General discussion


This is (one reason) why I'm opposed to the Koyoto Treaty

By maxwell edison ·
China is exempt. Why?

India is exempt. Why?

And the selling of "credits" defeats the purpose. The aim is to either reduce emissions or not. It obviously is not, and it can not, and it will not -- regardless of how the USA replies. So what's the point?

How many of the people in the USA who cry about "American jobs" going to India and China, are the same people who cry about the USA's refusal to agree to the Koyoto Blackmail Scheme ..... I mean the Koyoto Treaty? Don't these people realize, since India and China are exempt from restrictive manufacturing processes, that manufactures will flock to those countries, and be accepted with open arms by those countries, thereby actually encouraging those jobs to leave American shores, and will actually ADD to the problem of air pollution? (Or "global warming", if you buy into that myth?)

Even the Democrats in Congress refused to buy into the scheme.

For the record. I'm in favor of reducing air pollution. In fact, I'm even in favor of working to eliminate air pollution entirely. But don't use the Koyoto scam or global warming scare to do it.

If these nations are exempt because they are "developing countries" (Yea, right!), and if developing new and clean alternative energy sources is so easy and is being prevented only because of will and desire, then what better way for a "developing nation" to become a significant nation than to do it with new alternative energy sources? If a nation, in theory, has to build an industrial society from the ground-up, why do it in a way that will only have to later be drastically changed or torn down? If it's going to be done the "first time", it might as well be done right. Right?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

21 total posts (Page 2 of 3)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Just a little rant lingo, there, Neil

by maxwell edison In reply to STFU? Me?

Why waste a good rant and leave out the good stuff?

Collapse -

Neil - We Agree

by maxwell edison In reply to STFU? Me?

You said, "Of course pollution should be reduced. But it's not so simple. You have to weigh it up against the extended lifespan of those elsewhere in developing countries who benefit from those factories. A simple example; if a refrigerator factory, for example, pollutes and shortens the life of a thousand but saves many more by preserving them from food poisoning is it a good or a bad thing?"

I used that very same argument when Oz made that comment. You used the refrigerator factory, however, while I used ambulances and hospitals as my example.

And to answer your question, on balance, I fall on the side of suggesting it's a good thing.

Collapse -

On USA food donations - Not MCD, BK, et al.........

by maxwell edison In reply to STFU? Me?

I was talking about the donation of wheat and grain, dairy products, beef and poultry, etc. Of course, you knew that.

How much of your dreaded CO2 is generated by harvesting and transporting the 1 million (plus) metric tons of wheat we provide (free of charge, by the way) to the world food bank each year? And how about.......

Collapse -

The Real Wolf in Sheeps Clothing

by brillgene In reply to On USA food donations - N ...

Mr. Edison (what a fitting last name)
Having heard the two rants, I'll keep this brief and simple for everyone else.

Doing so called "good" things like research, food donation, does not compensate for the wars, CO2 emissions.

All nations have a right to their citizens developing a good quality of life.

Since the per capita CO2 in the DEVELOPING, yes they are developing and probably scaring the pants off whiners like you, consumption is low they are being incentivized to use more eco friendly methods.

And just because they are exempt does not mean that we in the developed world hide away from the responsibility to redute our emissions.

It is still one planet.

Netizen/Earth Citizen

Collapse -

Kyoto Scam

by rogjr In reply to That's reasonable

Kyoto and most "global" treaties have been conceived to redistribute money. Kyoto's plan is fine (sell credits) the utilities whenever the socialists need more money, which will result in higher rates on Americans. If the socialists start running out of cash to redistribute, they'll raise the fake standards to get more cash. It'll continue until we have blown world socialism in place. Follow the socialists and we will self destruct.

Collapse -

Kyoto's main flaw

by da philster In reply to Kyoto Scam

Thank you all for some rather thought provoking comments.
Still, the idea of buying and selling pollution credits seems to defy the concept of lowering pollution......something like someone charging others for the right to pee in his pool.
b.t.w., a "hummer" is someone who forgot the words to the song.

Collapse -

Kyoto has always been an economic scam

by Deadly Ernest In reply to This is (one reason) why ...

never about real envirnomental fixes. The trick is in the definition of a 'developed' as against 'developing' country. If you use an economic measure, you get a different answer to if you use a population density measure, or a technological measure. Most of the countries that support the Kyoto protocol are 'developed out' and have no room for any further technological expansion and limited for population expansion.

It is interesting that the countries that would be hardest hit, economically, by adhering to the KP are USA, Canada and Australia all of which have a total population denisty of less than 10% of that of Europe, where the most KP supporters are. These countries have a high per capita emission rate as they all have a bloody long way to go between town and cities etc. In Australia you can drive 500 kms between major cities, in Europe you've left the bloody country after driving through a dozen.

The most interesting aspect of KP is that it does NOT allow for the reward of planting more trees or retaining the existing trees. Why? Because Europe and Japan need to cut down trees to make housing space, USA, Aust and Canada have space to plant the suckers and can get around having to pay penalties and subsidise Europe by doing so.

Collapse -


by steve-nyeoka In reply to Kyoto has always been an ...

The main reason for Kyoto was to allow near-socialist European countries to keep up with the US economically.

Funny thing though... after Kyoto American businessmen discovered the "slave labor" of China and pretty much all of the goals were inadvertently met anyway...

Collapse -

I oppse it 'cos I'm a dumb gas guzzling yank!

by Richard Kirk In reply to This is (one reason) why ...

and I drive to the recycling depot in my hummer (on the other side of town) after every meal, to dispose of a few cans while heavily polluting the area I live in. Doh!

Collapse -


by JulesLt In reply to This is (one reason) why ...

As a sometime smoker, I'm well aware of the scare tactics used by the anti-smoking lobby - exageration of passive smoking stats, attributing death by cancer to cigarettes rather than other factors, etc.

I'm also well aware how much the tobacco companies tried to prevent evidence of the cancer risk of their products becoming public, and spent large sums of money on making it seem like there was a debate to be had - that the evidence was questionable, etc. I see the same tactics going on with global warming - a tiny minority of dissenting voices being used to suggest that the jury is still out and that this is some sort of 50/50 issue. You can still find people who are willing to go on TV and insist the Earth is flat, but only a moron would suggest this was something up for debate.

Like it or not, global warming is sound science. Sound enough to impress Margaret Thatcher - an Oxford chemistry graduate, and certainly NOT someone you would associate with the political Left.

Other than that - you're about right on the stupidity of exempting China and India.

Back to Community Forum
21 total posts (Page 2 of 3)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums