A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 27th 05, 02:58 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?

Looks like the treaty designed to bring down American industry with the bogus
concept that we can actually do something about global warming not only failed
when we didn't agree to commit economic suicide by signing it, but also
confounds its signer's governments to actually meet it themselves:

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle335198.ece

Short of having the entirity of humanity commit suicide, or try to do without
modern transportation which would mostly kill everybody anyway, the damn
greenhouse gases are going to increase. If we kill everyone in a nuclear war,
then maybe... when houses don't have to be heated with fossil fuels, people
don't have to grow and transport food with fossil fuels, we don't have to drive
to work and back with fossil fuels, then _maybe_ global warming would reverse
(but probably not - there's a natural component to it, too.)

Dave Head
Ads
  #2  
Old December 28th 05, 02:45 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?


Dave Head wrote:
> Looks like the treaty designed to bring down American industry with the bogus
> concept that we can actually do something about global warming not only failed
> when we didn't agree to commit economic suicide by signing it, but also
> confounds its signer's governments to actually meet it themselves:
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle335198.ece
>
> Short of having the entirity of humanity commit suicide, or try to do without
> modern transportation which would mostly kill everybody anyway, the damn
> greenhouse gases are going to increase. If we kill everyone in a nuclear war,
> then maybe... when houses don't have to be heated with fossil fuels, people
> don't have to grow and transport food with fossil fuels, we don't have to drive
> to work and back with fossil fuels, then _maybe_ global warming would reverse
> (but probably not - there's a natural component to it, too.)
>
> Dave Head


The thing about the Kyoto protocole is that committing economic suicide
is exactly what the nutjob environmentalists that pushed that treaty
through wanted to happen. Thank god the United States didn't sign off
on it, and hopefully by the time of the next presidential election,
this agreement will be shown for what it truly is.

  #3  
Old December 28th 05, 04:18 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?

Not exactly what this has to do with driving (well, except for the slow
introduction of hybrids).

OK, the US can pass Kyoto only when the third world manufacturing
centres (China, India, Malayasia, Indonesia, and so on) sign on, and
enforce it too. Until then...
(heh, wouldn't it be cool if the widespread adoption of diesel hybrids
(low green house gas producing, but, alas, right now high particulates)
brought down the US emission levels...)

  #4  
Old December 28th 05, 05:14 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?

On 27 Dec 2005 19:18:26 -0800, "Sir Ray" > wrote:

>Not exactly what this has to do with driving (well, except for the slow
>introduction of hybrids).


Driving produces the major volume of greenhouse gases and is most likely to be
attacked by the environmental extremists in an effort to "do something" about
global warming.
>
>OK, the US can pass Kyoto only when the third world manufacturing
>centres (China, India, Malayasia, Indonesia, and so on) sign on, and
>enforce it too. Until then...


Right. Just 'cuz its India or China doesn't make the emissions any less
relevant to the global warming problem (if you accept that there is a problem
and/or that we actually have the power to do something about it.)

>(heh, wouldn't it be cool if the widespread adoption of diesel hybrids
>(low green house gas producing, but, alas, right now high particulates)
>brought down the US emission levels...)


Yep. It'd be great, and I think it'll happen, as the diesels, in the high-30's
of mpgs, are likely to be sold like hotcakes, off and on, as the price of gas
goes over $3.00 a gallon again and again.

Dave HEad

  #5  
Old December 28th 05, 03:56 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?


Dave Head wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2005 19:18:26 -0800, "Sir Ray" > wrote:
>
> >Not exactly what this has to do with driving (well, except for the slow
> >introduction of hybrids).

>
> Driving produces the major volume of greenhouse gases and is most likely to be
> attacked by the environmental extremists in an effort to "do something" about
> global warming.


That's bull ****. Driving makes up a very small percentage of
greenhouse gasses. What makes up the vast majority of greenhouse
gasses? Emissions from Volcanoes and yes, animals.

> >
> >OK, the US can pass Kyoto only when the third world manufacturing
> >centres (China, India, Malayasia, Indonesia, and so on) sign on, and
> >enforce it too. Until then...

>
> Right. Just 'cuz its India or China doesn't make the emissions any less
> relevant to the global warming problem (if you accept that there is a problem
> and/or that we actually have the power to do something about it.)


Those third world manufacturing centers are growing at a fast pace. If
the United States and other industrialized, non-third world countries
have to cut emissions, doesn't it only make sense to expect developing
countries to stop the problem in their countries BEFORE the problems in
those countries are greatly multiplied? If Kyoto is so correct about
the dangers of global warming, that treaty should pressure EVERY
country to reduce emissions, not just the ones where heavy industry has
been around the longest. To do otherwise, is hypocritical.

>
> >(heh, wouldn't it be cool if the widespread adoption of diesel hybrids
> >(low green house gas producing, but, alas, right now high particulates)
> >brought down the US emission levels...)

>
> Yep. It'd be great, and I think it'll happen, as the diesels, in the high-30's
> of mpgs, are likely to be sold like hotcakes, off and on, as the price of gas
> goes over $3.00 a gallon again and again.
>
> Dave HEad


  #6  
Old December 28th 05, 04:46 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?

On 28 Dec 2005 06:56:07 -0800, "Allen Seth Dunn" > wrote:

>
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 27 Dec 2005 19:18:26 -0800, "Sir Ray" > wrote:
>>
>> >Not exactly what this has to do with driving (well, except for the slow
>> >introduction of hybrids).

>>
>> Driving produces the major volume of greenhouse gases and is most likely to be
>> attacked by the environmental extremists in an effort to "do something" about
>> global warming.

>
>That's bull ****. Driving makes up a very small percentage of
>greenhouse gasses. What makes up the vast majority of greenhouse
>gasses? Emissions from Volcanoes and yes, animals.


Yeah, OK, I can see that - I meant man-made emissions. Volconoes are not
subject to pinheaded attempts at legislation to curb their emissions and so
therefore aren't worth mentioning. As for animals, they contribute no new
carbon to the atmosphere because the carbon the produce was already taken from
the atmosphere when the vegetation they ate processed it into plant matter.

>> >OK, the US can pass Kyoto only when the third world manufacturing
>> >centres (China, India, Malayasia, Indonesia, and so on) sign on, and
>> >enforce it too. Until then...

>>
>> Right. Just 'cuz its India or China doesn't make the emissions any less
>> relevant to the global warming problem (if you accept that there is a problem
>> and/or that we actually have the power to do something about it.)

>
>Those third world manufacturing centers are growing at a fast pace. If
>the United States and other industrialized, non-third world countries
>have to cut emissions, doesn't it only make sense to expect developing
>countries to stop the problem in their countries BEFORE the problems in
>those countries are greatly multiplied?


Yep.

>If Kyoto is so correct about
>the dangers of global warming, that treaty should pressure EVERY
>country to reduce emissions, not just the ones where heavy industry has
>been around the longest. To do otherwise, is hypocritical.


Yep. But the objective of the Kyoto treaty was to damage the US industrial
base even further, and hamper our transportation. Other countries are jealous
of our natural resources, capability to use them, etc., and figure that they
can use the red herring of attempting to stop a natural process to weaken the
US economically.

Dave Head

>> >(heh, wouldn't it be cool if the widespread adoption of diesel hybrids
>> >(low green house gas producing, but, alas, right now high particulates)
>> >brought down the US emission levels...)

>>
>> Yep. It'd be great, and I think it'll happen, as the diesels, in the high-30's
>> of mpgs, are likely to be sold like hotcakes, off and on, as the price of gas
>> goes over $3.00 a gallon again and again.
>>
>> Dave HEad


  #7  
Old December 28th 05, 08:00 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?


Dave Head wrote:
> Looks like the treaty designed to bring down American industry with the bogus
> concept that we can actually do something about global warming not only failed
> when we didn't agree to commit economic suicide by signing it, but also
> confounds its signer's governments to actually meet it themselves:
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle335198.ece
>
> Short of having the entirity of humanity commit suicide, or try to do without
> modern transportation which would mostly kill everybody anyway, the damn
> greenhouse gases are going to increase. If we kill everyone in a nuclear war,
> then maybe... when houses don't have to be heated with fossil fuels, people
> don't have to grow and transport food with fossil fuels, we don't have to drive
> to work and back with fossil fuels, then _maybe_ global warming would reverse
> (but probably not - there's a natural component to it, too.)
>
> Dave Head


No offense, but aside from the economic impacts which I agree with,
this is pure conjecture and speculation. I prefer to let scientific
research determine what will really happen.

>From another layman's viewpoint it seems obvious that one car, one

house, and one factory running on fossil fuels is not going to melt the
polar ice caps or anything like that and the environment would cope
with it without any significant global effects. That's just a gut
reaction, not based on physical research at all, and could therefore be
wrong. I'll believe the general scientific community's research on
this topic over my own gut reaction every time. But if that gut
reaction is right, perhaps the atmosphere could even deal with two
cars, or maybe three.

I.e., I think the reality is that there is probably a certain rate of
greenhouse gas emissions the environment could cope with just fine.
Let's let good science tell us if that is correct, and if it is, what
that limit is and then try to meet it rather than make decisions of
this sort by taking polls on the street from non-scientists about what
their opinions are on the matter. I value scientific opinion very
highly, and I would hope most other people do too.

I tend to think the global warming issue is not a purely economic one.
Obviously as we burn more of it the supply drops and it becomes more
expensive, therefore is used less and the rate of pollution decreases.
If the supply is large enough, however, we could very well burn
ourselves right into some serious trouble.

I'm a firm believer in market forces and economics as you may be.
However, in this case it may be dangerous to simply allow market forces
to dictate what happens. I think on this topic it's absolutely
essential to pay attention to the scientists researching global warming
as well as consider the economic impacts, then make a decision
considering all factors. Our survival and the survival of future
generations should be priority number one in my opinion, however.

  #8  
Old December 28th 05, 11:24 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?

In article .com>, Allen Seth Dunn wrote:

> Those third world manufacturing centers are growing at a fast pace. If
> the United States and other industrialized, non-third world countries
> have to cut emissions, doesn't it only make sense to expect developing
> countries to stop the problem in their countries BEFORE the problems in
> those countries are greatly multiplied? If Kyoto is so correct about
> the dangers of global warming, that treaty should pressure EVERY
> country to reduce emissions, not just the ones where heavy industry has
> been around the longest. To do otherwise, is hypocritical.


Furthermore, if the desire is to protect the environment, why make a
policy that only further encourages manufacturing to locate to nations
where the straightforward 'you may not poison the river' environmental
protections do not exist? If the desire was to protect the environment,
the desire should be to locate manufacturing in the USA, Europe, Japan,
and any other nation with strong environmental protections.

After all, for gobal warming (should the premise be correct), it doesn't
matter where the CO2 comes from on the globe. However, for more typical
environmental damage such as dumping sludge in rivers and spewing toxic
gases, it matters a lot.

  #9  
Old December 29th 05, 02:25 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?

On 28 Dec 2005 06:56:07 -0800, "Allen Seth Dunn" >
wrote:

>
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 27 Dec 2005 19:18:26 -0800, "Sir Ray" > wrote:
>>
>> >Not exactly what this has to do with driving (well, except for the slow
>> >introduction of hybrids).

>>
>> Driving produces the major volume of greenhouse gases and is most likely to be
>> attacked by the environmental extremists in an effort to "do something" about
>> global warming.

>
>That's bull ****. Driving makes up a very small percentage of
>greenhouse gasses. What makes up the vast majority of greenhouse
>gasses? Emissions from Volcanoes and yes, animals.


No, no no. Don't you see - by including everything that emits these
"greenhouse" gasses, you are skewing the data to make it look like man
made gasses are a very small part of the total. Oh wait, that isn't
skewing, it is stating the facts. Oh well, with all the environuts
spewing their own hot air about alleged "greenhouse" gasses, and the
pseudo science it is based on, I sometimes forget that true science
means looking at actual data.
  #10  
Old December 29th 05, 02:26 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kyoto - Worse to Not Sign Treaty, or Sign It and then Not Obey It?

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:46:08 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:

>Yeah, OK, I can see that - I meant man-made emissions. Volconoes are not
>subject to pinheaded attempts at legislation to curb their emissions and so
>therefore aren't worth mentioning. As for animals, they contribute no new


So, the portion that releases 95% can be ignored so we can concentrate
on your .005%.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.