DescentBB

Now go press your government to sign the Kyoto climate treaty.

Diedel wrote:Now go press your government to sign the Kyoto climate treaty.

Sure, just get China and the other 129 exempt countries to sign up first then we'll talk....

Will Robinson wrote:

Diedel wrote:Now go press your government to sign the Kyoto climate treaty.

Sure, just get China and the other 129 exempt countries to sign up first then we'll talk....

Ever heard of leading by example? Or is this the era of "Do as I say, and if you do, I might think about doing it too."

it would be too damned expensive for the US to do so, as its based off of 1990 polution figures, and getting countries only to produce as much as theyve produced then. the US industries have grown 30% since then, compared to Europes 5%. were talking like 3-5dollars a ton vs 90-100dollars per ton to conform to kyoto. businesses in the US will never go for a price tag that steep.

that and thier extra expenses will kill the US economys climb, if not force it to begin a descent.

for Europe, it makes sense, for the US, not so much sense is made.

in this case, leading by example would be far far to expensive

Suncho wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Diedel wrote:Now go press your government to sign the Kyoto climate treaty.

Sure, just get China and the other 129 exempt countries to sign up first then we'll talk....

Ever heard of leading by example? Or is this the era of "Do as I say, and if you do, I might think about doing it too."

Actually we did lead by example. We refused to sign a bad treaty that would unfairly handicap our economy and yet we increased emissions at a lower rate than many of the countries that signed the treaty promised to!
So why do you suppose 130 countries including China who is a major producer of greenhouse gasses are exempt?

So guys, what do we do then, nothing? Wait until it's convenient for everyone? Besides, who are the ones complaining? The ones dumping the crap in the atmosphere...

*yawn*

Someone split this political crap please.

Let's see... which is more expensive...

1. Fighting a no-win oil war in the Middle East without raising taxes.

or...

2. Agreeing to be nicer to the environment.

Hmm... That's a tough one. I guess the war would be cheaper. We should do that one. You're right!

This whole conversation should have not spawned, I'll split it and move to the E&C.

Frustrating indeed, what in the hell does greenhouse gases have to do with you being important!

Conversation split....

KB

last i heard, the gasses recently being pumped into the atmosphere were actally helping to patch/heal/whathaveyou the holes in the atmosphere. and greenhouse effct was mostly due to freon gasses, not exhaust from cars, or plants, simple airconditioner leaks are to blame for that. therefore the kyoto treaty would be a fruitless waste of time, infrastructure, and money.

as to the oil wars, it would be cheaper to goto ANWR, but the stupid ice huggers think thats a bad idea, blame them.

Wow...someone beat Lobster over the head with an idiot stick. 99% of scientists agree with the opposite of what you said...then again...you're probably smarter.

haha, nah

just the last study I heard, thats the problems with studies, theres always a new one the next day proving the other wrong. =P

k, revisited the subject.

\" By the time they were banned internationally during the 1980s, CFCs had been used in roughly 90 million car and truck air conditioners, 100 million refrigerators, 30 million freezers, and 45 million air conditioners in homes and other buildings. Because CFCs remain in the stratosphere for up to 100 years, they will deplete ozone long after industrial production of the chemicals ceases. These human-created chemicals do more than destroy stratospheric ozone. They also act as greenhouse gases, with several thousand times the per-molecule greenhouse potential of carbon dioxide.\"

there are several sites that seem to have something alongsimilar lines, CFCs are the primary factor for the effect.

Most studies are agenda driven... when it comes to the environment...

Suncho wrote:Let's see... which is more expensive...

1. Fighting a no-win oil war in the Middle East without raising taxes.

or...

2. Agreeing to be nicer to the environment.

Hmm... That's a tough one. I guess the war would be cheaper. We should do that one. You're right!

Although you represent each scenario inacurately I'll accept the premise of your assertion just to be able to ask, why do you propose the two choices as mutually exclusive?
Why not be able to do both or one or the other or niether?
And while you're at it can you answer my first question: Why should China and 129 other countries be exempt from the treaty?

Vulcan, most scientists do not have an \"agenda\". Only those commissioned by a politician have an agenda, hence, when the review came back about ANWR drilling affecting the environment, Bush came back with his scientists that 15 days later, refuted what had taken 10 years to do. Anytime you attach politics to science, that's when it happens. Bush still believes that global warming does not happen for god's sake. Even Republican scientists believe it does...they just don't agree on the remedy.

Will, do you think voluntary emission cuts are the way to go? I'm surprised Bush didnt' nominate Rennert for EPA chief...that would make more sense to me.

Will Robinson wrote:

Suncho wrote:Let's see... which is more expensive...

1. Fighting a no-win oil war in the Middle East without raising taxes.

or...

2. Agreeing to be nicer to the environment.

Hmm... That's a tough one. I guess the war would be cheaper. We should do that one. You're right!

Although you represent each scenario inacurately I'll accept the premise of your assertion just to be able to ask, why do you propose the two choices as mutually exclusive?
Why not be able to do both or one or the other or niether?
And while you're at it can you answer my first question: Why should China and 129 other countries be exempt from the treaty?

Nobody should be exempt. Nobody is exempt. To prove it, even the mighty United States should sign it.

We don't control the world. We can only control our own actions. As role models and leaders in this human society, we have an obligation to do the right thing. We have an obligation to do better, regardless of what anyone else does. It's the American way.

I just hope we don't lose our way to the point where we can't find it again. =/

Suncho wrote:Nobody should be exempt. Nobody is exempt. To prove it, even the mighty United States should sign it....

But China is exempt...along with 129 other countries by the original design of the treaty!
If we signed it we wouldn't be proving no one should be exempt we would be validating the premise that they should be exempt....

Developing Nations are exempt from the bill

While I agree, we should set an example, however, maybe not in such a way. things like the kyoto deal are only a temporary solution, its simply cutting down on the emissions by focing plants to add filters and scrubbers. the money would be better spent by researching greener fuels, and cleaner manufacturing processes, GEs new methods of coal burning for instance. GMs Flex Fuel cars, the technology is comming around, we just need to start buying it, and encouraging its use. instead of sinking our countries money into the Kyoto dal, it would be better, and more beneficial to sink that same money into new technologies, and the implementation of them.

Zuruch wrote:most scientists do not have an "agenda". Only those commissioned by a politician have an agenda

This is demonstrably not true. There are LOTS of scientist with agenda's besides those commissioned by politicians.

Nobody can be exempt from an idea. We're further ahead than those developing nations. We get to set the pace.

As President Bush has proven, there's plenty of money for all kinds of frivolous spending. There's no reason why we can't research greener fuels while honoring the Kyoto treaty by simply cutting back on unnecessary spending.

the requirements of the kyoto treaty would kill the economy, with or without the frivelous spending(whatever that might be)

Its not up to president bush to sign it, it was the US's Industry and corporate powers who said if you sign it were moving our plants elsewhere

So, go ahead, push to have it signed, the only thing it will accomplish is greater unemployment, a massive pullout of companies in the US, a shift of industrial power to countries such as china. etc, it will all cascade down to you and I.

Zuruck wrote:Vulcan, most scientists do not have an "agenda". Only those commissioned by a politician have an agenda, hence, when the review came back about ANWR drilling affecting the environment, Bush came back with his scientists that 15 days later, refuted what had taken 10 years to do. Anytime you attach politics to science, that's when it happens. Bush still believes that global warming does not happen for god's sake. Even Republican scientists believe it does...they just don't agree on the remedy.

And you don't question scientists motivations? That are not involved with politics? Just because you don't see a connection?
No such thing. Everything is politically driven hence, agenda driven... But this is circular... no point.
Anything that involves power is currupt, even the supposed "green" movement.
IMHO

Diedel wrote:Now go press your government to sign the Kyoto climate treaty.

NEVER!

Destructive creationism: Everything has to balance out eventually. Economically the world is shrinking.

We may lose jobs over here, but they gain jobs over in China. It'll happen eventually and all we're doing now is stalling for time. Once China has more jobs and they become a \"developed nation\", the Kyoto treaty might be revised to include them. It's all part of progress. In the end, America will benefit.

uhhh...no, the kyoto treaty to my unserstanding is a one time deal, no adding or subtracting countries later. and while economies may be blending, we still need to fight to keep ours, if anything to keep it separate. so sure, in the end, all the industrial power, the wealth will be in china, and well be over here making cheap plastic toys that say \"Made in USA\" for little chinese kids to mock, im sorry, i like our current stance in the world

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Communist. I'm not for force redistribution of wealth.

But things balance out over time. It's just the way it is. No matter how hard we fight, we'll just be delaying an inevitable forward progress. Some people will lose their jobs and go hungry. But guess what. Some people already are. =/

Some people always have and some people always will... nothings going to change that.

Suncho wrote:Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Communist. I'm not for force redistribution of wealth.

But things balance out over time. It's just the way it is. No matter how hard we fight, we'll just be delaying an inevitable forward progress. Some people will lose their jobs and go hungry. But guess what. Some people already are. =/

If that's the case then the fight you put up can shape which tribe gets to be in charge of keeping the balance, which tribe has the advantage. Why help the Chinese or any other get the upper hand?

Because if we isolate ourselves, they're gonna have a global economy without us and we'll be left behind.

yeah, well, as long as there are differnt froms of governments and countries that flat out hate each other, a global economy wont exist, and until then its all men for themselvves, so we need to fight for what we have, not just give it away, christ, we dont live in a utopia, its not an idealist societty

Immortal Lobster wrote:uhhh...no, the kyoto treaty to my unserstanding is a one time deal, no adding or subtracting countries later. and while economies may be blending, we still need to fight to keep ours, if anything to keep it separate. so sure, in the end, all the industrial power, the wealth will be in china, and well be over here making cheap plastic toys that say "Made in USA" for little chinese kids to mock, im sorry, i like our current stance in the world

i know you were half joking, but in every joke there's some truth. What you said there i honestly do think scares something deep down in the hearts of Americans.

Absolute power has corrupted America. America would rather die, taking the world down with them, than give up their #1 status. Their cultural pride has long been linked with their status in the world. You have the same likely hood of America voluntarily giving up their status, as you would a dictator voluntarily stepping down. Very unlikely. Power is like sweet Heroin for the Ego.

Think Charlton Heston giving that speech, proudly wagging his rifle in the wind... "From My Cold Dead Hands!" the Ego says.

True, America is far from perfect, but you should thank (insert appropriate word, I prefer God)
that America IS here or you would not have the freedom to debate issues like this.
There is a lot of problems here and as many or more in most other countries but I
count myself very fortunate to live here. The only regret I have is the downword spiral
this entire world seems to be in... of course, this is just MHO...

Aye, and China is quite powerful, but its better for a society to go down fighting instead of throwing up its arms and saying, ok, we give!

It kills me that the US chooses to save the rest of the worlds ass every other time. If we hadnt stepped in in WW1, Italy, Germany and the balkins would rule europe, if we hadnt stepped in WW2 all of Europe would be german, as well as russia. vietnam...that was a downright blunder. the middle east, etc. why, so years later it gets slapped in our face, at this point i say ★■◆● the world, if the US is going down, damn right, we'll take everything we can with it, bunch of ingrateful brats.

Suncho wrote:We get to set the pace.

I don't think the Kyoto treaty is the right way to set the pace.

Immortal Lobster wrote:It kills me that the US chooses to save the rest of the worlds ass every other time. If we hadnt stepped in in WW1, Italy, Germany and the balkins would rule europe, if we hadnt stepped in WW2 all of Europe would be german, as well as russia. vietnam...that was a downright blunder. the middle east, etc. why, so years later it gets slapped in our face, at this point i say **** the world, if the US is going down, damn right, we'll take everything we can with it, bunch of ingrateful brats.

lol! Give us a kiss cowboy!!! We are not worthy.

Suncho wrote:Because if we isolate ourselves, they're gonna have a global economy without us and we'll be left behind.

So we've isolated ourselves by not joining a small group of countries in their failure to live up to a treaty they would like to badger us into signing?

I remember Suncho said that \"Once PXO is gone, there will be MORE Descent 3 players!\"

I think he's pretty much lost all credibility in my book.

I remember once Thunderbunny voted for Bush...

Suncho wrote:Ever heard of leading by example? Or is this the era of "Do as I say, and if you do, I might think about doing it too."

Suncho wins the cookie

sure, and by NOT signing it we ARE leading by example

its a bum treaty, simply put