Russia ratifies Kyoto Protocol

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
If USA signed the Kyoto Protocol, they would have to significantly change their energy consumption pattern, becoming less dependent on Middle East oil. Then they could pull out of the region and leave those lunatics to themselves, and significantly decrease the terrorist problem.

If the tax money spent on the recent wars was instead spent on the construction of nuclear power plants and research into alternative vehicle fuels, you would probably be better off today.

Clearly the enviromentalists have a political agenda as well.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Environment

"Economic Boom" translation... lots of corporations will lose out. Good riddens to bad rubbish.

Marx would be proud of your anti-corporation extremism.

[Natalinasmpf]

Since when has economics mattered a whoot to an enviromentalist?

Because it increases economic efficiency by +2 and improves ecological harmony by +2, possibly boosting revenues from the Manifold Harmonics?

The -2 growth rate can be neutralised by implenting a democratic government, with a small penalty of having -2 support.

Oh wait, the United States is a police state, so it doesn't work that much, although they negate each other's efficiency bonuses. And of course the US would want all the military support it needs to send out troops in an hostile environment even without Congress declaring war.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned


Since when has economics mattered a whoot to an enviromentalist?

I don't remember ever defending a strong pro-environment position here... I guess that you allowed yourself to put these words in my mouth because I'm a godless antisemitic commie anyway...

So the question remains: shouldn't those who have achieved wealth and productivity dedicate their ressources towards increasing environmental efficiency? If the others don't want to follow suit, well, too bad, but they've certainly got a case if they argue about the fact that in theory they should have the "right" to pollute as much as the Westerners do, per capita.

Anyway, a sound environmental policy can stimulate entrepreneurship and R&D in new fields, whereas America's current policy is clearly forged on a reactionary partnership with the aging oil conglomerates.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf

Since when has economics mattered a whoot to an enviromentalist?

Because it increases economic efficiency by +2 and improves ecological harmony by +2, possibly boosting revenues from the Manifold Harmonics?

The -2 growth rate can be neutralised by implenting a democratic government, with a small penalty of having -2 support.

Oh wait, the United States is a police state, so it doesn't work that much, although they negate each other's efficiency bonuses. And of course the US would want all the military support it needs to send out troops in an hostile environment even without Congress declaring war.

Natal, at least we share a love of the same game. I think I start another on in a few minutes.

[Ned]

Oncle B, there are some here who wistfully believe that enviromental regulations impose no economic hardship. They are wrong of course.

The major draw of China today is that they permit manufacturing at low cost - a major component of this is the lack of environmental controls. Leaving China out of Kyoto will only result in increasing the move of manufacturing out of North America and Europe to Asia.

In the US, a current hot topic is "outsourcing." One cannot seriously oppose outsourcing and support more manufacturing jobs in the US and at the same time support Kyoto. The two are at strong tension.

[Fake Boris]

Indeed, Kyoto is probably, from a geopolitic point of view, a mistake. Though it could be possible that Europe eventually gets past America with their efforts towards a greener economy.

EDIT:

I think you should also make a distinction between Kyoto and environmental regulations... even if you ratify Kyoto, there are so many other regulations absent in China that it wouldn't have much effect on outsourcing.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
EEEEH! FACT CHECK!
"Russia's move toward ratifying the Kyoto Protocol "

It is not ratified until the Russian parliment approves it. The duma has previosuly passed a resolution against it. It is not a done deal yet, and will likely take more large gifts from teh EU to get it through.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996569

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Ned


Still, Poland can cheat because no one will notice and see Russia fall into total ruin complying with Kyoto.

Ned you didn't read the article I posted eariler here. The Russians are in all likelyhood playing lip service to Kyoto,they have a great deal of "credits" on pollution because of 1990 being used as a base line, and for other factors, that they can then sell to Europe. Then they can duck out.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
Good. Now, please, raise the price of gas in all Kyoto countries by double, nay triple, so that China, India and the US can have more of this dwindling critical resource.

No, seriously, now that the treaty is in force, Kyoto countries will be shooting themselves in the economic foot if they even try to comply.

Relying on hydro and wind power instead of coal = economic catastrophe
Financing research on alternative energy sources = economic catastrophe
Developing a new expertise in a 21st century-critical domain = economic catastrophe
Relying on a century old stigmatized oil cartel, with their dick stuck far into old political falcons = economic boom

Nedaverse

[Impaler[WrG]]

The protocol also foresees emission credits for forests that soak up carbon.

I heard that this idea was cooked up by the US as a condition that would need to be meet before we could even consider joining. The US contains far far more forests then western Europe (but less the Russia I belive) and depending on how the math is done the US could actuly be SELLING!! the Carbon Credits.

Ofcorse the whole idea is crap, a healty forest as is everything in nature in a state of balance neither gaining or lossing Carbon. Only when un-natural Fire suppression is aplied to a forest will it "soak up" Carbon. But like daming a river the build up can not be contained and has erupted into progressivly more damaging forest fires each fire season. Ofcorse THAT carbon won't count will it because its "natural". Plainly a have your cake and eat it too strategy which would actualy encourage the continued unhealthy over-managment of forests that got us here in the first place.

I should know the forested crown of the Catalina Mountains just North of Tucson were nearly completly burned down less then a year ago, you could see the fireline on the mountains flanks at night. The "Shrub" came and made the gauling acusation that Environmentalists were blocking efforsts to allow timber companies to thin forests for fire prevention (and they would do it for free as well). Anyone who knows anything about a forest knows that the underbrush that represents the fire hazard is of absolutly no economic value to a timber company, you cant get 2 by 4's from sticks, pine cones and dead leaves. A profit making timber company will want Big Fat Tall trees 100 years old, which guess what not the root cause of forest fires. Real thining is a time and money consuming endevour conducted by the national forest service which usaly involves controled burning. Now for the iceing on the cake, Shrub has been underfunding the national forest service for years as they begged for the funds to clear the mountain top.

The ability of Republicans to create a problem then blame liberals for the problem and propose more "get tough" measure that will guarantee the problem gets worse never seaces to amaze me.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf

Since when has economics mattered a whoot to an enviromentalist?

Because it increases economic efficiency by +2 and improves ecological harmony by +2, possibly boosting revenues from the Manifold Harmonics?

The -2 growth rate can be neutralised by implenting a democratic government, with a small penalty of having -2 support.

Oh wait, the United States is a police state, so it doesn't work that much, although they negate each other's efficiency bonuses. And of course the US would want all the military support it needs to send out troops in an hostile environment even without Congress declaring war.

Singapore is far more of a police state than the US.

[Hueij]

Why should we take posts about why Kyoto sucks by people from a country that produces 36% of the total CO2 emissions seriously?

[Kuciwalker]

Because that's an ad hominem?

[The Mad Monk]

Okay, the New Scientist article Dauphin posted said we produce 25%, you say 36%, would you guys like to get together and figure out what the number is before you toss it in our faces?