In article <221fa157.0311091750.1d3a33e5@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts?

Why does it make you feel better that the CO2 released to make the
crap americans buy comes from factories and power generation facilities
with no required pollution controls in china instead of much cleaner
facilities in say Ohio?

Or is your proposal to stop americans from buying the crap?

> And
> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> sell them on to the developing markets.

Another illogical posistion straight out of the sci.environment crowd.
That the evil-corporations and government facilities that spew pollutants
unless forced not to in the 'west' will be clean all of their own accord
in china, india, etc. It's one or the other, either they are clean and
efficient of their own accord or they have to be forced.

> I wish Australia hadn't
> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.

From what I've seen on a couple issues Australia's elected officals seem to
know a hopelessly flawed policy when they see it. Maybe that's why they
didn't follow the US lead on CAFE.

 

In article <jfdtqvkfbfddr165gdmtnpp76vdfjmhs08@4ax.com>, Al Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

>>> What goals could they be?
>>Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)

> Oh, so it's not the economic destructiobn of the US?

That's a social/political goal. Probably one of them.

>>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>>nations?

> You're assuming that a belief in global warming also means that you
> think Kyoto was a good idea.

Considering I haven't found a global warming true believer that doesn't....

>>> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?

>>The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>>tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations.

> That's not the only option - in fact, it's one which the US should not
> agree to.

Didn't say it was, and yes the US should never agree to one like that.

>>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.

> You just want to bash an obviously flawed treaty which the US will never
> enter into - got anything ideas on tackling the actual problem?

See other posts.(conservation, world wide) But then we have to make an
assumption that CO2 is a problem. There could also be solutions to pull
the CO2 from the air at a greater rate than it is put there. There are
alot of ways to do it, but what I've seen being pushed isn't it.

 

In article <jfdtqvkfbfddr165gdmtnpp76vdfjmhs08@4ax.com>, Al Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

>>> What goals could they be?
>>Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)

> Oh, so it's not the economic destructiobn of the US?

That's a social/political goal. Probably one of them.

>>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>>nations?

> You're assuming that a belief in global warming also means that you
> think Kyoto was a good idea.

Considering I haven't found a global warming true believer that doesn't....

>>> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?

>>The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>>tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations.

> That's not the only option - in fact, it's one which the US should not
> agree to.

Didn't say it was, and yes the US should never agree to one like that.

>>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.

> You just want to bash an obviously flawed treaty which the US will never
> enter into - got anything ideas on tackling the actual problem?

See other posts.(conservation, world wide) But then we have to make an
assumption that CO2 is a problem. There could also be solutions to pull
the CO2 from the air at a greater rate than it is put there. There are
alot of ways to do it, but what I've seen being pushed isn't it.

 

In article <jfdtqvkfbfddr165gdmtnpp76vdfjmhs08@4ax.com>, Al Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>>In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

>>> What goals could they be?
>>Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)

> Oh, so it's not the economic destructiobn of the US?

That's a social/political goal. Probably one of them.

>>Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>>encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>>nations?

> You're assuming that a belief in global warming also means that you
> think Kyoto was a good idea.

Considering I haven't found a global warming true believer that doesn't....

>>> What on earth brings you to this conclusion?

>>The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>>tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations.

> That's not the only option - in fact, it's one which the US should not
> agree to.

Didn't say it was, and yes the US should never agree to one like that.

>>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>>They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>>clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>>We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>>lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>>is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>>are using this topic as their tool to do so.

> You just want to bash an obviously flawed treaty which the US will never
> enter into - got anything ideas on tackling the actual problem?

See other posts.(conservation, world wide) But then we have to make an
assumption that CO2 is a problem. There could also be solutions to pull
the CO2 from the air at a greater rate than it is put there. There are
alot of ways to do it, but what I've seen being pushed isn't it.

 

On 9 Nov 2003 18:06:51 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:

>Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
>people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
>developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
>going to be a dramatic improvement. It would also make the
>technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
>developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
>gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
>else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
>clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
>did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
>so.

What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
warming'?

 

On 9 Nov 2003 18:06:51 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:

>Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
>people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
>developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
>going to be a dramatic improvement. It would also make the
>technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
>developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
>gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
>else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
>clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
>did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
>so.

What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
warming'?

 

On 9 Nov 2003 18:06:51 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:

>Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
>rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
>people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
>developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
>going to be a dramatic improvement. It would also make the
>technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
>developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
>gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
>else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
>clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
>did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
>so.

What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
warming'?

 

Matt Osborn wrote:

> What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
> jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
> discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
> warming'?

Then I would be right and Lloyd would be wrong.

Ed

 

Matt Osborn wrote:

> What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
> jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
> discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
> warming'?

Then I would be right and Lloyd would be wrong.

Ed

 

Matt Osborn wrote:

> What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
> jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
> discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
> warming'?

Then I would be right and Lloyd would be wrong.

Ed