According to this you belong to a tiny minority. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories

Duh, most of those jackasses don't have to pay for it. Of COURSE they signed up. They think they get something for nothing.

They're wrong.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I really love your argumentation.;) 'Ok wee want to reduce the pollution of the world but wee don't want to change anything or make any sacrifice'

---

According to this you belong to a tiny minority. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories

Duh, most of those jackasses don't have to pay for it. Of COURSE they signed up. They think they get something for nothing.

They're wrong.

It's a nice competition! Let's see who can put out more co2! what the price for the winner???

According to this you belong to a tiny minority. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories

Duh, most of those jackasses don't have to pay for it. Of COURSE they signed up. They think they get something for nothing.

They're wrong.

I believe that the majority of the world are right and YOU are wrong.

---

I really love your argumentation.;) 'Ok wee want to reduce the pollution of the world but wee don't want to change anything or make any sacrifice'

I said nothing of the sort. I said specifically that Kyoto is nothing more than feel-good political posturing that is extremely expensive, and therefore not worth the paper it is printed on. You haven't demonstrated how Kyoto cuts ANY emissions as 5.5 billion more people begin to use their own cars and generate power.

Scientific American puts the earth's population in 2050 at about 9 billion people. What the hell will Kyoto do when another 8 BILLION people begin generating power and driving cars? Nothing. But it will have cost billions of dollars to do nothing.

You want to reduce pollution? Build cars that emit cleaner air than what went in. Now THAT ain't rocket science, it's little more than a filtration system. They'll use a bit more energy, sure, but they'll clean the environment as they go. Imagine if every car on earth CLEANED more air than it used...

One could also dump central power generation and the grid. Individual generators for each home are significantly more efficient, do not lose enormous amounts of energy in transmission, are not subject to massive failure and/or attack, and allow people to control their power usage exactly.

Those two steps alone would do far more than some half-assed political BS that you seem really attached to.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I believe that the majority of the world are right and YOU are wrong.

Then you would have to demonstrate that, by providing reasons and numbers, such as I, and others, have.

The fact that the majority of the world buys into the Kyoto BS (mostly, as I said, because they don't have to pay for it) that does not mean that it is an effective way of reducing CO2 emissions.

I mean, Haiti, Mauritania, and Burkina Faso? Get real.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I really love your argumentation.;) 'Ok wee want to reduce the pollution of the world but wee don't want to change anything or make any sacrifice'

I don't think anyone has said we don't want to make changes. However, to gain support, the changes must come with benefit. The assessment that the KP will not reduce world wide emmissions (even in its limited scope of CO2) is very fair. It is a limited number of countries that need to reduce their output (38 "industrialized" countries), but India, China, and most countries on the Pacific rim (which are a mix of both 3rd world living conditions and large growing manufacturing bases) get a free pass on having any enforcable standards. This is where the KP breaks down, advocates assume that manufacturing will not move. And it isn't just the manufacturing, power generation to support it also has to be considered, and with no constraints Coal fired plants are still the cheapest (especially the dirty unfiltered kind) so that is what will be built.

Equally shortsighted, is the arguement that 153 countries have ratified it. So what, I'll ratify anything that I risk nothing on and can make me millions or even billions of dollars for doing almost nothing. And that is what 114 countries have done, it really is a persuasive arguement to cite them ;).

The biggest failure of Kyoto is that they stuck to CO2. It is one of the weakest "greenhouse" gases. Way down the list, below NOx, methane, and not even on the map compared to Water Vapor (this is a very incomplete list). NOx is 21x more effective as a greenhouse gas, and one of the most common manmade sources is the diesel engine.[edit: too bitter] Simple might be good for getting weak minded people on board, be this won't help the enviroment one bit. Do you're own homework, and bring a better case, this tired weak case hasn't worked for 10 years (and isn't about to work now).

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

I believe that the majority of the world are right and YOU are wrong.

Then you would have to demonstrate that, by providing reasons and numbers, such as I, and others, have.

The fact that the majority of the world buys into the Kyoto BS (mostly, as I said, because they don't have to pay for it) that does not mean that it is an effective way of reducing CO2 emissions.

I mean, Haiti, Mauritania, and Burkina Faso? Get real.

It seams that you 'volcano' argument is not based on science, rather some stupid oil lobby morons.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/

---

I don't think anyone has said we don't want to make changes. However, to gain support, the changes must come with benefit. The assessment that the KP will not reduce world wide emmissions (even in its limited scope of CO2) is very fair. It is a limited number of countries that need to reduce their output (38 "industrialized" countries), but India, China, and most countries on the Pacific rim (which are a mix of both 3rd world living conditions and large growing manufacturing bases) get a free pass on having any enforcable standards. This is where the KP breaks down, advocates assume that manufacturing will not move. And it isn't just the manufacturing, power generation to support it also has to be considered, and with no constraints Coal fired plants are still the cheapest (especially the dirty unfiltered kind) so that is what will be built.

Equally shortsighted, is the arguement that 153 countries have ratified it. So what, I'll ratify anything that I risk nothing on and can make me millions or even billions of dollars for doing almost nothing. And that is what 114 countries have done, it really is a persuasive arguement to cite them ;).

The biggest failure of Kyoto is that they stuck to CO2. It is one of the weakest "greenhouse" gases. Way down the list, below NOx, methane, and not even on the map compared to Water Vapor (this is a very incomplete list). NOx is 21x more effective as a greenhouse gas, and one of the most common manmade sources is the diesel engine.[edit: too bitter] Simple might be good for getting weak minded people on board, be this won't help the enviroment one bit. Do you're own homework, and bring a better case, this tired weak case hasn't worked for 10 years (and isn't about to work now).

As I have said before. Kyoto is not enough, additional steps must be taken but it is a start, your alliterative is no start at all.
But honestly I don't think you will understand that this time eater because you just don't want to understand.
You only want the rest of the world to pay for your shit.

---

Do you're own homework, and bring a better case, this tired weak case hasn't worked for 10 years (and isn't about to work now).

You are the one the needs to do your homework.

Some, including the US Bush administration, say the scientific uncertainty over the pace of climate change is grounds for delaying action. The US and Australia have reneged on Kyoto. But most scientists believe we are under-estimating the dangers.

---

I know I should resist, but it's too hard not to say anything....

Okay people, time for a common sense reality check. The facts below were either found on credible websites or from my own observation.

Can you list your references, and when you're talking from personal observation?

First, anyone who drives a vehicle and cannot or refuses to keep it in good repair needs to ride a bus. I do not believe we should crud up our world or the air around it just because we can't afford car repairs and a trash bill.

No problems there.

Don't tell me how evil we are for damaging our delicate little "planet". For example, have you ever smog checked a pine tree? I have, a handfull of pine needles causes a hydrocarbon gasbench to go berserk, the same one that only reads 50, 40 or even barely 10 parts per million out of a well maintained vehicles tailpipe.

Could you quantify "go berserk" and list some references? Besides, it's not hydrocarbons that are the problem. It's the emissions you get when you burn those hydrocarbons. The fact that a car's exhaust has very few hydrocarbons means it's burning the fuel efficiently, not necessarily cleanly.

Electric cars are "gross polluters". You start out with say 1Mw of coal fired heat energy, that's 1333 Hp. After all the transmission, control circuit and motor losses, you'll get a whopping 50 horsepower. All that burned coal for a scrawny 50 horsepower. And I didn't mention battery loss in the car and mechanical loss' at the plant. Don't forget, the batteries in these cars don't last forever, they're loaded with toxins and because of environmental laws, are a real bitch to recycle. Yeah, those electric cars are real clean bargain, huh?

No one's claiming electric cars are the solution. They're a start, and they're significantly better for the environment than gas powered cars, but we can't stop there. Same with Kyoto. You have to start somewhere, and eventually the exempt countries will be included. But just because they aren't now doesn't mean doing nothing is a better alternative.

The difference in cost [between hybrid and gas powered kia], $12,000 to $22,000 in gas is 6,000 to 11,000 gallons of gas, currently.
The Kia gets 30 MPG, that's 180,000 to 330,000 miles.
Cars seem to last just about 200,000 to 300,000 miles, currently.

No one is saying that hybrids are a better investment, just better for the environment. Yes, they're more expensive, but if you want to help save the environment, it comes with some sacrifices.

Just a guess, but I bet if you removed that 1000 pound battery, the MPG would be the same. They're not an eyesore (Just my opinion).

I'd like to see some stats to back that up. I seriously doubt the engineers that build hybrids would overlook that....

Public transportaion moves and pollutes at all times, even empty. Private transportation only moves and pollutes when it is occupied.

If you're arguing public transportation contributes more to emissions per capita than automobiles, I'd be really curious to see any stats backing this up. If you're not saying that, I don't see the relavence of this statement. Yes, public transportation is not perfectly efficient, but it's much much much more efficient in terms of energy consumption than private transportation.

The components in banned refrigerants and cheap propellants in spraycans that react with and destroy ozone are:
chlorine, Atomic weight: 35.453
fluorine, Atomic weight: 18.9984032

The primary components of Earths atmosphere are:
carbon, Atomic weight: 12.0107
nitrogen, Atomic weight: 14.0067
oxygen, Atomic weight: 15.9994

As you can see, chlorine and fluorine are both heavier than the most abundant elements that our atmosphere is composed of. How can they even get to the ozone layers when they sink to the ground and are absorbed by it immediately?

So you're saying those elements don't even enter our upper atmosphere? That's contrary to direct observation. You need to understand chemistry before you can realize what a gross over simplification this is. Looking at just the atomic weights of elements to judge whether they would escape or not is ludicrous. Their density after they combine into their o-zone destroying molecules is the important thing.

The average fast-food joint goes through 250 to 300 liquid gallons of CO2 a year to carbonate softdrinks. CO2 is an evil "must be gotten rid of at all costs" green-house gas, the same one that trees live on from which they produce oxygen.

I'm actually surprised this is so low, but I won't go searching to correct you. 250-300 liquid gallons of CO2 is nothing compared to how much industrialized nations pump in.

No one has said "CO2 is an evil 'must be gotten rid of at all costs' green-house gas" but you. Yes, we need to reduce our production of it, but it would be just as detrimental to our environment (probably more) if it were gone altogether.

Speaking of trees, here's an amusing fact. Due to the planting, harvesting and managing of trees as a crop, there are more trees, un-diseased trees, in North America now than there was 200 years ago.

I'd like to see a source for this, but I might be willing to accept that. Now how about the world? This isn't a problem just in North America or the United States, it's a global problem. Looking at one local incidence is a manipulation of statistics.

Besides, the main thing that rids our atmosphere of CO2 and produces O2 is algae and other marine plants, not trees.

If the population of the entire world (6,000,000,000) were given all the land in the United States (9,158,960 sq miles), each person would have almost an entire acre of dry land. Also, why do the population hand-wringers want to pack us all into overpopulated cities? Yeah, let's talk about overpopulation, now.

And all the world's population could fit into Texas at the density of Washington DC, what's your point? Space is and never was the concern for overpopulation. It's about sustainable development. If everyone of the 6,000,000,000 people in the world used as many resources as the average american we could never sustain our lifestyle.

Finally, the average volcano eruption expels more pollutants into the atmosphere from pimary and secondary emmissions than all of mankind has since we discovered how to use fire. Oh, by the way, they launch chlorine, fluorine and sulfur dioxide dozens of miles into the atmosphere through velocity and convection, well into the lower ozone layers. I move we ban volcano eruptions, or we're all doomed in ten years.

I can't believe no one has asked for a source on this one. I find this incredibly hard to believe, or at the very least this is a very strange play on words or manipulation of facts that makes it sound much worse than it is.

Could you define a pollutant in this context? Could you explain what you mean by primary and secondary emissions? Are you using the same definitions when you compare that to "all of mankind since the we discovered how to use fire"?

So, please, elaborate and provide some sources. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere have nearly doubled since the industrial revolution, which is the primary contributor to global warming.

It's not about the environment, it's about nationalizing directly or indirectly as many aspects of our economy and lives as possible. Don't believe me? Maybe you'll beleive the groups that support these laws, look at the agendas right there on their web sites. This is why I call them "Enviro-Nazis".

No, I don't believe you. What possible motivation would they have to do that? The groups that support the laws don't necessarily have anything to do with the agendas of those who wrote them.

---

Here's an Installation Guide.
Try the Wiki for other questions.

You want to reduce pollution? Build cars that emit cleaner air than what went in. Now THAT ain't rocket science, it's little more than a filtration system. They'll use a bit more energy, sure, but they'll clean the environment as they go. Imagine if every car on earth CLEANED more air than it used...

It's not a matter of waving your hand and making all these toxins disappear. The chemical processes that make your car run produce these toxins. To break them down completely will probably take more energy than you get from burning the fuel in the first place, meaning your car won't run at all. But if you think I'm wrong, and it's not rocket science, build it. I'm sure if you can build a car that ran and simultaneously cleaned the environment, you'd be rich.

One could also dump central power generation and the grid. Individual generators for each home are significantly more efficient, do not lose enormous amounts of energy in transmission, are not subject to massive failure and/or attack, and allow people to control their power usage exactly.

Now that's an idea I could get behind, if the numbers add up. But something tells me that if it were cheaper to run off a generator, hospitals and hard core environmentalists (to name a few) would do it all the time... Care to cite some references/data?

---

Here's an Installation Guide.
Try the Wiki for other questions.

As I have said before. Kyoto is not enough, additional steps must be taken but it is a start, your alliterative is no start at all.
But honestly I don't think you will understand that this time eater because you just don't want to understand.
You only want the rest of the world to pay for your shit.

No, my alternative is to say that it was a pointless piece of feel good politics. Then, here is the important part, move beyond it to an effective system immediately. Not to use a fatally flawed system until 2012.

BTW anyone have a rough draft on Kyoto2 (or whatever the next standards will be called).

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

No, my alternative is to say that it was a pointless piece of feel good politics. Then, here is the important part, move beyond it to an effective system immediately. Not to use a fatally flawed system until 2012.

BTW anyone have a rough draft on Kyoto2 (or whatever the next standards will be called).

Hmm... Yes, I supose that the US Bush administration is the only trustworthy politicians in the world.;)

---

Hmm... Yes, I supose that the US Bush administration is the only trustworthy politicians in the world.;)

When have I ever (let alone in this thread), cited any administration (Bush or otherwise) as being trustworthy? Is it that hard to understand that feeling Kyoto was a complete waste of time, could possibly come from a different take on the realities of what it'll take to really make a difference? A step is only useful if it is a step in the right direction (and IMO it wasn't).

As an example, reducing NOx emmissions by 1% (for the US from 6% down to 5%) of total emmissions, replacing it with 3 times that of CO2 (even 200 times would be a benefit) would be a huge gain. Hell we could do the same with Methane. But Kyoto, betrays it's own cause by ignoring other gases. Instead it focuses on a very weak gas (CO2) because it is emmitted at the highest tonnage. That 1 ton of NOx is worse than 200 tons of CO2, is conveniently ignored.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

Hmm... Yes, I supose that the US Bush administration is the only trustworthy politicians in the world.;)

When have I ever (let alone in this thread), cited any administration (Bush or otherwise) as being trustworthy?

Obviously you don't know your own words. You stated the " No, my alternative is to say that it was a pointless piece of feel good politics." Since the US Bush administration is almost the only one of the worlds leaders that does not signed Kyoto you imply that the rest of the worlds leaders are just making some "feel good politics."

---

Hmm... Yes, I supose that the US Bush administration is the only trustworthy politicians in the world.;)

When have I ever (let alone in this thread), cited any administration (Bush or otherwise) as being trustworthy?

Obviously you don't know your own words. You stated the " No, my alternative is to say that it was a pointless piece of feel good politics." Since the US Bush administration is almost the only one of the worlds leaders that does not signed Kyoto you imply that the rest of the worlds leaders are just making some "feel good politics."

Obviously, you do not understand the difference between being trustworthy and agreeing with 1 part of someones decision. They are mutually exclusive. In fact my reasoning is entirely different. I am very aware of what I said, maybe you need a dictionary or a reading comprehension course to keep up.

Although, maybe I've set my expectations for you too high. It's obvious that you have very little to add to this discussion, to this point you have demonstrated little to no understanding of: Ecconomies, energy, or global warming. You have refused to acknowledge that only 36 of the 153 signing countries face any burden for action. You have ignored the other greenhouse gases, and your best answer to the fastest growing sources of pollution is that it's outside the timeline.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

Hmm... Yes, I supose that the US Bush administration is the only trustworthy politicians in the world.;)

When have I ever (let alone in this thread), cited any administration (Bush or otherwise) as being trustworthy?

Obviously you don't know your own words. You stated the " No, my alternative is to say that it was a pointless piece of feel good politics." Since the US Bush administration is almost the only one of the worlds leaders that does not signed Kyoto you imply that the rest of the worlds leaders are just making some "feel good politics."

Obviously, you do not understand the difference between being trustworthy and agreeing with 1 part of someones decision. They are mutually exclusive. In fact my reasoning is entirely different. I am very aware of what I said, maybe you need a dictionary or a reading comprehension course to keep up.

Although, maybe I've set my expectations for you too high. It's obvious that you have very little to add to this discussion, to this point you have demonstrated little to no understanding of: Ecconomies, energy, or global warming. You have refused to acknowledge that only 36 of the 153 signing countries face any burden for action. You have ignored the other greenhouse gases, and your best answer to the fastest growing sources of pollution is that it's outside the timeline.

If you can present a better alternative agreement signed by the vast majority of the world that's fine but you have to understand USA is a part of the world, not the whole world. An agreement should be based on the majority, not just the will of one country. But for good sake, lets start with what we have.

---

If you can present a better alternative agreement signed by the vast majority of the world that's fine but you have to understand USA is a part of the world, not the whole world. An agreement should be based on the majority, not just the will of one country. But for good sake, lets start with what we have.

Tomas, if your going to demand that ghstwolf come up with a comprehensive alternative plan since he doesn't agree with you, it's only fair that you come up with and present here in this forum the comprehensive solutions you have to fix the problems with the existing Kyoto Protocol instead of dancing around the issues.

---

To truly explore, one must keep an open mind...

If you can present a better alternative agreement signed by the vast majority of the world that's fine but you have to understand USA is a part of the world, not the whole world. An agreement should be based on the majority, not just the will of one country. But for good sake, lets start with what we have.

Sorry, I'm not at a station in life where I can negotiate such a treaty. However, I can provide an outline as to a better agreement.

First, no assigned allotments by country. It must be on a per capita basis, with a modifier based on GNP. We do live in an industrialized world, and the GNP (again considered per capita) is a metric for current consumption (and in some ways the "need" to pollute). The benefits are numerous: it places a premium on efficiency (as it encourages gains in both GNP and reducing output of the greenhouse gases), it is a standard formula (ie no politics involved), and it can be applied to every country.

Second, fix the other major overcite, include all the man-made gases. As I've said before, NOx is 270 times more efficient at storing energy, Methane 20 times, both compared to CO2. Thusly it would be weighted.

Third, annual reductions (1 to 2%) for the effect number (created based on the above). BTW an effect point repressents the equivilant of 100kg of CO2.

Saved for last, all the stuff that does need to be there, but that I have not worked through. Emergency over-rides (extremely cold winter for example), Carbon sinks (weighted to include forests, grassland, and farmed land), Carbon neutral modes (ie bio-fuels), and how excessive years can be handled (credits against the cap*, buying other countries excess capacity, or other methods).

* Credit against the cap- a system where too much output in a year is applied against subsequent years. For example if the US ran over by 3 effect points, we could pay it back by being 1 point under for the next 3 years or we could pay it back by being 3 points under the next year. Let's say a 5 year limit for this.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.