Ravager Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Hey guys. In social we're discussing a bit about the Kyoto Accord. For those of you unfamiliar, it's basically an agreement to use less pollution (eg. using air filters on refineries, reducing car emissions). The United States and some of Canada (Alberta, where I live, for example) are unwilling to sign it because it will cost too much money for the filters and everything, and thousands of jobs will be lost. Who do you agree with? Do you agree with the Kyoto Accord and think that it's reasonable to spend so much money and risk the jobs of so many for a potential crucial cause, or do you think that the amount of money is simply too much, and too many will be unemployed? REMEMBER that although we ALL probably agree with the accord itself, we must think of the consequences of what happens if we let is pass... for example, if we don't agree on it, will the world continue to be polluted until it's unliveable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JnCoKiLLa Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 the hell with the acorrd since its gonna cost housands of jobs and that not a good thing.......USA is where i am an i stand behind there move toward it......on top of that those euro countries should shut up and do there own thing not to try and boss my great country around!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neowin_hipster Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Nasa just found that there is an inexhaustable source of hydrogen in the earth's crust. Surely there must be loads of jobs extracting it. This will go to power fuel cells. I believe that world governments need to search for an alternate fuel source. The middle east has about 50 years left of oil, and north america has much less. I think that people need to stop buying gas guzzler suv's and minivans. North Americans are the most energy wasteful in the world. Two major polutions from the internal combustion engines are the SOx and NOx. Right now the sulfur is being removed from the gas, but 78% of the earth's atmosphere is nitrogen and reacts with oxygen because of the heat in the engine. Both of these hydrolize to form acid rain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooey Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Typical americans, always going on about money. I'm sorry but when a countries greatest achievements include Disney, McDonolds and Britney Spears I can't really take it seriously. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 I believe, for atleast the USA, there was issues that dealt with more then money. I think the USA should of tried harder to come to some type of agreement if not completely signing the accord. The other issues were Carbon Sinks (These are plant life forms like Forestry and Vegetation that can help take the Carbon dioxide from the air) that go towards emmisions credit. Another was the ability to be credited for making technologies for reducing emmisions and sell them to "developing" nations, note not my words but from a report to congress. The major road block for the USA was how to enforce compliance of the Carbon skins. Also obviously the USA has not done a good deal with creating laws and/or enforcing the enviromental laws to reduce emmisions. . If the USA signed the accord then it would be hard pressed to be compliant with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 What's the use of that oxygen in the earth crust if the atmosphere heats up more and more and makes the poles to melt and flood the beach areas, also screws up world weather situation. Well, anyone saying that environmental protection is bull**** is a ignorant asswipe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NETknightX Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 I agree with the accord...jobs in the new, cleaner energy industries would replace those in the old ones. Hey, it was Earth Day yesterday...and April is Earth Month! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postertoad Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 What good is a job if your dead? [or too sick to work?] While economic consequences are very real and should be taken very seriously, the environment is which we live sits just a little higher on the ladder. Unfortunately, industry has lagged long enough on this issue and a firm hand is now required. Sure, we will suffer in the short term - but Kyoto is not about just tomorrow, its about all the tomorrows. The science IS good. The "science" against is terrible. Even if the USA had signed Kyoto, it wouldn't be the first treaty or international agreement that we ignored. Hell, Bush wont even sign the ICC - our behavior toward others is that bad? jeesh. A leader in democracy or a totalitarian bully? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 I'm vigorously against Kyoto. There is no Global warming that's caused by humans. The enviro movement is NOt about saving planet, it's about control and power. 18,000 Scientists say no global warming http://www.oism.org/pproject/ http://www.sovereignty.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deryck Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Erm...Revager, do you mean produce less pollution insted of "to use less pollution"? Anyway, the cost later on will be ernormous then if we pay up now so to revert more "green" sources. In addition, we have no choice, crude oil will become too expensive because the sources are getting scarce, within MY own lifetime and coal and natrual gas are becomming scarce as well. Americ has a long tradition of largeness but the free ride is over now, we have to wake up the issues now and I hope it will be in time. Please do not turn this into a flame thread, we had enough examples already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john smith 1924 Veteran Posted April 23, 2002 Veteran Share Posted April 23, 2002 I think that its great that the UK govt have made steps- they signed the treaty - to implementing pollution controls. what makes me sick is the richest nation in the world, decides that "it costs too much" to prevent the destruction of the planet. I am not a eco-freak - i use cars etc- but its just selfish not to sign it; it really makes the USA look like a bunch of hypo-crits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Gooey: When you find another country that has achieved more than the USA then give me a call. JimF: Geez, why do you always have to take the minorities stance on EVERYTHING? Yes there is global warming, 18,000 scientis is not that many considering there are over 7 billion people on the earth and of those who are scientists, the overwhelming majority believes so. I have done various research on glabal warming and it IS aided by man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg77 Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Originally posted by username Gooey: When you find another country that has achieved more than the USA then give me a call. JimF: Geez, why do you always have to take the minorities stance on EVERYTHING? Yes there is global warming, 18,000 scientis is not that many considering there are over 7 billion people on the earth and of those who are scientists, the overwhelming majority believes so. I have done various research on glabal warming and it IS aided by man. It may be aided by man but not by that much. The earth goes through climate cycles that are natural and man is just helping to accelerate into the next one. So, its natural to have climate changes but not climate changes with the addition of pollution. Until the greedy, powerful, lustful coporate execs get their heads out of their buttholes then the pollution will never stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xEonBuRn Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 I am all for saving the environment but you have to look at the world stance on everything... Bush didn't want to sign it because it didn't include everyone (or at least big polluters)... it didn't even include China, one of the major economic superpowers in the world. If we're gonna spend the money, they should too. All though Bush didn't sign the treaty, yesterday he stated he would be tightening limits on pollution... from cars, power plants, etc. :: Side Note :: Although I support Republicans on just about everything except having marijuana illegal I was astonished to see Gore alive and kicking yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 So it has to be all or none with Bush? Just becasue China will not sign he will not either, even though it will still benifit us all? Just think if you did get off of out oil needs. We would have less problems and tries to all the crap going on in the middle east. Plus cleaner air for us all. But that would not go well with Bushs big oil thinking.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniac1181 Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Kyoto all the way!!! Already, greenhouse effect is taking it's toll... If we go on it's gonna get even worse... WInter sports anyone?! FOr the third year now, ski conditions back here in Quebec/Canada, have been degrading... Like this year we've had automn followed right away by spring ski conditions... almost no winter in between... It's scary!! :s Plus, maybe some jobs will be lost, but someone has to make those filters... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 username: You want to stop using oil ? Then go ahead. I will NOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbeast Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 For those that oppose oil production, please stop logging onto the internet, destroy your computer and whatever you do don't use electricity, combustion powered vehicles, air conditioning, or eat any food not grown by yourself on your own land? Why? All of these items require and encourage the petrolium industry. As for gloabal warming, the former member of Greenpeace, Bjorn Lomborg, has recently become rather outspoken towards his former organization, especially concerning the topic of global warming... National Post June 11, 2001 By Mary Vallis Bjorn Lomborg, a professor of statistics at Denmark's University of Aarhus and former member of Greenpeace, was cited as saying in his new book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, that nearly every grim prediction environmentalists have made about the Earth's future is wrong, and that the environment is actually improving: Canada's temperate forests are expanding; the air in London is the cleanest it has been since the Middle Ages; the world's species are not disappearing at the alarming rates that animal welfare groups would have you believe. Mr. Lomborg was quoted as writing that "Mankind's lot has improved in terms of practically every measurable indicator." The story says that Mr. Lomborg's book, which is bolstered by statistics from internationally recognized research institutes and 2,500 footnotes, is a direct attack on what he says are environmental organizations selectively twisting scientific evidence and statistics to cultivate public support for their causes. He says such tactics convince people to invest resources and attention to help solve "phantom problems" that never materialize while they ignore more pressing concerns. The Skeptical Environmentalist met with a swell of protest when it was originally published in Scandinavia and it is already attracting media attention in Britain, where Cambridge University Press is to release it in August. Also in August, the book is to be available from Amazon.com. ...and to throw another log on this fire (heh), look at the difference in percentaqe of heavy forested land in America between our independence (1776) to today (2002) -> there has been a 17% increase in heavily forested land! So I am not one of the ALL AGREE group (first post in thread). I'm sick and tired of having my freedoms restricted by those who are jealous of my American way of life through the use of twisted propoganda and lies. If you want to mad at America for something, I'll let you in on a secret; The largest untapped, useable oil reserves in the world are located in the Gulf of Mexico. Until Jan.1, 2002, over 75% of the Gulf (which are U.S. controlled waters...) could not be drilled due to international treaty restrictions. The Gulf reserves are estimated to be 5-6 times larger than the total reserves of the Mideast. Yet we don't use them. Why? Because we are using everyone else's first - so we end up with the last, best, reserves! Do you think we're idiots? Why deplete our oil when the Arabs sell, sell sell? hehehehehee Now you can be mad... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grappa Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 JimF: Maybe you won't stop using oil, but there's a good chance your children will, simply because there won't be any left. Bush isn't interested in the environment - why do you suppose he abolished a law containing mandatory limits for arsenic in drinking water? G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbeast Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 What I was originally looking for: A founding member and President of Greenpeace is now discussing the lies of global warming... Patrick Moore has a PhD in Ecology and helped found Greenpeace in the early 1970s. In the mid-1980s, he left the organization and is now critical of the current efforts of Greenpeace and the modern environmental movement in general. Following are some highlighted quotes from a recent interview with New Scientist magazine.On being one of the few scientists in Greenpeace "I was somewhat rare and had to live with the fact throughout my time in Greenpeace that there was a lot of disrespect for my science. That is why they called me Dr. Truth. It was kind of a put down. On how the environmental movement has gone wrong "The environmental movement abandoned science and logic somewhere in the mid-1980s, just as mainstream society was adopting all the more reasonable items on the environmental agenda. This was because many environmentalists couldn't make the transition from confrontation to consensus, and could not get out of adversarial politics. This particularly applies to political activists who were using environmental rhetoric to cover up agendas that had more to do with class warfare and anti-corporatism than they did with the actual science of the environment. To stay in an adversarial role, those people had to adopt ever more extreme positions because all the reasonable ones were being accepted." If you can find the article from "New Scientist" magazine, pick it up - you'll be amazed at some of the crap Greenpeace and their colleagues have done to fool the International public... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbeast Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Originally posted by Grappa JimF: Maybe you won't stop using oil, but there's a good chance your children will, simply because there won't be any left. Bush isn't interested in the environment - why do you suppose he abolished a law containing mandatory limits for arsenic in drinking water? G Just a little FYI; The worlds oil reserves, with projected population increases, are estimated to last anywhere from another 270 - 325 years. Bush defeated a bill that was redundant. Bill Clinton had just recently passed an increased limit on the levels of arsenic in the drinking water in 1998. Why then, over the space of 3 1/2 years, do those limits already need to be doubled when there are no recorded deaths from arsenic in the drinking water? The bill was nothing more than politics, and it ended up as nothing more than politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg77 Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Originally posted by superbeast What I was originally looking for: A founding member and President of Greenpeace is now discussing the lies of global warming... If you can find the article from "New Scientist" magazine, pick it up - you'll be amazed at some of the crap Greenpeace and their colleagues have done to fool the International public... I agree with you that global warming is very overrated but the fact remains of how big that fraction is on how we are manipulating the climate (I say its really small). For all we know, we could be heading into a global cooling period because after all you never know what mother nature has up her sleeve. You can say the gulf stream providing europe with all its warm and nice weather could shut down at any moment. This would force upon Europe the climate of Alaska so there are many factors to the current climate dilemna and you have to take into account everything. :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neowin_hipster Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 I'm vigorously against Kyoto. There is no Global warming that's caused by humans. The enviro movement is NOt about saving planet, it's about control and power. 18,000 Scientists say no global warming http://www.oism.org/pproject/ http://www.sovereignty.net So there is no environmental harm I gather. What about when we run out of oil. Interesting Fact: Greenpeace was founded in the tree-hugging province of B.C. There is a huge demonstration every year in Vancouver. It is notable that our largest industry, other than pot, is logging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayrider Posted April 24, 2002 Share Posted April 24, 2002 LOL when i first clicked on this i was hoping to see pictures of a new car the Kyoto Accord i thought Honda got bought out or something.. alright back to homework.. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF Posted April 24, 2002 Share Posted April 24, 2002 superbeast: Totatally agree with you. Enviro movement has turned into nothing less than a pagan religion. It amazes me how many people fall for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts