Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases takes Effect
- Thread starter lobbolt
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I'm sure glad the US isn't a signatory to the Kyoto Protocols... it means I can still drive my Hummer 2 blocks down the street to pick the kids up from school!
MikeC- It isn't about reducing the emissions from naturally occuring events, our planet is more then capable of dealing with those emissions. The concern is that we've far exceeded the carrying capacity of our planet by consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels, amongst other things.
-B.
MikeC- It isn't about reducing the emissions from naturally occuring events, our planet is more then capable of dealing with those emissions. The concern is that we've far exceeded the carrying capacity of our planet by consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels, amongst other things.
-B.
OP
lobbolt
Contributor
To clear some other questions that were raised, this is the post.
The data collected from ancient ice cores show a series of spikes and dips in temperature and the amount of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere. The average global temperature has always risen after rising amounts of greenhouse gases. Yes, natural events such as volcanoes can emit more greenhouse gases than all of human history. In the preindustrial earth, natural events would have caused dips and spikes in the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. To enlighten paulchristenson's question.
Natural emissions such as volcanoes, forest fires, and animals that emit methane are largely out of human control.
Nature does have carbon sinks that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The Siberian peat bogs locked up millions of tons of carbon in their decomposed plant material. If rising global temperatures continue, these natural carbon sinks could be disrupted and could no longer contain it's carbon. The warming temperatures could melt the permafrost in the Siberian peat bog, and thus release the stored carbon into the atmosphere. Global warming would then progress at an exponencial rate. The oceans with it's photosynthetic plankton are another one of earth's major carbon sinks. So are the forests and rainforests. Yet as of now, our natural carbon sinks are being destroyed.
The point of cutting human emissions is to REDUCE HUMAN INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE.
The key is HUMAN INDUCED. We do not want to push nature's limit, the result could be catastrophe out of anyone's imagination.
The data collected from ancient ice cores show a series of spikes and dips in temperature and the amount of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere. The average global temperature has always risen after rising amounts of greenhouse gases. Yes, natural events such as volcanoes can emit more greenhouse gases than all of human history. In the preindustrial earth, natural events would have caused dips and spikes in the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. To enlighten paulchristenson's question.
Natural emissions such as volcanoes, forest fires, and animals that emit methane are largely out of human control.
Nature does have carbon sinks that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The Siberian peat bogs locked up millions of tons of carbon in their decomposed plant material. If rising global temperatures continue, these natural carbon sinks could be disrupted and could no longer contain it's carbon. The warming temperatures could melt the permafrost in the Siberian peat bog, and thus release the stored carbon into the atmosphere. Global warming would then progress at an exponencial rate. The oceans with it's photosynthetic plankton are another one of earth's major carbon sinks. So are the forests and rainforests. Yet as of now, our natural carbon sinks are being destroyed.
The point of cutting human emissions is to REDUCE HUMAN INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE.
The key is HUMAN INDUCED. We do not want to push nature's limit, the result could be catastrophe out of anyone's imagination.
I am not a scientist and don't claim to understand their arguments. Nor could I be mistaken for an environmentalist tree hugger. But you would have to be an moron not to recognise that we are killing our home. The best we can do now is try and put off the enevitable for our descendants as long as possible.
Do your bit - slow it down! What's going to happen when all the landfills are full? Don't worry the oceans are huge plenty of space there! As divers do we really want that? Even if you just take last weeks plastic bags back to the supermarket and reuse them - what harm does that do?
Don't just think about you - what about your great grandchildren?
Do your bit - slow it down! What's going to happen when all the landfills are full? Don't worry the oceans are huge plenty of space there! As divers do we really want that? Even if you just take last weeks plastic bags back to the supermarket and reuse them - what harm does that do?
Don't just think about you - what about your great grandchildren?
archman:
Actually I think it goes a little further than that. It puts a monetary value on greenhouse gas emissions. I predict that very shortly we will see trade in this commodity on international stock markets. That will obviously be at a cost to some...and we know how business needs to cut costs! You can't make money longterm if you destroy your client base.
The problem with Global warming is that everyone is arguing over a very small data set and spinning it towards their predetermined position for political capital. For example, the temperature samples we establish our basis upon actually show a decrease in temps during one of the greatest expansions of industry? The problem statisticians have is to prove such examples are outliers. I know Ive given an example Im not intending to go back and do exhaustive research to defend. The point Im trying to make is that both sides have data to argue their position. Without readings over thousands of years, we can only postulate. I think using Global Warming as the major driving force behind conservation just leaves too much room for disagreement. That is the first failure of the Kyoto protocol. The other is the US will never agree to curb itself while allowing others (namely China) preferential treatment.
I think the real focus should be on conservation in the home to reduce waste, local health risks and extend the life of our resources. Our houses are inefficient and there is no large scale incentive or drive to improve. Automobiles are just a small piece of the whole puzzle. The recycling, higher efficiency light bulbs and hybrid craze shows that people want to invest in these things if they are made readily available. In Greece every house I saw had solar power and solar hot water heaters. Europe has on demand hot water. Replacing the old design hot water heaters in the US alone can effect our over dependence on electricity. Most US citizens do not know there are better systems, they dont know that most of their TVs carry phantom loads, they think electricity a clean and cheap form of energy. They forget that most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, they dont understand that we cannot generate enough from hydro to support the load they draw, they dont understand that large scale solar plants will increase costs and energy executives cannot justify it as a sound investment. The bottom line is Government lacks the understanding, desire and will to do anything about conservation. The real way to force change is to build a massive consumer coalition willing to spend more to become environmentally responsible. Industry exists to make money, not to serve. Show them a large high return market and they will invest. Automakers really didnt expect the hybrid craze. Now they see the dollar signs. Instead of wasting money lobbying Congress, spend it building newspaper articles, commercials and homebuyer programs to inform people easy means to reduce the loads their houses carry. Fund incentive programs to install energy saving devices. Send one free energy saving lightbulb to every Los Angeles home with a brochure on the lifetime value of the bulb. The manufacturer might even sell at cost for the free advertising and tax write off. If it works, the manufactures might even start similar programs themselves.
We are too busy arguing to do anything. As long as we wait for government to fix things, well never fix anything.
I think the real focus should be on conservation in the home to reduce waste, local health risks and extend the life of our resources. Our houses are inefficient and there is no large scale incentive or drive to improve. Automobiles are just a small piece of the whole puzzle. The recycling, higher efficiency light bulbs and hybrid craze shows that people want to invest in these things if they are made readily available. In Greece every house I saw had solar power and solar hot water heaters. Europe has on demand hot water. Replacing the old design hot water heaters in the US alone can effect our over dependence on electricity. Most US citizens do not know there are better systems, they dont know that most of their TVs carry phantom loads, they think electricity a clean and cheap form of energy. They forget that most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, they dont understand that we cannot generate enough from hydro to support the load they draw, they dont understand that large scale solar plants will increase costs and energy executives cannot justify it as a sound investment. The bottom line is Government lacks the understanding, desire and will to do anything about conservation. The real way to force change is to build a massive consumer coalition willing to spend more to become environmentally responsible. Industry exists to make money, not to serve. Show them a large high return market and they will invest. Automakers really didnt expect the hybrid craze. Now they see the dollar signs. Instead of wasting money lobbying Congress, spend it building newspaper articles, commercials and homebuyer programs to inform people easy means to reduce the loads their houses carry. Fund incentive programs to install energy saving devices. Send one free energy saving lightbulb to every Los Angeles home with a brochure on the lifetime value of the bulb. The manufacturer might even sell at cost for the free advertising and tax write off. If it works, the manufactures might even start similar programs themselves.
We are too busy arguing to do anything. As long as we wait for government to fix things, well never fix anything.
StSomewhere
Contributor
Do you just cut and paste this everywhere this "discussion" comes up? Word for word?Boogie711:
The biggest problem with Kyoto is that it doesn't include everyone. Exceptions for this country or that country make the treaty meaningless. Esp. considering some of the countries being exempted.
StSomewhere:
I'm not so sure that the exemptions are worthless.. considering the logic behind them.
The exemptions are for "developing" countries, vs the "developed" countries. The idea is that the developing nations are still busy creating stable economies to be bothered with the additional cost of environmental-friendly industry practices. The developed nations are in a much better position to begin changes, and spending the massive amounts of money required to do so.
One of the US's chief complaints is that China was given developing nation status, and was exempt from a large portion of the Kyoto protocol. China's output of greenhouse gases is one of the largest in the world, second only to the US, and it's growing. China emits more greenhouse gas in one day, then Canada would in an entire year. And yet both Canada and the US were expected to comply with Kyoto, and China wasn't held accountable.
The exemptions alone don't make the treaty meaningless. The United States hegemonic position in the global community makes the treaty meaningless (for us). There is no enforcement mechanism capable of punishing the United States for noncompliance. How do you think we got away with Iraq when the UN told us no?
-B
Wow,
I can see this is going to be a hot thread, so I will try and not put fuel on the fire.
I do not however subscribe to malthusian scaremongering, but that said, I dont think there is anyone here on the board would dissagree that sustainable resource management is a admirable and lofty goal.
here are a couple of observations, I haev picked Dearman because he has said some of the least emotional and most sensible stuff.
We have climatic DATA going back millions of years, you don actually have to be there to measure it, evidence is left in ice cores, paleobotanic evidence, oxygen isotope data, etc etc, we dont have to postulate, we know what the temperature has been over history.
I think you are right.
I think this is smoke and mirrors. The US has already moved the lions share of its heavy industry to countries such as China and india, so this really is a moot point and just diversionary tactics. Hell, they even export their toxic waste..
bingo, the key to sustainable industry is making it profitable. simple as that.
.
I can see this is going to be a hot thread, so I will try and not put fuel on the fire.
I do not however subscribe to malthusian scaremongering, but that said, I dont think there is anyone here on the board would dissagree that sustainable resource management is a admirable and lofty goal.
here are a couple of observations, I haev picked Dearman because he has said some of the least emotional and most sensible stuff.
Dearman:
We have climatic DATA going back millions of years, you don actually have to be there to measure it, evidence is left in ice cores, paleobotanic evidence, oxygen isotope data, etc etc, we dont have to postulate, we know what the temperature has been over history.
Dearman:
I think you are right.
Dearman:
I think this is smoke and mirrors. The US has already moved the lions share of its heavy industry to countries such as China and india, so this really is a moot point and just diversionary tactics. Hell, they even export their toxic waste..
Dearman:
bingo, the key to sustainable industry is making it profitable. simple as that.
.
Similar threads
