DescentBB

We have a new government (finally).
(as a USA analogy, it's kinda like the republicans just got kicked out and the democrats are now in)

the old guys were much like Bush - buddys of big business (Australia's Coal mining industry is epic) and didn't want to sign the Kyoto protocol.
Anyway, Aussies were sick of their ★■◆● and we voted in new ppl - these new ppl are ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

This now leaves USA and Kazakhstan as the only 2 nations who arn't on board (while some smaller countrys still watch and wait for leadership).

Everyone in Green has signed and ratified the treaty:


Now USA and Australia can't use eachother as \"well, they havn't done it either\" excuses to not sign and ratify Kyoto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Australia

Thankfully the protocol is ineffective, if jumping on board actually meant reducing CO2 emissions that would be akin to taking 1 step forward and 3 steps backward.

ccb056 wrote:Thankfully the protocol is ineffective, if jumping on board actually meant reducing CO2 emissions that would be akin to taking 1 step forward and 3 steps backward.

Yes, I am absolutley sure that is the reason, that the US is right and the rest of the world isn't

Hard to tell exactly what the grey countries are, but I do note they are usually in a political or economic crisis (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Zimbwabwe, Timor L'este)...

Dakatsu wrote:

ccb056 wrote:Thankfully the protocol is ineffective, if jumping on board actually meant reducing CO2 emissions that would be akin to taking 1 step forward and 3 steps backward.

Yes, I am absolutley sure that is the reason, that the US is right and the rest of the world isn't

Dont follow the crowd.

the rest of the world breathes oxygen. don't be a follower, stop breathing

Has the US initated a differing greenhouse reduction program / standard / initative that aims to accheive the same thing as Kyoto? (a genuine question - I don't know if they have or not)

Personally I hope this is the case - because in the absense of such initatives, it does paint the US Government in a very self-serving, self-rightous, egocentric light...

No they haven't. And you said it.

talk to china. They do far more damage than we do.

Right now the big thing is lead content. Nice to hear the news harp on something else for a change.

Really though, I think you biggest contributor to CO2 is the Ocean(s). How many years haa the weatherman be blaming El Nino for this that and the other weather anomaly? Now suddenly it \"man!\" .. If the oceans have been heating up, more gases ...well beyond anything we could produce.. will be generated. .. and there' no WAY the human race could heat the Pacific Ocean to the point that it has been. I'd start looking for a bigger source .. like the sun.


Screw protocols.. I'm really tired of them when the folks calling the shots and tell us that we need to use public transportation, pay a green tax if we don't spend thousands of dollars to retro to their neurotic whim as to what is green (yes, they have that here in Portland) while themselves own numerous cars and homes and wouldn't dream of riding a bus or light-rail. Portland Oregon is a shinning example of what Eco-wannabees are like when all common sense and reason is tossed out the window.

We're going to get hit by a big-a55 space rock none too soon which is pretty much going to futz the planet. Save thoes green stamps and Merry Christmas!

no. ★■◆● your apocalyptic prayers. We're saving this planet

The biggest contributor is the oceans, yes, but we are tipping the balance. That's where the issue lies.

China does a lot of damage, but at least they're doing something about it (or trying to).

Saving the planet with Kyoto? Yea right.

Its already been proven several times that it offers little improvement while granting exceptions where convenient, thus defeating the purpose in the first place. Many countries signed on purely for political reasons. In fact, Russia was blackmailed to sign they Kyoto treaty before it could join the WTO it wanted to be a part of.

China does a lot of damage, but at least they're doing something about it (or trying to).

Under the current agreement, China and India are not required to reduce their carbon output, even though they have signed on and ratified the treaty. Doing something about it my ass.

So tell me again how Kyoto is supposed to save the planet.

I read a Newsweek article that said that the treaty is accomplishing little in terms of actual CO2 emissions. They said that some big companies are opting to blatantly ignore the requirements and simply pay the fines, because cleaning up their emissions would actually cost them more than just living with the treaty-imposed fines.

The point that they made (and I agree with) is that emission improvement will only really come about through means of new, cost effective technology, not by just telling people that they need to reduce emissions and it's up to them to figure out how. As far as I'm concerned, the future of cleaning the planet lies in developing fusion power to the point that it can be cost effectively and efficiently harnessed.

Nessity is the mother of invention, if there is no messity to create the new technology, its not going to happen. I can't think of anything that would help speed it along unless companies are willing to pour funding into it to clean themselves up.

roid wrote:(as a USA analogy, it's kinda like the republicans just got kicked out and the democrats are now in)

Wait, you mean that the bad government got kicked out and replaced by a new government, one that looks like it's good, but is ultimately a hidden clone of the bad government?

TIGERassault wrote:

roid wrote:(as a USA analogy, it's kinda like the republicans just got kicked out and the democrats are now in)

Wait, you mean that the bad government got kicked out and replaced by a new government, one that looks like it's good, but is ultimately a hidden clone of the bad government?

haha yes

(actually i have a hard time remembering anyone else, they were in power for 11 years!)

Of all those countries shown in green, how many of them:

(1) are required by Kyoto to cut emissions
(2) are actually cutting emissions
(3) have continued to increase emissions

Want to save the planet? Invest in companies that are researching legit green energy (not \"carbon offset\" BS). Or buy products from such companies. Put your own money where your mouth is. Don't just go around supporting treaties that handicap the developed world while having no appreciable effect on the environment.

Carbon Offsets can actively reduce emissions. Australia for example is very interested in Coal carbon sequestration, i'm sure you're country is interested as well. Or at least we would know if the Neocons running both of our countries (wait, just yours now lol) actually gave a damn and ratified Kyoto.

i've been researching emission fed algae biomass for years, and have recently taken an interest in Biochar. Look it up you'll be impressed.

These technologys harvest CO2 outof the air, or directly from smokestacks. They are not carbon Neutral but even better: Carbon NEGATIVE technologys, they actually REDUCE the amount of emissions in the air.

So, one company produces emissions, and pays another company to clean those emissions up. Carbon trading - it artificially inflates the worth of taking care of our planet - just like that worthless rock \"gold\" that we choose to use for currency and therefore it's worth is artificially raised - cept this way it saves the planet.
What's so hard to understand about Carbon Trading?

roid wrote:Carbon Offsets can actively reduce emissions. Australia for example is very interested in Coal carbon sequestration, i'm sure you're country is interested as well. Or at least we would know if the Neocons running both of our countries (wait, just yours now lol) actually gave a damn and ratified Kyoto.

i've been researching emission fed algae biomass for years, and have recently taken an interest in Biochar. Look it up you'll be impressed.

These technologys harvest CO2 outof the air, or directly from smokestacks. They are not carbon Neutral but even better: Carbon NEGATIVE technologys, they actually REDUCE the amount of emissions in the air.

So, one company produces emissions, and pays another company to clean those emissions up. Carbon trading - it artificially inflates the worth of taking care of our planet - just like that worthless rock "gold" that we choose to use for currency and therefore it's worth is artificially raised - cept this way it saves the planet.
What's so hard to understand about Carbon Trading?

That just sounded so totally pimp!