Russia Rejects Kyoto

JavaFox · Dec 3, 2003, 09:17 AM

Hats off to Russia for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. I, for one, admire their courage in standing up against this damaging, alarmist treaty.

Score a point for national sovereignty and international diversity.

UberLord · Dec 3, 2003, 10:41 AM

Whats damaging about it exactly?

JavaFox · Dec 3, 2003, 11:20 AM

It has the potential to be severely damaging economically. It's fine for some nations, but it's not for everybody.

UberLord · Dec 3, 2003, 12:22 PM

So a good economy is better than the health of the planet then?
As long as everyone is rich, who cares what our childrens future will be like without an ozone layer and breathing in that clean air from exhaust fumes!

Bah

JavaFox · Dec 3, 2003, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UberLord
So a good economy is better than the health of the planet then?
As long as everyone is rich, who cares what our childrens future will be like without an ozone layer and breathing in that clean air from exhaust fumes!

Bah

OMG GUYS! KYOTO IS OUR ONLY HOPE! IF WE DON'T INSTITUTE IT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WE'RE ALL DEAD!!!!!1111

Alarmism, ain't it great?

Clean air isn't worth a damn if a large portion of your population is destitute and can't afford food. The goal is to strike a balance between the two. It's exactly the type of extremism that you exhibit in your post that forces people to view the environmentalist crowd as a bunch of nutcases. Kyoto is flawed, and even if it wasn't, it's not the only solution. To suggest otherwise is to be ridiculous.

The goal is to look for solutions that keep the Earth AND our economies healthy. Kyoto, at least for the US and Russia, isn't one of them.

LeanWolf · Dec 3, 2003, 12:49 PM

obviously an american talking here

everybody knows you broke your promise to sign on with Kyoto,

Quote:

large portion of your population is destitute and can't afford food

sounds fine for Russia, but what's your excuse?

UberLord · Dec 3, 2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
OMG GUYS! KYOTO IS OUR ONLY HOPE! IF WE DON'T INSTITUTE IT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WE'RE ALL DEAD!!!!!1111

Alarmism, ain't it great?

OMG!!!! INVADING IRAQ IS OUR ONLY HOPE! IF WE DON'T INVADE THEN SADDAM CAN USE WMD AND KILL US IN 45 MINS!!!!

Yeah. Alarmism. UK'ers will get the 45 min reference - not sure about others.

Quote:

Clean air isn't worth a damn if a large portion of your population is destitute and can't afford food. The goal is to strike a balance between the two. It's exactly the type of extremism that you exhibit in your post that forces people to view the environmentalist crowd as a bunch of nutcases. Kyoto is flawed, and even if it wasn't, it's not the only solution. To suggest otherwise is to be ridiculous.

The goal is to look for solutions that keep the Earth AND our economies healthy. Kyoto, at least for the US and Russia, isn't one of them.

Economies can be fixed when managed correctly. To fix the health of the planet may cost a lot lot more if done later rather than sooner. It's like getting a blowout on your car and keeping driving because you have to make that meeting to earn that buck. Simple -only a blown tyre. As you keep driving the wheel rim becomes damaged and starts to crumple. Now you need a new wheel as well. The wheel finally gives in and comes off. Now the front of the car is scraping along the road. But hey - you made that buck by getting the to meeting! All is good yes? What if the cost of fixing the car now is more than you made from getting to the meeting on time? What if the car is beyond fixing? What now?

Luckily cars can be replaced, Planet Earth cannot.

(appologies if anyone picks holes in the car argument - it's just an analogy)

merry · Dec 3, 2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Clean air isn't worth a damn if a large portion of your population is destitute and can't afford food

Would you rather not be able to afford breathing? What on Earth you people have against smokers, then

Judas · Dec 3, 2003, 06:58 PM

....the whole problem with the "koyoto" is what they are asking for.... the whole plan is to vage and general..... i do beleive we should be moving away from the crap were using to power everything..... hydro electric is excellent and clean... some of the fuel cells are getting to be rather interesting... to bad majority of the problem is that the companies that make money off of burning stuff...... are the ones holding everything back..... Global warming.... is a bit of a lie.... Although i've lived through what is consider worse then the "dirty thirties".... it's just the weather patern was messed up..... to many factors....

JavaFox · Dec 3, 2003, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luleandy
obviously an american talking here everybody knows you broke your promise to sign on with Kyoto, sounds fine for Russia, but what's your excuse?

Since you don't live in the US, you are excused from not knowing the details about Kyoto vis a vis American politics. Clinton did indeed sign the Kyoto Protocol to show that he supported it. But in the American government, the president cannot simply sign on to any treaty he likes. Treaties have to be ratified by the American Senate. And not even one Senator voted to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Not one. We never made any promise to sign on to it.

Falstaff · Dec 4, 2003, 12:22 AM

Kyoto would not have been effective in any event, it was not ratified by our congress as Java pointed out, and Russia and the rest of the world can work on a more improved approach to reducing green house gases.

bird chest · Dec 4, 2003, 06:01 AM

But americans are arrogant we don't give a care to the enviroment at all (not all but most). I am american and I feel we should be more frugal with our use of oil. Just take a look outside and see all the SUVs and then how many of those people hate bush for his enviromental poicies.

UberLord · Dec 4, 2003, 10:05 AM

Preach on brother bird chest!

BluntmaN · Dec 4, 2003, 10:25 AM

bird chest you are totaly right.

The problem with America is that you have a twisted perspective in enviromental policies. Your average American joe thinks that he is doing his bit by recycling but then gets in his car and causes much more damage to the enviroment.

American cars are BIG and consume gas like there is no tomorrow. Don't get me wrong Europeans are known to own a Lotus Elise (other car of your choise goes here) that can drink gallons of gas just like an american car but we only use the Lotus for weekends not to drive to work everyday. I have never been able to understand how come American cars are so lacking in fuel economy maybe it is something that doesn't bother you or maybe you were brought up to believe that you need an SUV to go to work.

By the way American cars obviously is not the only hazard out there. American factories and coorprations have been known to be against these policies. The reason behind this is simple if the policies go through they have to buy filters that cost millions. Unlike popular belief tho the extra cost does not mean less jobs and lower wages they have enough profit margins to put these filters up in no time, but off course it is better to earn a buck now than make sure the Earth is Green when our children inherit it isn't it?

ToshiroOC · Dec 4, 2003, 11:03 AM

It isn't American cars per se - its also American electrical power generation. There's a reason why electric cars pollute so much (significantly more than SUVs): America still uses very dirty power generation such as coal, and the inefficiency caused by converting the combusting coal to electricity, moving it across a lossy power grid, then moving it into a battery for a car to use for motion means that per mile, more pollution is produced than an SUV that is doing on-site combustion.

I'm all in favor of increased nuclear power generation, increased wind power generation (indirect solar), maintaining our already extensive hydroelectric power generation (indirect solar), and increasing our direct solar power generation. However, coal is a powerful political force in America because of their extensive financial power, and I do not expect to see coal phased out within my lifetime, as nice as that would be. I think that changes like these will have a significantly greater impact than making cars less polluting and recycling.

Besides, America pollutes much less than other less developed countries as it is - take a look at the Ganges and Hong Kong and you'll see what I mean. It's another case in which reducing pollution would be a commendable goal, but it would be at the expense of development. Would it be worth the cost, with people still starving in the world?

UberLord · Dec 4, 2003, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC

Besides, America pollutes much less than other less developed countries as it is - take a look at the Ganges and Hong Kong and you'll see what I mean. It's another case in which reducing pollution would be a commendable goal, but it would be at the expense of development. Would it be worth the cost, with people still starving in the world?

Just because Ganges and Hong Kong pollute more than the US doesn't mean that the US shouldn't cut back on it's pollution output levels. And I fail to see how the US entering the Kyoto agreement would affect starving people.

ToshiroOC · Dec 4, 2003, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UberLord
Just because Ganges and Hong Kong pollute more than the US doesn't mean that the US shouldn't cut back on it's pollution output levels. And I fail to see how the US entering the Kyoto agreement would affect starving people.

The comment was just meant to put my thoughts in perspective - the US not joining the Kyoto treaty has less of an effect on overall pollution than a less developed highly polluting country not joining the Kyoto treaty.

And who says that we aren't cutting back on our pollution? We are, just not by the terms of the Kyoto agreement. One does not need an international treaty to improve pollution standards.

JavaFox · Dec 5, 2003, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
And who says that we aren't cutting back on our pollution? We are, just not by the terms of the Kyoto agreement. One does not need an international treaty to improve pollution standards.

What are you talking about!?!?!?!11 IF the US iSn"T ONBOARD WITH KYOTO it is FOR GLOBAL WARMING! THERE IS ONLY KYOTO!

STRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMAN

ToshiroOC · Dec 5, 2003, 08:46 AM

And, of course, peace can only come from the UN and its mandates.

UberLord · Dec 5, 2003, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
What are you talking about!?!?!?!11 IF the US iSn"T ONBOARD WITH KYOTO it is FOR GLOBAL WARMING! THERE IS ONLY KYOTO!

STRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMANSTRAWMAN

Java - grow up

UberLord · Dec 5, 2003, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
And, of course, peace can only come from the UN and its mandates.

If you're referring to global peace then you're probably correct.
Global peace can never come about if countries behave like backyard bullies.
Unfortunately, a lot of politicians are like spoilt brats

ZzzombieBunny · Dec 5, 2003, 10:58 AM

I cant speak for Russia, but its quite obvious why the US doesnt wanna be part of Kyoto. I dont like americas politics, they act to selfish and arrogant.

And you cant really claim america is still working to handle its pollution to help work against global warming, when its doing the exact opposite and in fact increasing its production, whereby the reason for them leaving Kyoto in the first place, so they can increase its economical growth with the cheapest methods (which also are the most harming towards the enviourment. figures...)

JavaFox · Dec 5, 2003, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZzzombieBunny
And you cant really claim america is still working to handle its pollution to help work against global warming, when its doing the exact opposite and in fact increasing its production, whereby the reason for them leaving Kyoto in the first place, so they can increase its economical growth with the cheapest methods (which also are the most harming towards the enviourment. figures...)

Source, please.

ToshiroOC · Dec 5, 2003, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UberLord
If you're referring to global peace then you're probably correct.
Global peace can never come about if countries behave like backyard bullies.
Unfortunately, a lot of politicians are like spoilt brats

I was being double sarcastic

Sarcastic in that the UN and its mandates are NOT the way to world peace*, but still multinational multilateral agreement should be a cornerstone of any peacekeeping actions.

*insofar as it doesn't fall under the second statement

Dec 3, 2003, 09:17 AM	#1
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Russia Rejects Kyoto Hats off to Russia for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. I, for one, admire their courage in standing up against this damaging, alarmist treaty. Score a point for national sovereignty and international diversity.

Dec 3, 2003, 10:41 AM	#2
UberLord A Legend in Underwear Join Date: May 2002 Location: Unknown Posts: 5,255 Rep Power: 0	Whats damaging about it exactly? __________________ Gentoo Linux - Developer (baselayout) Read my blog "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts

Dec 3, 2003, 12:22 PM	#4
UberLord A Legend in Underwear Join Date: May 2002 Location: Unknown Posts: 5,255 Rep Power: 0	So a good economy is better than the health of the planet then? As long as everyone is rich, who cares what our childrens future will be like without an ozone layer and breathing in that clean air from exhaust fumes! Bah __________________ Gentoo Linux - Developer (baselayout) Read my blog "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts

Dec 4, 2003, 12:22 AM	#11
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	Kyoto would not have been effective in any event, it was not ratified by our congress as Java pointed out, and Russia and the rest of the world can work on a more improved approach to reducing green house gases. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Dec 4, 2003, 10:05 AM	#13
UberLord A Legend in Underwear Join Date: May 2002 Location: Unknown Posts: 5,255 Rep Power: 0	Preach on brother bird chest! __________________ Gentoo Linux - Developer (baselayout) Read my blog "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts

Dec 3, 2003, 11:20 AM	Thread Starter #3
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	It has the potential to be severely damaging economically. It's fine for some nations, but it's not for everybody.

Dec 4, 2003, 06:01 AM	#12
bird chest DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 454 Rep Power: 0	But americans are arrogant we don't give a care to the enviroment at all (not all but most). I am american and I feel we should be more frugal with our use of oil. Just take a look outside and see all the SUVs and then how many of those people hate bush for his enviromental poicies.

Dec 4, 2003, 10:25 AM	#14
BluntmaN DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: I have no idea Posts: 229 Rep Power: 0	bird chest you are totaly right. The problem with America is that you have a twisted perspective in enviromental policies. Your average American joe thinks that he is doing his bit by recycling but then gets in his car and causes much more damage to the enviroment. American cars are BIG and consume gas like there is no tomorrow. Don't get me wrong Europeans are known to own a Lotus Elise (other car of your choise goes here) that can drink gallons of gas just like an american car but we only use the Lotus for weekends not to drive to work everyday. I have never been able to understand how come American cars are so lacking in fuel economy maybe it is something that doesn't bother you or maybe you were brought up to believe that you need an SUV to go to work. By the way American cars obviously is not the only hazard out there. American factories and coorprations have been known to be against these policies. The reason behind this is simple if the policies go through they have to buy filters that cost millions. Unlike popular belief tho the extra cost does not mean less jobs and lower wages they have enough profit margins to put these filters up in no time, but off course it is better to earn a buck now than make sure the Earth is Green when our children inherit it isn't it? __________________ 'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.' Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

Dec 4, 2003, 11:03 AM	#15
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	It isn't American cars per se - its also American electrical power generation. There's a reason why electric cars pollute so much (significantly more than SUVs): America still uses very dirty power generation such as coal, and the inefficiency caused by converting the combusting coal to electricity, moving it across a lossy power grid, then moving it into a battery for a car to use for motion means that per mile, more pollution is produced than an SUV that is doing on-site combustion. I'm all in favor of increased nuclear power generation, increased wind power generation (indirect solar), maintaining our already extensive hydroelectric power generation (indirect solar), and increasing our direct solar power generation. However, coal is a powerful political force in America because of their extensive financial power, and I do not expect to see coal phased out within my lifetime, as nice as that would be. I think that changes like these will have a significantly greater impact than making cars less polluting and recycling. Besides, America pollutes much less than other less developed countries as it is - take a look at the Ganges and Hong Kong and you'll see what I mean. It's another case in which reducing pollution would be a commendable goal, but it would be at the expense of development. Would it be worth the cost, with people still starving in the world? __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Dec 5, 2003, 08:46 AM	#19
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	And, of course, peace can only come from the UN and its mandates. __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Dec 5, 2003, 10:58 AM	#22
ZzzombieBunny Cake or Death? Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 259 Rep Power: 0	I cant speak for Russia, but its quite obvious why the US doesnt wanna be part of Kyoto. I dont like americas politics, they act to selfish and arrogant. And you cant really claim america is still working to handle its pollution to help work against global warming, when its doing the exact opposite and in fact increasing its production, whereby the reason for them leaving Kyoto in the first place, so they can increase its economical growth with the cheapest methods (which also are the most harming towards the enviourment. figures...)