Earth Summit in Johannesburg - 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 08-24-2002, 10:34 PM   #1
Refugee
 
rafmed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: On the moon's belly button
Posts: 1,255
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Earth Summit in Johannesburg

On the Green Road from Rio to Johannesburg


The UN summit in Johannesburg next week has been dubbed "Rio + 10" or "Earth Summit 2". But what has happened to the lofty promises made at Rio? Has the global environment changed for the better in the past ten years?

The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 is seen by many as a milestone in international environmental diplomacy, and was even dubbed at the time as the mother of all global conferences.

The big question now is whether the UN Summit on Sustainable Development planned in Johannesburg starting August 26 will emulate the landmark Rio conference.

The Johannesburg summit has already exceeded the first earth summit in terms of logistics. It’s being billed as the largest United Nations gathering ever -- with over 65,000 delegates, 5,000 journalists, over 200 non-governmental organisations and 106 heads of state. United States President George W. Bush, however, will not be there.

Critical voices even before start of summit

Despite the sheer scale of the summit, some fear this year's conference won't bear as much fruit as its predecessor in Rio.

"The earth summit (in Rio) was a success because it put the environment on the global political map, it made key policy decisions and set up institutions to start to deliver them," said Jamie Pittock of the World Wildlife Fund.

He cites the framework conventions on climate change and biological diversity as examples. "We would all have liked progress to have been more rapid in the past decade, but the fact that we have those agreements and that those conventions are gradually being implemented is a success," he said.

Considerable achievements at Rio

To begin with, the Earth Summit established the Rio Declaration, a set of 27 principles defining the rights and responsibilities of the states in regard to the environment. This was designed to be a global environmental bill of rights.

The Rio Declaration has been hailed as being progressive by green groups, but has been largely forgotten in favour of Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 is a 40 chapter blueprint outlining a plan of action for sustainable development. It contains over 2,500 recommendations -- including detailed proposals on how to reduce wasteful consumption patterns, combat poverty, protect the atmosphere, oceans and bio-diversity and promote sustainable agriculture.

Agenda 21 was unique in that it was not restricted to national governments. 6,000 cities and towns adopted the proposals in a practical translation of the "think globally and act locally" idea.

Environmentalists fault Agenda 21

However, the plan was criticised by environmentalists who said Agenda 21 was a vague setof goals lacking clear implementation plans and binding legal requirements.

"Positive direction decisions that have resulted from the Rio summit have put the world in a slightly better direction than we would be in if these agreements had never been made," said Daniel Mittler, an organizer for Friends of the Earth Summit.

"But there have also been a lot of failures. The picture we see is still dramatic and Agenda 21 has clearly not lived up to being a blueprint for a sustainable planet which it was billed to be in 1992."

Landmark bio- diversity convention born in Rio

Nonetheless, the ideas for two major United Nations conventions were born out of Rio -- the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on Climate Change which led to the Kyoto protocol.

The Biological Diversity Convention has been ratified by 183 nations and came into effect in 1993. It obliges countries to protect plant and animal species from extinction through habitat preservation and other means.

But its implementation record remains poor. Half the world's wetlands have been destroyed, most of them in the decade since Rio, and 12 percent of bird species alone are threatened with extinction.

"Between 1980 and 1995, for example, the extent of the world's forests decreased by an area roughly the size of Mexico," said Mittler. "So the fact that we have a global agreement on bio-diversity hasn't prevented the loss of bio-diversity globally.

In 2000, the World Conservation Union concluded that the extent of the world's estimated 11,000 threatened species are critically endangered. That means we are about to lose them."

Genesis of climate change convention in Rio

The Framework Convention on Climate Change was the highest profile agreement to emerge from the Rio summit.

It led to the signing of the Kyoto protocol -- a legally binding treaty designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below the levels emitted in 1990. For Kyoto to come into force, 55 countries representing 55 percent of the industrialised countries have to make the treaty part of their domestic law.

Only Japan and the European Union have ratified the Kyoto protocol. And the United States -- the largest single air polluter -- has rejected the treaty outright saying it is unfair as
it excludes developing countries.

"If it is true that man-made emissions are contributing to climate change and that we need to try to remedy that, then the Kyoto protocol is not an adequate vehicle to get there," said Margot Thorning, the chief economist at the Council for Capital Formation in Washington.

"It won't really materially reduce the growth of greenhouse gases because the new emitters of greenhouse gases where the greenhouse gases are going up sharply -- like India, China, Brazil, Indonesia and other parts of the world -- are not constrained in terms of how fast their greenhouse gas emissions grow."

Humans responsible for climate change?

In the ten years since Rio global emissions of carbon – widely accepted as causing global warming - have increased by 400 million tonnes. In other words, global emissions have risen by 9 percent rather than decreasing by the roughly 7 percent target set by the Kyoto protocol.

And 2002 is becoming the second warmest year ever since accurate records were kept in the 1850s. David Griggs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that there is no doubt that the world’s climate has changed.

" The global temperature has increased by 0.6 degrees, sea level has risen between 10 and 20 centimetres over the last 100 years, sea ice has retreated, arctic ice has retreated, glaciers have retreated. The number of indicators that climate has changed are just so many. What is much more difficult to assess is whether human beings are causing that."

He said the IPCC after a careful assessment of observations, models and future projections has concluded that it is likely that most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is due to human influence.

Depleting forest cover

The world’s forests also figured at the Rio summit and it was decided to create a foundation for an international convention on Forests. An intergovernmental panel on Forests was established and adopted over one hundred action proposals.

Yet until now no legal framework has been established. In the meanwhile forest cover has been disappearing at an alarming rate.

Between 1985 and 1995 an area as large as Mexico was deforested. In 2000 the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation FAO cites a global loss of forested area of 2.2 percent.

But according to the World Resources Institute that estimate could be conservative as it includes plantation forests.
WRI's own estimates which exclude these plantation forests would double the natural forest loss in tropical Asia and temperate Latin America.

Johannesburg: just talk and no action?

As all eyes turn to the Johannesburg summit next week, the United Nations is eager to quell critical voices suggesting that Johannesburg will be nothing more than a voluble conference resulting in little.

Jan Pronk, the United Nations special envoy to the summit, said "We have too many summits, too many talking shops, and that's the reason why at this particular conference we have to concentrate on agreements to act. Otherwise such conferences wouldn't make much sense anymore. We shouldn't decide to come back in another five years, because we run from one conference to the other. We shouldn't come back until 2015 because that is the time span for action on the basis of the agreements of the last decade."

The UN's draft plan for implementation which will be discussed at Johannesburg is already criticised by environment groups for being too weak. They argue for Johannesburg to succeed there need to be firm targets, financial commitments to meet these goals and enforcement mechanisms to implement them.

Germany's former Environment Minister and the head of the United Nations Environment Programme, Klaus Töpfer, agrees.

"Ten years before gave us clear and wonderful visionary texts and declarations. But unluckily it was not integrated enough how to implement this and therefore Johannesburg must be the summit of implementation and not another declaration."

Jennifer Macey

DW-tv website
__________________

rafmed is offline  
Old 08-26-2002, 12:25 AM   #2
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 05:26 AM
I love how the U.S. claims their reason for nixing the Kyoto Protocol was related to developing countries rather than corporate greed. I love that!

I'll side with the environmentalists on the substance/relevance of the conference. Compromise between the polluters (who have more power) and the good-doers has hurt any hopes of cleaning up this planet's future. What we need is a slap across the face, otherwise we'll inevitably be doomed.

thanks for posting the article.
__________________

Danospano is offline  
Old 08-26-2002, 06:41 PM   #3
Refugee
 
follower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Porto Alegre/Brasil
Posts: 2,302
Local Time: 07:26 AM
From Greenpeace website:

Surprise us - do something


Mon 26 August 2002
SOUTH AFRICA/Johannesburg


On the first day of the Earth Summit, a coalition of non-governmental organizations, including Greenpeace, called on the delegates to go further than insubstantial rhetoric to achieve real, lasting gains.


Over the next weeks, that will mean a battle of wills and a battle of words.

Despite the deep pessimism felt by many, there's still some hope that the Summit can make a difference, if it adheres to a few basic principles. The issues are complicated, but the answers are simple.

We need real targets and timetables for change.

We need a rejection of the absurdity that industry self-regulation is enough to protect our world.

We need binding measures without waffling language and ‘wiggle room’.

Governments must recognise and address the real downsides of economic globalisation, and make an ambitious effort to turn the concept into a positive force for far more of the planet's people and its environment.

What is lacking is not financial commitment; it’s the political will. The European Union shows some signs of progressive leadership, together with a long list of potential partner countries - beginning with Brazil, Japan, Indonesia and South Africa.

Floods in Europe and China, food crisis in southern Africa, droughts in the United States, the “brown cloud” over much of Asia, are timely reminders that natural and man-made disasters can be hugely exacerbated by the failure of policy-makers driven by the commercial interests of the rich world. The corporate sector is overtly present here lobbying to ensure that those very commercial interests will not be obstructed or regulated by Governments. These same bodies are calling for ‘self regulation’, or insist that market forces will keep them honest.

We all know better. From the Enron scandal, to Dow's refusal to clean up Bhopal, the legacy of corporate behaviour is sheer irresponsibility. All the money in the world won't wash away that truth.

Greenpeace has a published a checklist for a successful summit, which we invite you to have a look at. Over the next two weeks, we urge you to pay close attention to what our world's leaders are doing here in Johannesburg. Whose futures are they looking out for? Exxons? BMW's? or yours? Make sure they know that theirfuture as leaders depends entirely on how well they look after the future of your planet.
follower is offline  
Old 08-26-2002, 11:38 PM   #4
Refugee
 
oktobergirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the middle
Posts: 1,874
Local Time: 02:26 AM
More info on the summit from Yahoo News today........

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...orld_summit_34

oktobergirl is offline  
Old 08-28-2002, 11:54 PM   #5
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Why should the US president go to this conference? Everytime they have this sort of conference, it's just a bunch of U.S. bashing. I just heard the main speaker at the conference and he's just rehashing the same lines about how the richest of the rich (he specifically identifies the US) are screwing the poorest of the poor (them). Is this something new? These same clowns declared Israel as the most racist state last year in another conference. Not going to the conference sends the right message that the US will no longer entertain this sort of event, which just leads to the perpetuation of generalizations about Americans that push us even further away from compromise. Also, as a scientist myself, I know that much of the science presented at these sort of conferences on the environment is often wildly inaccurate and politically motivated.
garibaldo is offline  
Old 09-02-2002, 09:11 PM   #6
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
Why should the US president go to this conference? Everytime they have this sort of conference, it's just a bunch of U.S. bashing. I just heard the main speaker at the conference and he's just rehashing the same lines about how the richest of the rich (he specifically identifies the US) are screwing the poorest of the poor (them). Is this something new? These same clowns declared Israel as the most racist state last year in another conference. Not going to the conference sends the right message that the US will no longer entertain this sort of event, which just leads to the perpetuation of generalizations about Americans that push us even further away from compromise. Also, as a scientist myself, I know that much of the science presented at these sort of conferences on the environment is often wildly inaccurate and politically motivated.
Very well said Garibaldo.

As I pointed out in a different thread when it took a turn towards the Earth Summit, the attendees were reportedly living "high on the hog" with steak and lobster and champange. Meanwhile the starving children are dying outside.

I agree that the US does not need to be dictated to attendance when this activity is going on. Not to mention politically motivated whack-science.
z edge is offline  
Old 09-03-2002, 05:46 AM   #7
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,044
Local Time: 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge
As I pointed out in a different thread when it took a turn towards the Earth Summit, the attendees were reportedly living "high on the hog" with steak and lobster and champange. Meanwhile the starving children are dying outside.
while this is shamefull and very true it still has 0% to do with why the Bush isn't there
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 09-03-2002, 06:55 AM   #8
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
while this is shamefull and very true it still has 0% to do with why the Bush isn't there
0%?

And this conclusion is based on?

z edge is offline  
Old 09-03-2002, 08:11 AM   #9
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 09:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge


0%?

And this conclusion is based on?

Um...Saddam? Iraq?


Gee, the potential to bring down Saddam?...or lobster?...hmmm! What to do, oh what to do!


Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-04-2002, 09:48 AM   #10
Refugee
 
rafmed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: On the moon's belly button
Posts: 1,255
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Colin Powell booed

Powell Jeered as Earth Summit Settles Pact
Wed Sep 4,10:02 AM ET
By Robin Pomeroy and William Maclean

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (Reuters) - Protesters jeered Secretary of State Colin Powell ( news - web sites) on the Earth Summit's final day Wednesday, accusing Washington of blocking meaningful action in a blueprint to help the poor and save the planet.

Many governments gave a muted welcome to the summit plan meant to attack global problems from AIDS ( news - web sites) to depleted fish stocks, which was agreed in overnight talks by almost 200 states at the 10-day World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).

Environmentalists branded it a waste of time and a sell-out to business interests favored by President Bush ( news - web sites), who did not attend. Even U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ( news - web sites) said that people's expectations had been too high.

Hecklers chanting "Shame on Bush" twice interrupted Powell as he defended U.S. policies from criticisms the world's richest country and biggest polluter does not really care.

"Betrayed by governments," read a banner held up by the protesters, most of whom appeared to be Americans.

Seven were hustled out by guards from the main summit hall in Johannesburg as they whistled and booed. Most of the 100 world leaders who attended the summit had already left.

"Thank you, I have now heard you. I ask that you hear me," Powell replied, breaking off from his prepared speech as South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, chairing the meeting, banged a gavel more than a dozen times in disapproval.

Powell was first jeered after talking about famine in southern Africa and singling out Zimbabwe for criticism. He was booed again when he said Washington was taking firm action to combat global warming ( news - web sites).

KYOTO PULLOUT

Bush, an ally of the oil, coal and logging industries, has been widely criticized for rejecting the Kyoto pact meant to fight global warming. Scientists say emissions of greenhouse gases from burning oil and coal are raising temperatures.

The United States denies the charge and has used the summit to unveil dozens of projects with businesses that aim to clean up the planet. It says it is allocating a new $970 million to help provide fresh water to the Third World.

"We have plans to end the despair and offer hope. Now is the time to put those plans into action to expand the circle of development to all God's children," Powell said.

His spokesman said Powell was unruffled by the protests and was mobbed by well-wishers outside the hall.

"Sustainable development is a marathon, not a sprint," Powell said later.

Activists slammed the summit for setting few firm targets and for failing to raise aid. Some staged a walkout from the conference center in protest Wednesday.

"The reaction to Colin Powell's speech is a very accurate reflection of the anger of non-governmental organizations for the role played by the United States at this conference," said Remi Parmentier, political director of Greenpeace.

"We're proud to be from America but embarrassed by American policies," said Michael Brune of the Rainforest Action Network. And environmental group WWF renamed WSSD the "World Summit of Shameful Deals."

New targets set Wednesday include halving by 2015 the 2.4 billion people without sanitation in the Third World, minimizing harmful effects from chemicals production by 2020 and a pledge to halt the decline in fish stocks by 2015.

But they include scant fresh cash. Current aid from rich nations totals about $54 billion a year -- or $67 for each of their citizens. The United Nations ( news - web sites) reckons goals like halving poverty by 2015 could be solved if it were doubled.

NO MIRACLES

"We have to be careful not to expect conferences like this to produce miracles," Annan said.

"Obviously people came to Johannesburg expecting us to solve all the problems here. This is just a beginning, but it's an important beginning," he told a news conference.

Yet all delegates know that many of the promises made at a first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, staged amid great optimism after the end of the Cold War, have been broken.

The European Union ( news - web sites) gave a cool welcome to the summit's blueprint and said it might be the last in a line of giant summits trying to resolve planet-wide issues.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, said he was "satisfied" but added: "We cannot be happy with everything."

Among disappointments, he singled out a deal merely urging a "substantial" increase in the use of renewable energies like wind and solar power. Under pressure from Washington and the OPEC ( news - web sites) oil cartel the goal was stripped of any clear targets.

"I don't think that mega summits are the way to secure effective implementation," Rasmussen told a news conference. He added that the world should not start planning a follow-up summit in five or 10 years' time.

Overnight, diplomats resolved their dispute over a clause linking human rights to healthcare to hammer out a 65-page action plan that leaders are due to adopt later Wednesday.

But many delegates said that a final "political declaration" also to be issued was weak. "It's hopeless," one said. "It says nothing," another added.
rafmed is offline  
Old 09-04-2002, 04:46 PM   #11
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 526
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
Why should the US president go to this conference? Everytime they have this sort of conference, it's just a bunch of U.S. bashing. I just heard the main speaker at the conference and he's just rehashing the same lines about how the richest of the rich (he specifically identifies the US) are screwing the poorest of the poor (them). Is this something new? These same clowns declared Israel as the most racist state last year in another conference. Not going to the conference sends the right message that the US will no longer entertain this sort of event, which just leads to the perpetuation of generalizations about Americans that push us even further away from compromise. Also, as a scientist myself, I know that much of the science presented at these sort of conferences on the environment is often wildly inaccurate and politically motivated.
I can't even believe I am reading this. These conferences have nothing to do with the popularity status of the U.S. and everything to do with the complete lack of U.S. attention to the poor of the world. Every serious analysis has shown that something on the order of 50 billion dollars in aid from the rich world per year is needed to combat hunger, disease, and general poverty in the developing world. Meanwhile, Andrew Natsios of USAID shows up with a contribution of $4.45 million (million!) to provide clean water and sanitation to the Sahel region of Africa, a region of several hundred million people. That works out to a penny or two per person, which will of course accomplish nothing.

The neglect of the U.S. on this issue is shameful, and murderous.

Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
Also, as a scientist myself, I know that much of the science presented at these sort of conferences on the environment is often wildly inaccurate and politically motivated.
I honestly wonder if you have any idea what you are talking about. I just returned home from the Earth Summit. The science was competely sound and would save tens of millions of lives per year if there was the cash behind it. Please tell me which scientific discussions during these "sort of conferences" you find inaccurate (i.e. atmospheric sciences, the issue of biodiversity etc.) Additionally, you should be well aware that if the science is ever "politically motivated" it is always--without fail--motivated by U.S. politics and U.S. financial forces.
mug222 is offline  
Old 09-05-2002, 06:00 PM   #12
Banned
 
Spyplane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the innovative mind of Z-EDGE since april 2002, as advertised in april 2002
Posts: 256
Local Time: 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by mug222



The neglect of the U.S. on this issue is shameful, and murderous.
MODS, have any of you seen this comment?

Thank You
Spyplane is offline  
Old 09-05-2002, 07:55 PM   #13
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 526
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spyplane


MODS, have any of you seen this comment?

Spyplane, have you seen the first amendment?

I understand this is a private forum, but please explain to me how my comment somehow hinders your ability to enjoy yourself here, or to express yourself freely.

You needn't, and shouldn't, cry foul every time someone forms an opinion contradictory to yours.
mug222 is offline  
Old 09-05-2002, 09:02 PM   #14
Banned
 
Spyplane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the innovative mind of Z-EDGE since april 2002, as advertised in april 2002
Posts: 256
Local Time: 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by mug222


Spyplane, have you seen the first amendment?

I understand this is a private forum, but please explain to me how my comment somehow hinders your ability to enjoy yourself here, or to express yourself freely.

You needn't, and shouldn't, cry foul every time someone forms an opinion contradictory to yours.
Simply put, you are calling me murderous. That is foul.

However, in good old ZOOTV irony:

Spyplane is offline  
Old 09-05-2002, 09:12 PM   #15
Banned
 
Spyplane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the innovative mind of Z-EDGE since april 2002, as advertised in april 2002
Posts: 256
Local Time: 04:26 AM
Spyplane is offline  
Old 09-05-2002, 09:39 PM   #16
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 526
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spyplane


Simply put, you are calling me murderous. That is foul.


You volunteer to represent a nation of some 270 million individual citizens, each with their own thoughts and ideas? How big of you!

In all seriousness, neither your American citizenship nor your term in the military allow you to speak for an entire nation. An entire nation which is witnessing a slow and steady holocaust without giving a penny of its annual $10 trillion GDP. That is murderous.

However, in the spirit of ZooTV irony:




mug222 is offline  
Old 09-05-2002, 11:59 PM   #17
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Jeez, another stupid post by a typical anti-US liberal. Here's a point by point breakdown of your stupidity (I admit that I did a lot of copying and pasting from other sources because I'm tired of retyping this arguement word for word for every lefty):

"Meanwhile, Andrew Natsios of USAID shows up with a contribution of $4.45 million (million!) to provide clean water and sanitation to the Sahel region of Africa, a region of several hundred million people. That works out to a penny or two per person, which will of course accomplish nothing."

The U.S. gives $10 billion in foreign aid each year. When considered in relation to the percentage of GDP, we fall short of several other countries UNTIL you look at the estimates of private contributions, which even if considered conservatively, amount to
$34 billion annually.

-International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year
-Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually
-American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
-Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
-$1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students
-Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000

Europeans, on the other hand, give most of their aid (high taxes) through their government rather than private corporate donations, foundations, etc.

I honestly wonder if you have any idea what you are talking about. I just returned home from the Earth Summit. The science was competely sound and would save tens of millions of lives per year if there was the cash behind it. Please tell me which
scientific discussions during these "sort of conferences" you find inaccurate (i.e. atmospheric sciences, the issue of biodiversity etc.) Additionally, you should be well aware that if the science is ever "politically motivated" it is always--without fail--motivated by U.S. politics and U.S. financial forces.
[/QUOTE]


Ahhh...where do I start. Well, how about global warming and Kyoto since that is such a hot issue among the lefties. The going theory behind global warming has always been that burning gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gases," which form a blanket in the Earth's atmosphere. The blanket traps heat, and warms the Earth. Environmentalists have used the crumbling foundations on which this theory is based on to claim that there will be a spread of drought and disease, and the melting of polar icecaps, which would raise ocean levels and submerge coastal areas and even entire islands. So, here are some appropriate questions:

Is the science conclusive?
Is there proof that the Earth is heating up?
Is that phenomenon due to an increase in greenhouse gases (specifically carbon dioxide)?
What will the affects of Kyoto be on the US?

The computer models used by environmentalists and the U.N. have proven to be inconclusive time and time again. Apparently predicting global weather is actually a difficult thing to do! Who would have guessed? While temperatures on the surface of the Earth seem to be increasing by 0.10 to 0.15 degrees celsius according to thermometers, spatial measurements have actually shown a slight cooling.The problem with global average surface
temperatures is that people don't experience "average" surface temperatures. They experience "regional and local temperatures."

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_ud.html

"Even the most complex models, however, have one crucial quality that non-experts can easily understand: their accuracy can be fully evaluated only after seeing what happens in the real world over time. In other words, predictions of how climate will behave in the future cannot be proved accurate today. There are other fundamental problems with relying on GCMs (global climate models). The ability of many models to reproduce temperature records may in part reflect the fact that the scientists who designed them already "knew the answer." As John Firor, a former director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has observed, climate models "are made by humans who tend to shape or use their models in ways that mirror their own notion of what a desirable outcome would be." Although various models can reproduce past temperature records, and yield similar predictions of future temperatures, they are unable to replicate other observed aspects of climate, such as cloud behavior and atmospheric temperature, and they diverge widely in predicting specific regional climate phenomena, such as precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events. Moreover, it is simply not possible to know far in advance if the models agree on future temperature because they are similarly right or similarly wrong. So, these computers try to mimic climatic phenomena based on immense amounts of atmospheric data, such as information on temperature, winds, solar radiation, ocean currents and fossil-fuel use. By tinkering with certain variables in the computer program, such as levels of carbon dioxide, scientists can use the computers to make predictions about how the Earth's climate may be affected by similar changes in the real world. This is an important point because there are A LOT of variables to enter and plenty of room for bias.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/07/sarewitz2.htm

Here is a scorecard that compares facts with predictions by leading GCMs:

http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm

Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences in an article published by the Wall Street Journal claims that: "There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming...
climate change estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius."

James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Space Institute and the first scientist to warn about global warming, has backtracked on his initial claims and is now saying that much of the CO2 increase is being reabsorbed by forests and that sulfates in the atmosphere may have a cooling effect that counters predicted warming effects. He also counters that our focus should be on other greenhouse gases.

What are the costs?

A Federal Reserve study by Stephen Brown -- released by the National Center for Policy Analysis -- found the Kyoto accord requires between two and seven times more carbon dioxide reduction by the U.S. than is justified even under the most dire global warming predictions. Brown determined that even using only the most economically efficient means, complying with Kyoto would reduce U.S. GDP by between 3 to 4.3 percent in 2010 -- a loss of $275.2 billion to $394.4 billion.

In February of this year, the Argonne National Laboratory completed a study for the US Energy Department on the economic effects of America's binding acceptance of the likely
Kyoto protocols. Among the study's findings of the impact of the treaty on US industry and American workers are these:

A loss of 100,000 steel industry jobs and a 30 percent reduction in the number of steel producers;

20 percent to 30 percent of the basic chemical industry would move to developing nations within 15 or 20 years;

All primary aluminum smelters would close by 2010;

A 20 percent loss in the output of petroleum refineries;

American paper production would be replaced by foreign-produced paper;

A quarter to one-third of the American cement industry would shut down.

Another recent study is even more compelling.Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates Inc. found that between 2001 and 2020, the loss per-household from the strictures of the
Kyoto accord would be almost $30,000; the average hike in home energy costs would be about $600 a year.

Dr. Lawrence Horowitz of the DRI/McGraw Hill research firm has estimated that to meet the emissions goals of the Kyoto accord, our gross domestic product would go down by 4.2 percent annually, which represents a loss of $350 billion a year in reduced production of goods and services. This, in turn, would lead to an estimated job loss of 1.1 million annually - for 15 years.

A study commissioned by six African-American and Hispanic organizations and published in July 2000, found that the increased costs forced by the Protocol would cut minority income by 10 percent (white incomes would go down only 4.5 percent) and 864,000 black Americans and 511,000 Hispanics would lose their jobs.

So, this hot scientific subject, which is championed by liberals such as yourself is full of holes and yet you demand that we damage our nation in response to your "whining". Why don't you demonstrate to me how the opposing viewpoints shown here were represented at the summit. Was doctor Hansen allowed to speak on the efficacy of Kyoto? Was the other viewpoint even acknowledged?

Oh, and here are 17,100 more scientists who agree with me:

http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/pproject.htm#358

Another hot topic was genetically modified crops. This has more to do with my field since I'm a molecular biologist, so I'd love to debate you on that if you'd like.

Here is a website I found that looks at a lot of other "junk science":

www.junkscience.com

Yeah, these conferences have NOTHING to do with shaming us. See here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...t_world_summit

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rld_summit_186

Imagine if we sent Bush himself! He probably would have been killed by an ecoterrorist and there's NO chance that he would have been able to speak above all the booing by the econutjobs. Why would we want to willing give these groups a great opportunity to attack Bush and get a worldwide sound bite for all the left-wing news agencies? Powell wasn't taken seriously, how much respect would Bush have gotten? I'd say none.

I'm sure there were several important issues at this conference, but I believe that they are just the frosting on the cake of the core liberal hobbyhorse issues (i.e. kyoto).

I should be aware that we have the only politically-motivated science? AHAHAHAHAAHA

Yeah, because the socialist governments in Europe don't use their science to justify their politics, do they? Psht!

Hey, looks like you guys had quite a party over there:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._summit_junk_2
garibaldo is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 12:53 AM   #18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3
Local Time: 10:26 AM
US doesn't want to buy Japanese cures

I'm going to keep this short because the last poster all he did was cite American research heavily biased towards the continuance of `old' economic standards and the stats on how much it would cost the US to adopt Kyoto are way way off.

The Japanese are the world's most innovative society in terms of heavy industry and if you blind eagle's would ever look outside your own borders at what is happening elsewhere you would discover:

the Japanese have almost every type of anti-pollution filter for every type of plant, vehicle, energy means etc etc and on and on.
Sure there is a price but that price has got to be paid. Instead of exercising your ability to talk circles arround a poor farmer and exhibit so called grace you could take a quick look for yourself at the world and know that if the price is not paid we and all except possibly the very rich and NASA will most likely end up enduring some pretty shitty future times.

Speaking for my own countrymen, doing this is not wrong!, more Canadians have travelled around the third world (without bibles screaming bloody Armageddon) and have come back to really appreciate what we have in North America and I know they know we all know the planet is gonna heat up pretty quickly pretty soon if we don't act. Mankind has incredible senses that will not be matched by Science but perhaps only obliterated by ignorance!!

If you want to start your research off this year in a great new direction why don't you start researching what the Japanese have been working on for 50 years since you A O's dropped your A - Bomb and wake up and smell the coffee. How many Evil imposters does it take to fool a burning Bush? Thousands!!!!
Jeshoe is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 12:59 AM   #19
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 10:26 AM
This is a ridiculous response that doesn't actually try to confront any of the issues I've presented except to say that he\she chooses not to accept the facts I've presented because it doesn't serve his\her arguement. This is childish. If you believe that global warming is truly caused primarily by CO2, then please contradict the points I've made to the contrary. If you want us to
pass such a costly treaty, then the burden of proof should be on your shoulders.

Saying things like "American research heavily biased towards the continuance of `old' economic standards and the stats on how much it would cost the US to adopt Kyoto are way way off." may pass with your ultra-liberal anti-globalization buddies, but a real discourse on this subject will require an adult arguement.

Grow up.
garibaldo is offline  
Old 09-29-2002, 01:17 AM   #20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3
Local Time: 10:26 AM
just a bunch of Hot Air, harmless to Iceburgs

O buddy!! The Scientists are the problem on one hand and the solution on the other. Its bloody hot air mainly guy. And yes you will never be able to have one clear answer scientifically as to the culprit if the models can be manipulated. So while the rest of the world cleans up and the US continues to stagnate as it is and has been doing this Millenium you can all ride your Lincoln Side-steps into your own Armageddon. The USA is up against the whole world it seems this time.
In the future when your nation lays amongst the Third world and ten thousand scientists with differing opinions are battling it out still on whether those miles of black coal smoke are harming or not you will all be so so very sorry for the 20th Century and maybe even the 21st and how you all tried to steal the show.
Don't tell me to grow up, I may not be as smart as you but I am sure wiser. You go raise your attitude higher now ya hoke! The goal is ELevation (lol, bet you don't understand half U2's lyrics)

p.s. And I bet that if you go invade IRAQ they will have a big suprise for you this time. They have been waiting so hop on the peace train. They aren't stupid and they have been around a lot lot longer than the dinky usa. Why don't you let them work through their own problems in their region. You folks have got a lot of problems in your home country that you need to work on and exercising your `Machines of Death and WOrld Liberation' don't seem to be too popular anymore.
and to top it all off your whole country is propaganda, its sick sick sick sick sick!!! I pity you.
__________________

Jeshoe 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 05:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×