US Rejects Talks On Kyoto

Today the US rejected talks on Kyoto again. As we all know, the US is belching out 36% of the total industrial worldwide emmissions of CO2. Kyoto = 61%. Bush thinks the US industry will suffer if they are not allowed to belch out all the CO2 they want. Guess who will pay the price in the end...

From: News.com.au: US rejects talks on Kyoto

December 8, 2004


THE US resisted calls for talks on the Kyoto Protocol at an international climate change conference today. Delegates at the UN-sponsored meeting lamented the refusal by the US to ratify the treaty aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

US President George W. Bush's administration has refused to ratify the treaty.

French Ecology Minister Serge Lepeltier said it was a matter of time before the US rejoined the Kyoto Protocol. Mr Lepeltier, speaking on France-Inter radio, said that the Protocol would become an irresistible force. "I am convinced that we are going to bring the United States into Kyoto, even if it doesn't want to," he said.

What do you think about that statement from the French Minister? Freedom-Fries on the menu again soon? Why is it always US against the rest of the world?

See This is exactly what Bugs The S**t out of me...
It has to be the 'Big Brother'..and save us all from catastophee and all 'Evels' and then Neglect was right there Obvious for EvereyOne Else..But not To The BOSSSssss..

Give Us a Break and PLEASE let US Breath!!

Thank You...sir Bush..

US emits 36% of world's CO2 but contains 20% of the worlds' GDP. It makes since to me that we produce more than anyone.

The Kyoto agreement as it is, offers no refutable evidence as to why this is such a problem and why we must sacrifice further unemployment and further dwindling of the US economy by signing an agreement that offers nothing in return.

Originally posted by Horus_Re
Thank You...sir Bush..

It's not all Bush's fault. In 1997 the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify the treaty.

www.sitewave.net...

Ok,maybe it was 95-0 in 97',but this is 2005,7 years later and scince then alot more data has been gathered,it just can't be always wrong,all the international scientists can't all be making this up..As for job losses..you could start with producing smaller engines in your car industry..no??and that does'nt cost a damn thing ..in fact it would be even cheaper to produce and to buy..so what's the deal now..

US emits 36% of world's CO2 but contains 20% of the worlds' GDP. It makes since to me that we produce more than anyone.

The Kyoto agreement as it is, offers no refutable evidence as to why this is such a problem and why we must sacrifice further unemployment and further dwindling of the US economy by signing an agreement that offers nothing in return.

This is exactly what is wrong with the US policy.... money!! What the feck has GDP got to do with CO2 emissions or the environment? And I think you'll find that China prioduces more actual goods than you...but thats another story.

What do you get in return? Well let me see.....New York wont dissapear under flood water for a start. you cut the chance of extreme weather (although this may be too late)....

Stop thinking about your wallets and think about other people for a change, that really f*cks me off that attitude, if ytou want to destroy a planet, go and find another one, as we rather like this one!!

[edit on 8/12/04 by stumason]

Originally posted by Horus_Re
Ok,maybe it was 95-0 in 97',but this is 2005,7 years later and scince ...

None of what you posted will change the fact that the U.S. Senate has absolutely no interest in ratifying the Kyoto treaty. Clinton dropped this bomb in Bush's lap -- along with several others -- on the way out the door, and left-wing propagandists have been lying about it ever since, using it to defame Bush for political reasons.

Tarring Bush for Kyoto is a pastime reserved for those who would rather tell stories about a bogeyman than educate themselves about the truth.

The truth is that in the United States, treaties are ratified by the Senate, not the President, and we have no plans to change our Constitution so a bunch of propagandists can finally claim they are telling the truth about the treaty's rejection by the United States.

As for those claiming the U.S. is "selfish" for not ratifying Kyoto, I am reminded of Ambrose Bierce's definition for that word: "Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others." Handing out money to foreign nations under a wealth-redistribution scheme will do nothing to affect global warming.

The fact that the "global warming" scare has been driven from the start by multinational corporations who stand to make trillions of dollars in profits worldwide if they pull this off makes it harder to tell fact from fiction, but for those of us who have bothered following this issue without jumping to conclusions, it is far from established that there is any merit to the "global warming" scare at all.

Follow the money, ignore the hype, take an honest look at the politics and the science and this issue becomes much murkier than the various mouthpieces pro or con would have us believe.

But I do know this for a fact: Anyone who claims that "global warming" has been proven is a liar and a fool. It has not been proven, and demanding radical action on the basis of assumptions and innuendo is meritless and irresponsible.

Denying Ignorance requires promoting facts instead of baseless propaganda.

And for the record, this year is 2004, not 2005.

Only because Clinton "dropped this bomb" in the lap when he went out the door, it doesn't mean the Kyoto agreement isn't important.
The main part of the senate are conservatives. Of course they will turn down this issue. But they should not make it a tradition to do so.

It IS ffs very important!
What is the point of all that money if your kids won't survive?
Money aren't eatable or breathable!

Originally posted by Majic
But I do know this for a fact: Anyone who claims that "global warming" has been proven is a liar and a fool. It has not been proven, and demanding radical action on the basis of assumptions and innuendo is meritless and irresponsible.

I hope this won't be proven. Do you really want to wait for this proof?

Originally posted by Majic
[But I do know this for a fact: Anyone who claims that "global warming" has been proven is a liar and a fool. It has not been proven, and demanding radical action on the basis of assumptions and innuendo is meritless and irresponsible.
Denying Ignorance requires promoting facts instead of baseless propaganda.

No proof

POWERFUL evidence for global warming has been discovered by scientists funded by the US Government, demolishing the chief argument of sceptics who deny that the phenomenon is real.
A new analysis of satellite data has revealed that temperatures in a critical part of the atmosphere are rising much faster than previously thought, strengthening the scientific consensus that the world is warming at an unnatural rate.
The discovery resolves one of the most contentious anomalies in climate science, which has often been invoked by the Bush Administration to question whether man-made global warming is happening.
While it is generally accepted that surface temperatures are increasing by an average of 0.17C (0.31F) per decade, satellites have been unable to detect a parallel trend in the troposphere � the lowest level of the atmosphere, extending 7.5 miles above the ground, in which most weather occurs.

this is an article
from May '2004,
that one from November'04:

Nov 13, 2004 ��Politicians in the nation's capital have been reluctant to set limits on the carbon dioxide pollution that is expected to warm the planet by 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit during the next century, citing uncertainty about the severity of the threat. But that uncertainty may have shrunk somewhat with the release last week of two scientific reports suggesting that global warming is not just a hypothetical possibility, but a real phenomenon that has already started transforming especially sensitive parts of the globe.

Overall, the reports say, Earth's climate has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. In the Arctic, where a number of processes amplify the warming effects of carbon dioxide, most regions have experienced a temperature rise of 4 to 7 degrees in the last 50 years.

That warmth has reduced the amount of snow that falls every winter, melted away mountain glaciers and shrunk the Arctic Ocean's summer sea ice cover to its smallest extent in millennia, according to satellite measurements. Swaths of Alaskan permafrost are thawing into soggy bogs, and trees are moving northward at the expense of the tundra that rings the Arctic Ocean.

These changes seriously threaten animals such as polar bears, which live and hunt on the sea ice. The bears have already suffered a 15 percent decrease in their number of offspring and a similar decline in weight over the past 25 years. If the Arctic sea ice disappears altogether during the summer months, as some researchers expect it will by the end of the century, polar bears have little chance of survival.

Which kind of proof do you need? Do you want to wait and see it for yourself ???

[edit on 8-12-2004 by jazzgul]

Most administrations throughout the world don't have the balls to instigate long term solutions as they know full well they will not come to fruition in their term.

This is because the voting public are a fickle bunch who believe that it's not worth voting for someone unless it changes their own personal circumstance for the better.

IMO, A large majority of the westernised human race have nothing but their own self interests at heart and a great many third world goverments have adopted the same attitude.

I don't understand those that preach the argument of "No Proof", and live in ignorance, believing the goverment backed scientists, just because it suits them better to do so.

It was not that long ago that tobacco manufacturers were preaching the same thing to smokers. How can anyone believe that inhaling smoke directly into the lungs is not going to have a detremental effect, yet they continued to do so based on the "No Proof" statements that came from the scientists employed by the manufacturers.

You guys who support the "No Proof" lobby, can stick your fingers in your ears all you like, but it's unlikely to stop the ecological catastrophe that awaits us.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this thread, You, Majic, can see that scientist in the US has agreed to pollution being a problem. One way the have found to postpone the problem is injecting CO2 into the ground. Believing it won't harm earth.

The truth? It is cheaper in the short term to hide it. -Than to pay up what it takes to put filters in your raffineries and factories.

I realize now that explaining some of the background of my position was an error, so I'll restate my point as it applies to the specific topic of this thread, because launching into a general sloganfest about global warming will only obscure it.

The original purpose of my post was to point out that the U.S. Senate chooses not to ratify Kyoto. While Bush agrees with the Senate, it wouldn't matter if he didn't, because Bush cannot ratify the treaty.

And that's basically what I wanted to say. If anyone disagrees with that, I'll be happy to discuss it in this thread.

If the topic gets derailed and turns into what these threads usually turn into, I'm not interested. At least, not in this thread, because this issue is far too complex to get a fair hearing in a series of off-topic posts.

Global warming, whether it is caused by human activity, and the huge, sordid political and economic history of the global warming campaign are questions that are far too broad for this particular thread, and I apologize for referring to them and potentially knocking the thread off-topic.


[edit on 12/8/2004 by Majic]

Well done for getting back on track Majic, but the real question is "What do we think about the French Minister's statement?"

Well, I've always believed the French had balls, but this statement smacks a little of reverse psychology, which I doubt would have much influence on the present US Administration.

IMO, The French have a far greater understanding of the global community and our many troublesome issues.

The US may be one of the chief contributors, but even if they did agree, whats the chances of enforcing it across the globe, I believe we've gone way beyond the point of return and the only winner in this will be Mother Nature, unfortunately she will be scarred.

Originally posted by Koka
The US may be one of the chief contributors, but even if they did agree, whats the chances of enforcing it across the globe, I believe we've gone way beyond the point of return and the only winner in this will be Mother Nature, unfortunately she will be scarred.

I wouldn't worry to much about the planet, she's gone through a lot worse than us. Once the polluting stops she will just heal herself again and be as beautiful as ever. The only problem with that is humans will be long extint by our greedy self destruction.

Now do not flame me because I am for clean air and water but one thing I would like to point out is that everyone in America is to blame and not just the current or past administrations. When gas goes up 10 cents everyone complains, when the electric bill goes up everyone complains. We consistantly use more and more energy and want it cheaper and cheaper. Are government is listening to us. Would you vote for a political leader that said we are going to implement the strickest air quality and clean water laws ever devised and your energy bills are going to go up %50 thus eliminating 15 million jobs coupled with wage stagnation?

cryptorsa1001

You can't ask not be flamed then type something like that......

To some degree I agree with you, but this is not just a US problem, the Kyoto Protocol is around 30 years late, and doesn't go far enough to resolve the problem.

I still don't understand the reason we continue to use fossil fuels when there are plenty of alternatives. Apart from the fact that your average consumer/voter may become a little narked at having to purchase or pay to convert their vehicles. As I mentioned before, no administration will risk losing voters even if it means losing the planet.

Intrepid, agreed, the planet can take quite a bashing, but with our assistance we could end up going the way of Mars. And even if the planet remained it would be minus quite a few thousand species of animal, and that is definitely down to us.

Koka, I guess I should expect to get flamed just because I asked not to be flamed.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Koka, I guess I should expect to get flamed just because I asked not to be flamed.

Like a red rag to a bull.

www.envirotruth.org...
www.envirotruth.org...

Subscribe yourself to the truth.