Despite controversy, global warming pact set to happen

Newsday ^ | 2-15-05 | DAN FAGIN

[Indy Pendance]

After more than a decade of controversy and furious politicking, the world's first legally binding agreement to curb pollution linked to global warming takes effect Wednesday.

But even the biggest boosters of the Kyoto Accord aren't breaking out the champagne, because the treaty's provisions are relatively weak and because the United States and China -- the sources of about 35 percent of worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases -- are not participating.

"We face a long road ahead in solving the climate crisis," said former Vice President Al Gore, who played a key role in negotiating the 1997 treaty, which was never even presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification because of overwhelming congressional opposition.

"The real significance ... is that the effort will formally begin, and that itself is a great cause of hope," Gore said in a conference call with reporters.

[marvlus]

More and more, Americans should count their blessings that algore was never elected president.

[Brian328i]

Yes, damage your economies over some unproven postulation BWAAHAHAHA.

[flashbunny]

On the bright side, the US will get an edge up in the world economy because they won't be saddled by the idiotic kyoto restrictions.

[dirtboy]

"We face a long road ahead in solving the climate crisis," said former Vice President Al Gore, who played a key role in negotiating the 1997 treaty, which was never even presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification because of overwhelming congressional opposition.

Dang. The editor at Newsday must have been too busy ragging on drooly bloggers to notice this horrendous journalistic screw-up - Kyoto not being ratified was actually blamed on congressional opposition instead of on Bush! Heads will roll...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

But even the biggest boosters of the Kyoto Accord aren't breaking out the champagne, because the treaty's provisions are relatively weak and because the United States and China -- the sources of about 35 percent of worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases -- are not participating.

The US is a net absorber of CO2.

[SlowBoat407]

Don't rule out other countries' voluntary economic actions. They're just itching to get back at us for any number of perceived wrongs, and this is as good an excuse as any.

[Brian328i]

Yah but places to export our goods will probably drop since the Euroweenies won't be able to afford anything...

[EagleUSA]

More and more, Americans should count their blessings that algore was never elected president.
=====
Without a doubt, and Kerry too. They would have hung the US out to dry in this ONE-WORLD SOCIALIST KANGAROO COURT which is really targeted at the world's financially healthy producers, and fodder for the little third-rate commie countries that can't clean their own arses. Thank God for GWB's insight into this bunch of world losers.

[struggle]

I hope someone's going to make a "Fallen Angels" movie.

[SlowBoat407]

How about a "State of Fear" movie?

[Indy Pendance]

I agree 100%!

[Southack]

Kyoto exempts coal fires, the fastest and cheapest way to end so-called "greenhouse gas" air pollution.

Underground coal fires called a 'catastrophe'

Saturday, February 15, 2003

By Michael Woods , Post-Gazette National Bureau

DENVER -- ... a more common coal mine disaster is getting little attention, scientists said yesterday. It's the fire below.

Underground coal fires are relentlessly incinerating millions of tons of coal around the world.

The blazes spew out huge amounts of air pollutants, force residents to flee their homes, send toxic runoff flowing into waterways, and leave the land above as scarred as a battlefield.

"A global environmental catastrophe" is how geologist Glenn B. Stracher described the situation.

Stracher, of East Georgia College in Swainsboro, organized an international symposium on the topic at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"This symposium is dedicated to disclosing the severity of the coal fires problem," Stracher said, noting that some of the fires have been burning for centuries with few people aware of the problem.

Concern and action is needed, he said, because of the environmental impact -- especially of mega-fires burning in India, China and elsewhere in Asia. One coal fire in northern China, for instance, is burning over an area more than 3,000 miles wide and almost 450 miles long.

"The direct and indirect economic losses from coal fires are huge," said Paul M. van Dijk, a Dutch scientist who is tracking the Chinese blazes via satellite.

He estimated that the Chinese fires alone consume 120 million tons of coal annually. That's almost as much as the annual coal production in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois combined.

The Chinese fires also make a big, hidden contribution to global warming through the greenhouse effect, scientists said. Each year they release 360 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as much as all the cars and light trucks in the United States.

Soot from the fires in China, India and other Asian countries are a source of the "Asian Brown Haze." It's a 2-mile thick cloud of soot, acid droplets and other material that sometimes stretches across South Asia from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka.

The cloud causes acid rain that damages crops, cuts sunlight reaching the ground by 10 to 15 percent, and has been implicated in thousands of annual lung disease deaths.

Mine fires are frustratingly difficult and costly to extinguish, panelists said.

Weapons range from backfilling mine shafts to cutting off the oxygen supply with a new foam-like grout that's squirted into mine shafts like shaving cream and then expands to sniff out the fire.

Most are simply left alone to burn until they eventually exhaust their fuel supply.

Michael Woods can be reached at mwoods@nationalpress.com

[Brian328i]

All I can say about that report is holy shnikies, never heard of underground coal fires doing that much damage.

[Southack]

"never heard of underground coal fires doing that much damage."

That's because putting out underground coal fires fails to harm those evil capitalistic economies...the real goal behind Kyoto.

[frogjerk]

Here's an idea:

Create a business in the US of trading and selling these stupid Kyoto Protocol credits between the dumb countries that signed this agreement . Make money and bring down the whole phony house of cards environmentalism at the same time.

[frogjerk]

Isn't there one of these coal fires in PA right now?

[frogjerk]

Centralia, Pennsylvania - coal fire burning since 1961. I think the government moved most of the town.

[untrained skeptic]

"On the bright side, the US will get an edge up in the world economy because they won't be saddled by the idiotic kyoto restrictions."

You're making the assumption that they will actually abide by the restrictions.

I doubt that will happen.

The whole accord is based on junk science and political posturing.

The nieve among them believe that this will suddnely cause someone to come up with a new way of generating energy, but that's pretty unlikely.

The same people believe that the oil companies already know how to generate energy with less polution but are hiding the information because they like their current control.

That makes me question why they'd be so stupid to stick with oil, when they have a new solution they could likely dominate and control and not risk someone else discovering it and cutting them out of the profit.

Rationality isn't these people's strong point.

However, when it comes down to it, in order to really cut emmissions, they're going to have to give up something.

Their economies are already in trouble. Their governments can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar so their taxes are already high. They have limited ability to fund development of new energy technologies due to the economic situation they've put themselves in.

Now they're going to invest money to reduce emmissions when the methods will also likely reduce efficiency?

They'll fail to meet their goals, make a bunch of excuses, find a way to blame it on the US, and suggest that the only solution is new taxes to use on developing new technology to produce energy with less pollution.

[untrained skeptic]

"Isn't there one of these coal fires in PA right now?"

Yep, been burning for decades longer than I've been alive.

They haven't been able to put it out and gave up trying last I heard.