Kyoto

You've never had farmyard animals have you? lol



Yup. One that adreeses everyone equeally too!

If Kyoto is to be used then it should apply to all countries equally not just those at the head of the food chain.

Besides I'm happy the US isn't involved in Kyoto.

There is no solution except to find an energy source that is as cheap, effecient, and readily available as oil is. Asking the U.S. to stop using oil is like asking a man to stop eating. Nuclear power is a possibility, but the enviros in the U.S. would flip their wigs at such a proposal. There is nothing else on this earth that will push a 4000 pound piece of metal over 400 miles for just 40 bucks worth of petrol.

Where do you buy your petrol? Not f**king California anyway!!!

Well, Kyoto by another name would suit me fine.
At what point do we ignore "global warming" altogether and admit that we are polluting our space...and in many instances, irreversibly so.
I guess this topic was bred from frustration watching tobacco companies killing people with carcinogens for profits, fast and snack food giants producing food that shouldn't be fed to livestock, corporations (like Walmart) paying employees unfair wages to increase profit margins, while Walton family members remain some of the richest in the country, and even the world, A President who wants to raise toxicity tolerances on drinking water so that big businesses don't have to pay so much for proper waste management...I mean, I could go on and on.
The crux for me is that we have all tacitly become slaves to corporate America and the almighty dollar. Attention has been directed away from anything but cheap products, cheap labour and profits, profits, profits.
The only reason Kyoto has been rejected by the US is because it would just cost too much money. Maybe we need to work our way up to what Kyoto asks, and then surpass it.

Kinda sad I think.

I understood that the reason the US was 'unfairly targeted' as implied above was because it produces more pollution per capita than anywhere else.

This is so ridiculous, it's hard to know where to begin.


Cycloptichorn

Point made loud and clear.
"I'd rather drive my big @ss SUV with total disregard for the environment than make some individual sacrifices, becasue, damn it, I want to."

And no, it's not like asking an individual to stop eating, it's more like asking an individual to give up MacDonalds, cut out trans-fats, and maybe switch to diet soda for a better future.

And with respect to being "readily available", oil is a finite resource, and at some time or another we need an alternative. Just like the ocean will someday be as polluted and contaminated as our lakes and rivers and we're going to have to clean it up, if it's even possible.
It's a pay now or pay later situation. Take your pick....actuall don't...I know you'll say "pay later because I'll be dead".
'Nuff said.

I read an article the other day about a leading activist against SUV's and the use of fossil fuels that refuses to fly on commercial air lines. Instead she uses private flights to travel that use more fuel per cross country jaunt than a Humvee would use in a year.

Priorities people, priorities.

Well, we can look backward to teh time when SUV's were created and categorized as a "pickup truck", and therefore not held to the same emission standards as every other vehicle on the road.

We can change vehicle emissions standards, but it's heavy industry that needs to come on board as well.

Europe Slips on Emissions Growth
More coal use pushes up EU greenhouse gas emissions

Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases rose by 1.5% in the EU between 2002 and 2003 according to the latest national estimates collated by the European Environment Agency. Under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the EU's 15 older member states have to cut their combined greenhouse gas emissions, averaged over the 2008-2012 period, to 8% below the 1990 level. Up to 2003 it was 2.9%. A rise in coal use for electricity generation pushed up EU emissions of greenhouse gases in 2003.

The EU's commissioner for environment, Stavros Dimas said that the figures were "disappointing" and called on EU member states to fully implement all the emission-reduction actions, both at EU and national levels. Mr Dimas also pointed out that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme was not yet in place in 2003 and remains confident that the EU will achieve its Kyoto targets once these kick in fully. The Commission also expects to spend the next few months evaluating new projections from national authorities that take account of these policies and measures.

Coal re-emerges as key factor
The 1.3% increase of greenhouse gas emissions of the 15 original member states in 2003 equates to an extra 53 million tonnes of unwanted gases. Almost half of this rise - 24 million tonnes - was due to a 2.1% increase in emissions from energy industries, caused mainly by 5% growth in electricity and heat production and in coal consumption by power stations. Coal produces higher emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, than other fossil fuels. The biggest emission rises from electricity and heat production were in those countries which substantially increased their coal use.

Emissions from households and the services sector also rose considerably (by 18 million tonnes, or 2.8%), partly due to colder than usual weather in the first quarter of the year in the same countries which increased their heating needs. Industry saw its emissions rise by 17 million tonnes, or 2.1%, while transport emissions increased by 6 million tonnes, or 0.7%.

Measures to reduce emissions
Since these figures were collected in 2003 the Commission's European Climate Change Programme has identified 42 European measures to help reach the Kyoto targets in cost-effective ways. Most of these measures are now in place and should hopefully also have a positive effect on the results in years to come.

For instance, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme was launched only on 1 January this year. Directives on the taxation of energy products and the promotion of biofuels in transport also become effective only this year. Some proposals, for example for controlling emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases used in air conditioning, are still awaiting adoption by the EU institutions.

Projections
The latest projections of future emissions, published last December, indicated that the 15 original EU member countries could achieve emissions reduction of just over 8% by 2010 by fully implementing existing and planned measures and by obtaining emission credits through the Kyoto Protocol's project-based mechanisms.
European Commission/Tiscali Europe,
21 June 2005

Source