Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Kyoto Protocol
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Environmental Debate
Google
KgGoodybar
There are many issues happening in the world today. Most of them are urgent and need to have the world’s focus right now. One of these issues is global warming. In Kyoto, Japan, leaders from many nations met to discuss this very important issue and designed a world treaty nicknamed the Kyoto Protocol. In its simplest form, Kyoto is a treaty that will reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is one gas that is found to stay in the atmosphere for long periods of time, slowly warming the earth.

There are many arguments whether or not global warming is happening, but we need to look at the worse case scenario; if it is happening we must do something now before it is too late. Many countries have ratified this treaty and it is scheduled to take effect sometime in the near future. The United States was behind this treaty under the Clinton administration. However, President Bush sees no future with the Kyoto Protocol in relationship to the United States. However, the Kyoto Protocol needs the United States in order for it to be a successful treaty. With 4.6% of the population of the world, the United States emits about a quarter of all emissions worldwide. This ratio is far more than with any other country in the world. With ratios such as these, Kyoto cannot succeed without the United States being part of the treaty.

If the United States signs and ratifies the treaty, they will be working with other world leaders to help stop this problem of global warming. The United States could then be one of the leaders in developing new technology to make the shift away from fossil fuel use to other alternatives such as solar, wind, or water power. With increase funding and with funding from other countries, the United States could be the leader of new technology that has yet to be discovered.

This technology will make our economy stronger as we struggle with it now. Now, of course, if the Untied States does sign the treaty, our economy will suffer. However, as the Kyoto Protocol begins to take affect and the United States starts concentrating on developing new technology to replace carbon based fuels, our economy will bounce back and grow to a stronger level.

The bottom line is that the United States is needed in order to slow or even stop the trend of global warming. With the United States being on of the largest emitters, the rest of the world will have a difficult time doing it themselves. As benefits, the United States would be a leader with developing new technology and will have a stronger economy because of this treaty. Without the United States partaking in this agreement, generations in the future will cease to exist, causing extinction of the entire world.

Kevin Goodreau
University of Northern Iowa Student
Google
Wertz
Thanks for bringing this up, Kevin. The short answer to "Should the US sign Kyoto?" is: Good God, yes. It is just as obvious, though, that as long as our government is headed by an illegitimate corporate puppet rather than an elected official with a modicum of concern about the future of the planet, it is not going to happen. We can only hope that we don't continue doing too much irreparable, irreversible damage before the country wakes up from the Bush nightmare.

The fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is not in dispute by anyone at this stage. The fact that carbon dioxide is being poured into the atmosphere by hundreds of millions of cars and hundreds of thousands of city power plants is not in dispute. And, Kevin, the fact that global warming is occurring is not in dispute either. The only thing that is in dispute is whether or not greenhouse gases and global warming are linked.

And the only scientific opposition to the global warming theory comes from scientific commissions funded largely by the fossil fuel industry. Big surprise. Kinda reminiscent of all the "scientific" studies produced by the tobacco industry proving that cigarettes do not cause cancer. The Global Climate Coalition, backed by the oil industry, has mounted a huge public relations campaign to prevent policies that limit fossil fuel use. It issued a report called "Changing Weather? Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change" in which it completely distorted an important study by Harvard climatologist David Keith. Keith demanded an immediate retraction of the report and, after receiving a blistering response from the world's top climatologists, the Global Climate Coalition issued a watered-down edition of the report, which made no mention of Keith's study. The only argument with which they were left was the theory that global warming and cooling is cyclic. The only problem with this theory is - oops - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it. Obviously, even industry-backed scientists are caving in under the real evidence.

In 1950, cars and power plants poured 1.6 billion tons of carbon into our air; by 1990, they were pumping about 6 billion tons into our air. It is a testament to the greed of corporate special interests that they would even try to rationalize these facts away - and the amorality of our president that he is on the side of that greed.
Jaime
Welcome KgGoodybar. Interesting topic.

Wertz, why do you do this to me while I'm at work? I have no time to respond to your info-flooding tongue.gif I will need time to reply to this at more length later.

In the meantime, I would like point out that the Kyoto Treaty expects the richest (cleanest) nations to foot the bill for the poorest (dirtiest) nations. I will find support to back this up.

Wertz, I would hope you could also find some support for your assertion:
QUOTE
In 1950, cars and power plants poured 1.6 billion tons of carbon into our air; by 1990, they were pumping about 6 billion tons into our air.
What country is this or are you referring to the entire world? This is so vague, I can't argue in favor or against it.

More later....
KgGoodybar
As to your remarks, Jaime, I know I had information about how much CO2 is being emitted by the US, but I can't find it right now. However, here are two different clips of how much 1 car or truck emits in one year.

1) "Massive, fuel-hogging sport utility vehicles emerged as a major villain in the report. In the United States, only two per cent of drivers owned SUVs in 1975, but that figure shot up to 22 per cent by 2001. In Canada, the number of SUV drivers rose from one per cent in 1981 to 10 per cent in 1988. Not only do SUVs emit more carbon dioxide than cars -- 5.4 tonnes a year compared to four tonnes"-Ottawa Citizen August 15, 2002

2) "Assigning a "carbon burden" to each manufacturer on the basis of its fleet, DeCicco noted that General Motors' 2000 model year U.S. fleet emitted around 7.4 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Second was Ford, with 6.2 million tons from the 2000 model year. Then came DaimlerChrysler with 4.6 million tons and Toyota at 2.2 million tons, he said." -The Atlanta Journal and Constitution July 31, 2002

There is evidence that says that the amount of CO2 is increasing year to year. This is undisputable!

As for the Kyoto Treaty, only DEVELOPED
KgGoodybar
As I was saying, as for the Kyoto Treaty, only DEVELOPED countries are asked to enter the agreement. Developing countries may join (which China is in the process of doing) and may be financial incentatives for those doing this. Under the Kyoto Treaty, any country that is over its limits, they may purchase other countries unused limits. This is the point I think you were trying to make. The main reason that the United States is holding back on Kyoto is because they don't think it is fair that developing countries are not regulated; giving them the chance to exceed limits set on developed countries.
Eeyore
Is the international nature of our corporations going to bring us in compliance with Kyoto without the government leading the way? Or was the Dupont (led?) Chicago Emissions exchange announcement (today) some kind of whitewash?

Traiding Hot Air
Ultimatejoe
"But my friend gets five dollars for an allowance, why do I only get one?" If this sort of behaviour isn't suitable for a child, why is the U.S. allowed to throw such a temper-tantrum? The developed world is in a position to do something, the developing world is not.
unabomber
I thought we did sign it? anyway, we should get off oil and use hydrogen fuel (ie liquid hydrogen, like gas is used, not fuel cells) harry braun jr has a plan to switch us over to H2 fuel, and you can put it directly into your fuel tank. you need only make a few minor adjustments to your engine (H2 burns at a faster rate the petrolium) the germans had cars that ran on H2 in the 30's and there was a guy that had a ford model-A (or was it T)that ran on hydrogen HE made in a rainbarrel, using a windmill for electricity. (you use an electric current to split the oxygen molecule of water (H2O) and are left with hydrogen) BMW has a car that can use gas and H2 with a flip of a switch.

checkout: http://www.phoenixproject.net/ or http://www.phoenixproject.net/faqs.htm
Ultimatejoe
I have an even better idea; public transit, biking, walking, and energy conservation. The auto industry receives huge tax subsidies in just about every country they operate; why not tax rebates for people who purchase bikes?
unabomber
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Feb 14 2003, 09:42 PM)
I have an even better idea; public transit, biking, walking, and energy conservation. The auto industry receives huge tax subsidies in just about every country they operate; why not tax rebates for people who purchase bikes?

you still need to fuel the buses, you still need to produce electric energy to conserve, and bikes and walking are slow inefficient, ways of transporting goods. we NEED some sort of fuel. hydrogen fuel burns clean, the only emission is water vapor (unless burned at very high temps) this way we can still use the cars and energy plants we have. stop producing cars with fuel tanks, and wean ourselves onto those, or we could use zero point energy, which is drawn off the active vacuum with one of these
Google
Hugo
QUOTE(KgGoodybar @ Dec 12 2002, 03:20 AM)


There are many arguments whether or not global warming is happening, but we need to look at the worse case scenario; if it is happening we must do something now before it is too late.

Since we cannot even prove global warming is due to human actions why act now? Why cannot we wait until we have uncontrovertible evidence that global warming is 1) Caused by human actions and 2) harmful?
nileriver
yes, i think that it is a proper way for the world to agree if not become aware that it has or should have a place in the world. It is silly to put something like it off. I dont think the u.s will sign it, not with bush in office. He is busy trying to get more protected areas open for production, its not good for money to be green shall we say.
Minute Man
Signing this agreement is possibly the worst idea ever. Why? Because it is based on flawed hypothesis.

The earth's biota produced the fossil fuels from carbon dioxide in its original atmosphere. Both plants and animals had a role in this sequestering and the semi-literate guess would put plants as the major sequestering life form...and those favoring this treaty would tend to agree as a majority. Truth is they are WRONG!

Where is most of the world's carbon? And what put it there? Coral. Mollusks. Carbonate formations, primarily biotic in nature. More carbon there than in all fossil fuels.

We as humans would be lucky to ever extract 1/100th of all fossil fuels. And out of this we are predicting the end of a habitable planet? Even an uncomfortable planet is an impossible outcome judging from the self-damping nature of this complex system. Life will find a way...and it will respond to increased levels of atmospheric CO2 by increasing the sequestering rate, mostly in deep sea methane hydrate deposits, something only recently of interest.

The life in the oceans eventually drops to the bottom of the sea, taking carbon with it. At depths over 1000 feet, this organic matter's decomposition releases methane which displaces the salts and dissolved solids in the water, forming ice which effectively traps the methane.
Minute Man
The argument for signing is based on evidence that two events were related, this being geologic records of CO2 in the air and mean global temperatures. What has not been proven is cause and effect, more aptly, which one of these events is the cause and which one is the effect.

This is a recent development is detailed here:

Nature

Aside from the dissolved CO2 in oceans, cooling of the oceans near the freezing point of water sequesters carbon in the form of methane hydrates, a gas-solid solution that will eventually (and rapidly on the geologic time scale) form natural gas deposits. Decomposition of marine sediment in cold water can form these deposits in situ without the need for a gas-liquid solution transport from the surface.

Microbiotic sequestering was the largest contributor to the current crop of liquid and gas fossil fuels and it has continued to this day.
Minute Man
If signing this treaty is based on sound science, how can data like this be true?:

NASA's take...

Well, the answer is quite simple. Yes, the increased CO2 is causing a warming of the troposphere but in conjunction, this additional thermal energy is fueling a major heat transfer mechanism with the high-altitude heat rejection mechanism associated with the hydrologic cycle, namely the latent heat of vaporization of water.

Radiant heat transfer is reduced with increased higher molecular weight atmospheric molecules like carbon dioxide and complex molecules like methane (CH4), leading to an increase of trapped thermal energy in the lower atmosphere. Water vapor (humidity) is much less of a heat trapping gas and in the hydrologic cycle, is transfered to higher altitudes where it is much easier for it to condense. Upon condensing, it releases tremondous heat energy and as such, is a much more efficient heat transfer mechanism that radiation from the surface.

The reason the IPCC should be look at with suspicion and Koyoto should NOT be signed are clear. This is all based on questionable science. More NASA research
Izdaari
QUOTE(nileriver @ Feb 17 2003, 10:31 PM)
yes, i think that it is a proper way for the world to agree if not become aware that it has or should have a place in the world. It is silly to put something like it off. I dont think the u.s will sign it, not with bush in office. He is busy trying to get more protected areas open for production, its not good for money to be green shall we say.

Not with Clinton in office either I'll remind you. He refused to sign it before Bush did. Possibly because he knew it would be politically DOA in the Senate, and also possibly because he was smart enough to know it was junk science though he couldn't say so because that would have been anathema to some of his core constituency. (I'm no Clinton fan but I never thought he was less than a political genius and very bright in general.)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.