New global warming plan - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-18-2002, 01:41 AM   #31
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite:
The Kyoto treaty was going to f#ck our country economically..
how is that?

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
__________________

__________________
Salome is offline  
Old 02-18-2002, 02:18 AM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite:
The Kyoto treaty was going to f#ck our country economically.
As Salome said in the post above, how? I have to say that I don't know the US projections, but it is estimated for the EU that complying to the Kyoto treaty will cost less than 1% of GNP. It may be that the US is already a relatively heavy polluting and oil improductive country, so it may cost a little bit more for them to get to an as advanced level technologically (regarding environment protection) as the EU, but still. I don't expect the cost for the USA to be above 2% of GNP (and I assume it is going to be closer to 1%).

Quote:
Everyone agrees on that, and it was not a feasible option in our eyes.
That are a mighty many people. I think you should read my argument above.

Quote:

Anyways.. When we pulled out of it.. NO COUNTRY HAD RATIFIED THE KYOTO TREATY... Explain that?


When the US pulled out, the Kyoto treaty was not completed yet. The US didn't pull out when the whole treaty was complete. After the Kyoto round there was another round of negotiations (forgot where it was, The Hague?) and the US didn't even bother to show up there. Instead, they started criticising it, pulling away from being part of the solution.

Marty

P.S. It is one of the most childish cop-outs when you say you're not going to do good just because somebody else also isn't doing this. Based on this cop-out we should start polluting right away. We can also dismantle that International Court Of Justice and let's take the first step by releasing Milosovic immediately! When one country doesn't want to comply, why even do it?

------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 02-18-2002, 05:31 AM   #33
Refugee
 
Klodomir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,198
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Well, you'll soon be rid of Popmartijn, Salome, DrTeeth and me... we'll be the first to go when Greenland melts. Living below sea level sucks.
__________________
Klodomir is offline  
Old 02-18-2002, 06:31 AM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:25 PM
Well, Greenland isn't the region I'm so much afraid of. Although it is on the other side of the earth, I'm more afraid of Antartica. There's a whole lot more of ice over there.

However, IIRC, when the sea level rises enough to swallow the lowlands, New York will also be under water. So it's just a question if Bush wants to sacrifice New York for his economic-environment policy.

Marty


------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle
__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 02-18-2002, 08:26 AM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn:

However, IIRC, when the sea level rises enough to swallow the lowlands, New York will also be under water. So it's just a question if Bush wants to sacrifice New York for his economic-environment policy.
I agree with you, but I'd say that the immediate problem is the impact global warming is having right now on countries such as Bangladesh and other countries which have been badly affected by flooding on a regular basis in recent years.

What industrialised countries do has a disproportionate impact on other countries and that's why I believe they have a responsibility to act now to reverse, or at least limit that impact.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-18-2002, 09:01 AM   #36
War Child
 
zoomerang II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: melbourne, terra australis
Posts: 657
Local Time: 06:25 AM
The following points are my ramblings on the issue:

1. The globe is increasing in temperature due to human activity, evidenced over the last 50 years, and potentially since the onset of the industrial revolution. Indeed there is enough evidence that by rights, we should be in a period of global cooling if it wasn’t for human intervention.

2. We do not know what the environmental consequences of all of this will be. Whilst it is likely to result in increased sea levels, on a regional scale we just don’t know. There is a body of evidence to suggest that global sea currents could be dramatically altered and some areas dramatically rise in local temperatures while other areas cool dramatically, but it is in generally speculation. However, when you hear on the tv that the local storm that took your roof off was from the greenhouse, that is likely to be rubbish. Unfortunately we wont know the real consequences until they have already occurred, and most of the consequences will be for future generations.

3. There is no evidence to suggest that increased environmental conditions impose a long-term economic burden on society. Society already has done an enormous amount. We phased out lead in petrol. We are now removing MTBE from petrol.
We have banned a host of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides. We have banned freon and other CFCs. We have imposed stricter waste regulations and encouraged recycling. There are restrictions on the use of thousands of chemicals. We have developed occupational and environmental health based exposure limits on the use of almost every single substance we come into contact with.
Did people kick up a fuss at the time? Of course some industry did.
Who implemented all these things? Most of the leadership has come from the US – via the EPA and state based regulators which has then been adopted by other countries. All of these things were said to come at a cost to industry - but they don’t, because industry can adapt readily and change. In fact, all of these things come at a net benefit to society. People live longer and are healthier, and think of all the peripheral industries - waste companies, consultants (like me) redevelopment and urban renewal etc – in fact Kyoto could actually mean MORE jobs (long term).

4. What the Kyoto debate is about is basically a sibling fight between Europe and America to say that “he gets more than I do, and I want to be able to swap my marbles for his”. Bush acknowledges that something must be done by the mere fact that he has come up with something alternative. Most of the western world believes that the time has come to encourage only sustainable development and energy use. Is it right that an African child worrying about what they are going to eat the next day has to suffer? No, of course not, so western countries, and in particular America, must take the initiative and not use them as a poor excuse.

5. The only reason the original Kyoto agreement wasn’t signed by America was not because it would cost Americans jobs - in fact, it would probably generate a large amount of employment in the implementation - but because of vested interests. Lets be honest, even Shell and BP Amoco recognise the greenhouse effect and are spending billions on new renewable energies, but some American companies have a vested financial interest in the status quo. Americans are leaders at the development and implementation of new technologies that will enhance and modernise economies – the only thorn in this side is from weak leadership controlled by vested interests instead of visionary leadership controlled by pragmatists.

[This message has been edited by zoomerang II (edited 02-18-2002).]
__________________

__________________
zoomerang II is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com