• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

The Kyoto Protocol!

The Kyoto Protocol!


  • Total voters
    1

Roland

Active Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
331
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
Is it good or bad???

Well I think it is bad, and by saying that i by no means do not care about the environment. This question, is as in so many other cases is VERY (left) biosed over here in Europe. However i will be very interested in the result of this poll. After all, we are all petrol-heads :D.

When i have the chance to throw a litte shit on those sneeky bastards the democrats in the US i will of course take it... :p When Clinton signed the protocol in 1997 he already knew it was actually illegal. The Byrd-Hagel resolution (which was accepted with the numbers 95-0 in the US senate) states that the US shall not sign any protocol which will result in weakening the american economy. The Kyoto protocol clearly does this. Clinton was just scoreing some show-off points. This is in large part why G.W. Bush draw back the US support for the protocol (thank god). But i bet u lefties on the board didn't know that, because it just always got to be good old Bush's fault, doesn't it :p
 
Is it the perfect solution? No.

But is it better to do something better than nothing?
Depends if you believe climate change is occuring. I personally think so and at least it's a step forward in the right direction.
 
Step in the right direction??? It conflicts with the one factor which makes the world better for each and every day: competition on the market!!! U can say that this protocol monopolizes discharges by the fact that each and every country gives out an limited amount of discharge rights. How do u think newly established companies possible can get them selves into the market with these regulations. And the small companies are the ones which create competition on the market and by that better wealth all over the world. The kyoto protocol does not even deal with the most important problem of them all in this question: the poor countries. They have no pressure at all to even in the future follow the protocol. That is VERY strange cause many of these countries are developing and increacing their populations in enourmous speeds. Soon it's they who pollute the most, not us in the rich countries. And isn't it better to prevent things from happening rather than waiting for them to happen and then correct them :bangin: .
 
It's gonna fuck us up in the ass so badly in here (canada) that I have to vote no, although I'm all for saving the environnement before buisness, but it was just a dumb move from Martin.
 
Buissness produce waste anyway, and that will eventually have to be cleaned up. So if there were no regulations it will turn into a new industrial revolution. A whole bunch of dirty shit

Look at Russia, their country is screwed up because the Kremlin in that day didn't care about waste, they just wanted production at any cost. Well unfortunately there was even more waste since it was communist. And also a bi-product of that is they didn't report some of their really bad wastes. The Cherynoble accident (Or however you spell it) was not reported by the Russians, but the Sweedish. They noticed high amounts of radiation which wasn't from their reactors.

Adressing developing countries, they should be allowed to waste because their economies couldn't handle restrictions. Yes, their populations are exploding, but they will eventually level off. Look at the population of Europe, its now decreasing, and has been increasing since the Roman times. America's population is not rising that much either. More developed countries have lower fertility rates because the mortality is lower. In developing countries people nutrition is low so people have lots of births to make up for high mortality.

And i WISH we could prevent things from happening... such as give developing countries good technology, food water. etc... but... no incentive. Who wants to give money away when its not going to return to them, only under charity. But the amount of charity to solve that problem must be more than hundreds of millions.
 
this is a petrolhead forum... who gives a shit about the environment... i bet more than half the people had their Catyletic (sp?) converter taken out of their exhaust system
 
I mean c'mon... you think these Toyota Prius's and Honda Insights are going to save the world?... I've read an article that only ~5% of the worlds pollution is contributed from Automobiles... we should first start by finding a new source of eletricity or work on making Nuclear Powerplants safer
 
I recently watched a BBC documentary about Global Dimming. It basically says that the smog is preventing the earth from heating up. It's an interesting documentary, if you can find it you should download/watch it.
 
andyhui01 said:
I mean c'mon... you think these Toyota Prius's and Honda Insights are going to save the world?... I've read an article that only ~5% of the worlds pollution is contributed from Automobiles... we should first start by finding a new source of eletricity or work on making Nuclear Powerplants safer

No, personally I think those cars will create more waste. The Kyoto Accord is a step in the right direction (to clean the air) but it shouldn't destroy the economy.

And yes cars do create less polution. It's the factories that need to clean themselves up. We need business to create less packaging waste as well.

Renewable resources?? I'm trying to convince my parents to put up a couple of panels on the roof of our house. I believe our government gives you a rebate for something like that. BC is already using wind power. Canada is so bare that they could put up wind power generators where land is suitable for anything else. I still have to read the Kyoto Accord myself to find out what it actually does.
 
andyhui01 said:
I've read an article that only ~5% of the worlds pollution is contributed from Automobiles... we should first start by finding a new source of eletricity or work on making Nuclear Powerplants safer

That's just incorrect information, traffic causes way more than 5%.
Nuclear Powerplants are already safe in countries that can afford to maintain them. There is the technology to make powerplants safe but it's expensive and every country is not ready to pay the price.
 
The Kyoto Protocol seems to be everyone's solution to global warming and green-house gases. However, it is so unrealistic. Essentially what it tries to do is ask the top eight (or 16... cant remember) industrial nations in the world to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they release by twenty percent... I believe that is the correct number... with the turn of the decade. Bill Clinton was the man who got the US into this mess and thankfully Bush got out us out (along with Russia which pulled its support, and I believe China did as well). Its a great concept, but it has no hope of actually working.
 
MPower said:
The Kyoto Protocol seems to be everyone's solution to global warming and green-house gases. However, it is so unrealistic. Essentially what it tries to do is ask the top eight (or 16... cant remember) industrial nations in the world to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they release by twenty percent... I believe that is the correct number... with the turn of the decade. Bill Clinton was the man who got the US into this mess and thankfully Bush got out us out (along with Russia which pulled its support, and I believe China did as well). Its a great concept, but it has no hope of actually working.

It's not a solution but it's something.
Bush has shown that he doesn't give a damn about conserving or protecting the atmosphere so it's hardly a merit to him that he got USA out of the Kyoto Protocol.
And the Russia joined back to Kyoto Protocol months ago.
 
As previously mentioned, I think the Kyoto protocol is a bad thing precisely because it only would regulate emissions by developed nations mainly. For instance, Brazil puts out a crapload of emissions but would have no incentive to cut that back, whilst we here in the USA would suffer the burden of it while they do nothing, and maybe pollute more. Mexico is the same way - check out how bad the pollution is in poor developing nations, realize the government has not real power to enforce any kind of environmental legislation, and then you will see that Kyoto is just a political tool for the Left...
 
gtrietsc said:
As previously mentioned, I think the Kyoto protocol is a bad thing precisely because it only would regulate emissions by developed nations mainly. For instance, Brazil puts out a crapload of emissions but would have no incentive to cut that back, whilst we here in the USA would suffer the burden of it while they do nothing, and maybe pollute more. Mexico is the same way - check out how bad the pollution is in poor developing nations, realize the government has not real power to enforce any kind of environmental legislation, and then you will see that Kyoto is just a political tool for the Left...

The Kyoto Protocol affects most to the developed countries and that is just because the produce so much more pollution than 3rd world countries.
USA is the world's biggest CO2 producer and it's obvious that those who pollute most must cut back most.
 
static said:
MPower said:
The Kyoto Protocol seems to be everyone's solution to global warming and green-house gases. However, it is so unrealistic. Essentially what it tries to do is ask the top eight (or 16... cant remember) industrial nations in the world to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they release by twenty percent... I believe that is the correct number... with the turn of the decade. Bill Clinton was the man who got the US into this mess and thankfully Bush got out us out (along with Russia which pulled its support, and I believe China did as well). Its a great concept, but it has no hope of actually working.

It's not a solution but it's something.
Bush has shown that he doesn't give a damn about conserving or protecting the atmosphere so it's hardly a merit to him that he got USA out of the Kyoto Protocol.
And the Russia joined back to Kyoto Protocol months ago.
Do you have an article stating that Russia joined back to the Kyoto Protocol? Because last I heard, they were out. And just having something doesnt get you anywhere. The pure logicistics of the idea just dont work. It is a bad idea and should be scraped.

EDIT: checked, apparently they ratified the document. Regardless, it is still irrelevant. Stand for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone!
 
The Kyoto Protocol is not the solution to global warming/climate change.

Higher and higher crude oil prices will do the trick.

I can put my money where my mouth is by saying that $80+US/barrel can be seen by the end of 2006.
 
MPower said:
And just having something doesnt get you anywhere. The pure logicistics of the idea just dont work. It is a bad idea and should be scraped.

Yes, the Kyoto Protocol costs billions of euros and dollars but it's the first step that we are taking to slow down the Co2 pollution. Kyoto alone won't solve or prevent anything but the protocols and future generations applying those protocols after Kyoto will have more effect.

CanadianLoonie: oil price is one good guideline. And gladly the price will go up as the oil reserves go fewer. It's just not clear if it's too late by then.
 
Top