Kyoto Treaty/Protocol.

---

just wanted to know wats peoples views on the treaty of kyoto to reduce carbon emissions and to help developong countries become industrialized in a better way than we did. particuarly about america's involvement and the weakening of the treaty. mr gass-guzzling giant of cheap petrol! does anyone care about the planet? (or wat i think_

Australia hasn't signed either.

i think its great but why wont many countries sign up 4 it? does cheaper petrol matter that much?

[Have you read the whole document? It's available on Wikipedia.In a non-binding vote in the U.S. Senate a few years ago, they Kyoto Protocol went down by a vote of 95 to 0.]From a 30 June Reuters article:In reply to:"The reductions (in greenhouse gases) the EU have to make were modest compared to what might be required by the United States," said U.S. Senior Climate Negotiator Harlan Watson.In reply to:"The costs for the EU probably work out at the cost of a light lunch for each citizen," said Alexander Ochs of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. "Views about Kyoto's effects are more at the level of belief than fact."In reply to: Watson said the United States would have faced a bigger burden under Kyoto than its main allies, partly because of U.S. heavy reliance on domestic coal for generating electricity. Coal emits more carbon dioxide than gas or oil when burned."Europe's overall reduction from business as usual is 4 to 5 percent," he said. For the United States "we would estimate in the order of 30 to 35 percent reduction versus business as usual."In reply to:China, along with all other developing nations, has no targets for limiting emissions under Kyoto's first period to 2012, though lower costs, rather that its exemption from the environment pact, are driving the shift.

I'm all for it, but it's weakness lies in the fact that the U.S., China, and India won't sign it.It's correct that the U.S. and Australia have not signed it; the rest is not correct. Since "China, along with all other developing nations, has no targets for limiting emissions under Kyoto's first period to 2012", why wouldn't they sign it?

yeh i briefly skimmed over the document when i was doing a geography project. but why wudnt india sign it? i didnt no they were in it. i foolishly assumed it was all the devloped countries who r wanted to sign it and it was to help reduce our carbon emissions to let L.E.D.C's become developed.

India did sign it (and ratify it). Australia and the U.S. also signed it, but did not ratify it.One problem for the U.S. is that "developing" country China is rapidly becoming an industrial powerhouse; they have terrible pollution problems. So why should they be exempt from the gas emission requirements, and be able to bulldoze the American economy at the same time?It's not as simple as just paying more for gasoline for your car.

k thanks 4 clearing that up. china shouldnt be exempt but they should hve a limit on emissions. but shouldnt we try to help countries devolop without producing mass emissions of CO2 etc. would china affect the american economy that much? yet americas a big place 4 producing goods and could invest in alternative energy resources. i say roll on EFDA-JET and ITER with nucleur fusion. i sound scientific wow!

> 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.