Kyoto comes into force today

[Urethra Franklin]

The Kyoto treaty comes into force today.
But several years after it's inception, several key nations continue to refuse to ratify it. Notably, the USA.
Is that Bush thinks the end of the world doesn't matter, since his presidential term doesn't stretch that far?
Why should the world suffer for the sake of greedy US consumption? If you got out of your cars and walked to McDonalds, you'd be helping the environment.
Your cities aren't safe to walk in? Wonder why.

 

[Schweddy]

My question to you is, why does China get a free ride in this treaty? Thier industrial polution
out ranks the US by a vast majority.

The only purpose for it is to spread wealth to European countries. It truely has nothing to do with clean air. If it did - again China would have to pay big bucks.

 

[shuamort]

I'm going to preface my points by saying that I'm not an environmentalist. Theories about environmental predictions, global warming, pollution, et al, are not easily testable. The results of what humans are doing vs. what nature would normally be doing are, in some instances, difficult to gauge. Precise data over an extended period enough to well track environmental shifts hasn't been acquired yet. However, there are some things that stop and give me pause and make me think it'd be better to be safe than sorry. With that said....

But several years after it's inception, several key nations continue to refuse to ratify it. Notably, the USA.

To nitpick, two key countries. Australia and the US.

Is that Bush thinks the end of the world doesn't matter, since his presidential term doesn't stretch that far?

It's more to the fact that Bush believes that there will be economic reprocussions to the Kyoto treaty that are not within his personal beliefs. There are some people out there (not me), that accuse the Kyoto treaty of creating global socialism. According to them, it will spread money to the poorer nations while taking money from the richer ones. Bush claims that 5 million jobs will be lost if the US would adopt the Kyoto treaty. I find these claims to be dubious at best.

Why should the world suffer for the sake of greedy US consumption? If you got out of your cars and walked to McDonalds, you'd be helping the environment.

That's the oddest statement. I agree with the car part. U.S. citizens are predominantly reliant on automobiles. However, McDonald's? Helping the environment? Umm, no. Back to the car thing. Yes, back in the 20s and 30s the US took a departure from its European emulation and began increasing its dependence on the car for transportation. Trains took a backseat to an Interstate Highway system. City sprawl worsened as suburban communities that are unnavigatable by foot. (Some suburbs in my area don't have sidewalks nor encourage pedestrian traffic in any ways). Therein lies a large problem, how does a community lessen its dependance on cars when the infrastructure is set-up not to? It's quite difficult and is found that these changes only come when they are without options. We just got our first line of light rail transit after many years of gridlock and at a very high price.

Your cities aren't safe to walk in? Wonder why.

Wha? Umm, intersting blanket non-applicable non-sequitor you got there.

My question to you is, why does China get a free ride in this treaty? Thier industrial polution
out ranks the US by a vast majority.

China gets a "free ride" because they are not an Annex I country yet. They are also second in the world for greenhouse gasses after the US.

From Wikipedia

The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:

The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). China has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade. The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".

 

[CSA_TX]

:fu European countries and the Kyoto Treaty, as well as the international court and all UN programs.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

:fu European countries and the Kyoto Treaty, as well as the international court and all UN programs.

So that's basically f*** the rest of the world? How intelligent!:screwy

 

[shuamort]

:fu European countries and the Kyoto Treaty, as well as the international court and all UN programs.

So you must be against some of Bush's and Republican policies then too.

Last week the Washington Times reported just how the Bush administration is pushing a United Nations-designed program for a "culturally neutral" "universal curriculum" for teaching what the Times calls "global citizenship, peace studies and equality of world cultures." [Learning globally, By George Archibald, January 18, 2004]

Bush's address to the UN:

America is working with friends and allies on a new Security Council resolution, which will expand the U.N.'s role in Iraq. As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections. Iraq now has a Governing Council, the first truly representative institution in that country. Iraq's new leaders are showing the openness and tolerance that democracy requires, and also showing courage.

Because proliferators will use any route or channel that is open to them, we need the broadest possible cooperation to stop them. Today I ask the U.N. Security Council to adopt a new anti-proliferation resolution. This resolution should call on all members of the U.N. to criminalize the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; to enact strict export controls consistent with international standards; and to secure any and all sensitive materials within their own borders. The United States stands ready to help any nation draft these new laws, and to assist in their enforcement.

As an original signer of the U.N. charter, the United States of America is committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to fulfill the U.N.'s stated purposes, and give meaning to its ideals.

The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of America stand in the same tradition. Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent.

Both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are free. We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage together.

I sure hope you didn't vote for Bush or that might make ya feel dumb.

 

[Batman]

So that's basically f*** the rest of the world? How intelligent!:screwy

Well, at least the part that's anti-America.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

However, McDonald's? Helping the environment? Umm, no

It was a vague swipe at irony dear boy

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Well, at least the part that's anti-America.

So Naughty Nurse was right, the rest of the world.

 

[Schweddy]

So Naughty Nurse was right, the rest of the world.

Correction, "the rest of the world" (as you call it) isn't Anti-American, but Anti-President Bush. I still believe there are alot more pro-Bush supporters out there beyond out borders that are keeping thier mouth shut in fear of being ostricized due to the anti-Bush media's throughout the world than the Bush bashers would want to admit.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Correction, "the rest of the world" (as you call it) isn't Anti-American, but Anti-President Bush. I still believe there are alot more pro-Bush supporters out there beyond out borders that are keeping thier mouth shut in fear of being ostricized due to the anti-Bush media's throughout the world than the Bush bashers would want to admit.

No, I was right the first time. Get out of Texas and see for yourself. You're delusional.

 

[Batman]

So Naughty Nurse was right, the rest of the world.

If that's the way it is...so be it.

 

[shuamort]

Correction, "the rest of the world" (as you call it) isn't Anti-American, but Anti-President Bush. I still believe there are alot more pro-Bush supporters out there beyond out borders that are keeping thier mouth shut in fear of being ostricized due to the anti-Bush media's throughout the world than the Bush bashers would want to admit.

Of course, there're also a lot of Anti-Bush Americans too. It's becoming quite the lonely little hill for him.

 

[Batman]

Of course, there're also a lot of Anti-Bush Americans too. It's becoming quite the lonely little hill for him.

3 months after the majority re-elected him?

 

[shuamort]

3 months after the majority re-elected him?

Even 4 years before that. Of course, I did not say the majority up there either so please don't parse. His approval rates are at 57% while 40 per cent disapproved his style of functioning. 40% would be "a lot".

 

[GarzaUK]

Whatever you think of the Kyoto treaty, you have to realise something has to be done. The ice caps ARE melting, that is a fact. You all know that like the Tsumami Earthquake we as a race are all subject to the forces of nature, the earth has been very good to us. We have to make sure that we don't **** her off.

China doesn't have to cut her pollution. And?

That doens't mean the US can ignore it's obligation to protect our planet. As fellow humans on this earth, you shouldn't waver your responsibilties to the things that keep us alive.

I don't want my kids or grandkids to grow up in ruined world.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

If that's the way it is...so be it.

And therein lies the problem: the fact that you don't even care that the rest of the world finds the US political machine and it's bullying, arrogant foreign policy an abomination. You will either be forced to change (as South Africa was over apartheid) or you will be isolated and driven to ruin. As China takes over you won't even have the comfort of being a great economic power any longer. That's the brilliant future Bush is leading you to. Wake up.

 

[CSA_TX]

What would the rest of the world due if the USA said F-off. Pulled all troups home to station on our borders. Uncapped some texas oil wells, kicked the UN and all delegates out of the country, stopped all forign trade and became an isolated self sustaned country. No more handouts from my tax dollars.The rest of the world would impload. You guys are on your own. Now that sounds like a plan.:lol:

 

[Batman]

kicked the UN and all delegates out of the country

Kick the delegates out of the U.N. Building and turn it into a homeless shelter.
Bush could make the Libs furious for making the U.N. pansies leave while making them feel so good about helping the less fortunate. What a Liberal conundrum that would be!

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I still believe there are alot more pro-Bush supporters out there beyond out borders that are keeping thier mouth shut

Now, if that's not wishful thinking, I don't know what is!

 

[shuamort]

Kick the delegates out of the U.N. Building and turn it into a homeless shelter.
Bush could make the Libs furious for making the U.N. pansies leave while making them feel so good about helping the less fortunate. What a Liberal conundrum that would be!

Bush is a "UN Pansy" too. What a conservative conundrum that is. Please read post number 6 in this thread to show how lame your comment is.

What would the rest of the world due if the USA said F-off. Pulled all troups home to station on our borders. Uncapped some texas oil wells, kicked the UN and all delegates out of the country, stopped all forign trade and became an isolated self sustaned country. No more handouts from my tax dollars.The rest of the world would impload. You guys are on your own. Now that sounds like a plan.

Yeah, "what would the world due (sic) if the USA said F-Off" and pulled its troops home? You mean like pulling out of Afghanistan (a war which the US started) and Iraq (a war which the US started) and out of the Middle East (where troops are considered infidels and is causing undue disharmony) and pulled support out of Israel (like Bin Laden wants) and become an isolated country (where the majority of our goods, technology, steel, gas, etc would be stopped and our economy would collapse do to the fact that a majority of US companies do business in other countries.) Yeah. That's a surefire plan. It worked so well until Pearl Harbor too!

As for "The rest of the world would impload." Since the EU doesn't rely on US imports or military support, how would it implode? Seriously.

 

[Batman]

Bush is a "UN Pansy" too. What a conservative conundrum that is. Please read post number 6 in this thread to show how lame your comment is.

U.N. Pansy? No. How do you explain the whole "we need World support" argument the Libs spew if Bush is completely in bed with the U.N.? He's willing to work with it on issues but doesn't beg for permission when the U.S needs to do something in it's best interests and the world's. He knows when to cut the U.N. if they are working against us. But for me, I have no need for the U.N. and think we should get out of it.

Besides - since when if you support a politician that makes people assume you agree with everything he does?

 

[shuamort]

U.N. Pansy? No. How do you explain the whole "we need World support" argument the Libs spew if Bush is completely in bed with the U.N.?

I'm assuming you're talking about the "Global Test" that John Kerry was referring to. The need to protect the interests of the US come first, as he said, but the necessity for the world to agree with our intentions is important.

He's willing to work with it on issues but doesn't beg for permission when the U.S needs to do something in it's best interests and the world's. He knows when to cut the U.N. if they are working against us.

Yeah, most people call that being a user. It sure is going to bite the US in the ass should Bush ever need UN support for any global initiative. You can attempt to bury your head in the sand but the rest of the world is still going to be there.

Besides - since when if you support a politician that makes people assume you agree with everything he does?

Until you stop making blanket statements and accusatory fingerpointing on partisan lines, you're going to be labelled as such. Sorry. Welcome to the world.

 

[Batman]

Welcome to the world.

WOW! That's where I've been my whole life.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

What would the rest of the world due if the USA said F-off. Pulled all troups home to station on our borders. Uncapped some texas oil wells, kicked the UN and all delegates out of the country, stopped all forign trade and became an isolated self sustaned country. No more handouts from my tax dollars.The rest of the world would impload. You guys are on your own. Now that sounds like a plan.:lol:

The world would be a safer, more just place.