DVD Talk
Kyoto is unfair to U.S. [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Kyoto is unfair to U.S.


Myster X
10-22-04, 12:40 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-10-20-oppose_x.htm

Posted 10/20/2004 7:28 PM

By S. Fred Singer
In July 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 for a resolution opposing any international treaty that would damage the economy by restricting energy usage, raising the cost of fuels for transportation, heating and electricity.
This unanimous vote included Sen. John Kerry, and Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who are currently advocating just such restrictions. But the resolution was right. A treaty obligating developed nations but not China, India, Brazil and Mexico would produce huge U.S. job losses as industries moved overseas.

However, because of the initiative of then-vice president Al Gore, the U.S. signed just such a treaty, the protocol negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. But President Clinton never submitted it for Senate ratification. And President Bush has consistently declared Kyoto "fatally flawed."

Neither Bush nor the Senate has pointed out, however, that Kyoto is not only costly and unfair to the U.S., but it is also ineffective in averting a feared global warming. Scientists all agree that at best it would reduce the calculated temperature rise in 2050 by an insignificant one-tenth of a degree.

Russia has been more outspoken. The Russian Academy of Sciences, in a May 2004 report, questioned the reality of substantial future warming, concluding that Kyoto lacks any scientific base. President Vladimir Putin declared Kyoto "scientifically flawed" and intimated that Russia would not ratify it.

Yet, ironically, Russia's parliament will likely ratify it before the year's end, making Kyoto binding on all ratifiers. Why? The reason may be short-term economic gain, as the protocol permits selling Russia's unused emission rights to Europeans anxious to ease the economic penalties of Kyoto's restrictions.

Russia's economic collapse after 1990 nearly halved its emissions — and the base year chosen for Kyoto is 1990. This arbitrary choice also favors Germany, which took over a faltering East German economy, and Great Britain, which switched its electric generation from coal to natural gas at about that time. We would lose out, and maybe that's why our economic competitors are so anxious to get us to ratify Kyoto.

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and the author of Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (Independent Institute, Oakland, 1999).

DarkElf
10-22-04, 01:41 AM
A. I agree that Kyoto was/is fundamentally flawed.

B. Many people agree (me included) that Kyoto was a _start_ to solving global warming, but not the end-all-be-all solution.

C. I don't really have a problem with the US not ratifying the treaty.

D What I do have a problem with is making no attempt to fix or alter the treaty, and instead, just walking away, giving the rest of the world the middle finger. But then again, this administration is really good at that. ;)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~


As an aside, isn't this the same environmental expert who's always on the side _opposite_ the environmentalists? Or is that some other professor at UVA?

kvrdave
10-22-04, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by DarkElf

D What I do have a problem with is making no attempt to fix or alter the treaty, and instead, just walking away, giving the rest of the world the middle finger. But then again, this administration is really good at that. ;)


Which administration did that?

Ranger
10-22-04, 03:14 AM
Wow, I didn't think Kyoto was that old.

I don't know the exact details of what the treaty calls for, but I'm sure there are some standards that the US can meet. I think the US could 'reluctantly' agree to some of those standards. but shouldn't sign the treaty. Maybe use the 'good faith' principle for the standards of the treaty that the US can agree on and leave the door open for a new international environmental treaty in the future.

VinVega
10-22-04, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Ranger
Wow, I didn't think Kyoto was that old.

I don't know the exact details of what the treaty calls for, but I'm sure there are some standards that the US can meet. I think the US could 'reluctantly' agree to some of those standards. but shouldn't sign the treaty. Maybe use the 'good faith' principle for the standards of the treaty that the US can agree on and leave the door open for a new international environmental treaty in the future.
:up:

That's called diplomacy. You usually see that from a US White House.

OldDude
10-22-04, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by DarkElf
D What I do have a problem with is making no attempt to fix or alter the treaty, and instead, just walking away, giving the rest of the world the middle finger. But then again, this administration is really good at that. ;)

95-0 rejection isn't "the finger?" Whose watch was that?

Myster X
10-23-04, 12:57 PM
too bad the article didn't mention Russia traded Kyoto for WTO

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041022/pl_afp/un_climate_reax_041022224140

US rejects world calls to join Russia in ratifying Kyoto pact

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States, flying in the face of snowballing world opinion, said it would not follow Russia's lead and ratify the Kyoto protocol on global warming.

"We have no intention of signing or ratifying it. We have not changed our views," a defiant deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said after the European Union (news - web sites) and environmentalists across the globe hailed Moscow's decision and urged Washington to follow suit.

Heading the chorus of delight after the Russian cabinet approved the Kyoto pact and sent it to lawmakers for ratification was the EU, which has been battling to save the accord thrown into disarray by the US walkout.

"This is a huge success for the international fight against climate change," declared European Commission (news - web sites) President Romano Prodi. "Today (Russian) President (Vladimir) Putin has sent a strong signal of his commitment and sense of responsibility.

"We are happy that the Russian Duma has decided to ratify. We hope that the United States will now re-consider its position."

But the State Department left no room for hope.

"We note the actions taken today," said Ereli, "but I'd refer you to the Russians for opinion or comment on their rationale for ratifying it. Our position against it remains the same."

EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem said Russia's action "sends a very forceful signal to the rest of the world... It is also very much a victory for the European Union."

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, a Green party member, said, "For the first time there can be global responsibility for the world's climate and the management of its resources."

"This is an important signal to the entire international community," said German Environment Minister Juergen Trittin, also a Green, the junior partner in Germany's governing coalition.

French Ecology Minister Serge Lepeltier said he was "delighted."

And Greenpeace International campaigner Steve Sawyer said US President George W. Bush (news - web sites), whose rejection of Kyoto in 2001 pushed the pact toward extinction, was now isolated.

Getting Russia on board, he said, dealt "a major blow to President Bush (news - web sites) and his paymasters in the fossil fuel industry.

"His administration and other climate criminals like Exxon-Mobil have failed in their attempt to wreck Kyoto, even going so far as to suppress the work of their own scientists."

On the other side, Frank Maisano, a Washington lobbyist for the US utilities industry, dismissed the Russian move as "largely symbolic," and called the treaty "meaningless, ineffective and toothless."

And Japanese industry fretted over the economic cost of meeting anti-pollution targets and doubted whether Kyoto was workable.

"It is questionable if the treaty, which commits only one-third of the world's countries to obligations, will prove effective while the United States and China stay out of it," said Yuzo Ichikawa, executive director of the Japan Iron and Steel Federation.


China is a Kyoto member but as a developing country does not have to meet specific targets for cutting emissions.

Russia's ratification is vital for transforming Kyoto from a draft 1997 agreement into a working international treaty. Moscow had for years hedged on whether it would approve the pact.
The Protocol requires industrialized signatories to trim output of six "greenhouse" gases by 2008-2012 compared with their 1990 levels.

In the United States, in the throes of a hotly contested presidential race just days from the November 2 election, Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) made little effort to distance himself from incumbent Bush, saying Kyoto "is not the answer."

"The near-term emission reductions it would require of the United States are unfeasible, while the long-term obligations imposed onm all nations are to litle to solve the problem," he said on his website.

Bush, in the second debate on October 8, said, "Had we joined the Kyoto treaty...it would have cost America a lot of jobs. It's one of these deals where, in order to be popular in the halls of Europe, you sign a treaty...I think there's a better way to do it."

Kerry at the time had accused Bush of not "living in a world of reality with respect to the environment.

"The fact is that the Kyoto treaty was flawed," he said. "But this president didn't try to fix it. He just declared it dead...and we walked away from the work of 160 nations over 10 years."

kvrdave
10-23-04, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Myster X

"The fact is that the Kyoto treaty was flawed," he said. "But this president didn't try to fix it. He just declared it dead...and we walked away from the work of 160 nations over 10 years." [/B]

Obviously, he believes that this was done under Bush's watch, just as DarkElf does. -wink-

OldDude
10-23-04, 02:55 PM
Bush negated all 3.5 years of Clinton's hard work (absolutely none -- no one took it seriously after 1997 Senate defeat) within 2 seconds of taking office.

nemein
10-23-04, 03:55 PM
What was Kerry's vote on that anyway? Did he even bother showing up? Has he done one of his "voted for it before voting against it" explainations? Did he push Clinton for reform or did Kerry let it die too?

bhk
10-23-04, 04:04 PM
Another treaty that Russia will cheat on. Yeaaahhhh.

Hiro11
10-23-04, 05:29 PM
1. I could point out any number of scientific articles that show that Kyoto is based on a flawed atmospheric model and would not provide any measureable effect. Any effect that would be achieved would only be measureable after several hundred years when technology had progressed, at which point the treaty would be irrelevent. For example, this one: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
2. It was rejected under Clinton 7 years ago.
3. Russia only signed it because they were forced to do so to get crucial economic benefits from the EU. I'm sure they plan on complying, just like the Germans, Spanish, Italians and French (heck, anyone in Europe) plan on complying with the economic requirements of the Euro.
4. The treaty would absolutely ruin the economy of the United States, and yes that does matter.

OldDude
10-23-04, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by nemein
What was Kerry's vote on that anyway? Did he even bother showing up? Has he done one of his "voted for it before voting against it" explainations? Did he push Clinton for reform or did Kerry let it die too?

Well, the "0" part of the score says nobody voted to ratify it, so either he skipped or he voted against it, which, of course neatly explains why he is now "for it."

kvrdave
10-23-04, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by nemein
What was Kerry's vote on that anyway? Did he even bother showing up? Has he done one of his "voted for it before voting against it" explainations? Did he push Clinton for reform or did Kerry let it die too?

He's been consistant and you know it :grunt:

IMRICKJAMES
10-23-04, 06:00 PM
the Kyoto treaty is stupid

It leaves countries like China and India to pollute and pollute. There needs to be a treaty that sets the best global standard possible not setting a standard for some countries and not others. Something is better than nothing

movielib
10-23-04, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Hiro11
1. I could point out any number of scientific articles that show that Kyoto is based on a flawed atmospheric model and would not provide any measureable effect. Any effect that would be achieved would only be measureable after several hundred years when technology had progressed, at which point the treaty would be irrelevent. For example, this one: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
2. It was rejected under Clinton 7 years ago.
3. Russia only signed it because they were forced to do so to get crucial economic benefits from the EU. I'm sure they plan on complying, just like the Germans, Spanish, Italians and French (heck, anyone in Europe) plan on complying with the economic requirements of the Euro.
4. The treaty would absolutely ruin the economy of the United States, and yes that does matter.
I agree with everything you said.

And in the seven years since the Patrick Michaels' testimony you linked, what he said then has become even clearer. I highly recommend his brand new book:

Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1930865597/dvdtalk/qid=1098574604/sr=2-2/ref=pd_ka_b_2_2/104-4610764-5146347)

OldDude
10-23-04, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by VinVega
:up:

That's called diplomacy. You usually see that from a US White House.

So why didn't Clinton start that process after the Senate rejected the original version 95-0 in 1997. Where was his leadership? Why did it sit, totally dead, for 3.5 years before Bush even took office, as well as 3.5 years after? Are there really 95 Republicans in Congress?

(disclaimer: please note I think Kyoto is dumbfuck idea and I'm glad he didn't. I'm just asking)

DivxGuy
10-24-04, 11:04 PM
So why didn't Clinton start that process after the Senate rejected the original version 95-0 in 1997.
A very good point, one that I've never seen addressed in the media.

Myster X
10-25-04, 04:11 PM
more bad news for Kyoto

Kyoto Too Little to Fix Warming - UN Climate Chief

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041025/sc_nm/environment_warming_dc_1

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) - Although saved last week with Russian help, the Kyoto pact on global warming offers too little to arrest climate change and governments should adopt more radical solutions, the top U.N. climate expert said.



"My feeling is that we will probably need to do more than most people are talking about" to combat climate change, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations (news - web sites)' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told Reuters.


He welcomed ratification of the Kyoto pact on Friday by Russia's lower house of parliament, paving the way for the long-delayed 1997 accord to enter into force in the 126 nations that approved it even though the world's greatest polluter, the United States, pulled out in 2001.


"This mustn't lull us into thinking that the problem is solved," Pachauri said. "Kyoto is not enough. We now have to look at the problem afresh."


Kyoto is a first step toward curbing emissions of gases like carbon dioxide, mainly from burning fossil fuels, that scientists blame for trapping heat in the atmosphere like the panes of glass in a greenhouse.


Rising concentrations could melt icecaps, swamp low-lying coastal regions and trigger catastrophic changes to the planet's climate with more volatile weather from typhoons to droughts.


Pachauri urged the world to shift strategy from Kyoto's reduction targets for greenhouse gases to long-term global targets on how much of the gases the atmosphere should contain.


Carbon dioxide levels have risen about 30 percent since the start of the 18th century to almost 380 parts per million.


"We need a degree of agreement on where to stabilize concentrations," he said. "We have to try to come up with an understanding of where we are heading in the next 30-40 years."


Pachauri leads work to produce a 2007 U.N. climate report based on research by more than 2,000 scientists, updating a 2001 assessment that concluded there was "new and stronger evidence" that human activities were to blame for rising temperatures.


"My hope is that this (2007 report) will be able to fill gaps, reduce uncertainties and produce a much stronger message," said Pachauri, who is based in New Delhi.


Under Kyoto, developed nations have agreed to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by at least five percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12 by restraining use of coal, oil and natural gas and shifting to renewable energies like wind and solar energy.

Mordred
10-25-04, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Myster X
He welcomed ratification of the Kyoto pact on Friday by Russia's lower house of parliament, paving the way for the long-delayed 1997 accord to enter into force in the 126 nations that approved it even though the world's greatest polluter, the United States, pulled out in 2001. So when did we pull out, 1997 or 2001? I'm confused.

Myster X
10-25-04, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Mordred
So when did we pull out, 1997 or 2001? I'm confused.

Depends on what you party affiliation is. ;) See several earlier posts on this thread.

kvrdave
10-25-04, 07:08 PM
So, uh....want happened to our ice age that we were worried about in the 70s?

al_bundy
11-12-04, 11:36 AM
i just watched Day After Tomorrow

i can't believe it was actually supposed to be a message in favor of kyoto and against fossil fuels. my favorite part is when the see the mammoth and find out it was flash frozen by an instant ice age. of course thousands of years ago it happened naturally and today only oil can cause an ice age

SFranke
11-12-04, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by VinVega
That's called diplomacy. You usually see that from a US White House.

World: "Drink this poison."

Diplomatic White House: "We'll only drink half."

Myster X
11-12-04, 11:58 AM
by the way, Putin has already signed the protocol.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/05/russia.kyoto.ap/

MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- President Vladimir Putin has signed a bill confirming Russia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, clearing the way for the global climate pact to take force early next year, the Kremlin said Friday.

bhk
11-12-04, 12:26 PM
Well we all know what it means when Russians sign a treaty.

This treaty is a giant extortion note allowing 3rd world coutries to take our money and the funny thing about the enviros is that they want the US to agree to it.

al_bundy
11-12-04, 12:58 PM
if the US signs kyoto it will mean a new wave of outsourcing to the third world like we have not seen before

namja
11-12-04, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by nemein
What was Kerry's vote on that anyway? Did he even bother showing up? Has he done one of his "voted for it before voting against it" explainations? Did he push Clinton for reform or did Kerry let it die too?
Originally posted by kvrdave
He's been consistant and you know it :grunt:
Apparently, some people don't read.

The article clearly says that Kerry voted (part of the 95-0): "This unanimous vote included Sen. John Kerry, and Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn ..."

X
11-12-04, 01:45 PM
It looks like the signers of Kyoto need all the help they can get in slowing down the U.S. and China economies. A strong euro certainly isn't working. New Data Shows Third-Quarter Slowdown in Euro-Zone Growth
The Associated Press
Published: Nov 12, 2004

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Growth in the euro-zone economy slowed sharply in the third quarter, led by weaker-than-expected results in France and Germany, and is expected to remain sluggish in the next six months, according to data released Friday.

The European Union's statistics agency showed that the economy of the 12 nations using the common currency grew by 0.3 percent from the second quarter, and by 1.9 percent from the same period in 2003.

The figures were below most economists' expectations for gains of 0.4 percent and 2.0 percent.

This marks a significant slowdown in activity from the second quarter, when gross domestic product expanded by 0.5 percent on the quarter and by 2.0 percent on the year.

Economists blamed slow world trade, the euro's strength against the dollar, high oil prices and persistently lethargic domestic consumption.

"It was hard to imagine that growth could be any faster than that," said Hicham Zemmouri, euro-zone analyst at ABN-Amro Bank in Amsterdam.

The EU's head office also cut its growth estimates for the last quarter of the year and the first quarter of next year, without giving a reason for the revisions.

It now expects the economy to grow by 0.2 percent to 0.6 percent in both the fourth quarter and in the first three months of 2005. It had previously said the economy would expand by 0.3 percent to 0.7 percent in the October-December period.

The third-quarter slowdown was influenced by weaker-than-expected growth of 0.1 percent in both France and Germany, the euro-zone's two largest economies.

Economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires had been looking for France to expand by 0.4 percent, and Germany to grow by 0.3 percent.

"This is a disappointing performance," Howard Archer, an economist at Global Insight, told Dow Jones Newswires. "It is clear that euro-zone exports came under increasing pressure in the third quarter from softer global growth, while domestic demand across the region was not strong enough to compensate for this."

Data released Friday in Tokyo also showed Japan suffering weaker-than-expected third-quarter growth as exports dwindled and companies scaled back investment.

Figures released by the Japanese Cabinet Office showed that the economy expanded just 0.1 percent in the quarter ended Sept. 30 - underlining emerging fears that the momentum of growth for the world's second-largest economy may be fading. Growth was 0.3 percent in annual terms.

In comparison, the U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 3.7 percent in the July-to-September quarter, while China's soaring economy grew at an annual rate of 9.1 percent in the third quarter of this year - way above the official 7 percent target.

With domestic consumption stubbornly low, particularly in Germany, hopes that exports would push up growth have been dented by the strong euro, which makes European exports more expensive on world market.

The euro hit an all-time high of US$1.3007 on Wednesday and high oil prices have been pushing up production costs - making it difficult for the euro zone to pick up much steam without a sharp increase in domestic demand.

Attempting to slow the dollar's slide, ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet has called the surge "brutal" and "not welcome."

The European Central Bank has left interest rates unchanged since June 2003, and is unlikely to raise rates anytime soon unless there are clear indications that the inflation rate will rise over the medium term as a result of higher energy costs.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB3JXZMG1E.html

bhk
11-12-04, 01:51 PM
Economists blamed slow world trade, the euro's strength against the dollar, high oil prices and persistently lethargic domestic consumption.
Domestic consumption tends to be lethargic when you tax everything they have.

movielib
11-12-04, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by bhk
...
This treaty is a giant extortion note allowing 3rd world coutries to take our money and the funny thing about the enviros is that they want the US to agree to it.
This surprises you?

Myster X
11-12-04, 04:33 PM
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1296072.html

Special Report: Kyoto's Economic Downside Ignored by Media

(CNSNews.com) - With the Kyoto Protocol set to take effect in much of the industrialized world - minus the United States - news reports of the treaty's possible economic downside have been harder to find than polar bears.

In fact, according to a new report issued by the Media Research Center's Free Market Project, network news programs mentioned polar bears three times as often as they discussed the cost estimates - as high as $440 billion a year - to the American economy.

At the center of the Kyoto Treaty is the contention that the world is facing dire environmental consequences as a result of "global warming." The Free Market Project researched network and cable news shows between Jan. 20, 2001, when President Bush was sworn into office, and Sept. 30, 2004 and found that there were three times as many news stories devoted to "global warming" as there were to the potential downside of the U.S. signing the treaty.

President Bush pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.

Read the Free Market Project Report.

dork
11-12-04, 05:30 PM
Always good to hear from the good folks at CNSNews.com. But I'll withhold my opinion until I've heard from WorldNetDaily and NewsMax.

DodgingCars
11-12-04, 07:27 PM
To defend Kerry:

He said it was flawed (he voted against it), but he believed it needed to be reworked (his criticism of Bush).

Of course, Kerry was using Kyoto mostly as an excuse to criticize Bush.

DodgingCars
11-12-04, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by dork
Always good to hear from the good folks at CNSNews.com. But I'll withhold my opinion until I've heard from WorldNetDaily and NewsMax.

I want to know what Green Peace and The Sierra Club have to say about this.

kvrdave
11-13-04, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by DodgingCars
To defend Kerry:

He said it was flawed (he voted against it), but he believed it needed to be reworked (his criticism of Bush).

Of course, Kerry was using Kyoto mostly as an excuse to criticize Bush.

Very true. This was basically his stand on everything. "I would do it as well, but I would do it better with the implementation of my secret plan".

DodgingCars
11-13-04, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by kvrdave
Very true. This was basically his stand on everything. "I would do it as well, but I would do it better with the implementation of my secret plan".

Apparently the "Everything you can do, I can do better" campaign didn't work though. :)

dork
11-13-04, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by kvrdave
Very true. This was basically his stand on everything. "I would do it as well, but I would do it better with the implementation of my secret plan".
Kerry proposed a concrete, rational energy plan. Your boy is the one whose brilliant solution to a complicated problem is to ignore it, coupled with vague babble about hydrogen fuel cells.

DarkElf
11-13-04, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by kvrdave
Obviously, he believes that this was done under Bush's watch, just as DarkElf does. -wink-
I'm glad I didn't bother to respond to this. It's been much sweeter seeing people of your own party contradicting you.


Originally posted by Hiro11
1. I could point out any number of scientific articles......
Typical response. Quote scientific articles when they back up your existing beliefs, but debase scientific articles when they don't.


Originally posted by IMRICKJAMES
Something is better than nothing
I'm quoting you, so these are your words, not mine. Kyoto is flawed, but yes, something is better than nothing. So why is this administration doing nothing, rather than something?


Originally posted by al_bundy
i just watched Day After Tomorrow

i can't believe it was actually supposed to be a message in favor of kyoto and against fossil fuels. my favorite part is when the see the mammoth and find out it was flash frozen by an instant ice age. of course thousands of years ago it happened naturally and today only oil can cause an ice age
Please tell me you're not actually putting any credence in this stupid Hollywood movie. It was a dumb shit movie with no basis in science (I gave it 1 star, I think because I liked the tidal wave sequence).


Originally posted by al_bundy
if the US signs kyoto it will mean a new wave of outsourcing to the third world like we have not seen before
Funny, if the Democrats made a statement like this, you'd call it a scare tactic.

The US is a huge global polluter, and yes, Kyoto would cost us money. Shocking now, isn't it. We're the largest polluter, and now it's time to pay the piper, folks.

Of course, the self-proclaimed party of personal responsibility and morality -- the righteous Republicans -- wants no part of personal responsibility and doing the moral thing when it costs them money.

I'm shocked! No, really, I am! ;)

I'll state it again, so that there's no misunderstanding. I think Kyoto needs to be reworked, though I suspect that attempting to rework it would mean it wouldn't get past first base. People talk a big game, but mostly, they're only willing to do the right thing when it is to the benefit economically. That's why I despise this administration for trying to claim that private industry will tackle environmental issues on their own. My ass! They'll do it only when they can make a buck off it.

kvrdave
11-13-04, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by dork
Kerry proposed a concrete, rational energy plan. Your boy is the one whose brilliant solution to a complicated problem is to ignore it, coupled with vague babble about hydrogen fuel cells.

<img src=http://w3.gorge.net/kvrdave/blah.gif>
Kerry was obviously filled with good concrete plans.
I would defer to the energy policy expert, classicman on this one.

Darkelf :(

kvrdave
11-13-04, 11:44 AM
Darkelf - I just went through and read this again. Where did someone correct me? Kyoto was hands off even by the Clinton administration after the Senate vote in 1997. How can you say that this administration gave Kyoto the finger, when neither did anything to push it along after the vote by the Senate?

DodgingCars
11-13-04, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by DarkElf
I'm glad I didn't bother to respond to this. It's been much sweeter seeing people of your own party contradicting you.

Were you talking about me? I'm a registered Democrat and voted for Kerry.

classicman2
11-13-04, 11:50 AM
Kyoto is our only salvation.

BTW: Kerry's energy plan was a pie-in-the-sky, totally unrealistic plan that made absolutely no provision for decreasing the need for imported oil by increasing U. S. production.

Yes, I've seen that nonsense from Business Week. If you believe this country can become energy independent in 10 years (the Kerry plan :lol: ), then I want to talk about a bridge. Many energy experts will argue that this country can't become energy independent. One thing is for certain - it can't following Kerry's plan which doesn't even address exploration & drilling or nuclear.

Remember - this is the same John Kerry who voted for the Senate Energy Plan (supported by nearly all the Republicans) when the Democrats controlled the Senate; and, then turned right around and voted against the plan when it returned from conference.

I'm quoting you, so these are your words, not mine. Kyoto is flawed, but yes, something is better than nothing. So why is this administration doing nothing, rather than something?

Again - what was the vote in the Senate?

classicman2
11-13-04, 12:00 PM
National Center for Policy Analysis


WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) energy plan promises to reduce energy prices, maintain diversity of supply while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improve our domestic energy security. However, according to a new analysis of his plan by experts with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), Kerry's goals are contradictory and implementation will be expensive. The analysis can be viewed online at http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba492/.

"Kerry's energy policy is a hopeless muddle, and would result in less energy security and higher fuel costs," said NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett, co-author of the report.

According to the NCPA report, Senator Kerry's energy policy is powered by contradiction. For example:

-- Sen. Kerry has suggested the U.S. could reduce gasoline and other fuel prices by halting the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which is designed to provide a 90-day fuel supply in the event of a national emergency. This, despite the fact that in 2000 when President Clinton sold 30 million barrels of SPR oil -- 1 million barrels a day for 30 days - average gasoline prices fell by only one cent.

-- At the same time, Sen. Kerry has rejected exploration and production of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), because he believes it would have little or no effect on gas prices. However, ANWR contains 10 to 23 times more oil than the SPR can hold when it is completely filled.

-- Kerry promises $10 billion to support "clean coal" technology over the next decade.

-- But Kerry's support for coal runs counter to his commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Coal-fired power stations are responsible for 80 percent of the utility sector's emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2). While clean coal technology can reduce levels of certain pollutants, its most widely used form does not reduce CO 2 emissions. Even integrated gasification combined cycle, a new and expensive clean coal technology, only reduces CO 2 emissions 10 to 15 percent.

-- The Kerry energy plan also calls for maintaining the nuclear industry's role in electricity production.

-- However, Kerry would bar the shipment of nuclear waste to the planned federal storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, virtually ensuring that no new nuclear power plants will be built since, for liability reasons, banks won't fund new plants without a safe option for storing nuclear waste.

"Kerry's energy plan presents some laudable goals, but if enacted, his plan would have the opposite of its intended effects," said Burnett. "It would raise energy prices and reduce energy security."

_________________

Kerry's energy plan misses the mark
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Sunday, August 8, 2004

John Kerry and the Democrats' platform are promising to end our nation's ``dependence on Mideast oil.'' It's a most dubious policy.

Though Kerry and the platform are a little vague, they do not mean a prohibition on buying from Saudi Arabia and other Mideast producing countries.

No, as far as we can tell, Kerry wants to reduce demand and increase supply from other sources by an amount equal to what the nation now gets from the Mideast. That's more than a quarter of all imports, or something around one-sixth of total petroleum supply.

If that one-sixth reduction were spread throughout the economy, actual mileage in transportation would have to rise by about 20 percent for cars, trucks, SUVs and everything else. This is not impossible, though it might take a decade. But to the extent that household furnaces, rail locomotives and heavy trucks simply could not improve, the needed improvement among cars and SUVs would climb into the realm of daydreams.

It simply isn't worth it. Any attempt to raise required fuel economy standards enough to do the job would force people into lightweight models that would increase the highway death rate, and push up vehicle prices even faster than they're rising already. Sales would fall. For candidates who say they're worried about manufacturing jobs, this seems counterproductive.

Consider: In 1973, the average car was 5.7 years old and a new one cost the average worker 17 weeks' pay. Today the average car is 9 years old and a new one costs 22 weeks' pay.

During a Friday campaign stop, Kerry reiterated his pledge to invest in the usual array of environmentalist pipe dreams and to ``develop new energy sources in our country.'' In fact, he insisted that by 2020 one-fifth of the fuels powering U.S. cars and trucks should come from corn and soybeans. Okey-dokey now.

Of course, not on the Kerry agenda is the exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, the nation's best prospect for a major oil discovery. Its off-limits status has been a favorite cause of Kerry's and many environmental groups, despite a wealth of evidence that the environment would not suffer.

This is counterproductive in the extreme. If the refuge has the oil that some studies suggest, its production could replace almost 40 percent of imports from the Mideast. Any serious energy policy should open it to exploration, as President Bush [related, bio] has been trying to do all along.

DodgingCars
11-13-04, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by classicman2

Many energy experts will argue that this country can't become energy independent. One thing is for certain - it can't following Kerry's plan which doesn't even address exploration & drilling or nuclear.


Oil independent? I'd agree. If we find a reliable alternative, then I'd say we could (& should).

classicman2
11-13-04, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by DodgingCars
Oil independent? I'd agree. If we find a reliable alternative, then I'd say we could (& should).

Oil is the energy that we import. ;)

al_bundy
11-13-04, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by DodgingCars
Oil independent? I'd agree. If we find a reliable alternative, then I'd say we could (& should).

except for nuclear, there is no reliable alternative for the next 20-30 years no matter how hard you hope for one.

too bad nuclear is sued out of existance every time someone wants to build a plant just like a wind power station.

DarkElf
11-13-04, 01:26 PM
I'd respond to you all, but doing so now would make me late for work.

No, not you DC.

Catch you later.

al_bundy
11-13-04, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by DarkElf
I'm glad I didn't bother to respond to this. It's been much sweeter seeing people of your own party contradicting you.



Typical response. Quote scientific articles when they back up your existing beliefs, but debase scientific articles when they don't.



I'm quoting you, so these are your words, not mine. Kyoto is flawed, but yes, something is better than nothing. So why is this administration doing nothing, rather than something?



Please tell me you're not actually putting any credence in this stupid Hollywood movie. It was a dumb shit movie with no basis in science (I gave it 1 star, I think because I liked the tidal wave sequence).



Funny, if the Democrats made a statement like this, you'd call it a scare tactic.

The US is a huge global polluter, and yes, Kyoto would cost us money. Shocking now, isn't it. We're the largest polluter, and now it's time to pay the piper, folks.

Of course, the self-proclaimed party of personal responsibility and morality -- the righteous Republicans -- wants no part of personal responsibility and doing the moral thing when it costs them money.

I'm shocked! No, really, I am! ;)

I'll state it again, so that there's no misunderstanding. I think Kyoto needs to be reworked, though I suspect that attempting to rework it would mean it wouldn't get past first base. People talk a big game, but mostly, they're only willing to do the right thing when it is to the benefit economically. That's why I despise this administration for trying to claim that private industry will tackle environmental issues on their own. My ass! They'll do it only when they can make a buck off it.

The Day After Tomorrow along with a hoped for heat wave comparable to 1999 was looked forward to by environmentalists to push Kyoto and their other goals. E&E made the movie specifically to get people to support Kyoto.

Kyoto will raise energy costs in the US along with other costs of production, but it won't do so in China and other "developing" nations. Where do you think people will move production once the price increases take effect? You really think wal mart is going to pay more for their goods or that people will be willing to pay a kyoto premium at the register?

what will happen is that manufacturing will be outsourced to these "developing" nations en masse. Companies will look to digitize anything they can that is currently a physical product. Americans will pay A LOT more for gas and electricity. This will result in a lot of jobs lost due the simple fact that people have a finite budget.

And long term kyoto will probably not do much if anything at all since the "developing" nations will simply pollute more and fill in the reductions of the developed nations. And do you think they will sign on to kyoto once the economic pain is too much and it becomes apparent that they are polluting at US levels?

Kyoto is nothing more than a scheme by some nations to stop the growth of the US and let them catch up. And for all the people calling the red states stupid along with those who voted for bush, they are the gullible ones for buying into this fraud.

DodgingCars
11-13-04, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by al_bundy
except for nuclear, there is no reliable alternative for the next 20-30 years no matter how hard you hope for one.

Source? I've honestly never heard that claim before (20-30 years) and I did a paper on alternative energy sources for a college paper. There isn't really anything available yet (that can replace oil), but from what I read a lot of scientists, etc. are hopeful and optimistic.

I am more interested in being energy independent for national security reasons than for environmental ones. So, even if the alternative source isn't cleaner or more efficient... I don't really care.


too bad nuclear is sued out of existance every time someone wants to build a plant just like a wind power station.

While I think nuclear is fairly safe, I woudn't want to live next to a plant -- and that's how most American feel (NIMBY).

kvrdave
11-13-04, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by DodgingCars

While I think nuclear is fairly safe, I woudn't want to live next to a plant -- and that's how most American feel (NIMBY).

I would gladly have a nuke plant near me. The Columbia River is the perfect spot for them, and I am ready. Hopefully we see them again soon.

DodgingCars
11-13-04, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by kvrdave
I would gladly have a nuke plant near me. The Columbia River is the perfect spot for them, and I am ready. Hopefully we see them again soon.

NIMBYBKBYIOKWM

Not in my backyard, but kvrdave's backyard is ok with me!

:)

al_bundy
11-13-04, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by DodgingCars


Source? I've honestly never heard that claim before (20-30 years) and I did a paper on alternative energy sources for a college paper. There isn't really anything available yet (that can replace oil), but from what I read a lot of scientists, etc. are hopeful and optimistic.

I am more interested in being energy independent for national security reasons than for environmental ones. So, even if the alternative source isn't cleaner or more efficient... I don't really care.



While I think nuclear is fairly safe, I woudn't want to live next to a plant -- and that's how most American feel (NIMBY). [/B]


GE sells billions of dollars in alternative energy every year and is one of the largest companies in the business. The CEO says that alternative will still be a small part of the energy pie in 20 years even at current growth rates of 15%-20% a year.

Companies only invest in something if the dollars line up in the right columns. Until alternative technologies become cheap enough or the government start giving out corporate giveaway tax breaks for the stuff it's not going to be anything but a dream.

movielib
11-13-04, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by kvrdave
I would gladly have a nuke plant near me...
Me too. Put it in the Wisconsin Capitol building. It would be a lot more useful than the politicians, in spite of all their hot air.

dork
11-13-04, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by kvrdave

I would defer to a guy on the Internet who tells me exactly what I want to hear on this one.

Yeah, fixed.

dork
11-13-04, 05:17 PM
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) energy plan promises to reduce energy prices, maintain diversity of supply while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improve our domestic energy security. However, according to a new analysis of his plan by experts with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), Kerry's goals are contradictory and implementation will be expensive.
Okay, an oil industry-backed advocacy group doesn't like Kerry's plan. I'll keep that in mind.



It simply isn't worth it. Any attempt to raise required fuel economy standards enough to do the job would force people into lightweight models that would increase the highway death rate, and push up vehicle prices even faster than they're rising already. Sales would fall.
This is where I stopped reading. Same old tired bullshit from partisan idiots who don't know what they're talking about.

classicman2
11-13-04, 05:21 PM
Don't talk about bullshit when you make the ridiculous statement that Kerry proposed a concrete, rational energy plan.

That's pure bullshit!!

dork
11-13-04, 05:45 PM
Some features of Kerry's plan:


Increase auto fuel efficiency by providing tax credits of up to $5,000 for consumers who drive more efficient vehicles and $10 billion for manufacturers to produce those vehicles.

Create a $20 billion trust fund to develop clean fuels (including $10 billion for clean coal) and energy-efficient cars and buildings, upgrading the nation's electrical grids, finding new sources of natural gas, and importing more oil from countries that do not belong to the OPEC.

Mandate that 20 percent of electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2020.

Increase the use of domestically available renewable fuels by 5 billion gallons by 2012.

Increase domestic oil production in areas already open for development, such as Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve.

X
11-13-04, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by dork
Some features of Kerry's plan:


Increase auto fuel efficiency by providing tax credits of up to $5,000 for consumers who drive more efficient vehicles and $10 billion for manufacturers to produce those vehicles.

Create a $20 billion trust fund to develop clean fuels (including $10 billion for clean coal) and energy-efficient cars and buildings, upgrading the nation's electrical grids, finding new sources of natural gas, and importing more oil from countries that do not belong to the OPEC.

Mandate that 20 percent of electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2020.

Increase the use of domestically available renewable fuels by 5 billion gallons by 2012.

Increase domestic oil production in areas already open for development, such as Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve.
Well since he's still a senator he'll have ample opportunity to keep introducing that program that I'm sure he's introduced before.

And if he hurries his bill to the floor he can get one more vote from Edwards (that is if he breaks his habit and accidentally happens to show up in Washington for some reason, maybe to clean out his desk).

classicman2
11-13-04, 07:32 PM
Mandate that 20 percent of electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2020.

You can always mandate things. It's how are you going to accomplish that mandate is what counts. You can mandate energy independence in 10 years, but it's meaningless since you can't accomplish it.

Does Kerry want to increase the use of nuclear power?

kvrdave
11-13-04, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by classicman2
Don't talk about bullshit when you make the ridiculous statement that Kerry proposed a concrete, rational energy plan.

That's pure bullshit!!

Wow. Haven't ever seen that kind of reaction before.


Okay, dork. You are correct, and Kyoto is our savior. All the Senators were wrong. Clinton was wrong. Bush was wrong. And Kerry was right (and the secret plan would have worked). It would have done great things for the US. And China would probably have gone with the provisions just to be nice rather than use the fact that there were no restrictions placed on them. Everyone is wrong but you and Kerry.

Now if we can get the "cow butt cork" bill through, we'll reduce our methane emissions as well. All hail environmentalism.

al_bundy
11-13-04, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by dork
Some features of Kerry's plan:


Increase auto fuel efficiency by providing tax credits of up to $5,000 for consumers who drive more efficient vehicles and $10 billion for manufacturers to produce those vehicles.

Create a $20 billion trust fund to develop clean fuels (including $10 billion for clean coal) and energy-efficient cars and buildings, upgrading the nation's electrical grids, finding new sources of natural gas, and importing more oil from countries that do not belong to the OPEC.

Mandate that 20 percent of electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2020.

Increase the use of domestically available renewable fuels by 5 billion gallons by 2012.

Increase domestic oil production in areas already open for development, such as Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve.



name one renewable resource that can produce electricity.

hint: one is being sued out of existance in massachusets because people say it will ruin their view of the water

ted kennedy, the big environmentalist is against it. kerry another steward of the environment does not have an opinion.

dork
11-13-04, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by classicman2

Does Kerry want to increase the use of nuclear power?
I don't know. He punts by saying that issues of waste disposal have to be addressed before any new plants are built.

How many new nucular power plants has Bush built?

dork
11-13-04, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by kvrdave

Okay, dork. You are correct, and Kyoto is our savior.
Uh... what? Who are you replying to? :confused:

dork
11-13-04, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by al_bundy
name one renewable resource that can produce electricity.

Hydropower.

Sorry, I didn't use your hint. :(

Brain Stew
11-13-04, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by al_bundy
name one renewable resource that can produce electricity.

hint: one is being sued out of existance in massachusets because people say it will ruin their view of the water

ted kennedy, the big environmentalist is against it. kerry another steward of the environment does not have an opinion.

I don't think any elected official has done anything to further renewable power. Bush, Kerry, congress, governors. Oil has a real stronghold on the economy. Once a way to acheive profit from renewable sources comparable to oil can be found, businesses will start lobbying for them.

So really I don't think this is a party issue so much as a legislature issue. As in, nothing is being done to bring more renewable sources.

al_bundy
11-13-04, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by dork
Hydropower.

Sorry, I didn't use your hint. :(

where can you build more dams and power stations without disturbing fish and people who rely on the water down stream?

al_bundy
11-13-04, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Brain Stew
I don't think any elected official has done anything to further renewable power. Bush, Kerry, congress, governors. Oil has a real stronghold on the economy. Once a way to acheive profit from renewable sources comparable to oil can be found, businesses will start lobbying for them.

So really I don't think this is a party issue so much as a legislature issue. As in, nothing is being done to bring more renewable sources.

nuclear and wind power is sued out of existance by local residents and environmental groups.

solar is still in it's infancy and is decades away from any meaningful returns. GE sells billions of alternative energy products a year and they say it's still years away from being a meaningful part of the energy chart.

al_bundy
11-13-04, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by dork
Hydropower.

Sorry, I didn't use your hint. :(

cape cod wind associates has a lot of enemies including ted kennedy. kerry never gave an opinion on the project. at least i couldn't find it.

Myster X
11-14-04, 12:38 AM
http://www.hillnews.com/news/061803/kerry.aspx

Wind farm is an issue for Kerry
By Sam Dealey

A renewed plea by presidential hopeful John Kerry (D-Mass.) to redouble efforts at using renewable energy has elicited criticism that the senator has failed to push adequately for such innovations in his own backyard.

Speaking in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last Friday, Kerry called for a “new Manhattan Project” to decrease the nation’s dependence on foreign energy sources and go easier on Mother Nature.

“We can generate more and more of our electricity from wind, the sun, forest and farm products,” Kerry said. “I believe we can and should produce 20 percent of all our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Twenty by 2020 — now that’s a clear vision for America.”

It turns out, however, that it’s not such a clear vision for all.

A huge proposed wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal, seven miles off Nantucket Island, has met with fierce resistance, including from some of Kerry’s well-connected constituents and neighbors, who look askance at the idea of peering at a 130 whirling turbines from their luxurious vacation retreats.

Some residents in nearby Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard, replete with well-heeled castaways and summer vacationers, say the wind farm would mar the view of the sound.

Kelly Benander, a spokeswoman for Kerry’s presidential campaign, said the senator is “waiting to hear about the results from the environmental impact statement.”

She said he will announce his decision when he sees the results. Benander declined to say whether Kerry would endorse the plan if the environmental impact studies turn out favorably for the massive project, known as Cape Wind.

Vocal opponents are not waiting for such results. They include retired CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, who has a home in Martha’s Vineyard, and members of the Kennedy family.

Energy Management Inc. (EMI), a renewable energy firm, sponsors the project. When up and running, the farm’s turbines would produce 75 percent of the Cape and island’s electricity with no pollutant emissions, waste discharge or water consumption.

Massachusetts lawmakers at both the federal and state levels have lent a sympathetic ear to their outraged constituents. A number of roadblocks have been thrown up to try to delay the project or ban it outright.

Several environmental impact studies have been commissioned, including one by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Kerry is in the spotlight on the issue because he is a major Democratic presidential candidate and a veteran advocate for renewable energy. The senator and his family summer on the Cape.

His equivocal stance on the project has drawn fire from some critics, including several longtime supporters.

“Kerry is the one who really needs to be called out on this stuff,” said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace. “He’s been pretty mum so far. We don’t know where he stands.”

Davies added, “He’s obviously very pro-renewable energy; he knows the climate better than almost anyone in the Senate. And by that logic, he should be in favor of this project being implemented.”

Supporters of the wind farm say the ongoing environmental impact study is a pretext for those who hope to kill the project.

“Typically, when people are trying to assemble the capital for a project they have a window, and if things don’t get moving then the window just melts away,” said Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market environmental think tank. “It’s a typical strategy. Whenever you’ve got a project you don’t want, you just delay it to death until the capital investment goes somewhere else.”

Greenpeace’s Davies agreed. “It’s like any tactical fight,” he said. “They’re pushing every channel. It’s the same stuff we use when we want to block something. You go from every angle, because you never know which one will stick.”

“Ultimately,” he added, “it’s a Nimby argument.” Nimby is an acronym for “Not in My Backyard.”

James Gordon, president of EMI, is well aware of the ironies involved.

“There is a certain minority of folks on the Cape that have a problem with the visual impact, as modest as it is,” he said. “It is difficult to come out and say you’re a supporter of renewable energy until you may have a distant view of it.”

Gordon declined to speculate on Kerry’s stance on the project. “I’m convinced, frankly, that when public officials and legislators see the results of Cape Wind’s environmental impact statement, they’re going to support the project,” he said.

In addition to Greenpeace, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, the Conservation Law Foundation and Friends of the Earth have spoken favorably of the project. Even some commercial competitors have voiced their support.

“Basically the only groups that have come out ardently opposed to it are some of the animal welfare groups that got told or misled early on that this is going to kill critters,” said Davies of Greenpeace. “We’ve been watching them like a hawk. So far they’re playing by the rules and more, going beyond what would be typical corporate behavior.”

He added, “They’re really trying to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’.”

The Cape’s population has tripled from 90,000 since the 1960s, when the last power source — a heavy oil fuel fire plant — was built.

“People think if you live in the right area you don’t have to put up with anything,” Ebell said. “Well, where are they going to get their energy? From little squirrels in wheels?”

al_bundy
11-14-04, 01:02 AM
the project has been going on for years and kerry hasn't made up his mind yet?

classicman2
11-14-04, 09:09 AM
Kerry is, and has been, in the hip pocket on the greenies. This allegiance precludes any meaningful, realistic, & comprehensive energy plan coming from the junior senator from MA.

kvrdave
11-14-04, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by dork
Hydropower.

Sorry, I didn't use your hint. :(

You named one. Now name one we can increase our use of. Currently we have environmentalists trying to get dams shut down.

DarkElf
11-20-04, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by classicman2
Again - what was the vote in the Senate?
I was going to let this go, but I have some time tonight. Like the "Gore invented the Internet" crap, you people get something stuck in your head and refuse to acknowledge what a bunch of BS it is. And why wouldn't you? Our very own president propogates the lies.

Classicman. Since you're the recognized expert of energy policy on this forum, and you continually refer to this vote, I'm quite sure you can tell me when this vote took place, right? And I'm equally sure you can tell me when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated and finalized, right?

The Senate vote was in July of 1997. The nations met to negotiate and finalize Kyoto in December of 1997.

So please tell me how that Senate was able to vote on Kyoto when it wasn't even negotiated yet? NO VOTE was ever taken in the Senate to ratify the final version of Kyoto, yet the President, conseratives, you and others on this forum continue to insist that the Senate voted on and soundly rejected Kyoto 95-0. Again, no such vote ever took place.

Instead, what happened was the Senate voted on was the non-binding Byrd-Hagel resolution, which:

Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

They were merely stating in no uncertain terms what they wanted Kyoto to be. The US deligation then went to the conference 6 months later to negotiate the treaty. And what was negotiated in was the emissions credit.

You could argue that if the Senate later officially voted to ratify the protocol, that it would lose. I fully agree. Any vote on Kyoto would reject it, which is why we've never seen such a vote. However, would the vote be 95-0? Or would it be much closer? We can only speculate, except of course for al_bundy and his magic crystal ball... :)

Because the US is by far the largest polluter, we therefore can reduce the most emissions, which in turn can be traded to developing nations netting us considerably more money than any of the other developed nations, and offsetting the cost of reducing emissions (how much of an offset is unknown). I don't know what the vote would be, but this clearly is a new wrinkle and different global protocol than what was voted on by the Senate 6 months prior to the negotiation of Kyoto.

edit: I forgot to add that the concept of carbon sinks was added as well, something which in reality means the US only had to reduce to 2-3% below 1990 levels to achieve the required 7%, though the specifics of how carbon sinks would be taken into account weren't finalized.

DarkElf
11-20-04, 04:12 AM
I disagree with you in some respects here, but at least you're putting forth a thoughtful response, intending to have real dialogue. That's a rare thing in an environment thread on this forum, and for that, I commend you. :up: Most people just make snide remarks.


Originally posted by al_bundy
The Day After Tomorrow along with a hoped for heat wave comparable to 1999 was looked forward to by environmentalists to push Kyoto and their other goals. E&E made the movie specifically to get people to support Kyoto.
Some environmental groups used the movie to raise awareness of global warming, but they (along with E&E) also conceded that the events and especially the speed at which they took place were implausible.

I'd be willing to bet that E&E made this POS movie for another very specific reason: to make money. ;)


Kyoto will raise energy costs in the US along with other costs of production, but it won't do so in China and other "developing" nations. Where do you think people will move production once the price increases take effect? You really think wal mart is going to pay more for their goods or that people will be willing to pay a kyoto premium at the register?

what will happen is that manufacturing will be outsourced to these "developing" nations en masse. Companies will look to digitize anything they can that is currently a physical product. Americans will pay A LOT more for gas and electricity. This will result in a lot of jobs lost due the simple fact that people have a finite budget.

And long term kyoto will probably not do much if anything at all since the "developing" nations will simply pollute more and fill in the reductions of the developed nations. And do you think they will sign on to kyoto once the economic pain is too much and it becomes apparent that they are polluting at US levels?
Some or all of this is certainly a plausible outcome. Unfortunately, the facts don't back you up. Some of the "key" developing nations, including Brazil, Argentina, China, Mexico and India have achieved reductions through the voluntary measures Kyoto calls for since it was negotiated. Of course, that doesn't mean they will continue that trend, as many papers I've read on this topic say that while developing countries continue to develop and improve their standard of living, they will go through a period of increased pollution because improving the standard of living is directly tied to increased use of energy, but eventually these nations will see reductions again once their standard of living meets a certain level.


Kyoto is nothing more than a scheme by some nations to stop the growth of the US and let them catch up. And for all the people calling the red states stupid along with those who voted for bush, they are the gullible ones for buying into this fraud.
Which nations? It may be true that some nations see that as a benefit (though the "devastating" effect on our economy is far from proven), but I firmly believe that Kyoto is far more than just a scheme to screw the U.S.

al_bundy
11-20-04, 09:10 AM
somebody going to tell the chineese there is this global warming thing and they need to stop polluting?


http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/19/wchina19.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/19/ixworld.html


China's insatiable demand for energy is prompting fears of financial and diplomatic collisions around the globe as it seeks reliable supplies of oil from as far away as Brazil and Sudan.

An intrusion into Japanese territorial waters by a Chinese nuclear submarine last week and a trade deal with Brazil are the latest apparently unconnected consequences of China's soaring economic growth.

Traffic in Beijing
Increased car usage in China is creating a high demand for petrol

The connection, however, lies in an order issued last year by President Hu Jintao to seek secure oil supplies abroad – preferably ones which could not be stopped by America in case of conflict over Taiwan.

The submarine incident was put down to a "technical error" by the Chinese government, which apologised to Japan.

But even before the incident the People's Daily, the government mouthpiece, had commented that competition over the East China Sea between the two countries was "only a prelude of the game between China and Japan in the arena of international energy".

The Brazil trade deal included funding for a joint oil-drilling and pipeline programme at a cost that experts said would add up to three times the cost of simply buying oil on the market.

The West, however, has paid little attention to these developments. For the United States and Europe are far more concerned with the even more sensitive issues of China's relations with "pariah states".

In September, China threatened to veto any move to impose sanctions on Sudan over the atrocities in Darfur. It has invested $3 billion in the African country's oil industry, which supplies it with seven per cent of its needs.

Then, this month, it said that it opposed moves to refer Iran's nuclear stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency to the United Nations Security Council.

A week before, China's second biggest state oil firm had signed a $70 billion deal for oilfield and natural gas development with Iran, which already supplies 13 per cent of China's needs.

China has its own reserves of oil and natural gas and once was a net oil exporter. But as its economy has expanded by an average of nine per cent per year for the last two decades, so has its demand for energy.

This year it overtook Japan as the world's second largest consumer of energy, behind the US.

Its projected demand, boosted by a huge rise in car ownership as well as the need to find alternatives to polluting coal for electricity generation, has contributed to the surge in the price of oil this year. Shortages are already leading to power cuts in the big cities.

Since President Hu ordered state-owned oil firms to "go abroad" to ensure supply, they have begun drilling for gas in the East China Sea, just west of the line that Japan regards as its border.

Japan protested, to no avail, that the project should be a joint one.

The two are also set to clash over Russia's oil wealth. China is furious that Japan has outbid it in their battle to determine the route of the pipeline that Russia intends to build to the Far East.

Japan favoured a route to the sea, enabling oil to be shipped to both Japan and China. China wanted an overland route through its own territory, which would give it ultimate control if hostilities broke out.

Increasingly, analysts are saying that China's efforts have gone beyond what is safe or even in its own interests.

Claude Mandil, the executive director of the International Energy Agency in Paris, said the reserves in the East China Sea were hardly worth the trouble.

"Nobody thinks that there will be a lot of oil and gas in this part of the world," he said.

"It may be a difficult political issue but I don't think the energy content is worthwhile."

Eurasia Group, a New York-based firm of political analysts, said its oil experts worked out that China was paying such an inflated price for its investment in Brazil that the cost for the oil it ended up with was three times the market price.

"If China's economy falters, which, in my view, appears increasingly likely, then commodity prices will plummet, and with them, the value of the assets that produce them," Jason Kindopp, Eurasia's lead China analyst, said.

"Beijing may end up in a early 1990s Japan situation, where it is forced to sell recently purchased overseas assets for a fraction of what it paid for them."

China's wider aggression to secure oil and gas was the greatest threat to its international standing in the next decade.

"Sudan is the primary example," he said.

"It marks the first time in recent years that China has promised to wield its veto power in the UN Security Council against a petition initiated by the United States and backed by France and Great Britain."

DarkElf
11-20-04, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by al_bundy
somebody going to tell the chineese there is this global warming thing and they need to stop polluting?


http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/19/wchina19.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/19/ixworld.html
And nowhere in that article does it mention pollution or emissions. We can only infer it based on the activities described by the article.

In contrast, one of the papers I recently read stated that China has reduced emissions by 17% since Dec of 1997. For instance, there may be more cars on the road, but they are more fuel efficient and emit fewer emissions.

We can't deny developing countries from developing. We can only hope that they do so with new technologies that are cleaner and more efficient, and Kyoto calls on the developed countries to help them, which is where the emission trading comes in. In part, we sell them these new technologies.

X
11-20-04, 01:19 PM
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/data/ev38/ev3850_S1999324040624_md.jpg

Description: This SeaWiFS image of eastern China shows the
widespread nature of the pollution problem. Beijing has
completely disappeared under the haze.

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?3850

http://www.nihs.go.jp/GINC/asia/pollu/china01.html

DarkElf
11-21-04, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by X
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?3850

Image Date: 11-20-1999

;)

http://www.nihs.go.jp/GINC/asia/pollu/china01.html

Set Up: 30 Oct. 1997
Last Updated:31 July 2000

And every link I look at on that nihs URL has a date of 1990-1995.
;)

Seriously, I know I'm not in IT anymore, but I haven't forgotten how to check image and source dates for articles or pictures. :)

And even still, none of this proves anything. I said they reduced their emissions by 17%. Even if current, your pictures wouldn't depute that.

Getting back more to the topic of this thread, should the developing nations really be held to the same standard as the already developed nations? Is that really fair? And no one has disputed the actual Senate vote. How odd! :eek:

X
11-21-04, 12:42 PM
Perhaps you'll like these dates better.

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/data/ev244/ev24484_China.A2003050.0530.1km.jpg

http://www.redtailcanyon.com/items/425077.aspx

DarkElf
11-21-04, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by X
Perhaps you'll like these dates better.

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/data/ev244/ev24484_China.A2003050.0530.1km.jpg

http://www.redtailcanyon.com/items/425077.aspx

:lol: :up:

But this still doesn't dispute the statement I read that China has reduced emissions by 17% since Kyoto. You're showing pictures of horrible smog, but you can still see a reduction in pollution yet still have a major pollution problem. If you can disprove that 17% with actual data, I'll back off that assertion.

Myster X
11-21-04, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by DarkElf
:lol: :up:

But this still doesn't dispute the statement I read that China has reduced emissions by 17% since Kyoto.

I don't see how is that achievable since China's demand for oil skyrocketted. China is number 2 behind the US in oil comsumption.

more fossil fuel burning = pollutant reductions?

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/19/wchina19.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/19/ixworld.html

Tension rises as China scours the globe for energy

China's insatiable demand for energy is prompting fears of financial and diplomatic collisions around the globe as it seeks reliable supplies of oil from as far away as Brazil and Sudan.

An intrusion into Japanese territorial waters by a Chinese nuclear submarine last week and a trade deal with Brazil are the latest apparently unconnected consequences of China's soaring economic growth.

The connection, however, lies in an order issued last year by President Hu Jintao to seek secure oil supplies abroad – preferably ones which could not be stopped by America in case of conflict over Taiwan.

The submarine incident was put down to a "technical error" by the Chinese government, which apologised to Japan.

But even before the incident the People's Daily, the government mouthpiece, had commented that competition over the East China Sea between the two countries was "only a prelude of the game between China and Japan in the arena of international energy".

The Brazil trade deal included funding for a joint oil-drilling and pipeline programme at a cost that experts said would add up to three times the cost of simply buying oil on the market.

The West, however, has paid little attention to these developments. For the United States and Europe are far more concerned with the even more sensitive issues of China's relations with "pariah states".

In September, China threatened to veto any move to impose sanctions on Sudan over the atrocities in Darfur. It has invested $3 billion in the African country's oil industry, which supplies it with seven per cent of its needs.

Then, this month, it said that it opposed moves to refer Iran's nuclear stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency to the United Nations Security Council.

A week before, China's second biggest state oil firm had signed a $70 billion deal for oilfield and natural gas development with Iran, which already supplies 13 per cent of China's needs.

China has its own reserves of oil and natural gas and once was a net oil exporter. But as its economy has expanded by an average of nine per cent per year for the last two decades, so has its demand for energy.

This year it overtook Japan as the world's second largest consumer of energy, behind the US.

Its projected demand, boosted by a huge rise in car ownership as well as the need to find alternatives to polluting coal for electricity generation, has contributed to the surge in the price of oil this year. Shortages are already leading to power cuts in the big cities.

Since President Hu ordered state-owned oil firms to "go abroad" to ensure supply, they have begun drilling for gas in the East China Sea, just west of the line that Japan regards as its border.

Japan protested, to no avail, that the project should be a joint one.

The two are also set to clash over Russia's oil wealth. China is furious that Japan has outbid it in their battle to determine the route of the pipeline that Russia intends to build to the Far East.

Japan favoured a route to the sea, enabling oil to be shipped to both Japan and China. China wanted an overland route through its own territory, which would give it ultimate control if hostilities broke out.

Increasingly, analysts are saying that China's efforts have gone beyond what is safe or even in its own interests.

Claude Mandil, the executive director of the International Energy Agency in Paris, said the reserves in the East China Sea were hardly worth the trouble.

"Nobody thinks that there will be a lot of oil and gas in this part of the world," he said.

"It may be a difficult political issue but I don't think the energy content is worthwhile."

Eurasia Group, a New York-based firm of political analysts, said its oil experts worked out that China was paying such an inflated price for its investment in Brazil that the cost for the oil it ended up with was three times the market price.

"If China's economy falters, which, in my view, appears increasingly likely, then commodity prices will plummet, and with them, the value of the assets that produce them," Jason Kindopp, Eurasia's lead China analyst, said.

"Beijing may end up in a early 1990s Japan situation, where it is forced to sell recently purchased overseas assets for a fraction of what it paid for them."

China's wider aggression to secure oil and gas was the greatest threat to its international standing in the next decade.

"Sudan is the primary example," he said.

"It marks the first time in recent years that China has promised to wield its veto power in the UN Security Council against a petition initiated by the United States and backed by France and Great Britain."

DarkElf
11-21-04, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Myster X
I don't see how is that achievable since China's demand for oil skyrocketted. China is number 2 behind the US in oil comsumption.

more fossil fuel burning = pollutant reductions?

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/19/wchina19.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/19/ixworld.html

Tension rises as China scours the globe for energy

That's the same article that was posted earlier in this thread.

But "more fossil fuel burning = pollutant reductions?" is possible if the technologies used are cleaner. It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm mistaken.

Unfortunately, the paper I read that talked about China's reduction in emissions quoted the figure, but didn't say _how_ they achieved it.

DivxGuy
11-22-04, 04:46 PM
It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm mistaken.
How do you manage that with C02 emissions?

DarkElf
11-23-04, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by DivxGuy
How do you manage that with C02 emissions?
:confused:

Is it not possible to make automobiles that produce fewer emissions?

I don't understand your question...

DarkElf
11-23-04, 03:45 AM
Since you guys are trying to refute China's improvements...

More evidence that voluntary compliance with Kyoto is possible?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6290392/

China plugs into electric vehicles
Battery breakthrough holds promise for hybrids, fuel cells

Remember plug-in electric cars? They were all the rage in the 1980s, but then carmakers pulled the plugs on their programs due to long charging times and short driving ranges. Well, China has served notice that it intends to resurrect the technology and it impressed automakers and U.S. officials with the advances made already.

The idea is to start small — as in electric scooters and bikes — and then advance to large — as in electric buses — while at the same time applying improved battery technology to gas-electric hybrids and even hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars.

The message was delivered at the 2004 Challenge Bibendum, a green car exhibition named after sponsor Michelin's fluffy white mascot and held in October.

While foreign carmakers showed off flashy hybrids and fuel cell cars, China focused on home-built electric scooters, bikes, cars and buses. Indeed, 20 of the 24 electric vehicles at the Shanghai event were Chinese.

The Bibendum judges were impressed, saying that many of the electric vehicles posted "outstanding" results, and noting that scooters in particular hold promise "for the future of urban mobility — especially in China."

China already has an estimated 1 million electric bikes and scooters used by commuters who previously relied on bicycles, mass transit or gas-powered scooters. In Shanghai, Beijing and a few other large cities, the latter are being phased out because of the pollution they produce.

China's interest in electrics stems from its chronic smog in urban areas — two thirds of which comes from tailpipes — and its goal of curbing oil imports.

But it also sees export opportunities. Chinese-built electric scooters are already showing up in America, starting with the standup types marketed to kids in recent years. And higher-powered, sit-down scooters have shown up this year in chains like Target.

No 'waiting room' mentality
Michelin CEO Edouard Michelin had plenty of praise for the strategy, contrasting China's decisive action to a "waiting room" mentality by others when it comes to energy solutions. China, he added, wasn't intimidated by the fact that electric vehicles "are seen in Europe and United States as a so-so solution."

Jean-Marie Folz, the CEO of French carmaker Peugeot-Citroen, went further, telling reporters that "if anyone has a breakthrough in electric vehicles it will be China."

There's no question that China has already cashed in on a breakthrough in batteries. It produces the vast majority of the world's lithium-ion batteries, which are far superior to the lead acid batteries used on the electric vehicles of old. That's when an electric car was lucky to go 100 miles on a charge, and then needed to be plugged in for eight hours or more.

Lithium ion is even superior to the nickel-metal hydride batteries used in today's gas-electric hybrid cars. It's also what powers most laptops, cell phones and even IPods.

A dream no more
The man considered China's father of advanced technology says the progress has been remarkable when it comes to batteries and cars. "A 400 kilometer (250 mile) range is not a dream anymore," Wan Gang told Challenge Bibendum participants.

That kind of range, which comes with a charging time that's been halved, is comparable to today's gasoline powered cars.

Wan, who heads China's alternative automotive technology program, has big plans for batteries, starting with scooters.

"Electric two wheelers confirm they are a mature and sometimes outstanding solution," Wan said.

Urban officials agree, with bans since 1996 on new two-stroke production in key cities. Anyone with a discerning eye can quickly distinguish the electrics from the gasoline scooters, most notably because the former make little noise while traveling at slower speeds.

The focus on scooters coincides with a boom in sales — bigger even than the more talked about explosion in car sales. In Shanghai, for example, scooter ownership went from 100,000 in 1996 to 630,000 in 2001. The growth in cars was one third of that.

China is also eying its bus fleet and hopes to use the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and the 2010 World's Fair in Shanghai to jumpstart cleaner mass transit. Each city wants to deploy hundreds of electric buses by those years, replacing dirty diesel transport. Some are already being tested on routes.

As for family cars, Wan doesn't expect a wholesale conversion to electrics but he notes that in Shanghai, China's wealthiest city, "the upper class already have two cars." So as the rest of China advances, he asks, why not think of electric vehicles as the perfect second family car?

'Bridging strategies'
Two senior U.S. officials attending the Bibendum event liked what they heard from Wan as well as Chinese entrepeneurs in the field.

John Beale, a senior air quality official at the Environmental Protection Agency, told MSNBC.com that what China's working on are "bridging strategies" to a future much less reliant on oil.

He sees the country developing an infrastructure of electric vehicles for specialized uses, ranging from buses to the airport trucks used to tow planes around.

The advances in battery technology could then be used with gas-electric hybrids and fuel cell cars, both of which China is also working on.

Energy Department official Phyllis Genther Yoshida saw China's push as potentially helpful to the program she directs: President Bush's fuel cell vehicle initiative.

After viewing one Chinese battery company's lithium ion-powered bus, Yoshida said it represented a "leapfrog" approach in how the batteries can be stacked together efficiently. She also quickly arranged to have one of her researchers visit the factory to learn more.

Home-grown company
Yoshida's experience was with ThunderSky, a privately held company agressively trying to market the technology at home and abroad.

CEO Lindo Ho told MSNBC.com that the batterymaker had also caught the attention of a French carmaker.

Lithium ion batteries, Ho added, break "the bottleneck" that had plagued electric vehicles, noting that ThunderSky's bus has a range of 180 miles and a recharge time of just three hours.

The company has also developed an electric scooter with a 95-mile range, 60 mph top speed and a 90 minute recharge time, she said. Plans are to partner with a scooter maker and sell it for around $2,000.

She's even hopeful that within five years electric cars for families could be available, but achieving that, she says, requires government help to develop a charging infrastructure for the public.

Leapfrogging Henry Ford
Foreign experts working with China on its urban transport issues include Lee Schipper, research director at the World Resources Institute's Center for Transport and the Environment.

He'd like to see crowded Chinese cities embrace small electric vehicles that would take up less space and use less energy than traditional cars.

"Were Chinese authorities or companies to attempt to scale these up in size to mimic larger, fueled cars, most of the advantages would go away," he adds.

He also notes that electric vehicles are not completely non-polluting since the electricity has to come from somewhere, and in China's case that's typically dams or coal-fired power plants.

"Such cars still do not represent 'zero emission vehicles,' only 'elsewhere emission vehicles,'" he says. The other main drawback "would be the problems of handling large quantities of the materials in the batteries, even though the materials could be recycled."

Still, China's drive for cleaner skies and fewer oil imports is doable, Schipper feels. The Chinese have "96 years of Henry Ford behind them," he says referring to the birth of the Model T in 1908. "In a way they're 96 years ahead of us."

On the other hand, he adds, ""There isn't much time."

DarkElf
11-25-04, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by al_bundy
name one renewable resource that can produce electricity.
As an FYI for people, I've been looking everywhere in my filing cabinet/desk/mess for the below information, and finally found it.

Here in CA, it's required that our power mix is:

Eligible Renewables: (8%)
- Biomass & waste (2%)
- Geothermal (3%)
- Small hydroelectric (2%)
- Solar (<1%)
- Wind (<1%)

Coal (18%)
Large hydroelectric (20%)
Natural gas (42%)
Nuclear (12%)
Other (0%)

"The percentages of the power mix are estimated annually by the CA Energy Commission based on the electricity sold to CA consumers during the previous year."

(so I find it odd that they quote the 2002 power mix requirements...)

BTW, I'm not sure why people would object to seeing wind farms. I think they are totally cool to see.

OldDude
11-25-04, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by DarkElf
That's the same article that was posted earlier in this thread.

But "more fossil fuel burning = pollutant reductions?" is possible if the technologies used are cleaner. It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm mistaken.

Unfortunately, the paper I read that talked about China's reduction in emissions quoted the figure, but didn't say _how_ they achieved it.

This is a big sticking point whenever Otter debates pollution vs Kyoto. The two are fundamentally different, and China could lower pollution while burning more fuel. It is impossible to lower CO2 emissions while burning more fuel.

Fossil fuel is some hydrocarbon, with a little other (ideally none) junk thrown in. The ratio of hydrogen to carbon varies 100% hydrogen in H2, to nearly 100% carbon in coal, but most liquid fuels run about 84% carbon, 16% hydrogen by weight.

Ideal combustion uses air (mostly O2 and N2) and burns the H and C entirely to H20 and CO2, the proportions based on the H and C in the original fuel, and the N2 passes through the sytem without change. In a given fuel, burn more fuel, get more CO2. While we can argue about global warming, plants need CO2, and it is only poisonous to animals at high levels. Humans can breathe 4% CO2 if normal oxygen is present, and 4% is 40,000 ppm vs the present 370 ppm, not much immediate risk

By using differnt fuels, it is possible to get the same energy with a larger proportion of water vapor and smaller percentage of CO2, but only hydrogen and methane (CH4, only 75% carbon) have ratios that are appreciably different to above. Coal is basically all carbon and produces highest CO2 per unit of energy.

Real world combustion is of course non ideal. Some of the fuel doesn't burn, leaving hydrocarbon, usually denoted HC, in the exhaust, some doesn't burn completely, leaving carbon monoxide (CO, note the difference from CO2) in the exhaust, some of the nitrogen reacts with some of the oxygen producing nitrogen oxides, NOx, any sulfur reacts with oxygen to form SOx, and any other crap in the fuel probably reacts and forms something obnoxious too. These are the so-called "criteria pollutants" that are direct poisons to humans, form smog, cause cancer, etc. (I neglected some unburned carbon emitted as "particulate matter", PM, the last of the criteria pollutants.

By controlling combustion and using after-treatment, enormous cleanup of criteria pollutants is possible. A huge SUV can be cleaned up to SULEV emissions standards while burning tons of gasoline and getting terrible fuel economy. Care needs to be taken that these are two separate discussions.

However, some fuels are "cleaner" than others in that less combustion control and aftertreatment produce equivalent results. Relative to midweight gasoline and diesel fuel, hydrogen, methane, and propane tend to burn very clean, coal burns very dirty (due to other crap in the coal) and needs tremendous amount of cleanup.

kvrdave
11-26-04, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by DarkElf

BTW, I'm not sure why people would object to seeing wind farms. I think they are totally cool to see.

Isn't that odd. We currently have a number of wind farms trying to come into the area and they are being fought by the Environmentalists. I don't understand that one bit....except that they are looking for a cash prize to shut up, and that has happened here before.

But I agree with how cool they look. They are almost hypnotic. I would much rather see a number of large windmills on the Columbia Hills than just see the Columbia Hills. They are just open range, crappy scab ground that are not pretty. But windmills are cool as hell. :up:

DarkElf
11-27-04, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by kvrdave
Isn't that odd. We currently have a number of wind farms trying to come into the area and they are being fought by the Environmentalists. I don't understand that one bit....except that they are looking for a cash prize to shut up, and that has happened here before.
Can you give me some details on these? I can't imagine any group of greenies being opposed to a wind farm unless there was more to it. Maybe the groups are more concerned about the wildlife than renewable energy, and they feel the blades will slice up birds like a Thanksgiving turkey. :shrug:

kvrdave
11-27-04, 01:37 AM
Here is the background.

Long ago there was a landfill that wanted to come in. They jumped all the hoops, and the local Audubon Society opposed it. They found something that was not filed correctly, which would have made them start the process over again. Rather than do that, they Audubon society agreed to take a tipping fee (actually not the society, but an individual within it). They now get paid for every load that dumps in it (though obviously they really cared about their cause -ohbfrank- ).

The same group has sent up legal challanges to everything that has ever come since that time. It is funded by the tipping fees, as ironic as that is. They have lost every other lawsuit, but they keep digging. As a result of a number of things, they are no longer recognized by the National Audubon Society. But they are the ones who are fighting this on the premise of raptor protection. There have obviously been numerous studies, and they all show low levels of raptor activity and none of the paths are migratory.

In fact, there was a real quirky nerd around here that wanted to do his own. Naturally they sued him. He was an industrious and persistant nerd, and after 10 years (he didn't have much funding to fight other than what he raised himself, but it was a dream of his) the Audubon society lost.

This is about environmental extortion. It has certainly jaded me, and I believe most environmentalism is exactly that. It is actually a new area that the local Indians have been getting into as well. From what I have seen, they do occasionally win (by that I mean they get paid off) and the Indian Nation gets money and the local Indians are no better off than before.

It's a numbers game. I actually rent to one of the guys who is always in the middle of it. Ideal renter, but definately a wacko.

DarkElf
11-27-04, 02:30 AM
You think most environmentalists take payments in exchange for allowing companies/individuals to pollute without their interference?

Doesn't it tell you something that this group is no longer recognized by the NAS? These guys sound like rogues capitalizing on the modern environmental movement to make a buck. :mad:

OldDude
11-27-04, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by DarkElf
Can you give me some details on these? I can't imagine any group of greenies being opposed to a wind farm unless there was more to it. Maybe the groups are more concerned about the wildlife than renewable energy, and they feel the blades will slice up birds like a Thanksgiving turkey. :shrug:

You might also want to do some research into Cape Wind Associates. A large offshore windmill farm has been proposed for Cape Cod on some shoals where there is no interference with shipping. They are several miles offshore and will be visible as rather small objects on the horizon. Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and other extremely rich people with huge expensive homes on the Cape are adamantly opposed and doing everything they can to block it, because, hell, their pricy view is much more important than than the country's energy needs.

Realistically, wind energy isn't very dense and it takes one hell of an investment to harvest very much. I honestly don't know if it is a good or bad investment, and the point is certainly arguable. However, that is not the reason these hypocrites oppose it. They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.

DarkElf
11-27-04, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by OldDude
You might also want to do some research into Cape Wind Associates. A large offshore windmill farm has been proposed for Cape Cod on some shoals where there is no interference with shipping. They are several miles offshore and will be visible as rather small objects on the horizon. Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and other extremely rich people with huge expensive homes on the Cape are adamantly opposed and doing everything they can to block it, because, hell, their pricy view is much more important than than the country's energy needs.

Realistically, wind energy isn't very dense and it takes one hell of an investment to harvest very much. I honestly don't know if it is a good or bad investment, and the point is certainly arguable. However, that is not the reason these hypocrites oppose it. They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.

This project has been mentioned a few times on this forum, so I'm familiar with it. Are environmental groups opposed to it?

And BTW, every time someone here mentions the Cape Cop project, it's always in terms of Ted Kennedy & John Kerry. People don't want their view of the ocean blocked. I'm sure many of those rich people opposing the project are Republicans so let's not always throw the problem at the liberals. Yes, they're being hypocrits, but I blame both sides.

kvrdave
11-27-04, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by DarkElf
You think most environmentalists take payments in exchange for allowing companies/individuals to pollute without their interference?

Doesn't it tell you something that this group is no longer recognized by the NAS? These guys sound like rogues capitalizing on the modern environmental movement to make a buck. :mad:

The reason the group is no longer recognized is not (the main reason) is because a number of locals sent dues to the Nationals so that they could have a voice in the local Audubon society. They were not allowed into the meetings. Up until that point, they never really heard much from the national society. They kept the name to make a good sounding environmentalist movement.

I think a lot of environmentalist movements and groups have very very rich people running them. They find college kids, and true believers to do their bidding, but for the most part they are concerned about power, just like any other head person in most any other group.

Personally, I can find no other sane rationale for some of the things they oppose which are the same things they pushed for years ago. Give environmentalists what they want and they will discover that it was bad for the environment all along, too.

OldDude
11-27-04, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by DarkElf
This project has been mentioned a few times on this forum, so I'm familiar with it. Are environmental groups opposed to it?



I have no idea who is really behind the "Alliance to protect Nantucket Sound" but they are fighting it (and recently lost a round) based on environmental grounds.
http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/National/SandBar/2.4cape.htm

An article from a Toronto paper
http://www.torontofreepress.com/2002/inter81202.htm
Ticked off in Nantucket
August 12, 2002

It’s August, and with any luck, the bluefish are running in Cape Cod.

And so are the bluebloods of Eco society, all in a flap because of a new common enemy.

As Collin Levey of the Boston Journal so colorfully puts it, "From Martha’s Vineyard to Hyannis Port, a who’s who of environmental groups have convened in a spirit of grave concern. The International Wildlife Coalition, the Humane Society and the Ocean Conservatory are all there. Ted Kennedy even dropped in."

"Judging by the list, you’d guess that the very future of East Coast summer was at stake, not to mention the spawning of the cod, the life cycle of the whale and the migration of the monarch butterfly. But this is not your usual Eco-crusade. The object of their outrage is a wind farm. The environmentalists are irate because a private company wants to provide renewable energy to much of Nantucket Sound. . . .

Environmentally clean power is evil, I tell you, pure unmitigated evil. I don't why the bastards can't just burn coal like the rest of us ;)

Myster X
12-03-04, 02:07 PM
Looks like our northern neighbor will come up short.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/12/03/763195.html

Canada unlikely to reach Kyoto goal

OTTAWA -- The federal Natural Resources Department has acknowledged for the first time that Canada is likely to come up badly short of its targets under the Kyoto climate treaty. The department, lead agency on the Kyoto file, yesterday confirmed remarks by deputy minister George Anderson that it would be "a stretch" for Canada to get even two-thirds of the way to its target.

Anderson's comments were made nearly three months ago, at a conference in Australia, but were not reported in Canada at the time.

They were reported in a Washington-based trade publication, The Energy Daily, and recently came to the attention of Canadians following the issue.

"The measures we have announced were presented as closing about two-thirds of the gap, but that is a stretch," Anderson is quoted as saying during a ministerial round table at the 19th World Energy Conference in Sydney, Australia.

"I think it is fair to say, and there is even a question of how we are going to move forward on this plan. There is a significant commitment by the government, but we have set a very, very ambitious target," he said.

Ghyslain Charron, speaking for Natural Resources, confirmed yesterday that the quotes were accurate, and made no attempt to distance the department from Anderson's comments.

Canada's greenhouse emissions have risen 20 per cent since 1990.

Myster X
12-09-04, 12:39 AM
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=591190

Kyoto will not work, warns climate expert

Kyoto will not work, warns climate expert
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
09 December 2004

The West's approach to fighting global warming, enshrined in the Kyoto protocol, will not work, a leading climate scientist said yesterday.

The struggle by developed countries to cut back their emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas, will always be overtaken by the rising new emissions of the developing nations, led by China and India, who are not parties to the Kyoto treaty, said Professor Wallace Broecker of Columbia University, New York.

Only radical new technologies for extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air would halt global warming, said the professor, who is regarded as one of the fathers of climate change studies.

Dr Broecker gave a blunt verdict on the effectiveness of the Kyoto treaty, on which Tony Blair is staking huge political capital next year, when Britain will chair both the EU and the G8 group of rich nations and try to put climate change at the top of the international agenda.

He said: "What you guys are tinkering around with in Kyoto is just a drop in the bucket."

His view will be more unwelcome news for Mr Blair, who admitted yesterday that the Government's target for reducing CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2010 was likely to be missed by a large margin, although the Kyoto target is likely to be met.

Dr Broecker's criticism of Kyoto centres on the fact that the treaty only commits the rich industrialised countries of the West to cut carbon emissions. The developing nations, led by China and India, are not yet required to do anything. Their burgeoning economic development is largely being powered by coal and other fossil fuels, and the CO2 emissions that this produces will far outweigh the cuts of all the West's energy conservation and alternative energy schemes, he said. Extracting CO2 direct from the air, liquefying it and then storing it, he said, offered the only realistic hope of preventing climate change that would be catastrophic for the world. It was a practical solution and he believed it could be done without excessive cost.

"Alternative energy, and energy conservation ... are going to fall far short of stopping the build-up of CO2," he said. "But extracting CO2 direct from the air can do the job."

Dr Broecker, 73, professor of geology at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, is the world's leading interpreter of the Earth's operation as a linked biological, chemical and physical system. In the 1980s, he identified the world-wide "conveyor belt" of ocean currents which plays a key role in regulating the planet's climate. The shutting-down of this conveyor belt by global warming - which then led paradoxically to a new Ice Age in the northern hemisphere - was the subject of the Hollywood disaster film The Day After Tomorrow.

In July 1987 he set out his fears in a celebrated paper in Nature, "Unpleasant Surprises in the Greenhouse?", which was perhaps the first widely noticed sounding of the global warming alarm.

* Speculation Britain is seeking to win George Bush's backing for a new treaty on global warming rose last night after it emerged Tony Blair held talks in Downing Street with John McCain, the Republican senator, on the subject. One possibility is the US would sign up to a "Kyoto-lite" deal that would investigate the scale of the problem of climate change.

DivxGuy
12-09-04, 01:12 AM
Is Canada is very committed to the Kyoto Accord? The following article would suggest not.
===============
Coal mining to return to Cape Breton
Last Updated Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:50:01 EST

GLACE BAY, N.S. - The Nova Scotia government may soon be reviving coal mining in Cape Breton.

* INDEPTH: Cape Breton Coal Mining

Murray Stewart

CBC News has learned that the province will be requesting proposals in the next few weeks to get a private operator to reopen the Donkin Mine, near Glace Bay, a source of at least 300 million tonnes of coal.

But the reopening will not happen any time soon. After an operator is chosen, it will still take months, possibly years, to get the Donkin Mine up and running.

News of the reopening of the mine, closed for 20 years, comes as coal appears to be making a comeback.

The demand for coal, viewed as a dirty and dated fuel source, went down about a decade ago.

Ottawa closed the Prince Mine, the only underground pit operating in Cape Breton at the time, concluding there was no money in coal.

But demand has increased in the wake of high prices for oil and natural gas.

"I do believe there will be a future for underground coal mining in Cape Breton," Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm said.

Canada's mining industry has taken advantage of coal's sudden surge. This year, a new coal mine opened in Alberta and half a dozen more are being developed in British Columbia.

American energy companies are also promising to build a record number of coal fired plants and the Bush administration is spending billions to find ways to make coal burn cleaner.

"Coal is a very low-cost and very effective energy source," said Murray Stewart, of the Energy Council of Canada.

"There's a number of technologies that are in development or are now in the demonstration stage. You can actually have a coal power plant that is totally clean and has no emissions to the environment," Stewart said.

Written by CBC News Online staff


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/08/coal041208.html

DivxGuy
12-09-04, 01:17 AM
But "more fossil fuel burning = pollutant reductions?" is possible if the technologies used are cleaner. It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm mistaken.
When they refer to cleaner technologies, they are referring to more-complete combustion, not reduced CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are a normal and unavoidable byproduct of combustion.

Unfortunately, the paper I read that talked about China's reduction in emissions quoted the figure, but didn't say _how_ they achieved it.
I read a report on one site claiming that China was reducing its CO2 emissions, but no explanation nor evidence was provided on how that could be possible, given that country's soaring fossil fuel consumption.

al_bundy
12-09-04, 08:57 AM
the big question is do they count volcanoes in how much a country pollutes? Mt Saint Helens is spewing more pollution than all the industry in washington state combined

bhk
12-09-04, 10:06 AM
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5393005

Amazon burning makes Brazil a leading polluter

By Axel Bugge

BRASILIA, Brazil (Reuters) - Burning of the Amazon and other forests accounts for three quarters of Brazil's greenhouse gas emissions and
has made the country one of the world's leading polluters, a long-delayed government report shows.

The report is the first official recognition by Brazil of the vast scale of burning of the Amazon, the world's largest tropical forest and home to
up to 30 percent of the planet's animal and plant species.

Environmentalists said the report would probably make Brazil the world's sixth largest polluter. They said it could give impetus to rich
countries' calls for leading developing nations to share in the burden of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, which cause global warming.

The report, or inventory of Brazil's greenhouse gas emissions, showed Brazil produced 1.03 billion tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent in
1994, up from 979 million tons in 1990.

"That figure represents about three percent of total global emissions," Science and Technology Minister Eduardo Campos said on
Wednesday, adding that the responsibility of slowing global warming "substantially" falls on rich countries.

Brazil was obliged to produce the inventory as a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but as a developing
country it does not need to cut emissions under the treaty.

GREAT TRACTS UP IN SMOKE

Still, the report is likely to ratchet up the pressure on Brazilian authorities to find ways to curb destruction of the Amazon that has reached
alarming new levels in the past few years. Initial data shows that this year alone, an area the size of the U.S. state of New Jersey was
destroyed.

"The effort by the government to fight deforestation has to be significant to hit illegal activities," Environment Minister Marina Silva said.

"We are not escaping from our responsibilities, we have our own internal targets," on environmental protection, she said.

Still, environmentalists have criticised the government for doing little to enact a promised plan to fight deforestation.

"This is the most serious ever," said David Cleary, head of the Amazon program of the Nature Conservancy in Brazil.

"We haven't had three consecutive years of this level of deforestation since the middle of the 1980s, and even then it was slightly lower and
that was at the height of the bad old days of Amazon destruction."

The fact that Amazon burning is also responsible for most of Brazil's greenhouse gas emissions is likely to accelerate calls for measures to
reduce destruction of the forests.

In Brazil, pollution from industry is relatively low because of the country's wide-scale use of clean hydro-electric power. In some parts of the
Amazon during the burning season, however, thick smoke hangs on the horizon.

Brazil has long argued that rich, developed countries need to make the greatest sacrifice to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as rich nations
started the process of polluting years ago with the industrial revolution.

The United States has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, saying that big, developing countries like China, India and Brazil need to assume
commitments to cut pollution as well.

And of course, Brazil doesn't have to meet any requirements as it is a developing nation. AlBore had a chance to nip this environwhacko thing in the bud but didn't.

movielib
12-09-04, 10:57 AM
Regarding last month's panicky report by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group:

http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_27b.html

Predictable Distortion

You can be forgiven for believing global climate is triggering a high-latitude horror show. First The Los Angeles Times swallowed a Nature report concerning the massive die-off of krill in the Antarctic, with dire consequences for penguins, seals, and whales (see www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_27a.html). Now comes the slickly formatted Impacts of a Warming Arctic the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) group in the fine tradition of the infamous U.S. National Assessment (USNA) of global warming — a report pulled from public distribution because it failed to meet Federal standards of scientific accuracy.

Like its predecessor, Impacts of a Warming Arctic selectively presents data that, in aggregate, projects future changes much larger than reality suggests. Further, it overlooks the fact that we already know, within a small margin of error, what that warming will be over coming decades.

Let’s begin with climate history as presented by the ACIA. We reproduce it as Figure 1. We’ve never seen anything like it and climatology is our profession and passion. ACIA provides no scientific citation for a climate history that appears warmer than any other published to date.

http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/images/wca27b1.gif
Figure 1. ACIA temperature history of the Arctic (60ºN to 90ºN), taken directly from the ACIA report. No science references were available..

We can tell you that accurate assessment of regional temperature is a complicated process, especially in the Arctic. You’d think an organization publishing a tome on Arctic climate would review refereed scientific literature, note who had published primary papers on Arctic climate history, and prominently feature their work. But none of the major researchers are included. Here’s who and what ACIA missed in compiling their magnum opus.

Igor Polyakov. You’d think his 2003 paper “Trends and Variations in Arctic Climate Systems” might merit inclusion. Polyakov studied land and a small amount of ocean data from 62.5° northward, dating all the way back to 1870. By contrast, ACIA begins its record in 1900 and only includes land-based data from northward of 60°N. We reproduce Polyakov’s temperature history in Figure 2.

http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/images/wca27b2.gif
Figure 2. Polyakov temperature history of the Arctic (62.5ºN to 90ºN) (Source: Polyakov et al., 2002).

It’s obvious that current temperature over the entire region is similar to that measured seventy years ago. You’ll also note how during some of the years in the 1930s things got really hot up north. “[N]orthward of 62°5 North, the 1938 maximum of annual arctic surface air temperature anomaly reached 1.69°C, compared with the 2000 maximum of 1.49°C,” Polyakov notes and goes on to say, “Two distinct warming periods from 1920 to 1945, and from 1975 to the present, are clearly evident…compared with the global and hemispheric temperature rise, the high-latitude temperature increase was stronger in the late 1930s to the early 1940s than in recent decades.” [The emphasis is ours.] But there’s no mention of this in ACIA report.

Jonathan Kahl. University of Wisconsin climatologist Jonathan Kahl in 1993, examined records over the Arctic Ocean that had been recently declassified because they were made by USAF B-52s flying overhead and Soviets living on the ice below. In his Nature paper Kahl found “absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years” and a net decline in Arctic temperature.
Admittedly Kahl’s temperature history only spans the Cold War between 1958 and 1986, but unlike Polyakov’s record, Kahl’s concerns only the Arctic Ocean. But none of his data is folded into the entirely land-based ACIA record. Why? Including ocean data would result in much less ‘impact of a warming Arctic.’

Roman Pryzbylak is another honest-to-goodness expert who actually has published arctic temperature research in the scientific literature. But like Kahl and Polyakov, he’s ignored by ACIA. Pryzbylak has compiled several temperature histories from different latitude bands. One, from the far North (poleward of 70°N), shows a substantial cooling from 1940 through 1970. While ACIA’s data captures this cooling, it does so at a rate that is 30 percent less.

OK. You understand how excluding data from the Arctic Ocean (available from research by Kahl and Pryzbylak) accounts for ACIA’s data incorporating a bias toward warming. But in truly Clintonian fashion, a great deal depends on what the definition of “Arctic” is. The Arctic Circle is at 66.5° north. ACIA defines “Arctic” using land-only stations north of 60°N. For Polyakov, the “Arctic” begins at 62.5°N. Guess what? The 2.5° band between the two latitudes includes some of the most pronounced warming experienced anywhere on the planet.

But let’s go on.

ACIA decided to run two different scenarios of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration through five different climate models. We congratulate them for concentrating on the one with lowest rate of emissions because observed emissions in recent decades have been much more in sync with that model than those that produce outlandishly-high alternative scenarios. But, as we’ve pointed out time and again, using five different models will yield five different warming trends. The practical consequence of incorporating a variety of models is that an ill-informed reporter will think he or she is being objective when writing something like, “Even with the modest emissions scenario, scientists say temperatures could rise as much as 5.5°C in the next 100 years.”

Figure 3 (absent the black arrows) is from the ACIA report. It shows projected trends in Arctic and global temperatures from the various computer models.

http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/images/wca27b3.gif
Figure3. Projected future temperatures for the Arctic, according to the ACIA report. ACIA’s colored lines represent projections made from five climate models, while the black arrows (which we’ve superimposed) depict an extension of the temperature trend observed over the past several decades.

If, as everyone (including us) believes to be the case, preferential warming in high-latitude winter is a “greenhouse signal,” then global warming is upon us. The Arctic warming trend, and that of the planet, since the mid-1970s has taken the functional form of a straight line. So we can adjudicate between the models using reality as a guide, as we have by dressing up Figure 3 with our black arrows. The only way this can be wrong is if the functional form of all of the models (which result in straight-line warming) are wrong. If that’s the case, then research scientists have returned precious little of the U.S. taxpayers’ investment in a $20 billion global warming research budget over the last few years.

So the question is, “How much will the Arctic warm in the next 100 years?” That’s already pretty well known. It works out to about 3.2°C, which is approximately the warming produced by the coolest climate model. Using the same analysis of global temperature works out to a similarly cool result — a rise of only1.6°C by the year 2100. That pretty much spoils all the fun, doesn’t it? The low figure for the Arctic is about that of the average Arctic temperature for the three-millennia from about 7,000 to 4,000 years ago, a time when the Inuit thrived by hunting polar bear, caribou, and seals. In other words, they are due a return to the Rousseauian paradise of long life, robust health, and beautiful people they enjoyed before the rest of us disrupted their icy Eden.

We’ll close on this note. This only our first-blush take on Impacts of a Warming Arctic and the ACIA. There are so many fish crammed into this tiny barrel, it seems unsportsmanlike to use live rounds at the outset.

References:
Arctic Climate Assessment (ACIA), 2004. Impacts of a warming Arctic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp139.

Kahl, J.D., et al., 1993. Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years. Nature, 361, 335-337.

Polyakov, I., et al., 2002. Trends and Variations in Arctic Climate Systems. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 83, 547–548.

Pryzbylak, R., 2000. Temporal and spatial variation of surface air temperature over the period of instrumental observations in the Arctic. International Journal of Climatology, 20, 587-614.

There's more at this site about the errors and distortions in the ACIA report that was pushed in all the mainstream media outlets:

http://www.co2andclimate.org/index.html

classicman2
12-09-04, 11:12 AM
Could we have either a short synopsis or highlights? :D

OldDude
12-09-04, 11:19 AM
Short synopsis: The ACIA report is seriously fucked up.
(Adequate brevity?)

classicman2
12-09-04, 11:24 AM
I saw a panel of ACIA folks testifying before a senate committee a couple of weeks ago.

The senators seem to be buying what they said.

I was little surprised at Stevens & McCain's responses.

classicman2
12-09-04, 11:26 AM
BTW: Doesn't Bush basically buy what they say?

Otto
12-09-04, 11:42 AM
But "more fossil fuel burning = pollutant reductions?" is possible if the technologies used are cleaner. It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm mistaken.
Cleaner technologies produce more CO2 emissions, not less. That's been the whole *goal* of fuel efficency for the last several decades.

When you burn carbon based materials, you can either get CO (Carbon Monoxide) or CO2 (Carbon Dioxide). Along with water and other stuff, of course. Burning things hotter and more completely = better fuel efficency and more CO2 produced. Burning things cooler and less completely = more CO produced. So you can pick your evil. CO2 is far less evil than CO. Your choice, really. CO2 is what is considered "clean".

The only way to lower CO2 production is to burn less stuff. And the REAL answer to that is nuclear power plants. The vast majority of CO2 production isn't from cars or such. It's from coal/oil/gas power plants. These have the temperatures and efficencies to produce nearly complete, clean, combustion. Not to mention that they burn through far more quantities of stuff. A proper nuke plant produces far, far, far less waste, *no* CO2 emissions, etc, etc. Clean, cheap, safe, reliable power. All those nuclear bombs can be recycled into power producing materials as well, with only minor effort.

So the next time an environmentalist bitches about global warming, tell them it's their own damn fault for making everybody scared about nuclear power. Because in truth, it is.

bhk
12-17-04, 10:54 AM
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200412\SPE20041217a.html

Greens Concede Kyoto Will Not Impact 'Global Warming'

By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 17, 2004

Buenos Aires, Argentina (CNSNews.com) - After a relentless attack on the United States for opposing the Kyoto Protocol, environmental groups concede the international treaty will have no impact on what they believe to be impending catastrophic global warming.

Despite the fact that green groups at the U.N. climate summit in Buenos Aires called President George Bush "immoral" and "illegitimate" for not supporting the Kyoto Protocol, the groups themselves concede the Protocol will only have "symbolic" effect on climate because they believe it is too weak. Kyoto is an international treaty that seeks to limit greenhouse gases of the developed countries by 2012.

"I think that everybody agrees that Kyoto is really, really hopeless in terms of delivering what the planet needs," Peter Roderick of Friends of the Earth International told CNSNews.com.

"It's tiny, it's tiny, tiny, it's tiny," Roderick said. "It is woefully inadequate, woefully. We need huge cuts to protect the planet from climate change."

But just because Kyoto may end up having little or no impact on the climate, that did not stop Roderick from blasting President Bush for the White House's environmental policies.

Roderick cited "deep psychological reasons" as to why the Bush administration opposed the Protocol.

"[Bush] comes across as not caring," Roderick said. "I am sure he does care in his own life personally about many things, [but] I think also that he is scared, he is fearful, he is fearful about wanting to continue in power.

"Somewhere in their hearts [the Bush administration doesn't] seem to care about the future of the planet and I think that is bad news for the world," Roderick added. "It is obviously deep psychological reasons, as to why individuals would feel that way ... [Bush] seems to have a vision of the world which is not recognized by millions and millions of people around the world."

Kyoto: 'Symbolic importance'

While Roderick dismisses the potential impact of the Kyoto Protocol, he believes the treaty is vital for a reason that has nothing to do with climate change.

"[The Protocol] is important more in the political message and the inspiration it is giving people around the world. People can say 'yeah, our politicians do care -- they are not just interested in power and their own greed and in their own money. They do care about the future of the planet,'" Roderick explained.

"How inspiring it would be for the leaders to get together and say 'yeah, we are going to do this, we are all in this together. That's, I think, the sort of symbolic importance of Kyoto, not the the sort of nitty-gritty commas and dots in the text [of the Protocol]," he added.

Roderick believes a global climate emergency can only be averted by a greenhouse gas limiting treaty of massive proportions. "We are talking basically of huge, huge cuts," said Roderick.

The most positive description of the Kyoto Protocol centers on it fostering the spirit of cooperation in the international community, according to Roderick.

"The best thing that can be said for it, is it's the first time that with the exception unfortunately of the United States, that the international community has said, 'We need to get together on this and we need international action.' That's the really important thing of Kyoto," Roderick said.

Kyoto: 'Important architecture'

Greenpeace International agreed that the Kyoto Protocol should only be an entry point for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Jessica Coven, a spokesperson for the environmental group, told CNSNews.com that "Kyoto is our first start and we need increasing emissions cuts.

"We need all types of actions, but Kyoto is the important architecture for how we are going to move forward to curb the problem [of climate change]," Coven said.

"Global warming, as its name suggests, is a global problem and we need an international framework like Kyoto," she added. And despite the Protocol's limited impact, Coven said President Bush's decision not to support the treaty is "immoral."

The Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Arctic group that announced their intention this week to seek a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States, "for causing global warming and its devastating impacts," also denigrated the global warming treaty.

"The Kyoto Protocol, although again achieved with great difficulty, doesn't even go near to what has to get done. It is not anywhere near to what we need in the Arctic," said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chairwoman of Inuit Circumpolar Conference.

"Kyoto will not stop the dangerous sea level rise from creating these kinds of enormous challenges that we are about to face in the future. I know many of you here believe that we must go beyond [Kyoto]," she said during a panel discussion.

Let's just destroy the economy of the developed nations just for the sake of destroying it. These people have always been green on the outside and red on the inside.

movielib
12-17-04, 12:22 PM
Good article, bhk. What's more, even if everyone stopped all emissions it would have almost no effect since the human contribution of greenhouse gases is so miniscule.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

You link also has many more links to articles about this U.N. climate summit in Buenos Aires that we will not see in our local papers or on the network news because these articles are covering what the global warming skeptics at the conference are saying.

Most telling is this following article. A skeptc asked a legitimate question at a panel discussion and was called "silly." The moderator of the discussion cut off the question and threatened "to put a stop to this."

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\\SpecialReports\\archive\\200412\\SPE20041216b.html

UN Conference Shuts Up Reporter; Calls Global Warming Science Questions 'Silly'

By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 16, 2004

Buenos Aires, Argentina (CNSNews.com) - The moderator of a panel discussion at the United Nations climate change conference here shut down questioning by a reporter who asked about disputed scientific claims regarding global warming, calling such questions "silly."

The panel discussion featured representatives of the Inuit people, who were announcing their intention to seek a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States "for causing global warming and its devastating impacts."

But when asked by CNSNews.com to defend the science behind the group's legal challenge, the moderator of the event cut off the reporter's questions and threatened "to put a stop to this."

CNSNews.com had asked the panelists about the scientific certainty that any potential warming in the Arctic is the fault of humans and specifically the fault of the United States.

The questions were predicated on temperature charts from a recently released report on Arctic warming and other data showing that surface temperatures in the Arctic in the early half of the 20th century were similar to present-day temperatures.

CNSNews.com asked Inuit panelists if these warmer Arctic temperatures in the first part of the 20th century had any disastrous impacts on the Arctic people.

"No it wasn't, [a disaster] no it wasn't at all," said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the chairwoman of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, a United Nations-recognized, quasi-governmental group that is seeking a human rights declaration against the U.S.

Watt-Cloutier said the weather did not impact the Inuit people in any way in the 1930s, and she disputed the notion that today's Arctic weather is similar to that of the 1930s -- even though the data shows that surface temperatures back then were similar to today's Arctic temperatures.

Also asked by CNSNews.com how any potential melt of Greenland's ice shelf could create devastating climate and sea-level consequences when, according to multiple sources of available climate data, Greenland was warmer and had less ice during the Middle Ages than it currently has.

Watt-Cloutier responded, "I am not a scientist, so I can't give you any scientific responses to your question." But earlier in her presentation, Watt-Cloutier did present scientific analysis to bolster her group's legal complaint against the U.S.

"Melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet can cause catastrophic interference with major ocean currents. Even moderate global warming scenarios are already having devastating impacts on the Inuit in the Arctic," Watt-Cloutier claimed earlier.

Panelist Paul Crowley, legal council for the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, said the Arctic region has not seen anything like the current and projected warming trends for "thousands of years."

Donald Goldberg, the moderator, added, "The conclusions of the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) are very clear; they attribute this to greenhouse gas emission resulting in global warming."

Goldberg is the senior attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law, the group that is helping the Inuit people file their complaint against the U.S.

CNSNews.com asked again whether the panelists would acknowledge scientific reports that Greenland was warmer during the Middle Ages and had less ice cover than it has currently.

But Goldberg interrupted, saying, "This is not a scientific event...as the moderator, I am going to put a stop to this.

"I have already put an end to this discussion, it is silly and it has nothing to do with what we are here to talk about," he added.

Goldberg then called for more "productive" questions.

A woman later took to the microphone and declared that the Inuit people's complaint against the U.S. was "not about the science, but it's about what is happening to human beings, and I think the U.S. has to start taking off its blinders."

Jennifer Morgan of the environmental group WWF told the panel, "The fact that you are getting the types of questions that you are getting shows how powerful this [effort to file charges against the U.S.] is."
"This will make government and businesses stand up and take notice," Morgan said.

After the panel discussion, several audience members angrily approached this reporter and accused him of acting "disrespectful" to the Inuit people.

Comments 'not helpful'

Before the question-and-answer session, several of the panelists singled out global warming skeptics and made derisive comments.

During her original presentation, Watt-Cloutier held up a CNSNews.com article on Arctic melting that was published earlier this week. She ridiculed a passage quoting Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market environmental group. Watt-Cloutier was incensed by Ebell's comment that potentially rising temperatures in the Arctic region may have some benefits.

"If global warming in the Arctic is such a problem, why do 80 percent of Canadians live within 50 miles of the U.S. border?" Ebell asked rhetorically earlier this week. "If Canada warmed up a bit they might be able to live in more of their own country," Ebell, who is attending the UN conference, told CNSNews.com.

Watt-Cloutier told the crowd at the panel discussion, "Comments like this are not helpful to the situation because it invisibilizes (sic) so many of us who live in the Arctic and sub-Arctic. So it may be a little funny to me, but it's still not helpful in invisibilizing the situation for us."

Following the event, Ebell responded to Watt-Cloutier's comments. "She was correct in saying my statement sounded flippant," Ebell conceded. But Ebell did not back down from his critique of Watt-Cloutier's efforts, disputing her group's linking of science and climate "models."

"Models are not scientific evidence; there is no way to prove a model. If something is a scientific fact, it means you can test it to find out whether it's true or false. There is no way to test these models -- to check if there a predicted effect will happen in the future," Ebell said.

"That isn't scientific evidence -- that is just making things up" he added.

Watt-Cloutier and Goldberg also singled out the George Marshall Institute, a science policy group, for opposing their climate complaint against the U.S.

Goldberg called the Marshall Institute "a pretty radical opponent of the work that we are trying to do here."

"But if anything indicates a little progress here, it's how desperate these people are becoming because they see that they really are losing the scientific argument, that they can't sustain the position that they have been taking," Goldberg said.

William O'Keefe of the Marshall Institute denied he was acting desperate and once again refuted the climate conclusions that the Inuit group are using as the basis for its complaint against the U.S. (The George Marshall Institute recently released a study taking a skeptical view of alarmist global warming.)

"Between 1900 and 1940, the amount of temperature increase in the Arctic was about the same as the increase in temperature from the mid-70s until today," O'Keefe said.

"[The Inuit people] are being led to believe that it is human activity that is causing any problems they may be having, but there is no basis for that conclusion," he added.
Granted, this was the action of one person but as far as I can see it is the attitude of most of the warmers. If it isn't, why do the warmers have to keep desperately spreading the lie that virtually all the experts are on their side?

al_bundy
12-17-04, 01:14 PM
someone on slashdot linked to an article this morning that said that some scientists discovered that the earth went into an ice age around 5200 years ago almost like portrayed in Day After Tommorow.

He drilled a bunch of ice cores and found a lot of evidence of plants and whatever flash frozen and dated to 5200 years ago. Now where were the SUV then?