Kyoto Protocol

[MortifiedPenguins]

We have all heard how the Kyote Protocol is the supposed godsend to global warming and it's effects with very little being talked about on the cons of the issue or if the benifits are extremely outwieghed by the negative effects.

The recent Copenhagen Consensus project recently found that the Kyoto Protocol would mearly slowdown Global Warming but it would have a superficial overall benifit.
http://www.copenhage../Default.aspx?ID=675

Other enviromental economists have claimed that the costs of the Kyoto Protocal outwiegh the benifits and that it would cheaper to become adapted to global warming.

Finally, US economists claim that the effects of the Kyote Protocol would be disatourous.
http://www.eia.doe.g../kyoto/kyotobrf.html

My argument is simply, Are the short term benifits of the Kyoto Treaty outweigh the troubles and cost it would take to implament this protocol.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Another link on the effect of the economy the Kyoto Protocol would have.

http://www.eia.doe.g../Usa/Background.html

[HighlyIllogical]

Seems like bush was right (for once) about something economic. It's quite reasonable to believe that the cost outweighs the benefits.

[LordDarlington]

At 4/26/06 08:17 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Seems like bush was right (for once) about something economic. It's quite reasonable to believe that the cost outweighs the benefits.

The costs outweigh the benefits when saving cancer patients or in an emergency room at a public hospital - let's disconinute those, too!

The Kyoto Protocol isn't a "godsend", really, it's just a step in the right direction. One the US refuses to make.

[HighlyIllogical]

"To achieve these ends via market-based means, average delivered energy costs (in inflation-adjusted 1996 dollars) must be between 17 and 83 percent higher than projected in 2010." With energy costs as high as they are, I don't want anyone to have to pay more.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/26/06 08:19 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:17 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

The Kyoto Protocol isn't a "godsend", really, it's just a step in the right direction. One the US refuses to make.

But the US is making steps towards a cleaner enviroment and pollution decreases.

The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

[GunCrave]

At 4/26/06 08:17 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Seems like bush was right (for once) about something economic. It's quite reasonable to believe that the cost outweighs the benefits.

No shit, it's not like you can rely on democrats for being economically wise.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 4/26/06 08:25 PM, GunCrave wrote:

No shit, it's not like you can rely on democrats for being economically wise.

I hope that was sarcasm, as the defecit has increased too many billion dollars during Bush's reign...

[LordDarlington]

At 4/26/06 08:21 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:19 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:17 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

The Kyoto Protocol isn't a "godsend", really, it's just a step in the right direction. One the US refuses to make.

But the US is making steps towards a cleaner enviroment and pollution decreases.

The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

What sort of steps? You mean that energy bill we passed? The one that gave corporate welfare to companies that are making more and more money in profits by constantly raising gas prices?

Or did I miss something?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/26/06 08:26 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:25 PM, GunCrave wrote:

I hope that was sarcasm, as the defecit has increased too many billion dollars during Bush's reign...

And is Bush our poster child for the GOP and conservatives.

[HighlyIllogical]

Unfortunately, there's few fiscal conservatives left in the Republican party.

[LordDarlington]

At 4/26/06 08:25 PM, GunCrave wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:17 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Seems like bush was right (for once) about something economic. It's quite reasonable to believe that the cost outweighs the benefits.

No shit, it's not like you can rely on democrats for being economically wise.

Yeah, like that FDR guy, right? Economic idiocy at its worst!

What disturbs me is that "Liberal" cited crap about Clinton rather than FDR.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/26/06 08:27 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:21 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:19 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:17 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

Or did I miss something?

http://en.wikipedia...elopment_and_Climate

[LordDarlington]

At 4/26/06 08:50 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:27 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:21 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:19 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:17 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

Or did I miss something?

http://en.wikipedia...elopment_and_Climate

"Unlike the Kyoto Protocol... which imposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, this agreement allows member countries to set their goals for reducing emissions individually, with no mandatory enforcement mechanism."

Yes, flawless.

I already knew about this - the U.S. won't live up to it just as they haven't lived up to G8 and any other international agreements. I wanted to know if the U.S. itself was doing anything and, AFAIK, it isn't. The only thing that's gotten through Congress is that idiotic energy bill. The U.S. has done absolutely nothing so far (despite numerous warnings over the years of global warming) and refuses to join on a treaty with mandatory limitations. Yes, I see the progress there.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/26/06 08:54 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:50 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:27 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:21 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:19 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:17 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

Yes, flawless.

It's better then having another recession or depression from the forced energy equivalents of the Kyoto.

Plus, we already have more countries seeking to join this, including Russia and Canada.

You simply can't apply energy withdrawl from economies that are dependent on it.

[LordDarlington]

At 4/26/06 08:59 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:54 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:50 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:27 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:21 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:19 PM, Doitzel wrote:

At 4/26/06 08:17 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

Yes, flawless.

It's better then having another recession or depression from the forced energy equivalents of the Kyoto.

Plus, we already have more countries seeking to join this, including Russia and Canada.

You simply can't apply energy withdrawl from economies that are dependent on it.

I'd rather have a mild recession from decreased pollution than have the entire economy collapse when the oil supply runs out in 25 years.

Seriously, we can easily make up the money by cutting the salaries of corporate executives. THey only make... what? 500 times more than their average worker? Maybe if we stopped giving tax money to oil companies and started putting it into shifting to alternative fuels, things would move along much more smoothly. The Kyoto Protocol isn't all that restrictive - but for God's sake we need to do something to reduce emissions and move to cleaner fuel sources or the next generation is going to have some serious problems.

[Demosthenez]

At 4/26/06 08:10 PM, YankeeFli wrote: Other enviromental economists have claimed that the costs of the Kyoto Protocal outwiegh the benifits and that it would cheaper to become adapted to global warming.

. . .

We dont know what the effects of global warming might be.

Your playing with a goddamned Pandoras Box here. You may think the short term costs are to high but if the long term costs are a rise of feet in sea level or whatever, that is to high.

Plus, honestly, what the hell is the problem with advocating reducing pollution? So what, the economy downturns a little. I would accept that to live in a more pristine world.

Once the forests and mountains and whatever are gone, you aint bringing them back. No money could.

[peedee]

At 4/26/06 09:13 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Plus, honestly, what the hell is the problem with advocating reducing pollution? So what, the economy downturns a little. I would accept that to live in a more pristine world.

Once the forests and mountains and whatever are gone, you aint bringing them back. No money could.

This is my exact problem with people. They don't seem to understand that the Global Warming threat isn't just about that. We need to fix our enviromental problems no matter what.

[Gunter45]

I think that business is naturally becoming cleaner. There is enormous demand for fuel cell and hybrid vehicles. Power sources that have less carbon emissions are on the rise and being researched vigorously, such as newer and safer forms of fission power and trying to make fusion power feasable.

GM is already seriously getting into biofuel, while Honda is going to start production on fuel cell vehicles in 2010. I don't think the government needs to spend billions of dollars on an initiative that is already being put into place by corporations.

[buildversionIV]

At 4/26/06 08:10 PM, YankeeFli wrote: We have all heard how the Kyote Protocol is the supposed godsend to global warming and it's effects with very little being talked about on the cons of the issue or if the benifits are extremely outwieghed by the negative effects. etc etc

Thats all well and good, but we need to think of the impact it all has on other special on this planet, not just humans.

[MarkyX]

Not really. Volcano eruptions deal a lot more damage to the ozone the US.

[LordDarlington]

At 4/26/06 09:26 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I think that business is naturally becoming cleaner. There is enormous demand for fuel cell and hybrid vehicles. Power sources that have less carbon emissions are on the rise and being researched vigorously, such as newer and safer forms of fission power and trying to make fusion power feasable.

This ignores the fact that not everyone can afford a new car and that it will take decades for these fuel efficient cars to cycle through to all the people. It also ignores that these cares average a 50% increase in cost compared to their less clean and fuel-efficient counterparts.

GM is already seriously getting into biofuel, while Honda is going to start production on fuel cell vehicles in 2010. I don't think the government needs to spend billions of dollars on an initiative that is already being put into place by corporations.

Yes, and a stunning TWO (last I checked) gas stations in the nation offer ethanol biofuel. GM's new cars can run on either that or regular old gasoline - I hope that those cars are efficient enough to be able to drive halfway across the country to find an ethanol station.

And I don't know about everyone else, but I'd really rather not leave the future of the planet in the hands of corporations that are out for one thing - profit. And 2010 is still pretty far away to just start production when we're going to start feeling the real effects of global warming (most likely) within the next 20 years or so.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 4/27/06 12:57 PM, MarkyX wrote: Not really. Volcano eruptions deal a lot more damage to the ozone the US.

And in the red corner is a brainwashed dumbass. And in the blue is 99.9% of scientists…

[poxpower]

At 4/27/06 02:33 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

At 4/27/06 12:57 PM, MarkyX wrote: Not really. Volcano eruptions deal a lot more damage to the ozone the US.

And in the red corner is a brainwashed dumbass. And in the blue is 99.9% of scientists…

Don't forget termite farts.

Here's the chart:

Humans: 1%
Volcanos: 80%
Cow farts: 60%
Termite Farts: 40%
Decomposition of earthworm: 30%
Ant cars: 35%

according to my chart, we should pollute MORE!

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 4/27/06 02:39 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

according to my chart, we should pollute MORE!

lol, you're right! I’m selling by bike for scrap and buying the biggest, smelliest, gas guzzling 4x4 I can find!

Why? Simple: I get a hard of for bits of metal and rubber, and I can afford it.

Fuck the planet! I'M not walking!

[MarkyX]

At 4/27/06 02:33 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

At 4/27/06 12:57 PM, MarkyX wrote: Not really. Volcano eruptions deal a lot more damage to the ozone the US.

And in the red corner is a brainwashed dumbass. And in the blue is 99.9% of scientists…

That's it?

You people aren't even trying anymore.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 4/27/06 04:38 PM, MarkyX wrote: You people aren't even trying anymore.

Dude, when some one comes out with ‘volcanoes cause more pollution than the US!!!’ we don’t need to fucking try.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/27/06 02:33 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

At 4/27/06 12:57 PM, MarkyX wrote:

And in the red corner is a brainwashed dumbass. And in the blue is 99.9% of scientists…

According to the 99% of scientists global warming is a fact.

But the cause like I said is much disputed among the scientific community.

Though we aren't helping it either.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 4/27/06 07:06 PM, YankeeFli wrote: But the cause like I said is much disputed among the scientific community.

Agreed. But can you honestly say the majority, hell the vast majority of scientists who either aren’t on the government or corporation payrolls don’t believe humans are having a adverse effect.

As I think we’ve both stated already the Earth is coming out of an ice age. Warming temperatures are to be expected.

But the way I see it, with the amount of oil and coal we use, we must be fucking the planet up. These incredibly dense sources of carbon were never meant to be returned to the atmosphere. Unlike burning wood which returns only the carbon the tree collected thoughout it's life, using fossil fuels are returning thousands and millions of years worth of stored carbon in a matter of decades and centuries.

Plus, wouldn’t it make a lot of sense to reduce our dependency on oil? not just for short term political reasons, but lets face it, it’s going to run out one day.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/27/06 07:21 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

At 4/27/06 07:06 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

Plus, wouldn’t it make a lot of sense to reduce our dependency on oil? not just for short term political reasons, but lets face it, it’s going to run out one day.

You gotta remember that we are the larges consumers, producers and importers on energy.

The American economy and life is built into fossil fuels.

We are 11th in oil reserves, 1st in coal, and sixth in natural gas.

Not to mention that one third of our country is covered by trees.

This is a good link
http://www.eia.doe.g../Usa/Background.html