The Trashing Of The Kyoto Treaty

[Sparkle1984]

I've just heard the news that Russia has announced that it (as well as the USA) will not ratify the Kyoto Treaty. As usual, the reason given was that it would be bad for the economy.

Why oh why must money always be given higher priority over the environment and social protection??

It reminds me of a saying:
“Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.” Cree Indian saying.

What does everyone else think?

[internet.news]

Originally posted by Sparkle1984@2 December 2003 - 20:13
I've just heard the news that Russia has announced that it (as well as the USA) will not ratify the Kyoto Treaty. As usual, the reason given was that it would be bad for the economy.

Why oh why must money always be given higher priority over the environment and social protection??

It reminds me of a saying:
“Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.” Cree Indian saying.

What does everyone else think?

Yeah, totally agree - but in contrast to United States, the russian economy
is by far not as good as in the usa. If you have a look on Russia, they are
one the one side very rich people now and on the other side many people
who are homeless and have to sleep on the cold streets.

[j2k4]

Just for the hell of asking:

Couldn't Russia have decided to renounce the treaty on it's own?

Is it the perception they could only muster themselves to deny the treaty because the U.S. did?

Here's my take:

Russia decided not to ratify the treaty because Japan decided not to.

The U.S. had nothing to do with it.

[james_bond_rulez]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 December 2003 - 05:33
Just for the hell of asking:

Couldn't Russia have decided to renounce the treaty on it's own?

Is it the perception they could only muster themselves to deny the treaty because the U.S. did?

Here's my take:

Russia decided not to ratify the treaty because Japan decided not to.

The U.S. had nothing to do with it.

US's denying into the treaty just made it easier for Russia to say no

[j2k4]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez+3 December 2003 - 01:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (james_bond_rulez @ 3 December 2003 - 01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@3 December 2003 - 05:33
Just for the hell of asking:

Couldn&#39;t Russia have decided to renounce the treaty on it&#39;s own?

Is it the perception they could only muster themselves to deny the treaty because the U.S. did?

Here&#39;s my take:

Russia decided not to ratify the treaty because Japan decided not to.

The U.S. had nothing to do with it.

US&#39;s denying into the treaty just made it easier for Russia to say no [/b][/quote]
Prove it.

I say they are following Japan&#39;s lead.

I insist that you agree.

Remember: I am an American, and you are powerless to decide for yourself if Kyoto is good or bad.

[Alex H]

Countries who don&#39;t sign it are fucked. It exists so that everyone gets a nice environment to live in.

Lets see who complains when the acid rain, the poisonous air and the toxic earth start appearing. And who will start demanding the world cuts down on pollution.

Economy be damned, there won&#39;t be an economy without an environment for it to exsist in&#33;

@j2k4 -

[quiksilver_aus]

i did a research project on kyoto in HS here is a handout (lists some of the political views)


The Kyoto Protocol – Political Views

What is the Kyoto Protocol?
The Kyoto Protocol, which is an add-on to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), is a pact agreed by governments around the world at a United Nations conference in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. The main focus of the pact is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted by developed countries by 5.2% of 1990 levels during a period from 2008-2012. The protocol will come into force once it has been ratified by at least 55% of the participants which represent 55% of the greenhouse gases (based upon emission levels from 1990) emitted by developed countries.
The protocol can be very costly for some countries or the exact opposite for others. Countries which are unable to meet their emission requirements are able to purchase emission credits from countries where the reductions can be made at a low cost.

Political Views
United States:
 Only major country to reject entire process
 The US believes that global warming may be for natural, rather than anthropogenic (human impact), changes.
 US fears that emission reduction will almost certainly cause damage to their economy.
 Argue that developing countries aren’t putting caps on their GHG emissions
European Union:
 EU nations are leaders at international conferences in promoting to reach a treaty.
 Have continued to be loyal in their dedication to fight global warming. Keep in mind that the Green Parties of Europe are a large part of the government, especially in Germany and Scandinavia.
Canada, Russia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand:
 These developed countries fall between the United States and the EU.
 None have gone to the same extent as the US to dismiss the protocol completely.
 These countries are looking for an east way out. The Canadian government is currently discussing the matter, and hope to find a “Made in Canada” solution.
Developing World:
 Led by China (2nd largest producer of GHG), the developing world rejects any responsibility for global warming problems. They feel it was caused by, and therefore solved by the developed world.
“In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and you want us to give up riding in a bus&#33;” – Leader of the Chinese Delegation, at Kyoto
 Rapid population increases, clearing of rain forests, use of coal and other fossil fuels and the expansion of animal herds contribute to the developing world’s rising carbon dioxide and methane emissions.
Alliance of Small Island Nations:
 Some of these small islands face the risk of entirely disappearing due to rising ocean levels.
 These countries are the most enthusiastic about ratifying the protocol, that at the conference in Japan, they pushed for an across-the-board 20% reduction, but because of the little political and economic power of these countries, their suggestions received little attention.
 It would be cheaper to relocate residents in the case of a flood than it would be to solve the issue, but the citizens of the country aren’t persuaded.

As of now, the percentage of the total GHG emissions of all industrialized countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol stands at 37.1% out of the required 55%. Since the United States (36% of total GHG) has chosen not to ratify, the crucial country is Russia (17.1%), which will push the total to 54.2%. At this point, any of the following three can push to go over the top: Canada, Australia and Poland; or any two of the following three: Switzerland, New Zealand and Estonia.



EDIT: from October 2002

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@3 December 2003 - 02:04
Countries who don&#39;t sign it are fucked. It exists so that everyone gets a nice environment to live in.

Fucked how, exactly?

Attitudinally?

Realistically?

How?

Kyoto would fuck everyone.

What we currently call "Third-World" countries would remain so, indefinitely.

The sky would have to be an extraordinary shade of blue to make up for starvation, oppression and AIDS.

I don&#39;t know, for example, that genetically-engineered crops are capable of polluting the environment, but it seems we can&#39;t even arrange for the poorer countries to feed themselves thus.

Somehow, the "international community", in the guise of the E.U., has put the kibosh on extending such technology to poor countries.

Wait &#39;til the same people whip a little "Kyoto" on them.

Nice environment, my ass.

[james_bond_rulez]

Originally posted by j2k4+3 December 2003 - 05:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 3 December 2003 - 05:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@3 December 2003 - 01:34
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4

@3 December 2003 - 05:33
Just for the hell of asking:

Couldn&#39;t Russia have decided to renounce the treaty on it&#39;s own?

Is it the perception they could only muster themselves to deny the treaty because the U.S. did?

Here&#39;s my take:

Russia decided not to ratify the treaty because Japan decided not to.

The U.S. had nothing to do with it.

US&#39;s denying into the treaty just made it easier for Russia to say no

Prove it.

I say they are following Japan&#39;s lead.

I insist that you agree.

Remember: I am an American, and you are powerless to decide for yourself if Kyoto is good or bad. [/b][/quote]
i dont have to prove shit

this is what i heard on Canadian based news

u americans only value capitalism and dont care about the environment.

Other countries follow ur lead at least ur can set a good example&#33;&#33;&#33;

[j2k4]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@3 December 2003 - 02:29
dont have to prove shit

this is what i heard on Canadian based news

u americans only value capitalism and dont care about the environment.

Other countries follow ur lead at least ur can set a good example&#33;&#33;&#33;

You are correct.

You don&#39;t have to prove "shit".

You do have to know it, though.

If the U.S. sets such a bad example, why would other countries even want to follow it?

Are they mindless?

To borrow a stupid phrase I&#39;m tired of hearing:

"We&#39;re not the boss of you&#33;"