Europe firmly commited to Kyoto protocols.

[Immortal Wombat]

Triple cross post

[Bereta_Eder]

Americans understand one thing : BOMBS. We get our act together and we go bomb them

[Immortal Wombat]

We'd spend €5 billion and 5 years designing no-pollution bombs though.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Exactly, the major problem you cannot see, taste and smell. For example, if there is a nuclear reactor meltdown. You can neither see, taste nor smell plutonium

Retaliation? Of course, that's why it has to be a concerted effort.

No-one else would join in.

Why should the US sign a flawed treaty?

[Provost Harrison]

What is so flawed about it? It seems like a good first step, hopefully the first of many.

[Giancarlo]

Will this bogus and arbitrary treaty really make a difference besides increasing unemployment and lowing industrial output?

[Dauphin]

So Bod's, what is your suggestion?

Follow the US plan of sticking our heads in the sand? Or do you agree something has to be done, and its a matter of how?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
What is so flawed about it? It seems like a good first step, hopefully the first of many.

If we WERE causing global awrming, I'd agree.

[November Adam]

Stupid government forcing this damn thing down our throats without thinking it out.

So has the developing worlds signed up on this thing? I would think that they would be more of a problem using, old, and inefficent production methods.

[rah]

Gee, I was hoping for rational discussion, but again just more insults.

Kyoto is based on some speculation. I'm not even going to argue the specific points. But everything hasn't been proved. Even you guys have to admit to at least part of that.

For those that say our local air and water standards are just local, you're deluding yourselves. There improvement is measurable and quite scientific. The impact goes well beyond our borders. At least these improvements are PROVEN to help. And the impact on our economy hasn't been devestating, (even though it was originally argued that the changes that were made would be)

RAH

But yes, I agree that more needs to be done. But it would be nice that if it's going to cause hardship, that it's actually going to help. A little caution is in order.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Exactly, the major problem you cannot see, taste and smell. For example, if there is a nuclear reactor meltdown. You can neither see, taste nor smell plutonium

Retaliation? Of course, that's why it has to be a concerted effort.

I'm sure that when your genitals shrivel up and your hair starts falling out while you're sitting in the dark without electricity you'll begin so suspect something.

[Immortal Wombat]

Your post very nearly contradicts your signature rah.

To be honest, I don't care how the US cleans itslef up, so long as it does, and shows that it is, so that we know that you not being in Kyoto doesn't matter.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boddington's


If we WERE causing global awrming, I'd agree.

It's an issue of a very real danger, there is a considerable amount of evidence pointing towards global warming occuring, as well as against it. But do you wish to take that risk when we can err on the side of caution? Lets face it, it is unnecessary to burn the amount of fuel we burn...look at the sizes of some cars people burn when a much smaller car would suffice, little cutbacks like this, giving an incentive to be cleaner with emissions and a disincentive to pollute irresponsibly.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


It's an issue of a very real danger, there is a considerable amount of evidence pointing towards global warming occuring, as well as against it. But do you wish to take that risk when we can err on the side of caution? Lets face it, it is unnecessary to burn the amount of fuel we burn...look at the sizes of some cars people burn when a much smaller car would suffice, little cutbacks like this, giving an incentive to be cleaner with emissions and a disincentive to pollute irresponsibly.

These little cut-backs would of cost thousands and thousands of jobs. It would also take money out of the economy, which is arbitrary. Rather the private sector should have benefits when investing in new technology, rather than take this money away and put it in big government.

Do you really look at anything else rather than your narrow view point?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by rah
For those that say our local air and water standards are just local, you're deluding yourselves.

There are many kinds of pollutants, some only impact the local environment, others impact the global enviroment. How is that a delusional statement?