EU Not Liking Kyoto Protocols

[Guest MikeSC]

Europe's Cold Sweat Over Kyoto

 

The erratic weather of recent years in Europe, from devastating floods to lengthy heat waves, has convinced many on the Continent that human-induced climate change is no mere theory.

 

Then why are so many European Union leaders getting cold feet about doing something about global warming?

 

Because despite the change in weather patterns and Europe's green rhetoric, the EU faces a reality check on March 31, the day each member nation must submit a plan for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

 

The projected costs, as well as the likely loss of economic competitiveness with the United States, has the EU wondering if it can virtually go it alone in implementing the Kyoto Protocols on climate change. The protocol has yet to take effect as a binding treaty since the US and Russia won't sign on, and China and India were given a pass for now.

 

In Germany, the EU's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the government has been in a crisis over details of its plan. Last week at an EU summit, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder asked the body to slow down implementation but was rebuffed by France. All he won was a request for a cost-benefit study on "environmental and competitiveness considerations" in meeting Kyoto's strict targets.

 

No EU government had submitted a plan by last week, although seven of the 15 have drafts. Many governments are as troubled as Germany's, with the result that the European Commission sent out a warning that failure to submit a plan on time could result in legal action and fines.

 

The required plans are only for setting up an official trading system that would allow companies to buy and sell permits to emit greenhouse gases, starting in 2005. Each government would be given emission allowances which could be traded in a market system. A company could either meet a target or else purchase a "credit" from cleaner companies and keep on polluting.

 

The scheme is designed to meet the EU's promise of cutting greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels by 8 percent of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

 

But Europe's auto and electric industries recently warned of a slowdown in growth if they are forced to invest in clean energy technologies. The warnings come as the EU has acknowledged that it's falling further behind in its plan to match the US in productivity, employment, and growth.

 

Those kinds of warnings about slow growth are what compelled the US Senate, and President Bush, to reject Kyoto. If Europe now backpedals, the global effort to influence climate change will be driven mainly by the market, as car buyers and the auto industry choose to become less polluting. And Europe will lose its claim to global leadership in pushing Kyoto.

 

It could just be that government inducements, such as tax credits, may be preferable over tough regulation on greenhouse gases. But then, would that pace of change be fast enough to slow down climate change? The science is not clear yet on whether the temperature trend could be reversed even if the whole world went full bore to reaching Kyoto's targets.

 

At the least, this EU debate over Kyoto's trade-offs will set a useful precedent for the rest of the world on whether it too can balance economic sacrifice against a collective will to curb human changes to Earth's atmosphere.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0330/p08s03-comv.html

 

Well, Bush opposed this and got slammed by Europe for it. Now, it seems that they are realizing the burden that this is.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But it's OK because Europe is much more sophisticated than us...

[BX 0]

Well fuck them too.

[Guest MikeSC]

But it's OK because Europe is much more sophisticated than us...

George Bush --- Visionary.

-=Mike

[CanadianChris 0]

Good...Kyoto wasn't worth the paper it was printed on anyway. Maybe now they can work out something meaningful. But I won't hold my breath.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Kyoto was horribly flawed and would've never worked. I opposed Bush & Co. pulling out because they pulled a "NYAH! WE'RE NOT DOING THAT~!!!" without actually adding anything to the table. They pulled out without countering the proposal with something else that would've like, actually worked.

 

They didn't want it to work. They just wanted out.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I opposed Bush & Co. pulling out because they pulled a "NYAH! WE'RE NOT DOING THAT~!!!" without actually adding anything to the table. They pulled out without countering the proposal with something else that would've like, actually worked.

 

They didn't want it to work. They just wanted out.

How about the 90-something Senators that voted against it, too?

 

Just want you to be FA-ux-IR AND BALANCED (lol2004)...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Fuck them, too.

 

Kyoto sucks, but what sucks even more is that people think problems will just go away. Global warming is a problem, whether we like it or not; we have to be offering solutions, not thumbing our nose at the rest of the world and laughing at their silly treaties.

[NoCalMike 0]

Is this another "hehehe Global Warming is a myth" thread?

I think more importantly then claiming global warming is a myth, people need to start thinking of local/global solutions to excessive waste/pollution. The "theory" of Global Warming is irrelevent anyway. The reality is that pollution and waste is a problem, and there sure as hell can be a lot more done to help then what is currently being done.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

No, it will be an OMG Global Warming is a Myth LOL2004~! thread.

 

Wasn't part of the Kyoto Treaty to give developing nations a pass on pollution standards or something?...

[Guest MikeSC]

Kyoto was horribly flawed and would've never worked. I opposed Bush & Co. pulling out because they pulled a "NYAH! WE'RE NOT DOING THAT~!!!" without actually adding anything to the table. They pulled out without countering the proposal with something else that would've like, actually worked.

 

They didn't want it to work. They just wanted out.

If it's horribly flawed --- then you don't join. Period. For us to join and "hope" we can "fix" it down the line would be unbelievably short-sighted of the US gov't.

 

Nobody wanted to be a part of it. Clinton didn't act on it until right before he left office, so it clearly wasn't a priority for him, either.

 

It was a horribly flawed plan based on sketchy science with iffy-at-best benefits to humanity.

 

At times, it's best to let bad ideas die.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

If it's horribly flawed --- then you don't join. Period. For us to join and "hope" we can "fix" it down the line would be unbelievably short-sighted of the US gov't.

 

Nobody wanted to be a part of it. Clinton didn't act on it until right before he left office, so it clearly wasn't a priority for him, either.

 

It was a horribly flawed plan based on sketchy science with iffy-at-best benefits to humanity.

 

At times, it's best to let bad ideas die.

 

I almost agreed with your post for once. That is, until the last sentence.

 

Trying to fix the global warming issue isn't a bad idea. I had a problem with our leaving the Kyoto treaty because we thumbed our nose at the rest of the world. We didn't offer amendments to the treaty, we didn't even offer that we'd research the topic more and come up with a better solution.

 

We just withdrew and "PWAH!"d at the rest of the world. That's bullshit.

[Guest MikeSC]

If it's horribly flawed --- then you don't join. Period. For us to join and "hope" we can "fix" it down the line would be unbelievably short-sighted of the US gov't.

 

Nobody wanted to be a part of it. Clinton didn't act on it until right before he left office, so it clearly wasn't a priority for him, either.

 

It was a horribly flawed plan based on sketchy science with iffy-at-best benefits to humanity.

 

At times, it's best to let bad ideas die.

 

I almost agreed with your post for once. That is, until the last sentence.

 

Trying to fix the global warming issue isn't a bad idea.

Until the "global warming issue" can be definitively proven (and that it will be harmful), basing major int'l policy on a scientific theory is of poor value to the world.

I had a problem with our leaving the Kyoto treaty because we thumbed our nose at the rest of the world.

But, Tyler, the rest of the world is beginning to thumb their nose at it, too. We were upfront and honest about it. We didn't like it and chose to not support it. We are not obligated to support ANY int'l measure we find to be wrong until we sign on the line saying we will support it.

We didn't offer amendments to the treaty, we didn't even offer that we'd research the topic more and come up with a better solution.

We shouldn't have to.

 

Let's say your boss comes up to you and gives you a contract to sign.

 

Let's say the contract is exceptionally bad for you. Let's say it requires you to vote for Bush and fellate John Ashcroft on a weekly basis. Pretty bad stuff.

 

Do you have any obligation to "fix" it --- or do you simply have to say "I'm not going to sign this" and leave it at that? They presented a document we did not like and we simply rejected it.

 

Heck, if the Senate doesn't approve it (which it was never going to), we weren't going to be able to follow it regardless.

We just withdrew and "PWAH!"d at the rest of the world. That's bullshit.

Honestly, I prefer our withdrawl over the way the EU is handling it.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I'm not gonna argue with the fact that the EU's feigned SHOCK that Kyoto isn't working out is rather comical, but I do take issue with this:

 

We shouldn't have to.

 

Let's say your boss comes up to you and gives you a contract to sign.

 

Let's say the contract is exceptionally bad for you. Let's say it requires you to vote for Bush and fellate John Ashcroft on a weekly basis. Pretty bad stuff.

 

Do you have any obligation to "fix" it --- or do you simply have to say "I'm not going to sign this" and leave it at that? They presented a document we did not like and we simply rejected it.

 

Heck, if the Senate doesn't approve it (which it was never going to), we weren't going to be able to follow it regardless.

 

First of all, you're exaggerating quite a bit.

 

Kyoto, whether or not it would've worked, etc., still had good intentions (and no, satisfying John Ashcroft's libido isn't a good intention) and the ultimate goal--to avert global warming--is one that is vitally important to our economy and viability as a nation. If the new scientific models are correct, the collapse of the Gulf Stream (which would result from melting of the ice caps, etc.) would leave the eastern seaboard a frigid mess and throw off crops and God knows what else. Needless to say, even if you're a skeptic as to how genuine global warming is (and to be fair, you can put question marks on most science, including whether cigarettes cause cancer. That doesn't change the fact that it probably does, and just because some studies say that global warming may not be an imminent threat doesn't mean that we should keep dumping on mother nature), we should still be working to eliminate the potential for catastrophic consequences.

 

But, like I said, my qualm with this whole issue is that we walked away and offered nothing in return. We didn't even "demand" (and I use that term loosely) that the more obviously asinine provisions...

 

Wasn't part of the Kyoto Treaty to give developing nations a pass on pollution standards or something?...

 

...such as that one be changed. We just walked away and told the entire world that they can do whatever the hell we want, because we're not concerned about our environment. In effect, we've become part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.

 

Kyoto, again, isn't the solution. But we're not even trying to find it in the first place.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I'm not gonna argue with the fact that the EU's feigned SHOCK that Kyoto isn't working out is rather comical, but I do take issue with this:

 

We shouldn't have to.

 

Let's say your boss comes up to you and gives you a contract to sign.

 

Let's say the contract is exceptionally bad for you. Let's say it requires you to vote for Bush and fellate John Ashcroft on a weekly basis. Pretty bad stuff.

 

Do you have any obligation to "fix" it --- or do you simply have to say "I'm not going to sign this" and leave it at that? They presented a document we did not like and we simply rejected it.

 

Heck, if the Senate doesn't approve it (which it was never going to), we weren't going to be able to follow it regardless.

 

First of all, you're exaggerating quite a bit.

 

Kyoto, whether or not it would've worked, etc., still had good intentions (and no, satisfying John Ashcroft's libido isn't a good intention) and the ultimate goal--to avert global warming--is one that is vitally important to our economy and viability as a nation. If the new scientific models are correct, the collapse of the Gulf Stream (which would result from melting of the ice caps, etc.) would leave the eastern seaboard a frigid mess and throw off crops and God knows what else. Needless to say, even if you're a skeptic as to how genuine global warming is (and to be fair, you can put question marks on most science, including whether cigarettes cause cancer. That doesn't change the fact that it probably does, and just because some studies say that global warming may not be an imminent threat doesn't mean that we should keep dumping on mother nature), we should still be working to eliminate the potential for catastrophic consequences.

 

But, like I said, my qualm with this whole issue is that we walked away and offered nothing in return. We didn't even "demand" (and I use that term loosely) that the more obviously asinine provisions...

 

Wasn't part of the Kyoto Treaty to give developing nations a pass on pollution standards or something?...

 

...such as that one be changed. We just walked away and told the entire world that they can do whatever the hell we want, because we're not concerned about our environment. In effect, we've become part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.

 

Kyoto, again, isn't the solution. But we're not even trying to find it in the first place.

[Guest MikeSC]

We shouldn't have to.

 

Let's say your boss comes up to you and gives you a contract to sign.

 

Let's say the contract is exceptionally bad for you. Let's say it requires you to vote for Bush and fellate John Ashcroft on a weekly basis. Pretty bad stuff.

 

Do you have any obligation to "fix" it --- or do you simply have to say "I'm not going to sign this" and leave it at that? They presented a document we did not like and we simply rejected it.

 

Heck, if the Senate doesn't approve it (which it was never going to), we weren't going to be able to follow it regardless.

 

First of all, you're exaggerating quite a bit.

 

Kyoto, whether or not it would've worked, etc., still had good intentions (and no, satisfying John Ashcroft's libido isn't a good intention) and the ultimate goal--to avert global warming--is one that is vitally important to our economy and viability as a nation.

Tyler, since when have good intentions meant anything?

 

The Patriot Act INTENDS to protect us from terrorism. Do you think it's a good law because of that?

 

I don't really care what Kyoto INTENDED to do. What it DID do is the issue here --- and it was bad for America and we opted out, as we have the right to choose to do.

If the new scientific models are correct, the collapse of the Gulf Stream (which would result from melting of the ice caps, etc.) would leave the eastern seaboard a frigid mess and throw off crops and God knows what else. Needless to say, even if you're a skeptic as to how genuine global warming is (and to be fair, you can put question marks on most science, including whether cigarettes cause cancer. That doesn't change the fact that it probably does, and just because some studies say that global warming may not be an imminent threat doesn't mean that we should keep dumping on mother nature), we should still be working to eliminate the potential for catastrophic consequences.

Global warming is just another instance of man's boundless ego. We believe that we can do more harm to the Earth than anything ever has.

 

We can't. More gases are released in a volcanic eruption than we could dream of unleashing. We don't know much of anything about how the atmosphere works and what causes weather patterns. We can make guesses as to what will happen based on previous models --- but our concrete knowledge of this field is miniscule, at best.

But, like I said, my qualm with this whole issue is that we walked away and offered nothing in return. We didn't even "demand" (and I use that term loosely) that the more obviously asinine provisions...

 

Wasn't part of the Kyoto Treaty to give developing nations a pass on pollution standards or something?...

 

...such as that one be changed. We just walked away and told the entire world that they can do whatever the hell we want, because we're not concerned about our environment. In effect, we've become part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.

We said "This law is not good for us and we choose to not participate". We saw a law with problems --- the same problems the world is now waking up to --- and said it's not for us. It would've been worse if we signed it and ignored it. We simply opted out. We used our sovereign rights and protected our interests.

 

Again, you don't sign bad bills and hope to change them. If it's bad, you don't sign them period. Expecting things to happen is a horrible way to do things (see Bush's still-idiotic signing of the McCain-Feingold Bill).

Kyoto, again, isn't the solution. But we're not even trying to find it in the first place.

We're unilaterally cutting our emissions. We're unilaterally doing our part.

 

The problem is that we view the U.N and other multi-national groups as what they TEND to become: A place where small countries attempt to boss around larger ones.

 

We've watched the U.N morph into a haven of thugs and dictators, decrying the human rights violations of others while slaughtering their own people --- and we can see the same thing happening with this issue.

 

I refuse to fault us for showing concern about how things have a nasty habit of ending up, internationally.

-=Mike

...BTW, it is quite nice to debate you without insults and names, Tyler. Don't agree with you, but I do respect your intellect.

 

Well, when you're not being a moron and supporting Kerry.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Tyler, since when have good intentions meant anything?

 

The Patriot Act INTENDS to protect us from terrorism. Do you think it's a good law because of that?

 

I don't really care what Kyoto INTENDED to do. What it DID do is the issue here --- and it was bad for America and we opted out, as we have the right to choose to do.

 

You're sort of arguing a point I wasn't trying to make. The comment was more aimed at "Well, even though it was a retarded treaty, they're at least addressing global warming" more than "This is about global warming, we should've supported it."

 

Basically... we all knew it was going to fail, and any treaty that doesn't unilaterally apply the same standards to everyone is futile. But what bugged me, for the hundredth time (yeah, I know, I'm repeating myself a lot... but really, that's my main point here) is that I disagreed with the fact that we didn't provide a solution. Even though...

 

We're unilaterally cutting our emissions. We're unilaterally doing our part.

 

...I may disagree with whether the extent that we're doing this is truly effective (see: SUV exemptions), I do acknowledge that we're trying. But really, this is the problem as I forsee it with free trade, as well; our nation, with all its flaws, has always been on the cutting edge of technology and human/environmental/etc. protections. The rest of the world isn't, and it's going to kill us in the end. If we don't participate in this process and have our scientists interact with the rest of the world's (and ultimately, convince them that they're all wrong and they need to stop being a bunch of morons; the developing countries pollute almost as damned much as we do, and that's pretty pathetic) to find a solution to this problem.

 

As I'm not a scientist myself, I cannot truly argue this:

 

Global warming is just another instance of man's boundless ego. We believe that we can do more harm to the Earth than anything ever has.

 

We can't. More gases are released in a volcanic eruption than we could dream of unleashing. We don't know much of anything about how the atmosphere works and what causes weather patterns. We can make guesses as to what will happen based on previous models --- but our concrete knowledge of this field is miniscule, at best.

 

...but, you also can't deny that dumping all this shit into the environment has to eventually take its toll on our livelyhood. I mean, when you can't even fish certain areas of our country because the water is too polluted (different issue, I know, but it's in the same vein), you know we've got a problem somewhere. Just because global warming may or may not truly be a threat doesn't mean that we should turn our heads and ignore the fact that we're polluting the hell out of the air and water; we need to find a solution, be it through chemistry or technology or simply tighter regulations on industrial and individual pollution.

 

I think we're putting the wrong foot forward, though, by recusing ourselves from the global debate on the environment simply because the first treaty was an abomination. We should have told them why we're not signing it and attempted to constructively craft a treaty that wouldn't have benefitted the smaller countries at our expense.

 

We're not in the moral wrong here as far as the environment goes, but we've still got a long ways to go as well (even if it's shorter than most countries' paths). Taking a step away from the rest of the world isn't taking a step forward on our path.

 

-=Mike

...BTW, it is quite nice to debate you without insults and names, Tyler. Don't agree with you, but I do respect your intellect.

 

Well, when you're not being a moron and supporting Kerry.

 

Indeed, I prefer debates like this to the childish flame-bait fests that normally take over these threads

[Guest MD2020]

First of all, you're exaggerating quite a bit.

 

Kyoto, whether or not it would've worked, etc., still had good intentions

The path to hell is paved with good intentions...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

 

First of all, you're exaggerating quite a bit.

 

Kyoto, whether or not it would've worked, etc., still had good intentions

The path to hell is paved with good intentions...

See above.

[Guest MikeSC]

Tyler, since when have good intentions meant anything?

 

The Patriot Act INTENDS to protect us from terrorism. Do you think it's a good law because of that?

 

I don't really care what Kyoto INTENDED to do. What it DID do is the issue here --- and it was bad for America and we opted out, as we have the right to choose to do.

 

You're sort of arguing a point I wasn't trying to make. The comment was more aimed at "Well, even though it was a retarded treaty, they're at least addressing global warming" more than "This is about global warming, we should've supported it."

 

Basically... we all knew it was going to fail, and any treaty that doesn't unilaterally apply the same standards to everyone is futile. But what bugged me, for the hundredth time (yeah, I know, I'm repeating myself a lot... but really, that's my main point here) is that I disagreed with the fact that we didn't provide a solution. Even though...

 

We're unilaterally cutting our emissions. We're unilaterally doing our part.

 

...I may disagree with whether the extent that we're doing this is truly effective (see: SUV exemptions), I do acknowledge that we're trying.

SUV's are exempt for the emission standards? Didn't know that.

 

And, my point is this: It should be our job to fix up a treaty we don't like in the first place. If they can't present us with an acceptable treaty, we don't really owe the world the effort to make it work.

But really, this is the problem as I forsee it with free trade, as well; our nation, with all its flaws, has always been on the cutting edge of technology and human/environmental/etc. protections. The rest of the world isn't, and it's going to kill us in the end. If we don't participate in this process and have our scientists interact with the rest of the world's (and ultimately, convince them that they're all wrong and they need to stop being a bunch of morons; the developing countries pollute almost as damned much as we do, and that's pretty pathetic) to find a solution to this problem.

But, if we do that, we will end up having to shoulder all of the financial burden of the research, which does seem more than mildly unfair. All of our technology to handle emissions is readily available on the market, and I assume that all of our breakthroughs get published in the various scientific journals. We can show the world how to do it --- we can't make them do it, though.

 

And, the rest of the world wouldn't listen to us, anyway. "Easy for you to say since you have all of the money and resources" would, I have no reason to believe otherwise, be a response to any criticisms we give.

 

I mean, we can't even get the U.N to say that Hamas blowing up civilians is bad. I don't see much hope of getting them to side with us on less clear-cut issues, either.

As I'm not a scientist myself, I cannot truly argue this:

 

Global warming is just another instance of man's boundless ego. We believe that we can do more harm to the Earth than anything ever has.

 

We can't. More gases are released in a volcanic eruption than we could dream of unleashing. We don't know much of anything about how the atmosphere works and what causes weather patterns. We can make guesses as to what will happen based on previous models --- but our concrete knowledge of this field is miniscule, at best.

 

...but, you also can't deny that dumping all this shit into the environment has to eventually take its toll on our livelyhood.

But, the problems have been addressed. By most accounts I've read, he have more forest land now on the Eastern Seaboard than we had during the colonial period. We've gotten quite good at cleaning up problem, so no more Cleveland Rivers catching fire. I'm not sure if there are still problems with insufficient landfill space in the NE, but we can find uses for landfills (I remember a story of one landfill that was turned into a ski resort). We've found solutions to many of the problems with minimal government intrusion.

 

Is rampant pollution good? No. I won't say it's lethal (again, I have doubts about our ability to impact much of anything on this planet), but at the bare minimum, it is unpleasant. One of my professors at U.S.C, (Dr. Myers, an expert on Chinese gov't) said that the thing that he was the most startled by in his trips to Beijing (well, outside of the knowledge that his room was likely bugged and people tended to look at him all of the time) is how dirty the city is. He said that there is smog constantly and just soot all over the place.

 

Do I want to live like that? No. No conservative wants to live in a dirty place. But I also don't want us to go to the OTHER extreme, either (something this country has a well-documented history of doing). We're cleaning things up while minimizing the impact on our freedoms and that is the best way to do this, IMO.

I mean, when you can't even fish certain areas of our country because the water is too polluted (different issue, I know, but it's in the same vein),

True --- but the problem is ALSO being fixed. Again, we don't have rivers catching fire any more. We've learned lessons from the past and don't keep on remaking them.

you know we've got a problem somewhere. Just because global warming may or may not truly be a threat doesn't mean that we should turn our heads and ignore the fact that we're polluting the hell out of the air and water; we need to find a solution, be it through chemistry or technology or simply tighter regulations on industrial and individual pollution.

I actually debate how much WE are polluting any longer. Again, we're at the point now where further improvements won't produce results that warrant the expense of doing them. We are a rather clean society --- far better than we were 30 years ago.

I think we're putting the wrong foot forward, though, by recusing ourselves from the global debate on the environment simply because the first treaty was an abomination. We should have told them why we're not signing it and attempted to constructively craft a treaty that wouldn't have benefitted the smaller countries at our expense.

Honestly, can we say that we didn't do it? I doubt in diplomatic circles that we wouldn't express our reservations with the protocols.

 

I don't know --- but it doesn't seem to fit.

We're not in the moral wrong here as far as the environment goes, but we've still got a long ways to go as well (even if it's shorter than most countries' paths).

Taking a step away from the rest of the world isn't taking a step forward on our path.

 

-=Mike

...BTW, it is quite nice to debate you without insults and names, Tyler. Don't agree with you, but I do respect your intellect.

 

Well, when you're not being a moron and supporting Kerry.

 

Indeed, I prefer debates like this to the childish flame-bait fests that normally take over these threads

Ditto.

 

You poop-head.

 

Sorry, I got nothing.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

This is such a useless argument w/ Mike.

 

Mike, you actually debate that America is one of the most (if not the most) polluting countries in existance?

 

*EDIT* SUV's aren't exempt from emissions standards, they are just judged by different standards. They, along w/ pickups and maybe Minivans are considered "Light Trucks" which are allowed to have worse emissions and lower fuel efficency. But thats because it would greatly harm industry to make them all drive cars when they really need to haul shit. I think thats the reasoning. But many many many American families do NOT need SUV's that big. They don't use them like trucks, they use them like cars. So WHY should they get a truck's efficency rating when they're not being used as trucks?

 

This standard is not arbitrary, it's a pollution control. We can't just ALLOW people to bypass the standard by buying one type of vehicle over another, the entire issue is PREVENTING ALL pollution.

 

If you don't feel like doing your part, that shouldn't be up to you, it's a LAW.

[Guest MikeSC]

This is such a useless argument w/ Mike.

 

Mike, you actually debate that America is one of the most (if not the most) polluting countries in existance?

Yup.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I actually debate how much WE are polluting any longer. Again, we're at the point now where further improvements won't produce results that warrant the expense of doing them. We are a rather clean society --- far better than we were 30 years ago.

 

Well, the best example I can find of how we're wrecking the environment is the shit geysers of North Carolina, where hog farmers have ponded all the pig shit. This year, with the hurricanes hitting NC, these shit ponds collapsed and it basically obliterated miles and miles of farmlands and streams. Other than that, we've got factories & etc. dumping random chemicals, which can't be good for the environment. We're getting better on emissions standards, except for the SUV issue (which, if you read the evil Kerry's platform, he plans to fix), but we've still got a ways to go. I (and many optimistic liberals) have hope that the introduction of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and other low-pollution vehicles as a viable alternative will further reduce the car pollution in our society as well.

 

True --- but the problem is ALSO being fixed. Again, we don't have rivers catching fire any more. We've learned lessons from the past and don't keep on remaking them.

 

Indeed, and as much as it seems that liberals want to "BLAME AMERICA LOL2K3" or whatever used to be Tom Delay's catchphrase, I don't think anyone can deny that fact; we're working towards the end, but we're definitely not there yet and we're not even close. The manufacturing industries (which we're currently outsourcing... hah) still pollute the shit out of their surrounding areas, and we still pour a metric shitload of toxins into the air.

 

We need to keep going, though, and not just settle for it not looking too terrible when we look out the window.

 

Honestly, can we say that we didn't do it? I doubt in diplomatic circles that we wouldn't express our reservations with the protocols.

 

I concede this, but the problem is that we haven't outwardly expressed this. Instead, we (and the Bush administration) have said "It isn't good for us. We're not doing it." They should have elaborated on our given alternative if there was one, y'know? It sure would shut moron liberals like me up.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

*EDIT* SUV's aren't exempt from emissions standards, they are just judged by different standards. They, along w/ pickups and maybe Minivans are considered "Light Trucks" which are allowed to have worse emissions and lower fuel efficency. But thats because it would greatly harm industry to make them all drive cars when they really need to haul shit. I think thats the reasoning. But many many many American families do NOT need SUV's that big. They don't use them like trucks, they use them like cars. So WHY should they get a truck's efficency rating when they're not being used as trucks?

My apologies, I was taken in by rhetoric. I should've known that.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The only constant about climate change is that it changes. It is either going to get colder or warmer, it won't stay the same.

 

If the new scientific models are correct, the collapse of the Gulf Stream (which would result from melting of the ice caps, etc.) would leave the eastern seaboard a frigid mess and throw off crops and God knows what else.

 

This can happen in theory, but has a problem in practice because it would require a vast amount of ice to do it. If there was a continent like Antarctica sitting in the north, things would be a lot more serious. The way the ocean currents work has effectively isolated the Arctic Ocean from affecting the Gulf Stream. The problem is Greenland, but there simply isn't enough ice there for it to happen. It is certainly something to look into, but it doesn't look possible given the current orientation of landmasses in the Arctic.

 

It is true that in the case of global warming that the eastern seaboard would get colder, and it is certainly bad locally. What many people fail to mention is that the weather in the heartlands and in Ontario would be improved as far as farming is concerned. Places like Ontario, Michigan, Ohio & Indiana stand to benefit greatly economically. It is all a matter of location.

 

That doesn't change the fact that it probably does, and just because some studies say that global warming may not be an imminent threat doesn't mean that we should keep dumping on mother nature), we should still be working to eliminate the potential for catastrophic consequences.

 

What we should be doing is to try and find out the cause for this, and then adapt accordingly? If it is something that we are doing, then we stop it. But if we aren't, then lowering CO2 levels will simply waste time and resources when we should be learning how to adapt to the inevitable. That's why we need to find out. Right now, it looks like the level of CO2 is a reactionary effect. The temperature goes up, and then the CO2 levels rise. Not the opposite.

 

 

Mike, you actually debate that America is one of the most (if not the most) polluting countries in existance?

 

Actually, it isn't that bad, at least per capita. Most third world nations are much much worse in terms of pollution, due to lower environmental standards and allowing certain chemicals (specifically CFCs) which actually are really bad. The earth's atmosphere is well below the threshhold now, but it was a big problem for much of the 20th century. This is one of the main reasons that is attributed to the restoration of the ozone later which has been going on since the early 90s.

 

Is rampant pollution good? No. I won't say it's lethal (again, I have doubts about our ability to impact much of anything on this planet), but at the bare minimum, it is unpleasant. One of my professors at U.S.C, (Dr. Myers, an expert on Chinese gov't) said that the thing that he was the most startled by in his trips to Beijing (well, outside of the knowledge that his room was likely bugged and people tended to look at him all of the time) is how dirty the city is. He said that there is smog constantly and just soot all over the place.

 

Exactly. We should be worried about pollution, not because of Global Warming, but because it is bad for our health to breath in this crap. Most of us are only annoyed because generally speaking we are in the prime years of our lives. It becomes a far more important issue for children and the elderly.

 

...but, you also can't deny that dumping all this shit into the environment has to eventually take its toll on our livelyhood. I mean, when you can't even fish certain areas of our country because the water is too polluted (different issue, I know, but it's in the same vein), you know we've got a problem somewhere. Just because global warming may or may not truly be a threat doesn't mean that we should turn our heads and ignore the fact that we're polluting the hell out of the air and water; we need to find a solution, be it through chemistry or technology or simply tighter regulations on industrial and individual pollution.

 

Here is the problem. Too many people assume these issues to be linked, and they aren't. All the time and money wasted on lowering CO2 levels, could be much better used on a very real problem, such as the polluting of our lakes and rivers. That is quite true, that that is happening. There is only so much time and so many resources to go around. You have to priortize these things, and right now making sure we have breathable air and clean water/food supplies is of a far far bigger concern than whether or not we may have something to do with the 1.5 degrees Celcius increase in global temperatures in the last century that we may or may not have had much to do with. 1000 years ago the world was warmer than it is now, and we didn't have the doomsday scenarios that many people seem to suggest (actually the drop in temperatures in the 14th Century was of far greater concern). We need to get focused on the real problems, and Global Warming isn't it.

[NoCalMike 0]

There was a 4 page article posted here about I'd say a little over a year ago on SUVs and it said SUVs get around a whole hell of a lot of emissions standards because before the "SUV" was a household type of vehicle, Tractors were in that group, and the government didn't want to punish the farming industry so they gave them exemptions on the emissions. Then somehow the car industy bought their way into getting SUVs into the same class as tractors. My memory is a bit sketchy on the details, but it was something like that. I wonder if anyone remembers that article.

[CanadianChris 0]

I think I remember that article. It was from the New Republic site, IIRC.

[EricMM 0]

That article was great, and I'd like to thank Tom for posting it.

 

It mentioned a lot of different issues about SUV's, and a couple of really irrefutable ones at that. The standard response? IT'S A FREE COUNTRY! I'll DRIVE what I WANNA drive!

 

It's so willfully stupid.

 

Kahran, I guess we're going to have to start posting websites at each other because I totally disagree w/ you regarding global warming. I believe that the amount of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" being put into the environment will cause us to have an environment similar to one not experianced on Earth for millions and millions of years. It will be BAD for people.

 

But I do NOT disagree that global warming is a slightly slow-fix problem. Granted there are things everyone could do now to reduce energy consumption w/out damaging quality of life, but the problem won't go away even if we eliminated all fossil fuel use tonight. We're definitely going to have to learn to adapt to a changing environment in fifty years.

 

However, the release of toxins and poisons and pollutants into our air and water is as important if not more so. People should NOT get cancer because other people don't dump their shit correctly. That's just fucked up.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Kahran, I guess we're going to have to start posting websites at each other because I totally disagree w/ you regarding global warming. I believe that the amount of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" being put into the environment will cause us to have an environment similar to one not experianced on Earth for millions and millions of years. It will be BAD for people.

 

I didn't get it from any website. I got it from the climatology professors here at Carleton and with the Canadian government. It is from personal contact, not research on my part. I'll try to find something on the web that describes what I am talking about.

[Guest MikeSC]

I actually debate how much WE are polluting any longer. Again, we're at the point now where further improvements won't produce results that warrant the expense of doing them. We are a rather clean society --- far better than we were 30 years ago.

 

Well, the best example I can find of how we're wrecking the environment is the shit geysers of North Carolina, where hog farmers have ponded all the pig shit. This year, with the hurricanes hitting NC, these shit ponds collapsed and it basically obliterated miles and miles of farmlands and streams. Other than that, we've got factories & etc. dumping random chemicals, which can't be good for the environment.

I'm not claiming that the problem is totally gone --- but I will say that it has been severely curtailed. I liken it to the race issue --- things aren't perfect, but one must be foolish to not notice a massive change.

We're getting better on emissions standards, except for the SUV issue (which, if you read the evil Kerry's platform, he plans to fix), but we've still got a ways to go. I (and many optimistic liberals) have hope that the introduction of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and other low-pollution vehicles as a viable alternative will further reduce the car pollution in our society as well.

Quite frankly, until the scientists find a way for it to be cost-effective, none of this will ever work. I wish them well (anything that might be cheaper than gas and won't leave us at the mercy of those yahoos in the Middle East is peachy).

True --- but the problem is ALSO being fixed. Again, we don't have rivers catching fire any more. We've learned lessons from the past and don't keep on remaking them.

 

Indeed, and as much as it seems that liberals want to "BLAME AMERICA LOL2K3" or whatever used to be Tom Delay's catchphrase, I don't think anyone can deny that fact; we're working towards the end, but we're definitely not there yet and we're not even close. The manufacturing industries (which we're currently outsourcing... hah) still pollute the shit out of their surrounding areas, and we still pour a metric shitload of toxins into the air.

Again, no argument that the problem isn't totally eliminated --- but I will say that we are in markedly better condition environmentally today than we were in the 70's. And we're better than a lot of the world. Shockingly, communism tended to be REAL BAD for the environment.

We need to keep going, though, and not just settle for it not looking too terrible when we look out the window.

Most conservatives don't oppose environmental regulations. We oppose ones that we feel will make so little a difference (i.e the increased mercury standards that Clinton signed in early 2001) that it really isn't worth the astronomical cost to revamp everything.

Honestly, can we say that we didn't do it? I doubt in diplomatic circles that we wouldn't express our reservations with the protocols.

I concede this, but the problem is that we haven't outwardly expressed this. Instead, we (and the Bush administration) have said "It isn't good for us. We're not doing it." They should have elaborated on our given alternative if there was one, y'know? It sure would shut moron liberals like me up.

Well, let's be honest. Most Americans, myself very much included, aren't concerned as to the reasons why we aren't participating. "It's not good for us", for me, is a perfectly suitable reason to refuse to sign any protocol.

-=Mike