Iraq attack?

[SDR]

The real mystery might be why we're spending record amounts on greenhouse emissions and global warming research, while proclaiming that we're essentially "not interested" in joining the world on the issue.

This, according to ex-Interior Secretary Whitman (who, in another vein, uses the term "social fundamentalist" in referring to those who have fixed and non-negotiable positions on many of the issues of the day).

SDR

[Architorture]

[SDR]

Yes -- the "credits' deal is a (probably predictable) sell-out of the idea of responsible and uniform emission reductions. I suppose its inclusion speaks to the difficulty of getting anybody to do anything serious in this area. . .

I'm just so frustrated by those who claim that 1) global warming isn't happening, AND 2) if it's happening it's not because of anything mankind is responsble for. . .

SDR

[Architorture]

yeah i agree with you there...

even if we are in a 'warming trend' that is entirely natural, we certainly have contributed to it being warmer or longer than it should be... and there is no harm in trying to reduce CO2 emmissions other than the economic problems that could ensue...

my frustration comes from those who think kyoto is the be all and end all of global warming policy, when in fact it is so politically motivated it isn't even funny... the example with russia is ridiculous...b/w russia and former soviet states in eastern europe they are going to make billions selling off those 'carbon credits' and the rest of the kyoto members are going to just be happy to spend the money on the credits instead of actually reduce anything....i mean they only have to make it for 7 years.. that won't be very hard at all...

then you don't even include china, the second largest producer of CO2 b/c they are 'developing' and the same goes for india... the 2 places that are set to surpase the united states in the near future and they get to be members without even doing anything but signing their names...

i think the US approach is far healthier in terms of economics and eventually creating real change through research and development... global warming isn't going to kill us in the next 7 years, so i don't see any problem in taking the money and dumping it into research and development...

but we are significantly off topic now

[Kevin]

The Kyoto Protocol (aka 'Kyoto treaty') is a legally binding international agreement (for signatories) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By those emissions, otherwise unchecked, our civilization is threatening the essential stability of world climate.

Who could possibly expect any international treaty to be perfect? But the Kyoto Protocol is a major achievement for humankind.

It is the farthest thing from a joke.

"More than seven years after its inception, the Kyoto Protocol is finally up and running. From Wednesday 16 February, countries throughout the world must make good their promise to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

"The agreement, adopted in December 1997, could not be enforced until it had been ratified by a set of industrialized countries that, in 1990, were responsible for at least 55% of global greenhouse-gas emissions. That threshold was reached by Russia's ratification in November last year, which set off a 90-day countdown until the protocol could become law.

"Environmental ministers from around the world will today mark the culmination of this countdown with a ceremony centred on Kyoto in Japan, the treaty's birthplace (see "Kyoto decks itself for celebration"). "This marks the beginning of a new era in international efforts to reduce the risk of climate change," says Joke Waller-Hunter, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which oversees the protocol.

"Thirty-five developed countries now face the task of reducing overall greenhouse-gas emissions by 5.2%, relative to 1990 levels, before 2012. Each state has been given an individual target: Britain, for example, must curb its emissions by 12.5%; Japan must cut its own by 6%.

"Nations will attempt to meet their targets by improving the fuel-efficiency of power stations, manufacturing plants and transport. The protocol also allows industries to earn 'carbon credits' that can be used to offset any overshoot on the emissions targets set for them by national governments.

"These credits can be earned by investing in the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism, a scheme that funds the adoption of green technologies in developing countries. Alternatively, industries struggling to hit their targets can take advantage of trading schemes that harness international commodity markets to allow the buying and selling of carbon credits.

"The activation of the 141-nation treaty also cements the pariah status of the United States and Australia. The two countries, which together account for more than a quarter of world greenhouse-gas emissions, have declined to ratify the agreement, claiming that it will damage their economies."

- news @ nature.com - Published online: 16 February 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050214-7

"Many details of the treaty still await clarification. But its true significance is its potential to establish confidence in the practicability of a complex international climate-protection agreement. In particular, Russia's participation will greatly increase the scope for buying and selling emissions rights, and for gaining credits for exporting ‘clean development' technologies — key issues for European, Canadian and Japanese industries concerned about the fairness and liquidity of the international emissions market. Whether emissions can be checked against permitted levels remains a key technical challenge.

"Russia's ratification should provide a push towards future climate
negotiations, and may even prompt the next US administration to
take a constructive role. ..."

- Nature, 7 October 2004, Volume 431, Issue no 7009, p613.

Complex, challenging, important. Not a joke.

[Architorture]

i notice there is no quote there talking about russia's or any eastern european targets... why? b/c they are already far below 1990 CO2 emissions so they are pretty much a 'bank' of carbon credits that the rest of the countries can buy from so that they don't have to invest money in making actual changes...

why buy a scrubber system that costs millions up front and even more to maintain for the next 7 years of your obligation when you can just buy the carbon credits that some other country has laying around?

i'm actually pretty sure most countries involved in kyoto were very happy to see the US not join, b/c had the US joined the value of spam carbon credits would have gone through the roof...now they will at least be affordable to other countries...

[Donald]

This treaty is about those with an anti-business and anti-American agenda taking control of our economy. It has nothing to do with cleaning up the environment at all whatsoever.

But even if you grant that point, the Kyoto agreement won't work. Why? Well, because China and India are exempt. So naturally, countries who attempt to comply with this treaty will just shift their polluting industries to those countries, meaning the net effect on global emissions will probably increase. So what about the countries where Kyoto rules? They're going to have to comply. Already, ideas are being thrown around to give some world body such as the UN power to enforce the treaty, or levy a tax for violating it. There goes national sovereignty, right out the window.

[Richard Haut]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=617595

[Donald]

climate change ?........I thought this was the Iraq Attack thread.......so, again, it has been going on forever....sun gets hot, earth gets hot...been down this road and its that same song, and never seems to change.

Explain why the buzz phrase changed from Global Warming to "climate change" for all our readers again?

[Architorture]

i hear its warm in iran....