US wont participate in Kyoto Protocol

davidh

davidh

Active member
This is unbelievable. I literally cant believe it. The stance we've taken, which is that we shouldn't have to sign if developing countries such as China and India dont sign. That is the most immature attitude I think there is. It's like a 10 year old thinking he should get the same treatment as his 6 month old brother. We're developed and we should be leading the way. Not holding back.

The whitehouse spokesman said that there's not enough evidence of global warming to impose restrictions. I dont understand how someone can truly believe the rise in global temperature is natural. Not caring is a different (and just as bad) matter, but denying it is just stupid. Bush needs to step it up and be a leader in this area if it's going to succeed. Why should all the smaller countries impose restrictions when the most powerful nation and biggest consumer of fossil fuels doesnt give a fuck?

God I'm just ranting because it pissed me off.

=========================================

'I've been so unlucky today. Honestly, if it was raining pussy, I'd get hit in the head with a 12 inch dick. God is angry with me.'
-Anathema

=======

'girls are cruel and unusual, like pouring acid into a cat's ear'
-NoTeefa
 
i hope youre not one of the people that cry about how outsourcing is hurting our economy.

Mercy's eyes are blue

When she places them in front of you

Nothing holds a roman candle to

The solemn warmth you feel inside

 
bush doesnt give a fuck about the environment. where have you been?

-formerly known as publicenemy1023-
 
the way you can tell that is by the fact that he wont sign on to a worthless pile of poop like the kyoto protocol. besides, is still going forward anyways. and like i said, if we did sign on, you would all be complaining about the drop in productivity, which leads to less jobs, worse economy. you cant have it both ways.

Mercy's eyes are blue

When she places them in front of you

Nothing holds a roman candle to

The solemn warmth you feel inside

 
It's not like any of the countries that sighed the protocol are actually going to meet it anyways. I'm from Canada and I just heard today that not only is there no way Canada will meet the protocol (6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions) by 2010, but that we are producing more greenhouse gasses now than when we initially signed the Kyoto accord. So really, Bush is the only logical man on the planet that realized how ridiculous the idea was and told the world to stuff it! YAY Bush for third term!

 
I must be missing something, because I don't know what Kyoto protocol is, so I guess I'll stay out of that part.

Global Warming not natural? An average volcanic eruption emits more CO2(Carbon Dioxide for all you high school drop outs) than humanity has created in its entire existance.

You should know that the earth has changing periods of warmth and cooling. Hence, ice ages. The tempeture of the earth can't stay the same all the time.

Trun of your DVD player and watch something besides The Day After Tomorrow.

I don't deny there are bad things in the US right now, hell, 51% of the country to be exact. But god damnit, our country being fat is NOT a problem. I do't give a shit how fat people are. hell, fat kids are harder to kidnap, that means our country is safer.

-Melvs
 
the enviroment in fact is getting better and better

peace

its easy to sound smart on the internet, guy

whutup?

$$$EASTCOAST$$$

criminal life, for real

 
The Kyoto protocol is an international agreement to reduce green house gas emissions. It's stupid considering the volcano thing and the fact that cars account for only 6% of the greenhouse gasses produced by living creatures. I read somewhere that termites produce like 33% of the CO2 every years and that cows produce another 25%. So until we get rid of a major food source and a nearly infinite number of tiny bugs we are pretty much stuck with global warming.

 
^so what?

drive hybrid cars and cut down on factory polution. even what little we can do will be better than sitting back and doing nothing!

we should at least make a serious attempt at changing for the better. Only crazy people think there is no value in saving what we have.

'I am stoke!' --Charles Gagnier
 
everyone mixes up the greenhouse effect with global warming. we need the greehouse effect to live, and it is good for us, to an extent. we can deal with the greenhouse gasses emitted from natural living sources and biomass, and we have been dealing with it fine for thousands of years. its the unnatural chemicals that we have created and emitted which are causing a spike in greenouuse gases, and more specifically, a rise in global temperatures.

-Joel

~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~
Capital City Rider, DFP
Silent Army

'Everybody calls me a zero. But I'm an internet hero.'
 
YAY, GO FOR COAL ENERGY, ITS THE SAFE NON POLLUTING WAY TO GO, FUKEN ASSHOLES!!!!!! Such jackasses at the head of a country, its pretty sad, and they keep saying the future is in coal...

Gravity sucks

What's the difference between a drunk and a stoner???
The drunk speeds through the stop sign and the stoner waits for it to turn green
(My real ID is french_hucker)
 
This is the facts about global warming dickheads. We know that green house gasses will increase the temperature of the environment in the labratory systems. We have NO idea what does in the Earth's environment. We have no evidence leaning ether way. If a group of PHD's doesn't know the effect then I have serious doubts that some one on this site does.

 
The earth is just heading into a warming trend, plus Bush is not big on nature so it really is not suprising that this has happend. Get over it already.

----2ond in Command of DANSA-----

To Huck. v. The act of throwing oneself off of a cornice, cliff, rock, or any other thing that results in an attempt to fly.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

GW Award December 3, 2004
 
its the same people who fail to see that there is more economic value in an forest when it is still standing than when it is cut down.

'I am stoke!' --Charles Gagnier
 
i think the Us biggest concern is that if we are restricted to the amount of CO2 we can emit into the atmosphere than it would 1. limit the number of large co2 emitting companies, and hurt the economic growth,2. or companies will have to spend so much money to buy new equipment that emits less CO2. However what they dont mention is that if many companies were forces to buy new equipment the demand would go up and arther lower the price of the new equipment and so in fact it would not be as pricy as they say it would be.

I'd rather be skiing
 
By putting out less carbon dioxide and other chemicals, it is actually better for the local economy in the sense that air quality is better, property is worth more, and the clean system could prevent the need for a multi billion dollar effort to clean things up.

'I am stoke!' --Charles Gagnier
 
maybe the massive corporations could spare some of the huge tax breaks they got to clean up their shit and stop polluting our country

'You've got to run like an antelope, out of control'
 
it's not CO2 that is doing harm, its carbon monoxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Those are the big ones.

Like a virgin on prom night

You can go on the bottom bunk and finish it yourself

When you guys are on those rails, it's like muah

You A-hole
 
From what I heard the protocol lets undeveloped countries give off more pollution where as developed coutnries are only allowed like an 8% increase so of course the US isn't going to sign it. Don't know much of the details but I heard a couple of greenies on the radio actually saying that the protocol wasn't any good and wouldn't fix the problems anyway.

Mark: 'Timo how do you sleep in Finland when it's light all day long?'

Timo (Fireside Lodge pimp) 'You just close your eyes'

Member# 101
 
we just need to find out how to create a fusion reactor, then our energy problems might me solved.

-------------------
 
its not that developing countries can give off more pollution, its that they have a longer time period in which to eliminate pollution. for instance, cfc's are still legal in many african nations, whereas they were phased out from developed countries 1n 1988, with the montreal protocol. but soon, they will be phased out. its like they are a step behind in the cleanup process.

-Joel

~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~
Capital City Rider, DFP
Silent Army

'Everybody calls me a zero. But I'm an internet hero.'
 
we still produce HCFCs and HFCs which are slightly less bad that CFCs, but trhwey will be phased out mostly by 2010

Like a virgin on prom night

You can go on the bottom bunk and finish it yourself

When you guys are on those rails, it's like muah

You A-hole
 
'I must be missing something, because I don't know what Kyoto protocol is, so I guess I'll stay out of that part.

Global Warming not natural? An average volcanic eruption emits more CO2(Carbon Dioxide for all you high school drop outs) than humanity has created in its entire existance.'

HUH? You haven't dropped out of school yet so you know about this stuff? The Kyoto Protocol is the main global treaty on global warming and climate change; it has been around for nearly 10 years and is talked about a lot; I recommend watching the news once in a while or looking it up on the internet.

Yes volcanoes do emit carbon dioxide, but they also emit other gasses including sulphur dioxide, which produces sufuric acid aerosols that cause the atmosphere to cool. This is why big eruptions cause the global climate to cool (see Tambora, Krakatoa, or Pinatubo).

The global level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from ~250 ppm to ~400 ppm in the past 200 years of human industrialization, which coincides nicely with an increase in global temperatures of over a degree. Yes the inner workings of climates are complicated, but this concept really isn't. Go open an intro geology or atmospheric science book and read about the greenhouse effect.

The scientific community is about 99% confident that global warming is real and we are causing it. 10 years ago we were 98.5% confident (Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Germany 1995 study). Would the prudent, CONSERVATIVE thing to do be to put our money on the 99% safe bet, that global warming is real and we're causing it? Why is it that some people are so ignorant and stubborn about this? It's really a tragedy how this issue has unfolded thanks to energy and auto companies and their republican allies in washington. We had such a great opportunity in 1988 when the original Bush said he would counter the greenhouse effect with the 'White House Effect.' We're still waiting.

 
I think its a highly probable theory that we have contributed to global warming but i mean come one we have only been her for a few hundred thousand years as capable human's and only within the last few hundred years have we made accurate reading's and logging of temperatures i mean shit how do we know this isnt a natural cycle. just my 2 cent's . I do think we might have sped it up a bit though.

Just dip your dong in paint and smack your helmet with it.
 
What most people dont realize is that signing a piece of paper doesn't mean shit.

The Kyoto Protocol has already been seen as ineffective and a failure amongst the international environmental community (this was already discussed in another). Basically it just turned out to be a signed piece of paper by world leaders who failed to do follow-up. I have read numerous left leaning articles that have been extremely critical of the protocol saying it was all talk with no walk.

Do I think we are speeding up glabal warming as a human race? Yes. But what I don't understand is why people don't study earth's history of climate patterns more closeley. Millions of years ago, when dinosaurs roamed, earth was believed to be an extremely hot planet. Then the ice age eventually set in through natural causes and created glaciers that extended as far down as the bible belt of the United States. The glaciers eventually began to recede, long before man-kind started to create emissions from machinery...all part of a natural cycle that earth was going through. Now I am by no means an expert in science, but I truly believe we are just stuck in the warming trend of a cycle. We may be speeding up the cycle by using fuel burning engines, but I think this is something we would still be experiencing regardless, just not at the current pace.

________________________

Getting it Right In America

Right In America

'Except For Ending Slavery, Facism, Nazism, and Communism War Has Never Solved Anything'

Protest Warrior

Sick of Michael Moore's lies?

MooreWatch

Bush/Cheney '04
 
You people don't realize that things come and go in cycles, just like the drought we had a few years ago (in Alberta), and the drought in the 30's. It's the same on a larger scale, over hundreds of years weather will get warmer, then colder and so on. Oh and the Kyoto Protocol will just hurt major industries like the oilpatch, which would mean lower wages for people like me (who work in the oilpatch). Many companies already try to reduce pollution but the Kyoto jut goes overboard with regulations, thanks to bastards like David Suzuki. Besides, theres not much evidence to prove global warming is a problem, it's mostly just propaganda from environmentalists.

big whoop wanna fight about it?
 
^. bullshit

And get this, on the news the other day they did a big story about old people dropping dead from heat exhaustion. They urged my community to donate fans to keep them alive!! Tell you what, I'll donate my pubes to shove in their mouths, but I'll be damned if I donate anything electrical or useful. - random net person that i found on a site shown to me by apple

Offical NS Matador
 
global warming is real, and the sooner you people get used to it, the better

And get this, on the news the other day they did a big story about old people dropping dead from heat exhaustion. They urged my community to donate fans to keep them alive!! Tell you what, I'll donate my pubes to shove in their mouths, but I'll be damned if I donate anything electrical or useful. - random net person that i found on a site shown to me by apple

Offical NS Matador
 
again, the dude in your signature is sydaddy.

-Joel

~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~
Capital City Rider, DFP
Silent Army

'Everybody calls me a zero. But I'm an internet hero.'
 
*skydaddy.

and the dude above said that evidence for global warming is just propaganda from environmentalists? dude, its the exact opposite. it seems that the only evidence against global warming is coming from publicly funded state universities, who are tools of the american government. they put out study after study suggesting that yes, the earth is warming up, but that it is 100% natural, and is great for the environment.

-Joel

~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~
Capital City Rider, DFP
Silent Army

'Everybody calls me a zero. But I'm an internet hero.'
 
To implement the Kyoto protocol was designed for one thing, for the United States pollution controls. From what I have read, it would have cost us the most, been the biggest rpoblem for us, and was really not an issue to the other countries. Why? Cars. In the United States we are more spread out than any other nation in the protocol, there fore we have more time spent in cars, and thus more pollution. The Kyoto protocol was basically a document that had we signed was really only for us.

The smart man does not know everything, rather the smart man admits when he knows nothing.
 
Lanks,

What I meant was that all that is being said about global warming being caused by people is propaganda, I realize that the earth is warming, and yes it is 100% natural, it comes and goes in cycles. People do pollute alot but it's not affecting global warming, at least not significantly, therefore ratifying the Kyoto is pointless and expensive to major industries.

big whoop wanna fight about it?
 
rodadeaco, it isnt 100% natural. thats quite the ignorant point of view. i would understand if you thought that our warming trend was brought on mostly by natural trends, but 100%? come on man, use your head.

-Joel

~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~
Capital City Rider, DFP
Silent Army

'Everybody calls me a zero. But I'm an internet hero.'
 
ok so 98%, I think pollution contributes to a very small amount of global warming. Not enough to be considered important. Not that I'm saying pollution isn't a problem, theres certainly health risks associated with the smog we breath in cities, it's just not the major cause of global warming.

big whoop wanna fight about it?
 
How are you people so retarted? Can you not read? I know everyone has their own cockamamie theories about why global warming is just a bunch propganda from pinko tree-huggers who want us all to stop driving, but you guys are delusional. Just about every single SCIENTIST on earth agrees that global warming is real and caused by humans. These people know a hell of a lot more about it than any of you. So many of you preface your arguments with a disclaimer that you don't know much about the subject, but you think it's baloney. Well maybe you should listen to yourself and go find out what real experts think about it; people who have spent their whole lives studying climate and climate change.

 
Did anyone actually read SVhucker's post? There was at least one useful statistic in there. At any rate, here's some data that indicates where we are, historically, as far as the 'it's just a natural cycle' theory goes. Graph measures the abundance of certain species of foramniferans (which can only survive in certain temperatures). If you look at the polar regions, you'll notice that there was one point at which it was as warm as it is now, roughly 125,000 years ago, which looks suspiciously like an aberration.

4771GWarm1.jpg


5*****~~~~~~~~~~
F*****~~~~~~~~~~
R*****~~~~~~~~~~
N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Current Reigning NS Moron: ''bass is for people that aren't coordinated enough to handle a guitar'' -Anathema, Member # 41985
 
Again, from the following (derived from ocean cores), it seems that this isn't as warm as it's been on Earth. However, it also doesn't appear that climate variances follow a set pattern. It seems more likely, from looking at these, that other causes (ie: natural disasters, maybe? I don't know) contribute to shifts in climate.

7532Gwarm3.jpg


5*****~~~~~~~~~~
F*****~~~~~~~~~~
R*****~~~~~~~~~~
N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Current Reigning NS Moron: ''bass is for people that aren't coordinated enough to handle a guitar'' -Anathema, Member # 41985
 
I've heard both from 'experts'. Some say people are causing global warming. Others say it's natural. What caused the ice age? And why did all the ice melt into the climate we have today? I'm sure it was pollution that melted all that ice.

big whoop wanna fight about it?
 
i heard that the warming trend is happening much faster than before in history, nobody is doubting that there were climate shifts in the past

'You've got to run like an antelope, out of control'
 
^ all that is a theory i mean we cannot be exact on information in the past there is no way so how would we know this is happening any different when we dont no exactly what happend before. owned

Just dip your dong in paint and smack your helmet with it.
 
yeah i dont no why i put that in there, I got all caught up in it haha my apologie's.

Just dip your dong in paint and smack your helmet with it.
 
I had to do a debate about this kyoto thing and my class decided it was bad for some reason.

------------------------
Flava Flav
300's
 
screw it, no one changes their opinions on these threads they are pointless.

I don't know why I don't know about kyoto protocol. I just don't, but I know pretty much every other poltical thing going on right now.

I don't care anymore, yall can fight. I'm going to go eat.

I don't deny there are bad things in the US right now, hell, 51% of the country to be exact. But god damnit, our country being fat is NOT a problem. I do't give a shit how fat people are. hell, fat kids are harder to kidnap, that means our country is safer.

-Melvs
 
Whether warming is caused by us and whether it isnt, (albeit at least some is and no expert, no matter what, knows just how much) is one thing. Whether the Kyoto protocol is useful or not is another, and as already said, many say it is not. Have a look into the specifications of it, and see for yourself.

Pollution is definetly a problem, and needs to be addressed, but as far as Canada goes, 'we need a made in Canada solution.' Yeah thats right, I quoted the premier of the only debt free province - which one of you West coast boys wants to give it to me first hmmmm? But it is true. The Kyoto protocol may work for countries that are already looking good to meet the specifications. Like it or not, we in North America, specifically Canada, will use more energy than anyone else no matter what. We have to travel greater distances, as we are more spread out. No it is not feasible to put a train station in every little town! We also have to heat our homes more. And yes, we are used to a more comfortable/materialistic way of life.

If Canada were to totally follow the protocol, our economy would get slaughtered, and yes especially Albertas's, but dont think that the rest of the country wouldnt feel that. It's a lot easier to make progress with money. Thus, reduction has to be done slowly and in a manner where not one side is being favoured. Checks and balances to say. If you don't understand what im writing here, I'll elaborate if need be.

Thus, I dont think the States not ratifying it was a dumb decision, it was more likely a rational one. But rationality has escaped many these days.

signatures are for pussies

 
Again, I recommend reading things, like my posts. I'll try and remember that most people here have a 10 second attention span.

Yes temperatures have in history been warmer than they are now, but that's not the point. The rate of warming now is higher than anything in the last 100,000 years at least and probably a lot further back than that. All of recorded human history has occured in the relatively mild climate of the past 10,000 years since the last ice age. We have no idea what we're getting into. It is NOT natural variation. There have been countless studies showing this (here's one from 1998:http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/archive/1998/042298climate.html)

Why is it that global warming is only only issue that scientists have to prove 100% before everyone will jump on board? Were we 100% sure an atomic bomb would work when we built one? Were we 100% sure we would succeed in landing on the moon when we built the Saturn V? No. The people in charge work on the margin and take calculated risks, putting their money on safe bets. The safe bet for the past 15 years has been to cut our fossil fuel use and pollution. Yet some people still say 'The jury's out' because there's maybe a 1% chance we're not causing the warming. We still do nothing.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top