U.S. Continues Opposition to Kyoto Environmental Treaty 1580
fenris_23 writes "The AP is reporting
that President Bush has reiterated his opposition to the Kyoto Treaty despite President Putin's acceptance of the treaty and recent scientific evidence directly linking greenhouse emissions to arctic warming. 'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality."
I'm sure he'll love the jobs created.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's is a SHAM. (Score:1, Insightful)
If they want the treaty to be approved it has to treat everyone the same, this one doesn't.
American Jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
If that's the case, why does the President support off-shoring American jobs? Sounds like he's speak out of both ends of his a$$ to me.
Financial Benefits (Score:5, Insightful)
And why must reducing gas emission equate to job loss? Couldn't companies be more efficient instead?
In IT outsourcing, which costs a lot of jobs to foreigner countries, there are suggestions [slashdot.org] that with the increased exports to other countries, outsourcing probably isn't so bad after all.
--
Play iCLOD Virtual City Explorer [iclod.com] and win Half-Life 2
It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This begs the question: (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't you just love Bush and his short-termism (Score:1, Insightful)
President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,'
In contrast to the fifty million jobs our children will lose? I mean I'm sure our kids will love to watch New York disappear under a few metres of water.
Simon.
This man is unbelievable. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is yet another reason why this man (and by extension, increasingly America) is reviled the world over. How can one job be more important than the environment? It's a truly ludicrous statement.
So he supports.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush must think were all stupid..
Jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're going to defend outsourcing by pointing to the number of jobs created by the cheaper goods, shouldn't you also point out the green-inspired jobs, and the savings in health care from cleaner air?
Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck with all this fairness shit? Live ain't fair, neither are greenhouse gases. Let's get on the stick about it and work out differences *later*!
Bush is really the king of insight (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not "pollution". It's our survivial. How much would you like to pay for your water? And how much would you like to spend on preventing and treating skin cancer and other diseases? People tend to think of "The Economy" as the only thing that matters. We may be all dying, but "we have more jobs". What about quality of life?
We need less people in the world. That way we won't need to pollute too much.
Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay.... (Score:2, Insightful)
What a fucking guy, this president...
Re:So he supports.... (Score:2, Insightful)
It really makes you think... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're okay exporting jobs in the name of "global competitiveness", but we're not okay getting rid of jobs in the name of protecting the environment?
Look who's talking now (Score:5, Insightful)
Missing jobs under Bush administration [zfacts.com]
So
- job loss=OK
- alienating the world=OK
- job loss to undo some alienation of the world=not OK
Lovely logic.
That's an excuse and you know it (Score:5, Insightful)
So developed nations have to cut back more than developing nations? Well guess what - we pollute more than they do.
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell me this... how good can someone's life be if they are jobless in a capitalist society such as our own?
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well if that's true, then I would argue that that's all the more reason for them to be included in the protocol. If we want this thing to get signed, the US has to be on its side, period.
If they're not producing the same amount of greenhouse gases than the USA or the EU, then adopting the Protocol should not be too big a deal for them, and they should be able to handle it.
You lose some and you win some (Score:2, Insightful)
Stupid me is comparing the public transportation here in Sweden with the public transportation in the US, especially railway commuting, where I have seen that the railways in the US in general aren't used much, and are often single-track rails and are often in need of improvment.
(Flamebait :-> )
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:3, Insightful)
You should also check the current cancer rates and water pollution rates in china. It is much worse than any place in the USA has been in 20+ years.
Re:It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
To publicly lend it your support. To persuade people and businesses to take steps on their own, even if it won't be legislated for. To show everyone that no matter what the rest of the government thinks, *you* consider it important.
I could go on, but you get the idea; doomed to failure or not, sometimes it's worth standing up to be counted. That's if you believe in it, of course. If not, then no, of course you wouldn't sign.
Re:That's an excuse and you know it (Score:1, Insightful)
IT's much worse in those countries because they have no effective pollution control laws at all. Don't fuck up the USA and EU's economy simply to give China and India bigger advantages than they already have.
But this is
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
The present form of "Capitalism", just as ALL "isms" that appeared in the History of Humanity will go away. If we screw up the world, on the other hand, Humanity itself may go away.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Also the idea of loosing a few jobs should never be a concern verses loosing the whole planet.
If there was some company that made a device that did nothing but make polution, that was it's purpose "bobs earth killing device co: All polution, no Purpose" You wouldn't say we shouldn't shut that company down to save 2 jobs at that company. It would be gone over night.
Also by going after companies that polute it gives companies that are clean a foot hold to grow.
Environmental friendliness is a win win all around.
NAFTA? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I missed that one (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's the latter, then what's the *net* job situation? If the US loses five million jobs relating to the burning of fossil fuels due to implementing Kyoto (keeping things vastly simplified), then that's a disaster. But if it *then* gains four million in replacements using clean energy and another million job in the construction industry to build the necessary infrastructure then there's no problem with jobs, right?
Re:I missed that one (Score:2, Insightful)
5e6/6e9 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
what about the ~7 billion lives it will eventually cost to ignore this?
I'm shocked and awed that, immediately after re-election, not helping the environment is used to garner support. I'm going to go kick someone.
So ? (Score:5, Insightful)
A picture comes to mind. A birthday party, where one child has already eaten a large quantity of cake, but wants all the rest subdivided equally. Not getting this result from the adults present, she throws a tantrum....
The US (and all the developed world) have exploited the natural resources of the world during the creation of their relatively-advanced technological society. Why should those who have been gentler towards the planet suffer the same consequences ? The US is not held to any harder regulations than any of the other developed countries, but it refuses to turn from its' self-indulgent and destructive path.
There will be more hurricanes next year; each will be stronger. There will be more of an 'El Nino' effect. The great farm areas of the American interior will suffer the consequences of this misguided 'screw-tomorrow' policy, and starving US children will curse their grandfathers stupidity and arrogance.
Or maybe not. The thing is that the risk-assessment of any course of action is the probability of the consequences multiplied by the effect of the consequences - and the potential downside here is enormous. Irrespective of the probability of the risk, it makes sense to limit the risk further, and that is what is not happening.
What US-observers see is a blind lemming-like tendency to rush towards oblivion with no provision for being wrong. Kyoto is not enough. Kyoto is a damage-limitation exercise - triage, if you like - that will need to be reviewed and tightened in various areas before it will be effective.
Global Warming does not require everywhere to heat up, it simply states that the average temperature will increase, thereby releasing more phase-space for the atmosphere to explore, and exposes us all to more-extreme weather - weather that was unavailable before the average temperature rose. Those extremes will kill people.
It never ceases to amaze me that people can dismiss a rise in temperature of (say) 1 degree C as nothing worth bothering about. I can barely conceive of the energy required to raise the average temperature of a *planet* by a degree C.
Simon.
Re:American Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Kyoto may not be the best idea but it is the only one we have got, so the fact that the US ponit blank refuse to be part of it shows how little respect they have for this plaent we call our home.
Some Reality Please! (table 4) (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the bill would cost millions of jobs, because it would DRAMATICALY increase the cost of energy, and there for production. That meens MORE over seas jobs, especialy in the blue colar work force. But we all know how much the Slashdot crowd cried when "labor" workers lost there jobs. So quit with the crocodile tears on the tech outsourceing. Bush has been extreamly conisistant on this issue, and outsourcing. His solution to outsourcing is to make America a better place to produce, and the Kyoto Acords will make it worse.
BTW: Can we stop atributing G_d like powers to the president. His actuall ability to stop intelectual outsourcing is extreamly limited. And you don't need tax breaks to justify buying a programer in India that costs 1/10 as much. NO amount of tax reliefe can drasticaly change those figures.
Lastly, while the science of the Kyoto is debatable it's policies are absured. It sets unreasonable time limits for technologicaly and industrialy advanced countries to convert over their power sources, while allowing developing nations to develop the same unhealthy and destructive energy dependency levels while developing. No number of windmills or magic solar panels will solve our energy requirements as they stand.
The Kyoto fails entirly at reducing our energy demand (wich already reaches 10% of the daily bruto solar energy added to our system every day), while focusing entirly on restricting our means of production. It stinks of kneejerk statesmenship, and fanaticle chicken litteling. It treats smaller issues like CO2 cycles as the core issue, instead of dealing with systemic solutions.
Not even Clinton would sign this rag, and infact I remember the media blaming him too for not even bothering to negotiate. And given the attitude twoards the USA of the authors of this accord, I don't blame him.
Re:Amazing (Score:2, Insightful)
We have been for a long time now. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/econ-emissions.html [epa.gov]
I find it very sad that USA still refuses to ratify the Kyoto treaty
No, the treaty is just horribly flawed.
Re:I'm sure he'll love the jobs created.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
-- What about moving the company to another country that not only does NOT have limitations on green house gas production but also significantly lower wages and benefits costs. Same level of green house gas production, but it just gets made on the other side of the world AND the evil company makes more money.
Re:So he supports.... (Score:5, Insightful)
He knows we're stupid.
Plain numbers: US can improve efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
(1998).
Just to compare, EU represents about 6% of the world population, and consumes 16% of the worlds energy, hence the average european consumes only 40% of the energy resources of the average american. China, about 25% of the world population consumes 10% of the energy. (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/euro.html [doe.gov])
Comparing the EU and US economies, they are about equal size. This means european energy to money conversion is about 40% more effective than US. Taking into account the larger population of Europe the production per capita is about 65% of US, but the average efficiency per capita (that is the conversion of energy to money per capita) is some 60% better (consuming 40 units of the energy to produce 65 units of value).
In other words, US can do a lot to improve efficiency! If US were as efficient as EU, US would maintain BNP and comply with Kyoto.
So what's the problem? Who has the interest of keeping US production inefficient?
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:3, Insightful)
India has a population of 1065 million [cia.gov]. The USA has a population of 293 million [cia.gov].
Re:Senate (Score:3, Insightful)
And what does the fact that most countries other than the US joined the treaty say about its structure?
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I guess that about says it. Either you're against polution or against jobs. Take your pick.
Yeah Bush has problems thinking ahead. Better to burn more coal and oil now, and keep the costs down, so our economy doesn't suffer. It would be just terrible if we lost jobs on our way to making the planet uninhabitable...
Its the same idiotic way that he thinks about the economy. Better to have large deficits now, and deplete social security now, so things look good NOW. In 20 or 30 years when the economy is shot and social security is gone, things will royally suck, but hey thats not Bush's problem as long as things look good NOW. He's such a freaking moron...
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
What's being left out of the equation are all the technologies that the US could be developing if we were on the forefront of compliance - things like CO2 sequestration, alternative power systems, etc. Regulation has a cost (it creates economic friction), but where there's economic friction (inefficiency) there's an opportunity. If we took the lead on these things, we could be building a whole new export industry - equipment to retrofit existing plants to deliver Kyoto compliance.
What we need is a progressive interpretation of the Kyoto agreement in the states - one that would allow the same levels of growth, as opposed to the current negative interpretation, which is that going Kyoto would freeze American competitiveness (a given if we keep doing things the same old way.) Unfortunately, I think one reason that the US has been reluctant to commit, is because we're no longer willing to innovate as strongly as we used to - and personally, I blame trial lawyers for that (in addition to a bad patent and copyright system.) Why take the risk of putting $11M in development for a new exhaust control system, if at some point, some lawyer will point to your system, and instead of highlighting that the system saved the combined lives of 100 people (80yr lifespan) over 10 years of operation, point to the possibility that if you had spent an additional $1M, you could have saved 10 more people, and then sue you on behalf of the theoretical 10 more people.
If you need evidence for this, look at the cars and car systems in Europe and Japan, that they're not willing to release in the US for fear of litigation. Toyota is developing cars for the elderly in Japan, but they refuse to commit to selling any of those models in the US for fear of getting sued. Dalmier-Chrysler is selling the Two-Fours in Canada, but environmental compliance aside, they're unwilling to sell those vehicles in the US for safety (ie, litigation) reasons as well. Copyrights and patents also will contribute to this problem - basically, anything that enshrines the status quo, and deters development on anything new. If nobody is willing to innovate in the US, Kyoto treaty or no, we're going to have job problems...
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Mean while the changes Kyoto has forced companies in other countries to make has actually saved them money without having to lay anybody off. Less pollution equals less waste, which means more product for the same amount of resouces.
This is all spin so Bush can't be forced to make fuel efficiency something that has to happen. Fuel efficiency means less energy needs, means less profits for the companies selling energy....
Kyoto == waste less.
USA == waste more == job incease.
Do you remember another country that thought it could create more jobs by doing things very ineffeciently? Do you think it worked?
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:just seed the oceans with iron (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:2, Insightful)
However, we are largely based on a service economy now, and the idea that a developed and wealthy country can't reduce its own filth is absurd. We have the resources, if not willpower to accomplish this.
One could even say that this would save us money by sparing the next generation of asthma and other illnesses that are clearly induced from high pollutant levels. Too bad that it'll never happen under the current business-at-any-cost administration.
Re:American Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Edward Prescott, "who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize for economics", weighed in [64.233.167.104] (Google cache) recently on the issue:
Oh, and he also said, "The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid."Re:That's an excuse and you know it (Score:5, Insightful)
At least we are talking about it. Just because we all don't agree with you doesn't mean we haven't thought about it.
A lot of us have trouble swallowing the bad for the economy line especially. Pollution control would create an entire new industry, but I guess that would be bad for certain entrenched industries so all of a sudden it is bad for the economy.
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
1) energy
2) raw materials
3) wages/insurance.
They are often in that order. How do you make you chemical plant more efficient and more cost-effective? Focus on reducing your major costs.
Since the biggest cost to a chemical plant is energy, how do you reduce you energy usage? Design more efficient processes, reuse energy - instead of dumping heat into the atmosphere, reuse it as utility steam (and reduce your energy costs). Process integration (using the byproducts of one process to fuel another instead of just dumping it) requires some smarts, some planning, but can make your industry more efficient, more cost-effective and more profitable. Did I mention that reducing energy costs is not only profitable, but environmentally friendly???!?
Yes, you heard me right - reducing energy costs is not only good for the bank account, but good for Mother Nature too? And it makes the industry more competitive?
What that means is that American industries will not be nearly as competitive or profitable as Kyoto countries. It will take a few years for the Kyoto countries to become more efficient, but when they are, America will lose big time in the global economy due to their lower efficiency.
Wrong, but thanks for playing (Score:5, Insightful)
Make no mistake, 1% of our population makes all the food we need and a small percent more is needed to make our housing. Everything else is just gravy. There's plenty of wealth to go around, and it's not even that rich bastards want it all to themselves. It's more complex than that. It's about power. It's about playing the rest of the poor dumb saps off each other so the Bushs and the Haliburtons of the world can continue to trick the people at large into giving them everything they want. They're the new monarchy, they just don't rely on God or Tradition as excuses any more. Now it's property rights and freedom.
Outsoucing is all about playing one group off the other to keep the masses in check. And I've said it before and I'll say it again: This isn't a consipracy, it's just good business.
Re:That's an excuse and you know it (Score:3, Insightful)
CO2 can move around the globe very easily. It's pretty difficult for a pile of heavy metal waste in a pit in the middle of the Gobi desert to get into the water supply in Europe.
The pollution control laws in the US are primarily designed to give Americans a better quality of life. The Kyoto Protocol is designed to give all citizens of Earth a better quality of life.
For the intelligence-impaired, the set of "Americans" does not contain all members of the set of "all citizens of Earth."
p
Re: Seeding with iron doesn't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the full article at http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040319014625.tbceu
There is no quick and easy technological fix. Time for the US, and the world, to take responsibility. The Kyoto-agreement is just the start, MUCH more is required for CO2 levels to stabilize.
And the top polluter in the world doesn't even want to take that first, symbolic step...
Re:kyoto is not good for the US (Score:2, Insightful)
Not "US" warming.
Not "EU" warming.
Not "developing nations" warming.
US is the biggest polluter.
We produces the biggest emission per capita.
So yes. The "US must drastically cut out".
Because we are the ones that are causing this the most
Re:It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:1, Insightful)
No, but they do have coal fires that alone produce 2% of the world's total CO2 emissions. Just one byproduct of Chinese industry causes that much environmental havoc (how about all the environmentalists demand China put out its coal fires and get back to us when you've done something useful, rather than bothering one of the smallest offenders and most efficient producers worldwide per GDP). Former Eastern European block citizens know as well the stellar environmental record of the USSR (Chernobyl anyone?).
Really, let's debate Kyoto for what it is: a Gulliverian mechanism to tie down and restrict the US economy while giving several developing nations a free pass. You have a Chinese and Indian economy that demands tremendous resources and does not wish to compete for them with the US, Western Europe or Japan.
If that's what you want to propose, then at least be honest with yourself and us. Don't pitch it with moral superiority in a manner similar to putting Libyans and North Koreans on the UN human rights council.
With this attitude, we're screwed (Score:3, Insightful)
With this sort of treaty, if not everyone agrees to it, then it allows whoever doesn't agree to unfairly compete with the others. So if we don't agree to it, the other countries will likely want to withdraw, and we'll be back where we started.
While I can't prove it made a difference in his decision I think it's important to point out that the Kyoto treaty is bad for the coal and oil businesses.
Re:It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see your point.
We'd only have net reduction if everyone is equally screwed by the treaty. That's why the United States won't ratify Kyoto. It doesn't hinder "developing countries" like China and India.
Re:This man is unbelievable. (Score:1, Insightful)
Who said anything about the environment? The topic was about a treaty.
Let me see if I can explain this to all you greenie weenies who make all your statements based on emotion with no regard to logic. The president refused to sign a treaty. He believes that if he signed a treaty and it were to be ratified, it might hurt the citizens of the country he is the chief executive for. The president knows that the treaty is unfairly biased in favor of other countries allowing those countries to do more environmental damage in order for them to attract jobs.
The president also knows that his signature on the treaty is worthless as the lawmakers will not ratify it.
So, you can blame the president for not signing a piece of paper. He has done nothing to harm the environment and is doing what he believes is in the best interest of the public he serves.
Now, before you get your panties in an uproar, if you really want to do something to improve the situation why don't you write another treaty that will address the problem and contains enough compromise that it is likely to be implimented.
.
You must be joking (Score:3, Insightful)
You used "responsibility" and "USA" in the same sentence; you are obviously naïve.
The USA takes responsibility for nothing, including:
Re:Are you kidding me? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is our responsibility to do anything in our power to limit our pollution. It *does* effect other people. What, you think the ozone hole was a result of all the industrial waste the aussies are dumping into the atmosphere? I think not.
Why do you worry about china and india. Take care of our own business, then we'll deal with them.
You sound like a child, 'HE DIDN"T CLEAN HIS ROOM WHY DO I HAVE TO CLEAN MINE WHINE WHINE WHINE'.
Pofits or Jobs? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Noam Chomsky: Perspectives on Power
Don't know if quoting Chomsky means I'll get modded down or what, but I think President Bush's decision makes sense after we do the translation suggested by Chomsky. Otherwise we are tangled in a morass of contradiction, as other posters have pointed out. Everything falls into place if we think about profits instead.
How Dare You!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now get back out there and spread unfounded emotional FUD like the rest of them.
Re:kyoto is not good for the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should it? The US and Europe have emitted most of the extra greenhouse gases now in our atmosphere. The fair thing would be to greatly reduce emissions in the US and Europe and to give developing nations a chance. And if we can't do that, we should actually compensate the developing nations for their share of global emissions that they were entitled to but didn't get to make.
It's like the US and Europe raiding a penny jar shard by the whole office. Now that it's almost empty, rather than returning the amount of money that went beyond their fair share, they are complaining that they can't keep taking out of it.
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, America's economy is arguably doing better than any other economy on the planet. Since we're at the top of the heap, we have nowhere to go but down. Therefore, anyone who is "below" us in the economic pyramid has a very vested interest in seeing us taken down a few notches -- environment or no environment. Given that Kyoto only penalizes developed nations and gives a virtual blank check for emissions to "developing" nations like India and China, the Kyoto accords seem more like a political jab than any sort of environmental band-aid. As is popular in socialist and communist circles, the rich get hit with all the penalties so the poor can "catch up."
If you take the political angle of Kyoto and couple it with the fact that there are as many studies against global warming as there are for it, the whole treaty smells very fishy. Is the planet getting warming? Absolutely. Is it because of mankind? That's extremely debatable, and only a bitter partisan would ignore the fact that the scientific community remains bitterly divided over whether the Earth is warming naturally due to things like solar maxima and minima or whether it's due to CO2 emissions -- or whether it's due to something else completely different.
I for one would like for more research to be done before any knee-jerk treaty is clamped on the U.S. -- or any other country, for that matter. The highest calling for a scientist is to seek the truth and leave emotionalism out of the equation. Right now, I don't think anyone has enough evidence to accurately say what's going on either way, which means more research is needed. A good scientist doesn't jump to conclusions, but that's precisely what's going on here with this treaty.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
The decline of the US is interesting to watch from abroad. Decades ago the US was proud and optimistic and lead the world in practically everything.
Today many US citizens are happy letting other first world countries like Japan and the EU (even Russia!!) lead the way and compare themselves underdeveloped 2nd world nations.
Re:Some Reality Please! (table 4) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:3, Insightful)
So WTF are you complaining about. You're right, life isn't fair. So the president has taken your attitude and acted in what he sees as the best interest of his country, the economy and the environment of that country.
So what if you don't see it as fair. He's doing his job and will work out the differences *later*!
.
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Abolish slavery? But the slave drivers would just move somewhere else and take our jobs!
No, Bushs position is total BS and is yet another reason why pretty much everybody in Europe loathes him and can't believe middle America was dumb enough to vote for him.
Everyone: "Bush, we need you to help us save the world!"
Bush: "That would cost at least one American job, I'd rather we all die in massive floods and freak weather events instead"
Europe is hardly a saint when it comes to pollution and environmental policies but at least it's not heading full steam in the wrong direction.
In England we've been hearing for the past week about how Bush makes "moral stands" and "does what is right not popular". So even if the bad guys move abroad, wouldn't that be morally preferable to keeping them here?
Me, bitter? Why yes. I think I am.
Re:Okay.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the american way of life: watch your belly and let others die. Following Mr. Bush's politics, no treaty against child pornography, prostitution or drug dealing should be signed: after all, those things create jobs.
It just feels like a very lame excuse to avoid responsibilities to me. Actually, I don't see how Kyoto kills jobs. I always thought opening a lab to search for new solutions actually created jobs.
Anyone actually think this is serious?
Conservatism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Jobs (Score:1, Insightful)
Because it's impossible to multiply water, space, and several other things "with technology". There is a limit to what we can do.
You have an anti-life attitude.
No, not "anti-life". Think "quantity versus quality". I prefer better life to "higher quantity of" life. Small tribes and countries are always nicer than huge countries. They have less problems. They have more resources.
President Bush is right: the Kyoto treaty is bad business for America.
"America" has been polluting OUR world, and is not paying for it. America takes more resources than other countries, and that is why they are a rich nation. I'm sorry, but that is NOT right. And it will change, wether you like it or not. Want to use natural resources and pollute? Do it the capitalist way, and PAY for it (check the Kyoto protocol for the idea of "credits".
Re:Financial Benefits (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, the USA has been the world's largest consumer as well as the largest producer, but this is changing. Probably within the next 30 - 50 years, the USA will only consume about 22% of the world's goods and services. This is a result of the growing prosperity of the other nations in the world, especially the EU (which has mostly recovered from WWII). This means that the USA will not automatically be the highest bidder for the worlds resources, and the cost of production will climb dramatically when there are 50 nations bidding for, say, massive amounts of oil, instead of only 12. Multiply this effect by thinking in terms of lumber, minerals, concrete, etc and you can see that we will be replacing many of our most resource-hungry industrial practices with more efficient (and presumeably safer, less polluting) practices as a matter of business evolution. We won't be able to sustain ourselves if we don't, and we won't be able to do it if we squander our capital at this time by allocating it to non-productive goals that are mostly unobtainable at this time.
Third, comparing national emissions output between countries is not a valid measurement, and neither is a per-capita emissions level comparison. Basically, what is needed is some type of emissions-per-productive-unit measurement. I suppose it's theoretically possible for a couple hundred blacksmiths to produce a car without using the energy and emitting the pollution of a USA automotive plant, but is it economically feasible? Will it add the same value to the economy and provide the same level of utility?
Fourth, (and this is a hugely debatable point) we are working toward a world-wide crisis. The Club of Rome published a book called, "Limits to Growth" that was updated 20 years later as, "Beyond the Limits". Using a method called System Dynamics (pioneered by Jay Forrester) researchers illustrated the interaction of essential resources and uses and have shown that we are eventually going to have to change our ways or die out. The first book's gloomiest scenario predicted a collapse sometime in the early 90's, and when it didn't come the whole prediction was pooh-poohed as just another doomsday book. Well, the system was more flexible than we thought, and we had a couple of reallocations of resources and technology and so we had a reprieve. But the system is still in place, and in the not-too-distant future we will have to contend with shortages of basics like clean water and decent food. The solution to fending off environmental disaster probably lies in economic incentives, not social regulation.
A number of times I've come across the question of Easter Island: Who cut down the last tree? Didn't they see that deforesting their island would ruin their lives? My guess is that society in general lives like a bunch of slowly boiling frogs. Unless the heat gets turned up significantly, we are willing to adapt to the higher temperature until we're cooked. Pollution is affecting our lives today, but it's happening so slowly that we don't take massive action to remedy the situation. IMO, the Kyoto treaty is an attempt to regulate people by force, rather than improve the situation with feedback. I'd be more impressed with an "Osaka treaty". Turn the air in Osaka as clean as the air in Kyoto, and I'll help everyone adopt the practices that work.
Re:Jobs (Score:1, Insightful)
Nobody needs to die. Just have less children.
Re:Jobs (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:American Jobs (Score:3, Insightful)
Your guy claims "all economists are for free trade," but Joseph Stiglitz [wikipedia.org] would put some enormous caveats on the principle. I read a recent book he wrote called "Globalization and its Discontents," where he documents in case after case how the IMF's pushing of simple-minded free market policies ended up hurting third world economies, and especially the poorest citizens of those countries.
I'm a little confused about why he's bringing up the economic integration of rich countries, when the main focus of outsourcing has been to move jobs out of the rich countries and into poorer countries with lower labor costs. Further explanation would be helpful, but that's the news biz.
Stiglitz also points out various hypocrisies in our pursuit of free trade. For example, the way we use the IMF to pressure poor countries to open their markets to our manufactured goods, while continuing to subsidize our own agriculture to the point that they cannot compete.
Another example is our response to Russia's competitive advantage in producing aluminum (despite the many problems with their economy, they have an abundance of cheap energy): When faced with competition from a country that could simply produce aluminum cheaper than we could, America responded first by threatening to accuse Russia of "dumping", and then to support the formation of an aluminum cartel to keep prices high. Our inefficient aluminum manufacturers got to avoid competition, Russia lost the chance to maximize a competitive advantage, and consumers got higher prices.
The Bush administration, with its love of unrestrained free trade, was the primary mover in the creation of the cartel. Which seems inconsistent, to say the least.
Anyhow, if the money from a tax increase is put to some use that reduces costs in other areas of the economy (improvement of highway and communication infrastructure, improving the health of the population, basic scientific research) then the overall economy can indeed benefit. I'm guessing that even Mr. Prescott would put disclaimers on his off-the-cuff remark. I would also guess he is embarassed about the way your cited story reduces his economic analysis to something you might find on Slashdot.
Re:So he supports.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The people that used to like Bush before now basically LOVE him. Most Bush supporters treat him like a golden idol, even the handful of Bush voters I know of here in blue Baltimore. And in the Kerry camp it's the opposite, with either complete dislike or sometimes hatred of Bush. Myself, I can't even watch him on TV without at least some small feeling of nausea.
So while not all of us Americans are 'stupid' as you said, we are headed towards destruction with the full-blown partisan warfare that has already been initiated with the efforts to galvanize the Republican base. If we're lucky Bush might attempt a bipartisan agenda this term, if nothing else than for legacy reasons. But given his record I'm not too optimistic.
Sorry for the offtopic rant, I just need to blow off some post-election steam.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Plain numbers: US can improve efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of my post is that US can cut energy consumption AND maintain current production level by investing in efficient production methods. I have assumed that US and EU are comparable in economic and industrial development, quality of life etc.
The Bush administration has actively supported ineffective production in US by adding special taxes on steel imports to protect ineffective american industry.
This was a popular move because it saved jobs in the steel industry, what is less known is that it cost more jobs in the car manufacturing industry due to higher prices and hence reduced sale.
EU has invested hugely to improve efficiency and was outcompeeting US industry. The import tax was ruled illegal by the WTO, and resulted in counter meassures, hurting american industry - again.
Many ask, why do US have to reduce emissions and China or India not? Well, there you have it, if the whole world consumed the amount same of energy per person as US, the consumption would 5-double.
Re:It's no burden on Russia to support the treaty (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, the treaty stipulates that pollution levels cannot rise above their level about fifteen years ago.
Fifteen years ago, Russia was still Soviet and had a lot more heavy industry. They were a massive polluter. These days, they don't have as much industry anyway, so they won't have to institute controls to meet targets."
So basically.. Russia is still a mess right now, even worse than Soviet days. They have no money and need to concetrate on getting their country going. Fair enough. Once they manage to do this to the point they match where they were 15 years ago and get some money they then need to worry about being a good citizen.
This sounds fair to me since. I can't see any other way to get a poor country to come on board with something like this.
If the US was on board and got themselves compliant NOW then in perhaps 10-15years when Russia needed to worry about changing things for the environment the US would have a huge advantage because they would already be finished. All US industry would could go ahead opperating as normal while Russia is now spending money upgrading. And because the US was first it would likely have patents on all the cool technology that Russia/China/India needed to use. More money for the US! And the US would have industries of environmental improvement companies finishing their work in the US looking for new markets to sell their services to.
It is amazing to me how bad things are in the US right now that many citizens can't look more than a couple years into the future. What about sacraficing a little to make things a lot better for your own children and grandchildren?
Re:Jobs (Score:1, Insightful)
Please name one such country. The third world is in its most part trying to comply with the protocol. And yes, they do have to reduce emmissions
Re:a good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
You realise, though, that there is some timeline involved, don't you? It doesn't have to happen immediately after the ratification of the protocol. Also, other countries have actually agreed to reduce their CO2 pollution, and partly already reduced their emission. I'm not aware of any bad consequences because of that.
Apart from that, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the US emits 20.1 metric tons of CO2 per year and capita, the EU 8.5, China 2.3. Now, China is not fair to compare to, since the economy and standard of living are still quite below the so called first world, but I have a hard time understanding why the US needs to emit 2.5 as much per citizen compared to the EU. One should think that the "starting position" in the US to reduce CO2 emission should be better than in the EU.
Re:Okay.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad as it is, I don't think mr. Bush really needs alleged extra money this will save/earn him.
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that Kyoto protocol is an international treaty, and as such reduces number of such hypothetical countries? And specifically, it is to be ratified by all significant industrialized countries. The reason for this is exactly to prevent unfair competition between countries.
Re:Jobs (Score:3, Insightful)
He has never EVER cared for the american worker, he cares about the american investor. and having tighter pollution regs will increase operation costs and lower stock values and make lots of investors less money.
I.E. pollution regulations are very bad for the wealthy. they will have to make 1-2% less in profits each year they have to comply with them, thus pay out less dividends and have overall lower stock growths.
THIS is what worries Bush. It will significantly affect the filthy rich and their abilities to get even richer easily.
Re:You're right (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think slashdot is "radical left" you need to spend some quality time in Cambridge or Berkeley. I'd say ranging through moderate left, substantially libertarian, and occasionally (IP and corporate issues) touching on anarchist. Multilateral, in this case, I'll grant you; global warming is obviously a global problem, and addressing it will require cooperation among nations.
(as evidenced by the anti-Bush rhetoric and pro-Kerry numbers in the polls recently)
Sucks to be in the minority, doesn't it? Life isn't fair! Nobody's making you stay here; you can avoid political threads or articles, or just leave /. entirely and hang out at freerepublic. On the other hand, it's substantially more difficult for me to avoid the impact of laws and policies I find abhorrent. It's all but impossible for me, or anyone else, to avoid the impact of global warming, without the imposition of constraints on CO2 emissions. Somehow, I'm feeling less than sympathetic for your situation.
isn't going to let you live it down though.
If you take any position here you can expect a rebuttal from someone. That's kinda the point.
I'm burning karma right now, but who gives a shit
If that's a ploy to avoid being modded down for a reply that isn't relevant to the topic, I don't think it's going to work.
as if caring what this crew thought is somehow important.
which you obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't waste your time replying.
When the US won't defend your ass
If by "your" you mean other countries, it seems to me, based on conversations with many people around the world, quite a few see our "protection" as being at best misguided, and at worst in the finest tradition of the Mafia. I'm all for our allies picking up more of the tab for their own protection if they find it necessary.
If by "your" you mean those of us in the US who disagree with you, I'm quite capable of defending myself (nice thing about being a left-libertarian is you can support all the amendments). But when did agreement with a particular side become a litmus test for patriotism, anyway? I'm pretty convinced you're misguided about environmental policy, but I don't think the US should sell you down the river because of it.
Look, this may be difficult to believe, but most of us are in favor of Kyoto and other measures to address global warming because we believe it is in our long-term best interest, not because we want to hand the keys to the country over to the UN or foreign nations. We're racking up environmental debt. Sooner or later we're going to have to pay up, and there won't be a mommy and daddy to bail us out.
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed! What many americans do not realize is that non-americans dislike of George is and was based on many things other than Iraq. GWB basically gave the middle-finger salute to the rest of the world right after becoming the president in 2000: refusing to join land-mine treaty and international court of war crimes, along with Kyoto protocol; and doing so without any diplomatic tact. In many cases excuses given were ridiculous ("gee, in the court it could happen that americans would get prosecuted and that would be bad"... yeah, saints like, say, torturers at that iraqi prison). Iraq really is the icing on the cake: important, but not the sole reason.
The whole presidential election was like a bad dream: and yes, it's hard to believe how dumb the middle class here is.
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Heavy metals are found everywhere in Greenland now, and there's no way of avoiding ingestion of it.
Fuck Bush and his capitalist wet dreams.
I don't care about the dozen people who are going to add me to their 'Foes' list because I said something bad about their flawless god-blessed country nor the half-dozen mods who readily are going to mod me down.
This is my opinion and I stand by it:
America is the home of the egotistical, the hypocrites, the polluters of the world.
The last one wasn't just physically.
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Jobs (Score:3, Insightful)
Take, for instance, the catalytic converter in your car - the catalytic converter reduces fuel efficiency and performance somewhat by creating backpressure in the exhaust manifold. Obviously, the emissions benefit is a large net positive, but given the choice, a lot of people would run their cars without a catalytic converter because (a) they wouldn't have to buy the converter and (b) their fuel efficiency and performance would be better. Laws require you to have a properly installed catalytic converter on your car.
Now, the issue that is of concern to our government (not just Bush, but also the Senate, which preemptively refused to ratify Kyoto in 1997, with a resolution [loc.gov] sponsored by Democrat Robert Byrd that passed 95-0, including a yes vote from Senator John Kerry [senate.gov]) is similar to what would happen to cars if catalytic converters were prohibitively expensive to operate. People wouldn't buy cars, and what's more, people would likely move to a country where they were allowed to run a car without a catalytic converter.
The same is true here - if environmental regulations make operating an industry too expensive in the U.S., then companies will (a) close down plants in the U.S., and (b) likely move those plants overseas to the countries who are already producing the most pollution per dollar GDP but who are exempt from the regulations of Kyoto (such as China).
Obviously, one American job is much more important (Score:2, Insightful)
Sigh.
Re:Jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there is the whole issue of Tragedy of the Commons [wikipedia.org]. Why shouldn't YOU implement these measures, and I'll keep to my old ways. It is cheaper for me to not buy the catalytic converter, and because everyone else is polluting less, I still enjoy cleaner air. But that only works when I am the only one who thinks that way. When everyone thinks that way, we have the Tragedy of the Commons [wikipedia.org]. So we need some kind of incentive to make sure everyone sees the advantages of cleaner air and less pollution.
Re:To review... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So ? (Score:1, Insightful)
wake up you damn bush loving dumbass!
going along as if nothing is wrong will do nothing but ensure that the destruction of our own habitat occurs!
Being in blissful ignorance will not save your children's oceanside property from higher sea levels, or stop their farmland from becoming a dustbowl.
It will be gone.
You damn fools keep saying there's no evidence, meanwhile the permafrost of the northern hemisphere is very quickly melting away causing a huge soil erosion problem, the glaciers are retreating fast, the arctic sea ice forms so late that polar bears (and inuit) can't hunt. Hundreds of species are breeding and migrating weeks earlier putting them out of phase with their food sources
wake up! you just don't want to see the trouble we've caused.
Ask yourself why BUSH forced government scientists to re-write their conclusions when they presented strong evidence of global warming? Ask why he had all evidence of it removed from all government web sites!
There is a million times more evidence for the damage we are doing and its lead to global warming then there ever was to support invading Iraq!
Stupid fucking americans! Can't see any reason to save the world even for the sake of their own children.
Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing (Score:3, Insightful)
I take it you didn't follow the rhetorics Bush/Cheney gang used on election 2004... :-)
I recall those 2 particular excuses were excessively used, to dupe people to vote for them.
(other than that I agree in most of the points -- indeed it's the power most such folks are after. And with power, you can get wealth reasonably easily)
Re:Jobs (Score:3, Insightful)
But treaties against prostitution (as opposed to slavery) and drug dealing are pointless. Never in the history of mankind have we been able to effectively curtail either. We can shift the control (and profits) into the hands of mobsters, dictators, and terrorists, or we can learn to live with behaviour among consenting adults that some people consider immoral and address them from a medical and sociological perspective. Your choice, but as you're thinking about your decision, pay attention to who's raking in the profits from those poppy fields.
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
We'd take all of the profits out of drug dealing if we decriminalized them. Yes, prostitution does in fact create jobs. It should be legal.
It's legal to be a slut, but it's illegal to be a whore? That makes no sense. It's illegal to sell something that it's perfectly alright to give away for free. Why?
LK
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:5, Insightful)
As I see it, this is a very dark time for the US. Our leadership rejects science when the results don't agree with their policies, they promote religion as the answer to moral and ethical questions (bad idea), and their skill in diplomacy is about what I would expect to see from a bully on a fifth grade playground.
Remember, although a record number of people voted to elect W, a record number of people also voted against him. Those people are now screaming for help. Now more than ever we need help from our friends and allies abroad to help control this country from going off the deep end.
Just because a slight majority elected W don't abandon the rest of us.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
And you are an ignoramus. Check out Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for details if you don't take my word:
The Kyoto protocol was specifically designed to hamper american economic dominance
This is so silly it's hard to even comment. Maybe try wearing looser tin foil hat?
A treaty that places tight restrictions on CO2 coming from developed countries, but no restrictions what so ever on developing countries like China
Uh, China has ratified the damn thing! 80/20 rule also applies here: of course it's better to focus on the biggest producers. Who cares if, say, Gambia reduces its Co2 production by 12% if USA continues its excessive Co2-producing energy consumption? Likewise, although limits could be set to be, say, equal amounts per capita, those would be meaningless for third world countries: they'd have to increase production tenfold to reach such limits.
There's no reason to ask the US taxpayers to actually pay for an outsourcing of thier jobs when the net result will actually be to increase worldwide pollution, now is there.
Increase? Huh? Even if industry did move (which it wouldn't, to any large degree), how on earth would Co2 production increase?
If the treaty had reasonable constraints on all countries, then the US should sign it, but a treaty that seeks to move dirty industries from the US (and EU, though to a lesser degree)
Actually not only has EU slightly stricter RELATIVE targets (even though it already produces less than half as much pollutants than USA, per capita), EU has already worked on reducing pollution much more efficiently than USA.
And for some weird reason, EU doesn't whine and bitch about cleanup costs. Partly because it's more densely populated, and people have experienced pollution (acid rain of 80s killing forests in Germany etc); partly because the sense of social responsibility is much higher back there.
From rhetorical stand-point, I would think USA would WANT to lead the world here... but I guess that theme is only used when there's a dictator the president has beef with. So in the meantime, it's actually that loathed pacifist continent of Europe that is actually leading the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Re:Plain numbers: US can improve efficiency (Score:3, Insightful)
How does this figure account for the number of goods and services whose actual production is outsourced to third world countries and merely managed & sold by US companies?
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at WWII for a moment. Look at all the terrible loss of life. For that matter, look at all the environmental damage that resulted. Based on your logic, Churchill and Stallin should have just handed over the keys to their countries to Hitler and saved all that. Sure a few jews would have died but many more people would have lived and the environment would not have received such harm.
I don't think so. That's not how nature works, human or otherwise. Survival is about taking care of #1. We're not all one big happy family. I'm going to make sure that I survive and my family survives regardless of the cost to anyone or anything else. THAT is how the president or any other political leader makes his decisions.
If you'll read that Yahoo story you'll find that's exactly why Russia decided to sign. They are looking out for their own immediate interests and don't give a wet shit about what it does to the US or anyone else. That's as it should be.
.
Re:To review... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that would have been unconstitutional, as Al Gore has never held the office of President. His signature would mean nothing.
Re:Plain numbers: US can improve efficiency (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be implying that steel was given to US for free, which I have hard time believing. Maybe it's just a bad analogy. But since WTO in general has also outlawed government support for industries (such as steel producers...), how else would it be possible to sell cheaper steel than by more efficient production? Isn't that EXACTLY what free trade is all about?
Of course the real answer is that there are always double-standards when conservatives talk about Free Trade: it's touted as long as it's convenient; then there are lots of excuses for scrapping freedom with respect to certain industry.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately it's difficult to see how you can change an agenda dominated by right-wing Christian fundamentalists: you cannot argue with these people, they are quite happy to choose their president based on only one issue (abortion) because the Church tells them to do so. Hate to say it, but they are apparently as impossible to reason with as Islamic terrorists.
The situation with America is very tricky indeed: the country appears to be deeply divided politically and worse, that division is split cleanly between geographic regions with the coastal city (more educated) areas blue and the middle states voting red.
Deep political divisions along geographical lines is historically a recipe for civil war. I think it's very unlikely to happen, but there's no denying the lessons of history. May we all hope that it is not so.
Re:It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, that's why Denmark has committed itself to cut CO2-emissions to 18% below the 1990 level, which was only half the US emission level per capita. It's a really subtle ploy, and I haven't figured out how it will do its dirty deed and ruin US economy, but I'm sure I'll work it out soon.
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how virtually every other country in the world appears to think it's not horribly flawed.
I guess Americans are just a lot smarter than everybody else. After all, they can see it's flawed, but the people in other developed nations can't. That explanation makes perfect sense.
Re:Why Russia already signed on, and other fun fac (Score:4, Insightful)
The main counter-point here, though, is the question of "but how do europeans do it". Otherwise it might be a reasonable stand... but really, what with Bad Socialism, strong labor unions and high taxes, somehow (western) Europe still has similar standards of living to that of US, and they seem to be able to afford to comply with Kyoto protocol.
Same also applies to, say, China and Japan, both of which seem serious enough about compliance.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:1, Insightful)
And, whether or not the U.S. has many international "friends" at the present moment, the rest of the world will have to continue to care what America does. At least for a while. Like it or not, America is still a very economically powerful country, and (unfortunately) currently a very militarily active country. It would be a VERY dangerous time to decide to not care about what America does. Not least because if you (and the rest of the world) stop caring, the chances that those of us who would like things to be different here will actually be able to have some effect grow smaller and smaller. You won't help the situation by calling Americans retarded or idiots or insulated (even if, in some cases, those labels might be true). Please don't give the other half more fuel for their fire.
Finally, although your point about different countries being different is true, and it might not be fair, why should they be allowed to pollute while they "modernize"? Does it matter where the pollution comes from? Is it better if it comes from a developing country than from one already relatively modern? Otherwise, those countries are just as self-serving as you claim Americans to be. I'm not against helping them modernize, but I don't think giving different pollution allowances will make that happen in a socially or globally responsible manner.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The USA uses 40% of the world oil supply... (Score:1, Insightful)
what we are talking about here is the fact that the largest and richest polluter in the world is been requested by the rest of the world to stop adding to the growing problem of global climate change.
Now there are a number of things to notice in this sentence,
first, largest polluter per person or per want ever you like in the world.
second, They are the riches in the world.
So we have the rest of the world asking the biggest polluter to clean up its act using some of its great wealth, which it made by polluting the world, and resource before it is to late.
Why should the rest of the world suffer from affects of global warming and climate change due to the greed of the US and its 4.6% world population?
I am sure that most people believe that if someone is responsible for making a mess that it is that persons responsibility to clean that mess up. A lesson many of us learn as youngsters and a lesson which we use daily in our adult lives. Now the question is, why it is that this mature well developed country is been asked by the countries of the world to help clean up the mess that it has made and yet refuse to step up and take its portion of the blame claiming its just responsibilities?
Re:You must be joking (Score:3, Insightful)
Except for the britons none of the others were sure enough to go to war.
"What happened to Daniel Pearl was an attrocity. The killing of hundreds of innocent schoolchildren in Beslan by Muslim terrorists is an attrocity. Wearing panties on your head and being forced to pose nude for photographs is not an attrocity -- except in your morally twisted mind."
How about having a chemical light shoved up your ass? How about being beaten to death? How about having your chest kicked hard enough to break a couple of ribs? How about being strapped to a board and continually dunked in the river? How about being crucified to a jail door for days at a time? How about having shit smeared on you and being harnessed in a crufix pose for days at a time? How about having chunks of meat taken out of your thighs by a german shepard? How about being raped repeatedly by solder after soldier?
Every single one of those was admitted to by the Army? What kind of sick and degenerate moral upbringing do you have that you can excuse this? exactly how sadistic are you?
YOu are able to excuse any act no matter how vile as long as that act was committed by a republican. I feel sorry for everyone around you. You are clearly a deranged being.
Why don't you shove a chemical light up your son's ass and tell him it's just like having panties on his head.
Bush makes money from oil (Score:2, Insightful)
War in Iraq drives up the price of oil and makes Bush money.
Gas guzzling SUVs are exempt from many emmission control legislation. Expect no changes there.
Kyoto would impact on oil consumption, directly as well as indirectly through raising environmental awareness.
Re:Jobs (Score:3, Insightful)
"God Bless America, and America only!"
I am an american, and i am utterly sick of the hypocracy my country spouts out. State sponcered terrorism, pollution, agression, etc. Its ridiculous. We're the Fscking bullies of the world, and our mass media never mentions it. We need the smaller children of the playground to get together and confront the bully.
Re:Bush makes money from oil (Score:2, Insightful)
And how do you explain requests to OPEC to further boost productivity, which was to (in theory) lower the price of oil? OPEC is pumping oil at near its maximum capabilities. Part of that is a result of instability, but a larger part of it was the increasing demand for oil in the Asian markets, particularly in China. Beijin even took the step of boosting the oil price internally to slow consumption because the price increases were getting out of hand.
Life would be a lot happier if oil could get pushed back to around $35 per barrel -- even for Bush.
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
In any capitalist society, no job equates to begging and starving. Most people in their lifetime will be 'between jobs' at some stage. This is one of the reasons a good few of the European countries have SocialDemocrat parties polling 25%-40% of the votes. In Europe people tend to value quality of life, and hence social security.
I read the website http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/, the future predicted there will affect the average American more than the average European. Peak Oil has happened, now we have to live with it.
Night night.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in Illinois and I know for a fact that about 80% of my electricity comes from coal power. EPA requires power companies to report these facts. So we can't be like China is coal, coal bad, we're not China, we good. My city doesn't even have a single recycling program, and trash is not separated.
While it might be true that the US is one of the most efficient, i.e. lowest pollution per GDP, US is by far not the smallest offender, esp. when you look at pollution per capita, they are ten times worse off than China.
Why should we expect China to be subject to the same levels of pollution restriction that the US didn't have to back when US GDP levels were the same as China's? Cities don't go from no electricity to efficient nuclear power -- there are gonna be growing pains, where there may be undesireable levels of pollution, because they don't have the capital or the advanced technology that the US has. If US is so confident about its ability to be efficient, Bush should go ahead and sign the protocol already.
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
In response to your points:
1. The US population is a fraction under 300 million people (source: CIA World Factbook [cia.gov]). The world population is around 6.3 billion people (source: CIA World Factbook [cia.gov]). The US population is therefore around 3% of the world population which, in my book at least, makes it a relatively small fraction - consider that India and China between them account for 2.3 billion people - over a third of the worlds population!
2. You are right, it is not only the US. If you look at the figures for CO2 emissions, you will find that the US accounts for around 36% of all emissions (source: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [unfccc.int]) - far higher than their 3% of the population would attest to. In fact, it is double what the next largest polluting nation (Russia) emits. You will find that the figures for other pollutants are similar.
3. The US currently has a huge budget deficit. According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the deficit for goods (i.e. tangible things rather than services) was:$150.8 billion (source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis [bea.gov]). Contrary to your comment, this would suggest that the US imports far more than it exports.
So why should Bush sign Kyoto? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a single senator 99-0 signed up for Kyoto as it stands. Bush and Kerry both have said they would not sign it as it stood, both said they would sign it if changes were made.
The US is decreasing it's per-capita emissions at a faster rate than Canada has since signing the treaty.
So if the entire government refused to move forward with it and the US is reducing it faster than nations who signed up for it... what good would it be?
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:4, Insightful)
-fred
Re:The USA uses 40% of the world oil supply... (Score:2, Insightful)
We Americans live in a sociopathic society. Instant gratification is the only gratification we recognize. Combine that with an absolute avoidance of any personal responsibility, and you find yourself in a very frightening landscape of citizens who never emotionally developed beyond the toddler stage. Your average American doesn't really understand themselves or their own motivations. The things they see on TV translates directly into belief or action with little or no reasoning in the middle. Our entire political system amounts to little more than a highschool popularity contest. We are obsessed with social heirarchies ranging from which Jesus freak is the most holy to who has the largest penis-compensating SUV. We measure our worth by the sum of what we consume. How can Americans possibly wrap such a shallow and reflexive paradigm around a worldwide problem such as global warming?
Now, you can preach business and globalization into infinity to justify all the suffering we have wreaked upon the world. You can talk debt forgiveness and job creation and industrialization of our basic needs until doomsday. But at the end of the day, when the economics textbooks are closed and the offices are locked up for the night, we are still bombing villages and torturing civilians in secret facilities around the world. No society that does this can claim advancement, and no society that even tries to justify it can claim moral superiority.
If America was still a great country, we would never have been conquered by neo-fascists using nothing more than money. Twice. In a row.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:4, Insightful)
But since neither are Annex I countries, they have no targets to meet until 2012. Its like all those countries in Bush's "coalition" in Iraq, they signed up for the coalition without having to actually *do* anything, whether provide money or troops. China and India are effectively still bystanders.
We can all die from toxic air and global warming.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jobs (Score:3, Insightful)
Now passing treaties and such to help the environment is another issue which I generally support, but you must make the distinction. The government isn't here to tell companies how to run themselves, and though this treaty in some cases may make companies more profitable long-term, that is at best a nice side-effect of the treaty but not a founding reason to pass it.
Cheers
Re:So why should Bush sign Kyoto? (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of making money on goods, one can make money on services, and that is where I truly think we are headed, to a services based economy where physical goods are only worth what you'll pay for the service to keep them working.
Re:Plain numbers: US can improve efficiency (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that doesn't excuse the US from Kyoto.
Kyoto asks for a 29% CO2 reduction by 2010. The only major countries not signing up are the US and Australia.
Are they offering a 20% reduction? No.
Are they offering a 10% reduction? No
Are they offering any reduction whatsoever? No.
Seeing as the US also produces 23% of the world's CO2, and given that Kyoto might actually save human civilisation, you might forgive the rest of the world for being angry at this.
I wonder what would happen if the world boycotted those US goods.
Re:This man is unbelievable. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Individual responsibility" doesn't work when it comes to the environment. If I buy up a factory, and unilaterally spend the money required to reduce emissions, I can't manufacture competitively, and go broke trying. It has to be done all together. Demanding government action doesn't make us do-nothing whiners: it makes us realists.
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's friggin' scary to watch (even) from abroad. From another planet, perhaps...
Falling giants are no good.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right, he did. In his mind it would have been so much easier if the other government leaders would just cave in to his wishes so he could do what was best for Germany. He felt that some countries needed to suffer and their suffering would be for the good of Germany. And what was good for Germany would also be what was good for the rest of the world.
This sham of a treaty is much the same. Some countries, such as the US, must be made to suffer for the benefit of some other select few. Anytime the US suffers it must be good for the world.
This "treaty" works under the common assumption that it is never ok for anyone to suffer unless they are in the US. That really is the reason for its popularity. Nobody really cares if it would do any real good for the environment, it makes Americans suffer and is therefore a victory for the rest of the world.
Re:Financial Benefits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Kyoto protocol is just bad. The U.S. ambassador who helped write the thing was Al Gore.
Bush doesn't like competition (Score:3, Insightful)
what about porn? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jobs?! (Score:3, Insightful)
I vaguely remember someone, possibly in the Bush administration, suggesting this was a natural cycle and is really the "greening" of the Earth coming out an ice age, so as long as you just spin it right there is no problem here.
Unfortunately its happening rather fast for a natural cycle and to fast for many species to adapt so it may lead to extinctions.
It's more than Kyoto... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush seems to think that a) there are no global-scale problems, b) even if there were, they should not be solved through collective action and c) the U.S. has a divine right to screw the rest of the world, take their resources, install oppressive regimes, etc etc.
The rest of the world doesn't like getting screwed. And half of the U.S. voters are smart enough and civilised enough to realize that sometimes co-operation is the better way. But it doesn't matter - the world isn't a democracy, and as we know, a few idiots in the "heartland" have taken all the world along for a demonstration of what happens when you let Enron-style capitalism and religious fundamentalism run things.
The good news is that now we'll all find out who is right. Are those who warn of the dire consequences of unilateralism, pre-emptive war, environmental destruction etc etc. just being whiny, or not? Maybe global warming really is just a conspiracy among scientists who want attention and funding. Maybe freedom and U.S.-style free markets will bloom in Iraq, and be so wonderful that the Palestinians will realize that they should strop trying to get back their land and go get a job for McDonalds. Maybe the "expert" opinions of the NAS, or the U.N., or our oldest allies, are just plain wrong, and reality will yield to faith.
I'm rather curious, actually. It's not every day that you get a chance to see your beliefs put to the test. Besides, it'll be fun - kinda like watching NASCAR; it's more fun when you think there will be a wreck.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's not a start. I wish it were. Think it through. If the treaty puts first-world countries, which pollute less by any reasonable measure than developing countries, at even more of an economic disadvantage than they already are with respect to manufacturing and other high-energy-usage industries, then what exactly do you think is going to happen? Right: pollution in the first world goes down, but pollution in the third world goes up by at least as much, because even more (environmentally unrestricted) economic production will happen in China and the other countries which aren't restricted in the same way than would happen without the treaty. Hence, at least as much global pollution for the amount of economic output as we already have, if not more. In other words, at best no net win for the world, and quite possibly a net loss for the world, but a definite economic loss for the U.S. and other first world countries.
So the reason for not signing it is that it probably doesn't represent a net improvement but a net loss.
Because the nature of the problem is global and the economic interactions are similarly global, it doesn't make sense to enforce such a treaty except globally -- either all countries with any real industrial capacity or potential sign it, or none do. Otherwise the source of the pollution will just move around, rather than being quenched, and you won't end up with a net pollution decrease, but a net increase.
Now, all of this makes one big assumption: that it's more expensive per unit of production to produce less pollution. That isn't necessarily true, of course, but any method of production which is more economically efficient and which produces less pollution will be adopted anyway, no treaty required.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, at this point I've got no more sympathy for the US. We deserve everything that's coming to us. An inflamed sense of grievance, whether merited or not, is no reason to abandon basic common sense.
Re:American Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
No one even asks whether it's all just a load of FUD which has no basis in truth. and that not only might slow down the rapid climate changes, but also not hurt a single job anywhere, ever ?
This is slashdot, the hell-hounds of FUD-spotting should be running rampant and see this for what it is.
This has nothing to do with jobs, other than in the sense that mentioning them might allow Bush to do what he pleases.
Not that he really needs excuses anymore. You guys just basically gave him the key to the country and a pat on the back, while you collectively decided to look the other way and let the overlord of the end justifying the means runs your country.
May god have mercy on your souls.
Gee, I read the whole article.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm sure he'll love the jobs created.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Antarctica. Greenland.
Ice on land tends to run off the land when it melts.
Re:You must be joking (Score:3, Insightful)
Aahh a republitard. Totally and completely ignorant and hapy about it. First of all read the armies report. The US army medical examiner has ruled the deaths of multiple afghani prisoners of war as murder. That's right murder. Now I don't expect you'll do your own research but just google. I did a google and these two links were on the first page, there are many more if you are brave enough to look.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05
http://www.guardian.co.uk
Of course now that I have proven to you that the US military beat prisoners to death you will excuse that too.
"Again, show me proof. Thus far, no such incidents have been publicized. You're the one making the accusations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you don't have it, you're just fabricating things again. You sure you're not Dan Rather?"
Har Har Har. Dan Rather. Har HAr Har. Man I bet that kills with your republitard friends huh. Hed did you see those pictures of prisoners that were crufied on jail doors and metal beds? Har Har HAr that shit is funny. Hey did you see the picture of that prisoner that was handcuffed to a stair railing for three days? Har HAr HAr, that's some funny shit huh?
"Where was your moral outrage when Uday and Qusay were running rape rooms in Baghdad? Where was your anger when Abu Ghraib was being run by Saddam's goons"
Hey I am a liberal. I was protesting the reagan administration when they were supporting saddam. I joined amnesty international and supported them when they published all the sadistic things saddam has done. While Bush Sr and Rumsfeld were giving money and chemicals to Saddam me and my friends were trying to get people to vote against them and supporting their opposition.
"It reminds me why I'm glad I'm nothing like you."
Nothing makes me happier then to know I am not like you. You are sick, sadistic retard. You are one of those people who get better longer lasting erections when you hear about people being killed in your name and tortured. Do you tell your wife or girlfriend you are picturing a prisoner being sodomized with a broomstick when you are fucking her?
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves rather than their personal welfare?
Kyoto is in the best interests of the US, just not within the next 10 years. Besides sometimes what's in the best interest of a country isn't so easy to judge. For instance ratifying Kyoto would give a lot of people a warm fuzzy feeling, isn't that in the best interest of the country? What about the warm fuzzy feelings from other countries, isn't that beneficial?
I don't think so. That's not how nature works, human or otherwise. Survival is about taking care of #1. We're not all one big happy family. I'm going to make sure that I survive and my family survives regardless of the cost to anyone or anything else. THAT is how the president or any other political leader makes his decisions.
You know I think I have a counter example to your point, governments! If everyone was only looking out for #1 then no one would be looking out for eachother and everyone would suffer, people figured this out a long time ago which is why we have governments. In fact it's so simple a concept that even governments have figured it out, which is why we have NATO, the UN, and other treaties. The fact is that sometimes ensuring your survival requires taking a short term hit for a long term gain, like Kyoto.
Look at WWII for a moment. Look at all the terrible loss of life. For that matter, look at all the environmental damage that resulted. Based on your logic, Churchill and Stallin should have just handed over the keys to their countries to Hitler and saved all that. Sure a few jews would have died but many more people would have lived and the environment would not have received such harm.
This analogy is far fetched enough that I haev to think you were trying to invoke a Godwin reference
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Less People (Score:2, Insightful)
Think it is called the "Ronald Regan method of dealing with AIDS".
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
To my mind, "intelligence" isn't a gift, it's a responsibility. Helping to maintain the balance is MUCH more important. More important than your mortgage rates, more important than your particular kids. WAY more important than the drivel that'll get replied to this msg.
Not a troll.
Re:Jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats why i write to the president and congress telling them not to endorse the treaty. Remeber in america even if the president does sign it, it doesn't mean anything untill the congress aproves of it.
From the start the Kyoto protocal was seen as a punish or steal from the americans and give to the rest of the world. Your post kind of echos that with a but if "take that" This treaty is just the wrong one.
Even if we do ignore all the people thats saying global warming isn't happening or that the cause is somethign other then what is popularly being claimed, we cannot support the kyoto treaty as it is writen. We can however create a fair plan of action that deals with it. Going back to president clinton, our leaders in america knew that kyoto protocal was bad news. It doesn't measn they are out to destroy the world, it means they aren't stupid. Our quality of air is better today then 30 years ago. This has been achived by inovation that lead to regulation not some other countries trying to punish america.
BTW, the capitolist way of using natural resorces and poluting is being used right now. To force another step in the process designed to funnel money into somone elses hads while the rest of the process remains the same is just absurd. People like you really make me think about what a bunch of ass munches the tree huggers must be. To think that it isn't ok to polute the air unless you pay someone else that isn't poluting. And you even hold that other person to a more open or less severe standard for the amount of polution. What a joke. This treaty isn't about making the world a better place. It is about taking money from one place and putting it in another. It is about making more successfule econemies less productive while rewarding the loosers.
Make a reasonable treaty and we will sign it. Keep this shit up and we will continue to laugh at the stupidity. America or americas leaders aren't against helping the enviroment. They are however against redistibuting the wealth of the nation because some poorly drafted treaty that is designed to work outside the best interest of america. If you get a chance read about all the exceptions the other countries that signed on get. Look at the countries that have only signed on because they needed to for some trade arangment. It isn't really all that popular as it is made out. Hell it doesn't even take effect until a certain amount of countries sign on so all that have signed already don't even know the effects of it.
Re:It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll further point out that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo put (according to USGS estimates) nearly 30 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. By comparison, humanity injects 7.7 billion tons per year. Global climatic effects of the eruption were net reductions in global temperatures, although arguably these were the result of airborne ash and not anything to do with CO2. Still, the point is clear: the global temp depends on a lot of things other than CO2. I'll also point out this study paper concludes that a 1% fluctuation in solar output can be equal to all CO2 emissions worldwide -- manmade or otherwise! In the grand scheme of things, C02 is actually a relatively small player when it comes to global weather, at least as far as we understand it now.
NASA research indicates that if all countries implemented all facets of the Kyoto accords, global temps would be affected by about 0.7C by the year 2050 -- almost too small to measure! I can provide source links if you like, but if you google for it, you'll find it. I didn't even have to look hard.
The point of all this is simple: we don't know enough to make any decisions at this point, certianly not ones that have deleterious effects to large numbers of people (be they Americans, Ukranians, or Belgians, it doesn't matter -- nobody likes losing their job). The U.S. is not being selfish by refusing to sign the treaty, it is being sensible. Other countries signing it have everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. Politically, it's great for them, and I doubt the environmental side of it comes into play very much. After all, some of the dirtiest, unhealthiest air on the planet can be found in India, China, and Russia. Do they care about the environment? I doubt it. Do they care about damaging the U.S. economically? Absolutely.
Re:Okay.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is that the democratic president wasn't all that good. Most of his votes were either diehard dems or convinced bush bashers. There are millions of people that think bush has done an alright job or believe that kerry would have done that much worse. Sure a few votes came from the moral high ground. My former clinton vote however picked bush because he was actually the lessor of 2 evils. When will people understand that?
Maybe if some people would set thier hatred aside and look at the situation they would have seen it too. Most everyn one i know that voted for Kerry did so because they have somethign against bush NOT BECAUSE KERRY WAS BETTER. Well not every one thinks bush is the root of all evil that stole the 2000 election. Most of society sees him as a person doing a job and rated his ability to do that job compared to the percieved ability of the chalenger. Thats why kerry lost.
Re:You must be joking (Score:3, Insightful)
Second the links work just fine for people of average intelligence. Slashdot mangles URLS on purpose and you have to fix them.
Third I am shocked that those are the only pictures you found try memoryhole. There are lots more pictures and movies which were never released. Rumsfeld discribed them as "sadistic and sick". I would shudder to think what rumsfeld thinks is sadistic.
Fouth. I am not tarnishing the entire military. The republitard I was talking to thought that the worse anybody did was to put some panties on somebodies head. I wanted to set him straight.
Fifth. Nobody knows what is going on in the prisons in afghanistan, yemen, quatar or cuba. There have been many reported deaths in afghanistan prisons for example.
Sixth The US military has killed 16 thousand innocent civillians in iraq alone. It has most likely killed over a 100,000 people it classifies as combatants of whom the vast majority were conscripts. That's just iraq and that's just up to now. For what nobody seems to know. The reasons keep changing. We are about to go into faluja and kill another five to ten thousand people because they refuse to obey Allawi. How much sense does that make? So all those military members who did not torture anybody are going to run into a city with tanks and helicopters and take a few thousand more lives. Well at least they killed them with guns huh? That's much better then beating them to death huh?
It is you who is not thinking. It is you who blindly accepts whatever GW says. It is you who has swallowed all the propaganda.
As for evolution, I thought you guys didn't believe in that.
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Intelligence is not a gift, it is a responsibility. Those with greater intelligence also carry a greater burden. It is up to us to care for those with less intelligence animals and other humans alike.
Unfortunately this message keeps getting lost in our current "me me" society.
Re:Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
> he didn't sign any of those treaties either
As others have pointed out, he was probably more diplomatic about it.
GWB's reasoning was slightly more polite than "STFU".
> Would you like it if america started just
> walking
> inot other countries and aresting thier citizens
> and bringing them to trial for laws not even
> passed in thier country?
Sounds like Guantanamo Bay to me.
Also, CIA and friends is deporting prisoners into 3rd-party countries where "other questioning methods" are allowed.
Additionally, several American citizens are held "incommunicado" in undisclosed location in the US.
So much for your constitution.
You are really diverting the discussion: the point of the ICC was to make sure, things like in Bosnia would never happen again - and if they happen again, the *leaders* could be properly prosecuted.
So, if you think about it, had the US signed the ICC-treaty, someone might have brought Donald Rumsfeld to the ICC over Abu Ghraib, not some poor underling like England or Graner !
The Bush-administration knew fully what they were doing, even back then.
Rainer
Yes, it's worse. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's reasonable thinking, therefor not applicable to the situation. Take for instance Iraq. Right, Iraq.
The consequences of an invasion had been foretold many times before. By players from all colours and religions, so this is not some "Liberal whining".
We are there now, a region that's less stable, and less viable, more fundamentalist, and strangely with less liberty for its inhabitants. Yes, a puzzler, but suddenly women and girls who like to live are finding they will have to wear shrowds and hide everything.
Also, a region that introduces more weapons to the general population and its neighbours, most of US manufacture, but also lots of old stockpiles.
Also between here and twenty years a region that most likely will go through a very violent reshuffeling of its borders.
All in all, a risky business, the right spot for diplomacy, the wrong spot for war, especially pre-emtive, illegal war, especially when it also redraws former alliances and puts a divide in "the west".
Any mention of this by US citizens are suspect. They must be unpatriotic or not realistic.
Any mention of this by non US citizens are also suspect, and slightly vulgar. We must have no backbone, no gratitude, we must love Saddam (remember? the CIA's pet for many years) and worse, we must be French (remember? the first and for a long time only nation that helped the US to its independence and even gave it the fucking statue of liberty?)
And of course, very much underestimated by us non US citizens: there's not a thing Americans won't do in the name of God (like training murderers to put machine-guns through hospitals and pregnant women and calling it "Foreign Aid") TO SUPPORT A WAR-TIME PRESIDENT.
So to come back to your point: no, at least we won't find out who's right. Most people in the know already know, but nobody at the rudder now will ever acknowledge anything, and the general population will keep fighting for its right to be ignorant, god bless.
Everybody knows Kyoto is too little too late, slightly unfair and open to debate. That's not the point. The US is not open to debate, end of story. Every scientist on the subject also knows that human influence now puts the earth through something that could "possibly" have dire consequences. This is not really contested anymore, the fight goes on in the fringes and the political arena, but the last five years things have changed, most "unbelievers" have come around. That doesn't mean dick to a crowd that thinks it's not accountable. People will never find out, imo that's a very naive way of looking at things. We already know more than enough to draw some conclusions, and scientists will undoubtably keep score. But "the people"?
Quality of life or no life? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about jobs, so much as sacrificing a way of life. If you move from a large 8 cylinder SUV to a 1.6 litre 4 cylinder car you aren't losing anyone a job as such.
Re:What?? (Score:3, Insightful)
What you meant to say was 'America' instead of 'rich industrial countries'. That's because the majority of G8 nations have actually dealt with it.
"In the end, the emissions aren't actually reduced-- it becomes just another redistributionist scheme."
Are you objecting to the fact that developing countries now have a source of income other than black poppys or that the overall GG burden doesn't actually lessen? You can't refer to it as an impossible goal, then claim that it's simply redistribution.
Re:Jobs (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Jobs (Score:3, Insightful)
> yes it does sound like it. with an exception of
> the prisoners at guantanamo were captured
> durring a war or war like situations were
That in itself is grotesque: they should be treated according to the Geneva convention.
Instead, state-departement has coined the "enemy combatant" terminus, to weasel the US out of granting them basic rights.
The sheer existance of these camps is - IMO - unforgiveable and has damaged the reputation of all Americans like nothing else (except for Abu Ghraib), just like the Nazi-concentration camps have damaged the reputation of all Germans upto today - and that was 60 years ago.
> The ICC could effectivly legislate laws into our
> own country by making somethign we do completly
> illegal
I've got a big surprise for you: it's already happening. The US does comply to forgeign-imposed legislation/descicions, through the WTO.
The European Union (the monopolies and mergers office) can (and has in the past) denied clearance to some US-based mergers when the EU is also involved.
A nationalistic rally is great and fun - while it lasts. But from our very own history I can tell you that from the moment it's over you will painfully realize that you can't eat nationalism...
cheers,
Rainer