Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases takes Effect

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

fairbanksdiver:
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
So the US has to compete in a globalized economy, but with restrictions that don't apply to "developing" nations like China. Bunk. Bogus. Bullcrap. We shouldn't sign on if China is exempted, thank Gawd that someone is smart enough to see that. I'd prefer to see greenhouse gases reduced, but not at the cost of turning the globalized economy over to the Chinas and Indias of this world.

This is another thread but couldn't go unchallenged: My only concern with Iraq is that we are bloating our deficit on a country that hated us (Sadam's Iraq) with another country that will hate us (Iranian-Mullah's Iraq). If they want to hate us, I don't care, but do it on their own dime not ours. Spend that money here where it will do some good here.
 
StSomewhere:
So the US has to compete in a globalized economy, but with restrictions that don't apply to "developing" nations like China. Bunk. Bogus. Bullcrap. We shouldn't sign on if China is exempted, thank Gawd that someone is smart enough to see that. I'd prefer to see greenhouse gases reduced, but not at the cost of turning the globalized economy over to the Chinas and Indias of this world.

LOL with so many jobs moving out of the country (including mine) we and our children are liable to starve long before global warming is a problem for our grand children.
This is another thread but couldn't go unchallenged: My only concern with Iraq is that we are bloating our deficit on a country that hated us (Sadam's Iraq) with another country that will hate us (Iranian-Mullah's Iraq). If they want to hate us, I don't care, but do it on their own dime not ours. Spend that money here where it will do some good here.

When they finish in Iraq, I hope they bring the oil with them when they come home.
 
MikeFerrara:
LOL with so many jobs moving out of the country (including mine) we and our children are liable to starve long before global warming is a problem for our grand children.

.

Gee Mike...now you want to switch over to The Club of Rome's arguments that floated about in the 1970s about how all of the natural resources and food production was going to be outstriped by the World Population run amuck....that date was supposed to be right about now :-)


I don't think the website could stand the bandwidth of another political discussion :-)


Paul in VT
 
PaulChristenson:
I don't think the website could stand the bandwidth of another political discussion :-)


Paul in VT


Yeah, we should keep politics out of ...



Err....



Politics....
 
I am starting to enjoy this discussion. Let's not stop now. I will stir this up some more later, gotta go to work in my gas guzzling truck.
 
My small request to all of you to refrain from political debate over Kyodo (or Iraq for that matter)

No Fish:
Why? I am starting to enjoy this discussion. Let's not stop now. I will stir this up some more later, gotta go to work in my gas guzzling truck.

No Fish - the answer to your question is in the Scubaboard TOS:
While we encourage discussion about a wide range of subjects, there are certain areas which elicit more animosity and subsequently far more flames. Consequently we ask that discussions involving politics and nationalities or anything of a sexual nature be reserved for other message boards that are better venues for these topics.

Regards
Mania
 
The earth is presently at a climatic high point, that in the last 25 million years or so temeperatures have only exceeded what we are experiencing now for about 2% of the time.

Global temperatures during the holocene ( about the last 15000 yrs) have actually dropped a few degrees, between 15 and 10 thousand years ago, the temperature was a couple of degrees higher and the subsequent sealevel rise can easily be seen as a fossilised "beach behind a beach" almost anywhere in the world.

I think what a lot of people dont understand is the complexity of climate. For example: Global warming could in just a couple of months cause a mini ice age in western europe that would have catastrophic effects on agriculture and the economies that depend on them.

I am talking about an ocean current called the "Atlantic Conveyor". Most people are familiar or at least have heard of the gulf stream, a large current that takes warm tropical water across the north atlantic and arrives off the coast of ireland and scotland. Most people dont realise that there is another current that pretty much follows the same route, but goes in the opposite direction and is at the bottom of the ocean, not the top. This is because warm water rises to the top and when it dumps its energy in europe, it sinks to the bottom and goes back where it came from. Forming what looks pretty much like a conveyor belt in the ocean (hence its name).

In the event that we have a particularly warm year, there would be heavier precipitation in the form of snow in baffin bay and the arctic ocean, the resulting ice could then move further south than normal, then when it reaches the place where the Titanic met her fate, it will melt.

Now, sea ice desalinates itself after a couple of years (about four I think) and we all know that fresh water sits on top of salt. This would create a large lens of fresh water, wedging itself into the gulf stream that could in a matter of weeks not only divert the gulf stream, but stop it as effectively as a broken track will stop a bulldozer.

If the gulf stream were to stop today, the temps in europe would drop by at least 5 degrees or so. Forget about wine from france or beer from Germany, those crops will fail.

We know this has happened before; anyone that has read Charles Dickens knows that London is always snowy and cold right?? By coincidence around about the itme he was writing about the snowy south of England, uncle scrooge and oliver twist, there was a potato famine in Ireland and widespread agricultural failure in much of the rest of Europe, which in a large part resulted in an exodus of starving Europeans to north America. This we think was the last time the conveyor was stopped.

How and why it stopped and restarted back then, no one knows.

Now, I am not saying it will happen, but I am saying it could happen and it could happen in just a couple of weeks from now as we enter the northern spring..

Climatology is like any other science, you cannot predict what will happen, but you can predict the probabliity of something happening and this holds true whether you are discussing the movement of galaxies or subatomic particles....

......or whether we need to undo some of the damage we have done to the earth, and this particular case its climate, over the last few hundred years since the beginning of the industrial revolution. I believe the Kyoto Accord, whether you think it is effective, fair or not, is a symbolic gesture that says that 143 countries agree with this.

I also think that where a large part of the trouble starts, is when one particlarly large contributor to greenhouse gasses and user of the worlds natural resources (which will remain anonomous but lies somewhere between Canada and Mexico) returns this global goodwill gesture with a guesture of their own which pretty much involves the middle finger of one hand..

Just my 2 cents
 
I know that there has been a desire to keep politics out of the discussion but unfortunately energy and treaties are completely political, so here is more fuel for the fire. The US is not going to focus on conservation for the purposes of reducing Global Warming. That would require gathering a political consensus that industry is the greatest factor and acceptance of responsibility as the major contributor - which implies monetary compensation to other parties. History teaches that world dominating powers never willingly answer to weaker nations. That implies a minor or major loss of sovereignty. Napoleon wouldn't even let the Pope crown him for the symboligy, this is much much greater. What interests the Untied States politically is the whims of its masses (economy and luxuries) and their safety (domestic attacks). The US follows the Roman pattern very strongly. Bread and barbarians has become oil and terrorists. Building a mass desire for conservation moves the US politically but it takes decades to cycle. The greatest current factor is the Middle East. The US no longer believes being the major trading partner (oil) for the Middle East builds a financial dependence (mutual enrichment) that creates good will between us. Notice the drive for fuel cells and hybrids. This is primarily to reduce foreign dependence on energy. That is the greatest and fastest way to move the US politically at this time. I think conservationists should give up on the Kyoto protocol with the US for the near future. They should focus on showing the US government and industry ways to maintain or increase the luxury level of it's citizens while decreasing the dependence on foreign energy at a given cost. This means increasing efficiency, reducing load and the most magic of all political terms - compromise. The sad fact of technology at the moment is that oil and auto have done more for bringing newer technology forward than those who attack them. Attacking industry has failed to produce major results since the industrial revolution. My apologies to Tolkien and Emerson. The largest result has been, and still is, money. Conservation needs to become a marketing powerhouse if they want to move US industry anywhere.
 
so what you are saying dearman, is that an international communistic approach to global resource managemant is utopian because of the tragedy of the commons or the inherent selfishness of human beings?

I would like to think it is not or we are doomed.
 
So in the 1970s there were forecasts of looming ice ages.

Of course that does not discourage industrialized nations from burning fossil
fuels, etc.

Note that third-world banana republic cow-chip burning "economies" are more
or less exempt from KY-oto regulations.

Why? Perhaps because if the UN cannot (or willnot) lift most of the world out of
rampant poverty, despotism and general cheeziness, they will insist on depressing the industrialized (more or less) democratic West.
 

Back
Top Bottom