As I've suspected, the Kyoto Treaty isn't about saving the environment and reducing global Co2 emmissions. I've already pointed out that Kyoto doesn't do anything to solve greenhouse gass emmissions, it's more like a license to emit carbon dioxide emmissions. A country gets x amount of credits and can sell them to other countries who are about to exceed their "limit" on CO2 emmissions, for a price. WELL, this whole scheme is about getting money, America's money and to "level the playing field" against European economies/manufactories. Basically, America's economy runs rings around the economies of Europe and cheap gasoline is one of the primary reasons for doing so. Cheaper gas (which the Euros tax the hell out of fossil fuels to fund their bloated social programs, don't think for a SECOND that Euros tax gas for environmental reasons, it's about money) SO, in order to rein in the American economy, America would get blamed for the evils of greenhouse gasses and "punished" by taxing gasoline and giving that money to Europe and Japan. Fun, huh? Anyway, the only people taking this seriously are the Euroweenies, Japan and the liberals here in the U.S. who are out to punish everyone except themselves. You see, Russia told the backers of Kyoto to go to hell, they are not going to have THEIR economy ruined by this bullcrap Kyoto thing. India and the Chi-Coms are exempt from Kyoto in spite of the fact that those countries are fast modernizing and the amount of fossil fuels being used is increasing, a lot. You can imagine trying to get a country like China, the ones who slaughtered a couple of thousand protestors who wanted democratic reforms and flipped the world the bird, to go along with the Kyoto protocols and give THEIR money to the Euroweenies.


Anyway, this article details the effort of Tony Blair and some lobbyists to pressure Bush and Co to comply and sign the Kyoto treaty protocols. Anytime you guys want our economy to go to hell, just go along with the Kyoto thing. Dammit.


Kyoto Boondoggle (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050613.shtml)

My main issue with Kyoto is that it encourages the movement of production from countries with efficient production and infrastructure and relatively high environmental standards to less efficient countries with no environmental standards by restricting the emissions of one and not the other. That doesn't help the environment at all.

I think its utter crap that countries can sell their emissions.

However this idea holds up far better than you give it credit for.

Everyone on the planet has to share the air we use to survive. It basically comes down to another 'tragedy of the commons.' If everyone is allowed to pollute as much as they want when ever they want (to make money from it) then we're all gonna die. Instead some sort of regulation needs to be put into place to keep such a tragedy from happening.

This plan is good (except for the whole selling credits thing). I think there should be an incentive in there for countries/companies who can produce at drastically reduced emissions. It would push for more research into suh and make it more widely available thereby reduceing emissions overall. That should be the goal.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I think its utter crap that countries can sell their emissions.

However this idea holds up far better than you give it credit for.

Everyone on the planet has to share the air we use to survive. It basically comes down to another 'tragedy of the commons.' If everyone is allowed to pollute as much as they want when ever they want (to make money from it) then we're all gonna die. Instead some sort of regulation needs to be put into place to keep such a tragedy from happening.

This plan is good (except for the whole selling credits thing). I think there should be an incentive in there for countries/companies who can produce at drastically reduced emissions. It would push for more research into suh and make it more widely available thereby reducing emissions overall. That should be the goal.

Question for you. Lets' say the environment can take emissions equaling 10. There are 10 countries each can use one. If I am capable of building technology which only uses 1/4 then what harm is there in me making money off of selling the other 3/4's?This protects the environment by keeping to the 10. Rewards the ones doing research to reduce emissions and allows countries not quite developed enough yet to have their economy thrive with the hope of developing said environmental friendly technology? Everyone wins! ??

Or you could quadruple your production.

I just thinks its lame that you can buy pollution credits.

Its the same reason why Hummers piss me off. Its elitist and needlessly wasteful. Lets assume you country sells lots of products. No incentive for you to find more conservative ways of producing, you can just buy credits off of someone.

Well guerilla,

Let me put it to you this way. When the Chi-Coms, India and other developing nations embrace the idea of conservation of fossil fuels (don't even think that is going to happen), when we get that nuclear waste storage facility up and running at Yucca Mountain (not in use, last I heard), when there are those massive wind generating plants built running and producing electricity off the coast of Cape Cod (the "rich" don't like them and fear they will muss up their precious view of the ocean), when nuclear power plants are being built and put into operation (not one has been built here in the U.S. since Three Mile Island) oh and when we have an emmission reduction treaty that actually reduces emmissions, rather than punish the U.S. for its wealth, I'll be a bit more inclined to embrace the idea of seeking alternative fuels. Till then, I will oppose any "environmental" treaty whose true purpose is to stagnate the U.S. economy. You DID read the part about the intent of Kyoto is to shackle the U.S. economy, did you not? That's the problem with Kyoto, it doesn't do one damn thing to reduce emmissions, it merely forks money earned by hard working Americans to other parts of the globe, and I'm not going for it. It's also the problem with so-called "environmentalists" they aren't interested in any kind of solution other than raising taxes on fossil fuels.

Good ol Greed. The end of humanity it is.

"theyre doing it, so I will too"

Way to think independantly instead of just doing whatever everyone else is...If India and China are willing to repeat Americans production hungry mistakes then I guess we can just keep polluting everything as well.

"Environmentalists just want to raise taxes"? You truely cannot be this ignorant can you? What do you think that me and Sal were just talking about? Environmentalists on numerous college campus' have volunteered hundreds of hours or research and raised millions of dollars to convert their campuses to be more sustainable. The problem is that Capitalists are unwilling to invest in anything that takes more than 5 years to pay itself off, much less do anything for the environment unless it does something for them financially. There is a whole slew of environmentally friendly products that have low-impact production and biodegrade after to toss it out. Comapnies are just unwilling to invest in such things because they initially cost more (though most things related to energy save far more money throughout their life span). The probelm is that you, and millions of greedy businessmen, don't have a clue about real environmentalism. If others are contributing to the mass suicide then why can't the US huh?