Are Kyoto Protocols Feasible?

[Verv]

Though environmentalists champion them as necessary to cut down on the emissions which may cause global warming, it is becoming more clear that these protocols may put unrealistic burdens and expectations on many countries.

Even Norway, the champion of fighting AIDS in Africa ( http://www.odin.dep.no/ud/english/news/news/032171-070564/dok-bn.html ) and fighting for peace in Sri Lanka ( http://english.people.com.cn/200509/08/eng20050908_207210.html ), a warrior for all kinds of infeasible liberal causes, cannot meet the standards required of the Kyoto Protocols that it signed ( http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1110449.ece ).

Their increase in emissions have reached double digits, with an 11% increase from 1990 to 2004.

And gentle Norway is not alone, Japan has increased emissions by 10% since 1990 ( http://news.ft.com/cms/s/31ca2bb2-070d-11d9-9672-00000e2511c8.html ),

Spain has had a shocking 46% increase in emissions since 1990 ( http://www.iht.com/getina/files/274199.html ),

The UK is also failing with increasing gas emissions ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=361286&in_page_id=1770 ),

The European Union, pioneers of metrosexual socialism and the new 'White Flag' school of foreign policy, have released a list of nations that need to make improvements or else they will also fail to meet the protocols: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and of course, the infamous Spain.

The fact is that the Kyoto Protocols, seeking to limit gas emissions to 8% of what they were in 1990 is a mockery of itself. As environmentalists and their metrosexual national partners pressure the United States to sign the protocols, they themselves are not making the marks necessary to fulfill them.

It looks like the Europeans need to spend less time paying welfare to Arabs living in their country and spend more time trying to keep up with meeting their own environmental protocols.

 

[MaryS]

If the progressive nations that are already involved in Kyoto can't manage to meet the standard, I can't imagine how the USA would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_standard
California has some of the strictest emission standards in the world.

I don't understand why the United States would want to get involved in Kyoto without getting some of the big developing countries, like China, involved.
Nations like China could certainly outdo us in the future in oil usage.

 

[DieHappy]

Kyoto is a bad joke. Go read the fine print and it says, on every page, "screw the U.S." The worst polluters in the world get a free pass because they don't have the money to clean things up, but the writers of Kyoto didn't seem to understand that no matter how rich the nation is, you can't buy a magic wand that works to accomplish the goals they wanted. No economist or engineer could ever sign off on that thing, but the US should?

 

[chaim]

By the worst polluters in the world, I assume you mean the USA, as it is by far the worst emitter of CO2. Who do you think put the largest share of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere?

Kyoto is a bad joke. Go read the fine print and it says, on every page, "screw the U.S." The worst polluters in the world get a free pass because they don't have the money to clean things up, but the writers of Kyoto didn't seem to understand that no matter how rich the nation is, you can't buy a magic wand that works to accomplish the goals they wanted. No economist or engineer could ever sign off on that thing, but the US should?

 

[ZaraDurden]

Funny OP.

The title is posed as to say, "debate within".

But then you open the thread and the decision has been made for you.

 

[one love]

Another 'socialist unite' tactic by the Euros, I'm sure all former socilaist dictators are smiling down upon them from heaven.

 

[Verv]

Funny OP.

The title is posed as to say, "debate within".

But then you open the thread and the decision has been made for you.

I guess the title of my opinion piece should be more like "The Kyoto Protocols aren't feasible, now feel free to debate me,"

I invite you to do so. Please.

 

[Law of Loud]

I guess the title of my opinion piece should be more like "The Kyoto Protocols aren't feasible, now feel free to debate me,"

I invite you to do so. Please.

No, but as my high school band teacher once said (pardon the French),

"It is better to shoot for the stars and miss, than to shoot for a bucket of (waste) and hit it dead on."

 

[Verv]

No, but as my high school band teacher once said (pardon the French),

"It is better to shoot for the stars and miss, than to shoot for a bucket of **** and hit it dead on."

(For moderator note, that is entered as ****, not the actually word).

I am failing to read in between the lines. I do not want to elevate this into a conversation that is very unpleasant so I if I am missing something that we can debate, let me know; but if you are just casting personal insults, I understand -- I get frustrated, too.

Explain your statement if you like.

And as a note -- I use strong words from time to time, but I do not mean anything truly crass by them. I believe in the docrine of John 13:34 on massive levels.

I think when I get back to the states and can get tattoos again, I am going to get John 13:34, the entire text, tattood on my left forearm.

It is the law for interaction and the law for everything.

So just as a note, whatever seeming hostilities may come, they are not actual, I truly do not feel animosity towards others. I truly feel a sense of kinship that we just share these short few yeas together, on this Earth.
[BIBLE]John 13:34[/BIBLE]

 

[Law of Loud]

I apologize. By the way, I think that was possibly one of the most important things said in the entire Bible, but going on.

What I mean by that, is while the Kyoto Protocols were unreasonable, it is better to aim for something and perhaps even miss it, than to say "everything sucks, who cares?".

It is better to try hard in school, hoping to make it into Harvard but only to manage to make it to a local 4-year university, than it is to drop out and without any self-motivation end up stealing on the streets.

 

[chaim]

Jmverville,

If you think that Kyoto is unworkable, what is your suggestion? The Aftenposten article you quoted did point out that Sweden, the UK, France and Greece are all on target to meet the protocol - so obviously it is possible to meet the protocol.

 

[Verv]

What I mean by that, is while the Kyoto Protocols were unreasonable, it is better to aim for something and perhaps even miss it, than to say "everything sucks, who cares?".

It is better to try hard in school, hoping to make it into Harvard but only to manage to make it to a local 4-year university, than it is to drop out and without any self-motivation end up stealing on the streets.

True. i tis good to try to make these fights, and I give you that point that that is very accurate, however, I still think that being overbearing about pressuring the US to join the Kyoto Protocols is a bad move.

It only results in making them look foolish when they cannot meet the standards that they set, yet demand the US to do so.

If you think that Kyoto is unworkable, what is your suggestion? The Aftenposten article you quoted did point out that Sweden, the UK, France and Greece are all on target to meet the protocol - so obviously it is possible to meet the protocol.

My suggestion is that realistic goals are set, and people do not beat each other over the head for setting different standards. Obviously Spain has some major issues that it is going to have to tackle and prioritize on its' own -- they should have nver made promises that are that unrealistic.

Each nation has the right to decide its' own precedences for decreasing gas emissions, which is a noble goal, and to try to pressurize the US into signing these laws becomes a poor action.

I would suggest that if there were protocols, they should be individualized for each nation's necessary situation.

 

[chaim]

My suggestion is that realistic goals are set, and people do not beat each other over the head for setting different standards. Obviously Spain has some major issues that it is going to have to tackle and prioritize on its' own -- they should have nver made promises that are that unrealistic.

Each nation has the right to decide its' own precedences for decreasing gas emissions, which is a noble goal, and to try to pressurize the US into signing these laws becomes a poor action.

I would suggest that if there were protocols, they should be individualized for each nation's necessary situation.

I think this may be wishful thinking. The US, and every other country in the world has the opportunity to set there own regulations to reduce CO2 emissions at this very moment. However the US has not set any binding resolutions or regulations to reduce GHG emissions - so obviously we can not be trusted to regulate our own emissions.

 

[Autumnleaf]

At the rate US businesses are sending factories to China, India, and other third world countries with no environmental standards to speak of, the US might just meet the standards set by Kyoto sooner than many think.

 

[billwald]

The purpose of Kyoto is to ruin the economies of the civilized nations.

 

[chaim]

The purpose of Kyoto is to ruin the economies of the civilized nations.

Well thanks for that well qualified statement. I thought it had something to do with greenhouses gases, but I guess I was mistaken.