How will Canada keep warm now?!?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
i just dont agree. what good will it do the earth if the US does this and a enormous nation like China does not?? It will not help the planet... only hurt those nations which have a developed industrial base.

China is a problem, but China doesn't pollute as much as the US. Look at the graph. The US is by far the dirtiest country on the planet.

Despite the past few years, people still do look to the US as an example. Maybe if the US set a good example by signing onto Kyoto, countries like China would follow.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by dejon


Really? Why? He rants just like I do, according to my wife.

Because he thinks he's hillarious but he really isn't. And I love how the set of his new show happens to look exactly like the set of the Daily Show

I don't care who came first, Rick Mercer is a Jon Stewart wannabe.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


China is a problem, but China doesn't pollute as much as the US. Look at the graph. The US is by far the dirtiest country on the planet.

the US has a disproportianately old industrial base, compared to countries who industrial bases were destroyed in WW2, or were largely built since WW2 - or (in the case of the UK) were already obsolete in 1939.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


from whitehouse.gov

US GHG goals:

"Reduce the Greenhouse Gas Intensity of the U.S. Economy by 18 Percent in the Next Ten Years. Greenhouse gas intensity measures the ratio of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to economic output. This new approach focuses on reducing the growth of GHG emissions, while sustaining the economic growth needed to finance investment in new, clean energy technologies. It sets America on a path to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, and – as the science justifies – to stop and then reverse that growth:
In efficiency terms, the 183 metric tons of emissions per million dollars GDP that we emit today will be lowered to 151 metric tons per million dollars GDP in 2012.
Existing trends and efforts in technology improvement will play a significant role. Beyond that, the President's commitment will achieve 100 million metric tons of reduced emissions in 2012 alone, with more than 500 million metric tons in cumulative savings over the entire decade.
This goal is comparable to the average progress that nations participating in the Kyoto Protocol are required to achieve. "

Random factoid posting? Why are you quoting me on it?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
i just dont agree. what good will it do the earth if the US does this and a enormous nation like China does not?? It will not help the planet... only hurt those nations which have a developed industrial base.

IIRC, one of the tenants of Kyoto was that it had to be signed by nations representing 55% of the worlds pollution. Reducing that 55% by a significant margin *will* help stop climate change. Pollution doesn't respect national boundaries, so US pollution causes acid rain on Scandinavia, and climate change all over the world. The world, or rather, the world except China and the US, decided that action was needed, and that the only way it could happen was if it happened to reduce a large proportion of the worlds emissions. 55% is a large proportion.

Let me ask you this - what use are emissions? Why pollute? Do people driving SUVs help the economy by driving those SUVs? Well, they may help the Saudi economy, but not likely much their own. I don't see why reducing emitions (as the UK already is, I'm happy to say) has to hurt your economy. It certainly won't help the little guys catch up, they have pollution caps too. It's like saying paying taxes makes the poorest people, who don't pay any, catch up with the richest. As soon as they start to earn money, they'll be taxed on it too.

Plus the reason it hits the most industrialised nations most is that they pollute the most. China has relatively small pollution per capita, it's much easier to cut pollution when you're causing more. It's like progressive taxes, the heavy polluters can afford to give more. The idea of tax is to charge everyone for services that would otherwise be impossible, but that benefit all. Reducing pollutants benefits all, and the only way it can be tackled is with everyone tackling it.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

the US has a disproportianately old industrial base, compared to countries who industrial bases were destroyed in WW2, or were largely built since WW2 - or (in the case of the UK) were already obsolete in 1939.

And that justifies keeping them around why?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV



why should we (US) sign up?? whats in it for us?? why let all the little guys catch up??

A better world?



Oh wait, that's right - you're american. Your idea of a "better world" is $0.50 big macs and an 18 wheeler in every driveway.

[Odin]

Kyoto protocol gets degree of support from some US businesses

Wed Feb 16,10:30 AM ET U.S. National - AFP



WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gases, which today took effect, is being countered by some US industries which have adopted measures to staunch global warming.


"A lot of private companies like Dupont, Dow Chemical, Chevron, Conoco, Alcoa, International Paper, IBM ... are actively thinking about this issue," said Richard Rosenzweig, of energy brokers Natsource.


Their decision is a consequence of globalization and the restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from cars and power plants that several US states have imposed.


Most of these businesses have manufacturing plants in countries that have signed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites). These plants must comply with the treaty, which aims at trimming greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2012 by 5.2 percent compared with the level recorded in 1990.


"If you are a power company in the US," Rosenzweig said, "you believe you might be regulated in the future, you want to be prepared and learn about this issue... these are the main reasons why those companies are involved."


In contrast, many of the leaders in the fossil fuel industry, such as the oil giant ExxonMobil, fully supports the Bush administration, citing the costs Kyoto would add to cleaning up power stations and of the conversion to cleaner energy sources.


On its website, Dupont said it began to cut CO2 emissions at its plants in the early 1990s to forestall market pressures that will develop as the world economy adapts to the challenge of global warming.


Dupont said that over the past 10 years it has cut greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent of what they were in 1990 and that it expects to further reduce them anywhere from 65 to 100 percent by 2010.


More than 50 million dollars has been invested in the clean-up operation, it said.


Dupont has already offset the cost of the C02 reduction by selling polluting competitors, especially in Great Britain, its rights of emissions as well as the technology they need to clean up their act.


Alcoa, the world's top aluminum producer, also began very early to cut its greenhouse gases emissions.


Former Alcoa CEO Paul O'Neill, who served as treasury secretary for two years under Bush's first administration, told a group of industry professionals in 1998 that "civilization could go down the drain" if climate change was not taken seriously.


Alcoa has cut its greenhouse gases emissions to 25 percent of its 1990 levels and, like Dupont, expects to cash in on its investment.


Around 50 US businesses six months ago launched a CO2 emissions exchange in the Chicago stock market to create their own financial inducements similar to Europe's international carbon trading schemes, in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol.


By cutting their CO2 emissions to below promised target levels, they can sell their rights of emissions to companies that have not reached their goals.


"The trading has going very well," said Natsource's Rosenzweig, whose firm helped set up the pilot program.


However, he added, "in the future, in order to get emission reduction we'll need a mandatory program like in Europe."


For Bruce Braine, of American Electric Power, a US electricity giant and participant in the trading scheme, it will be a matter of time before the United States falls into line with the rest of the world: "We believe that at some point in the US there will be mandatory legislation."

I had to break the hearts of the "it's bad for business" crowd

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kontiki




Random factoid posting? Why are you quoting me on it?

"we should never do anything about our own emissions"?


The US position is that we ARE doing something about it, though we dont agree with the way Kyoto allocates responsibility. Whether Kyotos formulas are fair is another question, but it doesnt follow that the US will do nothing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


And that justifies keeping them around why?

it doesnt justify keeping them around, the question is how much should each country contribute to emission reduction goals. The US position, IIUC, is that all developed countries should contribute the same percentage, even those countries that have lower emissions relative to GDP now, since they have achieved that essentially by luck, not environmental policy. The response would be that its much harder for them to reduce, since they are already lower.

This should be a matter for technical discussion and negotiation, not hahah your country is not as noble as mine rhetoric

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dissident
hey, a good thread to post this picture.

Yup, lets have another greenpeace fraud displayed. The pics of the Upsala glacier in Patagonia are scary, until you dig into the real facts.

http://glacier.lowtem.hokudai.ac.jp/project/patagonia/patagonia.htm

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
This goal is comparable to the average progress that nations participating in the Kyoto Protocol are required to achieve. "

That's a joke and you know it. Bush's system is voluntary meaning nothing happens to anyone who doesn't meet the requirements. These voluntary systems never work. I’ll he says is “I have set goals” but nobody will listen because they don’t have to.

Luckily, there is still hope because states like California have begun regulating green house emissions even if Bush refuses to do the right thing.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



"we should never do anything about our own emissions"?


The US position is that we ARE doing something about it, though we dont agree with the way Kyoto allocates responsibility. Whether Kyotos formulas are fair is another question, but it doesnt follow that the US will do nothing.

And I said anything like that where, exactly? I was countering MWHC, who bemoaned A) reducing emissions and B) the fact that countries like China don't have to comply. Then you took the wild leap of logic that I was assuming MWHC is a spokesperson for the US government's policy on environmental issues.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kontiki


And I said anything like that where, exactly? I was countering MWHC, who bemoaned A) reducing emissions and B) the fact that countries like China don't have to comply. Then you took the wild leap of logic that I was assuming MWHC is a spokesperson for the US government's policy on environmental issues.

i thought that was directed againt US lack of ratification, not just MWHC - im sorry i misinterpreted.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That's a joke and you know it. Bush's system is voluntary meaning nothing happens to anyone who doesn't meet the requirements. These voluntary systems never work. I’ll he says is “I have set goals” but nobody will listen because they don’t have to.

Luckily, there is still hope because states like California have begun regulating green house emissions even if Bush refuses to do the right thing.

Yes, and Virginia has open HOV lanes to hybrid vehicles.

I didnt mean to state that admin policy is necessarily adequate - what theyre doing, and what they will do if goals are unmet is a worthwhile discussion. Just that its not as simple as not signing Kyoto=doing nothing. But that seems to have been based on misinterpreting someone elses post, so id rather just let it drop.