U.S. Set To Spend $5.8 Billion In 2005 On Climate Change (from ATSNN)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
The United States had already turned down signing with the Kyoto protocol and has decided to go with the voluntary approach to aid in the reduction of man-made-green-house-gasses. In 2005 the U.S will spend more than 5 billion dollars on climate change. About 700 million dollars will be available in tax incentives for renewable energy programs.
 



olympics.reuters.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States, which refused to participate in a United Nations-backed global plan to slow global warming, said on Tuesday it will spend nearly $5.8 billion in 2005 on research and programs addressing climate change.
The Kyoto protocol was signed by 141 nations and goes into force on Wednesday to limit carbon dioxide and other heat- trapping gases blamed for a rise in global temperatures.

The Bush administration favors a voluntary approach and in 2001 rejected U.S. participation in the treaty as being too costly. The United States is the world's biggest polluter.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I must say I am very please to hear the U.S. is not ignoring the fact that 141 countries around the world are committed to reducing green house gasses. The Kyoto Protocol comes into force on February February 16.
Hopefully the efforts of the U.S. and the countries signed with Kyoto will pay off.
Many people stood against Kyoto concerned about the effect it will have on the economy. Perhaps the U.S. will prove that we can save peoples jobs and help the Earth.


Related News Links:
www.ens-newswire.com
www.keralanext.com




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Umbrax - if I had had the opportunity to vote on this, I would have voted 'yes.'

Keep up the good work.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Well - the voluntary approach better work. It's what we've got.

Interesting survey from the Game and Fish Service tho:





More than 200 biologists and other researchers in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirm that they have been directed to alter their official scientific findings, says a survey released last week. The scientists say business interests apply political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions that might interfere with profits, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies. "The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," says Lexi Shultz ??? of the Union of Concerned Scientists. According to critics, the Bush administration routinely alters science to suit political objectives.



Bush Silencing Scientists, Again

More than 200 scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been directed to alter official findings to lessen protections for plants and animals, a survey released Wednesday says.

More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which commercial interests, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies, had applied political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions deemed harmful to their business.

"The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," said Lexi Shultz of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mitch Snow, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency had no comment on the survey, except to say "some of the basic premises just aren't so."

Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results, saying she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.

"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases," she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming out of the agency."

A biologist in Alaska wrote in response to the survey: "It is one thing for the department to dismiss our recommendations, it is quite another to be forced (under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter to our best professional judgment."





posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
People you have to understand that the reason for the bush administration been against any agreement with the Kyoto protocol is that will have to reduced the Carbon dioxide, emissions.

He can not do that, because the ones that are the biggest polluters are his bodies in the Oil, gas, energy and nuclear companies they all very handsome donors to his campaigns.

He is not protecting jobs he is protecting the big boys at the corporate level.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

the ones that are the biggest polluters are his bodies in the Oil, gas, energy and nuclear companies they all very handsome donors to his campaigns.

He is not protecting jobs he is protecting the big boys at the corporate level.



..AND this stuff makes people very very sick. So not only is he not protecting jobs, he is helping make people sick too - the kind of sick that catches up with you when you're about 45 or 50 - too young to retire, but too sick to work.



.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I've seen more than just the government or those with their job at stake go against Kyoto. Locally in Alberta there are lots of people are against it.
People are going to have to realize that the economy isn't the biggest thing in the world. With out the Eco system there is no economy, period.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
People you have to understand that the reason for the bush administration been against any agreement with the Kyoto protocol is that will have to reduced the Carbon dioxide, emissions.



No its because the treaty is costly and unfair to the US. The treaty obligated ''developed'' nations to make cuts but not China, India, Brazil and Mexico.If they are going to make countries cut back they all should do so to the same levels. No free rides for any countries.

Also its ineffective for the reason it was created , Scientists all agree that at best the treaty would reduce the calculated temperature rise in 2050 by an insignificant one-tenth of a degree. WOW thats going to help alot.


www.globalwarming.org...



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax

With out the Eco system there is no economy, period.


Or food, huh?

It's water, air, soil. Everything is on the table for greed, not "the economy." The economy is in toilet as far as ordinary people go. The big boys are just looting the las of the spoils.




Mood: Very Cranky.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
How about getting all of those SUVs off the road for starters? It is better than going after countries that have to use bikes due to poverty and over population. Also much of China pollution come from daily cooking. Many families have to burn coal for cooking food.
It is much easier to go after a SUV driver rather than someone who has to cook because they can't do it any other way.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Whats the worst that can happen here? In my opinion it would be that we make the planet uninhabitable for mankind and we become extinct. For mother earth herself that probably wouldnt be such a bad thing.

We are NOT killing this planet. Its gone thru extinction after extinction in the past, Four major ones I believe, and each time the planet has recovered nicely.

We are simply making it non conducive to human existence. I agree thats a bad thing for us but for the planet as a whole thats the light at the end of the tunnel. Rabbits and squirrels and lions are celebrating the passing of our kind. (In their own quiet little way)

OK, I agree i'm an oddball. I believe that it would be easier to stop the sun from shining or the season from changing than to stop the growth of the eternal soul. We shall go on, even if were no longer living on and poluting this planet.

I shall miss it though.

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
We shall go on, even if were no longer living on and poluting this planet.

I shall miss it though.




I agree mrwupy, but I'm goin down fighting.


The sad thing is, so many people think they can go live on a spaceship, or another planet. Like they don't EVER have to clean their room.




.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by mrwupy

The sad thing is, so many people think they can go live on a spaceship, or another planet. Like they don't EVER have to clean their room.


.



Hahaha....This is so true. There is the age old rule, "Don't S@!T where you eat." and few people seem to realize that at the moment, were all eating on planet Earth.

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Yes the Earth could do with out man kind thats for sure. Not that I would like it that way. The Earth has been around long before us and will probably be around long after. However we still have the means through pollution to destroy all life on Earth. Every life form down to micro-organisms.
If we heat up the Oceans enough we will lose them.



Waterless Oceans The oceans will completely disappear in about one billion years due to increased temperatures from a maturing sun. The problems begin in half that time because of falling levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As time progresses, the sun, like all main sequence stars, is getting brighter and that affects the climate of our planet. Eventually temperatures will become high enough so that the oceans evaporate. At 140 degrees Fahrenheit, water becomes a major constituent of the atmosphere. Much of this water migrates to the stratosphere where it is lost to the vacuum. Eventually, the oceans will evaporate into space.
www.ocean98.org...


No water, no life. Just a baron planet. Earth will probably look more live Venus.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I heard a news report that Canada is already worried about compliance.

I'm glad the US didn't sign.
I think Kyoto is more political agenda than plan for cleaning the planet.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

I think Kyoto is more political agenda than plan for cleaning the planet.




All these things get hijacked and twisted to serve political agendas - but the core idea is right. .....We're are urinating oil byproducts, defecating chemicals and spewing poison all over this planet - but we're not cleaning up after ourselves.

It's gotta be done!

But all these jerks grew up with maids and they think it happens by magic. Fools, they are.


.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy

We are NOT killing this planet. Its gone thru extinction after extinction in the past, Four major ones I believe, and each time the planet has recovered nicely.


But no time in history, that we know of, has man been industrialised....
You can't say we are not killing the planet because it hasn't been killed in the past. We didn't have billions of cars in the past, we didn't burn fossil fuels on the levels we do now, in the past etc....etc...
We didn't have a 6,446,131,400 population in the past.

[edit on 15/2/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

But no time in history, that we know of, has man been industrialised....
You can't say we are not killing the planet because it hasn't been killed in the past. We didn't have billions of cars in the past, we didn't burn fossil fuels on the levels we do now, in the past etc....etc...
We didn't have a 6,446,131,400 population in the past.




Good points.
But IMO - the real problem is industrial and chemical pollution - not people - but people are being blamed, and soon we will see overpopulation used as an excuse for letting people die, or killing them outright....



.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

But no time in history, that we know of, has man been industrialised....
You can't say we are not killing the planet because it hasn't been killed in the past. We didn't have billions of cars in the past, we didn't burn fossil fuels on the levels we do now, in the past etc....etc...
We didn't have a 6,446,131,400 population in the past.

[edit on 15/2/2005 by ANOK]


The earth has just about been killed many times. Take the Great Dying for example. A event that makes our human pollution look like a fart in the wind by comparsion.

We also had populations that big just not humans. We might not have had industrialised animals either but we had asteroids that wiped out like 95% of all life on earth in a fraction of the time.

Just as even those events couldn't kill all life on earth neither will human pollution. It might kill humans off but other lifeforms will live on.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
But it's people who create and use the chemicals Soficrow...
Why is it ppl nowadays don't want to take blame for anything?
We have to face up to the fact that we are killing our planet.
We have to learn to take responsibility for our actions.
It's not someone else's fault, it's OURS.

Arguing over who's fault it is is pointless, we need to find a solution...
It's your life and your planet, take it back...

[edit on 15/2/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I pulled this from sfgate.com.


A new research report presents some quantitative predictions, based on computer models, of how California’s climate will be affected by global warming. The following data shows predicted average change in the years 2070 to 2099.

Lower emissions Higher emissions

Change in: scenario* scenario*

Temperature (statewide average)

Summer 4° higher 15° higher

Winter 4° higher 7° higher.

Precipitation (statewide average)

Annual 1 1/2 inches more 6 1/4 inches less.

Sea level rise 7 3/4 inches 16 1/4 inches.

April 1 snowpack

(all elevations) 29% less 89% less.

Annual Sierra reservoir

inflow 12% more 30% less .

* Scenarios are based on whether policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions are instituted (“lower emissions”) or not (“higher emissions”).

Note: Temperatures are in degrees Fahrenheit.

Source: National Academy of Sciences

This report was made last year before it was discovered that we are heating up twice as fast as we thought.
Visit Death Valley Ca. where its 134°F (57°C) one of the hottest place on Earth. Already amazingly hot, I can't imagine 164°F (73°C) .





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join