Kyoto Protocol
- Thread starter Reverend Blair
- Start date
RE: Kyoto
Is that the reason for the world still being polluted on a mass rate? If so, I think I don't like this type of innovation :?
Is that the reason for the world still being polluted on a mass rate? If so, I think I don't like this type of innovation :?
RE: Kyoto
I know, but on the other hand, the number of cars is still rising, our usage of oil is still expanding, rain forests are still being cut down on a fast rate (without any reconstruction of the forests) ...
I know, but on the other hand, the number of cars is still rising, our usage of oil is still expanding, rain forests are still being cut down on a fast rate (without any reconstruction of the forests) ...
Re: Kyoto
We're all well aware of the inadequacies of Kyoto, Jay, and there is a kernel of truth in your ascertion that the responsibility lies with individual governments. You offer no viable solution, to a very real problem, though. I'm in favour of us - the UK gov't, that is - going it alone on this issue; all we need to do bring our contribution to climate change to an end is to ban the burning of fossil fuels. Simple as that.
Before you ask: No, I haven't taken leave of my senses. Our economy may be based on the combustion of fossil fuels, but banning them would not necessarily lead to the disaster you may well predict. We could easily produce all of the energy we need through wind and solar power, and better efficiency. Furthermore, as oil reserves decline, the price will rise (that's not rocket science, either, Jay). Those economies that get out now will now will have an advantage over those, like the US, who will be held to ransom, as they wait until every last drop is gone.
I, for one, am underwhelmed by your argument that the same corporations who have brought us all to the brink of global catastrophe, can be relied upon to save the day. The Stone Age did not end because of a shortage of stone, Jay: Why wait to abandon the all too destructive Fossil Age?
We're all well aware of the inadequacies of Kyoto, Jay, and there is a kernel of truth in your ascertion that the responsibility lies with individual governments. You offer no viable solution, to a very real problem, though. I'm in favour of us - the UK gov't, that is - going it alone on this issue; all we need to do bring our contribution to climate change to an end is to ban the burning of fossil fuels. Simple as that.
Before you ask: No, I haven't taken leave of my senses. Our economy may be based on the combustion of fossil fuels, but banning them would not necessarily lead to the disaster you may well predict. We could easily produce all of the energy we need through wind and solar power, and better efficiency. Furthermore, as oil reserves decline, the price will rise (that's not rocket science, either, Jay). Those economies that get out now will now will have an advantage over those, like the US, who will be held to ransom, as they wait until every last drop is gone.
I, for one, am underwhelmed by your argument that the same corporations who have brought us all to the brink of global catastrophe, can be relied upon to save the day. The Stone Age did not end because of a shortage of stone, Jay: Why wait to abandon the all too destructive Fossil Age?
Re: RE: Kyoto
So we make cars that burn alcohol or methane and we plant tree etc. Canada's forests are growing. They are larger than they were 10-20 years ago. It is possible to this without signing agreements.
There is enough sugar in the world to produce a lot of alcohol, instead of just producing diabetes.
Rick van Opbergen said:
So we make cars that burn alcohol or methane and we plant tree etc. Canada's forests are growing. They are larger than they were 10-20 years ago. It is possible to this without signing agreements.
There is enough sugar in the world to produce a lot of alcohol, instead of just producing diabetes.
Re: Kyoto
It hasn't so far. It isn't that nobody has been developing the technology, implementing existing technologies would allow us to surpass our Kyoto goals by a massive amount. It is that there has been resistance from corporations and right-wing politicans (Bush, Klein, Harris, Martin, Harper) to the technology being implemented.
Innovation and technology aren't some magic bullet either. They are very much something in which incremental gains are made slowly in several fields and, as such, require efforts from citizens, all levels of government, and corporations.
This goes along with your misguided assertion that science is a religion and scientists are priests. It shows a basic misundestanding of how things work.
It presently takes more energy to create a litre of ethanol than the energy that can be gotten out a litre of ethanol. There is presently an enzyme being developed that would allow ethanol to be made from agricultural waste products such as wheat straw and corn stalks, but right now ethanol production requires only seeds be used.
Our governments and insurance companies, under pressure from various building and energy industries, have been very slow to accept alternative building materials such as straw bales and used tires. Insurance companies have also resisted environtmentally efficient technologies such as roof-top gardens.
The auto industry was caught in a lie last year when they said they could not increase the efficiency of SUVs without drastically raising the price. A group of scientists grabbed an SUV off the lot and dramatically increased its efficency at a minimal cost using off the shelf parts.
Of course the fact that the auto industry has marketed SUVs and trucks to people who don't need them, making vehicles ever-larger and ever less-efficient, shows them to be...and there really is no other way to put this...pig-f***ers. They are marketing the vehicles that are worst for the environment the most and charging a premium for vehicles which have the oldest, least efficient, least safe technology and designs.
Most medium to large-sized cities have mass-transit systems that are a bad joke at best.
A man in Newfoundland invented a catalytic convertor for small engines a decade ago. It would increase the cost of a lawnmower by $15.00, yet small engine makers have not adopted it and the government has not mandated it.
I could go on, Jay. The truth is that corporations have put pressure on governments not to get the innovations on the market though. The Liberals, especially the Martinites, are bad enough for not resisting the presure. Stephen Harper and his goose-stepping luddites would actually go the other way.
It hasn't so far. It isn't that nobody has been developing the technology, implementing existing technologies would allow us to surpass our Kyoto goals by a massive amount. It is that there has been resistance from corporations and right-wing politicans (Bush, Klein, Harris, Martin, Harper) to the technology being implemented.
Innovation and technology aren't some magic bullet either. They are very much something in which incremental gains are made slowly in several fields and, as such, require efforts from citizens, all levels of government, and corporations.
This goes along with your misguided assertion that science is a religion and scientists are priests. It shows a basic misundestanding of how things work.
It presently takes more energy to create a litre of ethanol than the energy that can be gotten out a litre of ethanol. There is presently an enzyme being developed that would allow ethanol to be made from agricultural waste products such as wheat straw and corn stalks, but right now ethanol production requires only seeds be used.
Our governments and insurance companies, under pressure from various building and energy industries, have been very slow to accept alternative building materials such as straw bales and used tires. Insurance companies have also resisted environtmentally efficient technologies such as roof-top gardens.
The auto industry was caught in a lie last year when they said they could not increase the efficiency of SUVs without drastically raising the price. A group of scientists grabbed an SUV off the lot and dramatically increased its efficency at a minimal cost using off the shelf parts.
Of course the fact that the auto industry has marketed SUVs and trucks to people who don't need them, making vehicles ever-larger and ever less-efficient, shows them to be...and there really is no other way to put this...pig-f***ers. They are marketing the vehicles that are worst for the environment the most and charging a premium for vehicles which have the oldest, least efficient, least safe technology and designs.
Most medium to large-sized cities have mass-transit systems that are a bad joke at best.
A man in Newfoundland invented a catalytic convertor for small engines a decade ago. It would increase the cost of a lawnmower by $15.00, yet small engine makers have not adopted it and the government has not mandated it.
I could go on, Jay. The truth is that corporations have put pressure on governments not to get the innovations on the market though. The Liberals, especially the Martinites, are bad enough for not resisting the presure. Stephen Harper and his goose-stepping luddites would actually go the other way.
Re: Kyoto
It’s more than a kernel of truth. It is a matter of fact.
Not so, I offer innovation, education and the will of the consumer, very powerful alternatives to international treaties. We are already well underway to making these dreams come true, all without one signature on an international agreement we most likely can’t keep at the moment anyways, and one that will only create more bickering and pointing of fingers internationally.
I see we agree then on the fundamental point that we need not international agreements to do our part but the will of the people and the right innovations etc.
I see nothing wrong with your assertion other than it will take a bit of time to retool your nation, which I might add has nothing to do with signing an international agreement.
And I am underwhelmed by the assertion that the world will be saved by the signature on an international agreement that no one will abide by and will have either a hard time being policed and/or create some sort of international police force to deal with or worse. Besides if there is a buck to be made by green technologies, corporations will make it, the government will tax it, and we all benefit.
The Stone Age was not ended by the signature of some government, it was through innovation and education of ppl. Corporations are not to be held accountable for acting within the laws of the land they exist in. Governments have ruined this world by not keeping up with achievable standards, by wars and their own undoing. Corporations are along for the ride, and that is why they are scared of say, left leaning governments, because the government holds the power, not the corporation.
Don’t wait; go for it.
I can appreciate where you’re coming from. I care and you care, that’s a great start, but it is not true that my assertions are small minded. I would go so far as to say that believing in Kyoto as an effective solution to what amounts to be a national issue would be small minded, lets not misconstrue that to mean I think your small minded, because that isn’t true.
Hard-Luck Henry said:
It’s more than a kernel of truth. It is a matter of fact.
Hard-Luck Henry said:
Not so, I offer innovation, education and the will of the consumer, very powerful alternatives to international treaties. We are already well underway to making these dreams come true, all without one signature on an international agreement we most likely can’t keep at the moment anyways, and one that will only create more bickering and pointing of fingers internationally.
Hard-Luck Henry said:
I see we agree then on the fundamental point that we need not international agreements to do our part but the will of the people and the right innovations etc.
Hard-Luck Henry said:
I see nothing wrong with your assertion other than it will take a bit of time to retool your nation, which I might add has nothing to do with signing an international agreement.
Hard-Luck Henry said:
And I am underwhelmed by the assertion that the world will be saved by the signature on an international agreement that no one will abide by and will have either a hard time being policed and/or create some sort of international police force to deal with or worse. Besides if there is a buck to be made by green technologies, corporations will make it, the government will tax it, and we all benefit.
The Stone Age was not ended by the signature of some government, it was through innovation and education of ppl. Corporations are not to be held accountable for acting within the laws of the land they exist in. Governments have ruined this world by not keeping up with achievable standards, by wars and their own undoing. Corporations are along for the ride, and that is why they are scared of say, left leaning governments, because the government holds the power, not the corporation.
Hard-Luck Henry said:
Don’t wait; go for it.
I can appreciate where you’re coming from. I care and you care, that’s a great start, but it is not true that my assertions are small minded. I would go so far as to say that believing in Kyoto as an effective solution to what amounts to be a national issue would be small minded, lets not misconstrue that to mean I think your small minded, because that isn’t true.
Re: Kyoto
Kyoto is a way of ensuring that individual nations take responsibility, Jay.
It hasn't worked yet. In fact things have gotten worse in spite of the technologies to make them better being available.
We aren't well underway. We have been stalled, and arguably moving backwards, since the 1980s.
Without the international agreement the impetus to act is not there.
There has been no evidence of that to date, largely because of massive resistance from the corporate community who profit greatly from the oil economy.
But they resist any law that might control them.
Governments should hold the power because governments represent the people. Corporations represent only their own bottom line. Corporations have also been integral to war for at least the last century. If you look at the mess in Iraq, they are the reason for the war.
Your misconstruations of both Kyoto and the role corporations play in our governance are laughable, Jay. The idea that a global problem can be solved without an international agreement is so naive that I question what turnip truck you just fell off of. The assertion that corporations will do what is right goes against all of the evidence we have available to us.
Kyoto is a way of ensuring that individual nations take responsibility, Jay.
It hasn't worked yet. In fact things have gotten worse in spite of the technologies to make them better being available.
We aren't well underway. We have been stalled, and arguably moving backwards, since the 1980s.
Without the international agreement the impetus to act is not there.
There has been no evidence of that to date, largely because of massive resistance from the corporate community who profit greatly from the oil economy.
But they resist any law that might control them.
Governments should hold the power because governments represent the people. Corporations represent only their own bottom line. Corporations have also been integral to war for at least the last century. If you look at the mess in Iraq, they are the reason for the war.
Your misconstruations of both Kyoto and the role corporations play in our governance are laughable, Jay. The idea that a global problem can be solved without an international agreement is so naive that I question what turnip truck you just fell off of. The assertion that corporations will do what is right goes against all of the evidence we have available to us.
Re: Kyoto
We need to be careful not to adapt new technologies before we know what all of the risks or side effects might be. There are huge, huge gains in efficiency possible in building technology, and a lot of different reasons why they are not being adopted quickly: artificially low costs of electricity and fossil fuels, and the lack of a means of assessing the energy efficiency of existing buildings. It is not necessarily corporate resistance here.
We need to be careful not to adapt new technologies before we know what all of the risks or side effects might be. There are huge, huge gains in efficiency possible in building technology, and a lot of different reasons why they are not being adopted quickly: artificially low costs of electricity and fossil fuels, and the lack of a means of assessing the energy efficiency of existing buildings. It is not necessarily corporate resistance here.
Re: Kyoto
There have been documented cases of building material and building supply companies opposing changes to code that would allow straw-bale and used tire houses. These are both proven technologies that have been around since the 1960's.
The thing is that Weyerhauser and the Home Despot don't make a lot of cash if you build a house out of bales. Neither do the people at the insulation companies, the people at the gas company, and so on.
The result is that we cut down trees to build houses, and burn straw because we have nothing else we can do with it. That's just starting to change now.
There have been documented cases of building material and building supply companies opposing changes to code that would allow straw-bale and used tire houses. These are both proven technologies that have been around since the 1960's.
The thing is that Weyerhauser and the Home Despot don't make a lot of cash if you build a house out of bales. Neither do the people at the insulation companies, the people at the gas company, and so on.
The result is that we cut down trees to build houses, and burn straw because we have nothing else we can do with it. That's just starting to change now.
RE: Kyoto
Changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. Since the end of the 17th Century, after the Little Ice Age, the "average" global temperature has been rising at a rate of 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Celsius per 100 years; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare in the mid 70's. Remember that? Scientists warned us that there was absolutely no doubt that we were headed into an ice age caused by human co2 emissions.
As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the result of, not the cause of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this.
Water vapor is 3000 times more effective than CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas. This important fact is rarely mentioned by those attributing climate change to CO2.
Further, the main cause of temperature variation is the sun. Its radiation changes all the time, partly in cyclical fashion. The number of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Computer models predicting global warming are incapable of including the effects of the sun and the clouds. Not only that, they are designed primarily to give the results desired. (Garbage in, garbage out) However, recent studies have indicated that solar activity (sun spots/magnetic field) acting on cosmic ray particles greatly influence the effect of atmospheric water on global temperatures. Currently we are in a period of unusually high sunspot activity.
Real science does not support the current global warming scare.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
Changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. Since the end of the 17th Century, after the Little Ice Age, the "average" global temperature has been rising at a rate of 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Celsius per 100 years; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare in the mid 70's. Remember that? Scientists warned us that there was absolutely no doubt that we were headed into an ice age caused by human co2 emissions.
As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the result of, not the cause of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this.
Water vapor is 3000 times more effective than CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas. This important fact is rarely mentioned by those attributing climate change to CO2.
Further, the main cause of temperature variation is the sun. Its radiation changes all the time, partly in cyclical fashion. The number of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Computer models predicting global warming are incapable of including the effects of the sun and the clouds. Not only that, they are designed primarily to give the results desired. (Garbage in, garbage out) However, recent studies have indicated that solar activity (sun spots/magnetic field) acting on cosmic ray particles greatly influence the effect of atmospheric water on global temperatures. Currently we are in a period of unusually high sunspot activity.
Real science does not support the current global warming scare.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
RE: Kyoto
Sorry Extrafire, all that has been debunked as junk science funded by Exxon. Your link leads to a site that depends heavily on the work of Sally Baliunas, and others who are funded by Exxon.
We're on to your little astroturf schemes, you see.
I have leftover link...I guess I'll just put it here
Sorry Extrafire, all that has been debunked as junk science funded by Exxon. Your link leads to a site that depends heavily on the work of Sally Baliunas, and others who are funded by Exxon.
We're on to your little astroturf schemes, you see.
I have leftover link...I guess I'll just put it here
RE: Kyoto
Actually, the junk science is that which supports global warming and Kyoto. Much of that so-called science, such as the Mann hockey stick graph, has been debunked by real science.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
If you would like to check it out, I'll post the peer reviewed articles that indicate the effect of the sun & galactic rays on atmospheric water.
Actually, the junk science is that which supports global warming and Kyoto. Much of that so-called science, such as the Mann hockey stick graph, has been debunked by real science.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
If you would like to check it out, I'll post the peer reviewed articles that indicate the effect of the sun & galactic rays on atmospheric water.
Re: Kyoto
Yes rev I saw the same link over at freedommion :wink:
Try checking out these websites
www.greenpeace.org
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/
I will have to go and look up the link to my inuit board, they have alot to say about global warming, they get to see it first hand.
Yes rev I saw the same link over at freedommion :wink:
Try checking out these websites
www.greenpeace.org
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/
I will have to go and look up the link to my inuit board, they have alot to say about global warming, they get to see it first hand.
RE: Kyoto
Here's another website to check:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf
and another:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf
Have these been "debunked"?
Here's another website to check:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf
and another:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf
Have these been "debunked"?
RE: Kyoto
Nah, the science behind global warming theory is solid.
The junk science is perpetrated by groups like yours. You've been caught though, and your transgressions have been noted.
Now it is time to get on with trying to minimize the damage.
Nah, the science behind global warming theory is solid.
The junk science is perpetrated by groups like yours. You've been caught though, and your transgressions have been noted.
Now it is time to get on with trying to minimize the damage.
RE: Kyoto
SOLID? It's non-existant.
Did you check out the website that debunks the "hockey stick" graph? Did you examine the links to the papers on sunspot activities? No, you didn't. You should. There you will find real science.
You could also look up the following:
Henrik Svensmark, "Cosmic Rays and Earths Climate," Space Science Reviews 93 (2000): 175
Nigel D. Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, "Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays," Physical Review Letters 85 (2000): 5004-7
Gerhard Wagner et al, "Some Results Relevant to the Discussion of a Possible Link between Cosmic Rays and the Earths Climate," Journal of Geophysical research 106 (2001): 3381-87
E. Palle Bago and C. J. Butler, "The Influence of Cosmic Rays on Terrestrial Clouds and Global Warming," Astronomy and Geophysics 41 (2000): 4.18-4.22
Jasper Kirkby and Ari Laaksonen, "Solar Variability and Clouds," Space Science Reviews 94 (2000): 401
In case you're unfamiliar with the format, these are references for published papers on scientific studies. Have they been "debunked"? No.
You give the impression of someone who has made up his mind and won't look at the factual evidence for fear it will prove him wrong.
SOLID? It's non-existant.
Did you check out the website that debunks the "hockey stick" graph? Did you examine the links to the papers on sunspot activities? No, you didn't. You should. There you will find real science.
You could also look up the following:
Henrik Svensmark, "Cosmic Rays and Earths Climate," Space Science Reviews 93 (2000): 175
Nigel D. Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, "Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays," Physical Review Letters 85 (2000): 5004-7
Gerhard Wagner et al, "Some Results Relevant to the Discussion of a Possible Link between Cosmic Rays and the Earths Climate," Journal of Geophysical research 106 (2001): 3381-87
E. Palle Bago and C. J. Butler, "The Influence of Cosmic Rays on Terrestrial Clouds and Global Warming," Astronomy and Geophysics 41 (2000): 4.18-4.22
Jasper Kirkby and Ari Laaksonen, "Solar Variability and Clouds," Space Science Reviews 94 (2000): 401
In case you're unfamiliar with the format, these are references for published papers on scientific studies. Have they been "debunked"? No.
You give the impression of someone who has made up his mind and won't look at the factual evidence for fear it will prove him wrong.