| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:15 pm Kyoto Protocol set to take effect |
|
| Quote: |
Kyoto Protocol set to take effect
The Kyoto Protocol, which aims to slow down global warming, will come into effect on Wednesday.
Most of the industrialised world has ratified the treaty, promising to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
A total of 141 countries have signed up, but the US and Australia have abstained, for economic reasons.
The treaty comes into force 90 days after Russia's crucial decision to ratify it in November 2004.
Russia's entry was vital, because for the treaty to work, it has to be ratified by nations accounting for at least 55% of greenhouse gas emissions. This target was only met after Russia joined.
Individual targets
The protocol, which becomes a legally binding treaty at 0500 GMT on 16 February 2005, demands a 5.2% cut in greenhouse gas emissions from the industrialised world as a whole, by 2012. Each country has been set its own individual targets according to its pollution levels.
Growing developing countries China and India are outside the framework, a fact pointed out by US President George W. Bush when he abandoned Kyoto as one of his first acts when taking office in 2001.
"The countries outside the treaty say they will take measures on their own but I wonder if they can work," said Japan's Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura.
"We want to continue urging them to join the protocol."
Environmentalists plan to hold protests around the world, including Kyoto, to mark the treaty coming into force - with many targeting the United States.
The main ceremony to mark the entry of Kyoto will be held in the ancient Japanese capital where the treaty was reached in 1997. Speakers are to include Nobel Peace prize winner Wangari Maathai.
Ms Maathai, an ecologist and Kenya's deputy environment minister, said the Kyoto Protocol would require not just efforts from governments and businesses, but also a change in the way people live.
"One of the reasons why some of the countries don't want to support the Kyoto Protocol is exactly because they don't want to reduce their over-consumptive life pattern," Ms Maathai, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, said.
"One way of reducing that over-consumption is by learning to reuse a lot of the resources that we use and just throw away."
Tough goals
But even for countries that have signed up to Kyoto, meeting the goals could be difficult.
Canada, one of the treaty's first signatories, has no clear plan for reaching its target emission cuts.
Far from cutting back, Canada's emissions have continued to grow, increasing by 20% since 1990.
And Japan is also unsure it will be able to meet its legal requirement to slash emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2012.
"Japan will make all efforts to respect the rules of the Protocol," said Takashi Omura, an official at the Japanese environment ministry. "It will neither be easy nor insurmountable." |
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:19 pm |
|
I'm still angry that the U.S. backed out, but at least it's taking effect. Hopefully we'll see the light and join on our own later.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:21 pm |
|
At least we didn't sign it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:10 pm |
|
Although I support the idea behind the Kyoto protocol, unless it is applicable to everyone I don't see what good it will do . . . the fact that it only includes the industrialised world is worrying. Sure, we produce the majority of greenhouse gases, but that's no reason to effectively let the developing countries 'catch up' . . .
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:37 pm |
|
What we can stop today will change the way the world is going now.
I still think that Bush is an idiot for backing out of it. It was the best plan of action for dropping emission levels in all industrialized countries, which ARE the problem.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:46 am |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | What we can stop today will change the way the world is going now.
I still think that Bush is an idiot for backing out of it. It was the best plan of action for dropping emission levels in all industrialized countries, which ARE the problem. |
Not entirely, but we should not hurt the economy, especially at a time when a boost is still necessary. I, for one, am glad that he did not sign this.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:42 pm |
|
What most people do not realize is that the US is way ahead of most countries in lowering CO2 (even though it still produces a lot), and the US spent billions of dollars doing it with no external coercion.
Other countries should catch up, then we can all proceed to go farther.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:57 pm |
|
Can I get a source on this one?
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:31 pm |
|
Kyoto is a bit out of date now. I agree that it is a good thing, but the emphaise now needs to be on alternative sources of power that are clean and green. These would be far better in the long run.
|
|
|
Five - seveN
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 3567
Location: Shadow Moon
|
| Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:45 am |
|
I agree. But the fact that America didn't sign it is still stupid.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:09 pm |
|
| Five - seveN wrote: | | I agree. But the fact that America didn't sign it is still stupid. |
No, it's not. The Protocol would damage our economy too much. I think that the President made the right decision.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:13 pm |
|
C'mon . . . any change we'll need to make will damage our economy. Unfortunately, most people are too concerned with the short-term effects to see the long-term ones.
We have the capability at the moment to produce power via several cleaner methods, ranging from fusion to solar or wind power, even hydrogen cells. The problem is that none of these are economically viable--in other words, the people think it would cost too much to be nicer to the Earth. So instead, we march onward . . . choosing short-term satisfaction over longer-term stability.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:21 pm |
|
I've seen enough evidence to know that global warming is not an imminent threat. I don't think that it was bad for Bush to not sign this--not bad at all. (Btw, I would believe you had I gone by my teacher's word a few years ago, in a lesson where she hyped Global Warming. Good thing I had my parents to tell me that they hype it, and eventually did my own reasearch.)
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:25 pm |
|
Anyone who says global warming is not a threat is not smart. It is. No one is sure what the impact will be, but it changes our systems and that can't be good. It may not be imminent, but there will be an impact at some point. Also people say it is too expensive to switch at the moment - yes, because people are doing it little by little. But if there was a big change then more money would go into it, and the research would go quicker. It would push the price down as more was developed.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:27 pm |
|
I'm not just talking about global warming. 
Cars are not good for you, period. They do pollute the air, regardless of their involvement in global warming. Cities are not good for health, both physical and mental.
Oil is not going to last indefinitely, it is an exhaustible energy source--and an expensive and messy one as well. If we wait until we run out, we'll be in dire straits.
Yet if we switch from oil, it would indeed hurt the economy, especially the Power Elite, and we wouldn't want that, would we. 
::coughs from his obvious taint of Huxley and ducks::
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:29 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | Anyone who says global warming is not a threat is not smart. It is. No one is sure what the impact will be, but it changes our systems and that can't be good. It may not be imminent, but there will be an impact at some point. Also people say it is too expensive to switch at the moment - yes, because people are doing it little by little. But if there was a big change then more money would go into it, and the research would go quicker. It would push the price down as more was developed. |
Sorry, I know it's a threat, but it's not a dangerous one, nor imminent. I've done tons of research, including from the site www.globalwarming.org, a credible site. It's not a grave threat--not for at least a hundred years.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:32 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Jeremy wrote: | | Anyone who says global warming is not a threat is not smart. It is. No one is sure what the impact will be, but it changes our systems and that can't be good. It may not be imminent, but there will be an impact at some point. Also people say it is too expensive to switch at the moment - yes, because people are doing it little by little. But if there was a big change then more money would go into it, and the research would go quicker. It would push the price down as more was developed. |
Sorry, I know it's a threat, but it's not a dangerous one, nor imminent. I've done tons of research, including from the site www.globalwarming.org, a credible site. It's not a grave threat--not for at least a hundred years. |
As far as we're aware for now. I'm not for one moment saying that it will happen like in The Day After Tomorrow, but there could be other problems. Also I agree with HH, the change will have to be made at some point. Why not sooner than later? Will cost about the same but one option doesn't hurt the envirmonent.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:33 pm |
|
::counts on his fingers:: If I play my cards right, I could still be alive 100 years from now (and so could you). At the rate medical technology is progressing, a century doesn't really seem very long. 
So you're saying that you're willing to pollute the world of tomorrow in order to save costs in the world of today? Just leave the eventual problem of global warming to the future?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:37 pm |
|
Look, I'm all for expanding our technology over the course of the next 20 to 30 years or so, so as to better protect the environment, but I am not for they Kyoto Protocol.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:42 am |
|
Why? Because a group of countries realize the impact things like global warming is having on the environment ad decided to try and stop it?
And I'm sorry, that site, Globalwarming.org, I cant seem to understand even why you thought that was anything you could use. It's created by the National Consumer Coalition, or a branch of theirs called the Cooler Heads Coalition. There is not one scientist on there. Not one. It's a group of buisnesses who are telling you "This is bad! Dont believe global warming is a problem! They're Hyping it!"
Look: http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=562
| Quote: | | "Cooler Heads" members are non-profit, non-partisan, public policy, taxpayer, activist, seniors, and consumer groups: |
I especcially like these:
| Quote: | "Cooler Heads" members� quotes on global warming policies
"It�s d�j� vu all over again. First it was the bogus health care �crisis.� Now it is the imaginary climate crisis. Then the solution was Hillarycare � a Rube Goldberg bureaucratic monstrosity dressed up in the rhetoric of markets, flexibility, and innovation. Now the solution is Climatecare � an even more audacious power grab decked out in the same deceptive rhetoric. I am confident the American people will see through and reject this latest assault on their freedom and living standards."
-- Marlo Lewis, vice-president of policy of the Competitive Enterprise
"President Clinton�s global climate change proposals will waste taxpayer money on pork-barrel corporate subsidies and will impose a �stealth tax� through its emissions permit systems which will increase the cost of energy for every American."
-- Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform
"Despite President Clinton�s attempt to play down the �pain factor� in his proposals to put U.S. energy-use under UN authority, the facts cannot be denied -- it will mean energy rationing or massive tax hikes or some of both. Remember the Carter years under the Carter Energy Plan? Millions of Americans sat in long lines for their turn at the fuel pump. The Clinton Energy Plan could produce similar results but its impact will be more widespread. Small businesses are America�s job creators. This proposal puts millions of American jobs at risk by unduly and unfairly burdening small businesses with vast new costs and stealth taxes."
-- Karen Kerrigan, president of Small Business Survival Committee
"Policies disguised as middle-of-the-road instead will be leading us down the road to national industrial policy and a planned economy. The losers will be American consumers, who will bear the brunt of restrictions on energy use in their everyday lives. They�ll have to pay the costs, not just in higher prices, but in a drastically lower standard of living."
-- Frances B. Smith, executive director of Consumer Alert
"The proposal that the Clinton Administration finally put on the table is long on idealism but frighteningly short on the specifics of how much it is going to cost American consumers. In fact, one might say, it leaves American consumers, particularly seniors, out in the cold."
-- Thair Phillips, CEO of the Seniors Coalition |
Idiocy and ignorance wrapped up in a few paragraphs.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:05 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | C'mon . . . any change we'll need to make will damage our economy. Unfortunately, most people are too concerned with the short-term effects to see the long-term ones.
We have the capability at the moment to produce power via several cleaner methods, ranging from fusion to solar or wind power, even hydrogen cells. The problem is that none of these are economically viable--in other words, the people think it would cost too much to be nicer to the Earth. So instead, we march onward . . . choosing short-term satisfaction over longer-term stability. |
Most of the companies who converted to meet or exceed EPA regulations since 1990 have actually become more profitable. Sadly, too many business leaders are focused on the next quarter.
Even though I strongly wish we would take advantage of renewable energy, there are certain real-world constraints facing most current solutions.
Solar: Until we acheive 80% or more conversion efficiency (of the total solar spectrum), it would require too much material and area to provide the needs of industry. It is, however, a reasonable way to power homes.
Space solar might do the trick, but unless we have truly routine space access and in-suti materials, no one will risk the expense.
Wind: Like solar, it works well on a small scale in certain areas, but it will never turn the wheels of industry.
Fusion: Even though some groups have reached break-even in total energy, no one has shown sustained "burning". Big industry and the government don't really want fusion becuase it really would be "too cheap to measure" (and also tax). There is a technique called "focus fusion" that looks promising, but nobody is selling fusion energy just yet, and the hurdles that remain are not merely financial.
Hydrogen: The big lie. Without fusion for esentially free energy (for splitting water), hydrogen is going to come from the oil industry, and creating it from hydrocarbons will release the same CO2 that burning the hydrocarbons would. So all that will change is that big business (and government, through taxes) will charge us more for our energy needs.
Besides that, there aren't enough platinum-group metals on or in the planet to make 1/10th the number of fuel cells we would need just to run our vehicles, much less industry. (There are a couple of fuel-cell technologies that can use regular hydrocarbons, and get better efficiency than a natural-gas plant. They will probably see wide use.)
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:10 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | I'm not just talking about global warming.
Cars are not good for you, period. They do pollute the air, regardless of their involvement in global warming. Cities are not good for health, both physical and mental.
Oil is not going to last indefinitely, it is an exhaustible energy source--and an expensive and messy one as well. If we wait until we run out, we'll be in dire straits.
Yet if we switch from oil, it would indeed hurt the economy, especially the Power Elite, and we wouldn't want that, would we.
::coughs from his obvious taint of Huxley and ducks:: |
Essentially correct, but recent evidence strongly hints that natural processes (both biological and geological) are constantly producing natural gas. There will (for many centuries) be a certain amount of natural gas available. Not enough for current needs, but it's not true to say that we'll run out.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:16 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: |
As far as we're aware for now. I'm not for one moment saying that it will happen like in The Day After Tomorrow, but there could be other problems. Also I agree with HH, the change will have to be made at some point. Why not sooner than later? Will cost about the same but one option doesn't hurt the envirmonent. |
The problem is that as long as industry has hydrocarbons to use, they'll use them. They won't invest in an entierly new infrastructure (plants, transport, distribution, etc.) until that option is cheaper than using the hydrocarbons remaining. They see it from the other side: Why change over now, when we have to later?
The ironic thing is that when they do change, they will tout it like they voluntarily changed, just because they're such nice guys.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:13 pm |
|
Indeed, although I read that there is platinum on the moon we could possible start manufacturing for hydrogen cells.
Once again that brings us to space travel. The moon itself doesn't have that many useful minerals . . . but think about the asteroid belt . . . sure it would be dangerous, but the stars offer a lot of resources.
At least we won't go the Dilbert method . . . ("All mammals produce a certain amount of methane gas each day . . . now if only we could harness that . . . I admit the apparatus may be uncomfortable at first . . .") 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:20 pm |
|
I stand by my position and all the evidence that I've found. There's no way you'll change that, and there's no way you'll change yours. I'll have my last say: It is good that we did not sign this.
Btw,
http://www.nationalcenter.org/TP38.html
| Quote: | Global Warming "Consensus" Claim Doesn't Hold Water
Scientists Simply Don't Agree That Global Warming is Occurring
Talking Points on the Environment #38
Journalists increasingly are reporting that scientists have reached a consensus on global warming. Close examination of the evidence cited to support these claims, however, reveals that such claims simply don't hold water:
Claim: Scientists agree that failing to respond to the threat of global warming now could prove disastrous for some parts of the globe.
Fact: A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and the GKSS Forschungszentrum found that 67% of those surveyed either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that global warming will occur so quickly that lack of preparation could prove disastrous.
Claim: Thousands of scientists have signed letters and petitions alerting the public to the dangers of global warming.
Fact: One of the letters often cited to support this claim was issued by Ozone Action. A close examination of that letter revealed that only 10% of the letter's signatories had backgrounds in climate science. Worse, landscape architects, a gynecologist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine are among the signatories.
Claim: 2,500 United Nations-sponsored scientists have concluded that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the temperature of the planet.
Fact: This claim is based on the fact that the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report suggesting a "discernible human influence" on climate change. While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting the report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.
Claim: The majority of scientists believe global warming is a process underway and that it is human-induced.
Fact: A 1992 Gallup survey of climatologists found that 81 percent of respondents believed that the global temperature had not risen over the past 100 years, were uncertain whether or not or why such warming had occurred, or believed any temperature increases during that period were within the natural range of variation. Further, a 1997 survey conducted by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44% to 17%.
Sources: National Policy Analysis Paper #177 (The National Center For Public Policy Research) and Eco-Sanity (The Heartland Institute).
Talking Points on the Economy: Environment #38, published by The National Center for Public Policy Research, February 8, 1998 |
--EDIT--
Oh, and check out http://www.globalwarming.org/science_archive.htm.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
