[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't get where you guys get the idea that China is such a strong power. Despite having the largest population, I believe they aren't even ranked in the top 10 GDP's in the world.[/QUOTE]
They might not even be ranked tenth, that's true. But they, with the US, compose the first and third ranked countries in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, because they don't have the technology to have cleaners on the smoke stacks at coal producing plants, etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I'll put in my two cents...
The Kyoto protocol is such a load of crap because it's only used by first world countries... so since China and the majority of South America and Africa are all exempt, we're not accomplishing too much.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Are there environmental problems? Sure. Are most environmental issues rooted in politics, rather than the environment? Hell yes! Modern environmentalism is based on sensationalism and fear - not science.[/QUOTE]
Truer words have rarely been spoken.
The Kyoto protocol is such a load of crap because it's only used by first world countries... so since China and the majority of South America and Africa are all exempt, we're not accomplishing too much.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Are there environmental problems? Sure. Are most environmental issues rooted in politics, rather than the environment? Hell yes! Modern environmentalism is based on sensationalism and fear - not science.[/QUOTE]
Truer words have rarely been spoken.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'll put in my two cents...
The Kyoto protocol is such a load of crap because it's only used by first world countries... so since China and the majority of South America and Africa are all exempt, we're not accomplishing too much.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Are there environmental problems? Sure. Are most environmental issues rooted in politics, rather than the environment? Hell yes! Modern environmentalism is based on sensationalism and fear - not science.[/QUOTE]
Truer words have rarely been spoken.
[/QUOTE]
did the yanks sign the agreement?
The Kyoto protocol is such a load of crap because it's only used by first world countries... so since China and the majority of South America and Africa are all exempt, we're not accomplishing too much.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Are there environmental problems? Sure. Are most environmental issues rooted in politics, rather than the environment? Hell yes! Modern environmentalism is based on sensationalism and fear - not science.[/QUOTE]
Truer words have rarely been spoken.
[/QUOTE]
did the yanks sign the agreement?
Global warming is a load of bollocks.
My dad was listening to the radio and some scientist said that global warming is a load of crap and the governmant is just using it as an excuse so they can get votes to get into parliament - well the English government I think...
Anyways, apparently it is like the ice age - the southern hemisphere will start getting the rain and the northern hemisphere will get the sun - it's just nature taking it's course.
Well that is apparently what a scientist said... *shruggs*
My dad was listening to the radio and some scientist said that global warming is a load of crap and the governmant is just using it as an excuse so they can get votes to get into parliament - well the English government I think...
Anyways, apparently it is like the ice age - the southern hemisphere will start getting the rain and the northern hemisphere will get the sun - it's just nature taking it's course.
Well that is apparently what a scientist said... *shruggs*
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't get where you guys get the idea that China is such a strong power. Despite having the largest population, I believe they aren't even ranked in the top 10 GDP's in the world.[/QUOTE]
They might not even be ranked tenth, that's true. But they, with the US, compose the first and third ranked countries in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, because they don't have the technology to have cleaners on the smoke stacks at coal producing plants, etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm [/QUOTE]
I was only referring to what Sherwood was saying. Any time someone in the States is worried about losing worldwide political power to a country like China, they really don't know what's going on.
They might not even be ranked tenth, that's true. But they, with the US, compose the first and third ranked countries in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, because they don't have the technology to have cleaners on the smoke stacks at coal producing plants, etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm [/QUOTE]
I was only referring to what Sherwood was saying. Any time someone in the States is worried about losing worldwide political power to a country like China, they really don't know what's going on.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]joxerthemighty wrote: [/QUOTENAME]did the yanks sign the agreement?[/QUOTE]
Umm... kinda...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol#United_States
Turns out I was wrong about Kyoto... apparently the majority of the world is in on it.
Umm... kinda...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol#United_States
Turns out I was wrong about Kyoto... apparently the majority of the world is in on it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]joxerthemighty wrote: [/QUOTENAME]did the yanks sign the agreement?[/QUOTE]
Umm... kinda...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol#United_States
Turns out I was wrong about Kyoto... apparently the majority of the world is in on it.
[/QUOTE]Umm... thats what i thought...
Umm... kinda...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol#United_States
Turns out I was wrong about Kyoto... apparently the majority of the world is in on it.
[/QUOTE]Umm... thats what i thought...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]joxerthemighty wrote: [/QUOTENAME]did the yanks sign the agreement?[/QUOTE]
Umm... kinda...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol#United_States
Turns out I was wrong about Kyoto... apparently the majority of the world is in on it.
[/QUOTE]
So, in reality no.
The president can sign whatever he wants in the way of international agreements. But it's not binding to the US until it's ratified by congress. Since it hasn't been ratified, then the US doesn't consider it binding, even though the signature is there. Meaning, we don't follow it.
Umm... kinda...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol#United_States
Turns out I was wrong about Kyoto... apparently the majority of the world is in on it.
[/QUOTE]
So, in reality no.
The president can sign whatever he wants in the way of international agreements. But it's not binding to the US until it's ratified by congress. Since it hasn't been ratified, then the US doesn't consider it binding, even though the signature is there. Meaning, we don't follow it.
Personally, I think the United States has a pretty rational argument for not being bound by such an international protocol.
Also, on a side note, recycling - who'd have thought it was so utterly wasteful and pointless? Hell, I never did. But it is.
Also, on a side note, recycling - who'd have thought it was so utterly wasteful and pointless? Hell, I never did. But it is.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Personally, I think the United States has a pretty rational argument for not being bound by such an international protocol.
Also, on a side note, recycling - who'd have thought it was so utterly wasteful and pointless? Hell, I never did. But it is.[/QUOTE]
By any chance, is this the same argument against the US being subject to international law?
Also, on a side note, recycling - who'd have thought it was so utterly wasteful and pointless? Hell, I never did. But it is.[/QUOTE]
By any chance, is this the same argument against the US being subject to international law?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Personally, I think the United States has a pretty rational argument for not being bound by such an international protocol.
Also, on a side note, recycling - who'd have thought it was so utterly wasteful and pointless? Hell, I never did. But it is.[/QUOTE]
By any chance, is this the same argument against the US being subject to international law?[/QUOTE]
International politics is a complicated issue, and it's never very cut and dry. For now, we'll focus on the Kyoto Protocol.
First off, we can argue how the Protocol is bullshit. It assumes a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Professional scientists can't develop conclusive opinions on the matter, so are we supposed to take the word of a bunch of professional POLITICIANS? You and I all know that that's a load of humbug.
Now we can examine the role of the United States in this issue. That link that Sir GH put up surely says it all, so let me highlight a few points:
A unanimous vote from 95% of the Senate stated that enacting a protocol that did not have binding targets and timetables for both developing AND industrialized nations would be harmful to the economy. Perhaps surrendering freedom for certain arbitrary political goals is commonplace around the world, but it is completely against the classically liberal foundation of our country. Of course, we shouldn't sacrifice freedom for things such as security (Republicans) or gun control (Democrats), but that's yet another fucking tirade I can go on about.
The treaty is clearly flawed. Exemption for China and India? Bullshit. Is the option to not enact an arbitrary treaty actually no option at all? International politics is a lot like a pick up soccer game between youngsters. Now, if everyone had to play while carrying a cement block except for Ghandi and Bruce Lee, I don't think you'd get too many players. Especially when they find out that Ghandi hates black people.
If you're going to get people to willfully sign a binding contract, you better be damned sure they're going to benefit from it, or at least practice your signature forgery skills.
Also, on a side note, recycling - who'd have thought it was so utterly wasteful and pointless? Hell, I never did. But it is.[/QUOTE]
By any chance, is this the same argument against the US being subject to international law?[/QUOTE]
International politics is a complicated issue, and it's never very cut and dry. For now, we'll focus on the Kyoto Protocol.
First off, we can argue how the Protocol is bullshit. It assumes a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Professional scientists can't develop conclusive opinions on the matter, so are we supposed to take the word of a bunch of professional POLITICIANS? You and I all know that that's a load of humbug.
Now we can examine the role of the United States in this issue. That link that Sir GH put up surely says it all, so let me highlight a few points:
A unanimous vote from 95% of the Senate stated that enacting a protocol that did not have binding targets and timetables for both developing AND industrialized nations would be harmful to the economy. Perhaps surrendering freedom for certain arbitrary political goals is commonplace around the world, but it is completely against the classically liberal foundation of our country. Of course, we shouldn't sacrifice freedom for things such as security (Republicans) or gun control (Democrats), but that's yet another fucking tirade I can go on about.
The treaty is clearly flawed. Exemption for China and India? Bullshit. Is the option to not enact an arbitrary treaty actually no option at all? International politics is a lot like a pick up soccer game between youngsters. Now, if everyone had to play while carrying a cement block except for Ghandi and Bruce Lee, I don't think you'd get too many players. Especially when they find out that Ghandi hates black people.
If you're going to get people to willfully sign a binding contract, you better be damned sure they're going to benefit from it, or at least practice your signature forgery skills.
Thanks MusicMan. What you said does have sound logic to it.
But I think the problem the scientists are running into as far as not being able to have conclusive opinions about the issue is more about which amounts of which specific gases are the most harmful. The scientists who know that global warming is a reality are all in agreement that it's the bundle of gases collectively called "Greenhouse Gases" that is if not causing, then exacerbating the problem. Implementing something that would reduce the emissions has never been said to have been a bad idea, except by those who deny Global Warming in the first place...and they are getting smaller in number by the day. So a conclusion doesn't really need to be reached, if all are in agreement that limiting the emissions would be a first step, if not the final solution.
As I pointed out with China earlier, they are the third largest producer, and I was unaware they were given an exception in the agreement. Yes, that is crap. I realize they probably argued that they need the time to build up the base economy under it to then switch over to the cleaner stuff, but that's a flawed argument because it assumes they will make a more expensive switch once they have the money for it. Why not start off with the cleaner burning stuff? I'm sure other countries who signed the protocol will help by providing aid, scientists and technology to do that.
As far as hurting the US economy, I knew that was the main argument against it. First off, I may not know much about economics (I've never even taken a course in it) but I do know that the US economy, contrary to popular belief, could take the impact that the Kyoto Protocol would inflict. We are still an economic superpower, and could take a fairly significant hit before things started getting noticeably worse at any level. We are just spoiled babies who like it the way it is.
Also, prioritize between having a strong economy as a country and having a functional planet to live on. Politics has never been a forward-thinking thing, which is unfortunate since that's one of the major job descriptions that politics has (in theory).
Plus, I just don't buy the excuse that "International Law of any kind is a good thing, as long as the US doesn't have to follow it because we are a superpower and it will damage/tie the hands of us in some way." This is a self-centered and arrogant view to hold. The US is part of the international community, and therefore it should be held accountable to international laws and treaties (since we do have a voice in them). Also, one could make the argument that the US is the one nation that NEEDS to be held to these standards, since we are unarguably in the position to inflict the most damage on the world if we so choose.
But I think the problem the scientists are running into as far as not being able to have conclusive opinions about the issue is more about which amounts of which specific gases are the most harmful. The scientists who know that global warming is a reality are all in agreement that it's the bundle of gases collectively called "Greenhouse Gases" that is if not causing, then exacerbating the problem. Implementing something that would reduce the emissions has never been said to have been a bad idea, except by those who deny Global Warming in the first place...and they are getting smaller in number by the day. So a conclusion doesn't really need to be reached, if all are in agreement that limiting the emissions would be a first step, if not the final solution.
As I pointed out with China earlier, they are the third largest producer, and I was unaware they were given an exception in the agreement. Yes, that is crap. I realize they probably argued that they need the time to build up the base economy under it to then switch over to the cleaner stuff, but that's a flawed argument because it assumes they will make a more expensive switch once they have the money for it. Why not start off with the cleaner burning stuff? I'm sure other countries who signed the protocol will help by providing aid, scientists and technology to do that.
As far as hurting the US economy, I knew that was the main argument against it. First off, I may not know much about economics (I've never even taken a course in it) but I do know that the US economy, contrary to popular belief, could take the impact that the Kyoto Protocol would inflict. We are still an economic superpower, and could take a fairly significant hit before things started getting noticeably worse at any level. We are just spoiled babies who like it the way it is.
Also, prioritize between having a strong economy as a country and having a functional planet to live on. Politics has never been a forward-thinking thing, which is unfortunate since that's one of the major job descriptions that politics has (in theory).
Plus, I just don't buy the excuse that "International Law of any kind is a good thing, as long as the US doesn't have to follow it because we are a superpower and it will damage/tie the hands of us in some way." This is a self-centered and arrogant view to hold. The US is part of the international community, and therefore it should be held accountable to international laws and treaties (since we do have a voice in them). Also, one could make the argument that the US is the one nation that NEEDS to be held to these standards, since we are unarguably in the position to inflict the most damage on the world if we so choose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Yes, these scientists are small in number, but they provide incredibly valid points.
Is global warming bad? So many people seem to exacerbate this issue. At most it would indicate a 10 degrees Fahrenheit increase by 2100, and at least a 2.5 degree increase. Is that really worth all the paranoia it's causing? Some scientists even believe that an increase in temperature can be BENEFICIAL.
How much of the temperature increase can be attributed to greenhouse gases vs. solar variation vs. etc.? Even those scientists most certain that greenhouse gases play a role still have no idea.
===
So what exactly are we fighting for? Patrick Moore, one of the founders of GREENPEACE, has such to say on the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29#Global_warming
===
Another thing to note is that despite not actively enacting the Kyoto Protocol, the United States is still environmentally consciencious, and is doing its best to reduce emissions and dependence on fossil fuels.
===
You said the United States is an economic superpower and you're right. We have the largest economy in the world, with a GDP of $12 trillion. For a little perspective, Japan is second with $4.6 trillion, then Germany with $2.7 trillion, the U.K. with $2.1 trillion, and France with $2.0 trillion. Obviously enacting the Kyoto Protocol is not going to bankrupt our nation.
We DO need to strike a balance between a strong country and a strong environment, and our country has been doing that very well over the past century. However, you have to consider that global warming isn't really going to make our planet dysfunctional. Therefore, you're really asking for a country and all its citizens, businesses, etc. to give up their liberty and economy for something about as uncertain as the lottery.
===
International law is just like any other kind of law. There are good laws and there are bad laws, and they are almost always politically fueled. However, international law is different because it is an agreement than a decree. We don't "agree" to pay our taxes. We fucking have to! Haha, so essentially, laws require consequences. Until the world is a little more united and shares the same ideals and beliefs, any kind of international "supreme law" is going to be borderline useless, and comparable to that pick up soccer game I mentioned before.
To keep the debate focused, the Kyoto Protocol is an example of an arguably bad law. The United States is following its legal beliefs, much like Rosa Parks, and I happen to agree with the country on this point. Some other points...maybe not. But this thread is about global warming, so this is where I stand.
Yes, these scientists are small in number, but they provide incredibly valid points.
Is global warming bad? So many people seem to exacerbate this issue. At most it would indicate a 10 degrees Fahrenheit increase by 2100, and at least a 2.5 degree increase. Is that really worth all the paranoia it's causing? Some scientists even believe that an increase in temperature can be BENEFICIAL.
How much of the temperature increase can be attributed to greenhouse gases vs. solar variation vs. etc.? Even those scientists most certain that greenhouse gases play a role still have no idea.
===
So what exactly are we fighting for? Patrick Moore, one of the founders of GREENPEACE, has such to say on the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29#Global_warming
===
Another thing to note is that despite not actively enacting the Kyoto Protocol, the United States is still environmentally consciencious, and is doing its best to reduce emissions and dependence on fossil fuels.
===
You said the United States is an economic superpower and you're right. We have the largest economy in the world, with a GDP of $12 trillion. For a little perspective, Japan is second with $4.6 trillion, then Germany with $2.7 trillion, the U.K. with $2.1 trillion, and France with $2.0 trillion. Obviously enacting the Kyoto Protocol is not going to bankrupt our nation.
We DO need to strike a balance between a strong country and a strong environment, and our country has been doing that very well over the past century. However, you have to consider that global warming isn't really going to make our planet dysfunctional. Therefore, you're really asking for a country and all its citizens, businesses, etc. to give up their liberty and economy for something about as uncertain as the lottery.
===
International law is just like any other kind of law. There are good laws and there are bad laws, and they are almost always politically fueled. However, international law is different because it is an agreement than a decree. We don't "agree" to pay our taxes. We fucking have to! Haha, so essentially, laws require consequences. Until the world is a little more united and shares the same ideals and beliefs, any kind of international "supreme law" is going to be borderline useless, and comparable to that pick up soccer game I mentioned before.
To keep the debate focused, the Kyoto Protocol is an example of an arguably bad law. The United States is following its legal beliefs, much like Rosa Parks, and I happen to agree with the country on this point. Some other points...maybe not. But this thread is about global warming, so this is where I stand.
A 10 degree increase doesn't sound like much...but what about the polar ice caps? Ten degrees might be enough to cause something as small as a third of them to melt...well, if that happens, what do you think happens to the bodies of water that surround them?
Not that I'm alarmist, believe me, I'm not. In fact, I don't think humans are responsible for global warming; I think we are exacerbating the problem yes, but I don't think we caused it.
Not that I'm alarmist, believe me, I'm not. In fact, I don't think humans are responsible for global warming; I think we are exacerbating the problem yes, but I don't think we caused it.