# Kyoto Protocol



## Silvia

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement dating back to December 1997 setting binding targets for countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a countermeasure for global warming.

It has entered into force on February 16, 2005.

As of today, the following countries have ratified the Protocol:
 Antigua and Barbuda
 Argentina
 Bolivia
 Brazil
 Bulgaria
 Canada
 Chile
 Cook Islands
 Costa Rica
 Cuba
 Ecuador
 Egypt
 El Salvador
 European Union (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom)
 Federated States od Micronesia
 Fiji
 Guatemala
 Honduras
 India
 Indonesia
 Israel
 Japan
 Liechtenstein
 Malaysia
 Maldives
 Mali
 Marschall Islands
 Mexico
 Nauru
 New Zealand
 Nicaragua
 Niger
 Niue
 Panama
 Papua New Guinea
 Paraguay
 People's Republic of China
 Peru
 Philippines
 Republic of Korea
 Romania
 Russian Federation
 Saint Lucia
 Saint Vicent and The Grenadines
 Samoa
 Seychelles
 Solomon Islands
 Switzerland
 Thailand
 Trinidad and Tobago
 Turkmenistan
 Tuvalu
 Ukraine
 Uruguay
 Uzbekistan
 Vietnam

All the WR members are invited to express their opinion and comment about:
- the reasons why some countries have not ratified it
- the political position of the country they live in or they come from
- other environmental policies adopted in place of this agreement
- other kinds of commitment as regards the enviroment of the planet

Text of the Kyoto Protocol


----------



## Caronium

I think the Kyoto Protocol was a great commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions... until it involved trading carbon emission credits!


----------



## JJchang

It's a shame the US and Australia do not want to ratify the protocol. John Howards claimed the protocol will cost Australian jobs. Interesting thought...


----------



## Agnès E.

Bonjour Robert,

When you write 


			
				Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> I have just perceived a world view of a nation of ignorant decendants of convicts and felons and looking at the political decisions and public statements made since Mr. John Howard came to power I am sorry to say that such a view would probably be justified in considering us to be lapdogs.


I'm afraid you also have a "victimised" point of view about the rest of the world considering Australia 
This view was probably right five or six decades ago, I'm not sure about it nowadays... And you have pointed out the everlasting problem of dichotomy between a whole population and the little team of men lead by their "alpha male" which is in charge of representing millions of people. 
As you said wisely, millions of American citizens (as you personally don't, and other Australians too) do not probably support their government's decision not to sign this treaty, as it is so obvious that private and industrial interests are weighing heavily on the decision scales...


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Agnes E.

I did not mean to look like a victim or anything.  I understand the virtual cultural desert I live in.  Sport is king here.  I know this and I don't care.  Until the question was posted I did not give a toss about the opinion of the rest of the world but that was on an artistic level.  I like real art and I also love language and enjoy jousting and disagreeing and debating and all that if I am talking about art or similar subjects that do not affect the possibility of my baby to have a world for her baby.

I can only look out and all I know of the rest of the world is filtered by media barons intent on depressing the audience.  When the audience is depressed it is easy to convince it to buy the next wonder thing to guarantee eternal happiness or at least until the next wonder thing that guarantees eternal happiness comes along to be flogged at obscene profit to a now thoroughly confused and Pavlovianly trained open wallet.  Happy people don't need to buy the next frippery.

My image of the world is filtered and lensed to within an inch of its life and I am here and you are there.  I will never meet you but I have already learned from you.

We don't have an image of the rest of the world actually considering us to be still like it was back then.  We laugh at it ourselves.  I was emotional when I wrote.  I was trying to illustrate a point only.  We Aussies are not the victims and we got the politicians we deserve.  We have done the wrong thing.  The world is the victim.

I am tired and sad but I hope I am clear.  This is a pretty good place but we have done some bad things as well.

I don't quite know what tone my writing is here.  I do not try to be agressive or touchy or anything like that.  I recognise what you say about the victim thing and I am repulsed by the concept of a person who has been found to be part of a bad thing claiming they are the victim.  If I am a victim it is as a victim of my nations stupidity and in that way I am the same as you.  If this world goes we don't have too many spares at hand.

Gently

Robert


----------



## Agnès E.

Robert 

Well, I am just French and sometimes do not catch the whole range of emotions conveyed by English-speaking people, but I found your message clear, interesting (but this is not a new feeling) and absolutely not agressive! 
I just wanted to point out that some (not all, we are not living in Utopia) stereotypes no longer exist, and your whole person seems to prove it, according to the snatches of info we have about you. 
Do you really think that Australia can be a real danger for the world (regarding industrial pollution, I mean) such as the US can be?


----------



## Robert Bennie

That is my point.  I don't know the figures but I would guess that China or the U.S. would each probably spew out more in a day than we do in a year.  Our population is miniscule compared to just about anywhere else.  We have 20 million people here.  I recently had to travel to Sydney and was lightheartedly moaning to a taxi driver about the state of the traffic and how busy it was and he just didn't make the right noises so I actually listened to his voice and realised that he was not born here.  He told me that his city had more people than my country.  He said his city was so vast and the crowds so thick that to cross the road was to take your life in your hands. I didn't complain again.

The only reason we signed was because my boss cowtowed to a bigger boss to make the bigger boss look better.

Robert


----------



## Agnès E.

Well, you just confirmed the idea I got (but I am far from a specialist regarding Australia, I must confess) about your country. Don't yell at me, this was a compliment! 
Regarding politicians: what can be expect from them? Some people have to make decisions for the vast majority. Even in ancient Rome, when politicians had to be very rich to avoid corruption and personal interest placed before general interest, clientelism was king of the (republican) Urbs.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day mates

If I may lighten the depth a little with another opinion I gained from the discussion so far

       PROTOCOL

From this scattered jumble
of past places ideas wander
to a history of our nature
an alternate look at life

We all hear a different piper
see a separate stately message
as we wend our puzzled passage
through this changling maze called time

While we think and taste and touch it
take a nervous nibble quickly
we must follow what we did before
to get to where we go

Every portion is a gamble
to find marvels all should ramble
with some luck and balanced planning
live to see the lotus bloom

As we seek evasive answers
look about and try to open
all the tiny perfect puzzles
of this planet we infest

Please consider logic's lesson
to step light upon existance
careless leaching users vanish
if they kill their only host

Robert


----------



## cuchuflete

Call for help to the civilized world, if there is such a thing:

My neighbors and I live here:

33,215 square              miles 
6000 Lakes and              Ponds 
3,500 miles of              coastline 
17 million acres              of Forest 

32,000 miles              of Rivers and Streams
542,629 acres              of state and national parks 
Harvested over              57 million pounds of lobster in 2000 

Largest Blueberry              crop in the nation in 2000; 60,000 acres in production producing 74.5              million pounds 
320 miles long              ~535km
210 miles wide~350km

 The capital has about 20,000 residents. The largest city has about 75,000 people. Our land area is mostly forest. We are about 60% the size of Italy, and have only a little more than 1 million residents.

We have almost no industry. Our air is fouled by power plants hundreds of miles to the west of us. Major industries give lots of money to the politicians. The politicians allow them to violate existing clean air laws, and then weaken the laws. It looks like money is buying influence.

I have never met a single person who supports Bush's failure to sign the accord.  I wish he would. So do my neighbors.

regards,
Cuchu​


----------



## Jana337

I am unfortunately too busy to peruse all previous contributions, not to mention writing mine.

As the text written by the foreros so far seem unequivocally pro-Koyto, let me at least offer you a source of opinions contrary to yours. Personally, I like that web very much.

Jana


----------



## cuchuflete

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I am unfortunately too busy to peruse all previous contributions, not to mention writing mine.
> 
> As the text written by the foreros so far seem unequivocally pro-Koyto, let me at least offer you a source of opinions contrary to yours. Personally, I like that web very much.
> 
> Jana



Hello Jana,

I look forward to reading the site.  Unfortunately, the link you have provided just takes me to a commercial site for a large software vendor.

Therefore, as a Moderator, I am disabling that link.  Please re-post, and verify that the intended link is working.  

Many thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## lsp

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I am unfortunately too busy to peruse all previous contributions, not to mention writing mine.
> 
> As the text written by the foreros so far seem unequivocally pro-Koyto, let me at least offer you a source of opinions contrary to yours. Personally, I like that web very much.
> 
> Jana


Jana, your url has two sets of <http://> so you'll need to edit it. Or people can click here.


----------



## Jana337

Hi Cuchu and lsp,

excuse me for not verifying the link and thanks for the alert. I inserted the correct link into my original post.

Jana


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello Jana,

In one of the ariticles at the site--thanks for the working link--Barun Mitra states,
"The Kyoto protocol retards the economic growth that would enable the poor to leave poverty behind and adapt better. "  He or she then proceeds to other topics, leaving it up to the reader to swallow that assertion with no proof.  The result for me was to
find the entire article suspect.

The Kyoto accord is far from perfect. It is a small beginning.  If you accept the reasoning of the authors at the site you have provided, Kyoto will not help very much.
The converse is that failing to implement it will make things worse, if only by a little.

regards,
Cuchu


----------



## Silvia

Thanks to all the people who contributed to this thread so far.

Jana, I checked the site whose address is in lsp's post, but I didn't find an article about "what is wrong with the Kyoto Protocol", maybe you can point it out to me.

Anyway, this thread is not about its correctness, what is good or bad about it. And I hope it doesn't turn into this kind of debate.

Industrialized countries openly admitted their faults and recognizing one's own faults, they proposed countermeasures. 

This thread is for discussion about any other countermeasure adopted by countries all over the world. If countries Y, X and Z decided the Kyoto Protocol is flawless, in order to stand their ground, I expect they actively find their way against environmental problems, otherwise it just becomes an excuse. In other terms, rebuking something is fine as long as you are being constructive. 

The world must work in the same direction to achieve the goal, in this case fighting pollution, choosing what's best for any specific country.

I will repeat myself here:
Why didn't some countries ratify the Kyoto Protocol?
What is the position of the country you live in or you come from?
Are there other environmental policies adopted in place of this agreement?
Are there other kinds of commitment as regards the enviroment of the planet?


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Cuchu

My suspicion is that an explination or rationalisation that appears to lack logic probably does.  Those words were not written by an amateur but a professional with the might of industrial wealth behind him.  It sounded like tosh because it was tosh.

May I suggest a book by Jarred Diamond, Collapse - How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive.  After reading this my eyes were opened a little more.

The benefit of an open mind is that it is easier to learn

Robert


----------



## Jana337

Dear all,

I promise to find a couple of minutes and to reply. But please bear with me, I am as busy as never these days.

Jana

P.S. A sidenote for Silvia: When posting, I didn't have a particular article at the back of my mind (there are just many about Kyoto). It is a section devoted to environmentalism generally. I hoped it could be useful for the interested people as it discusses things from a very different viewpoint than the mainstream thinking on climate-related issues.


----------



## Silvia

Jana337 said:
			
		

> When posting, I didn't have a particular article at the back of my mind (there are just many about Kyoto).


 Are you asking me to read the whole site?!  I wish I could do that, but I can't right now... If you have read it, which I suppose you did (I don't expect you to suggest something you don't know), please summarize


----------



## Allanis

Hi Robert,

F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C post !

But as you say Australia ( though a large territory )
has just a marginal contribution to the production
of green-house polluting gases.

The *big polluter* is the US ... 25% of the whole planet !

I'd like to point out at least 2 things :

1) Previous President BILL CLINTON signed the Kyoto Protocol
it is the current rogue administration that decided NOT to ratify it.

2) There are currently many means  to bring back the US 
within the international community of civilized nations, one of these
is just hitting them with ECONOMIC SANCTIONS .. !

Bye


----------



## Sev

Silvia said:
			
		

> What is the position of the country you live in or you come from?
> Are there other environmental policies adopted in place of this agreement?


In France the government signed it. It is certainly a good thing but as somebody else said, only a tiny little step.
The government try to make laws to prevent car pollution : last summer, a minister tried to create a law that taxes cars that pollute the most (such as four wheels). But then he failed, and there's still no law for all these people driving with their big car their entire life in a town...
I think there are too many and too strong lobbies to make stg efficient, even with nice treaties....


----------



## vbede772

My opinion (one of 280 million here):

We should sign the treaty, whether we plan on following it or not. It would be great public relations. It's a meaningless scrap of paper anyway. I really can't understand the reasons for not signing it. I say this even though I agree with its aim. It would be great if all signees would follow through, but this isn't going to happen. What is important is the consensus---that something must be done, and attempted--it's a step in the right direction.

I agree the USA is a big problem as far as pollution is concerned. Should we do more to curtail pollution? Of course. Will we? If it pays to do so. If a local government (in most places) were to refuse to pick up all your trash on trash day the citizens would march on city hall. Don't say we don't care. Never, ever, underestimate the potential mob mentality of "we the people." We do care. Unfortunately, somehow, at sometime, the meaning of freedom and liberty got all tied up with the right to throw away tons of garbage, while still getting charged the same as your neighbor who throws away 1/10 of what you do. 

Not all of us are bible-thumping, super-patriotic sociopaths braying for more blood. But those people are a minority anyway, and hardly the problem. The real problem are the psuedo-liberals. They love to take a public stand against something, something having preferably to do with war or the environment. Here's their problem:

Instead of taking a stand against the war in Iraq because there is no evidence (might have been nice to get this first), or because (as I believe) the president doesn't have the authority to start wars at will, or (yep) because this violates international custom--particulary by a supposed enlightened western republic, they take a stand against the war because "it is wrong." They wring their hands about innocents dying and how wrong that would be. Innocents dying in an unnecessary war IS depressing, and it IS wrong, but to focus on a potential result of the war, instead of opposing it for "more important" reasons, makes them appear shallow.

In many circles it is hip to pay lip service to pro-environment, anti-war policies. It's a facade. Most of these people are from the upper-classes. They live quite well off of a society of waste and war. They create more pollution than I do by a factor of 100 with their massive central air-conditioned houses and SUVs. They have most people convinced they are the true liberals---further hurting the cause of liberalism in the USA. Liberal is a dirty word. It's thanks to these people. The conservatives can latch on to these people and hold them up as examples of hedonistic, contradictory liberalism. They know they are psuedo-liberals, but they want all of us to believe they are the heart and soul of the liberal movement--so much the easier to discredit liberalism. It works.

Anyway, I support the protocol. My country does not. I don't know if most people here do or not. I have a feeling most couldn't care less, assuming they even knew what the protocol was. This is not uniquely American as is often stated, most people everywhere don't care and don't know. It's up to the leaders to lead. People need them to make the proper decisions for them. This will not do at this time. Our leaders are sadly lacking in ethics or principles. They believe they can go their own way, they don't need the rest of the world. We shall see.....


----------



## josh1028

here is a strong case against the kyoto protocol, from the u.s.

1) the protocol doesn't make any practical sense in terms of advantages for the u.s. being the world's greatest emitter of the 6 gases listed in the treaty, we are obviously the main target of such legislation. the only reason we signed the kyoto protocol into existence was by the independent action of vice president al gore, going against a 97-0 vote in the senate for a resolution aimed a the protocol stating that the united states should not commit itself to any international environmental agreement that would have serious economic consequences. because the treaty is based on percentages rather than gross amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, the requirement for the united states is far greater in terms of reduction, and therefore much more expensive than in any other country.

2) if such legislation is to be put into action, the bill shouldn't just be an excuse for the environment. japan and russia were both coaxed into signing the treaty after a reservation was made for recognizing "carbon sinks", or forests, which counteract their carbon production. this made the requirements for both nations very easy to meet, and in russia, because of these carbon sinks, without any action they will already be under their commitment within the allotted time. iceland is in a similar position, where their emissions are actually allowed to _increase_ by 10% as a reservation of the treaty. this allows them to sell their extra allotted emissions in the great scam the next section addresses, emissions trading

3) nations with extra carbon are allowed to sell their extra emissions in a process called "emissions trading". this is an EXCUSE, and a shame. if this agreement is really to have any substancial impact, everyone should be working to reduce emissions, not buy them from other nations who have plenty extra to give. it's inefficient to say that only some of the world must reduce emissions, and the rest can be bought and sold on the market. if you're worried about the environment, you should want everyone to change for the better.

4) if every nation that has signed the treaty, plus the united states and australia, meet their emissions-reduction goals (which at this point is highly unlikely), the effect will be very minimal. we're talking 0.02 degrees celcius in 50 years, and that's not just a biased opinion. that number has been agreed upon by both pro- and con- sides of the scientific debate.

5) the world's second-greatest emitter of ghg's is _exempt_ from the agreement. the idea of arbitrarily declaring "developing nations" that are covered under annex 1 reservations is ludicrous. china, the most populous nation in the world, and one of the fastest-growing industrial powers, has no regulation on its emissions. within 15 years it is estimated that the average chinese citizen will be able to afford an automobile, much like the rest of the world (there has been a $3500 equivalent american currency car produced, with cheaper models in process of design). i'll leave it to you to imagine the emissions consequences. india is another similar "annex 1" nation. if you're going to establish regulations for emissions, don't bring world-socialism into it. emissions are emissions no matter where you are on the globe.

6) last of all, where is there evidence of a solid framework to support the commitment to the agreement? within the protocol, it states that any nation may withdraw its commitment if they leave a year's notice to the counsel. so if a nation is off-target and stands no chance of feasibly meeting its goals, they can just withdraw? who is going to enforce the payment of fines for exceeding target reductions? who decides the market price of carbon, as it will inevitably be subject to inflation like every other product for sale on the market (the counsel has established a flat rate of $40/ton).

everything about this bill is disadvantageous to the united states. it makes much more sense for us to self-police, and not leave emissions regulating subject to the will of foreign powers. the goals of the proposal are on too broad a scale to realistically support. it's as if the international community was overcome with some sort of idealistic zeal, and soon everyone will come to the realism that the complaints against the treaty aren't just lame excuses, but real problems. if emissions trading were to be allowed, it should undoubtedly be done so on a free market, where the consumers set the price based on the cost of fines. the brokers and businesses will know what the value of 1 ton of ghg is better than the u.n. council; it will be those companies that pay fines to the government. i have plenty more to say, but this post is already long enough. i welcome any counter-opinions as to why it is practical or advantageous at all for the u.s. to sign this legislation, and will be glad to respond. ^_^


----------



## Benjy

i love that the number one reason not to sign it is because the usa emits a lot of gas. that's classic.


----------



## josh1028

you obviously didn't read the entire passage; it's very easy to take things out of context. the summation of my reasoning was that because we emit the most gas, a flat precentage is going to cost us a far greater amount than any other nation. 10% of 1000 is far greater than 10% of 10. progress must be made, but it doesn't make sense for the u.s. to commit itself to economic suicide. add to that fact that the number 2 emitter of gases is required to make no change because they're considered "developing", and the whole protocol begins to sound like a world socialist initiative. (so this is not taken out of context like the earlier comment, i'm not calling the rest of the world socialists, but this protocol will be severely damaging to the u.s. economy, and extremely advantageous for less-developed nations industrially such as china, india, iceland, russia (yes russia. after the dissolution of the u.s.s.r. they're productive capacity has been in constant decline), etc.)  also the treaty has been compromised by last-minute concessions made to prospective nations, namely japan, just to assure that enough votes were obtained to put the treaty into practice (including the allowance for 3.9% of their 6% required reduction to come from carbon sinks, which is over 60% of their quota).  please post a real, solid argument against this; i'm actually interested in some rebuttal. thanks.


----------



## Benjy

i read the whole passage. i found something slightly ironic. end of story.


----------



## cuchuflete

Josh, 
It would be very nice to accept your argument IF there were any real efforts under way in the US to reduce emissions.  I don't give a hoot if the emissions reductions are or are not accomplished by a silly bureaucratic agreement with more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese.  I do care about absolute reductions.

The current administration is bending over backwards to reward poluters of the air.

There are good economic arguments for developing a major industry for cleaner air.

Lack of enforcement of current domestic air quality regulations does nothing for the U.S. economy.

While the administration in Washington is buying campaign contributions from utility companies, California and many states in the northeastern U.S. are passing tough restrictions on automobile polution.  Cars account for some 60% of emissions here.
We are doing what needs doing, in spite of the ostrich approach of W and friends.

The same automobile companies that said that they would be bankrupted by mileage standards are making the needed adjustments.


----------



## Fezman

No offense to josh and i may be new to the world of economic suicides, but isn't the whole point of the protocol to force over polluting nations to make vast improvements by means of making them pay to clean up some of the damage that has been done. I would like to point out (well re-iterate) that the amount you pay is proportional to amount you pollute and consequently to the amount of industry which is usually a sign of economic health which brings us all the way back to the ability to pay. Last year the U.S. spent over $423 billion on military spending with 'National Defense' spending that exceeded $800 billion. Natural Resources and the Environment got a budget of $28 Billion which oddly enough is just over 28 times less than what National Defense. Now it could just be me here folks or does it look like the U.S. is well on its way to economic suicide???


----------



## Allanis

> here is a strong case against the kyoto protocol, from the u.s.
> 
> 1) the protocol doesn't make any practical sense in terms of advantages for the u.s. being the world's greatest emitter of the 6 gases listed in the treaty, we are obviously the main target of such legislation. the only reason we signed the kyoto protocol into existence was by the independent action of vice president al gore, going against a 97-0 vote in the senate for a resolution aimed a the protocol stating that the united states should not commit itself to any international environmental agreement that would have serious economic consequences. because the treaty is based on percentages rather than gross amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, the requirement for the united states is far greater in terms of reduction, and therefore much more expensive than in any other country.
> 
> 2) if such legislation is to be put into action, the bill shouldn't just be an excuse for the environment. japan and russia were both coaxed into signing the treaty after a reservation was made for recognizing "carbon sinks", or forests, which counteract their carbon production. this made the requirements for both nations very easy to meet, and in russia, because of these carbon sinks, without any action they will already be under their commitment within the allotted time. iceland is in a similar position, where their emissions are actually allowed to increase by 10% as a reservation of the treaty. this allows them to sell their extra allotted emissions in the great scam the next section addresses, emissions trading
> 
> 3) nations with extra carbon are allowed to sell their extra emissions in a process called "emissions trading". this is an EXCUSE, and a shame. if this agreement is really to have any substancial impact, everyone should be working to reduce emissions, not buy them from other nations who have plenty extra to give. it's inefficient to say that only some of the world must reduce emissions, and the rest can be bought and sold on the market. if you're worried about the environment, you should want everyone to change for the better.
> 
> 4) if every nation that has signed the treaty, plus the united states and australia, meet their emissions-reduction goals (which at this point is highly unlikely), the effect will be very minimal. we're talking 0.02 degrees celcius in 50 years, and that's not just a biased opinion. that number has been agreed upon by both pro- and con- sides of the scientific debate.
> 
> 5) the world's second-greatest emitter of ghg's is exempt from the agreement. the idea of arbitrarily declaring "developing nations" that are covered under annex 1 reservations is ludicrous. china, the most populous nation in the world, and one of the fastest-growing industrial powers, has no regulation on its emissions. within 15 years it is estimated that the average chinese citizen will be able to afford an automobile, much like the rest of the world (there has been a $3500 equivalent american currency car produced, with cheaper models in process of design). i'll leave it to you to imagine the emissions consequences. india is another similar "annex 1" nation. if you're going to establish regulations for emissions, don't bring world-socialism into it. emissions are emissions no matter where you are on the globe.
> 
> 6) last of all, where is there evidence of a solid framework to support the commitment to the agreement? within the protocol, it states that any nation may withdraw its commitment if they leave a year's notice to the counsel. so if a nation is off-target and stands no chance of feasibly meeting its goals, they can just withdraw? who is going to enforce the payment of fines for exceeding target reductions? who decides the market price of carbon, as it will inevitably be subject to inflation like every other product for sale on the market (the counsel has established a flat rate of $40/ton).
> 
> everything about this bill is disadvantageous to the united states. it makes much more sense for us to self-police, and not leave emissions regulating subject to the will of foreign powers. the goals of the proposal are on too broad a scale to realistically support. it's as if the international community was overcome with some sort of idealistic zeal, and soon everyone will come to the realism that the complaints against the treaty aren't just lame excuses, but real problems. if emissions trading were to be allowed, it should undoubtedly be done so on a free market, where the consumers set the price based on the cost of fines. the brokers and businesses will know what the value of 1 ton of ghg is better than the u.n. council; it will be those companies that pay fines to the government. i have plenty more to say, but this post is already long enough. i welcome any counter-opinions as to why it is practical or advantageous at all for the u.s. to sign this legislation, and will be glad to respond. ^_^


 
Josh, sorry to say that 
but never read so many nonsenses all together 
I really hope your opinion *does not reflect* 
the one of the majority of US citizens !

bye


----------



## josh1028

I appreciate the argument from the Irish fellow, fezman, but otherwise is there any substance to the other posts? if you're going to make assaults on an administration and its practices, include facts to back up your statements (chuchuflete). i'm not saying that there isn't an environmental problem; the temperature of the earth has increased by over 2 degrees celsius since the beginning of the industrial age, but it seems that in the late stages of the bill its focus shifted from preserving the environment to preserving the treaty with major concessions to nations such as japan and russia that compromised the integrity and effectiveness of the proposal as legitimate policy. there is an environmental issue that needs to be addressed, but a timetable of 7 and 15 years is not a feasible goal for most nations, including the united states. how many of the signatories are on target to actually meet their obligations in the treaty?

a more practical and feasible policy would seem to be long-term improvement. in order to meet the quotas set by the kyoto protocol, the u.s. would have to rely on improving power plants, a source of 40% of our nation's emissions. there is expensive technology for accomplishing this called a "scrubber" here, i don't know what it is elsewhere, but the point is, by upgrading petroleum and coal-powered plants we will only be encouraging their continued use, providing a great short-term answer to a long-term issue. better policy would seem to be a longer period of time, whereby coal and petroleum-powered plants are phased out by alternative sources of energy such as nuclear, solar, and wind power. we have not taken advantage of nuclear power in producing new plants since the three mile island disaster in pennsylvania (for those not familiar with this, the reactor had a near melt-down due to poor communication lines).  the administration of nuclear plants has been much-improved since then, and dangers are significantly less, as proven by the absence of any major break-downs since three mile island.  this would provide a solid base for an eco-friendly economy, as well as ween society off of its reliance on fossil fuels as a main energy source. also, the production of more efficient and eco-friendly sources of electrical power will allow for cleaner production of hydrogen fuel, the future of automobiles (hydrogen is created through electrolysis, using a great amount of electrical energy, the demand of which is now being met by polluting petroleum reactors, defeating the purpose of "clean energy" by distributing the pollution elsewhere). perhaps this provides better understanding as to why the kyoto treaty is considered the wrong treaty for the right cause.


----------



## cuchuflete

Josh, I'm not going to do your homework for you. You are obviously able to read, however selectively. The relaxation of enforcement by the EPA under the W regime has been documented in every major newspaper in the nation. Even the Lincoln Country Weekly, with a potential readership of perhaps 5 thousand households, is not immune to it. 

Scrubber technology has been around for decades. It's well wrung out and not much more expensive than the other so-called upgrades performed by power plants in the mid-west that don't address polution. You sound like a PR apologist for AEP for heavans sake.

Where is your beloved administration in terms of support of renewable energy? They haven't proposed an energy policy beyond Alaskan drilling in over four years. Why don't you show us one? 

You are absolutely correct about the nuclear option. France gets a very large portion of its electricity from nuclear generation, and does so safely. I have not noticed the W crowd promoting it. They have been very quiet about restoring tax credits for solar power.


----------



## Allanis

I totally agree with Chuchuflete statements !

I would also like to point out that War on Terror is
something much more in the mind of your dear & beloved
Leader than an _immediate_ and _real_ threat to humankind.

I dont want to waste time telling you that the planet
is much more dangerous now than before Mr.W started _his own crusade_. 
cause you possibly don't want to listen to that!

GLOBAL WARMING IS A MATTER OF FACT.

There is a general consensus within the international
scientific community that the problem must be addressed
now without any further delay.

Climate change is a much more serious, immediate & 
real threat to the very existence of the human specie 
than terrorism that your beloved leader is selling to you
as a priority. Moreover you should possibly try to address 
and tackle the problems underpinning the terror phenomenon
which are many and complex and not solvable through the
use of bombs or the intervention of the army ( alone ). 

Some climate changes are irreversible beyond a certain
level of warming and generate natural catastrophes on a 
global scale connected to the rising of sea level, floods and
'tropicalization' .

We are running out of time.. something must be done soon... very soon !

Just some questions to you Josh 
_... would you keep your present stance on environment if_
_ the Tsunami had __hit the coasts of your nation on the_
_ pacific rim instead of __those in the indian ocean ? Have u_
_ noticed that there is a rise in the number and strenght of_
_ hurricanes in the last decade ? And do u know that skin_
_cancer cases are on the rise in the north emisphere due to_
_increasing size of the ozone 'hole' ? _

bye


----------



## josh1028

first to answer the questions.  the tsunami had nothing to do with global warming, it was the result of an off-shore earthquake that is effected by nothing more than the shifting of tectonic plates.  there have been periods of calm and violent throughout history concerning weather patterns, and i'm not going to argue the weather with you.  skin cancer cases have risen concurrently with the popularity of artificial tanning, as well as with a rise in population.  where are you quoting from?  making an argument without supporting facts doesn't accomplish much.  give me facts to prove the contrary.

second, when did i ever claim to be a bush fanatic?  you both seem to be assigning me to a certain political alignment, for what?  i am neither democrat, nor republican, nor bush, nor kerry fan.  the only reason i would consider bush over kerry is experience, because although bush has had questionable policies, kerry had no platform.  he and bush agreed on every issue except moral issues, which have no place in government anyway.  but this isn't really about bush, kerry, or any of that nonsense.  i am a pragmatist.  i am against the kyoto protocol because it is bad for the u.s.  i am against the kyoto protocol, because in its late stages the object of the committee became more of preserving the protocol than preserving the environment (i.e. japan).  just because i don't agree with the protocol doesn't mean that i don't recognize a problem.  the earth's temperature has increased by over 2 degrees celsius since the start of the "industrial age", and the ozone is being depleted.  however, if you look closely at the figures, if pollution were to grow at the exponential rate it has been, mankind wouldn't face fatal consequences for centuries.  the kyoto protocol is a short-term fix for a long-term problem.  by setting such strict stipulations on reducing emissions, it forces short-term solutions that simply prolong the use of polluting fossil fuels and coal.  if we focus on producing all of our new plants as eco-friendly solutions such as nuclear, solar, and wind, and place stipulations on automobiles such as a mandatory 30 miles/gallon or better fuel economy, then the challenges posed by global warming will be met in a much more practical and feasible way.  don't make this about bush or earthquakes, this is about the environment and the kyoto protocol.  the goals of the treaty have been compromised, and the issue of environmentalism doesn't die with the treaty.  if there is a better solution, pursue it instead.  kyoto is the wrong treaty for the right - and just - cause.


----------



## cristóbal

I have a *feeling* (which of course, is setting off all of your "ignorance radars") that the reason the US has not signed the Protocol is not because it arrogantly wants to be first on the list of guilty parties incriminated in the destruction of the planet, but rather because this is quite a decision for a country like the US, which spouts out a relatively high amount of the world's pollution--correct me if i'm wrong.  In other words, perhaps the Protocol is too demanding and not practical enough for a country that is still buying vehicles that run on 10 miles to the gallon and weigh 3 or 4 tons to take their 3 year old to day care eight blocks away down the street.  Perhaps the reason we won't sign the protocol is because we're obviously not going to be able to complete it.

I'll admit that I'm completely ignorant of most if not all of the bull doohick--er, I mean rhetoric that has been tossed around on the subject, but since American opinions were asked... there's one of them.
I personally support the general idea of an international accord of the sorts, but not knowing much about the details of it, I shan't opine any further.


----------



## josh1028

i whole-heartedly agree with your statements, vehicles such as suv's that run on 13 mpg are ridiculous and not at all practical, as are high-horsepower sport cars (although they are very fun to drive ^_^).  your reasoning follows the same line as mine; the people of america won't support drastic measures requiring such acute reductions in emissions, so the president's decision to sign would not be supported.  not that this is right, but it is true.  if rising gas prices aren't enough to deflect buyers of suv's (percentages sales of suv's are still rising), then obviously there is some underlying, disgusting obsession with hogging fuel.  we do need much stricter limitations on fuel economy of vehicles though.  hopefully this administration will get around to addressing that policy after they get their heads out of their butts about social security reform.  the news conference with bush today was classic "we're making real progress, gas prices are killing the economy, social security is going bankrupt, we need an alternative energy policy".  so what are we going to do about it mr pres?  "well, we have a lot of good ideas, but we need more bipartisanship to accomplish these goals".  (for those not familiar with american politics, over the past 90 years the democratic and republican parties, both very conservative comparatively with ruling parties in the rest of the world, have been very efficient in dividing the nation into 2 areas, and taking advantage of our assinine "electoral college" policy in national elections in entrenching themselves and eliminating the possibility for any opposition from third parties.  so bi-partisanship is basically just drawing both sides together to drive bills through congress, but right now republicans have majorities in both houses of congress, so i don't know why bipartisanship is so important other than just to make it look like you still care what the other half of the nation thinks.  basically the republicans are having a hay-day with the largest majority established in both houses and the presidency and other offices since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (pres during ww2), passing whatever legislation they want.  bi-partisanship is always a convenient excuse for not progressing on any of the more pressing issues)

... yeah, ok.  so that's about it


----------



## jakkaro

[

As of today, the following countries have ratified the Protocol:

Haha, I think it would have been shorter to list the countries that have NOT signed


----------



## cuchuflete

jakkaro said:
			
		

> [
> 
> As of today, the following countries have ratified the Protocol:
> 
> 
> Haha, I think it would have been shorter to list the countries that have NOT signed





Your point is.....?

Rather than counting noses, perhaps you would care to provide some facts about the behaviour of the signatory nations.  For example, what has been the trend in polution, both in absolute terms and _per capita, _since the signing?

I'm curious as to whether the countries that have agreed to the protocol have actually done anything to reduce polution.  If they have, has the improvement accelerated from prior levels or trends?

I've stated earlier in this thread that I think the protocol is a small yet beneficial step in a good direction.  However, signing a piece of paper and actually doing something may not go hand-in-hand.

regards,
Cuchuflete


----------



## cristóbal

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Your point is.....?




I think the point is that it seems there are really only two countries, maybe three, that anyone gives a hoot about them not having signed.  (USA, China, perhaps Australia).

As far as your question Cuchu, being in Spain I've seen more waste of water and smelled more awful car exhaust than I think in my entire life in America.  In a place like Madrid where water is a precious item (or perhaps better said, even more precious than in other places) it is totally squandered and wasted.  The slogan "Madrid limpio es capital" comes to mind.  Because in reality it means "let's spray the sidewalks every morning with water because that will make them cleaner and maybe they will grow too."  Madrid has enormous trucks filled with water, and smaller-sized replicas that scour the streets in search of cigarette butts to blow into the gutter with a shooting stream of water.  
Then they polish the sidewalks with their little push-cart machines that spray water on the already slippery pavers.  What for?  I have no idea.  Perhaps they're worried we're going to eat off the sidewalk, and they want to make it clean for us.
Then there's the fact that they seem to empty their pools every year just to fill them up again when spring rolls around.  

But hey, they signed the treaty.


----------



## Fezman

Correct me if i'm wrong but I think that pool thing has something to do with mosquitos....


----------



## cuchuflete

Fezman said:
			
		

> Correct me if i'm wrong but I think that pool thing has something to do with mosquitos....



Fezman,
Are you trying to persuade Cristóbal that Madrileño mosquitos prefer fresh water?

Saludos,
Cuchuflete


----------



## Fezman

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Fezman,
> Are you trying to persuade Cristóbal that Madrileño mosquitos prefer fresh water?
> 
> Saludos,
> Cuchuflete


 They could be a new, dangerous, posh mosquito...but what i was going for was that they emptied the pools to prevent the water going stagnant, you know for the more down-market mosquito!!


----------



## cuchuflete

Fezman said:
			
		

> They could be a new, dangerous, posh mosquito...but what i was going for was that they emptied the pools to prevent the water going stagnant, you know for the more down-market mosquito!!



Aha! the mean little critters that only bite me and my barriobajero friends, I suppose.

Seriously, it still doesn't quite compute.  Most pools use highly concentrated chlorine to prevent algae growth.  That's not too pleasing to insects either.
If the water is not metered--paid for--than I suppose some might prefer to save the cost of the cholorine, but it still doesn't make lots of sense from this distance.

Thanks for the posh explanation.  I can just imagine them, with their designer sunglasses.

cheers,
Cuchu


----------



## cristóbal

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Aha! the mean little critters that only bite me and my barriobajero friends, I suppose.
> 
> Seriously, it still doesn't quite compute.  Most pools use highly concentrated chlorine to prevent algae growth.  That's not too pleasing to insects either.
> If the water is not metered--paid for--than* then* I suppose some might prefer to save the cost of the cholorine, but it still doesn't make lots of sense from this distance.
> 
> Thanks for the posh explanation.  I can just imagine them, with their designer sunglasses.
> 
> cheers,
> Cuchu




Sorry, pet peeve. 
I asked a Spaniard and his answer was to clean the walls of the pool.  I'm at a loss here... it REALLY doesn't make sense.  Besides, there aren't that many mosquitoes here anyway, this is a very arid climate.  Furthermore, if the pool is covered all winter, when spring comes around, in theory all they would have to do is throw some chemicals in the water and turn on a jet... if the water's moving, mosquitoes cannot lay eggs.  As for the walls of the pool, well those can be cleaned with water in the pool.  
The mystery continues.  Glad I could divert the discussion/debate there.


----------



## cuchuflete

cristóbal said:
			
		

> Sorry, pet peeve.
> The mystery continues.  Glad I could divert the discussion/debate there.


Thanks for the correction.

I am still curious about the behaviour of signatory countries.  Have they, in fact, started to behave in a 'cleaner' way?  Many of us, myself included, believe that controlling and reducing polution is a necessity, and not just a nice theoretical proposition.

I am surprised that the proponents of the Protocol have taken leave of the thread when they have an opportunity to provide hard evidence that it --the Protocol--is useful.

The League of Nations was also good, in theory.


----------



## Benjy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4267245.stm

"Canada, one of the treaty's first signatories, has no clear plan for reaching its target emission cuts. Far from cutting back, its emissions have increased by 20% since 1990.

And Japan is also unsure it will be able to meet its legal requirement to slash emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2012."

and i havent yet been able to find it but i am fairly sure then the uk is not on target either :s

edit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4269723.stm
"The UK has beaten its 12.5% target to reduce emissions, but is not on track to reach its ambition to reduce these by 20% in 2010."


----------



## Silvia

vbede772, I really appreciated your post.

To Josh and people who share his point of view, I would like to offer a simple comparison. 
If the rest of the world followed the nonsense of Americans when they think "we do what we like, no matter what the consequences are", all other countries should invade the US because it is evident that Americans are not able to take care of their own country. We would be entitled to do so for the better of the world, following the very same American principles the US tried to sell us.


----------



## cuchuflete

You are rather far from the original topic of the thread, but it's a very interesting point.  Let's continue with it!

Wearing the Moderator hat,
Cuciu




			
				Silvia said:
			
		

> I think we're going off-topic with the mosquito subject.
> 
> vbede772, I really appreciated your post.
> 
> To Josh and people who share his point of view, I would like to offer a simple comparison.
> If the rest of the world followed the nonsense of Americans when they think "we do what we like, no matter what the consequences are", all other countries should invade the US because it is evident that Americans are not able to take care of their own country. We would be entitled to do so for the better of the world, following the very same American principles the US tried to sell us.


----------



## cuchuflete

The Mod hat is back in the closet.  I'm now just a run-of-the-mill forero again.

Silvia wrote:  





> We would be entitled to do so for the better of the world, following the very same American principles the US tried to sell us.



But this is not an American style.  It is Roman, remember!  I can recall a few mid-twentieth century examples of European interventionism "for the benefit of mankind".  

I think it's fine for nations to pressure one another to do something worthwhile, like allowing all of us to breath clean air.  Shall we encourage hypocrisy while we are at it?  I am still waiting for evidence that the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol have improved their pollution control efforts since signing the treaty.

Before adopting bad habits from across the pond, you might wish to verify whether or not you are, in fact, doing anything beyond talking about clean air.

I find no merit in Josh's arguments that it would be costly for the US to reduce pollution.  That was the fallacy trumpeted by the US automobile manufacturers when they were first told to improve mileage standards for their vehicles.  They screamed that they couldn't do it.  It was short-term, and dishonest, thinking.

The US has the ability to lower emissions substantially, and will not suffer economically for doing so.  But the world's air will stay dirty.  India and China are exempt from the provisions of the Protocol.  Emissions credit trading will move the sources from place to place, and will not lower the output of greenhouse gases.

Silvia, please tell me when the European troops will be arriving.  I'll cook extra dinner.  Just be sure that the military has firmer direction from the EU than they did during the Bosnian civil war.


----------



## Fezman

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Silvia wrote:
> 
> But this is not an American style. It is Roman, remember! I can recall a few mid-twentieth century examples of European interventionism "for the benefit of mankind".
> 
> I think it's fine for nations to pressure one another to do something worthwhile, like allowing all of us to breath clean air. Shall we encourage hypocrisy while we are at it? I am still waiting for evidence that the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol have improved their pollution control efforts since signing the treaty.
> 
> Before adopting bad habits from across the pond, you might wish to verify whether or not you are, in fact, doing anything beyond talking about clean air.
> 
> I find no merit in Josh's arguments that it would be costly for the US to reduce pollution. That was the fallacy trumpeted by the US automobile manufacturers when they were first told to improve mileage standards for their vehicles. They screamed that they couldn't do it. It was short-term, and dishonest, thinking.
> 
> The US has the ability to lower emissions substantially, and will not suffer economically for doing so. But the world's air will stay dirty. India and China are exempt from the provisions of the Protocol. Emissions credit trading will move the sources from place to place, and will not lower the output of greenhouse gases.
> 
> Silvia, please tell me when the European troops will be arriving. I'll cook extra dinner. Just be sure that the military has firmer direction from the EU than they did during the Bosnian civil war.


 
Ouch, that was a bit below the belt, cuchuflete, since the UN was there too, including the US and didn't exactly make a shining example, of itself either!! Anyways to get back to the main point on what countries are doing. Here in ireland, not a bastion of industry i know, but currently the world's largest drug exporter, processes are underway to introduce a carbon tax for everybody based on basically, your car, and for businesses based on emissions. There also have been several factories and powerstations closed, based on their emissions, and these were either replaced (in the case of the power stations) or upgraded to fit in with guidelines.


----------



## cuchuflete

Fezman said:
			
		

> Ouch, that was a bit below the belt, cuchuflete, since the UN was there too, including the US and didn't exactly make a shining example, of itself either!! Anyways to get back to the main point on what countries are doing. Here in ireland, not a bastion of industry i know, but currently the world's largest drug exporter, processes are underway to introduce a carbon tax for everybody based on basically, your car, and for businesses based on emissions. There also have been several factories and powerstations closed, based on their emissions, and these were either replaced (in the case of the power stations) or upgraded to fit in with guidelines.



Thanks for the facts Fezman.  Were these processes underway before the Protocol was signed?  Have efforts at emissions control changed since the signing?

My point is obvious.  Some nations have behaved responsibly for quite a while.  If they signed the Protocol, it was to affirm what they were already doing.  Others may have signed for any number of other reasons.  They may or may not act in accord with what they signed.

regards,
Cuchu


----------



## Fezman

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Thanks for the facts Fezman. Were these processes underway before the Protocol was signed? Have efforts at emissions control changed since the signing?
> 
> My point is obvious. Some nations have behaved responsibly for quite a while. If they signed the Protocol, it was to affirm what they were already doing. Others may have signed for any number of other reasons. They may or may not act in accord with what they signed.
> 
> regards,
> Cuchu


 
No these initiatives were only taken in the last few years. (The latest power station opened last week!!) On the face of it tho, it does look like the government is doing all it can lately after doing nothing years in the first ten years after Kyoto. (I think that someone mentioned that that is when the treaty was ratified, but correct me otherwise.) Ireland really doesn't have a hope of reaching its emmisions objectives but the fact is there is much going on to iomprove the situation.


----------



## cristóbal

Silvia said:
			
		

> vbede772, I really appreciated your post.
> 
> To Josh and people who share his point of view, I would like to offer a simple comparison.
> If the rest of the world followed the nonsense of Americans when they think "we do what we like, no matter what the consequences are", all other countries should invade the US because it is evident that Americans are not able to take care of their own country. We would be entitled to do so for the better of the world, following the very same American principles the US tried to sell us.



Them's fightin' werds!
As Daffy Duck used to say to Bugs Bunny... "Of course you realize, this means war!"


----------



## cuchuflete

cristóbal said:
			
		

> Them's fightin' werds!
> As Daffy Duck used to say to Bugs Bunny... "Of course you realize, this means war!"



No need for war Cristóbal,
"the Americans" Silvia refers to included W, C. Rice, C. Powell, and their helpers. They didn't try to 'sell' anything to Silvia's compatriots. They found a willing collaborator in the head of the Italian government, who was selected by the Italians themselves. 

However, those same Americans are always claiming a 'leadership' role.
The 'leadership' they are demonstrating is pitifully weak when it comes to pollution control. W just proposed an energy policy, after over four years in office!


----------



## Fezman

Just an anecdote on this energy policy - It pushes for an increase in the production of ethanol which can be used as an additive to petrol. Trouble is that it takes more petrol to produce ethanol than the amount it actually replaces.....


----------



## cuchuflete

Fezman said:
			
		

> Just an anecdote on this energy policy - It pushes for an increase in the production of ethanol which can be used as an additive to petrol. Trouble is that it takes more petrol to produce ethanol than the amount it actually replaces.....



But it's good for the Agri-business contributors to W's political organization.
The politicians, in turn, generate enough hot air to cause global warming.


----------



## Fezman

I suppose I could be generous and say it probably made sense at the time.....but i'm sure I saw all of this on an episode of the West Wing.....have we found the secret source of white house policy i wonder ....


----------



## cuchuflete

Another informed vote for nuclear power? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

Another study found the energy balance slightly positive, but...





> However, if you do consider a soil carbon loss of .035 % organic matter per year from the growing of corn, corn ethanol produces as much CO2 as gasoline.
> 
> This is bad news because gasoline gives off 21.5 Ibs of CO2 / per U.S. gallon. Essentially you may as well burn gasoline and use the land base
> 
> For reforestation (to store carbon in soil organic matter and standing biomass) than to grow com and produce ethanol.


 http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/Winter%2091%20M.htm

This source says that ethanol represents a substantial net energy gain:

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html


----------



## Fezman

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Another informed vote for nuclear power? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm
> 
> Another study found the energy balance slightly positive, but... http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/Winter%2091%20M.htm
> 
> This source says that ethanol represents a substantial net energy gain:
> 
> http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html


 
Those links are actually really good cuchuflete, they offer arguments and statistics from both sides. My only complaint would be that all the stats seem to differ no matter if you are for or against the ethanol argument. One point that I know to be valid is that ethanol does burn a lot cleaner then petrol. What i wonder about is the difference in the emissions of a petrol-ethanol mix, as opposed to just petrol, and can those differences cover the harvesting and production of the maize, plus the average consumer demand, at the massive increase in production that WILL have be supplied, and the effects this massive decrease in the maize supply AND how this will effect the price of the maize and so the average joe's beer, beef, bread and corn-flakes. To take a quote from http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html 


> More US corn goes to make alcoholic beverages in the US than is exported to feed the hungry in the world's 25 most undernourished countries combined.


I would be for nuclear power if i didn't think it was such a big problem to get rid of the waste. It probably is the lesser of evils, but regardless of what G.W.B. says I cannot believe that it is a good idea to store huge amounts of spent nuclear fuel under mountains. It just screams bad idea at me!!!


----------



## josh1028

well, here is a comparisson i found in researching for a speech i just gave yesterday.  don't have the site, but the info nonetheless from a Japanese energy report:
coal, which is the most popular form of energy transformation in reactors, produces as much as 38 megawatts/kg (depending on the quality of the coal.  this value is the upper limit).  any combustion reaction inevitably breaks down to a hydrocarbon plus oxygen makes water plus CO2.  so not only is it the cheapest and most popular, but it is also very polluting, and not overly efficient.  when compared with nuclear power, at 100,000 megawatts/kg uranium, and producing water vapor and nuclear waste that can be buried far under mountains (where there is nothing worthwhile anyway, and the material can safely decompose for millenia).
i'm tired of talking about the same crap over and over though.  now that i've given my speech on the protocol, and i've already said about everything i really care about this issue, i think i'll be retiring from the forums unless if someone actually does say anything that proves that the kyoto protocol is the best solution we have, and that the issues it addresses couldn't just as easily be dealt with in a new, better defined and uncompromised treaty providing for a few of the things i've spoken of such as long-term, gradual reductions coupled with "cleaner" energy solutions, and flexibility concerning nations that may not be able to meet their target due to some sort of disaster, say a large tsunami hits europe (i know, ridiculous and not possible, laugh a little ^_^) and britain suddenly can't spend loads on kyoto initiatives, there is no reservation in the treaty to allow for them to retard their progress without penalties except for to withdraw, which should not be the goal of such a treaty.  have fun debating this stuff, but now perhaps you understand better why the protocol doesn't make sense to america.  kyoto is the wrong policy for the right cause.


----------



## abc

josh1028 said:
			
		

> ... now perhaps you understand better why the protocol doesn't make sense to america. kyoto is the wrong policy for the right cause.


 
It's nice to hear (^J^) a different point of view.  It's been a pleasure reading your posts.  

I, hmm, have a few random thoughts.  Should we, Americans, wait for the international community to create/propose a new policy to protect the environment then?  Did our founders not take pride in setting precedents?


----------



## Benjy

josh1028 said:
			
		

> ....i'm tired of talking about the same crap over and over though.  now that i've given my speech on the protocol, and i've already said about everything i really care about this issue, i think i'll be retiring from the forums unless if someone actually does say anything that proves that the kyoto protocol is the best solution we have...



then stick around and learn a language!  you'll thank me later.


----------



## Silvia

Josh, are you sure you read my first post well? This thread is not about finding out how good or bad the Kyoto protocol is.

Now, to answer Cuchu... I know WWF is actively engaged promoting the Kyoto Protocol, even in my country, not only as regards the reduction of emissions, rather and most importantly about cleaner sources of energies for the years to come.

Our Ministery of the Environment - according to the Kyoto Protocol - is promoting projects and several initiatives have been approved to reach the goals set in Kyoto, among them reforesting and recovering of forest areas.

For what I've been able to gather, we'll have more difficulties than other European countries like France or Germany, because we don't have nuclear energy, and many Italians are proud of that, in fact after a sort of trial period, we dismissed it, because of the real problems it brings along. Where does most European radioactive waste go? It goes to depressed areas of Russia for little money in return, this alone should require some ethic examination (considering that waste remains radioactive for ages). Therefore, it wouldn't be a good idea to put all our efforts in favor of the nuclear energy. Solar energy and wind energy are far better.

Sorry for my poor English, but I hate getting technical


----------

