NPR and The Kyoto Protocols

Adherance to kyoto, 2 Trillion Dollars.  Cost to the Economy, 20 years of stagnation.

Kyoto being shown to be a joke, PRICELESS.

When you have to know the truth, master Carradio (NPR). Carry it with you wherever you go!

Great article, greywar and equally great comment, Dr. Guy.

Enviro-tards pretty much says it all.

master Carradio

chuckle

Enviro-tards pretty much says it all.

Indeed it does.

And to think that the US is the bad guy for not supporting the Kyoto Protocol and its pro-forest destruction stance.

One thing I'm always fuming about is the naming of this 'protocol'. The old capital of Japan will be forever link to this piece of fantasy. Why can they do this somewhere out of the way, like Yemen. Yeah, the Yemen Protocol.

Yeah, the Yemen Protocol.

chuckle

Adherance to kyoto, 2 Trillion Dollars. Cost to the Economy, 20 years of stagnation. Kyoto being shown to be a joke, PRICELESS. When you have to know the truth, master Carradio (NPR). Carry it with you wherever you go!

The US just throwing it out entirely instead of trying to fix it, shortsighted.

The deforestation is ridiculous, but forests aren't the biggest suppliers of oxygen on the planet. That title's reserved for ocean-based plants, which is why dumping toxic chemicals offshore is such a bad move (and something the Brazilian government is almost certainly doing as well). The deforestation will come back to bite the Brazilians in the arse though, because cane is nowhere near as good as forest/jungle at preventing salination, desertification and processing CO2.

because cane is nowhere near as good as forest/jungle at preventing salination, desertification and processing CO2.

exactly the point

shortsighted.

Commenting with no logic or supporting facts : expected.

of trying to fix it

ummm we were not the architects of this "masterpiece", our own efforts are NOT deforesting Brazil.

The US just throwing it out entirely instead of trying to fix it, shortsighted.

So, it's the US' fault that the Kyoto Protocol is being used to justify huge deforesting?

So, it's the US' fault that the Kyoto Protocol is being used to justify huge deforesting?

of course it is...... if you hate the US without firing a single synapse anyway

So, it's the US' fault that the Kyoto Protocol is being used to justify huge deforesting?

of course it is...... if you hate the US without firing a single synapse anyway

Wow, so we've gone from saying the US didn't do enough to make Kyoto viable to saying its the US's fault for the problems of Kyoto and that opposition to just throwing out Kyoto is hating the US. And the right thinks that the left comes up with conspiracies. You see hate in everything.

Explain yourself then. What do you mean when you say that the US didn't do enough, if you don't mean that they are to blame for it being so worthless? If you don't see how we see you blaming the US by saying it didn't do enough, then you aren't even trying.

It means that I am not going to fall for your argument. I said nothing blaming the US for the failures of Kyoto. I find fault with our policy of backing completely out of Kyoto with the idea that it cannot be fixed. I don't blame the US, I find fault with those who made the policy. You need to find that differencialtion. I spent seven years defending this country including at NATO headquarters, personnel command in DC, home of the screaming eagles Ft. Campbell KY, and was offered a position in the White House but did not accept because I did not want to extend my contract by six years. You see that I disagree with the current administration, so I must therefore hate America. Ridiculous.

Wow, so we've gone from saying the US didn't do enough to make Kyoto viable to saying its the US's fault for the problems of Kyoto and that opposition to just throwing out Kyoto is hating the US. And the right thinks that the left comes up with conspiracies. You see hate in everything.

Explain yourself then. What do you mean when you say that the US didn't do enough, if you don't mean that they are to blame for it being so worthless? If you don't see how we see you blaming the US by saying it didn't do enough, then you aren't even trying.

It means that I am not going to fall for your argument. I said nothing blaming the US for the failures of Kyoto. I find fault with our policy of backing completely out of Kyoto with the idea that it cannot be fixed. I don't blame the US, I find fault with those who made the policy.

So, if you're in no way blaming the US backing out of the Kyoto Protocol for it being such a joke, then what relevance does your post serve in this topic? Considering that this topic is about how worthless the Kyoto Protocol is and not whether the US should have backed out of it or not, what you said has no point in this topic whatsoever. By the way, if you aren't blaming the US for the Kyoto Protocol being such a joke, then why do you find fault in the position we took? Clearly it was a good thing we didn't bother with it since it's doing nothing to help the environment. Sure, we could have joined it and perhaps changed some of the stuff, but who cares that we didn't? After all, it's not our fault the protocol is worthless.

You see that I disagree with the current administration, so I must therefore hate America.

If you can show me where I said that, I'll apologize. However, I never said you hated America and you know it.

I like the assumption that Brazil is expected to clean up the pollution that other countries make. What gives the US or any other country the right to expect Brazil to maintain forests to scrub foreign pollution from the atmosphere?

Brazil is reducing it's emissions and sadly is loosing some forests as well. While I'm not happy at the further loss of Amazonian rainforests, I recognise that these are Brazilian rainforests. That is a decision for Brazil to make. Interestingly Kyoto would allow other countries to pay Brazil to maintain rainforests to offset their pollution, but we don't care about that do we, we just want to critise. So long as the net result is that Brazil releases fewer greenhouse gases then other countries don't have a right to complain. Especially when they are actually increasing the total quantity of greenhouse gases that they are emitting. If you're really worried then convince your own government to plant forests.

Paul.

Maybe I listened to the wrong people (environmentalists), but I always thought rainforests as a good thing and deforesting as a bad thing, and if Brazil is the one cutting down their rainforests, doesn't that make them the one responsible for the damage such an action would do?

Also, what about the animals in these rainforests? Are the environmentalists just deciding that animals are no longer as important as industry?

Rainforest are a good thing and I'm saddened that they are being cut down.

What is wrong though is for industrialised nations like the US to expect Brazilian rainforests to remove their CO2 emissions, rather than planting their own forest or cutting down their own emissions. It's so two faced. "How dare you cut down down your rainforests, we need them so we can pollute more!"

Paul.

You see that I disagree with the current administration, so I must therefore hate America. Ridiculous.

No, this is why they are saying it.

The US just throwing it out entirely instead of trying to fix it, shortsighted

Why should we be blamed for not fixing it when we already said it was broken, but none of the enviro whackos would listen?  Next you will be saying we should invade those countries and force them to listen.

You cant have it both ways.

I like the assumption that Brazil is expected to clean up the pollution that other countries make. What gives the US or any other country the right to expect Brazil to maintain forests to scrub foreign pollution from the atmosphere?

It is not an assumption. It is Kyoto.  Kyoto presumes that America must clean up more than any other country, so that other countries can pollute more.  Isnt that asking America to clean up for them?

There is no squirming.  Either the standards and regulations apply to all, or none.  As you can see, if you dont know what the hell you are doing (and Kyoto sure as shit does not), then you do more harm than good.

Kyoto presumes that America must clean up more than any other country, so that other countries can pollute more.

Kyoto asks America to clean up more than others because a) it pollutes much more than most countries and b) it has the technology and finances to clean up. It's only fair that the largest, most technologically advanced countries are expected to do more, because they are capable of far more. It would be an insult to the US for the world community to assume that they are too incompetent to be counted amongst the first world.

Kyoto presumes that America must clean up more than any other country

Pardon? Where did you get this false idea from? Kyoto sets reductions required by all industrialised nations. The US reduction is less than that of the EU and lower than many other countries. The US is still allowed pollute far more than any other country under the Kyoto agreement. So the US definitely is not required to clean up more than other countries.

Kyoto does NOT assume that we can let countries like brazil do all the work by forcing them to protect their carbon sinks. It assumes that ALL countries take responsibility by REDUCING their emissions. Some (all industrialised countries) are set immediate targets, others (developing countries) have to improve monitoring and put the apparatus in palce (legal framework) to prepare for targets to be set in a second round.

Paul.

     Solitair, the entire point here is that the net effect of Kyoto in Brazil is more pollution not less. The fact that anyone would support such a ridiculous plan sickens me. Here is the problem... Lets says that the US wants to reduce its emmisions by using cane alchohol like Brazil has done. Obviously Brazil can't even support it's own demand for this stuff with whacking down huge chunks of rain forest. So where do we get our cane from? Easy, we whack down more forest to plant cane just like they did. End result? Shitloads more pollution because we have removed one of the main scrubbers on the planet. Kyoto is an intellectually bankrupt exercise as it encourages fixes like these that seem to be a good thing while condemning the US for not blithley follwing their asinine protocols.