»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Kyoto.
| The Alley |
|
Kyoto. |
|
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665
|
So Arnie wants to cut down CO gas emmisions?..Is this just another way for him to get back into office next year? And then when he is in again say..''well i dont think we can realistacally do that'' and go back to driving his Hummer around? America will NEVER sign the Kyoto agreement because it is the biggest polluter on earth, and what is the best way around this sitiuation..BUILD MORE DANGEROUS NUCLAR POWER STATIONS...and have even more waste that has to be disposed of...and that takes thousands of years to do.... Let me tell you why America will never sign the Kyoto agreement...it does not care about it's OWN environment..why should it be concerned with the rest of the earths as well? The forest society of america was set up to safeguard americas forests...but in actual fact they HELP..to take down the trees and wilderness area...by building roads so that the loggers can better get to the trees...thousands of miles of roads...and the worse of all this...and the microcosm that shows you that america does not care at all for the environment is that this same authority according to The Wilderness Society, cut down 209 acres of ONE THOUSAND YEAR OLD REDWOODS!!!!!....1000 year old...it is organised rape and when they have cut down the very lungs of america..you know where to point the finger..at all the politicians who let america down NOW...because it needs to be addressed NOW or the children of today have NO future... Have a healthy, oxygene pure day everybody.. Goldenrose. Desire for nothing except desirelessness,hope for nothing except to rise above all hopes, want nothing and you will have everything.avatar Meher Baba. |
||
| © Copyright 2005 P.D - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Goldenrose: quote: This isn't entirely accurate. CO emissions are only part of the problem. Actually, many states in the U.S. are legislating renewable energy portfolio standards for electricity generation (wind power, photovoltaic energy, fuel cell technology, methane reclamation, clean coal, ocean tide generators, hydro-electricity, etc.). Also, many states and regions have demand response programs that provide financial incentives to large energy users that reduce their energy consumption when wholesale prices are at their highest (usually during prolonged periods of hot weather - which incidently coincide with "Ozone Alert" days). The problem is that "being green isn't easy." We have relatively cheap energy now and new, enviro-friendly technologies are expensive to develop and, in the case of wind power, difficult to integrate into the electricity transmission grid. The Renewable Portfolio standards are a reasonable means to mitigating the effect of increased energy demand on the environment while at the same time preventing "rate shock" for consumers. Regardless of U.S.'s agreement with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, many States (CA included) are moving in the right direction with incremental increases of mandatory clean-energy generation over the next 5-10 years. In many ways, it is a more farseeing approach to the environmental problems than Kyoto, and it more reasonably addresses the tension between energy cost and the ever-increasing demand for electricity in the States. Additionally, tax incentives for purchasers of hybrid vehicles has encouraged the growth of more enviro-friendly automobiles and hydrogen fuel cell power plants in motor vehicles, while not eliminating the need for fossil fuels, replace CO emissions with water (hydrogen fuel cells allow for a non-combustion chemical reaction that is both more efficient - by about 300% - and eliminate CO in exhaust). Jim |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I am strongly against that treaty. why?- IT alows developing nations like china and India get out scott free. There is no way to help transition thoughs countries to industrial contries and that treaty wont really do any thing. Contries that suddenly become a developed nation will hit a shock, because suddenly they have to comply. What should happen?- There should be a completly new treaty. Instead of setting standerds (which are unfair because of the way each country is... explain below)Countries should join to gether to help find better technologies and cheaper. Sharing knolage Basically. Greatly reduced loans (Like at inflation) for developing nations to upgrade there technology. Out law energy inefficient consuming devices (stop making them, so only the efficient onres are sold) Make contries Tax energy consumption. (***Thats right people genuwenly hate paying taxes more then saving the envirement***) Put heavy restriction on the use of amonia. I say this for two reasons. there are heavy enviremental consequences to lakes and rivers from the increase in nitrogen. This causes an increase of algea. This is bad because algea takes away the oxegen in lakes. IT causes thermal polution from insolation. It is poiseness to animals on land and kills the baby fish, because they have nothing to eat. The secound reason nitrogen should be reduced is because it is one third of the energy used in the united states.(Amonia is hard to make!) How can we do this? fertalizers should be restricted on areas close to water ways and things should be done to restrict( A little more) it for poeple who use it just for our yards. Restrictions on cleaning supllies and so forth. Wow this is long. and it is actual longer and in more detail (I am writing a paper by my self to send some where lol) Nut I took An Organic Chemistry test to day and I don't like thinking. Five more minutes lol -Juju Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I believe there are two main reasons why Kyoto has been rejected by the U.S (and I don't see either as a real excuse why not to adopt) The first is that administration officials claim that it will be very expensive and affect our economy. It's a given that in a short-term it'll take a little getting-used too and there be some additional price to pay. But in a long-term, sustainability and ecological wisdom will be beyond worth the cost. The second is that administration officials focus on the fact that the Kyoto Protocol doesn't offer these same requirements to developing countries including China and India, and so they see it as a political effort; to stall progress in America and allow China to advance at a quicker rate since they have no cap to reach. The second argument I believe is absolutely understandable. However, I have always seen the environment and education as the two most important issues of all we must offer dear heart to (much more important issues than Iraq and so) and really believe there's no excuse why we can't discipline our emissions levels like much of the rest of the world has done. Some like Tony Blair, who I disagree with very often on foreign policy, I commend for even going beyond that and calling for an over 60% reduction in emissions. I do happen to, and sadly, absolutely agree with you that this administration has less heart for the environment than any other administration in our nation's history. Essentially, the environmental movement was a Republican movement. It was Teddy Roosevelt who created the public parks system, and Nixon who established the EPA. The Republican party used to have all the right ideas initially on the environment, they were the ones who mostly set the stage for our environmental standards today. And this is exactly an example of what I mean when I say that the GOP has abandoned its roots. If anything, they're attacking their own party's accomplishments in the last sixty years. The Democrats, who also I believe don't do enough to protect the environment as they should, have much more of the right idea than the GOP does now. The Democrats have seized this issue, and with the exception of Landrieu and both Hawaii senators, they fought to protect ANWR. They're fighting to maintain the existing environmental standards we cherish. A handful have even been working to allow cities to adopt their own local caps. And with the exception of a few senators including McCain, this current GOP just say "No!". And it is indeed absolutely freightening that while our administration officials are concerned about nuclear proliferation and defending our country from terrorism, Bush decides to sell nuclear-capable F-16's to Pakistan and wants to build more nuclear power plants. We might just get to the point where if one plant was attacked and explodes, it would generate a domino effect across the nation and only harm us all! It's hypocrisy! And when I speak of hypocrisy, I also agree that developing countries need to have their own sort of restrictions and caps. But Kyoto is a most credible proposition to me: to have industrialized nations cut emission rates by 2012 below the level in 1990. And approximately 7% here shouldn't be that complicated at all, and our divide from much of the rest of the world on this just reveals how increasingly isolated we've become from the world in terms of relations. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
NOah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't you get it???? ONce those developing conties develope they are going to be slapped with these ubber hard restrictions which will drive them under... The kyoto pack helps the middle guys, The countries that dont manufacture. HEy Lets use canada. They are worse then us by ten folds. but, because they have less industry they can be more pollutant. yet another flaw with the pack. instead of looking at each industy, state extra... they take contries as a whole. This means the paper mills in canida and the few industry in canada will have an overwelming at vantage. This pack hurts Japan, US, .... and then will hurt the second (developing) and third world(undeveloped.) (philipeans, china mexico south america, africa world scale) See noah, there is another problem. contries will out source there work to other undeveloped countries with worse standerds. see its kinda like a trap. the only contries that will this will help is simple. the western european contries, the Carebean nations, extra. THe kyoto pack is very very bad I repeat very very bad noah. look at it. read it. Its bad. So what with Accountability. Look at the whole picture. -Juju Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Looking at the big picture, I see it indeed as a "win-win" situation. It baffles me how many critics in the meantime are basing their arguments on a paperback work of fiction by Michael Crichton, including Alan Caruba and James Inhofe: http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climateupdate.htm There are even some who believe global warming doesn't exist (ExxonMobil reportedly paid global warming skeptics earlier this year). I believe it is quite obvious the problem is reality, and the Keeling Curve really accurately reveals the indicators. It has measured that since 1958, when the research began at a station atop Mauna Loa in Hawaii, that carbon dioxide gas concentration has increased continuously. In 1850, it was measured that there were between 275-280 molecules of Co2 for every million molecules in the air. In 1958, it was at 315/1m, and in 2000, it was measured at 367/m. We've seen glaciers melting, huge chunks of ice break off of Antarctica and around Greenland, etc. I'm absolutely convinced this problem exists, and the Kyoto protocol is indeed that chance to reverse the effects and save the world from that ticking time bomb of a problem that will have devastating effects on health, agriculture and economies worldwide should we not embrace the issue. There's a price, but in the end, it'll be absolutely worth it. And your assessment of Canada isn't really accurate. The reason Canadian critics are critiquing how it'll make them pay a heavy price is because they'll be competing with an American economy that hasn't signed on. If we considered it, that problem wouldn't exist. I certainly don't see how it'll hurt second and third world countries. I'd like to hear your argument though because I believe it really helps to know where both sides are coming from on this most decisive issue in international relations. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Noah, Your not listening to what I am saying. This pact will cause more harm then help. oh lets get some stuff strait, I have never heard of that book and I am an expert on the envirement issues. I have done so much actual reasearch, and stuff I know what is going on. Yes I know there is global warming. I have read many enviremental energy books like "The Hype about Hydrogen," and read tons and tons of scientific artical (Which I have free access to at the U! OHHH yeah!) The developing contries wont suffer any harm from this pack... that is until they become developed. Then once they are deemed developed what will happen is they too will have to follow these rules. Sounds fine and dandy, until you realize that developing contries can't afford nice things so they get the cheaper ones. This means simply that once they become deamed as developed they are going to face responcebilities of massive upgrade and so forth with less technologies then every one else. I am not saying they are not getting out scott free. The only poeple who like this packed is west europe. (And they nead to cut back on more then just CO, NO, NO2, O3 and CO2 talking about enviremental probs.) Noah, there are better answeres then this pact. You have to relize the danger. Standerds should not be per country, but per company. These emissions can be controlled be making car makers liable. BY expecting companies and industry and yes even homes not to watse energy. The picture is not emmissions noah, but the negalent waste of energy that causes these problems. You can through dates and parties at me all you want, but truly just cause youre kinda heading north does'nt mean your gonna hit a detour on the road. The pact has good heart, but it's nature is deadly to the enviremen. You need to stop the problem not the symptoms. other wize the planet will get sicker then it is and the problem noah is how wasteful we are with energy. Bush, sees a little of the problem, but that plan should never be sined. It is the wrong answere. The line should not be set on merely on the emissions by the country but each industry, each person each company. -Juju Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
It wasn't just Western Europe who signed on, Juju! 34 out of 38 Annex-1 nations signed on. A total of 141 nations have signed onto it, not just European but worldwide, with the exception of the U.S and Australia, which together represent 55% of worldwide greenhouse gas pollution. You're absolutely right about one thing in your last comment. Corporations need to be held accountable and have their own caps. Unfortunately that is just not happening right now, but rather the reversal, where these corporations are really governing or puppeteering our government. This pact I believe disciplines our usage of energy explicitly, in stopping the acceleration of consumption and easing it to a threshold. It has already been clearly specified in the protocol that this protocol does not expect to cause enough change to stop global warming. They just state it is the right first step, which I happen to agree with. The first step in resolving a problem is to have standards set, and this protocol I believe sets the standards for which will be a long hard effort in slowing global warming. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
No Noah. It justs asks for the reduction of emissions for the most part. That isn't even the problem. We need to reduce the energy we use. Not find the ultimate fuel. There will always be wastes. -often the wasted energy leads to other kinds of pollution. I am saying every single person must be put accountible. -Lower amonia production (over 1/3 of the energy in the states!) -Promote mass transit -gas tax -energy tax it will be like sales tax -tax write offs(with in reason) to thoughs who invest in energy saving methodes -Tax write offs (with in reason) for poeple who use mass transit - Loans (around inflation to be fair) to companies (out side us and in) who want to invest in energy saving what ever, like more efficient stuff -Plant more trees (they actually really help the invirement) I mean c'mon there is so much that can be done if you attack the problem of energy hogging. -Just because other countries signed something doesn't make it right. Dang this stuff reminds me of star wars. Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
