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.

 

NEWS: Australia And USA To Stand Against Kyoto Endorsed Countries In Montreal

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
189 countries will meet in Montreal this week to discuss global warming in climate talks that will see Australia and the USA stand against the countries which endorsed the Kyoto protocol. Australia and USA. Climate change is becoming an increasing issue on the world agenda with incidents occuring such as the Cantaret Islans off New Guinea in which the local residents were forced to move from the island after losing the battle with rising sea levels. Australia and the USA have refused to discuss any binding agreements which they say binds conomic growth.
 



www.news.com.au
AUSTRALIA and the United States will stand in opposition to countries that endorsed the Kyoto protocol on global warming when 189 countries meet for climate talks in Montreal this week.

Many Kyoto nations want to launch negotiations on setting new curbs once Kyoto's goals run out in 2012. Kyoto is a bid to slow climate change that may trigger more hurricanes, droughts and rising sea levels.

"I can't see the United States joining international negotiations about what happens after 2012," said Paal Prestrud, head of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The bible says the meek shall inherit the Earth and so they shall, after the strong have raped the worlds resources and destroyed the planet. Get rich quick at whatever the cost to tomorrow.

Reduce Renew Recycle.



[edit on 27-11-2005 by Mayet]




posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Oh, who else would oppose it ?
Why out of 189 countries does the USA and Australia not surprise me as being the only ones to reject it ? smh


The bible says the meek shall inherit the Earth and so they shall, after the strong have raped the worlds resources and destroyed the planet. Get rich quick at whatever the cost to tomorrow.


in a nutshell

This really does sadden me, all this shows is that they don't care about the people nor the future of the people, nor our children. Why is it that the opinion of ONE (even if it is the president or prime minister of said country) is the be-all and end-all of what the people of the country think or want in regard to something like this ? That really doesn't matter anymore huh
hmmm.

Funny that, now I have one more reason to add to the list of why bearing children shall remain a dream of mine, never a reality



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I think one of the reasons for America's lack of concern for the environment comes from conservative pundits trivializing the issue:


Rush Limbaugh has gotten a lot of mileage out of his claim that volcanoes do more harm to the ozone layer than human-produced chemicals. He featured it in his best-selling book, The Way Things Ought to Be (paperback edition pp. 155-157): "Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive corporations in history.... Mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less 4 billion years' worth of them, so how can we destroy ozone?"

Limbaugh calls concern about the ozone layer: "balderdash. Poppycock." The only people who worry about it are "environmental wackos," "dunderheaded alarmists and prophets of doom."

-FAIR



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Well look at this this way, you have the chance to raise the next generation of revolutionaries. The current generation is too cowardly and spoiled to fight for anything regardless of the damage being done to the heal of our society and planet. It is up to us to raise the new children to be aware of the greed and corruption of evil rulers and to raise them with the skills and beliefs to destroy the evil ones.

If you just want to give your kid "a happy life growing up" and help them succeed, you will only breed the same people who exist now. Cowardly, spoiled, apathetic humans who will not stand up to the greed and corruption of evil rulers who are destroying the health of society and the planet.

Hey but on the bright side, anyone see the price of gas its going back down
so everyone just get back to your normal lives and pretend nothing has happened, is happening, ior going to happen



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
IMHO, the reason behind the USA and Australia's decision to stang against Kyoto are quite reasonable on the face of it - the treaty DOES unfairly exempt 'developing' nations like India and China from emissions controls. This means that nations like China can contrinue their breakneck economic growth whilst the US is tied down by treaty obligations, and hence is made less comptetive against China. This would be disastrous to American economic and military power in teh long run, and hence is something to be avoided - at least I would, if I were a US policy maker. If a treaty put the same restrcitions on China, I think then we would have less of a reason to object to it, as there would be fewer changes in the relative competitiveness of the USA against China in trade. I may be wrong on this, but I would like to point out that opposition to Kyoto is not a simple matter of the Ugly Evil Americans wanting to pollute and wreck the planet.

On the other hand, something clearly must be done to reduce greenhouse emmissions, and whilst I am a fairly conservative fellow, I strongly reject Rush Limbaugh's statements that another user posted earlier. I hope we can find a more fair treaty than Kyoto; the future hinges on our ability to do so.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
What does it matter anyhow who supports the Kyoto Accords?
I mean geez, Canada is having serious problems and issues complying with the Kyoto. Alberta will deny the accords.
Europe (France, Germany, etc.) is having serious problems complying with the Kyoto.
The UK and Ireland are having problems meeting the Kyoto.
Japan is struggling to meet the Kyoto.
China will not sign the Kyoto.

Blah, blah, blah....


Besides, the United States has signed an agreement with China, India, Japan, Australia, and South Korea that will go well beyond the limited steps of the Kyoto Protocol. As such, why are the Europeans, liberals, and global warming doomsayers and distractors, in general, continuing to stress Kyoto this and the Accords that? Not happy that the US and those other above mentioned countries did not sign onto Kyoto? The Kyoto Accords are worthless and this will inevitably be shown so over the life of it.






seekerof

[edit on 27-11-2005 by Seekerof]


cjf

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
There are a number of reasons why the United States has not, will not and can not sign the Kyoto treaty (other than the bench mark is set way to high for anyone to attain and developing nations are exempt in aspect)

The one paramount reason (for the sake of brevity) is that all ‘treaties’ signed by the United States have far reaching consequences, legal in nature, which most often do not exist in other nations. Constitutionally, in the US, adopted treaties become part of the ‘Supreme Law of the Land’. This is not true in member nations which have signed the treaty.

If the Kyoto treaty were agreed to by the sitting president and ratified by the senate, thus adopted by the United States as a whole, would override any and all Federal laws and regulations which may be adjudged to be in conflict with the treaty as ratified. States and local municipalities may also fall in this category or risk loosing federal funds for none compliances, no matter how small or large.

Furthermore, federal law allows private citizens and organizations to enforce treaties and address agencies directly (DOD, EPA, DOE etc), eventually through litigations and the courts; the federal ‘representative’ government moves from the ‘loop’ and the courts would rule, literally.

This ‘treaty authority’ would domino and empower judges to force controls on businesses based upon agenda (personal, political or otherwise), creating legislation from the bench by citing Kyoto authority. Everything from farming to manufacturing produces greenhouse gasses and this, under the accord, would place US businesses under arbitrary regulation within the United State’s current laws.

A single judge in one state may rule affecting the remaining 49 and any/all overseas companies under the US umbrella subject to current federal regulations. This would create chaos if ratified, thousands of citizens and organizations appearing in front of hundreds and hundreds of judges restricting commerce and government operations in every state. This ‘idea’ usurps the entire concept of a federal republic and representation.

The US can seek to ‘comply’ with the treaty, pressure can be placed upon the government to adopt similar legislation (and it has and entered into agreement with other developed industrialized nations imo above and beyond the Kyoto in many respects); but by no means will the US ever sign the Kyoto treaty.


.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I also believe the Kyoto treaty would not be fair to the US as well. China can grow without their economy suffering at all from restrictions and their economy is supposed to grow so fast as to match and then surpass the GNP of the US within 20 years I believe I heard. At that pace and the lack of environmental controls in China, they should surpass the US's greenhouse gas emissions pretty fast IMO.

I don't really care for everyone getting hung up on the Kyoto treaty since I believe the people of the US want to reduce the possibility of climate change.
I've heard of plans to use clean fuel or hydrogen for our cars and cleaner burning coal used to generate our electricity. Companies and the people of the US are making strong efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without mandated laws that will hurt business and our economy. However I do believe the US needs a much stronger push towards alternative fuels and implementing the use of clean burning coal technology. I also believe China needs environmental controls for their own people as well as helping to prevent climate change.

We are all in the same boat and it's not fair for a company in China to have no greenhouse gas emissions cost if a company in the US does. Guess what happens? The US company just moves to China and we lose jobs here in the US. Then several people around the world want to criticize the US for not signing onto the treaty.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Kyoto is a joke anyway. First the worlds second largest greenhouse gas emitters China gets a free ride on it. Second even if everyone follows the treaty it can only effect a small fraction of a degree over the next half of a century. The people behind the treaty cannot even deny how effective it will be.

Its a waste that only favors some countries and will do no good in the case of global warming that BTW hasnt even been proven not to be a natural earth cycle



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Bull crap, every darned bit.

Why do knee-jerkers automatically start crying about the envirnment and claim that we are bad, bad people for not mindlessly buying into that crap.

The same people who claim that certain nations use the concept of patriotism to blind the people to evil things fail to notice that their flag-bearers blind them to the bearers' main goal; to cripple the economies of nations like the U.S. so that other nations can surpass them.

Everyone who screams "The Envoronment!!" doesn't really care about it.

Man, being lucid in an insane world can give one a headache.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Actually, 25% of the US is complying with Kyoto.

However, it is unlikely that the U.S.A. will ever sign Kyoto when the likes of Exxon is paying these people to lobby the government to go against anything that will reduce their profit.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   


The UK and Ireland are having problems meeting the Kyoto.


I might be wrong but I believe they're on target to meet their goals in 2010 actually. They're not hitting their self imposed targets but that's another matter.

As for Australia I can't understand why they would do this. Doesn't 90% of their population live within 10 miles of the coast or something like that? And they're already sitting under a huge hole in the ozone layer.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
global warming is the greatest killer of mankind.if those countires do not wish to get involded well the rest of the world can and will have larger resources to work with.health crops prices everything under the sun is effected.those who wish to shelf terminate will meet there friends the dinosaurs.how can they sit back and do nothing.once again make poorer countires do all the work and the so called rich ones sit back.do you notice that those poorer countires seem to get back on the feet better then the rich ones.a trend that is growing.so sit back and do nothing while the rest prepare prepare prepare and become the strong.....



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I'm sick & tired of people bashing the U.S. on this issue. Yes, we produce something like a fourth of the world's CO2 emissions, but then again we produce something like a sixth of the world's goods and we all tend to drive cars & trucks that produce the rest of our contribution. I am not going to apologize because we are a relatively wealthy nation and I am not willingly going to see this country cut it's own throat commercially when other countries representing over one half the world's population don't have to follow the same rules.

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Please..... everyone.... do a Google search on "scientists refute global warming" and you'll see that over 10,000 scientists around the world agree with some aspects of warming, but 97% of it is not caused by humans.
Fact: the two biggest causes of global warming are: water vapor and the sun.
Carbon Dioxide is not polution... it's plant food. Drastically reduce C02, and it reduces the amount of food for plants and trees and forests, which results in slower and reduced growth, which reduces what? ...... if you said Oxygen, go to the head of the class.

One mature maple tree can put 80,000 gallons of water vapor into the air in one year .... do we start cutting down trees? And what do we do about that damn solar furnace we so rely on?

While there are those who complain about the profits the oil companies make (and are usually the same ones who complain about capitolism... who know nothing about economics) it is those same profits that allow the companies to clean up after themselves; Americas air is cleaner now than it was before the industrial revolution.

Shakyaheir...You mention nothing about the facts Rush quoted about Mount Pinatubo; yes, the facts. Can you provide links or information to anything that
refutes or proves wrong what he said?

Flukemol: Ummm.... Capitols... punctuation. And please read what was mentioned about water vapor and sun spots, above. And, no, Ice Ages are the greatest killer of all living species on earth. 90% of Earths living things went extinct before man was around.

No-one needs a treaty to do what's right, and America is doing it's part. Any country who allows it's economy to be controlled by another country, or group of countries, by people we do not vote for, and cannot vote out of office, eventually will have no economy.... and that is what all of this is about.
Instead of bringing the poor companies up to our level (which means giving liberty and freedom to those peoples, and takes power from the truly corrupt and tyranical leaders), lets bring down America to the level of the rest of the world.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

do a Google search on "scientists refute global warming" and you'll see that over 10,000 scientists around the world agree with some aspects of warming, but 97% of it is not caused by humans.

I tried that and the results were too broad to find the claim above. However I did the same search with quotes and only two results came back.

" few scientists refute global warming" from www.princeton.edu

and
"Growing Number of Scientists Refute Global Warming Pessimism" a report by wasingtontimes' Candace Crandall. www.askanalytic.com

That section of the article reads


Growing Number of Scientists Refute Global Warming Pessimism

As reported by Candace Crandall in an opinion piece in the Washington Times (November 20, 1998)*, scientists have since voiced their dissent with the 1992 U.N. Global Climate Treaty by establishing four different petitions and accumulating more than 21,000 signatures.



One such petition is the Petition Project from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

This petition of 'scientists' include signatures by Perry Mason, Michael J. Fox, John C. Grisham, Geri Halliwel (ginger spice),Drs. Frank Burns, Honeycutt, and Pierce from M*A*S*H*.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
..... which I'll begin doing right away. Sorry, Mods... I'll provide more links instead of the old "copy-and-paste" from now on.

Here's but one paper. ) Please note that while this concerns the economic impact of the U.S., it would have a like effect on other countries as well).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published in Regulation (The CATO Review of Business and Government), vol.22, no.1, p.54, 1999.


THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY
by Robert O. Mendelsohn and James E. Neumann (editors)
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999)
320 pages

THE INFLUENCE OF THIS BOOK on climate policy may well be more important than the influence of climate change itself on human affairs. But until one reaches the concluding chapter there is little indication of the bombshell contained in this volume involving the efforts of twenty-six economists: namely, that the economic effects of global warming are positive and beneficial rather than negative and damaging. The dust jacket and preface merely claim that the book "improves our understanding of key issues raised in the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports." What an understatement!

The original IPCC report, "Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change," assembled in 1995, relied on the earlier published judgments of five authors, which were based on a small set of comprehensive sectoral studies. They concluded that a doubling of the levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases would result in global damages of 1.5 to 2 percent of GDP. (Damages in the United States were estimated at 1 to 2 percent of U.S. GDP.) These early studies by Nordhaus (1991), Cline (1992), Fankhauser (1995), Tol (1995), and Titus (1992) gave total US losses, in 1990 dollars, ranging from $55 billion to S140 billion, including both market and non-market effects. But the apparent agreement on a large negative effect masks widely varying sector-by-sector estimates of the losses: agriculture, $1.1 billion to $17.5 billion; energy, $1.1 billion to S10 billion; sea level damage, $5.7 billion to $12.2 billion; timber, $0.7 billion to $43.6 billion; and water resources $7 billion to $15.6 billion. Further, all of their estimates of non-market effects are uniformly negative and, in many cases, greater than market effects.

The Impact of Climate Change on the United States Economy comes to strikingly different conclusions about the economic effects of global warming, even assuming a doubling of greenhouse gases leading to a warming of 2.5�C. The improved methodology of these new studies considers, among other things, the possibility of adaptation. The new studies also rely on natural climate experiments, by observing energy expenditures, leisure activities, etc., in towns that experience varying temperature changes. Capital-intensive sectors, such as coastal structures and timber, are modeled dynamically. The various sectoral studies were designed to be more consistent and to respond to a broader range of climate projections. And they are more comprehensive, including commercial fishing for the first time.

When all is said and done, the new studies yield large positive effects for agriculture and smaller positive effects for timber and recreation. Estimates for the remaining sectors are still negative, but considerably less negative than the previous IPCC estimates.. On balance, warming is found to increase US GDP by about 0.2 percent.

The reversal of the earlier estimates is startling, but it should not be entirely unexpected to those who have been following the economic literature of recent years. Individual research papers have indeed shown a large positive effect of warming on agriculture, arising from longer growing seasons, warmer nights, increased precipitation, and a higher levy of carbon dioxide to hasten plant growth. The editors of the book were not yet aware that modest warming would retard the rise in sea level rise rather than accelerate it. That fact reinforces the dear implication of their research, which is that global warming is good for us, that is will improve our economic wellbeing as well as our health. Similar conclusions apply not only to other industrialized nations but also to the rest of the world, including island nations that fear a rising sea level.

Will these new results lead politicians to blunt or even reverse the drive to limit carbon dioxide emissions and curtail energy use, or will it be politics as usual? Similarly, will the new results chasten economists who have been engaged in cost-benefit analyses of global warming-a phenomenon with positive economic effects- when the costs of mitigating it are between 1 and 2 percent of GDP?



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
www.sepp.org...

While this is but one source, as with any topic, scientific information should be viewed with an open mind, which I've tried to do for over 40 years. It's when there are a majority of world scientists who agree on certain facts that one might view ones own "facts" as politically motivated, or wrong.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Hmmm,

Quite a few people are so quick to judge the US on non kyoto acceptance, and those here who are denouncing the US for it, are you so sure that what is happening with the environment isnt a natural cycle as opposed to human influence on the environment?

Irrespective on the outcome of that choice, even IF (and i say that with tongue in cheek because a natural cycle is a little more likely than some hydrocarbons for a shot period of time) human influence plays some part in it, the elected officials in this case are NOT the ones to blame...they can or cannot sign any treaty or protocol or accord that they want, but if US, the people, dont start economizing and stop using our vehicles unnecessarily, using extranneous power, running air conditioning systems unnecessarily, then the honus of the blame is on US, the people for not taking care of our planet. If the elected officials were the only ones opposed to it and the people decided to stop using all the aforementioned, then their written words would be meaningless, either for OR against.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The United States will never join any treaty like Kyoto that doesn't include developing nations, it's just economic suicide.

The U.S. Senate (2/3rds of which would be required to ratify any treaty) voted 95 - 0 in a sense of the Senate vote to reject Kyoto because it didn't include such 3rd world nations:



On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join