It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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



page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:39 AM
The Kyoto Accord is an internation pact set out to lower the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. Global warming is a growing threat to us as a species. The US emits more of these gases than the rest of the world combined. Who is going to step up on this issue that has international implications?

It is evident that the global warming problem is going to have to be dealt with. Many world leaders are behind this Accord but it is shown in this article that Bush is not one of them. It says, "The world's got a pretty simple choice here. It's between President Bush and grandchildren." That's scary.

The article shows what damage is being done to the planet, global warming, shrinking polar caps, etc. Has Bush rethought his position on this? What are the positions of the parties? This issue could have serious implications for the world.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Valhall]

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 02:04 AM

Originally posted by intrepid
The Kyoto Accord is an internation pact set out to lower the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. Global warming is a growing threat to us as a species. The US emits more of these gases than the rest of the world combined.

The Kyoto treaty is flawed, it harms developed nations while supporting the polluting developing nations, India and China to name several.

It incorporates a theory into a legal law or force, the whole theory of global warming is still debatable, it still is not written in stone.

Aside from that, the answer to pollution problems is not regulations, but the free market, and simple economics. If oil prices rise drastically, (seeing how gasoline engines are the main point of blame in CO2) there will be a large incentive to find a cheaper alternative.

What that alternative is, I do not know, if I did I would be a billionaire when it happens. Even so, the inventor may be you, or your neighbor; the free market is a complex, amazing mechanism.

Say your city almost all people smoke, and the city imposes a smoking ban in all existing restaurants and bars, but leaves an exemption for new bars and restaurants.

What happens to the existing businesses? businesses?

Sadly, this is exactly what the Kyoto treaty does, it requires all existing bars and restaurant (USA, EU, Aust.) to ban/restrict smoking (large commerce), yet allows new bars and restaurants (China, India, and other developing countries) to allow smoking (large commerce).

Q: Where are the smokers going to go? (Assuming they smoke at bars/restaurants)

A: The new businesses (developing countries),.

If you think theres a exodus of jobs in America now, imagine if the Kyoto treaty was ratified!

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 02:39 AM

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
The Kyoto treaty is flawed, it harms developed nations while supporting the polluting developing nations, India and China to name several.

See, that's exactly what the article said, "American lobbyists who oppose Kyoto would have you believe India and China are the major culprits."
Also, "The United States pumps out more CO2 than the entire rest of the world combined. We as as species pump as much CO2 into the air each year as you would get from burning down every tree in Canada each year." Let me tell you, there are a lot of trees in Canada. This is a serious issue.

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 05:12 AM
I read an article in National Geographic a while ago addressing the environmental issues China is facing. Because they do not have to comply with regulations the environment, and people, are suffering:

China's Growing Pains

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 05:31 AM
It seems like the spin continues,"China may be getting richer as it turns into the workshop of the world, but as Beijingers rich and poor admit, what good is money if you can't breathe the air? If the economy keeps roaring along, within three decades China could overtake the U.S. as the world's largest source of greenhouse gases, associated with global warming."

It's already been determined that the US is responsible for over half of the CO2 being put into the atmosphere, does that stay above America, or does it float over other countries?
Within 30 years China could overtake the US in these emmisions? What's that saying about the emmisions that are being produced by America today? It would take the most populous country 30 years to catch up to the US in polutants.
Is there NO party that will take a stand on this issue? This seems like a big one if you do the reading. This is not a national one, it's a global concern.

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 07:37 AM
When it comes to the environment, President George W. Bush and John Kerry are like oil and water. The environment is a bottom-rung priority for Bush, while Kerry has one of the greenest voting record in the U.S. Senate and speaks passionately about global warming. On the campaign trail, Kerry characterizes Bush's unilateral rejection of Kyoto as evidence of high-handed, shortsighted and arrogant foreign policy. Kerry's new environmental plan states flatly that "John Kerry will reinsert the United States into international climate negotiations."
Now disseminate the breath of that statement: " Reinsert into Global Negotiations". The most important role of the president is to set tone, chart direction and steer the ship - something the former skipper is knees/hips/head & shoulders above Bush on. Thant being said, Congress has to be taken out of Republican control to effect change, since to legislate action or buy into a treaty is their domain. 2/3 of the Senate has to ratify - and yes, Democratic Senators from industrial manufacturing states are also to share the criticism, even though the GOP has the numbers to parrot Bush's lead, you can't have any isle crossing .
Just last fall, a majority of senators rejected a bipartisan climate-change proposal sponsored by two former presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, despite the fact that the bill was far less ambitious than Kyoto.
The reality is this: Bush is on the wrong side of the Global Warming issue. But Kyoto is not a US freindly option. President Kerry will bring our nation much further along - and that's an absolute by simply coming to table with the world again. Put forth the Kyoto protocols but also develop some parallel approaches that America could find appealing.

Shackling the US while giving other nations a 30 year free ride to reach our current levels improves nothing for no one.

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 10:55 PM
Well, do you people realise that the planet has warmed and cooled for the past 4 billion years? Dinosaurs, over 100million years of a warm climate. But then the world cools off and you have moderate ages and then Ice Ages. But then the planet warms up again and you get back to what we have now and give a couple million years what we had about 65 million years ago. So, in conclusion, global warming is not created by man, but by nature.

Yes, Bush doing this kind of proves his short sightedness, for we may very well be causing the natural process to happen quicker than normal.

But one must realize how much methane gas and other global warming gasses the dinosaurs released. Think about a herd of about 200-300 cows. These represent one Sauropod. Now you get a herd of Sauropods, so now you have about 2000-3000 cows. Now multiply that by the millions of Sauropods that were alive back then and the number is huge. Not to mention the smaller dinosaurs that were only elephant size. Or the large carnivores, or the small scavengers that were around by the millions. How much global warming gas did they give off? Probably more than any company or country could.

top topics


log in