US: thanks for destroying our world!

I think that everyone who signs the kyoto protocal should like up to their end of the deal. The US isnt apart of it and I think that is dumb on our part but why dont you look at all the european countries who signed and find 3 for me that have cut the levels that they agreed to on the protocal. Im willing to bet you cant find 1.

Originally posted by jimbo999
Say what?? The only ignorance being spread here is by those who continue to harp on about Global Warming being 'natural' & 'cyclical' - even though it has been scientifically proven beyond any reasonable doubt, again & again, that it IS indeed man-made CO2 emmisions that is the primary cause.

Umm.....It has definitely NOT been proven by anyone.
Its a theory and not fact. The fact is for every scientist that believes humans are causing GW, I could find one that says the opposite.
But good luck with your theory. People 30 years from now will look back and say about you what we now say about the people 30 years ago who thought we would now be in a ice age.

This...

Originally posted by LiamStemrad
I'm sick and tired of people, or should I say "sheeple" who don't know what they're talking about when it comes to Global Warming, and it's causes.

in contrast to this...

All the planets in our solar system are experiencing warming...is that because of Americans and their SUVs?

Suggests that this...

Think for yourself...and it might not be a bad idea to purchase a helmet to protect that soft head of your's.

is what we call projection.



[edit on 14-12-2007 by melatonin]

The U.S. has every right to refuse to have anything to do with the Kyoto treaty. It is unfair, expensive, biased, and ineffective. While the treaty does require industrialized nations to reduce emissions, the qualifiers for being considered an industrialized nation are skewed. Neither China nor India are considered industrialized despite being some of the 'dirtiest' countries in the world. Since they aren't considered industrialized, they have absolutely NO restrictions placed on them. None!

For the countries that are considered industrialized, the goal they are 'obligated' to reach is set in relation to their emission levels in 1990. To explain why this is a problem: to meet their goal, Russia would actually have to INCREASE their emissions.

Other than being entirely devoid of usefulness, the Kyoto Treaty reduces global emissions to a sort of currency that can be bartered and sold. Countries and businesses are alloted carbon credits for the amount of emissions they can produce. Google 'carbon credits'; last time I checked, $5 would cover a few tons of CO2 emissions.

Does anyone know why the US hasnt signed off on the Kyoto protocols?

There is a very good reason.

Unlike some other countries we actually do keep track of emmisions. There are no "accidental" spills regularly into our rivers.
If you live here when was the last time you actuallly saw smoke coming out of a smoke stack, smoke and not steam.
And while we actually try to lessen our output of all sorts of "pollutants", and do as the latest studies show, other countries continue to get a pass to defile and pollute the landscape to know end.

Some other countries claim to be reducing thier output of CO2,but are in fact just "stashing it away" for now. Instead of actually reducing thier output they are just pumping billions of tons of chilled compressed CO2 into deep ocean trenches, forming vast bubbles of CO2 just waiting to come back and haunt us later.

If youve been to LA and thought the air was dirty try going across the border to TJ, or Juarez or Mexico city and tell me how dirty the air is.
Take a trip through an industrial region of China or India and tell me what you see. Look at their mines and factories and tell me what you see.
Oh ya and while your in china take a swim in that giant cesspool of a lake behind the three gorges dam.
Or the toxic seafronts of the indian industrial cities, or the hundreds of old soviet nuclear cores sitting at the bottom of the baltic, artic and pacific oceans.


People need to quit blaming the US for everything, jeez.

OK, firstly, I'm a scientist, I don't care how we go about it, but I accept we need to reduce the growth of, and reduce overall, our emissions. That is the starting point for all this fuss.

IF we accept that we can't keep on the course we are due to the high risk of future negative impacts, how do we solve it?

We do emit GHGs, we do need to control them in some way. So, at the point we are, we need to reduce. However, we also have other countries that need/want to develop to a similar position where we are.

We need to balance this. So, how do we fix that? How about we accept that we have targets of the ideal net emissions for the future, this will mitigate the most negative effects.

But how does this work? We already need to reduce our emissions, even without undeveloped countries developing.

No one wants to say to a random undevleoped country, 'sorry, we are developed, so you can't emit and, therefore, develop', that would be rather remiss.

How do we solve this?

One way is to say, 'OK, this is the target emissions total for the world, each and every country does have a right to emit to their own current and future needs' and so, we say, 'the fairest way is to give each country a fair share of the ideal emissions pie'.

Now, the Congo doesn't need it's full allocation, but it might in 50 years. So, why don't we allow people to trade their allocation?

Is it ideal? I don't know.

Is it the best way? I don't know.

Will it work? I don't know.

But if we work together, it might...

China and India want a similar type of lifestyle to that which you have. Is it fair to stop them so you can have what you have at their detriment? Is it your right, but not theirs? They had a bit of leeway, time to catch up. Then they come into the fold.

That was the idea I think.

ABE: to the last post, what we are doing in the developed west is passing on our dirty industry to developing countries. Firstly, it's cheaper labour; secondly, it also allows us to reduce emissions; and finally, they also have poorer environmental standards. Overall, it works, as it's all a bit cheaper financially, and we reduce emissions somewhat. But it isn't ideal.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by melatonin]

JIMBO- I agree with you in part:

In 5 years, many hundreds or thousands will die, as happens every year.
Car accidents, natural causes, cancer, etc.

BUT NOT ONE PERSON WILL DIE BECAUSE OF MANKIND'S "CONTRIBUTION" TO GLOBAL WARMING, because mankind does not contribute to global warming.

Now...I commend you for what you think is a warning to us all. Yes, it wouldn't HURT to try and eliminate unnecessay pollution, I'm all for that.
But PLEASE don't fall for Algore's religion, or CULT FOLLOWING claiming that we are doomed because of PAM or SUVs or cow flatulence.

A city on a hill, belching filthy black smoke

Originally posted by JSR
we are not "making ourselves hateful". if we are hated, it is because you hate us.

I have already said that I don't.

you choose the feelings you bestowed upon us.

What tragic naivete. Are you expecting the mass of humanity to display such a high degree of psychological sophistication and emotional maturity? You yourself do not.

we are simply defending ourselves from baseless claims.

Baseless? Dream on.

what our government is doing is called self preservation.

No. It is called self-destruction. The terrible thing is that you will take all of humanity down with you. I suppose that is geopolitical preeminence - of a sort.

accepting a deal just to make you like us is not at all a good idea.

I couldn't agree more. Accepting a deal for the sake of humanity, on the other hand, would be a noble effort for which posterity will venerate you.

Look: stop blowing smoke for twenty minutes and read the whole thread. It's pretty much America against the rest of the world, isn't it? That's not because we hate America; it's because America is in the wrong here. And we don't want to choke to death on your exhaust gases. We know you'll choke, too, but frankly, that isn't much consolation to the rest of us.

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, firstly, I'm a scientist

If true, then you should know better than to believe all the 'humans cause GW' nonesense. Oh well, even scientists let their biases creep into their thought processes.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
If true, then you should know better than to believe all the 'humans cause GW' nonesense. Oh well, even scientists let their biases creep into their thought processes.

You can't even support half of what you spout. I couldn't care what you think, it is of no consequence.

reply to post by Mdv2


Everything you said in your post proves how ignorant to the facts you are. China is the number one emitter of CO2 greenhouse gasses in the world. www.guardian.co.uk... www.guardian.co.uk... You are just recycling the same old Blame the fat lazy American people for the worlds problems ignorance. I would check your info before you post something else, and embarrass your self again.
The fact is that 2 out of 3 Americans who buy a new car purchase a fuel efficient vehicle. The American people are just as worried and active in finding a solution to the worlds pollution problem as any other country.


[edit on 15-12-2007 by Osyris]

Originally posted by Osyris
Everything you said in your post proves how ignorant to the facts Europeans are. China is the number one emitter of CO2 greenhouse gasses in the world.

I think that should be well-established by now.

However, when we use per capita, it's all rather different. If the chinese were emitting per head the same as the US, then we would be really fracked.

USA and China both emit around 20%, IIRC, with China recently taking the lead. But China has around 1.3 billion people, the US, 300 millionish.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
You can't even support half of what you spout.

Thats right because all of it is supported.
Unlike the propaganda dribble you spew.

I couldn't care what you think, it is of no consequence.

I wasn't trying to make you care. I sure hope you don't think your thoughts have consequences.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Thats right because all of it is supported.

Unlike the propaganda dribble you spew.

In your mind.

I wasn't trying to make you care.

I sure hope you don't think your thoughts have consequences.

Nope, but I'm not the one quite divorced from reality. It's the science that's pushing this, not your wishful-thinking and distortion.

That is why what you say is of little consequence. You might as well parade round in your underpants stating you are Napoleon. When you can back your stuff up, then it might be worth taking notice of.

Bonne nuit, monsieur Napoleon

Originally posted by melatonin
Nope, but I'm not the one quite divorced from reality.

Yes, you are. Thats the point!

It's the science that's pushing this, not your wishful-thinking and distortion.

Distorted science is pushing it and its not my wishful thinking, its the thoughts of scientists who oppose the humans causing GW myth.

That is why what you say is of little consequence. You might as well parade round in your underpants stating you are Napoleon. When you can back your stuff up, then it might be worth taking notice of.

The same could be said about your theory, so really you just dissed yourself. And again, everything I have stated has been backed up by reputable scientists.

Why do the global warming freaks always want to try and tell every one else how to live their lives? Can’t you just concentrate on living your own lives and leave the rest of us alone? Why don’t all of you give up your cars, heating your homes, using air conditioners and just quit buying products period. Or you could just send a bullet ripping through your skull and save us all from the pissing and moaning about how we all have too change when you haven’t done anything yourself. And don’t tell me you changed your light bulbs to those ecobulbs as your contribution, which have mercury in them. And let me ask you if you beak an ecobulb and the mercury spills out do you call hazmat to clean it up? And what happens when people start throwing these bulbs away will the mercury start polluting the water again? Then who will you blame for that?

And I notice all you global warming freaks like to blame every one else but yourself.


[edit on 14-12-2007 by UScitizen]

Originally posted by Astyanax
Look: stop blowing smoke for twenty minutes and read the whole thread. It's pretty much America against the rest of the world, isn't it? That's not because we hate America; it's because America is in the wrong here. And we don't want to choke to death on your exhaust gases. We know you'll choke, too, but frankly, that isn't much consolation to the rest of us.

Yeah, okay. Magic "exhaust gasses" are going to fly around the world and choke YOU!

Originally posted by Johnmike

Yeah, okay. Magic "exhaust gasses" are going to fly around the world and choke YOU!

Well, it is choking you. Or at least your relatives in the West Coast of continental US.

Foreign ozone emissions lower U.S. air quality

Airborne kool-aid....

reply to post by Mdv2


As other people have pointed out China and India do not fall under Kyoto and China has passed the USA in terms of output of CO2. So how about we start to go after China as well. I have no problems with better fuel standards and cleaner technology as it just makes sense. However, I'm not going to push some silly standards that will harm USA just to make others happy. There are far too many countries and people in general that would like to the see the USA fall and that is just sad. I've said it far too many times that USA needs to stop giving money to all these other countries and pull our troops out. Oh ya, and when the UN needs man power, let them go looking somewhere else then men and women of the USA. I guess we should also stop being the world's largest donators. It is a known fact that we as a people donate more money than any other country in the world. I would really like to the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN.

As to the constant issues of the SUVs/big trucks, here is a dose of reality. I live in the Middle of Kansas. When we say we are going to town, it's a half hour away and you aren't going to be riding a bike to get there. Nor can my family of six and hopefully to be seven can fit in subcompact. I have a Subaru WRX wagon and no we can't fit in that either. So what is left is our minivan to go anywhere with family and it's getting to the point that we may have to go with the dreaded SUV. Now if I could find an SUV that gets good gas mileage I would get one in a heart beat. Now let me guess that you want to attack me for wanting a large family right? I also should mention that diesel costs more than the 91 octane that my Subaru runs on. So there is no benefit to have a diesel either. And yes its easy to prove the price is higher for diesel where I live.

And what do you plan on doing with all the farmers in my town because most of the city is farm land. Subcompacts aren't going to make it. So besides the SUVs and big trucks what do you plan on having the farmers drive? And if you look at the cost of a diesel engine upgrade for trucks, you would know that most of the time, you can't justify the upgrade. And of course lets mention biodiesel which is a great theory except for the fact that it is driving up the costs of corn which in turns drives up the cost of many food items. Especial the food items that some countries rely on to eat. So they won't be able to eat as much. Biodiesel is not a solution.

I have done my best to replace all the inefficient appliances in my house to help reduce my bills which in turns means less electricity is used. And there are many more of us "Selfish" Americans than you think that have replaced the inefficient appliances. Many new houses are now coming with Energy star badge. Can the same be said for other countries?

GW Bush is right in that we need to have a balance solution of improving technology and encouraging everyone to reduce pollution but not at the cost of our economies. I think you will find that most people agree we need to do something but it needs to be affordable. I'd love to go solar power for my house and have done the research. Solar is too expense and it's not efficient enough, end of story. Slowly we need to make being green "cool" and that is happening, maybe just not fast enough for some people.

It's a pity people don't read the thread in its entireness rather than reading the OP and comment on how much we Europeans hate Americans. This pathetic feeling of self-compassion does not impress anyone nor is it well founded.

However, in many threads I've noticed how chauvinistic and nationalistic Americans are, which is probably a reason why the government is able to do what it does. These people always find a legitimate reason to justify the wrongdoings of America. In this way, people have tried to justify the war on Iraq, the false accusations of Iranian nuclear weapons and now the fact that America fails to participate in solving the problem concerning global warming and pollution.

I myself do hate the ignorant and wasteful way Americans live their lives. I used the SUV as metaphor to elaborate this. Once again by saying Americans I mean a big group, not every single individual.

Regardless of the question whether global warming is caused by human beings or a natural phenomenon, we are responsible for fastening the process. Whether you like it or not, it's been scientifically proven.

It's ignorant to say that solving this problem would harm the US economy. It's so extremely short-sighted to think that investing in the future is a waste and would harm your economy. In the long-term is makes a country less dependent on others, it creates new jobs and it gives our future generations the right of existence that we have as well. People who don't want to solve our problems but want to saddle our children with them are simply selfish.

The facts:

• America wants to lead everything, from politics to wars, but now it comes to global warming it does not want to participate, just to lead -- to be the boss.

• America is one of the biggest developed polluters in the world. The way Americans live their lives is one of the reasons. No car-company forces you to buy a SUV. After all, Ford, for instance, manufactures the very fuel efficient Ford Focus, which is fairly less expensive than an SUV. The American consumer chooses, don't blame the carmakers.

• China and India do need to participate, so far they do, unlike America. What kind of an example is America to other countries when they tell countries such as India to change while they fail to change themselves? Why do we sell technologies to China? Because they are incapable of developing these technologies themselves. The Western modern world needs to set an example as we have the money, knowledge and techniques for realizing innovative solutions, which would help them as well.

• In Germany 11,5% of the energy supply is generated by renewable energy sources, in Denmark over 20%, which are examples that these treaties are not just agreements, it's being realized.

• Kyoto is a joke as it fails to reduce emissions in a considerable way. The fact that America has cars that have an average emission of 260g compared to 140g in Europe is an even bigger joke.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by Mdv2]