What Good Is A Treaty?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

nbcrusader

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
22,071
Location
Southern California
When you won't live by it?

Europeans missing their Kyoto targets

Britain and Sweden are the only European countries honouring their Kyoto commitments to cut greenhouse gasses, according to a think-tank report.

Although the US is portrayed as the ecological villain for refusing to sign up to the agreement, 10 out of the 15 European Union signatories - including Ireland, Italy and Spain - will miss their targets without urgent action, the Institute for Public Policy Research found.

Is the symbolic nature of a treaty more important than following the provisions and meeting its goals?
 
I agree, the EU and national governments should make sure those targets are met.
 
This pisses me off. I have supported this treaty, but I will agree, it's not worth the paper it's written on if the people who signed it ignore it.
 
The reductions mandated in Kyoto have an infinitesimally small impact on global climate change. The harsher regiment required for any real effect would have dire economic and by extension social ramifications. It is a case of people wanting to do something, anything regardless of how innefective it will really be.

We should prioritise where the effort is put and use things such as cost-benefit analysis when deciding how to allocate limited resources in protecting the environment.
 
I cooked a dutch oven pot of beef stew (cast-iron)

and biscuits

over a fire of hickory wood for supper tonight.

*yeah, i cut the trees*


The moon sky is still black tonight and the sky tomorrow will be blue.


It's time to relax :)
 
And all that money and effort put into taking action however innefective it may be is not going to be spent where it could do the most good. Global climate change is an issue that will effect life on earth, but the nature and degree of this change and what we can do is not fully known yet and jumping on a bandwagon of doing something and getting that great feeling of saving the world even though it acheives nothing is pointless and dangerous.
 
A_Wanderer said:
And all that money and effort put into taking action however innefective it may be is not going to be spent where it could do the most good. Global climate change is an issue that will effect life on earth, but the nature and degree of this change and what we can do is not fully known yet and jumping on a bandwagon of doing something and getting that great feeling of saving the world even though it acheives nothing is pointless and dangerous.

Replace 'global climate change' with 'war on terror', and you've got a much truer statement.
 
And you have decided that rather than even trying to defend the Kyoto protocol it was easier to just jump off the page completely.
 
A_Wanderer said:
And you have decided that rather than even trying to defend the Kyoto protocol it was easier to just jump off the page completely.

I didn't come to defend the treaty but to respond to the attitude that nothing needs to be done.:|
 
Nobody said do nothing, TIH said people should relax and I said that we should do things that make a difference.
 
reply

A_Wanderer said:
Fearmongering about imminent doomsday will set you back.


Ah....someone mentioned doomsday.........makes me think about Mount Doom.....must hasten my journey...............:|
 
I would much rather see the money that would be spent on Kyoto to go towards getting rid of extreme poverty, something that in all likelihood would be a much greater thing for humanity.

But eh, I guess that's why I don't make the decisions. :shrug:
 
DaveC said:
I would much rather see the money that would be spent on Kyoto to go towards getting rid of extreme poverty, something that in all likelihood would be a much greater thing for humanity.

But eh, I guess that's why I don't make the decisions. :shrug:
:yes:
 
DaveC said:
I would much rather see the money that would be spent on Kyoto to go towards getting rid of extreme poverty, something that in all likelihood would be a much greater thing for humanity.

This is an excellent point. We know we have poverty.
 
If extreme poverty were eradicated, would it not follow that the increased wealth and economy would then easily support emission reductions without the vast economic problems such a reduction would cause now?

I'm just running off on a train of thought here. But it makes sense to me.
 
And these countries wouldn't need to use their natural resources in an inneficient manner, environmental protections could function better and habitats could be protected. And the flow on effect on population growth, global trade and global peace are all distinct possibilities.

Kyoto will not work in stopping or even altering by more than a fraction of a degree climate change over the next century. We are coming out of a little ice age so there is change there already, and the reductions in emissions are to slight - that is why Kyoto is the entry level deal, that once finished would lead to a harsher regime of emission standards for signatory nations.
 
Last edited:
reply

The Iron Horse wrote:

"The moon sky is still black tonight and the sky tomorrow will be blue."

interesting comment
:|
 
Back
Top Bottom