Just one part of the agreement affects %55 of greenhouse gasses emmitted by humans. that alone is going to make a difference.
You're claiming that we'll reduce greenhouse gasses emitted by humans by 55%. Over what timeframe? And what will be the effect of that on climate change?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You're claiming that we'll reduce greenhouse gasses emitted by humans by 55%. Over what timeframe? And what will be the effect of that on climate change?
no, not saying that at all. kyoto deals with 55% greenhouse gases-it targets the things that are responsible for them-industry, cars and so on- and tries to reduce the emissions as much as possible.
kyoto was a framework for setting targets ... all of the components of tradings and caps are really not that relevant ... the targets set are a joke - easily met (as anyone who cares can see overseas) ...
"The targets set are a joke - easily met (as anyone who cares can see overseas)". And just how self reliant is Europe? Do they produce the oil they consume? No. Do they produce enough food to feed themselves? No. Do they have any natural resources left in order to have any type of industry without importing goods? No. Do they profit from Kyoto by having designed a system that unfairly punishes the producing nation and not the consuming nation? Yes. Are they are high consuming and low producing area? Yes. Do uneducated people hold Europe up as a role model when they're not? Yes. Is it silly? Yes.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
"The targets set are a joke - easily met (as anyone who cares can see overseas)". And just how self reliant is Europe? Do they produce the oil they consume? No. Do they produce enough food to feed themselves? No. Do they have any natural resources left in order to have any type of industry without importing goods? No. Do they profit from Kyoto by having designed a system that unfairly punishes the producing nation and not the consuming nation? Yes. Are they are high consuming and low producing area? Yes. Do uneducated people hold Europe up as a role model when they're not? Yes. Is it silly? Yes.
Stands and applauds! Best summary of a reason to oppose Kyoto I've heard outside of the diminishing of soverignty. Of course, it has already been demonstrated by the creation of the EU that sovereignty is of little concern to Europeans.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Stands and applauds! Best summary of a reason to oppose Kyoto I've heard outside of the diminishing of soverignty. Of course, it has already been demonstrated by the creation of the EU that sovereignty is of little concern to Europeans.
I think the EU was created to protect their soveriegnty, in response to the superpower with a near monopoly on violence that has been ruling since WWII.
Stands and applauds! Best summary of a reason to oppose Kyoto I've heard outside of the diminishing of soverignty. Of course, it has already been demonstrated by the creation of the EU that sovereignty is of little concern to Europeans.
Europe could be a role model if they walked the talk and stopped trading with the US, Canada and all other producing countries not currently meeting Kyoto targets. But they don't care, all they've done is try to change the rules of the game to better suit their economics. They're heavily invested in politicizing the science surrounding climate change and man's contribution to climate change. They've also done a good job making it an emotional debate. Just look at the posts by some people when a healthy level of skepticism is shown, or questions are asked. All that said I wish Canada had a better track record regarding the environment than it currently has, or especially had under the Liberals.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I think the EU was created to protect their soveriegnty, in response to the superpower with a near monopoly on violence that has been ruling since WWII.
Sort of Orwellian newspeak to subjegate ones self in order to gain sovereignty.
I understand the economic advantage created by pooling resources, but I hope none of them actually thought they were protecting sovereignty. That would be assbackwards thinking.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
These are the great wise words of Canada Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. He put those ridiculous ads against Dion, the Liberals gave this letter to the medias, i think we'll be up for a nice political season...
Harper letter dismissed Kyoto a money-sucking socialist scheme
Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, January 30, 2007
OTTAWA - A prime minister who now promises to fight climate change once ridiculed the Kyoto accord as a money-sucking socialist scheme and said he would battle to defeat it.
I honestly think that the Kyoto accord is crap...
Yes we all can be wiser about the environment and do better things but that's just crap.
The earths temperature is actually lower than what it was back in the 1800's and there was the ice age, etc...
Anyhow the media of course just talks about the 1 side..
Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include:
IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models.[3][4]
Correlation does not imply causation, so just because temperatures have risen overall since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution doesn't necessarily mean that Industrialisation has caused the change in temperature.[5]
The period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has produced "urban heat islands" (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.[6]
Some global warming studies, including the influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann, have been shown to contain errors, shoddy methods and manipulated data sets and have not been reproduced. [7] [8]
Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Some have proposed that, because the issue has become so politicized, climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding. [citation needed]
Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity, [9] changes in sea temperature [10] and changes to cosmic ray levels that make the low level clouds that cool the earth. [11]
Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1%. [12]
Climate science cannot make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms.[citation needed]
Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle).[13][14]
Global warming is largely a result of reduced low-altitude cloud cover from reduced Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). It is similar in concept to the Wilson cloud chamber, however, on a global scale, where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber. [citation needed]
The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist.
Many opponents also point to the Medieval warm period, which lasted from the 10th to the 14th century, and which indicated an above-average temperature for at least Western Europe, and possibly the whole Earth. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the 19th century, when the Earth began to heat up again.[citation needed]
Satellite temperature records show less warming than surface land and sea records.
The relationship between historic temperatures and CO2 levels, based on ice-core samples, shows that carbon dioxide increases have always followed a rise in temperature rather than the other way around. [15]
The suggestion that climatic changes equal or even more severe than those on Earth are also happening on other planets within this solar system. these include Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton, which one of Neptune's moons. [16]
Proponents of global warming are suspiciously averse to the implementation and proliferation of nuclear power, which would solve many of the environmental concerns raised. This calls into question the veracity of their concern for Global Warming, and raises the possibility of political gains or "rent-seeking" being the true motive for such legislation.
Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all of the major questions about global climate. Opponents often characterize supporters' arguments as alarmist and premature, emphasizing what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global-warming scenarios.
Many opponents also say that, if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now, because:
Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious, and do it for less money.
A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide.
There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse-gas emissions. If this correlation is assumed to be a causation, a cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth [17].
These are the great wise words of Canada Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. He put those ridiculous ads against Dion, the Liberals gave this letter to the medias, i think we'll be up for a nice political season...
Harper letter dismissed Kyoto a money-sucking socialist scheme
Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, January 30, 2007
OTTAWA - A prime minister who now promises to fight climate change once ridiculed the Kyoto accord as a money-sucking socialist scheme and said he would battle to defeat it.
"The targets set are a joke - easily met (as anyone who cares can see overseas)". And just how self reliant is Europe? Do they produce the oil they consume? No. Do they produce enough food to feed themselves? No. Do they have any natural resources left in order to have any type of industry without importing goods? No. Do they profit from Kyoto by having designed a system that unfairly punishes the producing nation and not the consuming nation? Yes. Are they are high consuming and low producing area? Yes. Do uneducated people hold Europe up as a role model when they're not? Yes. Is it silly? Yes.
great post, dude.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
"The targets set are a joke - easily met (as anyone who cares can see overseas)". And just how self reliant is Europe? Do they produce the oil they consume? No. Do they produce enough food to feed themselves? No. Do they have any natural resources left in order to have any type of industry without importing goods? No. Do they profit from Kyoto by having designed a system that unfairly punishes the producing nation and not the consuming nation? Yes. Are they are high consuming and low producing area? Yes. Do uneducated people hold Europe up as a role model when they're not? Yes. Is it silly? Yes.
The most interesting achievement of Kyoto is actually to have a global response to global warming. A starting point, to show we could act on the issue on an international level, not locally. Seems we just can't and that's too bad.
As for Kyoto punishing producing nations, the protocol was part of a debate, it took time to get drafted, and the participating countries could put limitations in the protocol. Some countries just didn't want to participate at the time and thus didn't have a say in the protocol. That maybe why Kyoto seems unfair.
And finally, it is possible to be a producing nation without wasting ressources.
I'm sure if you have a look at the top 20 countries responsible for CO2 emissions (and that's an example) it doens't completely seem logic if you look at the population + economic growth. And I'm not just bashing the US, actually all the occidental countries up there. And that's a reason why Kyoto could have been useful.
The most interesting achievement of Kyoto is actually to have a global response to global warming. A starting point, to show we could act on the issue on an international level, not locally. Seems we just can't and that's too bad.
This is exactly Harper's point. Why would we want to involve some bureaucratic monster into an already ugly nightmare? The Kyoto maneuver is extremely socialist in nature simply due to government regulation, but not just any governing body, a fucking GLOBAL governing body. That's a big problem. It's like asking the UN to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict...they just can't fucking do it.
If you want global action then it's time to tell your governments to stop trading with nations who refuse to respect the environment. Stop yourself from buying those products. There are plenty of ways to apply pressure to polluting nations without coercing them to join some global government. Kyoto gets right to the core of how the world works, economic production. Handing carte blanche powers to a global government to regulate domestic production is a socialist's wet dream. The rest of us ain't bitin'.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
"The targets set are a joke - easily met (as anyone who cares can see overseas)". And just how self reliant is Europe? Do they produce the oil they consume? No. Do they produce enough food to feed themselves? No. Do they have any natural resources left in order to have any type of industry without importing goods? No. Do they profit from Kyoto by having designed a system that unfairly punishes the producing nation and not the consuming nation? Yes. Are they are high consuming and low producing area? Yes. Do uneducated people hold Europe up as a role model when they're not? Yes. Is it silly? Yes.
kyoto is a protocol about the future ... not about the past ... was europe perfect enviro citizens in the past - probably not ... are they gonna be in the future - who knows ... the point being is that they put in place plans to reduce emissions - and many will meet their targets ...
for all your questions about europe - how does canada and the us fare?? ... poorly - and we don't have any plan to reduce emissions ...
thanks for calling me uneducated ... u continue to post articles from botanists who lie and i'll continue to try and do my part ...
Almost forgot about this thread... it's hilarious to read people pointing fingers and saying it can't work cause others are not involved. Then it's easy, the problem is not the accord, it's those who refuse to be involved, so blame them instead of blaming the accord. The accord is just the first step, imagine when the "socialist scheme" will try to go further. But anyway i'm not knowledgeable in this weather changing topic, just a witness...
Environment is not important anyway, money is... but money comes from a tree, right?
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Well nobody likes to listen to me but again I find the Kyoto protocol quite 1 sided.
I agree as with many people that we should be cleaner and respect our environment more but the point that alot of Kyoto believers tend to always say is the whole Global Warming aspect and that the world is gonna end is just plain stupid. Earth is like a billion years old..I'm sure back then there was warming periods,periods of time when there were alot of hurricanes, etc..
Remember back in the 70's when we had the Global Cooling thing going on? And the Medieval warm period from I think the 10-14th century and then after that the Little ice age etc...
And I think I read somewhere that the average Global temperature now is something like 72F but a 100 years ago it was 78F ..
Anyhow my point is that we all should be careful about our environment regardless but this Kyoto, left wing crap and media brainwash is fucked
By the way I'm a conservative and like and voted for Harper...lol...but NO..I do not like BUSH
Kyoto is about economics and economic interests, just like every international treaty or accord. Do you think European nations would have signed onto Kyoto if it punished them, the consuming nations? I think not. The European nations looked after their own economic concerns first then worried about the environment as an after thought.
At it's heart Kyoto is a good idea, but just because marriage is a good idea doesn't mean you should marry the first person to come along. The Liberal party was stupid in having Canada sign the accord as it stands. But the liberal party was, as always, more concerned with the optics of doing something than doing the right thing.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Kyoto is about economics and economic interests, just like every international treaty or accord. Do you think European nations would have signed onto Kyoto if it punished them, the consuming nations? I think not. The European nations looked after their own economic concerns first then worried about the environment as an after thought.
At it's heart Kyoto is a good idea, but just because marriage is a good idea doesn't mean you should marry the first person to come along. The Liberal party was stupid in having Canada sign the accord as it stands. But the liberal party was, as always, more concerned with the optics of doing something than doing the right thing.
Kyoto is about economics and economic interests, just like every international treaty or accord. Do you think European nations would have signed onto Kyoto if it punished them, the consuming nations? I think not. The European nations looked after their own economic concerns first then worried about the environment as an after thought.
At it's heart Kyoto is a good idea, but just because marriage is a good idea doesn't mean you should marry the first person to come along. The Liberal party was stupid in having Canada sign the accord as it stands. But the liberal party was, as always, more concerned with the optics of doing something than doing the right thing.
i'm pretty sure european (generalized over a continent) would have set targets for sure ... kyoto at the heart is NOT about economics ... its about setting targets for emissions control in a world that is only concerned about economics ...
the reality is that without targets - no gov't is going to do anything ... if the liberals are only interested in optics - what does it make the conservatives?? ... they didn't give a rats ass until the people rose up ...
at the end of the day - conservatives want to protect economic interests at all costs but are not willing to pay the true price for that asset ... if we want to extract oil and sell it to the world - well, people better pay the true cost for it ...
Well nobody likes to listen to me but again I find the Kyoto protocol quite 1 sided.
I agree as with many people that we should be cleaner and respect our environment more but the point that alot of Kyoto believers tend to always say is the whole Global Warming aspect and that the world is gonna end is just plain stupid. Earth is like a billion years old..I'm sure back then there was warming periods,periods of time when there were alot of hurricanes, etc..
Remember back in the 70's when we had the Global Cooling thing going on? And the Medieval warm period from I think the 10-14th century and then after that the Little ice age etc...
And I think I read somewhere that the average Global temperature now is something like 72F but a 100 years ago it was 78F ..
Anyhow my point is that we all should be careful about our environment regardless but this Kyoto, left wing crap and media brainwash is fucked
By the way I'm a conservative and like and voted for Harper...lol...but NO..I do not like BUSH
Calling Kyoto a left wing thing is just bullshit, Kyoto might be recognize more by left wing peoples but it's not a "socialist" project, it's just an easy way to say it's a bad idea in a political fashion.
But i agree that the communication should be done in another way, trying to scare the shit out of people is not really the way to go, also if they would be trying to sell the fact that we need to reduce pollution instead of stopping global warming (which will always be dispute), it would be easier to defend Kyoto or any other accord of this genre.
Anyway, reduce your personal pollution emission, and that's fine with me, have govt. make regulation for industry to reduce pollution emission, and that's fine with me, have the govt. stop the funding of polluting industries, and that's fine with me (example in Canada would mean that Hydro Quebec could finally see some federal investment, and the Oil industry would have to find another funding sources). They should stop talking about global warming and how we'll be submerged in the Atlantic Ocean before 2100, that's not helping at all. I'd just like to see some efficient environment policies, and stop to hear about how it's not real, or how we'll do this and that. Govt. must show the way in my opinion, industry and individuals must follow...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Well nobody likes to listen to me but again I find the Kyoto protocol quite 1 sided.
I agree as with many people that we should be cleaner and respect our environment more but the point that alot of Kyoto believers tend to always say is the whole Global Warming aspect and that the world is gonna end is just plain stupid. Earth is like a billion years old..I'm sure back then there was warming periods,periods of time when there were alot of hurricanes, etc..
Remember back in the 70's when we had the Global Cooling thing going on? And the Medieval warm period from I think the 10-14th century and then after that the Little ice age etc...
And I think I read somewhere that the average Global temperature now is something like 72F but a 100 years ago it was 78F ..
Anyhow my point is that we all should be careful about our environment regardless but this Kyoto, left wing crap and media brainwash is fucked
By the way I'm a conservative and like and voted for Harper...lol...but NO..I do not like BUSH
dude ... not that your points aren't valid ... they are just the same ones that all conservatives have used in the past - they are flawed tho - climate change is real, it's a fact ... your man harper has changed his tune ... consider that ...
Calling Kyoto a left wing thing is just bullshit, Kyoto might be recognize more by left wing peoples but it's not a "socialist" project, it's just an easy way to say it's a bad idea in a political fashion.
But i agree that the communication should be done in another way, trying to scare the shit out of people is not really the way to go, also if they would be trying to sell the fact that we need to reduce pollution instead of stopping global warming (which is always disputable), it would be easier to defend Kyoto or any other accord of this genre.
Anyway, reduce your personal pollution emission, and that's fine with me, have govt. make regulation for industry to reduce pollution emission, and that's fine with me, have the govt. stop the funding of polluting industries, and that's fine with me (example in Canada would mean that Hydro Quebec could finally see some federal investment, and the Oil industry would have to find another funding sources). They should stop talking about global warming and how we'll be submerged in the Atlantic Ocean before 2100, that's not helping at all. I'd just like to see some efficient environment policies, and stop to hear about how it's not real, or how we'll do this and that. Govt. must show the way in my opinion, industry and individuals must follow...
I hear the other three parties are going to push through the Kyoto agenda...good for them.....BTW will re-itereate again it is POSSIBLE to do these things economically...
Well nobody likes to listen to me but again I find the Kyoto protocol quite 1 sided.
I agree as with many people that we should be cleaner and respect our environment more but the point that alot of Kyoto believers tend to always say is the whole Global Warming aspect and that the world is gonna end is just plain stupid. Earth is like a billion years old..I'm sure back then there was warming periods,periods of time when there were alot of hurricanes, etc..
Remember back in the 70's when we had the Global Cooling thing going on? And the Medieval warm period from I think the 10-14th century and then after that the Little ice age etc...
And I think I read somewhere that the average Global temperature now is something like 72F but a 100 years ago it was 78F ..
Anyhow my point is that we all should be careful about our environment regardless but this Kyoto, left wing crap and media brainwash is fucked
By the way I'm a conservative and like and voted for Harper...lol...but NO..I do not like BUSH
And the 100+ (much more than 100) scientists that say something happening are also Liberal fear mongeres too then...I love when economists take precedent over scientific knowledge...what amazes me more is people who take that side.....
Calling Kyoto a left wing thing is just bullshit, Kyoto might be recognize more by left wing peoples but it's not a "socialist" project, it's just an easy way to say it's a bad idea in a political fashion.
But i agree that the communication should be done in another way, trying to scare the shit out of people is not really the way to go, also if they would be trying to sell the fact that we need to reduce pollution instead of stopping global warming (which will always be dispute), it would be easier to defend Kyoto or any other accord of this genre.
Anyway, reduce your personal pollution emission, and that's fine with me, have govt. make regulation for industry to reduce pollution emission, and that's fine with me, have the govt. stop the funding of polluting industries, and that's fine with me (example in Canada would mean that Hydro Quebec could finally see some federal investment, and the Oil industry would have to find another funding sources). They should stop talking about global warming and how we'll be submerged in the Atlantic Ocean before 2100, that's not helping at all. I'd just like to see some efficient environment policies, and stop to hear about how it's not real, or how we'll do this and that. Govt. must show the way in my opinion, industry and individuals must follow...
Ok the left wing thing you may have a point..lol.. just ranting and I do agree that yes we should all as individuals and as corporations try to reduce pollution and such but I hate the whole Global Warming frenzy people are going through right now and panicking.. Like I said over the billions of years that Earth has been kicking around all of this has happened numerous of times..It's cycles that the earth goes through..
I hear the other three parties are going to push through the Kyoto agenda...good for them.....BTW will re-itereate again it is POSSIBLE to do these things economically...
as i said, it's time to act, but at the parliament they're still talking. I don't know about all the province's plan, but i sure know the Quebec have an extensive plan on the table, i mean on hold, waiting for the Federal to act, it's a non-sense... and i'm sure the same is happening in other provinces.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
And the 100+ (much more than 100) scientists that say something happening are also Liberal fear mongeres too then...I love when economists take precedent over scientific knowledge...what amazes me more is people who take that side.....
Come on....lol....and how about all the other scientist that totally disagree with all that Kyoto and Global Warming stuff ? It goes both ways...
So the scientist(which are alot of them) that don't buy into the Global warming (crap) don't have the scientific knowledge then?
Anyways I hate to argue but my point is not that we shouldn't be cleaner and better to our environment..not at all..
It's the Global Warming scare that's gonna end the world that makes me laugh..
Say we get Global Cooling in 30 years...everybody gonna panic and say we are going to freeze to death....lol
Ok the left wing thing you may have a point..lol.. just ranting and I do agree that yes we should all as individuals and as corporations try to reduce pollution and such but I hate the whole Global Warming frenzy people are going through right now and panicking.. Like I said over the billions of years that Earth has been kicking around all of this has happened numerous of times..It's cycles that the earth goes through..
And that's an argument that we hear a lot of time, but there's no argument that goes in the "we should pollute more" way...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
at the end of the day - conservatives want to protect economic interests at all costs but are not willing to pay the true price for that asset ... if we want to extract oil and sell it to the world - well, people better pay the true cost for it ...
Yeah, the Oil industry bring a lot of cash, which is great, but this cash should be re-invested in the oil sand treatment system, right now it's destroying Alberta environment (fresh water use, forest destroy, air pollution, alouette...) and it makes the whole govt. shaky about establishing hard environment policies, but who knows who are Harper's major financial contributors... hehe.
Why can't he make it provincial base then, fund the provinces who want to reduce their emission, and leave those who don't alone, with the pollution revenues benefits that comes with it, to each their own. That should be how the Canada Federation works...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Comments
Let's hang 'em!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nah, I'm kidding, let's just bannish him.
no, not saying that at all. kyoto deals with 55% greenhouse gases-it targets the things that are responsible for them-industry, cars and so on- and tries to reduce the emissions as much as possible.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Stands and applauds! Best summary of a reason to oppose Kyoto I've heard outside of the diminishing of soverignty. Of course, it has already been demonstrated by the creation of the EU that sovereignty is of little concern to Europeans.
I think the EU was created to protect their soveriegnty, in response to the superpower with a near monopoly on violence that has been ruling since WWII.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Sort of Orwellian newspeak to subjegate ones self in order to gain sovereignty.
I understand the economic advantage created by pooling resources, but I hope none of them actually thought they were protecting sovereignty. That would be assbackwards thinking.
I honestly think that the Kyoto accord is crap...
Yes we all can be wiser about the environment and do better things but that's just crap.
The earths temperature is actually lower than what it was back in the 1800's and there was the ice age, etc...
Anyhow the media of course just talks about the 1 side..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models.[3][4]
Correlation does not imply causation, so just because temperatures have risen overall since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution doesn't necessarily mean that Industrialisation has caused the change in temperature.[5]
The period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has produced "urban heat islands" (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.[6]
Some global warming studies, including the influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann, have been shown to contain errors, shoddy methods and manipulated data sets and have not been reproduced. [7] [8]
Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Some have proposed that, because the issue has become so politicized, climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding. [citation needed]
Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity, [9] changes in sea temperature [10] and changes to cosmic ray levels that make the low level clouds that cool the earth. [11]
Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1%. [12]
Climate science cannot make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms.[citation needed]
Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle).[13][14]
Global warming is largely a result of reduced low-altitude cloud cover from reduced Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). It is similar in concept to the Wilson cloud chamber, however, on a global scale, where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber. [citation needed]
The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist.
Many opponents also point to the Medieval warm period, which lasted from the 10th to the 14th century, and which indicated an above-average temperature for at least Western Europe, and possibly the whole Earth. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the 19th century, when the Earth began to heat up again.[citation needed]
Satellite temperature records show less warming than surface land and sea records.
The relationship between historic temperatures and CO2 levels, based on ice-core samples, shows that carbon dioxide increases have always followed a rise in temperature rather than the other way around. [15]
The suggestion that climatic changes equal or even more severe than those on Earth are also happening on other planets within this solar system. these include Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton, which one of Neptune's moons. [16]
Proponents of global warming are suspiciously averse to the implementation and proliferation of nuclear power, which would solve many of the environmental concerns raised. This calls into question the veracity of their concern for Global Warming, and raises the possibility of political gains or "rent-seeking" being the true motive for such legislation.
Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all of the major questions about global climate. Opponents often characterize supporters' arguments as alarmist and premature, emphasizing what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global-warming scenarios.
Many opponents also say that, if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now, because:
Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious, and do it for less money.
A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide.
There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse-gas emissions. If this correlation is assumed to be a causation, a cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth [17].
I think this guy might be on to something here...
great post, dude.
The most interesting achievement of Kyoto is actually to have a global response to global warming. A starting point, to show we could act on the issue on an international level, not locally. Seems we just can't and that's too bad.
As for Kyoto punishing producing nations, the protocol was part of a debate, it took time to get drafted, and the participating countries could put limitations in the protocol. Some countries just didn't want to participate at the time and thus didn't have a say in the protocol. That maybe why Kyoto seems unfair.
And finally, it is possible to be a producing nation without wasting ressources.
I'm sure if you have a look at the top 20 countries responsible for CO2 emissions (and that's an example) it doens't completely seem logic if you look at the population + economic growth. And I'm not just bashing the US, actually all the occidental countries up there. And that's a reason why Kyoto could have been useful.
This is exactly Harper's point. Why would we want to involve some bureaucratic monster into an already ugly nightmare? The Kyoto maneuver is extremely socialist in nature simply due to government regulation, but not just any governing body, a fucking GLOBAL governing body. That's a big problem. It's like asking the UN to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict...they just can't fucking do it.
If you want global action then it's time to tell your governments to stop trading with nations who refuse to respect the environment. Stop yourself from buying those products. There are plenty of ways to apply pressure to polluting nations without coercing them to join some global government. Kyoto gets right to the core of how the world works, economic production. Handing carte blanche powers to a global government to regulate domestic production is a socialist's wet dream. The rest of us ain't bitin'.
kyoto is a protocol about the future ... not about the past ... was europe perfect enviro citizens in the past - probably not ... are they gonna be in the future - who knows ... the point being is that they put in place plans to reduce emissions - and many will meet their targets ...
for all your questions about europe - how does canada and the us fare?? ... poorly - and we don't have any plan to reduce emissions ...
thanks for calling me uneducated ... u continue to post articles from botanists who lie and i'll continue to try and do my part ...
Environment is not important anyway, money is... but money comes from a tree, right?
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I agree as with many people that we should be cleaner and respect our environment more but the point that alot of Kyoto believers tend to always say is the whole Global Warming aspect and that the world is gonna end is just plain stupid. Earth is like a billion years old..I'm sure back then there was warming periods,periods of time when there were alot of hurricanes, etc..
Remember back in the 70's when we had the Global Cooling thing going on? And the Medieval warm period from I think the 10-14th century and then after that the Little ice age etc...
And I think I read somewhere that the average Global temperature now is something like 72F but a 100 years ago it was 78F ..
Anyhow my point is that we all should be careful about our environment regardless but this Kyoto, left wing crap and media brainwash is fucked
By the way I'm a conservative and like and voted for Harper...lol...but NO..I do not like BUSH
At it's heart Kyoto is a good idea, but just because marriage is a good idea doesn't mean you should marry the first person to come along. The Liberal party was stupid in having Canada sign the accord as it stands. But the liberal party was, as always, more concerned with the optics of doing something than doing the right thing.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Good point
i'm pretty sure european (generalized over a continent) would have set targets for sure ... kyoto at the heart is NOT about economics ... its about setting targets for emissions control in a world that is only concerned about economics ...
the reality is that without targets - no gov't is going to do anything ... if the liberals are only interested in optics - what does it make the conservatives?? ... they didn't give a rats ass until the people rose up ...
at the end of the day - conservatives want to protect economic interests at all costs but are not willing to pay the true price for that asset ... if we want to extract oil and sell it to the world - well, people better pay the true cost for it ...
Calling Kyoto a left wing thing is just bullshit, Kyoto might be recognize more by left wing peoples but it's not a "socialist" project, it's just an easy way to say it's a bad idea in a political fashion.
But i agree that the communication should be done in another way, trying to scare the shit out of people is not really the way to go, also if they would be trying to sell the fact that we need to reduce pollution instead of stopping global warming (which will always be dispute), it would be easier to defend Kyoto or any other accord of this genre.
Anyway, reduce your personal pollution emission, and that's fine with me, have govt. make regulation for industry to reduce pollution emission, and that's fine with me, have the govt. stop the funding of polluting industries, and that's fine with me (example in Canada would mean that Hydro Quebec could finally see some federal investment, and the Oil industry would have to find another funding sources). They should stop talking about global warming and how we'll be submerged in the Atlantic Ocean before 2100, that's not helping at all. I'd just like to see some efficient environment policies, and stop to hear about how it's not real, or how we'll do this and that. Govt. must show the way in my opinion, industry and individuals must follow...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
dude ... not that your points aren't valid ... they are just the same ones that all conservatives have used in the past - they are flawed tho - climate change is real, it's a fact ... your man harper has changed his tune ... consider that ...
I hear the other three parties are going to push through the Kyoto agenda...good for them.....BTW will re-itereate again it is POSSIBLE to do these things economically...
And the 100+ (much more than 100) scientists that say something happening are also Liberal fear mongeres too then...I love when economists take precedent over scientific knowledge...what amazes me more is people who take that side.....
Ok the left wing thing you may have a point..lol.. just ranting and I do agree that yes we should all as individuals and as corporations try to reduce pollution and such but I hate the whole Global Warming frenzy people are going through right now and panicking.. Like I said over the billions of years that Earth has been kicking around all of this has happened numerous of times..It's cycles that the earth goes through..
as i said, it's time to act, but at the parliament they're still talking. I don't know about all the province's plan, but i sure know the Quebec have an extensive plan on the table, i mean on hold, waiting for the Federal to act, it's a non-sense... and i'm sure the same is happening in other provinces.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Come on....lol....and how about all the other scientist that totally disagree with all that Kyoto and Global Warming stuff ? It goes both ways...
So the scientist(which are alot of them) that don't buy into the Global warming (crap) don't have the scientific knowledge then?
Anyways I hate to argue but my point is not that we shouldn't be cleaner and better to our environment..not at all..
It's the Global Warming scare that's gonna end the world that makes me laugh..
Say we get Global Cooling in 30 years...everybody gonna panic and say we are going to freeze to death....lol
And that's an argument that we hear a lot of time, but there's no argument that goes in the "we should pollute more" way...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I know I know..understand where you're coming from...We definetly shouldn't polute more
Yeah, the Oil industry bring a lot of cash, which is great, but this cash should be re-invested in the oil sand treatment system, right now it's destroying Alberta environment (fresh water use, forest destroy, air pollution, alouette...) and it makes the whole govt. shaky about establishing hard environment policies, but who knows who are Harper's major financial contributors... hehe.
Why can't he make it provincial base then, fund the provinces who want to reduce their emission, and leave those who don't alone, with the pollution revenues benefits that comes with it, to each their own. That should be how the Canada Federation works...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau