 27th August 2002 at 07:22
RE: Natural gas…
Totally true. I’m not claiming that France is a good example. I’m just telling that US could do much better.
That’s right that those countries such as Peru have jurassic cars.
But how many of them OWN a car. In the US every family owns at least 2 or 3 vehicules. Most of them have HUGE engines and a very high fuel consumption. Do you think that many americans will volunteer to replace their huge SUV with a compact car ? I don’t think so.
My wife is californian and I drive very often n califonian freeways.
At rush hours 95% of the traffic doesn’t use the diamond lane , therefore all of those huge things have only 1 person on board. Don’t you think that’s a waste of energy?
Speaking of nuke waste: I totally agree, France policy is a shame, but as far as I know USA also uses nuclear plants and dumps the waste in a desert somewhere in Utah or New mexico.
By: mixtec - 26th August 2002 at 21:26
RE: Natural gas…
Hand78-
It’s a shame that the US (5% o fthe ww population and 30% of the pollution) don’t commit to the necessary effort to fix this problem.
Im going to call bull on that one. You making the assumption that oil/fuel use = pollution, the US has very good controls and regulations for both indusrial and automobile pollution. Having lived in Peru, I can tell you a large percentage of private autos and public transport bellow out clouds of smoke out their exaust. The US does NOT produce 30% of the worlds pollution. You have no concern whatsover for the damage being done in developing countrys and are simply making a cheap stab at the USs industrial capacity. France using nuclear power is still polluting since there hasnt been found a sufficient way to dispose of nuclear waste.
By: djcross - 26th August 2002 at 16:45
RE: Natural gas…
It means we do not (presently) have a valid statistical basis to say there is a problem. More work must be done to develop sound scientific understanding instead of using CO2 as an excuse to promote political agendas.
By: Hand87_5 - 26th August 2002 at 13:03
RE: Natural gas…
OK let’s assume that you’re right , does it mean that no action is required ?
By: djcross - 26th August 2002 at 12:56
RE: Natural gas…
Ice cores may provide indications of atmospheric CO2 for the last several hundred years (BTW, the increasing CO2 trend started 300 years ago – before industrial America and those evil Republicans), but there are no records for the hundreds of millenia prior to ice cores.
By: Hand87_5 - 26th August 2002 at 11:04
RE: Natural gas…
Djcross,
I have to disagree here. An
>>Also, there are no long term historical records that prove CO2 has >>been a constant percentage of Earth’s atmosphere for the past few >>millenia. With documentation of past massive meteor strikes, >>volcanoes and ice ages, there is a good arguement that the Earth’s >>C02 level fluctuates and is not steady state.
I have to disagree here. Any scientist can tell you that artic ice drill can tell with a very good accuracy , what was the atmosphere composition milleniums ago. CO2 part have never been that high.
Most of the scientist agree now (it was not the case 10 years ago) to say that we are close to disaster. It’s a shame that the US (5% o fthe ww population and 30% of the pollution) don’t commit to the necessary effort to fix this problem.
All of this is based on the well known republican assumption : “All good for the economy is good for the US and what’s good for the US is good for the world.”
That’s a good selfish and egocentric point of view.
Open you eyes and your mind , it’s not too late
By: Wombat - 26th August 2002 at 09:30
RE: Arthur.
Guys,
In relation to the list of nations which have yet to sign the treaty, I can confirm that good ol Oz has yet to do so, and I don’t have a bloody clue why.
We have a very active greenie element down here – hell, we even have a political party called the Greens, but for some reason, which I suspect might be this nation’s toadying to the US, we ain’t signed yet. Hmmm, that might be another topic for this forum…
Regards
The Wombat
By: mixtec - 13th July 2002 at 04:27
RE: Arthur.
Arthur said:
It is, and forest protection should be a bigger international concern than it is now. But the point is that deforestation is for a large part an uncontrolled and illegal matter, and lies far beyond the direct control of policy makers. Unless you want to put a forest-policeman on every acre of tropical rainforest making sure it isn’t slashed down, or provide other direct means of forest protection i’m not so sure what can be done about it.
Ive lived in the Seattle area for quite awhile, and the lumber industry is considered a replenishable resource there. You simply plant new trees. Drive though Washington State sometime and youll see thousands of acres of forest made up of small trees in various stages of growth. This is a simple example of where the international bearuocracy/political wrangling of the kyoto treaty cant get anything done of practical value.
Sign In
July 9, 2002 at 4:18 pm