greywar greywar

NPR and The Kyoto Protocols

▼

NPR and The Kyoto Protocols

Sometimes they don't proofread their own stuff.

from JoeUser Forums

     The other day on the way in to work at around 0430L I caught an interesting little piece NPR was doing on Brazil and it's implementation of the Kyoto Environmental Protocols. The pice was about 10 minutes long with 9 miuntes and 30 seconds devoted to the lionization of Brazil for it's "progressive move towards using cane alchohol as fuels for their vehicles. Cane fules they explained produce virtually no emissions when compared to gasoline and was cheaper to boot! "Well ain't that grand?" thought I.

     I was even thinking to myself for a few minutes that maybe Kyoto really had something going for it when the closed with the important bit of news in this whole ten minute spiel. In the last 30 secinds they revealed that adoption of Kyoto had led to a huge demnad for cane fields which hjad led to deforestation and land speculation on a scale never seen before. In fact the amount of forest land lost to cane fields (forests are the most important air scrubbers on the planet) far offset any reduction in emissions! Way to go enviro-tards!

9:30 spend telling us how great Kyoto is and 30 seconds on telling us the actual truth. NPR never dissapoints!

Site Meter "
politics
27,184 views 112 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
You want to get technical? Who needs the Kyoto protocols anyway? Iamheather posted this on a different blog. I just hope she/he doesn't mind a repost.



By iamheather
Posted Thursday, December 16, 2004 on Call Me Crazzy!!!
Discussion: Politics

Environmentalists love to talk about the Bush administration's assault on the environment. They claim Bush has the worst environmental policies than any president in US history. He is cited as the equivilent of a terrorist on our air and Mother Earth.

A recent report by the EPA may actually refute these accusations. The report finds that particle pollution has dropped 10% under Bush's watch.

"LOS ANGELES A new Environmental Protection Agency report says concentrations of dangerous air pollutants have declined in Southern California in the last five years.

The amount of fine-particle pollution in 2003 dropped 10 percent from 1999, and reached the lowest recorded levels since monitoring began in that year. The trend holds true for most of the country... " ~Associated Press



Here is the actual EPA report findings:





Air Quality Improvements

- Particulate matter (PM) air quality has been improving nationwide, both for PM2.5 and PM10.

-PM2.5 concentrations in 2003 were the lowest since nationwide monitoring

began in 1999 have decreased 10% since 1999 are about 30% lower than EPA estimates they

were 25 years ago.

- PM10 concentrations in 2003 were the second lowest since nationwide

monitoring began in 1988 have declined 7% since 1999

have declined 31% since 1988.

- In 2003, 62 million people lived in 97 U.S. counties with monitors showing particle pollution levels

higher than the PM2.5 air quality standards, the PM10 standards, or both.

- Monitored levels of both PM2.5 and PM10 generally decreased the most in areas with the highest

concentrations. For example, PM2.5 levels decreased 20% in the Southeast from 1999 to 2003. The

Northwest showed a 39% decrease in PM10 levels from 1988 to 2003.

Sources and Emissions

- Sulfates, nitrates, and carbon compounds are the major constituents of fine particle pollution.

Sulfates and nitrates form from atmospheric transformation of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide

gases. Carbon compounds can be directly emitted, or they can form in the atmosphere from organic

vapors.

- Approximately one-third of the PM2.5 improvement observed in the eastern half of the country can be

attributed to reduced sulfates; a large portion of the remaining PM2.5 improvement is attributable to

reductions in carbon-containing particles, especially in the Industrial Midwest and the Southeast.

- Power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide dropped 33% from 1990 to 2003, largely as a result of EPA¡¯s

Acid Rain program. These reductions yielded significant regional reductions in sulfate concentrations,

reducing acid deposition and improving visibility.

- Nationwide, reductions in industrial and highway vehicle emissions of fine particles and volatile

organic compounds appear to have contributed to the improvement in PM2.5.

- In the eastern half of the country regional pollution accounts for more than half of

the measured PM2.5. This regional pollution comes from a variety of sources, including power

plants, and can be transported hundreds of miles. Sulfates account for 25% to 55% of PM2.5 levels.

Sulfate levels are similar in urban and nearby rural areas. Power plants are the largest contributor to

this sulfate formation.

- In the Industrial Midwest, Northeast, and southern California, nitrates make up a large portion of

PM2.5, especially in winter. Average nitrate concentrations in urban areas are generally higher than

nearby rural levels. Power plants and highway vehicle emissions are large contributors to nitrate

formation.

- EPA and states have put in place a number of control programs that will continue to reduce

particle-forming emissions. EPA¡¯s 2004 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule will significantly reduce

emissions from nonroad diesel equipment across the country. EPA¡¯s proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule

(proposed December 2003) will reduce PMforming emissions from power plants in the eastern

United States.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
I also hear the "If you don't agree we will punish you" in the message


Such a message is not yet being given, but the last two annual climate control conference proceedings have had calls from delegates for trade tariffs to be linked to Kyoto target achievement. The WTO does allow for such tariffs. I don't expect any such action to occur for years though and hopefully the US will become part of the process long before any such risk. It is a risk though, but only in round 2 when ALL countries (including the developing ones) are set reduction targets. If the US still decides to nto take part at that stage (probably 5 years hence) then I would not be surprised to see countries which take a productivity hit to look after the environment apply trade tariffs to even the playing field.

Paul.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
we put out more pollutants, but not on a per capita basis.


per capita is a very misleading term.

Does the US pollute more in total volume? Yes!
Does the US pollute more per person? Yes!

Does the US pollute more per capita GDP? No. What this means is that the US gets more production out of every volume of CO2 it releases. It still releases more than anyone else per population though. Why though should the US be allowed pollute more just because it gets more work out of it's pollution? Per capita GDP is not a good measurement of pollution control though. It's like saying what's my pollution per car. Having efficient cars is good but if one country has 2 million cars and another only has 100k cars why should the first country be allowed pollute 20 times more?

If every country followed the US model and was allowed pollute the same amount so long as they were as 'efficient' in their pollution, the world would be doomed from CO2 poisoning. It would definitely not be a better place to live. All scientists agree that too much CO2 heats the atmosphere and that even low levels of CO2 cause poisoning. The only disagreement is how much of the warming effect is manmade and where it will go. So scientists agree there is a problem, just not the scale of it. That's not a good enough reason to ignore it.


Paul.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Messybau,
the kyoto accords do protect the forests. These are defined as carbon sinks and are carefully monitored. Destruction of these counts heavily against a country in emissions. Protection of these can be used to generate income from rich countries without large carbon sinks of their own. This is exactly what you desire and it is exactly what Kyoto gives.

Your problem is that Kyoto is not yet in force and hence Brazil can currently cut down it's forests. This will change come February. Critizing Kyoto for actions that occur before it is in place is unfair.

Paul.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #57 By: Solitair - 12/17/2004 4:57:40 AM
we put out more pollutants, but not on a per capita basis.


per capita is a very misleading term.

Does the US pollute more in total volume? Yes!
Does the US pollute more per person? Yes!

Does the US pollute more per capita GDP? No. What this means is that the US gets more production out of every volume of CO2 it releases. It still releases more than anyone else per population though. Why though should the US be allowed pollute more just because it gets more work out of it's pollution? Per capita GDP is not a good measurement of pollution control though. It's like saying what's my pollution per car. Having efficient cars is good but if one country has 2 million cars and another only has 100k cars why should the first country be allowed pollute 20 times more?


First go read the EPA report I posted. Secondly CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's a greenhouse gas, BIG difference!
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiller,
what do you think Kyoto is about? It's about climate control and hence green house gases. These are the pollutants kyoto talks about not particles which are a totally different type of pollutant. You're comparing apples and oranges. There are already agreed targets for particular emissions and air quality. No one disagrees that the US does a good job of reducing these particular pollutants. Kyoto focusses on a seperate problem entirely. No amount of reading EPA reports changes this.

Paul.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #60 By: Solitair - 12/17/2004 5:20:25 AM
drmiller,
what do you think Kyoto is about? It's about climate control and hence green house gases. These are the pollutants kyoto talks about not particles which are a totally different type of pollutant. You're comparing apples and oranges


Your the one comparing apples and oranges here. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's a naturally appearing gas. Just try to stop breathing.Everytime you exhale you put out CO2.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Helix,
you completely ignore the biological factors to humand and animals of increased CO2 levels. CO2 is a poison. We can argue the science another day if you'd like, but animal lifeforms cannot survive even on 4% CO2. So what if the trees survive when we all die? The fact of the matter is that we are pumping unsustainable levels of CO2 into the atmosphere which will eventually kill us irrespective of any change to global warming. The majority scientific opinion is that we must do something now and that something is better than nothing. because of this the world is acting (except that 10% which the US represents).

Paul.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiller,
the vast majority of pollutants (Ch4, SO2, NO2, CO2) are naturally occuring gases. Even the CFC and HFC gases can occur naturally at low levels. The reason they are pollutants is because we pump them into the atmosphere in larger concentrations than they naturally occur. This makes CO2 a pollutant. To suggest that CO2 is not a pollutant is to suggest that carbon monoxide, methane, or sulphur dioxide are not pollutants. yet we know these cause acid rain and are well accepted industrial pollutants. Thsi is just trying to use semantics to hide the fact that we are pouring vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (above and beyond natural levels) and need to do somthing about it.
And as for me comparing apples and oranges, I'm not the one who introduced a report on particle pollutants into an article discussing gaseous pollutants (which is what Kyoto is about).

paul.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top

To suggest that CO2 is not a pollutant

and so killing the trees that scrub this stuff out of the atmosphere thusly raising the levels of it is good in brazil how? The whole point here is that Kyoto was so poorly thought out that it is actually raising the level of pollution by eliminating the things that can scrub it away. It is this sort of knee-jerk "international law" that keeps the US from participating globally. If the world community didn't think dumb ass ideas like this were the cat's meow maybe we wouldn't be ashamed to be seen in public with them?

Reply #61 from PolMach Forums Top
Of course it is bad!?! But what does that have to do with the validity of the Kyoto accord? This could and does happen with or without Kyoto. Bad things happen under EVERY type of system, not just so called 'bad' ones.


What does it have to do with Kyoto? It's the fact that it's Kyoto's blind policies that promote these kind of environment-friendly acts of deforestation. Hell, you said it yourself:

I said what happened in Brazil is bad - but simply because one bad thing happen does NOT mean you can throw the baby out with the bath water.
So we discovered a hole in Kyoto! So you say 'throw it out'. This is the only argument I am hearing. If you find a hole in your roof you don't move, you patch it, RIGHT? That statement is as ridiculous to you as your statement is ridiculous to me. So if you fix this problem, (I'm not saying there isn't a problem) that that should serve to 'perfect' the system, RIGHT? Please point to where my logic is faulty! Tell me why it is unfixable if you believe it to be so.

So, reducing pollution can't be bad, even at the cost of tons of wildlife and forest?

You got me there. I guess I should have called it Environmental Protection to encapsilate all the other environmental issues.

And we have. The US has been cleaning up their air for decades, and the Europeans are just starting. yes, we put out more pollutants, but not on a per capita basis. So this is a good start for Europe to get serious, but it is bad when there are so many loop holes that it defeats the purpose. And that is why it is bad law.

Has the US been trying to clean up the air, really, or have they just been trying to pollute less, because there is a difference. Not on a per capita basis you say! Well I guess there isn't really a problem then, is there. All anyone needs to do is find the right statistic to prove their point don't they. After study and majoring in statistics and mathematics in University I find I have much less respect for statistics. They are like the bible, they can be used to argue any point - they take reality and turn it into dead numbers with little in the way of meaning - especially if you know how pliable stats can be made. Paul pointed that out well in an above post.
Like I've said, maybe there are loop-holes, but discovering them only leads to stronger laws and policies - not starting over again! And backing out completely is worse because instead of being with a law with loopholes - you have enviromental anarchy and instead of loopholes you have a single gapping chasm. In Americas wisdom - if they can see the limitation of this policy - why don't they help us to improve it instead of leaving us with it?

Your the one comparing apples and oranges here. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's a naturally appearing gas. Just try to stop breathing.Everytime you exhale you put out CO2

TOO MUCH OF IT IS STILL VERY BAD. Maybe you're lucky and say something clever sometimes, but not here.

Mismos, I applaud your desire to do something about the environment, we need more people to care. However, in the attempt to do something, everyone is willing to ignore logic and facts.

In a desire to DO something to help a friend who's just had a sever back injury, we want to help..maybe get them to stand up, or sit in a chair..or Something to relieve the pain. We want do DO SOMETHING..our hearts guide us to. However, by DOING ANYTHING without knowing what we're doing, we can worsen the situation.

Thank you for the slightly condescending remark. What was the logic/fact I am ignoring? the brazil thing? Cause I have taken it into account. I suggested we 'fix' the policy instead of 'destroy it' - Radical I know. Your analogy is nice but misplaced. If someone had a back injury I would call an expert - and in an emergency - I am not going to second guess if too much. I don't consider myself an expert by any means in environmental protection. But there are environmental experts and I trust them more than I trust politicians and blog posters. I don't consider that Bush knows more about how to clean up the environment then these experts. Bush has a history of ignoring science research anyway - it must 'spook' him or something. Maybe you're an expert and I just haven't realized it. What is your background in th environmental sciences? Who is your authoritity on this issue that says this is bad? Have you spent months collecting data and doing research into this? I haven't. Maybe the experts might know more then you? It's possible.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
greywar,
cutting the rainforest down in Brazil has nothing to do with Kyoto. if Kyoto was in force it would actually stop this as carbon sinks are included in the Kyoto accord and removing them counts strongly against your emission targets. It's a classic mis-information campaign going on. The sooner Kyoto starts the sooner Brazil has to protect it's rain forests. Kyoto is the only internationally treaty which actually acknowledges and protects carbon sinks.

Paul.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top

Does the US pollute more per person? Yes!

Wrong.  The EU is the dirtiest per capita.  That is what per person means.  And with eastern Europe now modernizing, itis just getting worse, and they are being exempted!  You dont exempt the worst offenders and call it good law.  The Technology already exists so that they do not have to make the mistakes that Western Europe and the US did when they were ramping up.

It is just plain bad law.

Reply #64 from PolMach Forums Top
Mimos, my reply wasn't condescending in intent

I said 'slightly' condescending as you certianly implied I am idealistic and am thinking with my heart instead of my head. Then you went on to say that I wasn't listening to facts or logic. A sly, INDIRECT comment that certianly has some condescention in it, though I realize not intentional and I am not offended.

Also, I don't think Bush is the only person making the idea up. He's got his experts which in turn give him their findings, as well. Also, I claim the BEST experts still haven't the big picture figured out, as well.

So why doesn't Bush use the BEST experts instead of HIS experts. Because he knows the results he wants to hear and he is going to pay for them.

Let me reiterate what greywar said..I think it's being overlooked. Solitair.. they revealed that adoption of Kyoto had led to a huge demnad for cane fields which had led to deforestation and land speculation on a scale never seen before.
The deforestation is a Direct Result of Kyoto. You've made several replies stating that it had nothing to do with with it...Am I missing something, here?

I will reiterate what Paul has posted - Post #69.
Brazil made their OWN decision how to improve THEIR environmental condition - not Kyoto - Kyoto only sets standards. THEREFORE IT NEVER DIRECTLY told Brazil to cut down their rain forrests, so Kyoto IS NOT DIRECTLY responsible. I did make replies stating that what Brazil does only slightly and indirectly reflects on Kyoto - but not in such a damning way as to COMPLETELY invalidate it. This is TOO much of a generalization. It is like saying since an American did such and such a bad thing that all American's are bad.

I will reiterate again, because you ARE definitley missing something - and that is, just because a law/policy/system has a loophole or in some instances a negative action can occur under it, DOESN'T mean it is USELESS. I really don't know how to make this any clearer. If someone gets away with murder because the way the court system works, that DOESN'T mean you throw out Laws that prohibit murder or through out the Court system altogether. THIS IS THE VERY SAME LOGIC. You patch the holes in the legal system. WHAT PART OF THIS IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE? If you don't agree with this logic - and it is logical - then please tell me why it is inconsistent. You are making huge jumps in logic to get from 'Brazil did a bad thing' to 'Kyoto is bad'. And if there is a problem it CAN BE FIXED. America, don't take your ball and go home - continue to play.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

Brazil made their OWN decision how to improve THEIR environmental condition - not Kyoto - Kyoto only sets standards. THEREFORE IT NEVER DIRECTLY told Brazil to cut down their rain forrests, so Kyoto IS NOT DIRECTLY responsible. I did make replies stating that what Brazil does only slightly and indirectly reflects on Kyoto

Kyoto said, Brazil did.  That looks like a direct result to me.

Besides, if we go along with Kyoto, then it is not Brazil's rain forest, it is a part of the planet's scrubber system and as such, belongs to all of us, so hands off you Portugese!

Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do not remember where, but when I just read the Kyoto Protocol, it was stated in several places that the measures taken to reduce emmissions of CO2 and pollutants should be environmentally friendly. Cutting down rainforests is not environmentally friendly. Therefore, Brazil's actions are violating the Kyoto Protocol. So the Kyoto Protocol is not at fault in this particular case. Arguing that "Kyoto said, Brazil did" and therefore it is Kyoto's fault would be the same as the following scenario. The US decides our population is growing too quickly. A Protocol is drawn up that puts the responsibility for this in the hands of each state, but does not say how to do so, only that it shouldn't hurt people. If one state decides to kill half of its citizens to meet the reductions, its not the protocols fault, its the states fault. Just like now. the deforestation is Brazil's fault, not the Kyoto Protocol's.

However, there are a lot more problems. I believe the biggest problem was expecting the countries of the first world to pay for the third world countries to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol. Especially when the US is expected to pay the most.

Second, China was not included in the targeted emmissions reductions category. China doesn't produce as much CO2 as the USA. but they produce much more actual pollutants. Also, their emmissions of everything grows every year. This should have been restricted.

I think the main reason that there are people complaining about the Bush administrations lack of cooperation with the Kyoto Protocols is because of the lack of other news they have heard about improving the environment from Bush. As far as I've heard, he hasn't done anything. I agree with the majority of posters here that the US should not have signed the Kyoto Protocol as is, but due to my lack of knowledge of the Protocol, I don't understand the claims that it is unfixable. I'd like to know why it couldn't be changed. Or was it that it wasn't going to be changed? Anyways, I just wish that everybody would do more for the environment.

(An interesting aside: I read an article in a scientific journal recently that had some scientists postulating that the current trend of global warming may be enough to hold of the next ice age. So it seems that this "global catastrophe" of global warming may turn out to be a godsend. but its all speculation right now and will be for a couple thousand years till the next ice age is due.)
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top

(An interesting aside: I read an article in a scientific journal recently that had some scientists postulating that the current trend of global warming may be enough to hold of the next ice age. So it seems that this "global catastrophe" of global warming may turn out to be a godsend. but its all speculation right now and will be for a couple thousand years till the next ice age is due.)

ROFL!  So true.  But then Global Warming is speculation and bad science right now.  In another 30 years, they will be screaming about a coming ice age.  These things are cyclical.  30 years ago it was an ice age, today it is a not age, 30 years from now it will be another ice age.

And so it goes.  yet Earth Abides

Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
I hadn't read what you quoted until just now; there were simply too many posts to read them all. I'm assuming that you were referring me to the part that said more life is lost to low temperatures than is lost from high temperatures. Which is what I said. You said it first though, so you get credit.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top

I do not remember where, but when I just read the Kyoto Protocol, it was stated in several places that the measures taken to reduce emmissions of CO2 and pollutants should be environmentally friendly. Cutting down rainforests is not environmentally friendly. Therefore, Brazil's actions are violating the Kyoto Protocol.

Wish it were so, but the Kyoto does not talk about it, and that is why Brasil is in the clear.  We can do it witht he temperate rain forests that we own (if we get rid of the Spotted owl and put up a parking lot).

Sad and true.  Bad law is worse than no law. Period

Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top

Holy cow Solitair, I hope you're realizing the implications of your argument.

Essentially your argument is that we should more poorly for the sake of CO2 emissions. First off, the US does NOT put out more CO2 per person than any other country. Saudi Arabia and other gulf states are way ahead of us on that one (for starters).  We do put out more per person than the EU countries do - yes.

But the GDP figure is key - we do pretty well in that area.  For the amount of work the US is doing, we actually put out less CO2 than most countries.  And I don't consider "going without" things to be a solution. Sorry, I ain't giving up my car.  And I'm not going to stop using air conditioning simply becuase some people are worried that the CO2 is going to harm the environment.  Many of us are not convinced of that at all.

You say it's laughable that I would suggest that Kyoto was put together to "hamstring" the US economy. What can I say, maybe you should hang out on some environmental forums sometime where this gets discussed a lot. I'm far from the only person who feels that the EU-dominated treaty was has the nice side benefit of crippling the US economy while not even applying to China, India, and barely Russia. Call it a worldwide "Treaty" all you want but only a handful of countries have to do really do anything and the proposed treaty would have imposed the biggest burden (in actual CO2 reduced) on the US.

No thanks.

Kyoto is a triumph of warm fuzzy feelings being made into policy.  It is also proving to be a typical example of the consequences of well meaning but poorly thought out policies - encouraging deforestation.

Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top

One thing I also want to add - Europeans love to focus on Co2 because it's the one thing they aren't horrible at throwing into the atmosophere (thanks to their sluggish economies).

But in terms of real polllution, Europe is awful. It puts far more real pollution into the air PER CAPITA than the United States.  Heck, France only recently stopped putting lead in its gasoline.  As Solitair said, CO2 is a poison at high enough levels to animal life.  But I'll take some Co2 in my air before LEAD any day thank you.

When the Europeans get their act together on air pollution - real air pollution maybe we'll not be so skeptical about their motives on things like Co2.

Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top

cutting the rainforest down in Brazil has nothing to do with Kyoto.

Did you read the article? Kyoto was the sole topic of the whole NPR piece to include it's deforestation effect? Did I just imagine hearing it? The fact that the Protocols will enforce deforestation regs after February just meant there was a deadline for raging land speculation and slash and burn. A determined Brazilian can whack down more forest between now and February than Kyoto's "strict measures" will ever save in the next 200 years! Another sterling example of "firm international resolve" kicking it's own limp wristed ass.

Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
Helix,
as a scientist who has spent years working with greenhouse gases I find the articles you have quoted to be very funny in their bias and lack of understanding. It's always hilarious how easily non scientists are wowed by scientific data on websites without the slightest idea of the quality of that data. Firstly I feel the need to point out that the CO2 science.org website is a single side of a scientific debate on this issue and not on the majority scientific opinion side at that. Other similarly biased websites include CO2andclimate.org and are well known in scientific circles as being biased in favour of large industrial pollution not being a problem. The problem is that there is NO correlation between numbers of website and actualy quality of scientific research. Anyone can setup a website and selective populate it with whatever articles make the point they want. What's more, big industry has sponsored hundreds of these .org websites to muddy the water of public opinion.
For unbiased scientific data on CO2 you should try looking up some MSDS. These are material safety data sheets supplied with any substance that are legally required to include safety data. What's good about these is that they must tell the truth about health risks and are not just someones personal opinion on CO2 risks. Failure to do so results is serious fines, loss of licence and possible lawsuits. Therefore they are a much more accurate depiction of the dangers of higher CO2 levels than biased websites.
To quote the important data from one of these,
High concentrations produce a faint acid taste and can cause paralysis of the breathing control centers of the nervous system: 2% by volume in the atmosphere will cause a 50% increase in breathing rate; 3%, a 100% rate increase; <4% produces labored breathing and is dangerous for even a few minutes of exposure.

Human, inhalation TCLo 2,000 ppm pulmonary effects.


This is just the tip of the iceberg on biological data. Basically, we know that CO2 in small concentrations is bad for us and will eventually kill us even at concentrations below 4%. Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 ar around the 400ppm mark which is thankfully well below danger levels, but it is increasing at 1.5ppm per year and that rate of increase is expanding. At current conservative prediction levels that's makes our atmosphere too poisonous to breath in less than 1000 years. And that's all ignoring global warming.

When you add global warming the situation gets worse. Much on the CO2 on the planet is not in the air but stored in carbon sinks. These sinks are known to be temperature dependant. The forests are fairly stably and so long as they are not cut down will be ok at higher temperature. The largest CO2 sinks however are the oceans and these are at the greatest risk. A few degrees change in temperature is enough to cause massive release of CO2 and CH4 gases from the oceans speeding up the entire cycle by up to a factor of 4.

So feel free to quote any industrial friendly website to me, but as a scientist I prefer to get my data from sources I know and trust. I'll take legal obligation to provide accurate data over .org political agenda anyday.

Paul.
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad,
Lets be clear on some point.

the US pollutes more gaseous pollutants per person than any major polluter. This includes all the EU countries, Japan, Russia and China. Some oil producing countries are worse per person but their total outputs are much lower than the major polluters. Yes the US gets more GDP per volume of CO2, but this does not make it acceptable. By this logic the US could double the quantity of CO2 it releases so long as it triples production. Why should the rest of the world suffer so that the US can make more money? Thsi arguements fails to accept that CO2 pollution is bad and this is the stumbling block between the US view and the rest of the planet.

'clean air', as in low particulate pollutants, is a seperate issue to green house gas pollution and is NOT discussed in Kyoto. Europe does have a significant way to go here and is making progress. But this has nothing to do with Kyoto and this article is about Kyoto. There are other treaties in place to improve this. Feel free to start an article discussing them but using this to justify pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is wrong.

Yes the US would have the biggest actualy CO2 reduction, but as a fraction it would NOT be the biggest and therefore as an effect on it's economy it would NOT be the biggest. None of this actually matters though because the US is increasing it's pollution while others are reducing theirs.

Finally, Kyoto does not encourage deforestation. trying to suggest this is purposely twisting what the protocol does. Carbon sinks (forests) are protected under the protocol. The only reason Brazil can currently cut them down is because the protocol does not come into effect till next year. Once it does then this will stop.

Paul.
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
greywar,
you have identified a problem between delayed implementation and desired effect. Unfortunately when Kyoto was puit together the US had agreed to it and speedy ratificatino was expected. The reason it's taken so long is because the US has pulled out. Sadly if the US had not pulled out Kyoto would already be in effect and these rainforests would have been protected. Don't misread me, I'm not saying Brazil cutting these forests down is the US's fault, it's not. But neither is it Kyoto's fault. It's Brazil's fault.

Paul.