It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Bush Puts Jobs Ahead of Climate Treaty

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Contending that the long term gains would not offset the economic losses, the Bush administration, continue to shun the Kyoto climate treaty. According to a White House spokesman, the science of climate change is still in a learning phase and that the White House was committed to slowing growth of greenhouse gasses in a way that allows the economy to grow. He also noted that the U.S. government had committed $5.8 billion dollars to fund new, non polluting energy technologies.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration contends that the long-term benefit from the Kyoto climate treaty won't be worth the immediate economic cost.

The conspicuous U.S. absence from the treaty limits its impact when it takes effect Wednesday. While the 35 participating industrial nations have committed to reducing carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other compounds to below their levels of 1990, the United States is the single biggest source of greenhouse gases.

President Bush agreed in his 2000 campaign to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant but came to the view shortly afterward that its harm has yet to be scientifically established.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


While the Kyoto treaty has merit, there are severe shortcomings. Countries such as China and India who both signed the treaty have no limits on gas emission. At any rate, the bill in my mind seems targeted on the U.S. which admittedly is the biggest producer of the gasses due to its fossil fuel based economy. The environmentalists are primarily to blame for the stalled efforts at nuclear power which offer a way to generate electricity we need without the effects of greenhouse gasses. its time to perhaps reconstitute a nuclear generating program in the U.S. to help reduce those emissions.




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Thank God he puts American interests ahead of this stupid idiot treaty!!! The only way this treaty was accepted by Europeans is because they rely so heavily on nuclear power, the U.S. could not in good conscience submit to this treaty which punishes the established industrial nations while ignoring the mega-polluting newly industrializing nations of China and India.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
The realities of the US conflict with the Kyoto Protocol,

US is and remind the world’s biggest source of climate changing gases.

Unites state is the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide.

Now Bush comes and tell’s the American people that he is saving jobs, let see the reality of his claims.

Is a corporate payback, President Bush administration has been since the beginning for energy corporations. Oil, gas coal and nuclear companies, yes they are polluters of the environment.

They have given very handsome donations to bush campaign, so the reducing on carbon-dioxide emissions is not part of the deal.

He said that he will not do anything to harm the economy of our country actually he should say,

“I will not do anything to harm the corporations that pay my way to the white house”

And this is the realities of Bush no supporting the Kyoto protocol.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Even though the U.S isn't on board, I am happy to hear that the issue is not being ignored. I am also very happy that this story made the news. It at least shows that some people care about this issue.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
The bizzare thing is that the US is doing fairly well under what would've been the kyoto standards, I think that they'd be 13 or perhaps it was 31 percent over their c02 emission levels of whatever decade kyoto bases things on, whereas kyoto signatories are more over than the US.

Before the US commits to a sweeping treaty it needs to demonstrate that increased CO2 emission are in fact warming the atmosphere adn that this is causing an increase in surface tempurature. You'd think it'd be simple, but apparently its not so straightforward. There isn't wide consensus yet amoung researchers invovled in the science at least, so until then it would be best to regulate on its own terms.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
If I remember the whole thing about the kyoto accords were that they put severe restrictions on the United States while leaving "developing countries" such as China free to pollute as much as they wanted. It also was being supported by countries such as Russia because if they didn't meet their quota of pollution they could sell the rights to other countries. I think I heard that Russia made quite a bit off of it recently.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
This Treaty does not even work. At best Scientists agree it will reduce the calculated temperature rise in 2050 by one-tenth of a degree. Thats going to help alot



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"

Russia's economic collapse after 1990 nearly halved its emissions. But yet Russia is permited to sell its unused emission rights to Europeans anxious to ease the economic penalties of Kyoto's restrictions. So thats why they signed this thing not because they thought it was going to help the enviroment.

Plus countries like China,India,Brazil and Mexico get free rides on their emissions so why wouldnt they sign the thing.

www.globalwarming.org...

[edit on 15-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Kyoto isn't perfect by any means, but it's a starting point where the world can rally behind and at least try and make some headway. It's better than nothing IMO but I feel a new treaty should be drafted and it should be DONE RIGHT. This isn't about jobs, this is about corporate greed and the energy giants losing out in the long run. If we embraced changing our economies now from being fossil fuel dependant to being more eco friendly this will actually create jobs and capital would flow into new startup companies contracted to build new energy systems!! and how about those oil giants getting in on it more as well, sounds like a smart move to me


we all agree we are going to have to cut our reliance on fossil fuels and also commit ourselves to reducing the pollution that we all release into the atmosphere but it's actually going to cost more 10 years from now (3 times as much i've heard) to do some serious changes than it is now. The longer we wait the more money it's gonna cost and the more unwilling we will supposedly be not to change.

The one thing that makes my blood boil about Kyoto is that China and India are exempt, so they can keep having poor emission standards and also when they become superpower's they will be heavily reliant on fossil fuels as well and then when they are considered "developed" they are going to have to change anyway and reduce emissions! Developing nations should be tackling this problem from the outset and head on instead of delaying it because they will just have the same problems the West is having now with becoming greener and more eco-friendly, which is just going to make it that much harder to change.

Fossil fuels are a dead end and we gotta find a viable alternative so we can save our precious fossil fuels for what they are needed for : plastics and petrcochemicals

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Let’s see how our best friend and Allie feel about Bush keeping the US out of the Kyoto Protocol in favor of our biggest corporate pollutants.




Global warming is one of Blair's priorities for London's chairmanship of the Group of Eight rich nations this year.

"The reality is that unless America comes back into some form of international consensus, it's very hard to make progress," Blair said when asked if he could get the United States on board over measures to slow global warming.

Funny I believe in the global warming and scientist from all over the world agree, but our own pay by big corporations pollutant does not our scientist will said that is not true.



Scientists say global warming could have catastrophic consequences, causing ice caps to melt and sea levels to rise. Coastal towns and even cities like London could be submerged. Climate changes could also destroy agriculture and wipe out thousands of species.


What many does not understand is that as the safety over poisons in the area of work in these places slack workers safety also slacks.

tvnz.co.nz...=html



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The realities of the US conflict with the Kyoto Protocol,
............................
And this is the realities of Bush no supporting the Kyoto protocol.


No Marg, the reality of the Kyoto protocol is that industrialized countries would pretty much face banckrupcy if they followed the Kyoto protocol. This is one of the main reasons why the US and some other countries prefer not to be a part of it.

One of the things that i disagree with president Bush is his stance about climate change. While i do think that it seems to be true that the president does not take a bit more seriously the climate change we are currently going through because the US economy is intrinsically linked to oil companies, and other big companies. It is also true that the economy of the US would probably completely bankrupt the country if we were to take the extreme measures of the Kytoto protocol.

We can only do slow changes, and in this at least the president is setting up programs that try to find reliable new ways to obtain energy that should be friendlier towards the environment.

As another member mentioned, the Kyoto protocol aids China and India more than any other country in the world, and this would surely help in puting China as the new super power. Some people think this would not be such a bad idea....well...if you think the US is "evil" and knowing that people in the US have more freedoms than people in China.... Imagine what the world would be like with the communist state at the front and with the most power in the world. It would be bad, not only for the US, but for the world, and the actions of China throughout it's history up to the present trying to deny the independence of another country proves this.

I also believe that whatever we try to do now, even if we put the Kyoto protocol or even take stronger measures, won't be able to stop what has already started. We can only prepare.

What many people in these same forums also don't realize, is that the Kyoto protocol would not only hurt big companies, but it would take the jobs of millions of people in the US. Pretty much every industry in the country depends on oil, and so does the job of pretty much every citizen of the US.

---edited for errors---


[edit on 15-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I couldn't agree more with the bulk of the posters here; you have all said it better than I could. The Kyoto Accords (which, if you remember, Bush campaigned against when he ran for President in 2000) would destroy our economy, not stop India and China from their polluting, and would require us to "buy" pollution credits from a bunch of Third World Countries who aren't industrialized at all.

The net pollutants would be unchanged, like as not, and it would be just another UN-sponsored wealth-redistributing scheme from the producing countries to the parasite countries.

I agree that pollution is a bad thing, but the only way we're going to get out of the mess is to stop burning hydrocarbons.

Unfortunately, to do this, we're going to have to start burning more uranium; this is ironic indeed: those Luddites who are howling about pollution are the same ones who, out of ignorance, are terrified of nuclear power.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Got your Global Warming Bible yet?


as posted by Marg
Funny I believe in the global warming and scientist from all over the world agree, but our own pay by big corporations pollutant does not our scientist will said that is not true.


Ironically Marg, there are "scientist from all over the world" who would also beg to disagree. No mention of them?



seekerof



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I believe Seekerof is speaking of these Scientists.


There are a few authoritative climate scientists in the sceptic camp. The most notable are Patrick Michaels from the University of Virginia, who is also the chief environmental commentator at the Cato Institute in Washington DC, and meteorologist Richard Lindzen from MIT. Most others are either retired, outside mainstream academia or tied to the fossil fuel industry. In the UK, three of the most prominent are Philip Stott, a retired biogeographer, former TV botanist David Bellamy, and Martin Keeley, a palaeogeologist. Keeley argues on a BBC website that "global warming is a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests". He is an oil exploration consultant.
www.newscientist.com...


My second line Custom Title used to read "Who Benefits?"



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   

as posted by Marg
Scientists say global warming could have catastrophic consequences, causing ice caps to melt and sea levels to rise. Coastal towns and even cities like London could be submerged. Climate changes could also destroy agriculture and wipe out thousands of species.


Interesting that you quoted this, because at a recent "UK governmental conference in Exeter," here is what one sceptic said:


'I have just returned from the most depressing conference I have ever attended. After two days of relentless barrage of doom and gloom predictions at the Met Office conference on 'Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change' I decided that enough is enough.

'The unmitigated exposure to prophecies of imminent ice ages, looming hell fire, mass starvation, mega-droughts, global epidemics and mass extinction is an experience I would not recommend to anyone with a thin-skinned disposition (although the news media couldn't get enough of it). But such was the spectacle of pending disaster that anyone who dared - or was allowed - to question whether the sky is really about to fall on us (and there were at least half a dozen of moderate anti-alarmists present), was branded a 'usual suspect' ....'


Further on in the article, this is mentioned:


How to deal with the apparently irresistible temptation by Kyoto adherents to frighten the public by orchestrated scare-mongering campaigns based on pseudo-science? The well-respected climate modeler Hans von Storch (who is not a climate sceptic) recently warned that there is a serious problem for the natural sciences: namely, the public depiction and perception of climate change. Research has landed in a crisis because its public actors assert themselves on the saturated market of discussion by overselling the topic.

Kyoto's Walls Are Crumbling Down

Anyone care to visit Junkscience.com and see what they are mentioning on this matter?





seekerof



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Junkscience.com is registered to Steve Milloy.
You may of heard of him. He is a Fox News Commentator. I also pulled this info from the internet.



"Junkman" Steven Milloy has made a career of lobbying for polluting industries, heading corporate front groups to deny environmental concerns, and ridiculing individual environmentalists on behalf of corporate interests.
www.clearproject.org...





As documented by John Stauber, the Director of PR Watch, in his upcoming
book, Mr. Milloy is a long time tobacco lobbyist who has worked for Philip
Morris (since 1992) and Brown and Williamson. In 1997 he was named head of the
Philip Morris-created group The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. This
was based at Milloy's lobbying firm, EOP, where clients also included the
Nuclear Energy Institute, Dow Chemical, The American Crop Protection
Association (pesticide manufacturers), the Chlorine Chemistry Council and the
American Petroleum Institute.
lists.isb.sdnpk.org...


Who benefits?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
What does it matter if he is a lobbyiest? At worst it means what he or his associated say can't be taken for granted.

And no, most scientists do not think that the 'global warming theory' is correct.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
What does it matter if he is a lobbyiest? At worst it means what he or his associated say can't be taken for granted.


I think it makes a huge difference (Im speaking to being a lobbiest, not thier view on the matter at hand). When I hear that term I think "hired gun" who has whored hir or her opinion to the highest dollar. Now that may not always be the case, but unless her or she can prove otherwise, alot of us have been conditioned to that viewpoint.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   

And no, most scientists do not think that the 'global warming theory' is correct.


MOST atmospheric scientists believe something is up and some change is happening, so don't believe nothing is changing but the far majority of atmospheric scientists agree that climate change is happening, they just don't know if it's us doing it or if it is just a natural process.

Compared to what nature releases every year, our emissions are actually quite small which is interesting, but you just gotta wonder if that little change is enough to screw things up.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Bush administration, Bush administration, Bush administration!

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the 95-0 vote by the U.S. senate in 1997 against the treaty?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join