What do you think of the Kyoto type of treaty?
460489
You're asking the right questions there, but unfortunately there's no easy answer.\n\nFor such a treaty to be more effective, it would have to include real sanctions for those who do not abide by its rules. Nations, however, are still reluctant to agree to such limitations and interference in domestic affairs. In the US, for instance, there are strong industrial lobbies that would not hesitate to withdraw their support for the administration that adhered to treaties that hurt their businesses.\n\nStudies have shown that the damage done to the environment is beyond its capacity to heal. On the other hand, nobody can force a nation to do anything, because that is a line that should never be crossed. Nobody wants another world war, especially nowadays, as such a full-scale war would definitely include nuclear arsenals and weapons of mass destruction.\n\nSadly, economic interests still dominate international affairs today. What policy makers have to realize is that the damage done to the environment will affect the economies that they were so eager to protect.
576894
I think it's a good beginning.\n\nBut Rice has brushed it aside which gives the rest of us, an opinion that they are prepared for military action, even if a diplomatic solution can be reached with some effort.
98989
I believe global warming is more natural than the enviro-Nazis are giving credit for. I believe whole-heartedly that the Earth has gone through this cycle MANY times. While our polution is having an effect, and we should not have unlimited polluting, it does not have the effect of a volcanic eruption and other natural events.\n\nI refuse to be one of those uber-whackos that thinks that we should try anything to force the human race to go back to loin cloths and spears, riding on horseback. But I also do not believe we should dump and spew everything back into the environment without thinking of the effects. There has to be a happy medium.\n\nI do not really know, as even the scientists do not really know, if we are still moving away from the last ice cycle, or we are past the opposite point and we are moving back towards another ice age. In any case, we need to try and understand it more, and the effects of everything more.\nGood question though.
1081754
First of all, I think it is going to take a tad bit longer than a few decades to heat up the planet to the point of being uninhabitable. Go sit in yellow knife naked in the middle of winter and tell me then how long you think it will take to get the planet to the point hot enough to kill you.\n\nSecond, when we do reach that point, I think we will also have devised ways of living in hotter temperatures. I am thinking more of a bio dome type of surrounding. Or somehow force us to live underground. \n\nLastly, with things like the Kyoto accord helping, maybe we can turn things around with global warming, but only if we get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels.\n\nOtherwise, we are hooped.
997939
In this enviroment of Global Warming I would say not. Cold is not cool any more, warming is hot.
891628
The problem was that "developing" countries like China and India wouldn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.\n\nAnd any environmental treaty that exempts China and India is a rather worthless environmental treaty.\n\nBush opposed it because it would be bad for U.S. producers. American companies would have to follow more rules than Chinese and Indian companies, and their prices wouldn't be as competitive.\n\nI'm no Bush fan by any means, but I suspect that he did the right thing on this (perhaps for the wrong reasons, but still). It's not that I don't support environmental protections - I do - but perhaps the U.S. refusal to sign will push countries to propose a new treaty that makes EVERYBODY play by the rules.
415508
One of the major reasons that the Bush administration has not signed the Kyoto Protocols after the US helped to draft it is due to the fact that major emitters of greenhouse gases can buy credits from countries that have lower emission rates. That means that smaller countries can sell their "credits" that they have because they are below the line required by the Kyoto Protocol to a country like Canada that produces a lot of carbon gases. Even Russia is far below their level and can make millions of dollars selling off their credits, because the line is based on things like size of land, and Russia is obviously not very populated on a sizable portion of its territory. Most of the provisions of the accords only apply to developed countries, and not to those considered "third-world" or "developing." This is considered unfair, and an unfair burden on the larger countries that have to reduce their greenhouse gas emission to 5.2% lower than their countries emission levels in 1990. \n\nFurthermore prior to the Kyoto Protocol being presented to the United States for ratification, the Senate passed a resolution, 95-0, called the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, that clearly said the US shall not sign any agreement that did not have fair guidelines for all countries, regardless of whether or not they were developed or developing. \n\nPresident Bush has said that he also does not like the separation and unfair limits for developing and developed countries, and he is wary of the strains that Kyoto would have on the United States economy. However, his unwillingness to present the Protocol to the Senate for ratification has been construed by the rest of the world and many in this country that believe that he doesn't care for the environment. Whether or not that is true as well one can decide on their own, but publicly he has mentioned the unfair limits and worries about the economy as his reasons for not presenting it for ratification. And while America is one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases, President Bush is interested in reducing it, but not through the Kyoto Protocol. Most likely that is something that will be left to the next administration in 2008, but it's another story if the environment can wait that long for the United States to start cleaning up its act.
940204
Go ahead.  Global warming is a MYTH!\n\nWe can treat them like the useless United League of Nations sanctions and ignore them, just like most of the Middle East! Why are you interested in penalizing the countries that have economies that grow instead of trying to become members of the free world economy?
1103116
GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL\n\nAny and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results. \n\nYes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.\n\nPlus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!\n\nEconomic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.\n\nSo what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.\n\nJoe...\n\n\nKEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.
61835
Without significant reform it is unlikely to continue with a meaningful existance, but I think most western nations will force this to happen before allowing it to completely dissolve.\n\nAt the end of the day it is a forum to get the nations of the world around a single table. Naturally, it is not possible to drive clear consensus in such situations. So it is difficult to criticize it because of inaction or slowness. I doubt there is a silver bullet to that particular problem.\n\nTo think the UN can resolve major issues facing the world today is niaive. At the end of the day that will fall on the shoulders of the larger nations. What it cannot do is get in the way. It must ensure dialogue is flowing and that diplomatic solutions are pursued to global issues. However once these grind to a halt or fail, it must excuse itself from the proceedings.
477128
I have to believe that we are on a downward spiral. We are depleting the primeval rain forests which provide oxygen and burning fossil ie carbon fuels which produce carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, in addition to excreting sulphur which produces sulphurous and sulphuric acid. The westernised/civilised world is reluctantly taking small steps, but the 3rd world is increasing at an alarming rate.\nGlobal warming is a fact, and the result of this within this century will be frightening both in terms of sea-level rises and also hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones. Let us see what damage is caused in the Gulf of Mexico THIS year....
427202
World-wide reductions of CO2 and CO emissions are the only hope of stopping it. IF we do not do a great amount of reduction within the next 10 years, it will be too late to stop the warming. We can expect the ice caps to melt, leading eventually to an ice age...seems odd, I know, but a fast warming will lead to massive storms that will suck down the upper atmoshpere...see the movie, "Day After Tomorrow." Not really sci fi...can, and well may happen.
630754
The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.
397758
Is global warming to our benefit?  \n\nI say this because global levels of environmental Carbon(13), an isotope of Carbon(12), is used by us geologists as a way of identifying paleo-glacial maximums.  A high Carbon(13) level coincides with periods of high glaciation (i.e. ice-age).  \n\nRight now the levels of environmental Carbon(13) are at a level that should indicate the beginnings of an Ice age.  Clearly things are getting warmer, not cooler.  So the question is: is human Carbon Dioxide/Carbon Monoxide input actually holding back the impending Ice age?\n\nAlso, why do so many people think that the atmosphere should be static.  The global temperature is always increasing or decreasing.  It's never static.
174546
- Sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, or at least take the lead in replacing it with something more than a pro-polluter smoke screen (no pun intended). \n\n - Cease the practice of unilateral "first strike" wars. You can be defensive-minded about security and be just as safe, if not moreso. But hitting first makes you look like an a-----e, especially if the information you're using to justify the war is shoddy at best. \n\n - Remove the Evangelical Christian influence on our foreign policy, especially in regards to health services and the environment. People who don't believe in the rapture/apocalypse don't appreciate it when countries go around trying to provoke it. \n\n - Cease all development of "new classes" of nuclear weapons. It makes our country look positively idiotic when we threaten Iran while developing "battlefield nukes" which are oft touted as "nukes you can actually USE!". \n\n - Finally, as the previous answer so aptly stated kick Bush the f--k out of office.
2662
The Kyoto Protocol is unfair and misleading. America would have been very heavily taxed and it's economy slowed down greatly if it had signed. The rest of the world argued that the US should pay the lion's share because it contributes more pollution than anyone else. What everyone disregards is that the US also produces more than anyone else. It's all proportional. It also excluded developing countries with no environmental policies whatsoever from contributing. If any country in the developing world had an economy as productive as the US, they would produce far more pollution than the US does. The Kyoto Protocol was a blatant and transparent attempt to hurt the US economy in the name of a problem that nobody has even been able to confirm.
928657
The simple answer is no. Anything that is considered a liberal cause does not stand a chance. The Democrats can propose the legislation, but the president will veto it. \n\nKyoto is a waste of time. It is not about pollution control or the environment. It is about punishing powerful nations. If the UN is truly interested in the environment they need to craft a treaty which does not exclude two of the world's biggest polluters (India and China). Remember that it is not only the Republicans that wouldn't sign Kyoto, the previous Democrat administration wouldn't sign it either. That should speak volumes about how worthless it really is. We should all be concerned about the environment, but it doesn't mean we should latch onto every piece of garbage that comes down the pipe on the matter. We need commonsense legislation and solutions that are not designed purely to damage our economy while strengthening others by exclusion.