I think that was the whole point of Carbon trading, in the Kyoto Agreement. I would like to try to find a comprehensive and simple explanation for how Kyoto works, because it doesn't seem that bad, if you look at the overall picture, and ignore the neocon bleating.
All I have found is either too simple, (Kyoto bad, Pollution good...) or so complicated that my brain overheats...
I think another problem that the U.S. had with Kyoto along with aiding China and India was that the new restrictions and goals that were to be met were low and insignificant when compared to the economic sacrifices that we would have to make. Not that pollution is good, but a little pollution for a short while is better than POSSIBLY crippling a large part of our economy.
Economists have been trying to analyse the overall net benefit of Kyoto Protocol through cost-benefit analysis. Just as in the case of climatology, there is disagreement due to large uncertainties in economic variables.[64] Still, the estimates so far generally indicate either that observing the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than not observing the Kyoto Protocol or that the Kyoto Protocol has a marginal net benefit which exceeds the cost of simply adjusting to global warming. A study in Nature[65] found that "accounting only for local external costs, together with production costs, to identify energy strategies, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would imply lower, not higher, overall costs."
The recent Copenhagen consensus project found that the Kyoto Protocol would slow down the process of global warming, but have a superficial overall benefit. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue, however, that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future.[66] They also advocate commitment to the precautionary principle. Critics point out that additional higher curbs on carbon emission are likely to cause significantly higher increase in cost, making such defence moot. Moreover, the precautionary principle could apply to any political, social, economic or environmental consequence, which might have equally devastating effect in terms of poverty and environment, making the precautionary argument irrelevant. The Stern Review (a UK government sponsored report into the economic impacts of climate change) concluded that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.[67]
I hear the talking points, about how Kyoto Protocol and/or any other immediate actions wont cost tax payers any further taxes.
There has to be hard numbers somewhere indicating such wont happen.....anyone?
Here are some excerpts Ive found about the agreement:
Quote:
It is without doubt that most countries around the world are heavily dependent on coal and oil for their energy supply. With the Kyoto Protocol coming into force and also the fact that oil is limited, the world must turn towards other energy sources, such as solar, wind, and nuclear energy. Unfortunately, it is costly for this transition.Each country must pay for the research and development of the technology, upgrade of technical skills, and the building of new energy suppliers (e.g. Windmills or nuclear plants).
Quote:
In order for the Kyoto Protocol to go ahead, hundreds of billions of dollars is needed. Though this seems like a large amount, it is typically well under 1 percent of industrialised countries' economic output. The United States spend more than US$400 billion on military hardware and activities annually. Compared to this, the cost of Kyoto Protocol, which will have a far more positive effect, is worthwhile.
LOL.......Yep they arent seeking any money from the USA.......hell, they're hoping we foot the entire bill!!!
Yea you guys are right this wont cost us taxpayers anything! You guys are so liberal with everyones money you'd probably be ok with us paying the entire bill.
All I wanna know is this, WHY does this 'group' need billions of dollars from countries to participate in a program when its the countries obligation AND COST to restructure their OWN energy sources to begin with???
I mean there's no way that another well put together specialty group will piss all of OUR money away is there?
Lastly, all I wanna know is why isnt two of the biggest/fastest growing countries/economies exempt from this program?
Quote:
The Kyoto Protocol recognizes this difference in emissions levels between the developed and developing countries, and responds to this by dividing the responsibilities. For example, developing countries, such as, India and China have been exempt from the first target year as they were not the main contributors of green house gas emissions during the industrialization period (circa. 1990). This has been criticized by a few developed countries as unfair.
Oh that's a good reason........OR some bs reply when they realize other countries (primarily USA) wont be into that excuse so they come up with some spun up bs reply like they did above.
Quote:
the greenhouse gas emissions could rise 70% by the year 2025 in India, and the emission increase of China from the year 2000 to year 2030 will nearly equal the increase from the total industrialized world. So, the two countries' sincere participation is crucial for the long-run success of the Kyoto Protocol.
No shit? And how will this program fair when those two countries (now stronger than ever) still choose to ignore it while it still weakens (mostly financially) other countries.
Again......All I wanna know is this, WHY does this 'group' need billions of dollars from countries to participate in an agreement when its the countries OWN obligation AND COST to restructure their OWN natural energy sources in the future???
Two words - two words are used in that piece of global warming sensationalism which fools the mis-informed every time.
The title of the article: Warmest January ever recorded worldwide in 2007: US scientists.
Two words: ever recorded.
Problem: confusing "ever recorded" with "ever". Big difference.
And that, folks is how the media fool readers into believing that Temperatures This Past January 2007 were the highest ever!
Reading the article, one would believe global temperatures are now the highest ever. It makes it sound as if global warming is spinning out of control. Nope.
Higher temperatures, but not the highest ever, and in reality about the same as several times in our past.
Well, Dan, since we started recording temperature physically in the last few hundred years, and then began to look back at historical records (you know, the ones where the priest would scribe "Oh, verily, it beith blessedly hot and the flowers doeth welt on thine vines, oh Lord..." backed up with all that fussy scientific research, like ice-core sampling and stuff, we seem to have a fairly good idea about overall temperatures over the last few, er, million or so years.....
Anyway, thats all a buncha scyantifik bull, 'cos I know that it's the warmest Winter I've ever seen since I've lived in Europe......must be the Sun...
Is there a special decoding device one uses when reading these LeKiwi posts? Because if there is such a device I don't have one. His posts make absolutely no sense at all.
Again......All I wanna know is this, WHY does this 'group' need billions of dollars from countries to participate in an agreement when its the countries OWN obligation AND COST to restructure their OWN natural energy sources in the future to begin with???
ANYONE???????
Just like Iraq should have their own resources to free themselves?
I do have a plan that I think would be fair, and everyone could agree with...
Have the democratic voters pay for Kyoto expenses, and have the Republican voters pay for the war in Iraq.
And anyone who didn't vote gets billed from both sides.
I do have a plan that I think would be fair, and everyone could agree with...
Have the democratic voters pay for Kyoto expenses, and have the Republican voters pay for the war in Iraq.
And anyone who didn't vote gets billed from both sides.
Sound fair?
Since we're getting stupid Ill add my .
I have a better idea, lets take a step further............lets split each state down the middle or across (hey waterfront land need to be considered here).....one side blue the other red. Each pay taxes towards their respective party/beliefs/etc......and lets see what happens in say 20 yrs????
Or maybe we dont have to wait that long and just take a good long look at what EVERY large democratically controlled city looks like now?
Now this is SERIOUS! Do something for the children...
Global warming worries Last updated: 22 February 2007
Can't sleep?
Global warming concerns are keeping children awake at night
Half of young children are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern, according to a new report today.
A survey of 1,150 youngsters aged between seven and 11 found that one in four blamed politicians for the problems of climate change.
Are you doing enough?
One in seven of those questioned by supermarket giant Somerfield said their own parents were not doing enough to improve the environment.
The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries and the welfare of animals.
Most of those polled understood the benefits of recycling, although one in 10 thought the issue was linked to riding a bike.
Pete Williams, of Somerfield, said: "Concerns over our environment dominate the media at present and kids are exposed to the hard facts as much as anybody.
"While many adults may look the other way, this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it's affecting the welfare of kids now.
"By raising awareness amongst today's young, hopefully we are improving our chances of reaching a solution.''
The study marked Somerfield's drive to reduce the eight billion plastic bags wasted by UK households every year.
__________________
2001 ST4 Mod Rod
Built by BCM in 2004 and still running like a clock. 120 HP at the rear wheel. 55 mpg. Thanks Bruce (and Jay)!
You live in a very sad little black funk-hole, full of fear and paranoia, RO.
Try sticking your head out into some of Dan's ever-increasing Solar radiation thats heating up the planet, to change your ideas a bit.
I like the idea of kid's being aware politically, and actually giving a shit. The damage apathetic or poorly informed adults can do has been well and truly proven.
Blaming politicians is a good start, understanding HOW the politicians became part of the problem is the next big learning step...
Perhaps the kiddies should blame their parents for reproducing... runaway population growth by humans is the number one contributor to all of the planet's problems
China, India Smile as West Overpays for Climate
By Andy Mukherjee
Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Governments in rich nations are spending billions of dollars to buy a clearer conscience over climate change. Are they getting their money's worth?
Enlightened individuals, those who stay awake at nights wondering what they can do to prevent the polar caps from melting, at least have a growing menu of choices.
Sydney-based Easy Being Green says it will mitigate your cat's flatulent contribution to global warming for A$8 ($6). The same company could also make your granny ``carbon-neutral'' at A$10 a year, according to a report in the Australian newspaper last weekend.
Then there's Carbon Planet Pty, another company cited in the article. If you are hopping on a short-haul flight between Sydney and Canberra, and feeling bad about the damage you are doing to the ecosystem, you can buy credits worth A$23, for which the Adelaide-based company will guarantee to keep 1 ton of carbon dioxide out of the air for 100 years.
By comparison, the governments that have undertaken to cut greenhouse emissions under the United Nations' Kyoto Convention on Climate Change have chosen a tougher -- and more expensive -- route to guilt reduction.
Michael Wara, formerly of Stanford University's Program in Energy and Sustainable Development and now a lawyer at Holland & Knight LLP in San Francisco, made that point in a much-publicized article in the science journal Nature this month.
Countries that must purchase emission credits to atone for their higher-than-mandated production of carbon dioxide are paying a tiny group of chemical manufacturers in China and India massive sums to reduce industrial gases and methane, which are rather inexpensive to capture and destroy, Wara says.
China and India
The improvement that can be obtained by spending just $31 million on incinerators could cost developed nations as much as 750 million euros ($986 million) through the elaborate trading mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, and even then only two-thirds of the problem would go away, Wara estimates.
China and India are getting a prize for producing lots of hydrofluorocarbon-23, one of the six greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol. One ton of it is considered the equivalent of 11,700 tons of carbon dioxide.
Six Chinese companies have consented to be paid to destroy this toxic byproduct of a gas used as a common refrigerant and a Teflon feedstock. Their total commitment is more than 43 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per annum. India, with two registered projects, is second with about 7 million tons. Thus, barely eight chemical plants in China and India control about 44 percent of the existing annual supply of emission credits.
That's a very high level of concentration, considering there are 506 projects in more than 40 nations that are currently registered under the Kyoto Protocol's trading system, known as the Clean Development Mechanism.
Kyoto Protocol
The total greenhouse reductions taking place through the trading system are expected to exceed the combined annual emissions of Canada, France, Spain and Switzerland.
All of this is making politicians optimistic.
A caucus of lawmakers from developed and developing countries agreed in Washington last week on the need to replace the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012. There is a good chance the U.S., which hasn't accepted a binding commitment so far, may also change its mind.
U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair told the British Broadcasting Corp. that the Group of Eight industrialized nations has a real chance to have the outline of a new agreement in June.
A new accord will be good news if it leads to the planting of trees, commissioning of wind farms or other projects that directly make a difference to carbon-dioxide levels. That's where the developed world's money ought to go.
Reforestation, Energy Savings
So far, just one reforestation project -- in China's Pearl River basin -- has come under the ambit of emissions trading. It would cut the equivalent of 26,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually. A hotel in the eastern Indian city of Kolkata has sold to the U.K. government an even more humble 3,000 units of carbon dioxide savings, derived from the replacement of electric heaters by solar-powered ones. We need thousands of such projects.
Otherwise, emission trading would continue to represent a disproportionately high subsidy from the developed to the developing world to clean up industrial byproducts. These are so harmful that they ought to be captured by chemical companies without any incentives being given to them.
Perverse Incentive
These gases have ceased to be a problem in rich nations where companies such as DuPont Co. do a good job of destroying them at their own expense, Wara says.
Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., the first company from India to join the Clean Development Mechanism, reported earlier this month that it had tripled its revenue in the quarter ended Dec. 31 from a year earlier.
Shareholders have earned 662 percent on the stock since March 2005, when Japan, the Netherlands, Italy and the U.K. agreed to pay the company to destroy hydrofluorocarbon-23.
Italy may pay 12.8 billion euros over the next four years to buy emission credits, the newspaper Finanza & Mercati reported last week. That's about the equivalent of the annual gross domestic product of Iceland.
That kind of money may be a beginning, though it's very doubtful that we will be breathing a lot easier because of it.
(Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
"Andy Mukherjee is a columnist for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own."
Another copy and pasted opinion, how surprising.
How about you just link us directly to the site that has all of your copy and paste opinions on it, it will save you the trouble of posting them here.
As for Andy's opinions on climate change being the downfall of American society, I think he is looking way down on the totem pole of our spending, the war in Iraq being the biggest waste ever in humanity would probably be the 40 trillion dollar elephant he conveniently looked paste, then we go down to the ever failing war on drugs and the billions spent on that, not including the millions of people we house in prisons for possession.
But lets all blame the little environmental effort we have, that makes a lot of sense.
For calling ones self a conservative, the are pretty liberal about destroying every front of our society and planet, all with nothing but a thinly veiled hate propaganda to keep the monkeys from getting over themselves and really seeing what is going on.
Cutter,
Did XFBO actually say your quote? Do you have sources?
Not that I am surprised you might intenionally misquote someone. A common tactic of the left is distorting the facts, and if all else fails, make up some.
Cutter,
Did XFBO actually say your quote? Do you have sources?
Does the signature have "quotes" in it?
Quote:
Now I will self project my faults unto Cutter because I can't seem to debate my side without cutting and pasting someones elses ideas, but lucky for me Cutter is going to misquote me, alais throwing me a bone to stay in the debate, I just hope all of us neocons don't break our fingers to point out this misquote as fast as possible!
'Terror Nation', 'Worry in America', 'Scared Stiff'
The funny thing about the show tonight is how accurate it depicted the media and how it affects society today. They even went as far to admitting how they've even participated in scare tactics themselves over the yrs, basically in the name of 'news ratings' and the lack of any REAL news.
They even went as far to provide us with examples of the past to the present hottie..>>>>..the war on terror.
Ya think 'global warming' falls under this category?
Of course, it wasn't actually brought up in this episode....perhaps it will 5, 10 or 15 yrs from now.
For an example, they specifically brought up silicone implants. What was it, 10-15 yrs ago that they were banned?
The media partook in a scare propaganda that eventually led to the fall of several manufacturers, to women having them removed even when they had no symptoms and the numerous frivolous law suits that littered our court systems. They even had interview clips of an arrogant fvcking vulture who was basically bragging about suing Owen Corning to the tune of over $1 billion in his numerous lawsuits against them which led to their demise.
All for what? NOTHING!!!!
To this very day there is NO DATA that shows any links/ties to the health sicknesses they had 'claimed' leaking silicone implants can cause. NONE!
Hence the return of silicone implants to the market. Strictly for amusement factor, I suppose, they asked that attorney if he should return all the money he took from OC......he smiles and says no. Here's the funny part, for him and to justify the blood money he earned, everyone (scientists/doctors included) have been bought out by the silicone manufacturers including the FDA. That's how he justifies earning that money.
.
Linear Mode
