NEWS: Australia And USA To Stand Against Kyoto Endorsed Countries In Montreal

Wow quite a few individuals lashing out against the kyoto protocal, I get the feeling most of the resentment has been enduced by fear of the unknown. Greenhouse gas reductions through simple actions taken domestically and by big industry will also create opportunities for investment in new advanced technologies, which is exactly why oil & gas companies will go to great difficultly to deny (i.e search political puppets). On a sectoral basis, the energy industry and the transportation sector contribute the greatest share of emissions. It doesn't take a genius to understand that Western Economies depend heavily on the taxation of consummable natural resources (i.e Natural gas, unleaded fuel etc). Transportation accounts for almost half of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily due to automobile use. I see no harm in fully developing, and deploying renewable fuel sources and/or low-emission automobile technology? If you're anti-kyoto protocal, you should ask yourself a simple question as to why society must remain dependant on oil & gas to power your vehicle. America, and all could easily meet the kyoto demands by implementing advanced transportation technologies. Geeze, throw in a few "sinks" such as Forests and agricultural soils that remove and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and America "the good" begins to inherit the benefits of kyoto's credits.

I'm sure no one here is aware of Kyoto Mechs? I attended a Kyoto seminar, so I have a websters dictionairy of information about the protocal (professional requirement)

* The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a way to earn credits by investing in emission reduction projects in developing countries.

* Joint Implementation (JI) is a way to earn credits by investing in emission reduction projects in developed countries that have taken on a Kyoto target.

* International Emissions Trading (IET) will permit developed countries that have taken on a Kyoto target to buy and sell credits among themselves.

I believe Americans are being spooked by Kyoto's different Mechanisms by elected politicians who seek to serve the mentioned above.

Negsir.

The Kyoto Protocol goes about things the absolute wrong way. They are trying to reduce emissions instead of providing a way to utilize these already dangerously present gasses in a useful manner. The Kyoto Protocol is a gimmic. It will not reduce emissions enough to affect a significant change. It has been around too long to be only a "starting place" for further changes. It is a stop-gap gimmic to allow the world's developing and developed nations more time to ignore the very real threats upon us (mostly due to changes out of our control [i.e. volcanic emissions] and nuclear energy [the power of stars was never meant to be unleashed on our planet]), while acting the part of satisfying the environmentally concious individuals around the globe.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's not only the hard-core slash/burn mentality that thinks that the Kyoto accord is bs. It's also a large part environmentalists. There are better ways to handle this problem.

www.truehealth.org...

Originally posted by Archangel76
IMHO, the reason behind the USA and Australia's decision to stang against Kyoto are quite reasonable on the face of it - the treaty DOES unfairly exempt 'developing' nations like India and China from emissions controls. This means that nations like China can contrinue their breakneck economic growth whilst the US is tied down by treaty obligations,

Archangel nailed it. Absolutely.
Kyoto isn't good for America, and America's enemies know it.
THAT's why they are pushing it onto America. Not because
of concern over the environment. If they really were concerned
about the environment, they'd be pushing China and India
no matter what their 'developing' status was! A true environmentalist
would have India and China starting out doing things correctly
environmental-wise ... not excusing them until they are built up
and then dropping the environmental bomb on them.

Nope. Kyoto isn't good for America and honestly,
Kyoto isn't about the environement even though
it's proponents want people to think it is.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Kyoto isn't good for America, and America's enemies know it.
THAT's why they are pushing it onto America.

Kyoto is a voluntary accord. No one can or is pushing America to sign. Who is America's enemy that has signed Kyoto, Canada, Barbados?

I'm curious, who on this list is America's enemy? I'd like to know who is supposed to be behind this attempted destruction of America via green house gas control.

Originally posted by zappafan1
Here's but one paper. ) Please note that while this concerns the economic impact of the U.S., it would have a like effect on other countries as well).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published in Regulation (The CATO Review of Business and Government), vol.22, no.1, p.54, 1999.

CATO is not concerned with the economic impact on the U.S. They are worried about the economic impact on Exxon (who has made a ridiculous profit last quarter.) CATO is funded by Exxon, Shell, Tenneco Gas, and the American Petroleum Institute.


I agree Kyoto is flawed, but it is a start. Definitions should be broadened to include countries like China and India. But really though much of the emissions in those countries come from people cooking supper while in 'developed' nations they come from SUVs.

When a country is behind 36.1% of the world's GHG emissions something must be done, with or with out Kyoto. Fortunately as I've mentioned before 25% of the US is complying with Kyoto, and that is great .

The oil companies avg. 16 cents per dollar on their investment, whereas WalMart makes 4 cents on the dollar, but most banks make 18 to 20 cents per dollar, and credit card companies make up to 28 cents on the dollar.
So who's gouging?
As I posted earlier, since 1977 and the end of 2004, the oil companies profited $640 billion dollars.
State and federal taxes were $1.4 Trillion dollars... for doing absolutely nothing.
Again.... who's gouging?

Besides, the "windfall" profits this year don't take into account all the years their profit was closer to that of WalMart. Any idea how much it costs to build a refinery? Or do exploration?

The CATO institute is not "owned" by anyone:

Board of Directors
* K. Tucker Andersen, Senior Consultant, Cumberland Associates LLC
* Frank Bond, Chairman, The Foundation Group
* Edward H. Crane, President, Cato Institute
* Richard J. Dennis, President, Dennis Trading Group
* Ethelmae C. Humphreys, Chairman, Tamko Roofing Products, Inc.
* David H. Koch, Executive Vice President, Koch Industries, Inc.
* John C. Malone, Chairman, Liberty Media Corporation
* William A. Niskanen, Chairman, Cato Institute
* David H. Padden, President, Padden & Company
* Lewis E. Randall, Board Member, E*Trade Financial
* Howard S. Rich, President, U.S. Term Limits
* Frederick W. Smith, Chairman & CEO, FedEx Corporation
* Jeffrey S. Yass, Managing Director, Susquehanna International Group, LLP
* Fred Young, Former Owner, Young Radiator Company

Even if what you proposed were true, who would they go to for data and information about energy/fuel etc ...... Kraft Foods? Dollar General? Sears?

At no point did I say that CATO is owned by anyone. I said who they get their funding from.

Here is more detailed information on CATO.
(All information can be found via the link on my last post.)

-From 2001 to 2004 they have received $90,000 from Exxon.

- CATO's stated Objectives are "The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government" They are Capitalists not Environmentalists.

-Tucker Andersen, Senior Consultant, is a large donor to Republican and causes including the Reason Foundation. The Reason Foundation slams Hydrogen Cars, that use less gasoline (oil), calls California's Greenhouse plan a bad policy, and has several articles that slam Kyoto.


Where do they get their data from? Well, in the case of the article posted earlier, they got it from the book "THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY" Written by Robert O. Mendelsohn and James E. Neumann .
Of coarse it will have an economic impact; our economy depends far too much on oil. But it is up to the people and the government to make it positive.
The reality is the Ecosystem is more important than the Economy, not the other way around.

On a lighter note. We could always blame the cows and demand they sign the protocal too

www.abc.net.au...
In New Zealand the Government in 2003 proposed a flatulence tax, with methane emitted by farm animals responsible for more than half the country's greenhouse gases.

Very funny Mayet.

Good thread too, BTW. Hope you will keep it updated through the conference.

I'm particularly interested in what China is up to, and prepared to commit to the Accord.

"The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) (a.k.a. Global Climate Treaty), meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 agreed to set mandatory limits and timetables. Politicians were told that the science is "settled" and "compelling," when in reality, scientific experts still strongly disagree on the evidence. Considering the economic damage from energy rationing and taxation, the plans are drawing strong negatives in the U.S. Congress. Without firm evidence that an appreciable warming will occur as a result of human activities, or that its consequences would be harmful, there can be no justification for bureaucratic remedies or any action beyond a "no-regrets" policy of energy efficiency and market-based conservation.
www.sepp.org...
Home page with much info: www.sepp.org...

For the last thirty years our government has used tax dollars to promote new energy technology and power sources.
Hydrogen cars will make their way into the mainstream, but the infrastructure is not there, and will not be for many years.
It requires more energy from coal/oil to produce the same amount of BTU's per pound of Hydrogen.
If the oceans rise because of "global warming" (they won't) and we lose California and/or FloriDUH.... well..... I'm still trying to figure out the downside to that.