kyoto is a good thing
Posted By: gt on 2005-09-01
In Reply to: My Bush certainly is all powerful. sm - sm
Posted like a true republican who only cares about profit and corporations and not the environment and leaving the world a better place to our children and childrens children. Its okay, with the emissions, gases, companies being allowed to pollute once again, why we can all just wear oxygen masks..and get a good SPF sun blocker..heck, like Bush said when asked about what he thought his legacy would be..he said he didnt know or care, as he would be dead anyway..Yup, that is real deep thinking and quite frightening..but he does not have anything to worry about. When he leaves office (cant happen fast enough), he will go back to his *ranch* or Kennebunkport or wherever he wants to spend his millions. He wont be in a world of hurt but the rest of us will, by his actions and inactions over a very very long eight years..No, I know much about global warming and Kyoto. I have followed the situation since Clinton's administration. I wont make absolute statements as I am not a scientist but from what I see and read, global warming is having a major effect on the world. .
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Kyoto. SM
Kyoto, from my favorite blogger. You might want to keep track of what Kyoto is really about gt, and not just accept it because the greenies say it is a good thing:
The USA has been the villain of the environmentalists for shunning the do nothing Kyoto agreement. An agreement designed to punish developed countries so that third world puss holes could more easily institutionalize corruption. Now it seems the rest of the developed world has figured it out.
John Howard claims he has been vindicated over his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol after business groups in New Zealand and Germany demanded their countries quit the agreement as soon as possible and join the Asia-Pacific climate pact.
A coalition of 22,000 New Zealand businesses, under the auspices of the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry, called on both parties in the New Zealand election to start talks on pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol by 2008 - the earliest possible date to do so.
The chief executive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association of New Zealand, Alasdair Thompson, said compliance had cost companies much more than the Government predicted. It has been estimated that New Zealand may have to spend between $600 million and $1.2 billion to meet its Kyoto commitments on greenhouse gas emissions instead of gaining carbon credits.
Kyoto was never anything more then feel good posturing designed to punish those who do well. Kind of like Democratic tax policy.
kyoto
Once again, written from a radical right wing perspective. Well, I will go with what I know and what I have read and researched a bit about Kyoto. But, keep defending the fool in the WH. He needs all the defending he can get, he is such a dire failure.
kyoto
what they were talking about is Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto pact, which was created to help combat global warming. Some scientists say global warming and making the oceans warmer contribute to increased hurricanes. But, of course, you all twist the words around and alter the truth to fit your narrow way of thinking.
kyoto, one of many articles
INDEPTH: KYOTO
Kyoto Protocol FAQs
April 13, 2005
Depending on who you talk to, the Kyoto Protocol is either a) an expensive, bureaucratic solution to fix a problem that may not even exist; or b) the last, best chance to save the world from the time bomb of global warming.
Those are the extremes in what has become a polarizing debate that has engaged governments, consumers, environmental groups and industry all over the world for more than 20 years.
The problem the Kyoto Protocol is trying to address is climate change, and more specifically, the speed at which the earth is warming up. Whether Kyoto can accomplish this is very much a matter of debate.
For the record, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect Feb. 16, 2005, with 141 countries signing on, including every major industrialized country – except the United States, Australia and Monaco. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of the emissions that have been blamed for global warming.
Two of the world's biggest – and growing – polluters also have not signed on. India and China don't have to – they're considered developing countries and are outside the protocol's framework.
First, the science behind Kyoto.
Is the climate changing?
The United Nations certainly thinks so. And so do most (but not all) scientists who study climate. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes the work of 2,000 of the world's top climate experts. Its latest report (2001) makes for some sobering reading.
Yes, the world is getting warmer, the report concludes. The IPCC says the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, with much of that rise coming in the 1990s – likely the warmest decade in 1,000 years.
The IPCC also found that snow cover since the late 1960s has decreased by about 10 per cent and lakes and rivers in the Northern Hemisphere are frozen over about two weeks less each year than they were in the late 1960s. Mountain glaciers in non-polar regions have also been in noticeable retreat in the 20th century, and the average global sea level has risen between 0.1 and 0.2 metres since 1900.
Simply put, the world is getting warmer and the temperature is rising faster than ever.
What are the very long-term climate predictions?
The IPCC predicts more floods, intense storms, heat waves and droughts. Its study forecasts a rise of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the global mean surface temperature over the next 100 years, with developing countries most vulnerable.
Other studies are even more apocalyptic. A report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund predicts dangerous warming of the earth's surface in as little as 20 years, with the Arctic warming so much that its polar ice could melt in the summer by the year 2100, pushing polar bears close to extinction.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment predicts that caribou, musk ox and reindeer would find their habitats severely reduced. Northern aboriginal peoples around the world would find their way of life changed forever, the study said.
What is causing the world to warm up?
The 6 greenhouse gases Kyoto targets |
Carbon dioxide.
Methane.
Nitrous oxide
Sulphur hexafluoride.
Hydrofluorocarbons.
Perfluorocarbons.
|
Most scientists blame industrialization. Since the 19th century, the richer countries of the Northern Hemisphere have been pumping out ever-increasing volumes of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Industrial societies burn fossil fuels in their power plants, homes, factories and cars. They clear forests (trees absorb carbon dioxide) and they build big cities.
Greenhouse gases allow solar radiation to pass through the earth's atmosphere. But after the earth absorbs part of that radiation, it reflects the rest back. That's where the problem lies. Particles of greenhouse gas absorb the radiation, heating up, and warming the atmosphere. The increasing levels of greenhouse gases are causing too much energy to be trapped – the so-called greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse gas emissions targets apply to 38 industrialized countries and economies in transition
|
For a list of these countries and their emissions targets, click here:
UNFCCC
|
Isn't there a lot of debate over the whole issue of climate change?
While scientists tend to agree that the earth is warming, not all agree that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the culprits. A vocal minority say the earth's climate warms and cools in long cycles that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
Some dispute the data concerning rising sea levels and rising temperatures. Others dispute the projections, which are based on computer models. But again, those views are those of a minority. Most climatologists agree that global warming is causing unprecedented climate change…and that things will get worse unless something is done.
What does the Kyoto Protocol require?
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in late 1997 to address the problem of global warming by reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It is considered a first step and is not expected to solve the world's climate change problems by the time its first commitment period ends in 2012.
Kyoto sets out an agenda for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels (although economies in transition, like Russia, can pick different base years). Some reports say the lower target is to be met by 2010. But that's shorthand for the actual target date, which is to achieve those emission cuts over a five-year average (2008 to 2012).
All countries are not treated equally by Kyoto. Canada, for instance, has committed to chopping its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent. The U.S. target was a seven per cent reduction. But in 2001, one of the first acts of newly-elected President George W. Bush was to formally withdraw the U.S. from Kyoto. Bush said the U.S. would not ratify the treaty because it would damage the U.S. economy and major developing nations like China and India were not covered by its provisions.
Kyoto also allows some industrialized countries to make no cuts, or even to emit more greenhouse gases that they did in 1990. Russia's and New Zealand's emission levels are capped at their 1990 levels. Iceland can emit up to 10 per cent more greenhouse gases, Australia eight per cent more. (Like the U.S., Australia has announced it won't ratify Kyoto). Developing nations are not subject to any emissions reduction caps under Kyoto.
Much of the criticism around the Kyoto Protocol is over political realities and the limitations of the treaty. Critics say a five per cent cut will accomplish little, especially with the United States not on board. Some Canadian critics say our economy will pay a heavy price for meeting our Kyoto commitments because we'll have to compete with an American economy that faces no such restrictions. Many doubt that Canada's target cuts can be reached in Kyoto's first phase that ends in 2012.
Others say the money to implement Kyoto would be much better spent on improving land usage and infrastructure in poor countries.
How are emission targets met?
Emission targets can be met several ways. The most obvious way is to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions – more fuel-efficient cars, fewer coal-fired power plants. But Kyoto also allows for three other mechanisms.
Countries can buy emissions credits from countries that don't need them to stay below their emissions quotas. A country can also earn emissions credits through something called joint implementation, which allows a country to benefit by carrying out something like a reforestation project in another industrialized country or economy in transition. There's also what's called a clean development mechanism that encourages investment in developing countries by promoting the transfer of environmentally-friendly technologies.
Each developed country must develop its own strategy to meet its Kyoto commitments. Industrial countries that ratify Kyoto are legally bound to see that their emissions do not exceed their 2008/2012 targets.
What happens if a country fails to reach its Kyoto emissions target?
The Kyoto Protocol contains measures to assess performance and progress. It also contains some penalties. Countries that fail to meet their emissions targets by the end of the first commitment period (2012) must make up the difference plus a penalty of 30 per cent in the second commitment period. Their ability to sell credits under emissions trading will also be suspended.
support of Kyoto
The European Union and Canada have signed. There are northeastern states that have created an initiative which would cap emissions and put pressure on the federal govt to support Kyoto. New York is one of them, Maine is another. There are also cities and other states that support Kyoto. Los Angeles is one of them, so is Utah, Texas, Seattle. I think altogether there is about 160 cities and states supporting the Kyoto protocol.
I never said it's a bad thing, it is a good thing....nm
nm
1 good thing he did for himself was get a
/
I think it is a good thing that they met.
Here is a quote from the above link:
After the meeting, the two issued a joint statement saying: "At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time."
"It is in this spirit that we had a productive conversation today about the need to launch a new era of reform where we take on government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington in order to restore trust in government, and bring back prosperity and opportunity for every hardworking American family," it said. "We hope to work together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy and protecting our nation's security."
Sounds good to me.
It might be a good thing...........sm
It might make a lot of smokers quit because of the cost of a pack of cigarettes. However, I don't think smokers alone should be expected to fund the lion's share of this health care bill since they are not the ones who would receive benefits from it. I tend to agree with the other person...why not tax the hound out of junk food and sodas?
Good thing..........
her family has lots of money - as she will probably be able to do all those things plus raise her baby. Something most families don't have right now - money.
Good thing...
...I don't mind tilting at windmills!
That's a good thing, because this ain't
no fairy tale!
Exactly! BIG Govt is not a good thing!
nm
how can "mandatory" be a good thing??
what happened to freedom of choice? I am not willing to give up my freedoms nor see those freedoms stripped from my children or grandchildren. why do you think this seems to be a good thing?
Enraged is a good thing when it comes to being
xx
ignoring the neocons is..a good thing!
It works, Lilly. Its a breath of fresh air to ignore the neocons that frequent the liberal board just to vent their anger, LOL. After ignoring them a few times, you dont even realize they are here anymore. Now when I read posts, I totally zone in on liberal posts.
Condi Rice, OMG. I cant stand that woman!
I agree this would be a good thing if it passes....
but she should move the ethics investigation to Harry Reid next:
REID'S LAST KNOWN NATIONAL MEDIA APPEARANCE: October 18th Trying To Explain His Ethical Issues. Sen. Reid: I bought a piece of land, sold it six years later. Everything was reported. It was all transparent. (CNN's Newsroom, 10/18/06)
[H]arry Reid Has Been Using Campaign Donations Instead Of His Personal Money To Pay Christmas Bonuses For The Support Staff At The Ritz-Carlton ... Federal Election Law Bars Candidates From Converting Political Donations For Personal Use. (John Solomon, Reid Used Campaign Money For Christmas Bonuses At Personal Condo, The Associated Press, 10/16/06)
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Collected A $1.1 Million Windfall On A Las Vegas Land Sale Even Though He Hadn't Personally Owned The Property For Three Years ... (John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey, Reid Got $1 Million For Land He Hadn't Owned For 3 Years, The Associated Press, 10/11/06)
- Harry Reid, The Senate's Top Democrat, Makes Frequent Trips To His Home State Of Nevada. Over The Past Four Years, His Bills At Caesars Palace, Mandalay Bay And Other Las Vegas Establishments Have Totaled More Than $125,000 ... (Brody Mullins, Lawmakers Tap PAC Money To Pay Wide Array Of Bills, The Wall Street Journal, 11/2/06)
That would also be a good place to start.
HAHAHA! Good thing that YOU are not running
nm
The only good thing about Obama being elected
would be that in four years, we can vote him back out. I'm with you, sm, less government, less government spending.
I appreciate the link. Always a good thing to be given chance
when it comes to watching a smear campaign implode all over itself.
Good thing kids don't get to vote
When I was little I think I would have liked to have Mary Poppins or Batman as president. If children like hero stories then they would be voting for McCain. He is a true American Hero.
Good thing we live in a Republic
and not a democracy
wow when it's moved everything is erased!! maybe that's a good thing? Lol
but I still think this is the right place :)
It's a good thing you have pride in the last administration....
otherwise, you would be lost. Your petty argument is lost on the majority.
Good thing Obama talked to them
all nice and friendly like. So much for kissing their back sides Mr. President. Maybe he should send them an iPod.
I think it's high time and a good thing
that RINOs finally declare their true party and leave room in the Republican party for true Republicans. And Specter has, in an uncharacteristic moment of honesty (or senility,) illustrated the fact that every politician considers his first duty to be getting re-elected. I hope that Specter gets soundly unpantsed in the next primary - as a Democrat. That would truly put the icing on the cake.
And about Specter, isn't it about time for this guy to retire? He is a great example of the 'senator for life' syndrome.
The Republican party put forth a very poor presidential candidate in 2008. Maybe they learned from that experience and will return to more a conservative party line. So if a few RINOs jump ship here and there, I think that's excellent.
It's a good thing Obama promised
not to sign any bills with pork in it....oh wait.....he lied about that and signed it anyway, didn't he?
I think it a good thing to stay away and not give them a target. sm
It is so obvious they are brainwashed and cannot respond to logic in a sensible fashion, so it is no use discussing or arguing with them. You cannot argue logically with someone who has no logic.
I agree that a phased withdrawal would be a good thing...
after we have given the surge every opportunity to work and have given the Iraqis every opportunity to step up and take over security of their own country. We cannot afford to leave too quickly and allow AL Qaeda to take it over and use it as a base from which to attack us and I have no doubt they would do just that. As to Iran...I cannot see us invading Iran like we invaded Iraq, for a multitude of reasons. I believe the term surgical strikes would take on a whole new meaning if that became necessary. Honestly, I think if Ahmadinejad persists in this nuclear thing we will not have to do anything, because I believe Israel will handle it. I don't think Israel will stand by and let him get nukes. It would be suicide to do so...because if he attacked, that would be his first target, I would be willing to bet the farm. What I am really afraid of is he will put weapons grade nuc material in the hands of Al Qaeda for a dirty bomb to attack us with. That is why I don't want to abandon Iraq to become a base for such things. However, if the Iraqi govt does not step up...I would agree that we cannot stay there for life everlasting at the strength we are now. As you say, that does impair our safety at home. I think we need to concentrate on controlling our borders better.
On that note, I did see a somewhat encouraging report on illegals. Seems that more and more of them are moving on up to Canada because...get this...it is easier to get on programs if you are illegal and Canada pays more...LOL. Well more power to them I guess. Let Canada deal with them. I bet if we started a sweep to round up illegal aliens they would run north in droves. Which is okay too. Not great for Canada but better for us.
Be well, DW!
Name me one good thing Bill Clinton did as President
I voted for Clinton when he first ran agains Bush Sr. After six months of him as president and what I saw happening to the country I re-registered as republican. Every time that man or his wife had their face on the TV I muted it. I cannot tell you why, but hearing his voice or seeing his face literally made me nausous. (I should have invested in Pepto Bismol stock and would have made a fortune because of all the Pepto I went through). I still believe for 8 years we had no president. Just someone sitting in the office, but we didn't have a real leader.
Now I keep hearing how everyone praises Bill Clinton and what a great president he was (even though he was impeached). So I would like to hear from people and name one thing that was good that he did so I could possibly have a different opinion of him. The really odd thing is everytime his face is in the news I get that sick nauseous feeling again and still have to mute him and look away.
The hair just stands up on my neck and I really feel like I am looking at what evil is (and I'm not religious, but he just gives me a creepy feeling), so please tell me something good about him.
Good for Fox - I'm no Fox fan but I'll give them credit for doing the right thing
They say Fair and Balanced but they definitely are more conservative and Sean Hannity really gets on my nerves something awful. He's about as condescening as Rush and treats guests who are liberals as though they are less intelligent than he is.
When I am in favor of conservative viewpoint I will watch them, and when I am in favor of liberal viewpoints I will go to another channel. Never CNN because they praise the Clintons too much. Most of the time I watch MSNBC even though they are more liberal, but at least they are fair and civil to conservatives.
So I give Fox some credit.
Yeah...good thing she isn't debating Obama...
nm
Good grief...that is ridiculous. I would say the same thing if he was white...
Geez...paranoid much?? LOL.
He IS a millionaire. Why should he spend campaign money to go visit his grandmother when he could afford to take himself?
The POINT was dissing Palin because the campaign bought her some clothes to be used on the campaign, not for personal use, and to be donated afterward. He will spend that much on burned jet fuel. I would say the same thing if SHE was black and HE was white.
Chill.
good thing u dont have to work with the public
with that attitude. Emily meant why is the OP posting this? In reference to what? I am wondering the same thing.
Good thing we have PSYCHIC wisdom on the board
:-(
Yeah, it was, sorry.....I just don't think poking fun at sick people is a good thing to do....
and that was the thread. I think we are ALL better than that, much better things to talk about than that. So, I apologize...I will keep my indignation on the part of those who are the butt of jokes because of physical deformities to myself. I am better than stinging rebuttals myself..I will take my own advice.
Have a good day, vv, my friend.
Yes, giving the NAVY SEALS the order is a good thing
Although they really didn't need his okay, but I'll give you that. It was a good decision, but cripes, professing that he is a hero???? The NAVY SEALS are the hero's. The NAVY SEALS are the ones who rescued him. The O did not accompany them and help rescue this guy. You HATE the fact that we are bringing up a valid point...the O did not board the ship and help bring the Captain home. He gave an order. There is nothing to eat crow about. And because he gave an order that it was okay for them to go in certainly doesn't mean he's "doing good for the country". This is one incident. Good for the country????? Let's see bail outs, trillion dollar deficitis, more bail outs, pork filled spending bills, more bail out, lining up a cabinet filled with crooks and people who don't pay taxes, raising taxes on middle income, enforcing the patriot act worse than the previous administration, telling other countries Americans are selfish and other things, bowing to an enemy leader, etc etc etc. This is not "doing good for the country" and the Obama worshipers/lovers won't admit this. Your lord is not doing good for the country.
We're you proud of Bush when he gave the orders to rescue the hostages in Iran, or Jessica Lynch from WV, or any of the other orders to rescue hostages? No, you did not profess to be proud of him.
So that's the way it goes here with the Obama lovers.
Obama issues an order to save a captain - You and others reply - "Thank you Obama, I'm so proud of you, you're just the bestest ever President in the whole wide world".
Bush issues an order to save hostages in Iran, Jessica Lynch and other hostages in different areas - you and others reply - "So what, he's just a moron".
Tell me where the sense is that? It's called none!
Good thing Cheney showed up on camera with his dire pronouncements
Fearmonger? Yep, every other day it was a red or an orange or something.........Cry wolf one too many times and no one believes you anymore.
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
Good post....truth doesn't always sound good
@
Good for you! Most people would not recognize good...sm
character if it hit them over the head, just sheep who follow along without thinking for themselves, believing the political pundit spitting out garbage.
Good post - good research (sm)
History does repeat itself at times. I had forgotten about the 50s and Russia.
Very scary times we live in and so many new enemies. This is definitely not a scare tactic but a very clear warning. You can't ignore facts, they are there.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
rasberries
Good point, good post. Thanks.
one other thing though....
Agree with everything you stated, but I am profoundly disgusted also with Rove being able to expose a CIA agent, and nothing is going to be done about it in that I feel he committed treason, as Reagan did with Iran-Contra... Treasonous acts that are let to slide...no big deal huh? Who knows if someone is getting hurt because of his mouth, and yet, nothing... The silence is very annoying...as our country drops into a stinking sea of muck.
One more thing, gt. sm
Of all the people on these boards, YOUR opinion of me is the one I value the least.
Oh, and one more thing, gt. sm
Clnton signed Kyoto in 1997, only because he knew that the Senate would not ratify it. He was right. They voted 95-0 AGAINST Kyoto. Why? Because it would have required signatory nations to significantly cut greenhouse gases resulting from the burning of fosil fuels. Because ratifying the treaty would have required a large reduction in the use of fossil fuels that we use to our our economy. Until there is an alternative fuel source that is better than gold old fashioned coal and oil, restricting our economy's ability to burn these fuels would CRIPPLE US AS A NATION. You are not seeing the total picture here, you simply cannot be seeing it. I know the left's hatred for capitalism has blinded them to the fact that without our economy, we collapse. It really is that simple. We would be reduced to a third world nation in a very short period of time and you and I would not be sitting here writing on our computers because our world as we know it would change. Yes, it really is all about oil. But not the way you think.
and another thing
we aren't controlling anybody. There are several countries in this world where you are controlled, but this ain't one of them.
One more thing:
I apologize for the length of my post, but so far, I still have freedom of speech.
Guess I just feel the need to get it all out before that freedom suddenly disappears, as well. The majority of Americans don't agree with Bush, and we all know how he/his thugs handle people who dare to disagree with him. If you don't believe me, just ask John McCain and/or Valerie Plame.
I'd like to add one more thing.
If these alleged WMDs are so widespread and so easily accessible in Iraq, why aren't any of them being used on our soldiers?
Honestly, that's one of the very first fears I had when I heard we were going to war with Iraq (when I still believed the reasons given by the president and supported the invasion based on those reasons). I had visions of massive troop deaths at the hands of Iraqis and these WMDs.
Did that happen? 
OK. Here's the thing...sm
Because we've been through this before and I feel a repeat coming on. I'm respectful and nice to everyone on these boards 99% of the time. People come over to the liberal board and pretend they are moderates or just want to *debate.* When all the time they are anti-everything liberal and have no intention of seeing the liberal point of view. In the end, they end up *insulted* off of the board and run to the other board and have a sling fest. Yawn. They have revelations over there contrary to the beliefs they portrayed on this board. So really I'm skeptical about debating with the like. You may be 100% different worldfan, but from your posts on the Conservative and News boards it would appear you would be more at home on the conservative board giving them a high five about what's going on over here. Just my observation.
I used to post on the conservative board but I left because they were getting too extreme for my liking. It's that simple. There are some topics over there that I would reply too, but I don't b/c of past comments made over there, which have made me stick to the liberal page. However, on quite a few issues I am far from liberal like abortion and fiscal spending.
I hope you get my points. If not, we don't have anything more to discuss.
|
