Kyoto Protocol and the Bush Administration

[Gaelic]

I have lived in many parts of Virginia, in Texas, and Georgia. I have visited such scenic places as South Korea and the middle east and I have seen places that do both better and worse than Americans. I have been to our big cities like New York, Chicago, and Atlanta, but when I went to Pusan I got a respiratory infection within hours of arrival because of the bad air quality. Thus, this is not a uniquely American problem. Everywhere I have lived there are local recycling programs that are government supported and widely used. We have carpool lanes on highways, we have more efficient appliances. can we do better? Yes. Are our lawmakers (slimy though they are, on both sides of the aisle) trashing the environment on purpose to make a buck. I don't think they are, and I am a pretty pessimistic guy. Eventually we will do better, but things won't happen overnight. The Kyoto treaty had some good concepts, however, the targets and goals were not based on science. That is why nobody ratified it. You see, people get nowhere when they exercise extremism. If you want real change, it must be done incrementally and in such a way that almost everyone (not just a simple majority, even) can support. Otherwise when power shifts slightly, all you fought for will be lost. That is why Bush and his staff are making incremental changes rather than sweeping ones.

PS: I don't mean to come off as Bush's personal bodyguard here, but he was the best option available out of a poor selection. I really wish people would get beyond the headlines and learn what the real agenda is.



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

[igor782]

The USA doesn't put out much co2 here's a picture:



You see from the picture that the US is mostly green/blue, which means that the US's emissions are low. Whereas red/black are the highest, which is in South America and Africa.


The main site: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?8086


Here's something else to consider: Subaru makes a sports car called the Impreza
WRX. This car features a 2.2L turbocharged 4-cylinder engine that puts out about 280 horsepower, and baby that’s a shitload of horsepower from a 4-cylinder engine.

Now this car’s engine has this horsepower rating in every county in the world (Japan, Australia, Europe) except the US, where it mysteriously loses 50 horsepower, dropping to 227 horsepower. Why?

Emissions control.

In fact this car wasn’t even available in the US until last year.

If you’re thinking that the US doesn’t want the population having a powerful car/engine, here’s a list of cars that are/were available:


Toyota Supra Twin Turbo 6-cyclinder: 320 horsepower (no longer made)


Mazda RX-7 Twin Turbo rotary: 300? Horsepower (no longer made)


Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo 6-cyclnder: 300 horsepower (no longer made)


Mistsubishi GT 3000 VR4/Dodge Stealth Twin Turbo 6-cyclinder: 320 horsepower (no longer imported)


Chevrolet Camaro Z28 or Z28 SS 8-cyclinder: 305/320 horsepower


Ford Mustang Cobra 8-cyclinder: 320 horsepower


Chevrolet Corvette (C5) 8-cyclinder: 345 horsepower


Chevrolet Corvette Z06 8-cyclinder: 385 horsepower


Pontiac Firebird Trans AM/WS6 8-cyclinder: 305/320 horsepower


Dodge Viper 10-cylinder: 450 horsepower




[This message has been edited by igor782 (edited 06-16-2001).]

[Billikins the Bold]

Originally posted by Gaelic: The Kyoto treaty had some good concepts, however, the targets and goals were not based on science. That is why nobody ratified it. You see, people get nowhere when they exercise extremism.

Ah. One hates to be picky, but again you're saying that no one has ratified the treaty and it just ain't so. As to the science not supporting it, you seem to be making an interesting statement here but with no evidence to back it up. Please do elaborate in order to open up this debate.

Igor782 (btw, can I call you Igor for short, just as Billikins is a perfectly good name for me), very interesting CO maps. I shall have a good stooge around on these come monday. At a guess, and this is only a guess they look like the effect of fires. As I said I'll do some digging on this (current work project permitting, work-wise things are hectic at the moment).

As to what can be done: well, the old motto of "Think global, act local" applies. Personally, I cycle the 7 miles to work. Not only do I save roughly £3000 a year, I also don't need to go to the gym and I'm the most wide awake person in my office come 8:30!

One last thing for Gaelic, and I'm flagging cos its sunday morning now, and I've had a nice night out but, you enjoy scuba diving hey? Cool, same here. Recently spent a week diving in the Red Sea: man, there's some nice dives there. I have a feeling that I may be just a leeetle jealous as I guess you can go wet suit diving near where you live! Not quite the same in the UK, but never mind. Hopefully off to Thailand (again) for a month over Christmas to do the Similians.

{edited cos I forgot what day of the week it was... duh}

------------------
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 06-16-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Um. Igor? You are talking about carbon DIoxide, but showing pictures of carbon MONoxide. Two different things. I think it is carbon dioxide that is the principle greenhouse gas though not positive on this. And anyway, the high levels in the south were caused by forest fires which are shortterm, even if they do pump out a lot at the time. What industrial countries pump out is long term, and persistant. This is not to say that the forest fires are not seriously damaging to the environment, 'cos they ARE, but the planet is accustomed to dealing with it. What it is NOT accustomed to is the steadily increasing pollution caused by the increasing combustion of fossil fuels.

Oh, and

WELCOME

to the board!

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






[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 06-16-2001).]

FYI:

carbon dioxide:a heavy colorless gas CO2 that does not support combustion, especially in animal respiration and in the decay or combustion of animal and vegetable matter, is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis, and is used in the carbonation of beverages.

carbon monoxide:a colorless odorless very toxic gas CO that burns to carbon dioxide with a blue flame and is formed as a product of the incomplete combustion of carbon.

It is carbon monoxide poisoning the atmosphere.

Plants absorb carbon dioxide and in return supply us with oxygen.
Humans (non smoker anyway lol) exhale carbon dioxide.

One reason I can't stand to see plants die or forests ravaged unnecessarily.

Live globally, act locally is a good motto to live by.
Unfortunately we are a penniless minority against the machines of capitalism.
Do your part anyway and there remains hope that a difference can be made.


Moni

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


[This message has been edited by Moni (edited 06-16-2001).]

[Billikins the Bold]

Ah. Actually, carbon dioxide *is* the major greenhouse gas.

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

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Billikins the Bold: Gaelic, this will have to be brief, its Saturday night. This figure you repeatedly quote of only one country having ratified the Kyoto treaty: where do you get it from? Try 84 countries having signed it and 31 having ratified it, as of 27/11/00. Check the link below if you don't believe me. http://www.mct.gov.br/clima/ingles/quioto/signata.htm The EU is committed to ratifying the treaty by 2002 (which calls for a 5.2% reduction from the 1990 CO2 levels by 2008 -2012), while the UK has unilaterally committed itself to a reduction of 20% by 2012. As to the science, well, the majority consensus is that it is sound. My first degree was in International Politics, specialising in Third World politics and the International Politics of the Environment. As such, I do have some idea about what I'm talking about. btw, I'm not that bothered how you elect your president, I merely pointed out that I understood he didn't get the msot votes. It was a merely a point of fact. If it rattles you, well, thats your look out.

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.

------------------
Sir Taliesin



If they take my gun can I still use my Axe?

Originally posted by Billikins the Bold: Ah. Actually, carbon dioxide *is* the major greenhouse gas.

I stand corrected...Other than the dictionary quotes, I was relying on memory (I should really know better!)...mainly around the time I rebuilt the engine in my truck only to unveil it to a market of gasoline dealers who had just started using additives in what used to be "Regular" or leaded fuel...designed to wear down parts in older model engines and force the population to buy newer cars/trucks which could pass carbon monoxide emmission testing without err so long as the engine is well maintained in the economy's projected removal of "Regular" gasoline from the market altogether. There was a lot of hulabaloo on how it was all the older model cars being contributors to global warming...when you got right down to it, it is ANY non-maintained fossil fuel burning vehicle..."Unleaded" fuel however costs the consumer more. When the lead was an additive in "Regular" gasoline, it just doesn't make sense...until you see the all important balance sheet showing profit for the major players.

So again I declare our hands tied on a world-wide level until the people in control take action to put an end to the abuse of power.

I'll say again that we can only do what we can on a local level and hope that enough people with authority who care enough about future generations existence on this planet get together and do something. Think it will happen?
I'm not going to hold my breath.

Anyway...here is a very informative link that everyone debating this issue should take a look at:
World Energy Projections
It can answer some open questions, stomp out some doubts, open the tables to new discussions and give all of us a better overall view of what is happening on a world-wide level.


Moni



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

[Billikins the Bold]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: 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.

Yup, you're right there. All I can there is re-iterate the point that the EU is committed to raifiying the treaty by 2002 and that the UK is planning to make a 20% cut in emissions which is way beyond what the treaty stipulates.

But yes, thats the way to go and it seems that it will happen. As yet, our leaders have not said they won't ratify. If they do renege on their promises you will most definetly hear one hell of a noise!



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

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Moni: Anyway...here is a very informative link that everyone debating this issue should take a look at: World Energy Projections It can answer some open questions, stomp out some doubts, open the tables to new discussions and give all of us a better overall view of what is happening on a world-wide level. Moni

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.

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





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