Kyoto Treaty
 

given that we're all experiencing weird weather

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=13023&page=3

and other strange phenomena, isnt it about time America signed up to the treaty and big industries took action, to set an example to the public to do their part?

do you do your part?

You first, hypocrite

We could make a pretty good dent in it by throwing all the illegals out. Since 1990 (base year) our population has skyrocketed from 249 million to 301 million. A large part of this is illegals and their spawn (legals). No wonder emissions are up. :rolleyes:

It the cows I tell ya!!

I'm well aware of the hypocrisy, but my point was to bring the big industries into line would go a long way to encouraging the average Joe to do their part, e.g., recycling, saving energy etc.
If the USA would sign the treaty, perhaps that would set an example to the American public.
btw, our Govt is the hypocrite, not me.

theres a lot of truth in that statement. a first time for everything.

Ouch!

Their goal was 20, and their obligation was 12, but they got 10.6. How did the US, with no goal or obligation, do, as a reference for comparison? Is the 10% reduction just a result of natural technological adoption, or did they do something to get there?

via second link
The UK has been changing from coal to natural gas which is where their savings lie.

Industry does most of the polluting and dumps most of the co2 and that is where we need to focus first... the treaty needs to be signed and adhered to, now.
The US population, also, needs to get off of our asses and reduce our individual carbon footprint... soon, it should be legislated.
However, if we go after industry first, all of our appliances will be more efficient already. That will automatically give us a smaller carbon footprint.

So there's really no call to accuse the UK of hypocracy. If it had been Austria or Italy, perhaps, but the UK is doing quite well.

;)

Perhaps touche' would have been more appropo.
Is it warm in here or is it just me?

Considering China has almost four times the population of the U.S. but uses half the amount of oil, I think the first step anyone should take is the people of the U.S. (most likely lead out of necessity by the government) need to make a huge change in our dependency.

Which in essence means that the U.S. needs to stop backing out of things we sign like a no-good lazy uncle. The Geneva Convention and the Kyoto Treaty, two very important agreements between the cultures of the world, are now being used to wipe the asses of our government. What happened to simple morals? Does our Cabinet remind anyone else of a bunch of jocks trying to run "the best party ever?"

The contribution of the US to the world GNP is pretty much the exact same as its oil consumption: around 25%.

Japan signed it and their production of greenhouse gasses actually increased. But at least they signed it and I guess that's all that matters.

So, to immediately put my foot in my mouth: China: Kingdom of bicycles no more

Be worried. If you have given even a moment's thought to climate warming and its potential impact on our planet, be very worried. China, a nation of 1.3 billion people, has abandoned the bicycle as a principal mode of transportation and is now moving at a frightening pace to a car-based economy.

Do you blame them?

When we start riding bicycles to work then we can complain about them not using bikes to get to work.

We can complain anyway. That's one of the benefits of that Bill of Rights thingy that we have and everybody else doesn't.

why doesnt it get used? what can it achieve if it were to be used?

It wasn't a complaint, it was just the exact opposite of what I said before. I was using China as an example of a country that doesn't have too bad of a dependency on oil, but it looks like times are a changing.

I don't really get it. Why would China do this? In the US, we were settled after the invention of the car, so we built everything far apart because we could. Now we need cars because nothing is close to anything else.

In China, they have been doing just fine with bicycles. I assume things are close together if bikes work OK. Why switch to cars if it ain't broke?

Yes, China and India are very naughty... does not matter, we need to do what we need to do, period.
Doing what is right has nothing to do with what others are doing.
In fact, it gives one a stronger platform from which to argue your point.

It has everything to do with what others are doing. If our costs increase (as a result of stricter enforcement/higher standards) and their's don't then demand for our goods and services decline and jobs disappear, wages drop, etc.

I'm glad we aren't signing that stupid treaty - it hamstrings the US and lets China and India do whatever the hell they want. How many jobs are you willing to sacrifice over this?

well put!

Beestie: I don't understand your connection between the Kyoto treaty and lost jobs. Not that you're right or wrong, I'm just in the dark.
I think the number of jobs or the economic backlash shouldn't be as important as the overall death of the planet. If we wait till no one loses something from the changes, then it will be far too late- if it isn't already. I think the whole world culture needs to agree to a very proactive change in the way we treat the planet. Like the Kyoto Treaty as a start

Planetary death is hyperbole. Should we move past fossil fuels? Of course. Fossil fuels are old dirty tech, we can do better. The problem is the way way we move forward. Lots of our environmental friends look back at pre-industrial society as a model. Starvation, no communication, closed societies, human bondage, you know, the good old days. We John Waynists prefer to improve our way out of problems.

Because America gets special treatment over the rest of the world? :rolleyes: Grow up and learn that other nations will do anything to get to half the standard of living we have now and we have no right to hold them back.

Settled after the invention of the car? The population increased but most of the states and major cities were in place. Most of the land was spoken for and at least sparsely settled.
Sure levittown and commuting came along after the car but that was a chicken/egg deal.They used bicycles because it beat walking or a Water Buffalo. Being dirt poor, and not much they could do about it under Mao, it was the best they could do. It's hard to move a refrigerator or console TV on a bike, but they didn't have either, for the most part.
Most of China has extremes in weather, from bitter snowy winter to monsoons and tropical downpours. How much fun is that on a bike?
They didn't travel far because there was nothing to travel to, no malls, no Disney World, no resorts for the peasants.
Roads are shit, too. They just started their road overhaul to connect every town and city with decent roads for the first time in history.
You may see their lifestyle as quaint and bucolic, but I'm sure they're damn sick of it.
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm....?:biggrinje

True but what really exploded the cities and urban centers was the National Defense Act of 1954 which funded the construction of the freeway system as a means to rapidly evacuate the city centers in the event of a nuclear attack.

Those freeways unintentionally led to the creation and growth of suburbia and the massive sprawl we see today.

OK, but if we hadn't spread out, where would we put 300 million people? :confused:

On bikes built for two?

You have posted classic MBA reasoning. Why do you not ride in a Pinto? Because with innovation, costs decrease. Why did car prices decrease? People who just assume - who said increased pollution control means increased costs. They lied the exact same way as Beestie does now. Things that reduce pollution also meant higher gas mileage. That means less cost. But those who only know using a political ideology automatically know innovations will only increase costs.

Where does the designer reside on a spread sheet? Not in the column called assets. He resides in the column called expenses. That is the attitude of those who just know - don't first learn facts. Beestie automatically knows solution to global warming will only increase costs. So why does the basic car not cost $40,000 as predicted by those who opposed air pollution reduction?

Beestie automatically knows innovation will only increase costs - cause job losses. That was the same mentality at Xerox when technology such as SDS was stifled - because it increased costs by complicating technology. Today that concept in SDS is in all computers - as Xerox destroyed jobs because it feared innovation. Beestie - you are posting exactly like those who fear rather than innovate. You post with the philosophy taught in business schools where the advancement of mankind is irrelevant.

Beestie – learn from history. Don’t post anti-American rhetoric. As environmental problems were addressed, then costs decreased and jobs increased. Where Americans denied the damagers of pollution, then costs increased You are posting the lies of those who use poltics rather than logic and the lessons of history. You are making blanket assumptions and declaring your speculations as fact. Reality is that much of the solutions to global warming also mean better lifestyles and more jobs. You don’t believe this. Then post technical details rather than wacko extremist speculations. Where are your numbers that costs would increase?

I think you guys are talking about 2 different numbers.
Short term - costs increase due to additional components, retooling factories. . . production changes and so on.
Long term costs SHOULD decrease. You gave some examples there are others as well.
In this case Beestie is talking about us having regulations and "them" not. Thats may or may not change things - there are a lot of variables to address.

Your logic only works if all parties are subject to the same set of regulations. If a Chinese company can just dump their untreated toxic waste into the Yellow River and eject their untreated fumes straight into the sky and make their employees work 10 hours a day with no benefits, no breaks for $1.50 per hour but I have to sanitize what I put into the river and clean what I put into the sky and pay a decent wage with benefits and not work my employees to death than who do you think is going to have the lower price and, therefore, all of the business? And if they price me out of the market, then they experience job growth and I don't.

My problem with Kyoto is pretty much that.

But incompetent government bureaucrats who have job security for life, are accountable to no one, who have never agonized about losing business to foreign competitors unencumbered by meddlesome government regulations and union constraints have the nerve to portray me as a liar because I'm not trying hard enough to "innovate" my way out of being hogtied by the unfair treaties and senseless mountain of regulations they never grow weary of saddling me with.

That cracking sound you hear are the shattered spines of thousands upon thousands of small American businesses for whom "long-term" is 90 days. GM has pockets deep enough to solve all the problems the government creates for it. But what about the other 150,000 businesses who aren't in the Fortune 100?

Don't sign a treaty that gives away the farm, the horses, the plow and the axe then tell me to eat cake. Get a real job. Run a real business. Climb down out of your ivory tower and come down here in the fields and trenches and do what I do better than I do it.

Then you can call me a liar.

Beestie, it sounds like your complaints are with the nature of economics, which is a very viable argument. The Kyoto Treaty however, in my opinion, shouldn't be held back because it may be bad for our economics. Our economic system, hell the whole industrialized world's economics, is a complete mess and will never find a balance. If the Kyoto Treaty is signed and adhered to by even just the U.S. we would help start the trend towards helping the planet, and we would have to mess with our economic system like we always do. Regardless, the U.S. would continue outsourcing/importing everything (also known as giving away the farm, etc).

I'm with you on this one - well said. lt sucks, but its true!

On top of each other... Ask Japan. They've got 40% of our population and 4% of our land.

I believe much of that is dependent on that big yellow thing that rises every morning and natural cycles. I remember in the 70`s we were told were going through"Global Cooling".

I don't want to live like they do.... ever. :headshake

Friday, February 13, 1998 Published at 19:25 GMT



Sci/Tech

Scientists blame sun for global warming


The Sun is more active than it has ever been in the last 300 years

Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.

Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.

The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.

Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.

And individual cycles can be more or less active.

The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.

That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed.

The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.


Ancient trees reveal most warm spells are caused by the sun
Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.

They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.

The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.



BBC

One, it is a combination of all the effects. Two, that doesn't mean that greenhouse gases don't hurt us. If they are predicting a mini ice age the global dimming will only make it worse. I would rather live in a hot world than a cold one.

Mostly it means the scientist have little idea about what exactly is causing the warming...but scare tactics produce grants...grants=money...it`s self propagating.

And was or was not the language of the Kyoto Protocol written fairly explicitly as a sandbagging of the West, by exempting the smokestackey-stage Indian and Chinese economies from its provisions?

Bullshit; and bullshit makes methane, 23 times the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is.

Even Bill Clinton, not a dab hand at discerning the Republic's best interest nor at foreign policy in general, couldn't swallow this ripoff.

If your reasonings were correct, then Americans in 1980 were massively unemployed because American vehicles and industries had to meet 1970 pollution control. Industries that innovated (ie oil companies) ended up selling their American innovation all over the world - more jobs. Companies that fought such innovations ended up firing American workers and running to government for protection as those same technologies appeared in superior Japanese and European products. Why does Ford now have to license technology from Toyota?

Are we now poorer because the Cuyahoga River no longer catches fire? Are we poorer because NYC no longer dumps their garbage and sewage raw in the Atlantic Ocean? Of course not. When Americans innovated to meet those 1970 pollution control requirements, then more jobs resulted. Solutions even created increased productivity. Like it or not, that is the reality of history. Yes, some jobs were lost. But then computers also put thousands of accountants and factory workers out of work. Should we stop innovation because jobs are lost?

Agreed that government should not have to force innovation. But then car companies would not even install seat belts or safety glass until forced to by government regulation. Clearly since other nations did not require that, then other nations had more jobs? Nonsense. Telcos would not provide DSL until forced to by government regulation. Clearly we are all poorer because government mandated innovation? Oil companies would not remove lead from gasoline until forced to by regulation. For every case where jobs were lost are just as many cases were more jobs were created. Meanwhile standards of living increased.

Are you telling us we would all be wealthier and healthier if government did not remove lead from gas or stop widespread air pollution? Are you saying we would all be drinking clean water if use and disposal of trichloralethylene had not been banned by government regulation? Do you know how we once cleaned PC boards? Freely usage of ozone depleting solvents. What resulted? PC boards now constructed using materials that reduced costs; electronic boards cleaned in a dishwasher (an eye opener among those who fear wet electronics).

Europeans will now ban lead in all electronics. Therefore Europeans will lose electronics markets due to higher costs? No. That technology is all but being imposed even upon Americans. Clearly Europeans are losing jobs because government requires no more lead? Only where American solutions to lead free are better. Americans were required to install GFCIs in all homes. Does that mean jobs lost? Of course not. GFCI technology was then exported to other nations - more wealth from new markets.

History demonstrates there is little relationship between job losses and environmental regulations. When jobs are lost, well, the environmental threat did not exist. But global warming and its negative consequences do exist. Those who do address the problem will own the technologies and industries that will be necessary. Furthermore, we know from history that a vast number of these solutions mean less manufacturing costs.

Why should the Chinese change? Their realized gains in 8% growth are countered by unrealized losses estimated as high as 15% annually. Clearly they have a better and wealthier future? That is what was assumed despite the numbers. Ignored is that China will have to buy equipment from those who innovated - whose designs and machines both pollute less and therefore often cost less. IOW China will remain poorer because they remain in denial - viewing only realized profits rather than all profits.

Americans have numerous safety equipment, material handling equipment, etc in semiconductor fabs. Taiwan manufacturers may literally handle hazardous materials by hand. So who has the more profitable semiconductor fabs? Well, the Taiwanese do get low margin and less sophisticated products. In one case, a complete and new fab literally burned to the ground. How do they remain competitive? Cost control. Pay employees less, lower standards of living, etc. According to principles expressed by Beestie, Taiwanese should have cornered the market on semiconductor manufacturing. They don't. Even with safety standards that are (relatively) almost non-existent, Taiwanese do not own this industry. Therefore they must cut costs elsewhere. How can this be? It is not obvious if using blanket assumptions. But Taiwanese can only complete by reaping less profits and a lower standards of living.

Nations that addressed ozone depletion, acid rain, air pollution, etc all ended up with more jobs, new products, and increased exports to those who remained in denial. Why is German equipment now so necessary in American coal plants? Because Americans refused to address environmental problems created by coal plants. Did the Germans have higher costs and fewer jobs? No. Richer Germans addressed environmental those problems. Germans imposed regulations not required anywhere else. Therefore German innovation resulted in international sales, better standard of living, and more jobs in new industries.

Beestie's logic is predicated on same myths that called computers bad only because computers destroyed factory and accounting jobs. Nations that create global warming solutions will be wealthier - have more productive jobs - as history has repeatedly demonstrated. Those solutions will be required everywhere. Who will have those jobs? Same reasons to deny air pollution in late 1960s are the exact same arguments to deny global warming solutions.

Yeah, whatever happend with the ACID RAIN? Such a big enviromental issue 20-30 years ago and now suddenly it seems to be solved. Or was it a hoax after all? Like a severe draught was the reason of trees dying rather than acid rain...

And what happened with all those DDT poisoned birds? After the ban they started doing great! Was the DDT scare a hoax after all?

No jobs would be lost, in fact many would be created by creating the c02 scrubber industry.
If we do not adopt it, we have no position to convince other nations to adopt it. I prefer us adopt the high ground instead of being hypocrites yelling "you first".
I also agree that methane needs to be the next thing addressed.

There were massive productivity losses associated with the adoption of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, but they are losses that we had to take as a nation.

We do have other, security oriented, reasons to get off fossil fuels. We subsidize oil heavily with blood and treasure. If we shifted (skip the blood part) that subsidy to biofuel, solar, and wind power (insert nuke argument at your own risk) we could address both GW and energy security, creating a left/right coalition. It wouldn't be painless but the new growth in the cleaner energy sector would offset things somewhat.

Exactly, and those productivity losses are projected to only be temporary.
The more we diversify our energy sources and get off of fossil fuels the better-off we will be.
The only reason not to do it is fear of change and nothing more.
Now is only better for the long run.

A "severe draught" would at least injure a tree -- by blowing the leaves off. ;)

draft? At first I thought you meant drought. You do mean draft right?

He meant drought. Unfortunately, his fingers didn't quite cooperate and his spellchecker was, of course, useless.

Unfortunately, in the USA, Biofuel immediately gets translated into methanol. As you can see happening already, methanol is being made from corn because it's the easiest (high sugar content) and most profitable raw material available.
The flies in the ointment are; that corn is food for us and livestock, corn is very energy intensive to grow, corn is susceptible to weather/wind damage, corn requires huge amounts of water.
Also, since methanol gives you only 2/3 the mileage of gasoline, producing it from corn, or any biomass for that matter, will use immense tracts of land.

Nukes for power, is the smart way to go. Three mile island happened because the government over regulated the industry, driving the costs through the roof on every plant constructed. This caused the operating companies to cut costs any where they could. It became a cat & mouse game between the feds and power companies. The company sees something that costs $100 and not covered in the rules.... poof, gone and $100 saved. Feds see it gone and make a new rule that will now cost the power company $200. More need to cut costs... more expensive rules, etc, etc, etc.

I've often wondered about the umpteen layers of automatic alarms and controls. The control room operators had too much time to get distracted with entertainment. Too much opportunity for multitasking. Like the guy with the cruise control set, reading a book, while roaring up the turnpike at killing speeds. When the shit hits the fan, he's not prepared to make the right decisions even if he has time. People that are not focused make more mistakes, are not prepared to make those second nature moves in an emergency.

The Soviets may have been the opposite although I'm not sure how their plants operated. But, the other nations have been successful, especially France, by making a design and repeating it as often as needed instead of every plant being unique because of ever increasing government rules.

Hey guys, lets build a nuke.
What's it going to cost?
Damifino, the rules keep changing during, and after, construction so we don't know till it's done.
Uh, well, no thanks.:rolleyes:

Nuclear power is a good base power system because you can build them anywhere, perferably not in heavily populated areas, but you are not resticted by the enviornment.

A river is useful, if not necessary, for the cooling tower, though.

The biggest bonus of a nuclear reactor is that the pollution goes into barrels instead of the air. And the danger related to those barrels has a silver lining- unlike the toxic sludge from any number of other industries, many steps are taken to ensure they don't just get dumped in the river.

We need to keep in mind that cars are not the main source of co2 emissions. Electricity production is the real problem, with cars providing a convenient scapegoat. Electricity producers have fooled around with other kinds of biomass such as poplar trees and switch grass which still have emissions but don't introduce sequestered co2 into the atmosphere. I'd like to see energy production become more distributed using whatever makes the most sense in a given locale. I would think that spreading out production would make the grid more bullet proof, terrorist proof, and idiot proof.

The cooling towers can run a closed loops, they are replacing the need for huge amounts of cooling water. They do, however, need a river or lake for an emergency supply of water that is instantly available. The lake can be man made though.

You bring up the waste problem that's constantly pointed out. Yes, the existing plants are up to their ears in barrels of waste with no place to send them because the Feds have been dragging their feet.

Some of the waste is highly contaminated or spent fuel, but most of those barrels are full of dirty laundry.
Seriously, the Boiling Water Reactors the General Electric builds, have the steam created in the reactor powering the turbines, so everything that steam/water touches is contaminated. Subsequently, the work clothes and small tools, rags, etc, have to be disposed of in barrels, constantly.
Every man, on every shift, of every day, for the last howmany years, has had to put everything in the barrels. That's a lot of damn barrels of very low grade contamination they don't know what to do with.

Seems to me the feds have all that property where they did A-bomb tests, above and below ground, for years. Now that property is contaminated for the next seventy eleven thousand years anyway, so put the shit there. OK, the high level spent fuel and such has to be handled more carefully but that's a fraction of the waste generated and it can still go there.

Building Pressurized Water Reactors, where the steam from the reactor transfers the heat to another closed steam loop for the turbines, keeps the contamination out of the turbines. That way the workers in most of the plant don't have to "suit up" and subsequently fill more barrels. PWRs are more expensive to build but cheaper to operate.

It can be done. It has been done. All over the world, nukes have been running successfully and safely for a long time. Ask the French.
The key is to design a plant that's acceptable and build them all the same. That way everybody knows the plan and it's cost, up front. No expensive delays for changes in the middle of construction and uniform, proven, control systems that are familiar to every operator.

OK, I'll get off my soap box now. :blush:

xoxoxoBruce, you're right on the money about the nuke plants. Go Nukes! But I think you missed a point about the biofuels. Corn, being so full of sugary goodness, usually gets converted to Ethanol, not Methanol, by way of fermentation.

Yes Ethanol, my bad. Methanol is drawn off and reused in the Bio-diesel process but not used as a motor fuel. Maybe if they put a little meth in the ethanol, it would get better mileage.;)