Kyoto Protocol and the Bush Administration

[Gaelic]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: I looked at this website and noticed that no industrialized nation has ratified this treaty. Mexico is the only one on the list that could even remotely be called "Industrialized". Could it be a lot of industrialized countries are also leery of ratifing this treaty? Maybe they are bashing the US to distract from the fact that they too haven't retified it. Seems to me that if the European countries would ratify it, the US would face so much pressure to that they'd have to sign it too. While your bashing Bush for not supporting it, bash your on leaders for doing the same. Seems to me that they are only giving lip service to the cause! At least Bush is honest about it. Sorry if I step on any toes here, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And vis-versa.

Agreed. I was unaware that those other folks had ratified it. I guess I misremembered my source and its only one country in some certain category. My question would be, if its so well supported by scientific fact, why are all the leading nations either not signing or are committed to doing so by some later date? I think something needs to be done, but I'll never support any sweeping change because it won't be sustainable. I't just like my weight loss example, you don't get skinny overnight.



------------------
Gaelic

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Gaelic: Agreed. I was unaware that those other folks had ratified it. I guess I misremembered my source and its only one country in some certain category. My question would be, if its so well supported by scientific fact, why are all the leading nations either not signing or are committed to doing so by some later date? I think something needs to be done, but I'll never support any sweeping change because it won't be sustainable. I't just like my weight loss example, you don't get skinny overnight.

I think one of the main reasons, Gaelic, is that goverments get HUGE amounts of money from the industries that do the most polluting, and they know they would be in a difficult situation without it. So they are just plain afraid of pushing the issue.
Also, you are correct in thinking that change cannot come swiftly. Which is why we MUST START NOW!! Government won't do it unless it is pushed. It is therefore up to US, the electorate, to make our views known and PUSH them!
Obviously, it is not only America doing the polluting - it is just by far the worst offender - and also obviously there are factors that are not related to human activity at all. We know that the planet undergoes periods of damaging climate change on its own account (though we don't know why). What is so desperate about the present situation, it seems to my unqualified opinion, is that we are in a period of 'natural' climate change anyway, and the rubbish we are pumping into the environment is accelerating matters in a way which could prove catastrophic to many areas of the earth within the lifetime of our own children and grandchildren.
We can't be as selfish as we are and blind ourselves to the consequences. We HAVE to make sacrifices NOW, not tomorrow!
Think of that dieter you mentioned!

------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 06-17-2001).]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Thanks for that site, Moni. Only read a bit of it so far, but I've added it to my favourites so I can download stuff later. Only one thing I don't agree with fully in your comments - that our hands are tied. I do not believe that. When enough people get mad enough the goverments will find THIER hands tied by US, the voters. The trick is to get the voters motivated! After all, who is prepared to lower their standard of living just to save the planet? Who is prepared to make sacrifices just for the sake of their children and grandchildren? "WE are ok. WE are making a fast buck. Let the future take care of itself." seems to be the prevailing attitude. But we ARE changing, albeit slowly, and maybe TOO slowly.

Your Welcome for the link Fljotsdale! I am glad you found it useful.

As far as our hands being tied or not, I can only say that you can take the initiative to make that statement and perhaps argue it because you live in a different country.
Oh yeah, they can say all they want that our democracy is for the people and by the people but that was written over two hundred years ago and things have changed. Drastically. With the onset of the industrial revolution came the realization that money is power. Power can be bought. People are greedy.

Just one example is "downsizing" products. Package less product and raise the price.
It has continued steadily here in the states for over a decade and no one in power does anything to stop large corporations from doing it because in the end, with all their investments, it is their bank accounts growing fat with the profit and why would greedy people cut off their nose to spite their face? They won't. They see how the poorer people of the population live and they cannot make themselves walk in the same shoes.

I will repeat myself in saying:
"No one can overlook the corruption in our govt' or others but until true power is returned to the people, we can only watch as it all slips through our hands, and do our part to try and keep a hold on it anyway."

I vote. I try. But I have no faith in a system that works for the rich and lets the poor suffer. Believe me when I say that I would love to be proven wrong in the long run but in 39+ years of living, I haven't seen much to give me any hope that it will.

I'll do what I can and keep on living the best I can, lending a hand to those in need when it is within my means to do so.

With that said, I would like to bow out of any further debate on the subject here and now but in the future, dear friend, when things DO actually change and the people in power DO compromise their pocketbooks in order to insure the future of this planet and our children's children, you are quite welcome to come back and tell me "Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah!"


Moni


------------------

[Billikins the Bold]

I've got to agree that a major step is to clean up the links between politics and big business.

As to why the Kyoto treaty hasn't been ratified by more countries so far, well the bottom line is that it takes time for most governments to ratify a treaty. Space has to be found in the legislative time table and it needs to be debated. Thats what countries are doing: that is also why Dubya saying (and I paraphrase) "we will not ratify this treaty because its not in our interests" is particularly unhelpful as it discourages other countries from siging up ("why should we if the US isn't? whats the point?"). Luckily it looks like we will be signing up to it, which will, for want of a better word, shame the US.

And I'm not even going to mention the 1972 ABM treaty!

------------------
Fear? I know not the meaning of the word. And you can keep that dictionary away from me!


[This message has been edited by Billikins the Bold (edited 06-17-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Moni: [With that said, I would like to bow out of any further debate on the subject here and now but in the future, dear friend, when things DO actually change and the people in power DO compromise their pocketbooks in order to insure the future of this planet and our children's children, you are quite welcome to come back and tell me "Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah!" Moni Moni, I really agree with such a lot of what you say! But I guess you are not so aggressive a personality as I am. I won't say 'die' till I'm dead! I'm sure the same is true of you as well, in most things! I'm also pretty sure you are right to be negative about the prospects of changing things - but, hell, I CAN'T be! This planet is worth more than any damned politicians or capitalist interests, and humanity and everything else has to LIVE here. I don't want such a glorious place to fizzle out like a damp squib when MY little push may - it just MAY! - help do something to stop it! As for going Nyah, nyah - I expect you would actually join in the chorus! [/B]

------------------

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Billikins the Bold: also why Dubya saying (and I paraphrase) "we will not ratify this treaty because its not in our interests" is particularly unhelpful

Why do you call him Dubya? 'Scuse my ignorance!


------------------

[Billikins the Bold]

George W. (Dubya) Bush.

'nuff said.

------------------
Fear? I know not the meaning of the word. And you can keep that dictionary away from me!

[Gaelic]

Originally posted by Billikins the Bold: Thats what countries are doing: that is also why Dubya saying (and I paraphrase) "we will not ratify this treaty because its not in our interests" is particularly unhelpful as it discourages other countries from siging up ("why should we if the US isn't? whats the point?"). Luckily it looks like we will be signing up to it, which will, for want of a better word, shame the US. And I'm not even going to mention the 1972 ABM treaty!

This is another example of seeing the headlines, but skipping the article. Bush is NOT saying that. He is saying that emissions must be reduced and all the rest of it, BUT he is also saying that it isn't in our interests to unilaterally take action without science and solid planning to support it. He has taken steps to do this. My father-in-law works for the US Dept of Energy so I KNOW this for certain. The steps are being taken, but they will be steps that everyone can live with, not the arbitrary numbers put forth in Kyoto. The difference between the Bush administration's handling of Kyoto and Clinton's is that ole Billy just dismissed it out of hand, Bush is examining solutions and telling people the facts.



------------------
Gaelic

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Billikins the Bold: George W. (Dubya) Bush. 'nuff said.

Ohhhhhh! Gotcha!
Thanks!


------------------

[Moridin]

Okay I tried to read all of the posts but if I repeat something please bear with me

I have not read the entire Kyoto treaty as some have, but did study it a little bit in Environmental Econ last semester. Just like politics, religion or any other hot-topic, our class was split (these are all economists and/or environmental science majors) on whether to sign and radify the treaty. My key argument is that if we do not sign the Kyoto treaty, for whatever reason, we should still reduce our greenhouse gas emissions! We do not need a treaty to 'make' us do this, it should be a voluntary thing.

However, after saying that, it might also be in the best interest of Big Corporations to sign this treaty. Why? Because of pollution credits. If the US voluntarily enforces a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, then all corporations are forced to comply and there is no way out for them. Either reduce or be fined! If we sign into a multi-nation treaty like Kyoto, there is the option of 'purchasing' or 'trading' pollution credits with countries that already are at lower levels of pollution. Say Japan has already cut their emissions by 7%, this would allow them to 'increase' pollution by 1.8% or they can trade that 1.8% to the US which would allow us to only have to cut emissions by 3.4%.

*Before it is mentioned, I know these are rough numbers and it depends on 'total' greenhouse gas output and what-not, but pollution credits work, and should not be ignored!


I think that is now 6cents that I have contributed

------------------

Ever wonder if illiterate people get the full effect from alphabet soup?