Hall of Fame Member
Posts: 10,505 
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
February 16th, 2006, 08:01 PM
OSLO (Reuters) - Backers of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol renewed their pleas to the United States on Thursday to do more to fight global warming, even though their own records are patchy in the year since the pact went into force.
Many experts said that time to slow a rise in temperatures widely blamed on burning fossil fuels was running out. A British report said the nation might resemble the tropics by 3000, with rising seas from melting ice swamping the coasts.
The United Nations, the European Commission and many environmental groups all urged tougher action beyond Kyoto, which entered into force on February 16, 2005 and runs to 2012.
"We need the full participation of all major emitting countries -- such as the United States, the world's leading economy, but also the world's leading polluter," European Commissioner Stavros Dimas said in marking the anniversary.
He warned that the world needed to strengthen action to contain global warming or would "run out of time to contain climate change." Most scientists say warming will bring a more chaotic climate with more heatwaves, droughts and floods.
NASA has said that 2005 was the warmest year at the earth's surface since records began in the 1860s. Another recent study showed that concentrations of greenhouse gases were at the highest in 650,000 years.
President George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, saying it would cost U.S. jobs and wrongly excluded developing nations from an overall goal of cutting industrialized nations' emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, released mainly by burning fossil fuels, were about 16 percent above 1990 levels in 2004. But Kyoto signatories Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Canada are all doing even worse.
NOT ON TRACK
"Countries are not on track to reach even their modest Kyoto targets, despite growing recognition that we are already facing dramatic consequences as a result of climate change," said Catherine Pearce at environmental group Friends of the Earth.
Washington agreed at U.N. talks in Montreal, Canada, in December to take part in a non-binding world dialogue about new ways to combat climate change. And Kyoto's backers agreed to talks about what to do after a first period runs out in 2012.
The U.N. climate change office said this week that Kyoto nations were on target to cut emissions by 3.5 percent compared with 1990 levels by 2012 and could reach the 5.2 percent goal by introducing extra measures.
On Thursday, the British Environmental Agency released a report saying decisions in the next 25 years would be critical.
"We are running out of road on decision making -- unless we dramatically change the use of fossil fuels we will be committing future generations to the most severe impacts of climate change," said Barbara Young, head of the agency.
By 3000, it said historically chilly Britain could resemble the tropics. Seas could be 11.4 meters higher due to melting polar ice, swamping cities like London.
After snubbing Kyoto, Bush has stressed promoting new technologies, such as wind and solar power, to break what he has called a U.S. addiction to oil.
Some experts say Bush's plan lacks a spur to force industry to cut down and say that markets for trading carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, are the best way to encourage cuts.
In the European Union, carbon dioxide in a market for industrial pollution allowances traded at 26.9 euros ($31.96) per tonne, reflecting growing belief in the scheme, and up from about 7 euros a year ago.
OSLO (Reuters) - Backers of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol renewed their pleas to the United States on Thursday to do more to fight global warming, even though their own records are patchy in the year since the pact went into force.
Many experts said that time to slow a rise in temperatures widely blamed on burning fossil fuels was running out. A British report said the nation might resemble the tropics by 3000, with rising seas from melting ice swamping the coasts.
The United Nations, the European Commission and many environmental groups all urged tougher action beyond Kyoto, which entered into force on February 16, 2005 and runs to 2012.
"We need the full participation of all major emitting countries -- such as the United States, the world's leading economy, but also the world's leading polluter," European Commissioner Stavros Dimas said in marking the anniversary.
He warned that the world needed to strengthen action to contain global warming or would "run out of time to contain climate change." Most scientists say warming will bring a more chaotic climate with more heatwaves, droughts and floods.
NASA has said that 2005 was the warmest year at the earth's surface since records began in the 1860s. Another recent study showed that concentrations of greenhouse gases were at the highest in 650,000 years.
President George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, saying it would cost U.S. jobs and wrongly excluded developing nations from an overall goal of cutting industrialized nations' emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, released mainly by burning fossil fuels, were about 16 percent above 1990 levels in 2004. But Kyoto signatories Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Canada are all doing even worse.
NOT ON TRACK
"Countries are not on track to reach even their modest Kyoto targets, despite growing recognition that we are already facing dramatic consequences as a result of climate change," said Catherine Pearce at environmental group Friends of the Earth.
Washington agreed at U.N. talks in Montreal, Canada, in December to take part in a non-binding world dialogue about new ways to combat climate change. And Kyoto's backers agreed to talks about what to do after a first period runs out in 2012.
The U.N. climate change office said this week that Kyoto nations were on target to cut emissions by 3.5 percent compared with 1990 levels by 2012 and could reach the 5.2 percent goal by introducing extra measures.
On Thursday, the British Environmental Agency released a report saying decisions in the next 25 years would be critical.
"We are running out of road on decision making -- unless we dramatically change the use of fossil fuels we will be committing future generations to the most severe impacts of climate change," said Barbara Young, head of the agency.
By 3000, it said historically chilly Britain could resemble the tropics. Seas could be 11.4 meters higher due to melting polar ice, swamping cities like London.
After snubbing Kyoto, Bush has stressed promoting new technologies, such as wind and solar power, to break what he has called a U.S. addiction to oil.
Some experts say Bush's plan lacks a spur to force industry to cut down and say that markets for trading carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, are the best way to encourage cuts.
In the European Union, carbon dioxide in a market for industrial pollution allowances traded at 26.9 euros ($31.96) per tonne, reflecting growing belief in the scheme, and up from about 7 euros a year ago.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
February 16th, 2006, 08:23 PM
The Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce international emissions; lowering the emissions in one nation over the other is of no consequence to the treaty; even if one nation goes up, if three go down, the aims of the treaty could be completed. The Accord is established in the interest of the world community, rather than any nation in particular.
The Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce international emissions; lowering the emissions in one nation over the other is of no consequence to the treaty; even if one nation goes up, if three go down, the aims of the treaty could be completed. The Accord is established in the interest of the world community, rather than any nation in particular.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,838
Location: Independent Palestine
Location: Independent Palestine
February 16th, 2006, 09:17 PM
I always thought nuclear energy was a big pollution thingy, but now I don't know.
They do have a ton of windmills in Alberta, maybe if people used stuff like that we might reduce pollution.
But those new electric cars, I wouldn't bu one of them because it looks like a coffin.
Quote:
It doesn't help Canada when we have a poorer record than America, but they aren't really interested in the environment it isn't a burning issue, even though they didn't like Martin and his comments at the U.N conference in Montreal.
but if america is doing better than us, shouldnt they be telling us to clean up our act? btw whats your view on this.
what's better
nuclear energy or an incinerator?
what's better
nuclear energy or an incinerator?
I always thought nuclear energy was a big pollution thingy, but now I don't know.
They do have a ton of windmills in Alberta, maybe if people used stuff like that we might reduce pollution.
But those new electric cars, I wouldn't bu one of them because it looks like a coffin.
House Member
Posts: 3,401
Location: USA
Location: USA
February 16th, 2006, 09:30 PM
I find that Canada is doing worse in emisions is amazing. I am sort of stunned. When the Kyoto Treaty was put into play the US took it on the chin in this forum. Now a year later it seems that even w/o being a signatory of this treaty we are still doing better.
What happened there?
I am against it becuase nations like China get a free ride as a developing nation. How China convinced the world that they are "developing" is beyond me. They have one of the best economies in the world. I have my theories though.
Lets see what you folks think.
There is no way that China was going to slow down their industry for Kyoto. Not a chance. So instead of beating up on them they were given a "developing" nation status and that allows the Kyoto backers to save face. It is much easier to bash the US than China. China will just shrug off critisism and smile. Now I believe that China said it will revisit Kyoto in 2010 and decide if they will take part. That gives them years before they come to the floor and say...
"We are still developing our nation. We are not ready to sign on to Kyoto."
I find that Canada is doing worse in emisions is amazing. I am sort of stunned. When the Kyoto Treaty was put into play the US took it on the chin in this forum. Now a year later it seems that even w/o being a signatory of this treaty we are still doing better.
What happened there?
I am against it becuase nations like China get a free ride as a developing nation. How China convinced the world that they are "developing" is beyond me. They have one of the best economies in the world. I have my theories though.
Lets see what you folks think.
There is no way that China was going to slow down their industry for Kyoto. Not a chance. So instead of beating up on them they were given a "developing" nation status and that allows the Kyoto backers to save face. It is much easier to bash the US than China. China will just shrug off critisism and smile. Now I believe that China said it will revisit Kyoto in 2010 and decide if they will take part. That gives them years before they come to the floor and say...
"We are still developing our nation. We are not ready to sign on to Kyoto."
Hall of Fame Member
Posts: 10,505
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
February 16th, 2006, 09:44 PM
Jersay
I have a suggestion for you before making claims the US doesn't care about the environment. Look up your beloved NDP policies on the environment, one of the things they propose are loans and tax breaks for those that use solar energy to power their homes and businesses, do you know when the US implemented this policy? In the 70's with a 30 year plan, so do yourself a favor and stop listening to demagoguery, what you know is very little and half of that are lies.
The US has made advances with the environment and spends the most money on R&D, the UK coming a distant second.
Jersay
I have a suggestion for you before making claims the US doesn't care about the environment. Look up your beloved NDP policies on the environment, one of the things they propose are loans and tax breaks for those that use solar energy to power their homes and businesses, do you know when the US implemented this policy? In the 70's with a 30 year plan, so do yourself a favor and stop listening to demagoguery, what you know is very little and half of that are lies.
The US has made advances with the environment and spends the most money on R&D, the UK coming a distant second.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,838
Location: Independent Palestine
Location: Independent Palestine
February 16th, 2006, 09:46 PM
I like the NDP but I never said their environmental record or policy is good. If you want that in Canada, that is why people vote Green.
Quote:
Jersay
I have a suggestion for you before making claims the US doesn't care about the environment. Look up your beloved NDP policies on the environment, one of the things they propose are loans and tax breaks for those that use solar energy to power their homes and businesses, do you know when the US implemented this policy? In the 70's with a 30 year plan, so do yourself a favor and stop listening to demagoguery, what you know is very little and half of that are lies.
The US has made advances with the environment and spends the most money on R&D, the UK coming a distant second.
I have a suggestion for you before making claims the US doesn't care about the environment. Look up your beloved NDP policies on the environment, one of the things they propose are loans and tax breaks for those that use solar energy to power their homes and businesses, do you know when the US implemented this policy? In the 70's with a 30 year plan, so do yourself a favor and stop listening to demagoguery, what you know is very little and half of that are lies.
The US has made advances with the environment and spends the most money on R&D, the UK coming a distant second.
I like the NDP but I never said their environmental record or policy is good. If you want that in Canada, that is why people vote Green.
Hall of Fame Member
Posts: 10,505
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
February 16th, 2006, 09:52 PM
Don't look shocked and don't believe me, do you own research and you will see, I am not saying we don't have a way to go, all I am saying is cutting production and strangling the economy is not the way to go about it, alternative forms of energy is going to be the key, and not just one form but rather a combination of all technologies, hydrogen fuel cells, wind, solar, hydro, it's the only way we will make a difference on this planet.
Don't look shocked and don't believe me, do you own research and you will see, I am not saying we don't have a way to go, all I am saying is cutting production and strangling the economy is not the way to go about it, alternative forms of energy is going to be the key, and not just one form but rather a combination of all technologies, hydrogen fuel cells, wind, solar, hydro, it's the only way we will make a difference on this planet.
House Member
Posts: 3,401
Location: USA
Location: USA
February 16th, 2006, 09:57 PM
Anyone want to take a swipe or add to my China theory?
How can they possibly be given a developing nations status?
How can Kyoto supporters turn a blind eye to them and think with all of the facts that they are clearly one of the most advanced nations on earth. They have an active space program for Pete's sake. How can that be a developing nation?
Anyone want to take a swipe or add to my China theory?
How can they possibly be given a developing nations status?
How can Kyoto supporters turn a blind eye to them and think with all of the facts that they are clearly one of the most advanced nations on earth. They have an active space program for Pete's sake. How can that be a developing nation?
Genius
Posts: 953
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
February 16th, 2006, 10:21 PM
Quoting
I have a suggestion for you before making claims the US doesn't care about the environment. Look up your beloved NDP policies on the environment, one of the things they propose are loans and tax breaks for those that use solar energy to power their homes and businesses, do you know when the US implemented this policy? In the 70's with a 30 year plan, so do yourself a favor and stop listening to demagoguery, what you know is very little and half of that are lies.
The US has made advances with the environment and spends the most money on R&D, the UK coming a distant second.
good points
I have a suggestion for you before making claims the US doesn't care about the environment. Look up your beloved NDP policies on the environment, one of the things they propose are loans and tax breaks for those that use solar energy to power their homes and businesses, do you know when the US implemented this policy? In the 70's with a 30 year plan, so do yourself a favor and stop listening to demagoguery, what you know is very little and half of that are lies.
The US has made advances with the environment and spends the most money on R&D, the UK coming a distant second.
Newbie
Posts: 41
February 17th, 2006, 07:36 PM
nyone want to take a swipe or add to my China theory?
How can they possibly be given a developing nations status?
How can Kyoto supporters turn a blind eye to them and think with all of the facts that they are clearly one of the most advanced nations on earth. They have an active space program for Pete's sake. How can that be a developing nation?
i agree, china has sent people into space. if they can do that then they dont need our money that we give them to build their country. not to mention that they have a black cloud (pollution)that hangs around vancover.
on a somewhat good note, apparently their economy cant keep growing and sooner or later they will hit a nice rut and be brought back to reality
nyone want to take a swipe or add to my China theory?
How can they possibly be given a developing nations status?
How can Kyoto supporters turn a blind eye to them and think with all of the facts that they are clearly one of the most advanced nations on earth. They have an active space program for Pete's sake. How can that be a developing nation?
i agree, china has sent people into space. if they can do that then they dont need our money that we give them to build their country. not to mention that they have a black cloud (pollution)that hangs around vancover.
on a somewhat good note, apparently their economy cant keep growing and sooner or later they will hit a nice rut and be brought back to reality
