The Trashing Of The Kyoto Treaty

[Keikan]

Isn't the bus more enviromentally friednly than car

[ilw]

food for thought...

Demand for 'Kyoto tax' on the US
Scientists say the climate is warming
Countries refusing to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases should face trade sanctions, according to a British independent think-tank.

The United States has not signed the Kyoto agreement on climate change and Russia has indicated it may follow.

The New Economics Foundation wants the EU to tax imports from these countries because they enjoy a competitive disadvantage as energy costs increase.

New Economics Foundation spokesman Andrew Simms told BBC Radio 4's Today programme EU countries would be within their rights to "work out the cost of the free ride America is getting" and raise that amount.

"There are very few signals the United States understands - they do understand economic signals," Mr Simms added. "There is only a certain amount of time people can go around behaving like teenagers who don't have to care about anybody else," he told Today.  "We are about half a century away from being ecologically and economically bankrupt because of global warming."

The British diplomat who proposed environmental sanctions 20 years ago, Sir Crispin Tickell, told the programme the United States' refusal to sign the United Nations Climate Change Convention was the "height of irresponsibility".

The protocol, negotiated to implement the convention, requires industrialised countries to cut their emissions of six gases which scientists believe are exacerbating natural climate change.

Signatories will by some time between 2008 and 2012 have to cut emissions to 5.2% below their 1990 levels.

But many scientists say cuts of around 60-70% will be needed by mid-century to avoid runaway climate change.

source: where else

btw j2 which kind of scpetic are you
1) The earth isn't actually getting warmer its just inaccurate measurements
2) The earth has been warmer, but its within normal temperature fluctuations, ie essentially there is no global warming
3) Global warming is occuring but our input to the effect is negligible

[Billy_Dean]

4) Global warming is a fact, but it will cost the US too much money to do anything about it.

[Sparkle1984]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@6 December 2003 - 16:13
4) Global warming is a fact, but it will cost the US too much money to do anything about it.

Well they have plenty of money, so why don't they pay to do something about it? The corporations should pay for the damage they have caused to the environment.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=Sparkle1984,6 December 2003 - 13:45][QUOTE=Billy_Dean,6 December 2003 - 16:13] 4) Global warming is a fact, but it will cost the US too much money to do anything about it.



Well they have plenty of money, so why don't they pay to do something about it? The corporations should pay for the damage they have caused to the environment.

Sparkle-

Haven't you heard?

We're spending our spare cash on another trip to the Moon, so you'll just have to wait.


ilw-

Given the choice (and thank you for that), I would subscribe to:

2) The earth has been warmer, but its within normal temperature fluctuations, ie essentially there is no global warming....

with the added caveat that: ....whether or not the activites of man have any effect, it is probably not sufficient to cause any permanent change; that the effects are as transient as our presence here.

Which, translated, means I'm gonna drive my car and eat beef from GHG-producing cows until I die-I don't care who tries to stop me.

[Sparkle1984]

Which, translated, means I'm gonna drive my car and eat beef from GHG-producing cows until I die-I don't care who tries to stop me. 

When your house is under floodwater (probably caused by climate-change) then, just don't ask us why, OK?

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 December 2003 - 06:33
2) The earth has been warmer, but its within normal temperature fluctuations, ie essentially there is no global warming....

with the added caveat that: ....whether or not the activites of man have any effect, it is probably not sufficient to cause any permanent change; that the effects are as transient as our presence here.

Which, translated, means I'm gonna drive my car and eat beef from GHG-producing cows until I die-I don't care who tries to stop me.

My point is this; if we cut emissions, reduce greenhouse gases, and do everything in our power to stop the decline; if we do all this, and in 50 years time we find we were wrong, we will have done no damage. We would, at least , have a cleaner environment, and a more energy efficient world.

If we go your way, and in 50 years we discover that you were wrong, we could be fucked! Why take a chance?

It reminds me of a press conference after the first A-Bomb was exploded. Oppenheimer was asked how sure he was that the atomic chain reaction wouldn't destroy the Earth. His answer? 95%. By his estimation, there was a one-in-twenty chance of destroying us all, and he took it!

Now certain scientists and politicians want to risk it all again.

So enjoy your ozone destroying car, and eat your rainforest destroying beef, because your grandchildren will want to know what they were like, back in the good old days.

[J'Pol]

Why is it always the rainforests that people get so bothered about ?

I've always wondered that, it's always "What about the rainforests". Aren't they just big, wet forests ?

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by J'Pol@8 December 2003 - 01:14
Why is it always the rainforests that people get so bothered about ?

I've always wondered that, it's always "What about the rainforests". Aren't they just big, wet forests ?

Are you serious?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean+7 December 2003 - 19:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 7 December 2003 - 19:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@8 December 2003 - 01:14
Why is it always the rainforests that people get so bothered about ?

I&#39;ve always wondered that, it&#39;s always "What about the rainforests". Aren&#39;t they just big, wet forests ?

Are you serious?


[/b][/quote]
Absolutely