Europe firmly commited to Kyoto protocols.

[Ecthy]

Well rah you've got some nice points there

If I got it right, what annoys America so much is the fact China gets extra treatment because it's considered a third world nations. Apparently, those get bonuses in environmental treatment because they need growth. Now look at China, some statistics say they're world 2nd in GNP, so what the heck. And they sure are advanced enough to widely install environmental protection devices (like those things in plants that make SO2 react to CaSO4 ), so what the heck They could afford a big People's Project for Fuel Cells

Thing is, they know they're treated better as long as they press onto their lachrymal glands.

I understand Americans feel sh!t about that, but where's western responsibility?

Dr Oogkloot doesn't have any nice points

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot
Andz, am I correct in reading your posts as meaning: we should reduce CO2 emissions no matter how ineffective that would be?

1. If "ineffective" means less prosperity for fat conservative reactionary capitalists on both sides of the pond, then yes.

2. I said we should try harder to decrease the amount of CO2 being vomitted into the air carelessly.

You can do stuff like CO2 + Ca/Ba(OH)2aq = Ca/BaCO3 + H2=, you know

[rah]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Well rah you've got some nice points there

If I got it right, what annoys America so much is the fact China gets extra treatment because it's considered a third world nations. Apparently, those get bonuses in environmental treatment because they need growth. Now look at China, some statistics say they're world 2nd in GNP, so what the heck. And they sure are advanced enough to widely install environmental protection devices (like those things in plants that make SO2 react to CaSO4 ), so what the heck They could afford a big People's Project for Fuel Cells

Thing is, they know they're treated better as long as they press onto their lachrymal glands.

I understand Americans feel sh!t about that, but where's western responsibility?

Almost, but not quite. The China was just one specific example.

That Third world country costs a lot of americans jobs through it's exports. Why should let the gap be widened.

The point is, most Americans probably agree that something should be done. We just didn't agree with your method. (It would have never passed through Congress) So we will do different things, things that will pass through congress. Please give us some credit for those things instead of assuming we're doing nothing just because we don't agree with your methods in this one specific case. I'd be willing to bet that The US has produced more prototype cars that use Batteries or natural gas than any other country.

THE treaty was flawed. (in our opinion)
Let the blind biased bashing continue.




RAH

[Ecthy]

Thing is, we don't get a lot of information about WHAT you guys do. Apparently Bush has just published his own vision of climate protection. What did it contain? It was seemingly full of market-based ideas, but it didn't earn much attention over here...

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot
Plus, there are things like the positive effects of CO2 on plant growth and avoiding/mitigating the next ice age.

Not sure, if global warning begins the nature will be unbalanced, oceans and atmospherics streams will change.

I'm not sure if our scientists could predict what really will happens then.

So with time, the climat could find a balance in a warmer state, but could change to an Ice age too ...

[Bereta_Eder]

it's getting hoter and hoter...

british bananas anyone?

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Ecthelion: I have lots of nice points, I just don't need them all at the same time

Originally posted by Ecthelion


1. If "ineffective" means less prosperity for fat conservative reactionary capitalists on both sides of the pond, then yes.

I said "ineffective" not "expensive"
Am I correct in reading your posts as: we should reduce CO2 no matter how little warming that will prevent?
And am I correct in reading that last comment to mean that you think the only ones who would bear the costs of reducing CO2 are fat conservative reactionary capitalists? Or that you think it's inherently good for people who don't think like you to be less prosperous?

2. I said we should try harder to decrease the amount of CO2 being vomitted into the air carelessly.

I know - what does that have to do with anything I said?

You can do stuff like CO2 + Ca/Ba(OH)2aq = Ca/BaCO3 + H2=, you know

Please explain.

BTW I just surfed into this one and thought it was rather funny:

http://www.strange-matter.com/li/li099.jpg

[Ecthy]

Barium hydroxide as well as Calcium hydroxide are alcalic substances. When dissolved in water, they easily react with carbon dioxide to the corresponding carbonate and pure water... I misspelled the O, made it a = so it's H2O not H2=

Now if you make the emissions from plants etc pass a system with a high surface and water with one of those hydroxides dissolved in it, you could make a high share of the CO2 react with the stuff. And a solution of a carbonate doesn't make for global warming you know

[rah]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Thing is, we don't get a lot of information about WHAT you guys do. Apparently Bush has just published his own vision of climate protection. What did it contain? It was seemingly full of market-based ideas, but it didn't earn much attention over here...

That's part of the problem. The negative is highly visible and the positive isn't. (no future bashing the positive )

Unfortunately Bush isn't the greenest of presidents.

But the green impact on the Government is not insignificant.

Note a recent article
WASHINGTON and ST. LOUIS (January 9, 2002 11:18 p.m. EST) - It's a vision that seems almost too good to be true: Electric cars that wouldn't ever need a plug-in recharge.

Yet such is the promise of fuel-cell technology. Proponents have long held that these futuristic sort-of-battery devices are the world's best hope for replacing the noisy, inefficient, dirty internal combustion engine.

The Bush administration, in fact, has decided that U.S. government support for the development of environmentally friendly vehicles should now focus much more on fuel-cell work. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced the shift yesterday during a speech at the auto show in Detroit.

In doing so, the administration has opted to back the green technology with the highest payoff - and perhaps the highest risk.

Fuel-cell cars are still a long way from commercial viability. A few years ago, electric vehicles were the subject of similar hype - and they're not exactly rivals of V-6 SUVs today. If nothing else, developing a network of refueling stations for hydrogen-based fuel-cell power units could take a decade or more.

"I see (fuel cells) as a long-term plan," says Richard DeBlasio, technical manager for distributed power at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. "It will take years to develop the infrastructure."

Fuel cells were first developed to provide a source of power for the satellites and manned capsules of the U.S. space program.

The concept behind fuel cells is a powerful one: Instead of burning carbon in the form of trees and coal and oil, as the world has done since before the Industrial Revolution, it could consume hydrogen, the most common element in the universe.

********

There were some people that were upset with this, thinking that it would reduce support for other alternatives that could be more widely used much more quickly.

Granted the greens don't run the government, but their influence is far from insignificant. If you're going to something against them, it must be sugarcoated considerable.

RAH

[Ecthy]

Fuel cells are cool I must admit.

It's not like they don't need any refueling, just no "recharging" as opposed to old-fashioned electric vehicles. They do need a source of fuel though, namely methane, methanole or pure hydrogen, depending on the model. most efficient would be methane.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Why should we not do our best to decrease global warming as long as we have the chance to? I think a bit of common sense would be a good sign of responsibility in this regard...

Because the biggest Greenhouse gas in terms of impact on the over all impact on the enviroment is H2O. CO2 accounts for less than 10% of the green house effect and its ability to hold heat is quite limited.

[Dauphin]

its ability to hold heat is quite limited.

What's your point?

How is that supposed to effect its "greenhouse" ability?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by rah
Actually the tax on the gas might work out better. Your way doesn't take into effect a poorly maintained more efficient rated vehicle which might polute more than a higher rated one. Or in my case, a higher rated vehicle that is driven considerably less.

BUT, the big problem still remaining would be the Commerical trucks. An increase in the tax would ripple through the entire economy if shipping costs were to increase to cover the expense. We've seen this tank the economy in the past.

It's all the little details that make this issue very complex, with no simple answer.

Now the devil is in the details I dunno how factors like that would be worked out, haven't given it a lot of thought.

Ah, trucks, a different matter I suppose. Now the taxes on those things are damn high anyway in this country, over £1000 perhaps many thousands of pounds, but they would have to have a special status of course.

[Roland]

Originally posted by rah


WHY whould the US sign a treaty that gives China a leg up?

Why would the US sign a treaty that penalizes it more than any other signer?

First, China is only exempt from the Kyoto targets, not from the entire process. As Kyoto is only designed as a first step, the idea is that industrialised nations go ahead and reduce 3rd world emissions by things like tech transfer.

The second point... that whining line has been carried through US media and politics, but it's still wrong. The US creates a lot more emissions than western europe, whether you count it per unit of GDP or per capita. As Kyoto mandates a reduction from existing levels, the US would be allowed to maintain those higher levels. Your waste is getting a seal of approval by Kyoto, and the Cronies that run the show ***** about being discriminated. If it weren't so bizarre it would be funny.

My main objection agaist Kyoto would be that it is a) full of holes, and b) would have given the US excessive preferential treatment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

british bananas anyone?

More likely for a British glacier first. Remember, if the Earth heats up enough, then the Gulf Stream is likely to shut down, leaving the warm water from the Caribbean not to flow to Europe, and making the Mediterranean as nice and toasty as Chicago .

And I'm opposed to Kyoto. The US should reduce emissions, but not be beholding to a treaty that has forced targets. We should make targets ourselves, but perhaps we need some legroom for not meeting them (like extraneous circumstances like recession pop up)