A detailed list of the bad things Bush did while in presidency

[Spiffor]

Asmodean:
I thought this possiblity to buy quotas was rejected in the final draft, and that's precisely why it wasn't signed by Bush. I thought the idea of buying-selling quotas was precisely US' suggestion (with Japan's).

[DinoDoc]

I still get a chuckle out of the fart tax.

[Ming]

No.. Kyoto was wrong. It did NOTHING. Admit it.

It wasn't worth the paper it was written on. It was a way a bunch of people could think they were doing something... pure politics at it's finest.

A real plan would be a different story... but Kyoto was a joke from the beginning...

Doing nothing under the guise of doing something is worse... it's a lie.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Spiffor
MrFun and RAH:
I'm not claiming Kyoto was perfect by any standard. I'm not claiming Kyoto would have saved the world of all the climatic catastrophes that await us.

But Kyoto was at last the first step in the right direction, which is to consider global warming as a serious, planetary problem that requires action and not only talk.

Because of Bush's stubbornness, this attempt has been ruined of all credibility. An international agreement will inevitably be reached at some point in the future, but the beginning of any significant planetary effort against global warming has been postponed to God knows when, because of Bush's decision.

And in the meantime, greenhouse gases will continue to run galore, and the climatic hazards will continue to increase.

Bush certainly did not create the upcoming climatic catastrophes. However, he contributed to worsen them. The cost of this will be thousands of lives (quite a few of them have already been claimed this year) And that is unforgivable .

Bush isn't to blame for ignoring Kyoto. The American Senate voted 99-0 against it.

[Asmodean]

Spif: No...I'm pretty sure it's still in there. But off course now you have made me doubt

I'll check...

[Asmodean]

Here is article 6 of the Kyoto agreement:

For the purpose of meeting its commitments under Article 3, any Party included in Annex I
may transfer to, or acquire from, any other such Party emission reduction units resulting
from projects aimed at reducing anthropogenic emissions by sources or enhancing
anthropogenic removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in any sector of the economy, provided
that:

(a) Any such project has the approval of the Parties involved;

(b) Any such project provides a reduction in emissions by sources, or an enhancement of
removals by sinks, that is additional to any that would otherwise occur;

(c) It does not acquire any emission reduction units if it is not in compliance with its
obligations under Articles 5 and 7;

(d) The acquisition of emission reduction units shall be supplemental to domestic actions
for the purposes of meeting commitments under Article 3.

2.The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol may,
at its first session or as soon as practicable thereafter, further elaborate guidelines for
the implementation of this Article, including for verification and reporting.

3. A Party included in Annex I may authorize legal entities to participate, under its
responsibility, in actions leading to the generation, transfer or acquisition under this
Article of emission reduction units.

4. If a question of implementation by a Party included in Annex I of the requirements
referred to in this paragraph is identified in accordance with the relevant provisions of
Article 8, transfers and acquisitions of emission reduction units may continue to be made
after the question has been identified, provided that any such units may not be used by a
Party to meet its commitments under Article 3 until any issue of compliance is resolved.

Asmodean

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Japher
It is much easier for smaller countries to adhere to the restrictions the Kyoto Pact wanted to make.

I guess that's why the EU was so eager to pass Kyoto... Fact is, rich countries can afford a global policy of reduction of greenhouse gases, and the EU was more ready than the US for it (better technologies and better implementation of them).
But to say the US would have been ruined, and ruined the world with them, because of such a technological adaptation is a fallacy.

Having the US produce less greenhouse gases doesn't require to stop the economic activity. It requires to adopt new technologies, many of those have already been developed and are already being in everyday use in other parts of the world (namely the EU and Japan). Such an adaptation has a cost, but nothing like "ruining the US" or "ruining the world".

I would be much less angered at your president if the US took serious steps to reduce greenhouse gases by itself (and not in the frame of a flawed Kyoto). However, except for a paltry raise of fuel-efficiency standards that doesn't bring any concrete change, and except for funding the same old research about fuel-cell, I don't see anything done.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Ming, just admit it, YOUR WRONG! "

Actually, Ming is right. Kyoto was a rediculous treaty designed by foreigners to try bring the American economy down to par with the rest of the world. It was defeated 99-0 in the Senate.

[Spiffor]

Asmodean:
I stand corrected. This article indeed ruins the whole deal if it's in use. Do you know who buys pollution quotas ?

[Sava]

Kyoto was a rediculous treaty designed by foreigners to try bring the American economy down to par with the rest of the world.

and people who believe this garbage are dumb...

It was a lame attempt by Greenie-Euros to enact an effective environmentally-friendly treaty.

But according to the dumb, the Euro's are conspiring to destroy America's economy.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Asmodean:
I stand corrected. This article indeed ruins the whole deal if it's in use. Do you know who buys pollution quotas ?

Yeah...last I heard, we (Denmark) would have to buy quotas if we are to meet out emission level goals for 2008

Asmodean

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
It was a lame attempt by Greenie-Euros to enact an effective environmentally-friendly treaty.

A very lame attempt... since it really didn't do anything.
The real sad part is that they continue to moan it's loss, and attack people who saw it for what it was... worthless.

[Sava]

A very lame attempt... since it really didn't do anything.
The real sad part is that they continue to moan it's loss, and attack people who saw it for what it was... worthless.

Yup... what I find hilarious is what Shi pointed out... how many people believe that Kyoto was a conspiracy to destroy America's economy....

Anyways, I'm not a fan of using international treaties to help the environment. The US should worry about the US... and likewise with Euro's. Make YOUR country a greeny paradise first, then worry about attacking other countries because of their policies. The greenies in the US have valid complaints about industry, pollution, and greenhouse gases. But pining over some impotent international treaty is just stupid.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava
Anyways, I'm not a fan of using international treaties to help the environment. The US should worry about the US... and likewise with Euro's. Make YOUR country a greeny paradise first, then worry about attacking other countries because of their policies. The greenies in the US have valid complaints about industry, pollution, and greenhouse gases. But pining over some impotent international treaty is just stupid.

Pollution does not obey national bounderies. If I was a Canadian I would be complaining about the crap puffed off of Detroit floating over Toronto. Contries have to work together.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sava
Anyways, I'm not a fan of using international treaties to help the environment. The US should worry about the US... and likewise with Euro's. Make YOUR country a greeny paradise

That's what we are trying to do. But it is of little use if other countries don't do it. Global warming will have consequences for all of us, whether the culprit is the EU, the US, China or Mauritania...
This is precisely why international treaties are needed. We Euros could make a greeny paradise as much as we want, that wouldn't stop the possible desertification if the US continues to guzzle gas and to ignore the consequences.