Kyoto Treaty/Protocol.

---

> nucleur fusion

Maybe by 2050 they will have moved beyond the prototype stage, if a protype is even working (in Japan) by then. What's being started in France is experimental.

> shouldnt we try to help countries devolop without producing mass emissions of CO2 etc.

Here's the problem: Who will pay for it? It would cost a lot. For its own industry, the U.S. seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Coal is cheap (and there's plenty of it), and oil-dependent industries won't do anything about it until there is a real crisis.

Bush said that the U.S. would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but would come back with something even better. After some time passed, they came back with something ridiculous, and it was soon forgotten.

An environmentalist wrote a compelling article a few months ago about how alternative energy sources will not be able to come close to meeting the world's energy needs any time soon, and the only practical solution is to build a lot more (fission) nuclear power plants, as France has done.

wow, so then why wont america build nucleur fission plants like france then? just cost? france hasnt had a chenobyl. maybe all the industrialized nations could club together to afford the cost. isnt the eventual outcome worth it in the end?

why wont america build nucleur fission plants like france then? just cost?It takes an enormous amount of money to build a nuclear power plant in the U.S. Unless the cost of oil (and natural gas) goes even higer, they're not cost-effective without government subsidy. The U.S. hasn't standarized on a design as France has, which also makes them more expensive. And the problem of what to do with the waste hasn't quite been settled.And coal remains cheap.

EXACTLY, SteveA. It is a political event more than an actual attempt to address an issue. It has also been brought up by various scientists that many third world countries contribute a great deal of pollution, but they are given a free pass. One could almost say that it is another plank for in the lets bring down America cabal. But the lets kill off the parisitcal human blight and restore the Earth to its original vergin splendor group don't get it.

coal remains cheap but not secure though. iraq is anther goldmine for the u.s.a and oil so theyy wont be switching anytime soon. has bush considered any alternative enrgy plans? or is cost (america's not poor though)too much again, it wouldnt be enough but it would be a start. but i see your point about storing toxic waste

In reply to: It has also been brought up by various scientists that many third world countries contribute a great deal of pollution, but they are given a free pass. so we could help them become industrialized and then everycountry could have awareness about fossil fuels and there would be a limit of emissions for all countries

coal remains cheap but not secureNot for the U.S. There's probably enough coal for another 200 years.> so we could help them become industrializedChina's doing a fine job of it on its own.> and then everycountry could have awareness about fossil fuelsThat would be nice.> and there would be a limit of emissions for all countriesThat's not what the Kyoto Protocols do; limits for "non-industrialized" countries kick in in 2012.

With all due respect, why on EARTH would we want to help other third world countries become industrially advanced? I may sound territorial (comes from hanging with dogs too much) or nationalistic, but haven't we had enough jobs leave our shores for other, more economically favorable countries? Do we really want to strangle ourselves? I admit I have few if any solutions, but I cannot see undercutting our economic clout or position.

The problem is that non-inustrialized countries tend to burn a lot of highly-pollution fuels, like sufurous coal and wood. It's in our interests to reduce the total pollution load on the planet. Also, to reduce the totality of human suffering, it would be good if countries were as self-sufficient as possible, and could feed their own people.

Such considerations sets us apart from pack animals.

No way is there enough for 200 years, I can't remember where I read it exactley but there is only enough for the next 50 years or so if the rate the USA consumes coal at its current high rates today. I'll try dig up that article.

Oil production will peak very soon, if it hasn't already. Some estimate that coal production will peak in 50 years. (When people predict how long reserves will last, they often don't take into account the rate at which use of the fuel is rising.) Britain has pretty much exhausted its reserves.Plus, a lot of the more desireable coal (easier to get at, cleaner) has been mined.But peak production isn't the end of production. It just means that production slowly starts to decline.For American politics, "50 years" (if that's what it is) is forever.

In reply to: For American politics, "50 years" (if that's what it is) is forever. so they'll leave it to the last minute huh? we've exhausted our reserves i know because i did a project on it. so we need to jump on the "alternative energy band wagon" hence the project in oxford starting now.its a long plan but a good one. the u.s.a cant survie for ever, its reserves are big but still "fossil fuels". they aint gonna come back soon. so the u.s.a gonna change only when all their resources are dry.

agreed...third world contries tend to burn very polluting fuels

In theory, I agree that we should help them to clean up their act, so to speak, and become self sufficient. In practice...

I am reminded of a economist I encountered while doing a research paper on credit cards and dept. The economist mentioned that our manufacturing base has eroded and is moving overseas to cheaper labor markets. The only job markets left, he noted, is the service related industry, the health care industry, and the technology sector. Because of the shrinking job market, he suggested that we would need larger social programs, and to pay for these programs, we should tax the technology sector heavily. Great idea in theory, disasterous in practice. In ten or twenty years, the wage scale will even out, and there will be no bid'nesses going overseas to cheaper labor markets. But what will America look like in ten or twenty years if we accelerate this exodus by industrializing third world countries and making them our rivals? We could enact trade treaties that would last a few years or so and protect our interests, then what?

Too late. The U.S. is already losing its technical edge, for various reasons. We're already behind a lot of the world in broadband deployment (percentage of households, speed, and cost).> We could enact trade treaties that would last a few years or so and protect our interests, then what?Do you mean protectionism? Because the trade treaties we sign are designed to knock down protectionism and, for better or worse, to encourage free trade.

so is the u.s behind in technology because of the fact that other countries feel a need to keep up wit other countries, and are more motivated in increasin their techno output? (did that make sense) but freer trade laws allow countries to grow, why should we worry about the sake of countries becoming our equal economically, if it means their better off, and our life of comfort changes slightly, for better or worse?

NAFTA knocked down barriers, but I doubt it can be said that all trade treaties are lacking a certain ammount of proetctionism.Regarding broadband deployment...is land size taken into consideration, or governnmental subsidizing?

Not sure, but in any case, pretty much every industrialized country, regardless of size, is ahead of the U.S. in broadband deployment and broadband speed. I assume the was more government involvement in general than there was here. Here it was much more anarchic. We don't seem to have a national strategy.

If you have time on your hands, here's an article from last month's Foreign Affairs magazine on the subject.

I never have enough time on my hands, but neither can I pass up a good read. Thanks for the link (by the way, I have found that reading while driving is not a good idea. Jus' thought I would pass along that tip)

really dint know bout reading and driving being bad, ill keep it in mind also. kinda makes me feel proud about having a country with high-broadband deployment (except where we are) odd though id expect a country like the u.s to want high speed broadband with so many people online and with the internet. ill get round to reading that link later steve thanks.

I think the kyoto thing is retarded. I'm all for freedom, and wouldn't want to be forced into a commercialized deal. How about we go back to the good old days of actually working to save the enviroment? Turn off the lights, recycle everything(even people), quit allowing vegetarians to cause gross amounts of destruction for their wheat fields(force them to eat meat if necessary), so on. Rather than require people to reduce their emissions, make people watch the entire first season of Captain Planet! That'll teach a few people some real lessons.