Gratz Bush on fucking the environment again.

[Hesten]

Not bad, he only just been reelected, and already hes showing the world that hes not gonna change and stick to his old politics. Oh well, gratz to Bush friends with the big companies that wont have to pay for polluting the planet.
You know its bad when even the russians are more concerned about the environment than the US are.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... 6&ncid=703

[Rekaar.]

Bush rejecting the kyoto agreement is not exactly news.

[Hesten]

No, he did that a while back, which are one of the reasons the US are disliked in most of the world.

But him standing buy it just after the election is.

[Mak]

Can someone explain to me why the US should sign the Kyoto accords? How do you answer the questions that the accords are bad for the US?

Australia also rejected them, and everything I read on the subject seems to hold that the measures outlined in it would be a major blow to US industry. The above article states a loss of 5 million jobs and 400 billion dollars- I think I'd have 2nd and 3rd thoughts about agreeing to it as well.

This is a serious question.

(But no, it's fairly old news, regardless.)

[Zaelath]

John Howard has his tongue so far up Bush's ass you can use him to support anything Bush does. If Bush was caught molesting kids, Howard would be out cruising grade schools that day.

[Keverian FireCry]

Mak, how bout because the environment is the most important thing we need to protect. You're bitching about how much it would spend on protecting the very thing that bears our entire existance. Ever ponder how much this fucking war that didn't need to happen is going to end up costing? Are you telling me that fighting this war was more important than insuring the safety of the environment, which gives us everything we MUST have in order to live?

In order for humans to be healthy, the land, air and water needs to be healthy, and right now it is steadily deteriorating. Let me put it this way: Earth is worth it's weight in gold. It is inevitable that we must change how we treat our environment. The earlier we adress the problems the less it will cost us in the long run.

[Mak]

First of all, I wasn't bitching about anything. I was asking a question.

Secondly, I don't disagree with the importance of taking care of the environment. But- and this is the crux of my question- is Kyoto the best way to do it? It may be, it may not be. I'm interested in hearing why Kyoto The Agreement (as opposed to Kyoto The Idea) is worth the negatives that have been mentioned. Are those negatives valid concerns? Is there a better way to accomplish the goals of Kyoto? Why has Australia rejected Kyoto? Why has it taken Russia so long to agree? What industialized countries, if any, are still yet to sign on? What countries are exempt, and why?

[Kylere]

Umm has no one even bought a clue that the Kyoto agreement specifically EXEMPTS CHINA the second largest producer of greenhouse gases?

Go read up on the FACTS not the partisan hackery.

[VariaVespasa]

Without actually researching anything to be sure, I'm under the impression that the various developing nations are often under fewer restrictions in order to help them industrialise and catch up with the rest of the world in wealth.

*Hugs*
Varia

[Seebs]

Not meant to be a flame Hesten, I like you, but I think the morale of the story here is that the US was attacked and we don't care what Denmark thinks about it.

55 million people disagree with that approach but 58 MM think its a sound philosophy. There is no country that can defend the US except the US.

Its a heads down approach, and I see the flaws in it, but I understand it fully.

Denmark is lovely, but not a voice on what W moves forward with.

[masteen]

The Kyoto agreement was a piece of shit, negotiated by the green man himself. This is one decision I agree with Dubya on.

[Canelek]

Yeah man, Kyoto was garbage. It was brought up in one of the debates also and soundly squashed by Bush once again. In theory, it had its merit, but the flaws were too many...

It is important to see all sides of something like that before blindly accepting it just because it is more 'Environmental' sounding. Remember, balance is the key. Believe me, I would like nothing more than to see better management of our resources--namely wildlife and forests--both of which are renewable, but need to be better managed.

[Kylere]

Without actually researching anything to be sure, I'm under the impression that the various developing nations are often under fewer restrictions in order to help them industrialise and catch up with the rest of the world in wealth.

*Hugs*
Varia

This has a small amount of validity Varia, but China alone is why is it poorly written, you cannot allow the worlds second largest prodcuer of greenhouse gases to walk scot free and slap serious restrictions on the US. I fully support helping those down, but doing it by ripping the ups is called communism.

[Keverian FireCry]

It is important to see all sides of something like that before blindly accepting it...

Yeah, cause this admin does a lot of that . The point is, whether it i s Kyoto or not, we need to do something about our shitty policies towards the environment, and this admin has one of the worst environmental records in history. Kyoto obviously has it's problems, but if we aren't going to go along with it, then we better start coming up with our own way of doing something about this horrendous problem.

If there was some huge plan on our part to reform our environmental polices then I wouldn't care whether or not we voted for Kyoto, but we have our policies towards the environment have WORSENED over the last 4 years. Can we atleast agree that SOMETHING pretty big needs to be done here in America to insure our environmental safety?

[Rick James]

Not bad, he only just been reelected, and already hes showing the world that hes not gonna change and stick to his old politics. Oh well, gratz to Bush friends with the big companies that wont have to pay for polluting the planet.
You know its bad when even the russians are more concerned about the environment than the US are.

HAHA I'M DEAD BITCH AND YOU ARE STILL STUPID HAHAHA!

[Rivera Bladestrike]

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHA... No.

How about we make this bitch dead by banning his ass?

[Kylere]

Hesten, go ask the lands of the former east Germany if the Russians care about the environment.

Or grow up, pick one.

[Lohrno]

Kylere has a point. They'll probably just fake the numbers, and take the profit. (Russia)

-=Lohrno

[Kelshara]

I fully support helping those down, but doing it by ripping the ups is called communism.

rofl god you're clueless.

Anyway, Russia has worked hard on cleaning up their side of the fence. Of course, they do it due to monetary gain (trade deals, grants etc) but they have done quite a bit. Wouldn't surprise me to see them pass up the US shortly due to y'all not giving a flying shit about it.

[Kylere]

Kelshara, you demonstrate your clueless nature with each post. the former USSR managed to so badly polutte the Warsaw pact countries that the UN will not even try to put an estimate on the cleanup costs. Add in fact that Chernobyl is the worlds largest unihabitable zone. then look at the overall environmental record. In the US we make attempts to be inline with the environment that USSR and now Russia never did, other than seeking propaganda gains by declaring that the peoples and workers want it to be that way.

If China gets a free pass, it is not a realistic treaty nor is it worth signing.

[Kelshara]

Did I say they did not pollute in the past? No? Good! One day even you may be able to read a whole post!

Russia has done some major steps to clean up their former problematic areas, including nuclear waste, nuclear reactors, factories etc. How do I know? Well Norway has been a major contributor to it due to the pollution hitting us.

[Kylere]

If they spend two dollars for every one the US spends on environmental issues then I will grats the Russians.

Nice of you eco nuts to get all happy with them while they remove the rights of their citizens to select local and district representatives, and while Putin does his best to remove democracy overall there, there is this thing, called "THE BIG PICTURE" if you examine the overall world and how it relates, you will see that this is merely a PR move on their part, while it would HURT the US to join the nearly toothless Kyoto accord.

[Mak]

Russia has done some major steps to clean up their former problematic areas, including nuclear waste, nuclear reactors, factories etc.

Great. But it wasn't out of environmental concern... it was because their economy tanked out and they shut down a shitload of factories.

[Zaelath]

while it would HURT the US to join the nearly toothless Kyoto accord.

Of course it will fucking hurt to reduce our green house emissions and attempt to slow our inevitable (near) extinction. Talk about not seeing the "big picture". How the hell can you whine about China's second place when you refuse point blank to consider cleaning up you own act?

[Mak]

while it would HURT the US to join the nearly toothless Kyoto accord.

Of course it will fucking hurt to reduce our green house emissions and attempt to slow our inevitable (near) extinction. Talk about not seeing the "big picture". How the hell can you whine about China's second place when you refuse point blank to consider cleaning up you own act?

It's you that's not seeing at the big picture. With China (and India) being exempt, and able to increase to any level they want, you're asking the US to expend all this effort for a zero net gain. Obviously something should be done, but from what I've seen, Kyoto isn't it. It was feel good politics at best.

[Zaelath]

Spoken like 5 year olds.

[Lynks]

But but but mom, Tommy and Billy don't have to clean up their room, why should I?

[Nick]

One question, directed to all. Not just the US (for once!)

What is being done to stop the estimated impact of global warming and climate change by our developed nations (IE - countries which can in fact afford to stop ruining their world)

The answer quite simply put is : Not enough

How the fuck am I meant to be able to frolic in the meadows when the meadow is submerged under 80 feet of sea?

As such, surely we could all do better and work harder. The British government has not reduced CO2 emissions since it came to power in 97(or 98?) and it has signed up to kyoto.

Unfortunately all it has done has juggled its numbers to make it look like its on top of its kyoto targets while in fact not doing a GODDAMN thing.

Why? To support the economy.


ok.........Surely, and I am just guessing here, the economy would be infinitely more fucked up in about 50 years when all our money is spent redefining the world that hasnt been fucked inside out by our greedy consumption.

I am no world leader in this field, but I sure as hell would wish we didnt take our earth for granted so much.

[Mak]

Oh, good answers... /golfclap.

To tighten up your stupid little analogy to fit reality... if you, Tommy, and Billy all shared a room, and you were told you could choose to clean it up AND wouldn't get your allowance or your dinner if you did, and they continued to throw shit all over, do you think perhaps you'd choose not to do it?

If Bush got on TV and said "I'm going to spend 400 billion dollars and we'll lose 5 million jobs and our economy could stall, but we'll gain no discernable improvement in the environment" you'd be going crazy 8 bonkers insane.

Why was China made exempt? Is their economic stability more important than anyone else's? Why was China made exempt if this is SO critical to the survival of the planet? It's politics. We're all glad countries like Benin signed up for this, but forgive me if I'm not impressed at the sacrifice they'd have to make.

[Nick]

There must be a balance between economic prosperity if it is at the expense of the environment you happen to exist in.

For all.

Remember Mak, your countries pollution affects Benin just a little bit more than Benin's affect yours.

It's a bit ridiculous that a tiny country like that feels more responsibility than Jesusland.

[Mak]

There must be a balance between economic prosperity if it is at the expense of the environment you happen to exist in.

For all.

Remember Mak, your countries pollution affects Benin just a little bit more than Benin's affect yours.

It's a bit ridiculous that a tiny country like that feels more responsibility than Jesusland.

I agree with you man... ~something~ needs to be done, without a doubt. I like breathing clean air and walking on dry land as much as you do. I just have yet to be convinced that Kyoto, as written, is the best answer.

And Benin can be more "responsible" because they have less cost accrued for doing so. Nothing against them, but we have a lot more to lose than they do.

[Zaelath]

No, the analogy works better if Tommy and Billy share a house, only Tommy is retarded and Billy is not. Both kids shoplift continually, and Billy refuses to stop because Tommy won't.

Lame analogies aside, China is second with *half* of the US emissions and five times the population. Per capita, the US produces 10 times the green house gases of China.

The emission reduction target is only 6%, that would still leave you well ahead of China and India in emissions per capita.

Bush is a child, and people are so self absorbed and delusional they can say with a straight face that they value their children above everything else, yet will quite happily mortgage their future.

[Aslanna]

Speaking of global warming...

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xht ... y_id=28230

Scientists Report Arctic Warming Quickly

The annual average amount of sea ice in the Arctic has decreased by about 8 percent in the past 30 years, resulting in the loss of 386,100 square miles of sea ice -- an area bigger than Texas and Arizona combined, according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
-- --

Scientists say changes in the earth's climate from human influences are occurring particularly intensely in the Arctic region, evidenced by widespread melting of glaciers, thinning sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures.

A study released Monday said the annual average amount of sea ice in the Arctic has decreased by about 8 percent in the past 30 years, resulting in the loss of 386,100 square miles of sea ice - an area bigger than Texas and Arizona combined.

In the past half-century, average yearly temperatures in Alaska and Siberia rose by about 3.6 degrees to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit and winters in Alaska and western Canada warmed by an average of 5 degrees to 7 degrees Fahrenheit.

With "some of the most rapid and severe climate change on earth," the Arctic regions' melting contributed to sea levels rising globally by an average of about three inches in the past 20 years, the report said.

"These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming," says the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a four-year study by 300 scientists in eight Arctic-bordering nations, including the United States.

This most comprehensive study of Arctic warming to date adds yet more impetus to the projections by many of the world's climate scientists that there will be a steady rise in global temperature as the result of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and other sources.

It is based on ice core samples and other evidence of climate conditions such as on-the-ground and satellite measurements of surface air temperatures. Nations participating in the study besides the United States are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden.

"The bottom line is that the Arctic is warming now, much more rapidly than the rest of the globe, and it's impacting people directly," Robert Corell, chairman of the scientists' study panel and a senior fellow with the American Meteorological Society, said Sunday.

The process is only likely to accelerate in the Arctic, a region that provides important resources such as oil, gas and fish, the study finds.

That would wreak havoc on polar bears, ice-dependent seals, caribou and reindeer herds - and local people such as Inuit whose main food source comes from hunting those animals. Some endangered migratory birds are projected to lose more than half their breeding areas.

The study projects that in the next 100 years the yearly average temperatures will increase by 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit over land and 13 to 18 degrees over the ocean, mainly because the water absorbs more heat.

Forests would expand into the Arctic tundra, which in turn would expand into the polar ice deserts, because rising temperatures would favor taller, denser vegetation. The areas of Arctic tundra would shrink to their smallest extent since 21,000 years ago when, humans began emerging from the last Ice Age.

"It's happening much more quickly than we had anticipated as recently as five years ago, and it has global implications due to the opening of the Arctic sea ice, providing for new marine transportation routes," said Corell, who from 1986 to 2000 headed a roughly $2 billion-a-year U.S. research program into climate and other global environmental changes.

Since it takes decades if not centuries to reverse warming from carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases, some damage is inevitable, though longer-term impacts could be "reduced significantly" by cutting emissions globally this century, the study says.

Sea levels globally already are expected to rise between another four inches to three feet or more this century. Longer term, if temperatures continue to rise unabated, in the range of 5 degrees to 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next several centuries, sea levels would rise alarmingly.

In that scenario, the study projects "a virtually complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet," which would contribute as much as 23 feet to the world's sea level rise.

[Dexail]

water world!!

[Animalor]

It's all well and good not having Kyoto in the US but having some sort of environmental strategy is better than not having anything at all.

[Rekaar.]

Sea levels globally already are expected to rise between another four inches to three feet or more this century.

Maybe I'm just childishly optimistic sometimes, but I have a great deal of faith in our ability to curb this challenge long before the year 2099.

[Zaelath]

Sea levels globally already are expected to rise between another four inches to three feet or more this century.

Maybe I'm just childishly optimistic sometimes, but I have a great deal of faith in our ability to curb this challenge long before the year 2099.

You have faith in a lot of improbable shit, I don't see the relevance really.

[Winnow]

The polar shift is going to do us in. Polar shifts are confirmed events.

No matter what happens...changing currents in the North Atlantic, polar shifts, etc...Southern Europe is screwed. They will face unbearable climates that only really hairy humans can survive in. Places like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Canada experience this already. Icicles will hang from your chins. Airports will make you break these potentially deadly weapons off before boarding planes.

Seriously though, with a hundred year outlook, Europe is the place I'd least likely want to be with regards to potential earth changes.

You rely entirely too much on the fragile Gulf Stream!

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resourc ... ream_x.htm

[Kylere]

Zaelath has to call names because the simple truth is that unless we restrict all nations the same there is not going to be a benefit from Kyoto.

The first thing that would happen if we enacted Kyoto would be a shift of manufacturing jobs to China, India, Pakistan, Malasia, etc, causing further harm to the environment there, and starving people here.

You all really need to consider that the US economcally is not all off on its own, when we make things cost X more to make here the jobs and the money goes there, then those developing nations are not buying from us, we are buying from them and producing zip, so weeee the pollution shifts without reduction..

X amount of demand worldwide produces Y amount of pollution, shifting it around in the columns still results in the same pollution.

I wish some of you had taken math beyond 8th grade but I bet you enjoyed taking Basket Weaving and Home Ec rather than core classes, thanks liberals again!

[Zaelath]

What names?

It's an interesting theory you espouse, kind of like the one that states we should all buy new cars every 7 years because they create less pollution. This is true... if you discount the fact that creating new cars is a heavily polluting operation and you could run the older car until it fell apart and create less pollution in total. Of course, the 7 year theory supports manufacturing jobs and it makes governments look green to support it.

I'm quite happy to restrict all nations the same, but do you really think output/nation is a fair comparison versus output per capita? I'm sure China would be quite happy to increase their pollution 9 fold while you reduce yours by 6% over 10 years.

In theory the global community should chase the polluters if they choose to off-shore. In theory people are intelligent, altruistic and benevolent. The reality is somewhat different, and the real solution is to reduce demand by educating people and/or doing the same things in a cleaner fashion. Besides, the US government could happily impose pollution tarrifs on foreign products if they were at all interested in the environment.

BTW, that wasn't maths, that was economic theory you were rambling on with, and the thing about economics is that the models aren't simple and they are heavily affected by government policy like tarrifs.

[Kylere]

Zaelath

Production in US X Pollution Z
Production in China Y Polllution W
World Pollution A

Post Kyoto

Production in US Y Pollution W
Production in China X Pollution Z
World Pollution STILL A

Polllution could give a rats ass about boundaries made by man, ask the Canadians and New Englanders sharing acid rain, or Germany experiencing the wonders of a black forest that is gone from Rhine production. Kyoto is a non functioning politcal bandaid that will produce zero net results for the environment while screwing the US economically. If they require every nation on the planet to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% that would be an acceptable treaty. But to cut 10% here, add 50% there ends up as BS, not a solution.

[Seebs]

I recycled 5 cans yesterday. I'm doing my part.

[Zaelath]

Zaelath

Production in US X Pollution Z
Production in China Y Polllution W

World Pollution A

Post Kyoto

Production in US Y Pollution W
Production in China X Pollution Z
World Pollution STILL A

Polllution could give a rats ass about boundaries made by man, ask the Canadians and New Englanders sharing acid rain, or Germany experiencing the wonders of a black forest that is gone from Rhine production. Kyoto is a non functioning politcal bandaid that will produce zero net results for the environment while screwing the US economically. If they require every nation on the planet to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% that would be an acceptable treaty. But to cut 10% here, add 50% there ends up as BS, not a solution.

Yes, I understand what you're trying to say, I'm just saying that it's an unsubstantiated theory and doesn't take into account any forces external to your rapacious appetite for nerf toys.

You claim the manufacturing/pollution will simply shift.

I claim your government could stop that shift if it chose. For confirmation of my theory, see your agriculture industry that would cease to exist if free trade and globalisation were as "pure" as you're attempting to say they are.

Oh, and if China agreed to a 6% reduction I submit that you would still say that was too cheap/easy for them to do and Bush would find some other excuse to refuse.

[Kylere]

Umm Zaelath in the US we dould not tell a company "You can't leave and go to China"

We would have to BE China to do that sort of thing, FACE the facts.

[Rekaar.]

Zaeleth you claim and submit an awful lot without a damn thing to back you up. Are you naturally this pessimistic or is it a role you play when here?

[Lohrno]

Can anyone name one good thing Bush has done to help the environment?

Letting people lose jobs so they can't pay for gas doesn't count.

-=Lohrno

[Zaelath]

Umm Zaelath in the US we dould not tell a company "You can't leave and go to China"

We would have to BE China to do that sort of thing, FACE the facts.

I didn't say that, I said you could deny that company the US market, and that's where the demand to create the pollution comes from.

[Zaelath]

Zaeleth you claim and submit an awful lot without a damn thing to back you up. Are you naturally this pessimistic or is it a role you play when here?

There was a rationale attached to my claim, with a coherent example of how the US has protected it's industry in the past. What's your problem?

And for the record, a submission doesn't require "backing up", it's purely an opinion.

I'm more cynical than pessimistic, though the two do tend to occur together.

[Kylere]

Hello, McFly

The world is not a boundary place economically either, companies are multinational now. Welcome to 1980!!!!

If a company moves manufacturing to China to escape US pollution enforcement then you want peope to start screaming "Buy USA!" as your answer? What planet do you live on?

[Zaelath]

Kyle, you're dangerously close to foaming at the mouth.

Globalisation and Free Trade are not "pure" as yet. They exist within the boundaries set by various governments around the world (ask some euros about paying VAT on a product they buy and use exclusively in the US)

Buy USA etc rely far too heavily on people putting their self interest aside, and don't tend to work very well. I was referring to tariffs and other controls that are imposed at a federal level and are inescapable (outside the black market).

You lost your automotive industry because the government chose to allow it, which is from where I think your bitter vetching must stem. They *could* have put heavy tariffs on cars made in Mexico if they wished but probably felt that the auto workers weren't worth preserving.

Perhaps they feel allowing your agricultural industry to be outsourced would be strategically bad, because they protect that industry at both ends (subsidies, tariffs, and trade restrictions)

Regardless, it's moot to continue to argue the point since I say one thing and you rant about your misinterpretation. If you think that is unfair, please quote what the hell you're referencing, because I thought I was pretty clear in saying that

In theory people are intelligent, altruistic and benevolent. The reality is somewhat different