Second Round for Kyoto Rat's
- Thread starter Tonington
- Start date
This might be cause at least for some optimism.
http://www.worldviews.org/press_releases/oct2_press_release.htm
http://www.worldviews.org/press_releases/oct2_press_release.htm
If they removed the "developing" nation exemptions and forced governments to accept proven technology as it stands(I say that because successive Canadian governments seem to want to re-invent the wheel with tech they aquire and then just have to morf into something new).
Add a section that directly addresses and stops the clear cutting of life sustaining forests.
I would be more apt to give it a chance.
Add a section that directly addresses and stops the clear cutting of life sustaining forests.
I would be more apt to give it a chance.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The American public shows strong support for a broadly multilateral foreign policy and prefers working through international institutions and treaties.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Substantial majorities of Americans support the United States participating in the International Criminal Court (71%), the Kyoto Protocol on global warming (64%), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (81%) and the treaty banning the use of land mines (75%).[/FONT]
- [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe the UN needs to be strengthened, and an equal proportion support having UN members each commit 1,000 troops to a rapid deployment force that the UN Security Council can call up on short notice when a crisis occurs.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Fifty-one percent of Americans support giving the UN the power to fund its activities by imposing a small tax on such things as the international sale of arms or oil.[/FONT]
- [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Findings released on September 4 showed that Americans and Europeans are much more willing to use force in a variety of scenarios, including an invasion of Iraq, when there is UN approval and multilateral involvement. [/FONT]
Ouch, but I have never been one to just blindly follow the crowd.
OK, all aggression aside. I swear. This is a serious question.
Did you see any thing in any of the links I posted that gave you cause to rethink, even the most smallest portion of your opinion on Kyoto?
You should note, that I have a tendancy to use capital letters and lower case on certain words. If you noticed, you might have noticed which words i do it to. Words or titles I think have relivance or substance, get a capital. Thusly, anything I fail to see value in does not. So you may want to back track and see how many times I have used a lower case on Kyoto. I haven't.
It is a relivant piece, it is not without some merit, but i fail to see the over all bennefit with it as it is written. I also fail to see how Harpers attendance at this summit will help the powers that be come to some agreement on needed changes.
btw, I was an NCO, I do realise I have a tendency to order, I apologise.
OK, all aggression aside. I swear. This is a serious question.
Did you see any thing in any of the links I posted that gave you cause to rethink, even the most smallest portion of your opinion on Kyoto?
You should note, that I have a tendancy to use capital letters and lower case on certain words. If you noticed, you might have noticed which words i do it to. Words or titles I think have relivance or substance, get a capital. Thusly, anything I fail to see value in does not. So you may want to back track and see how many times I have used a lower case on Kyoto. I haven't.
It is a relivant piece, it is not without some merit, but i fail to see the over all bennefit with it as it is written. I also fail to see how Harpers attendance at this summit will help the powers that be come to some agreement on needed changes.
btw, I was an NCO, I do realise I have a tendency to order, I apologise.
This is something I meant to look up this morning and forgot about it
Does that look like Howard was simply hanging on to the American coat tails?
Kyoto needed to be much improved and hopefully, the second round will do that. Like I said earlier, consensus is the biggest thing Kyoto had. I think it gives "developing" countries too big of a break. Maybe that can be addressed as well in the second round.
Does that look like Howard was simply hanging on to the American coat tails?
Kyoto needed to be much improved and hopefully, the second round will do that. Like I said earlier, consensus is the biggest thing Kyoto had. I think it gives "developing" countries too big of a break. Maybe that can be addressed as well in the second round.
Ok, now that you put it like that, I have common ground with you and I will concede that having a consensus, is a good thing. On that issue I while change my vote. I am beginningto see a larger picture here.
But i still stand firm on my opinions that the Protocol, as it is written is flawed, the mode of engineering that went into it is fundamentally flawed, the convience in which it would have delevered credits and exemptions, is flawed. It on the whole is not a negative policy, only where it breaks down into the individuality of Nations and how they will act upon it, does it begin to become an issue with me.
Does that help you get a great image of my position?
You'll be happy to know that some of them are Bear. The whole issue of deforrestation and trading of carbon credits has some innovative thinking for moving forward. Some economists have said perhaps a way to curb the contribution from deforrestation is actually through trading of carbon credits. An acre of Amazonian pasture can be as low as $200/hectare, compared to $7,500 for the equivalent of carbon credits from that piece of land.
The carbon credits still offer a way out for the rich polluting nations who aren't cutting their own emissions fast enough, and that is still a problem. But if they can be used to fund the cutbacks to forrests then that is indeed a good step to take.
The carbon credits still offer a way out for the rich polluting nations who aren't cutting their own emissions fast enough, and that is still a problem. But if they can be used to fund the cutbacks to forrests then that is indeed a good step to take.
This would be Unpopular, because I shiver at the Idea, but clearly things need to be done to reduce our emissions. We need some tough changes popular or not.
Smaller cars, unless licened otherwise by a government agency. For big compnays that need hualing trucks....but no one should get something they dont need, trucks, SUVs should be a nesecity for the person. Also we need to have better road sytems, and much lower Speed limits in some areas, unless on cross National highways we should have a limit of 90km/h when traveling, yes it will be slower but untill we find a better fuel it needs to be done. Cars should be locked up at 100km/h nothing faster...yes it will be boreing but we will need to sacrifice our love for fast cars, instead of sacrificeing our and our childrens futures for fast cars. 4 CYLINDER CARS ALL THE WAY. They will be cheaper, and easyier to make. and we cold make it so they would be simple to customize the looks so having a car that is a look alike wont be to annoying. Just a few Ideas...strict but would be more than worth it.Also better Bussing sytems and Buses.
Smaller cars, unless licened otherwise by a government agency. For big compnays that need hualing trucks....but no one should get something they dont need, trucks, SUVs should be a nesecity for the person. Also we need to have better road sytems, and much lower Speed limits in some areas, unless on cross National highways we should have a limit of 90km/h when traveling, yes it will be slower but untill we find a better fuel it needs to be done. Cars should be locked up at 100km/h nothing faster...yes it will be boreing but we will need to sacrifice our love for fast cars, instead of sacrificeing our and our childrens futures for fast cars. 4 CYLINDER CARS ALL THE WAY. They will be cheaper, and easyier to make. and we cold make it so they would be simple to customize the looks so having a car that is a look alike wont be to annoying. Just a few Ideas...strict but would be more than worth it.Also better Bussing sytems and Buses.
Is the FCX a hybrid?....................No it's not, I just googled it. I wonder what the price will be. They are saying it will have a range of 160 to 200 km. Probably a good little city car.
http://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060108FCX/
This is a good site, I like the look of this model much better than the current hydrogen vehicles produced in asia. They gotta sex it up if they want to sell in North America. This model will also have added fuel capacity, a range of about 560 km, lots of electronic equipment. It will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40%, and expected to reduce cost of energy for car and home by 50%! Only drawback is you need a natural gas hook-up. All the natural gas in Atlantic Canada goes to New England...
Almost forgot the price, I can't find it anywhere, but I'm guessing it will be real expensive. It come swith a generator that can power your home! Just a guess but maybe $40-50,000.
This is a good site, I like the look of this model much better than the current hydrogen vehicles produced in asia. They gotta sex it up if they want to sell in North America. This model will also have added fuel capacity, a range of about 560 km, lots of electronic equipment. It will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40%, and expected to reduce cost of energy for car and home by 50%! Only drawback is you need a natural gas hook-up. All the natural gas in Atlantic Canada goes to New England...
Almost forgot the price, I can't find it anywhere, but I'm guessing it will be real expensive. It come swith a generator that can power your home! Just a guess but maybe $40-50,000.
How can we even think to set limits on developing nations? On a per capita basis we emit an order of magnitude more CO2 and other pollutants as they do. Let's concentrate on addressing the real culprits, which are first world countries, especially North Americans.
I have to agree with Bear here. The problem isn't developing nations like in Africa where they produce less than 3 % of global emissions, the problem is nations like India and China, who have signed on, but are not under the same obligations of natoins like those in Europe and North America. They are producing a large portion of the emissions as well, and their contribution iss increasing. I don't even view them as developing nations anymore, how can you when nations like Malawi or some other poor nation are in the same category?
But Tonington, don't you agree that per capita emissions is the only real measuring stick we should use? Should Canada emit no more than Lichenstein? or no less than the U.S.? and why is it ok for us to emit around ten times more than the average Chinese citizen? Of course China is a problem, but only because they are rapidly catching up to the West's standard of living (and the emissions that come with it). The focus should be two-pronged: to significantly reduce our per-capita emissions in the West, and export clean technologies to China.