Rick,
You did nor read my post about this China-propaganda by US, therefore I
will repeat it.
"140 countries, which is around half the countries in the world and who
represent more than 55% of the pollution with greenhouse gases, have signed
the Kyoto protocol. US with 4+% of world population, is solely responsible
for more than 25% of the worlds greenhouse gas pollution."
"I am very upset by the current US propaganda, who assumes that my
faculties are on the level of an ignorant child. Around half of the
countries in the world are not signatories of Kyoto and if we exclude the
US, they represent less than 20% of the pollution. That less than 20%
pollution includes many of the most populated countries and well over half
the world population, among them China. How can anyone be so stupid, to
assume that this would be a valid reason for US to not sign the agreement."
My education in basic mathematics, tell me that the Kyoto signatories plus
US is responsible for more than 80% of the green house gases. It was a very
long time ago, so if my mathematics is not correct, please enlighten me.
Have you actually looked at China, as you suggest others to do?
If you have, what is the worrying part, in comparison with US?
Are you aware of that, if the developing countries would be a part of
Kyoto, it would take away any chance of future development?
Are you aware of that China is not a developed country?
When are you going to look on US propaganda with some critical eyes?
Do you not think that if more than 80% of green house gases would be
included in Kyoto, it would be a very good start?
Do you not think that it is ridiculous that US seeks support in the fact
that Australia did not sign also, a country that have around 6% of the
population of US and a larger land mass? LOL
Hakan
At 06:12 AM 2/23/2005, you wrote:
Dear Keith,
You are right of course. I should study the whole treaty rather than
rely on what I read about it. Also, my thanks to you for untangling my
sentence about Republicans.
I may be being a pessimist here but I don't see the world doing much about
global warming in time to stop it's effects. Even if the US got on board
the agreements don't seem to me to go far enough. I know, "go read
them" OK I will. By your own figures, a 60 - 80 % cut in CO2,
there would have to be a massive change in the way we generate our
energy. Look at China just since the treaty was negotiated. Look at
South East Asia. I think little can be done until an alternative system
for producing energy that doesn't pollute and provides the same amount of
energy is in place. What bothers me more than the US failure to sign the
treaty is that lack of serious commitment to replacing fossil fuels. The
hydrogen economy proposed by Bush is a joke.
As to the effect of global; warming I think your comparison with Venus is
a bit over the top. For the last few million years the major trends in
climate have been controlled by the orbit of the earth around the sun and
the precession or "wobble" in the earth's rotation. These cycles control
the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun which varies by about
10% (Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery by John Imbrie and Katherine Palmer
Imbrie 1979). For the last two million years or so,
the period of time that can be tracked by core borings of ice, the
climate has been distinguished by long periods of cold, ice ages, with
short periods of warming. With respect to the cycles we should be
sliding into a new ice age with the global temperature about two degrees
colder than it has been over the last ten thousand years since the end of
the last ice age. Apparently, human activity has forestalled this. As
noted by another contributor to this group, at some point we will run out
of fossil fuel to pollute with and at that point it is possible that the
global temperature will crash precipitously to the point in the climate
cycle we would have been at had human activity not have occurred. Global
warming is expensive no doubt. So is having New York and Chicago buried
under a mile thick layer of ice. I suppose the ideal would be to
understand the chemistry of the atmosphere to the point where we could
avoid both extremes although you can imagine the fights that would go on
between nations as to where to set the thermostat.
Rick
Keith Addison wrote:
Hello Rick
Dear DB,
I liked your response. Partly, I suppose, because it accords with my
own thoughts. There is no doubt at this point that global warming is
occurring even among some republicans.
There's no doubt even among some republicans or it's occurring even among
some republicans? The first, cause to rejoice (though that's been the
case for awhile I think), if the second, depending who they are, if
they're becoming prone to spontaneous combustion should we shed tears or
consider them as an alternative energy source? (Sorry!)
What drives it it the question. There are no shortage of non man made
effects that could raise the global temperature. Methane produced by
termite colonies world wide is more abundant than any man made green house gas.
And it plays an important and complex role in the climate andd the upper
atmosphere.
The main problem with this sort of argument though, apart from the
now-massive body of science that debunks it, is that the termites have
not been working more and more overtime for the last 200 years to account
for the rising temperatures. The lead contender for that, by a whole
bunch of lengths, is CO2 produced by us.
It seems apparent to me that what ever the cause the effect is not
stoppable at this point. There is just no time left to turn the
battleship before it hits the pier.
How do you know that? A very premature conclusion, with little to support
it that I know of. Again, at the Kyoto Protocol celebrations in Kyoto on
Wednesday the speakers were talking of the need for 60-80% CO2 cuts, and
these people were mostly being placatory, not provocative. Such figures
have been making it into print more and more in the last couple of years.
It was common parlance at the Climate Change conference in Nairobi in
1992, among those people I'd guess that 60-80% would now be seen as very
conservative.
So we (or some of us at least) blew it on precaution in favour of sheer
greed, so now let's just accept that and give up trying to curb the
damage we've done when we've hardly even begun? Is that what you're
saying? Sod that. (Pardon me.) We're able to expend much greater efforts,
resources and expertise on mitigation than anything that's been done so
far. Mitigation is a major plank of the Kyoto Protocol which now comes
into force. I really don't mean to be insulting, but I have to say that
you sound a bit like former Commissioner of the US Patent Office Charles
H. Duell, who said in 1899 that "Everything that can be invented has been
invented." This is perhaps the greatest challenge humanity has faced,
we're ingenious little monkeys, I don't think you should gong us out
before we're even in the ring.
Would we not be better off at this point figuring out how to live in a
warmer world than trying to stop a flood with a tea cup?
Say you were already there so there wasn't a transport problem, how would
you go about living on Venus? You and six billion others, plus the whole
biosphere? Do you think that would less of a technological challenge than
mitigating global warming at this stage on Earth?
The Kyoto protocol has considerable economic consequences.
Global warming has even more considerable economic consequences. The
insurance industry calculated that global warming cost US$60 billion in
2003, going up fast.
Is this the best use of the worlds resources to solve the problem?
Do you know of a better one? Nobody closely involved with the Kyoto
Protocol sees it as a final document, nor as perfect, just as a first
step - it enables further steps. That's absolutely true - things are
possible this week that were not possible last week. You'd need to assess
all this very closely, and for some time to come, before you could safely
draw conclusions as to whether or not it's the best use of the world's
resources to solve the problem. The point is that it's the ONLY such use
of the world's resources, it has international acceptance and force and
it is happening now. What would you prefer? Another 13 years of talking
about it? As it is, if better uses of resources emerge than are now
envisaged, as no doubt they will, it's within the framework of the Kyoto
Protocol that they'll be implemented.
Would it not be better to determine the likely consequences of warming
and figure out how best to deal with them?
That's included in the Kyoto Protocol. Maybe you should go and study it.
http://i-newswire.com/pr6144.html
i-Newswire.com - Press Release And News Distribution - WORLDWIDE
CELEBRATIONS TO MARK KYOTO PROTOCOL'S ENTRY INTO FORCE 16 FEBRUARY
"The Kyoto Protocol's entry into force means that from 16 February
2005... the Protocol's Adaptation Fund, established in 2001, can become
operational to assist developing countries to cope with the negative
effects of climate change."
[more]
The industrialised nations are expected to "take the lead" in these
efforts (rather than leaving the 3rd World countries to it). No country
will be immune, but it's already apparent that the 3rd World countries,
who've contributed to it the least, will be the hardest hit and the least
equipped to cope with it.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
Kyoto Protocol
KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Best wishes
Keith
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
