Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-22-2008, 05:50 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default [WAR VII] Week 4

Is the Kyoto Protocol a good international environmental agreement and worth signing?

The Kyoto protocol is an international plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with regards to the recent trends of climate change. For more information, search "Kyoto Protocol" on wikipedia.

Last edited by Kenny_C.002; 06-23-2008 at 04:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-22-2008, 04:25 PM
Charbok's Avatar
Charbok Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Posts: 6,906
Send a message via AIM to Charbok Send a message via MSN to Charbok Send a message via Skype™ to Charbok
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Charbok
AQUA
Yes


The Kyoto Protocol is very much worth signing from the standpoint that it would be a drastic first step in slowing down climate change. Reducing carbon emissions is crucially important, as carbon dioxide is causing the earth's atmosphere to heat up. The Kyoto Protocol would require that any party that signs the treaty would cut their Carbon emissions by a designated percentage, according to their need, and their want.

China, India, and other developing countries were not included in any numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the pre-treaty industrialization period. However, even without the commitment to reduce according to the Kyoto target, developing countries do share the common responsibility that all countries have in reducing emissions.

In other words, only countries that are main contributers to greenhouse gas emissions before the treaty was written were given a percentage of decrease in emissions that they must meet. The Kyoto Protocol is a very big, and very important step in cutting carbon emissions down to a point where climate change will slow down a vast amount.

For countries that need more carbon emissions so they can grow (ie, "developing countries") they were given a maximum percentage increase, so their economy could continue to grow and their carbon emissions could only cause a certain amount of damage. This section of the Protocol was created because many countries are developing, and wuick rapidly. Rapid development requires more Carbon emissions, so the "cap" on emissions allows the country to grow at least as quickly as it currently is, with a little wiggle room.

So, whether you're a big country, or a little country dreaming of becoming a world power, the Kyoto protocol will meet your need!

Sources:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou...items/1353.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
__________________
oh hi.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-26-2008, 08:39 AM
Snow Fairy Sugar's Avatar
Snow Fairy Sugar Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 5)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of the Blue Roses
Posts: 5,865
Send a message via AIM to Snow Fairy Sugar Send a message via MSN to Snow Fairy Sugar Send a message via Yahoo to Snow Fairy Sugar
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4


May Norman
One Against All
No

I do believe some of the points of the Kyoto Protocol are quite detrimental to the interests of the world.

Kyoto Protocol would mean slowing down Industrial Growth, and that, in turn, would lead to a greater recession than the one we are in. What is the actual point of being in a climate that's so clean and fresh, but we're poor? Only the Elite Class will be able to enjoy the luxurious environment. What would be far more beneficial is an Environmental Treaty that's actually suitable for everyone.

And the benefits that are given to the so-called 'Developing' countries is heavily biased. They are the currently the world's greatest markets, they are also responsible for the several Tonnes of GreenHouse gases being released. Not to mention the fact that due to Population rising in those areas, and the people in those areas intending to raise the standard of living..

Yes, the US might be a major source of Greenhouse gases, but it's not the actual source. Most of the GreenHouse emissions are coming from countries such as China, where the US outsources their manufacturing units, so as to save costs.

Studies of carbon leakage suggest that nearly a quarter of China's emissions result from exports for consumption by developed countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbok View Post
Charbok
AQUA
Yes


The Kyoto Protocol would require that any party that signs the treaty would cut their Carbon emissions by a designated percentage, according to their need, and their want.

There are several other methods, such as Carbon Credits, and other policies that can be undertaken. There can be treaties to ensure that everyone takes the responsibility equally. Why can the 'developing nations' escape? They are one of the richest countries in the world- The US has to borrow money from China in order to keep the Iraq war going. Here are some reports on how apathetic China is in fighting Global Waste.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111800357.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_p...ublic_of_China

In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People's Republic of China were about 54% of the USA emissions.[39] However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years.[40][41] Various predictions see China overtaking the US in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,[42][43][44] and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.

Instead of developing Intercontinental and Ballistic Missiles that can shoot down Satellites, one would think that they would use their resources for proper environmental management.


China, India, and other developing countries were not included in any numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the pre-treaty industrialization period.

China set to overtake US as top greenhouse emitter: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...emissions.html

Okay, maybe it's a little late, but nonetheless, they were well on the track. They didn't want to risk slowing down their economy, and letting their people lose their jobs.

Kyoto Protocol can make several people lose their jobs, in addition to the outsourcing and recession going on. Things will get far worse than this.


However, even without the commitment to reduce according to the Kyoto target, developing countries do share the common responsibility that all countries have in reducing emissions.

In other words, only countries that are main contributors to greenhouse gas emissions before the treaty was written were given a percentage of decrease in emissions that they must meet. The Kyoto Protocol is a very big, and very important step in cutting carbon emissions down to a point where climate change will slow down a vast amount.

For countries that need more carbon emissions so they can grow (ie, "developing countries") they were given a maximum percentage increase, so their economy could continue to grow and their carbon emissions could only cause a certain amount of damage. This section of the Protocol was created because many countries are developing, and wuick rapidly. Rapid development requires more Carbon emissions, so the "cap" on emissions allows the country to grow at least as quickly as it currently is, with a little wiggle room.

So, whether you're a big country, or a little country dreaming of becoming a world power, the Kyoto protocol will meet your need!

Sources:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou...items/1353.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Coal's one of the most major sources of pollution and greenhouse emissions. And yet: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...9?OpenDocument

Also, China has already exceeded the Carbon emissions, compared to that of the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...arbonemissions

China's carbon emissions are soaring past those of the US, new figures reveal, making it the dominant country in the global warming debate.

Chinese carbon dioxide pollution rose by 8% in 2007 and was responsible for two-thirds of the year's total increase in global CO2 emissions, according to experts at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Cement production to meet China's demand for infrastructure to support its booming economy was a large factor: half of all global cement production now takes place in China, and the industry is responsible for a fifth of Chinese CO2. Rebuilding roads and homes after the Sichuan province earthquake is expected to increase demand further.

According to the figures, China is now responsible for 24% of global carbon dioxide emissions, followed by the US with 22%. The EU produces 12%, India 8% and the Russian Federation 6%.

Per head of population, China is still far behind the US, which remains the biggest polluter per person by a large margin. US citizens produce an average of 19.4 tonnes of CO2 each year, while those in China produce just 5.1 tonnes each. Russians produce 11.8 tonnes each, the agency says, with the figure for the EU at 8.6 tonnes, and India just 1.8 tonnes per person.

The Netherlands researchers used new data on worldwide energy consumption and cement production in 2007 prepared by the oil giant BP. Last year, the same team surprised analysts when it said that China had already overtaken the US as chief producer of CO2.

So it looks like China can't exactly go free.

Anyway, back to the point at hand- Seeing how obviously biased the Kyoto Protocol is against countries like China, I strongly oppose it. There should be a treaty in place which can actually be accepted and ratified by everyone of the world representatives. Yes, it is a good international agreement, but it's definitely not good enough.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-28-2008, 12:10 AM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

OAA
FFK
Against

I'm sure I'll win no points for this... But the answer should be rather simple.


1. The Kyoto protocals are NOT cost-benefit effective. In other words, the cost isn't worth the result. It's rather like the ethanol problem- ethanol is added to gasoline to 'reduce gas consumption', but making 1 gallon of Ethanol takes 2 gallson of gasoline.

2. Carbon dioxide does NOT cause global warming, that's a huge red herring. Many things may change all sorts of climate changes- Though whether it'll be warming or an ice age is debatable. CO2, however, actually helps balance climate problems. Although humans mess up the environment, some cycles ARE natural, including water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor has enormous greenhouse effect. CO2 has been found to contradict the changes that water vapor causes. The world, basically, is built to maintain itself- to some extent, obviously humans can mess it up still. However, when there's too much water vapor, leading to heating, CO2 naturally increases from various sources, which in turn lowers this, fixing the temperature change for then, and thus getting rid of the environmental conditions that cause more CO2 to be produced. When humans produce CO2, they're not part of the natural cycle... However, since we ARE warming the planet in an unnatural way, cooling it in an unnatural way leads to balance. Many things need to be cut out, but CO2 is not one of them. And it is also good for trees and plants.
-shrugs- This one's a big annoyance for me, 'cause idiots worry about 'carbon footprint' and not the REAL chemicals ruining the world. My uncle's a rocket scientist, and so he keeps up with news and technology and such, and is always talking about how greedy people/politicians focus on Carbon instead of the real problem because it is better for their causes, and frankly, I agree with him.

3. The goal of the Kyoto protocal is to lower 6 gasses- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons.
CO2 is a misnomer. Methane, I'd like to see them reduce, when COWS emit so much of it. ._.; As to the others, yes, they're a problem, but most of the focus/knowledge is on Carbon and Methane... =\ A big flaw of the Kyoto protocol.

4. Political BS is, as usual, in place. For example, Austraila, a HUGE producer of 'greenhouse gasses', was given an 8% increase allowance. And thanks to bribes, the fact that China is producing almost as much or possibly more gasses than the US is not mentioned. They claim to be inside their allowed limits even though it's been proved that they aren't.


The Kyoto protocol is much like communism... A very nice ideal, but the way it was put into practice is half-arsed, prone to bribery and manipulation, and about as useful as the UN. Or to put it more concisely, it's the perfect combination of Southern efficency and Northern hospitality. /US jokes
__________________

My hands have yet to build a village, have yet to find water in the barren desert, have yet to plant a flower, and I have yet to find the path that leads me... I have not loved enough, but the wind and the sun are still on my face.



I have yet to sow green fields, yet to raise a city, yet to plant a grapevine on each chalky hill... There is so much to build and so much to be, and my love is just beginning.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-29-2008, 04:32 AM
Charbok's Avatar
Charbok Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Posts: 6,906
Send a message via AIM to Charbok Send a message via MSN to Charbok Send a message via Skype™ to Charbok
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by May Norman View Post
There are several other methods, such as Carbon Credits, and other policies that can be undertaken. There can be treaties to ensure that everyone takes the responsibility equally. Why can the 'developing nations' escape? They are one of the richest countries in the world- The US has to borrow money from China in order to keep the Iraq war going.
China also has far more people than the U.S., so shouldn't they have more money?
Either way, the Kyoto Protocol has designated these countries as developing. It's not a question of whether it's fair, it's a question of whether it will be effective and worth it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by May Norman View Post
In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People's Republic of China were about 54% of the USA emissions.[39] However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years.[40][41] Various predictions see China overtaking the US in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,[42][43][44] and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.

Instead of developing Intercontinental and Ballistic Missiles that can shoot down Satellites, one would think that they would use their resources for proper environmental management.
China's business is China's business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
1. The Kyoto protocals are NOT cost-benefit effective. In other words, the cost isn't worth the result. It's rather like the ethanol problem- ethanol is added to gasoline to 'reduce gas consumption', but making 1 gallon of Ethanol takes 2 gallson of gasoline.
Support?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
2. Carbon dioxide does NOT cause global warming, that's a huge red herring. Many things may change all sorts of climate changes- Though whether it'll be warming or an ice age is debatable. CO2, however, actually helps balance climate problems. Although humans mess up the environment, some cycles ARE natural, including water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor has enormous greenhouse effect. CO2 has been found to contradict the changes that water vapor causes. The world, basically, is built to maintain itself- to some extent, obviously humans can mess it up still. However, when there's too much water vapor, leading to heating, CO2 naturally increases from various sources, which in turn lowers this, fixing the temperature change for then, and thus getting rid of the environmental conditions that cause more CO2 to be produced. When humans produce CO2, they're not part of the natural cycle... However, since we ARE warming the planet in an unnatural way, cooling it in an unnatural way leads to balance. Many things need to be cut out, but CO2 is not one of them. And it is also good for trees and plants.
-shrugs- This one's a big annoyance for me, 'cause idiots worry about 'carbon footprint' and not the REAL chemicals ruining the world. My uncle's a rocket scientist, and so he keeps up with news and technology and such, and is always talking about how greedy people/politicians focus on Carbon instead of the real problem because it is better for their causes, and frankly, I agree with him.
CO2 isn't the entire issue.
It is proven that human activity since the industrial era is causing an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which in turn causes global warming. Whether it's CO2 or some other gas that we're producing is irrelevant, the fact that we're cutting down on one or both is a start. That is what the Kyoto Protocol is. A start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
3. The goal of the Kyoto protocal is to lower 6 gasses- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons.
CO2 is a misnomer. Methane, I'd like to see them reduce, when COWS emit so much of it. ._.; As to the others, yes, they're a problem, but most of the focus/knowledge is on Carbon and Methane... =\ A big flaw of the Kyoto protocol.
Again, the focus on CO2 doesn't matter.
For instance:
I make a plan to reduce racism, sexism and anti-animalism. I focus the plan on the third of these things, because I feel that it's most important. Does that mean it doesn't help with the other things? No. It certainly doesn't help as much as it could, but it's a start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
4. Political BS is, as usual, in place. For example, Austraila, a HUGE producer of 'greenhouse gasses', was given an 8% increase allowance. And thanks to bribes, the fact that China is producing almost as much or possibly more gasses than the US is not mentioned. They claim to be inside their allowed limits even though it's been proved that they aren't.
That's a bit of a different issue.
The fact that we can't do a thing to control China is not really related. =P
Whether people follow it isn't the issue, the issue is; If we were to follow it, would it be worth it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
The Kyoto protocol is much like communism... A very nice ideal, but the way it was put into practice is half-arsed, prone to bribery and manipulation, and about as useful as the UN. Or to put it more concisely, it's the perfect combination of Southern efficency and Northern hospitality. /US jokes
If we did it how it's meant to be done, would it be a good thing? That's the question here. Not whether we can do it how it's meant to be done, but rather if we did, would it work?
__________________
oh hi.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-29-2008, 05:18 AM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbok View Post
China also has far more people than the U.S., so shouldn't they have more money?
The money is not divided evenly. A small portion of people have most of it, while the others are poor. -shrugs- And development wise they're just as advanced as the US, they just bribed people better.


Quote:
China's business is China's business.
^_~ So then why does anyone have the right to make others submit to this protocol, if China shouldn't have to?

Quote:
Support?
Common knowledge, dear. ._. Everyone knows ethanol takes gas to produce.
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm Cornell university

"David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs."

Sorry, it takes 1.7 gallons of gas with current technology to make 1 gallon of ethanol, not 2 gallons. Still, totally inefficient.

Direct quote from the article:
An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel’s analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.
The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline.
Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way", Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU".
Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels-not ethanol-are used to produce ethanol", Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price".
Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol".
The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace".
Nickels and dimes aside, some drivers still would rather see their cars fueled by farms in the Midwest than by oil wells in the Middle East, Pimentel acknowledges, so he calculated the amount of corn needed to power an automobile:
The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.
If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.


English: We're screwed if we try to use more ethanol.


More info- ethanol causes more environmental harm than current gas additives.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2...5-07-13-01.asp

Ethanol = bad
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0507a/cornethanol.html


Quote:
CO2 isn't the entire issue.
Exactly my point, the protocol focuses too much on this non-issue.
Quote:
It is proven that human activity since the industrial era is causing an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which in turn causes global warming. Whether it's CO2 or some other gas that we're producing is irrelevant, the fact that we're cutting down on one or both is a start.
No, it's frigging stupid to cut down on CO2. CO2 actually SLOWS damage our other increased pollutants cause! We're cutting down on something that slows global climate issues. And we're not focusing on many things that DO cause it.

Also, studies seem to show we're heading for an ice age, NOT global warming, so I'd like evidence of why you think it's just warming. Russian scientists have been for years proving that global cooling is more dangerous and likely to occur after a brief 20 year warming spurt.

Quote:
That is what the Kyoto Protocol is. A start.
A misdirection of funds and resources that is damaging the world, that's what this is.


Quote:
Again, the focus on CO2 doesn't matter.
Again, it matters.


Quote:
I make a plan to reduce racism, sexism and anti-animalism. I focus the plan on the third of these things, because I feel that it's most important. Does that mean it doesn't help with the other things? No. It certainly doesn't help as much as it could, but it's a start.
Bad analogy. A more accurate comparison would be:
You plan to reduce sexism towards women.
To do this, you focus on supporting groups for abused women fleeing their husbands, for groups who sponsor woman who want to be engineers/doctors/etc, and a group who PROTEST the right of a fleeing woman to get a temporary restraining order for a few weeks to keep her husband away from her and her kids.

You're hurting the cause, not helping it, by doing that. And taking money from the good causes. So YES, the CO2 matters!

Quote:
That's a bit of a different issue.
The fact that we can't do a thing to control China is not really related.
If we can't control any country, why have the protocol? It just lets countries accuse each other, and makes them more likely to bribe people to get themselves a selfish but beneficial footprint allowance.

Quote:
Whether people follow it isn't the issue, the issue is; If we were to follow it, would it be worth it.
No, it isn't. Read the question:
Is the Kyoto Protocol a good international environmental agreement and worth signing?

Is it a GOOD agreement, AND is it worth signing.
It's NOT a good agreement, and signing it will cause more problems.


Quote:
If we did it how it's meant to be done, would it be a good thing?
No. It would not. And the question is also 'is it worth signing'. If we know we'll do it wrong and that others are bribing and manipulating it ANYway, is wasting the money and doing more environmental harm 'worth' getting to look politcally correct? I don't think so.
__________________

My hands have yet to build a village, have yet to find water in the barren desert, have yet to plant a flower, and I have yet to find the path that leads me... I have not loved enough, but the wind and the sun are still on my face.



I have yet to sow green fields, yet to raise a city, yet to plant a grapevine on each chalky hill... There is so much to build and so much to be, and my love is just beginning.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-29-2008, 07:34 AM
Snow Fairy Sugar's Avatar
Snow Fairy Sugar Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 5)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of the Blue Roses
Posts: 5,865
Send a message via AIM to Snow Fairy Sugar Send a message via MSN to Snow Fairy Sugar Send a message via Yahoo to Snow Fairy Sugar
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbok View Post
China also has far more people than the U.S., so shouldn't they have more money?

China = One of the Richest. US is officially one of the poorest, and in an Economic Depression.

Either way, the Kyoto Protocol has designated these countries as developing. It's not a question of whether it's fair, it's a question of whether it will be effective and worth it.

That's what the whole Debate is actually about. :] Whether or not its fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Is the Kyoto Protocol a good international environmental agreement and worth signing?
China's business is China's business.
It might be their business, but what they do- Global Emissions, and varios other factors...that is the Kyoto Protocol's Business.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-29-2008, 10:06 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
No, it's frigging stupid to cut down on CO2. CO2 actually SLOWS damage our other increased pollutants cause! We're cutting down on something that slows global climate issues. And we're not focusing on many things that DO cause it.

Also, studies seem to show we're heading for an ice age, NOT global warming, so I'd like evidence of why you think it's just warming. Russian scientists have been for years proving that global cooling is more dangerous and likely to occur after a brief 20 year warming spurt.
Source? I can't seem to find it in nature.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-30-2008, 02:19 AM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Source? I can't seem to find it in nature.
Don't know of any sources not in Russian, my knowledge comes from my uncle, who was a scientist and used to work in a related field. Sorry.
__________________

My hands have yet to build a village, have yet to find water in the barren desert, have yet to plant a flower, and I have yet to find the path that leads me... I have not loved enough, but the wind and the sun are still on my face.



I have yet to sow green fields, yet to raise a city, yet to plant a grapevine on each chalky hill... There is so much to build and so much to be, and my love is just beginning.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-04-2008, 03:43 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Don't know of any sources not in Russian, my knowledge comes from my uncle, who was a scientist and used to work in a related field. Sorry.
You do know that I can't trust you on that major claim if you can't produce this from a reputable journal, right? It's known that all reputable journals are either already in English, or are translated to English.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-04-2008, 05:36 PM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
You do know that I can't trust you on that major claim if you can't produce this from a reputable journal, right? It's known that all reputable journals are either already in English, or are translated to English.
Yes, and if the study was PUBLISHED already, that'd be one thing, but it's still being peer reviewed. x_x I just know about some stuff early, 'cause my uncle's always telling us the latest things being worked on. Disbelieve if you want.
__________________

My hands have yet to build a village, have yet to find water in the barren desert, have yet to plant a flower, and I have yet to find the path that leads me... I have not loved enough, but the wind and the sun are still on my face.



I have yet to sow green fields, yet to raise a city, yet to plant a grapevine on each chalky hill... There is so much to build and so much to be, and my love is just beginning.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-05-2008, 08:04 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
Yes, and if the study was PUBLISHED already, that'd be one thing, but it's still being peer reviewed. x_x I just know about some stuff early, 'cause my uncle's always telling us the latest things being worked on. Disbelieve if you want.
I might as well point this out while I'm at it. It's not a matter of "disbelief as you want" and you end it as such. It's more under the natural idea that you cannot, in debate, use a hypothesis as though it is a fact. Seriously, you've simply committed a big taboo in debate. :-/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-05-2008, 10:43 PM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
I might as well point this out while I'm at it. It's not a matter of "disbelief as you want" and you end it as such. It's more under the natural idea that you cannot, in debate, use a hypothesis as though it is a fact. Seriously, you've simply committed a big taboo in debate. :-/
A hypothesis that has not been dispproved, and which all scientific testing so far has supported. Not to mention I wasn't claiming it was the One Truth, just that people are retarded when they don't realize that global climate problems doesn't always mean warming. Cooling spurts have been documented in the past, that we're headed for another one, and possibly an ice age, should be no surprise. In other news, while sometimes California experiences Earthquakes, they also sometimes have bad thunderstorms.... Y'know, more than one kind of disaster can happen to a place. I don't think common sense is something that needs proof.
__________________

My hands have yet to build a village, have yet to find water in the barren desert, have yet to plant a flower, and I have yet to find the path that leads me... I have not loved enough, but the wind and the sun are still on my face.



I have yet to sow green fields, yet to raise a city, yet to plant a grapevine on each chalky hill... There is so much to build and so much to be, and my love is just beginning.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-05-2008, 11:30 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireflyK View Post
A hypothesis that has not been dispproved, and which all scientific testing so far has supported. Not to mention I wasn't claiming it was the One Truth, just that people are retarded when they don't realize that global climate problems doesn't always mean warming. Cooling spurts have been documented in the past, that we're headed for another one, and possibly an ice age, should be no surprise. In other news, while sometimes California experiences Earthquakes, they also sometimes have bad thunderstorms.... Y'know, more than one kind of disaster can happen to a place. I don't think common sense is something that needs proof.
You haven't shown this supporting documentation. >.>

I never said you claimed it was the "one truth", but rather that this was your major argument, and you lacked support. That's a clear taboo in debate.

It's already been known that we were at a cooling stage for the Earth, but is it not that we're going in the so called "opposite direction" at the moment?

Your California example is misleading, for you're claiming that I'm claiming something else altogether. A red herring, as you'd call it.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-06-2008, 12:23 AM
FireflyK's Avatar
FireflyK Offline
Five by Five
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under your bed
Posts: 4,290
Send a message via AIM to FireflyK
Default Re: [WAR VII] Week 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
You haven't shown this supporting documentation. >.>

I never said you claimed it was the "one truth", but rather that this was your major argument, and you lacked support. That's a clear taboo in debate.

It's already been known that we were at a cooling stage for the Earth, but is it not that we're going in the so called "opposite direction" at the moment?

Your California example is misleading, for you're claiming that I'm claiming something else altogether. A red herring, as you'd call it.
Sorry, I thought you'd researched the topic you had assigned us.
While current claims that the cooling cycle is being worsened haven't been shown, there are past DECADES where this theory was basically proven. It's totally common knowledge. Here's links to a few of the older studies, since apparently a pattern that's been in existance for thousands of years isn't evidence enough....

Everyone knows the natural Milankovitch cycles have been severely impacted by human activity. ._.; It's like, 9th-10th grade science... Do I need to prove gravity too? =\


Quoted from newsweek in 1975: "To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. "

Another news report:
Quote:
Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming.

Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....87279412587175 - Global cooling is the big problem, not warming. In 1991, the Danish Meteorological Institute worked on a study & report comparing human activity, solar cycles, and temperatures back several centuries. And came to the conclusion that global cooling was the risk, not warming, matching what Russian scientists argued from the 70's-85 ish. Canadian scientist Kennith Tapping put together a similar chart, showing only slightly differing results, which supported and refined this theory. And even the CO2 being part of either problem argument has been debunked- Timothy Patterson, a researcher and now teacher at a university in Canada, checked sun cycles and CO2 and etc, finding that CO2 had basically no influence on warming at all, and little influence on cooling. Dr. Sorokhtin, a famous Russian Scientist, has also dismissed Global Warming, although he has yet to give his opinion on Global Cooling. In fact, look up ANY prestigious Russian scientist or Solar Physicist, they're ALL predicting cooling now. =\ And have been for ages. If you need more detailed info, I'd suggest finding a copy of Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies. For that matter, Springer Wien has published an article called Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years which has further details and is only 2 years old. Looking at it again, translations are available now, though the original was Ukrainian or some such. The 1975 NAS report, while not coming to a decisive conclusion, determined that global warming at the least was unlikely.

The real problem with CO2? While it's good for plants and has NO global warming effect... It can in some places absorb infrared radiation. Troposheric air, when at an exact temperature, causes radiation to pass into gas fluctuations. As the air expands and dissolve, and the warm air rises to the Stratosphere, it hits the cold air coming down. There won't be a noticable temperature change, but synoptic activity can occur, causing cyclones, and other similar things. One could reduce CO2 to get rid of these... But we really can't reduce enough to make a big change (The amount we'd need to get rid of to lower the amount of cyclones, tornadoes, etc, would leave too little CO2 left for plants to survive, not good!). And there are other chemicals we could get rid of that would also reduce cyclones and such, without harming plants. =3 Thus leaving the CO2 alone and reducing the chemicals it reacts with to cause these problems is FAR more sensible.


Honestly though, I still can't believe I have to explain this. ._.; Citing recent studies is HARD, 'Cause until scientists began re-examining these things 2-3 years ago, there wasn't much study... Because it's been common, High school knowledge since about 1970.


And another factor? While climate changes are gradual but deadly, global cooling COULD happen quickly, like, within a year. How? Volcanoes. If enough erupt at the wrong times, spewing ash in the air and dampening the sunlight, and halting the natural greenhouse effect, many areas would not be farmable for a while, and it would be much, much colder. THAT is the real concern. Krakatoa, in 1883, erupted immensely. When Mt. St. Helens erupted in the 80's, everyone thought it was terrible, but the eruption of Krakatoa was like, 10x that at least. And Tambora erupted in 1815 causing 'The Year Without summer'. So guess what happens if that happens again? Natural cooling cycles, combined with the human pollution causing global cooling, is bad enough. If Tamobra or Pinitubo erupt again, we could be in trouble. In fact, for those in the US, there's even a 'close to home' risk- Yellowstone. Scientists have discovered it erupts about every 600,000 year or so... And the last time it erupted was 640,000 years ago. We're overdue for it to erupt. And it was 16 TIMES the size of Tamobra's eruption, which caused a global climate change for a YEAR, the last time it went off.

The lava dome under yellowstone is growing immensely, and we don't know how to stop it. The crater's started moving, 3 times faster than it used to. And the LAST time it erupted, a huge part of the population starved. Scientists have found, through DNA, that the gene pool was likely hugely reduced at that time, due to the number of various genetic markers/etc, so if it happens again, we're in trouble. There'd be mass starvation. It would be chaos. And it's more likely, certainly could happen more quickly, and less preventable than 'global warming' or even any other climate changes.


Look in ANY reputable journal's climate studies from like... 1970-1990. You'll find plenty of evidence of global cooling. ._.;
__________________

My hands have yet to build a village, have yet to find water in the barren desert, have yet to plant a flower, and I have yet to find the path that leads me... I have not loved enough, but the wind and the sun are still on my face.



I have yet to sow green fields, yet to raise a city, yet to plant a grapevine on each chalky hill... There is so much to build and so much to be, and my love is just beginning.

Last edited by FireflyK; 07-06-2008 at 12:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com