So the alternative to the Kyoto Accord was what?

Sit around with our thumb up our arse?

To quote one con:

Wow. Just wow.

--------------------

At the end of March 2001, U.S. President George Bush (a former failed oil business man) said that he "opposed the Kyoto Protocol." One of the reasons he cited was because India and China would not be subject to Kyoto measures and would increase their emissions. Yet he ignored that on a per capita basis, India and China's emissions are far less than the United States, which is the worst. Furthermore, the U.S. for over 20 to 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, for just 4 to 5 percent of the world's population. Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment provide quite an explosive critique of Bush's claims:




In fact, these "population centres" which Bush refers to [in his March 2001 announcement] make an insignificant contribution of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, since they have extremely low per capita emissions. The US, on the other hand, contributes to one-fourth of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. The total carbon dioxide emissions from one US citizen in 1996 were 19 times the emissions of one Indian. US emissions in total are still more than double those from China. At a time when a large part of India's population does not even have access to electricity, Bush would like this country to stem its 'survival emissions', so that industrialised countries like the US can continue to have high 'luxury emissions'. This amounts to demanding a freeze on global inequity, where rich countries stay rich, and poor countries stay poor, since carbon dioxide emissions are closely linked to GDP growth. (Emphasis is original) -- The leader of the most polluting country in the world claims global warming treaty is "unfair" because it excludes India and China, Centre for Science and Environment, March 16, 2001.

<a href='http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Kyoto.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Glob...rming/Kyoto.asp</a>

The sky is falling, oh lord, it is falling again. How I remember when the great claim was that we were all going to die in a new ice age. Now we are going to die in hothouse. And to make matters worse, some star in the area might blow out gamma rays and blow our atmosphere away. Oh God, we are all going to DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wryword Wrote:The sky is falling, oh lord, it is falling again. How I remember when the great claim was that we were all going to die in a new ice age. Now we are going to die in hothouse. And to make matters worse, some star in the area might blow out gamma rays and blow our atmosphere away. Oh God, we are all going to DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're far more likely to die in a car wreck than any kind of terrorist attack, so under your logic we shouldn't have our military in the middle east, they should be watching our roads.

HuskieDan Wrote:

Wryword Wrote:The sky is falling, oh lord, it is falling again.&nbsp; How I remember when the great claim was that we were all going to die in a new ice age.&nbsp; Now we are going to die in hothouse.&nbsp; And to make matters worse, some star in the area might blow out gamma rays and blow our atmosphere away.&nbsp; Oh God, we are all going to DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're far more likely to die in a car wreck than any kind of terrorist attack, so under your logic we shouldn't have our military in the middle east, they should be watching our roads.

:rolleyes: So illogical. One's an accident, one's intentional. Next?

joebordenrebel Wrote:So the alternative to the Kyoto Accord was what?

Sit around with our thumb up our arse?

This reminds me of when Arafat walked out of the Peace Accords in 2000, after being offered 99% of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and joint control of Jerusalem. Instead of a counteroffer, intifada began, and 19 zealots began the initial planning stages of crashing airplanes into buildings. (I'm not saying the zealots were connected to the Afafat thing... just pointing out that this was about the time the planning started)

But I digress...

I never said another accord shouldn't have been drawn up, or that a compromise shouldn't have been negotiated. It's just that Kyoto was poorly written, unfair, and vitually unattainable in its draft. Not only did Clinton's own ex-aides admit as much later on, but I think even the Russian started realizing its futility a year or so thereafter.

Quote:Furthermore, the U.S. for over 20 to 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, for just 4 to 5 percent of the world's population.

It's never mentioned that the U.S. accounts for 20 to 25 percent of the world's foreign aid to other countries, all from just 4 to 5 percent of the world's population. A little known factoid that I'm sure gets bypassed at those global meetings. (I made the numbers up, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to this)

(06-08-2004 10:24 AM)joebordenrebel Wrote:  So the alternative to the Kyoto Accord was what?

Sit around with our thumb up our arse?

To quote one con:

Wow. Just wow.

--------------------

At the end of March 2001, U.S. President George Bush (a former failed oil business man) said that he "opposed the Kyoto Protocol." One of the reasons he cited was because India and China would not be subject to Kyoto measures and would increase their emissions.

Bump. Because I have a long memory. Although I really wanted the one where Schad said I got my info from Rush. Anyway, this will have to do.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/w...-revealed/

Quote:For years, green activists have mourned and bemoaned the shortsightedness of the US. How could we sit out from something so noble, so planet saving, so wise as the sacred Kyoto Protocol? We have been listening to the green moral scolds for twenty years: those fat, dumb and ignorant Americans are simply too stupid and too selfish to save Planet Earth.

But a couple of recent studies now seem to show that Kyoto was as big a fraud as the most militant enviro-skeptics ever suspected. And it looks as if the 95 American senators were 100 percent right: the much heralded Protocol was a singularly stupid piece of counterproductive social engineering that encouraged the migration of good jobs to China and other low wage countries — without helping the environment at all.

The left leaning Guardian newspaper in Britain let the cat out of the bag yesterday, reporting that while the EU’s emission of CO2 declined by 17% between 1990 and 2010, this apparent progress was bogus. If you add up the CO2 released by the goods and services Europeans consumed, as opposed to the CO2 thrown off by the goods and services they produced, the EU was responsible for 40% more CO2 in 2010 than in 1990. The EU, as the Guardian puts it, has been outsourcing pollution — and jobs — rather than cutting back on greenhouse gasses.

EU “progress” on greenhouse gasses in the last twenty years was a mirage. And the only reason that the EU can pretend to look green is that it was outsourcing economic growth to countries like China.

Can't say I miss that moonbat.

I understand that the science behind the movie is bogus. But man I guess i'm on the outside on this one as I enjoyed this flick.