Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rebuffing Bush, 132 Mayors Embrace Kyoto Rules
NYT ^ | May 14, 2005 | ELI SANDERS

Posted on 05/13/2005 10:06:06 PM PDT by FairOpinion

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-116 next last
To: stylin19a
Seattle IS attempting to provide "green" energy,

See this goes right along with our mandated green public buildings that cost more to maintain and keep people less comfortable.

51 posted on 05/14/2005 3:08:51 AM PDT by not_apathetic_anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
There are a number of methods for generating electricity that don't produce greenhouse gases.

Nuclear power...

52 posted on 05/14/2005 3:30:02 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
What does "net zero" mean ?

Low cost internet access - don't you read the ads.

53 posted on 05/14/2005 3:34:30 AM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

If they were REALLY concerned about so-called "greenhouse gasses" they would use nuclear power.

It produces none of those...


54 posted on 05/14/2005 3:40:50 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Bet you you're wrong.


55 posted on 05/14/2005 4:30:54 AM PDT by Archangelsk (Handbasket, hell. Get used to the concept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I bet not a single one of them knows what's really in the Kyoto Treaty.

Someone should stick a mike in their faces and ask them.

On camera.

56 posted on 05/14/2005 4:32:31 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Kyoto is a hoax originating in Costa Rico to cover someones but for defrauding the CR government.
57 posted on 05/14/2005 4:50:21 AM PDT by chainsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
Nope. The voters elected the mayors, didn't they?
58 posted on 05/14/2005 4:51:27 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (Grant no power to government you would not want your worst enemies to wield against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt
"Let them clean up their own cities."

Yes, it makes sense. Unfortunately, with liberals there's no guarantee that local laws won't end up being imposed on everyone, anyway.

Personally, I think most cities are so morally and culturally decayed that air quality should be rather low on the list of "improvements." But that's just me. :)

59 posted on 05/14/2005 4:52:29 AM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan

the United States is the #1 Polluter?

Wrong, the #1 polluter in the world is China.


60 posted on 05/14/2005 4:54:54 AM PDT by chainsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
On Thursday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg brought New York City into the coalition, the latest Republican mayor to join.

This statement is completely and inherently flawed.

61 posted on 05/14/2005 4:55:00 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Not Elected Pope Since 4/19/2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw
Wrong, the #1 polluter in the world is China.

And, China is/would be exempt from the Kyoto protocol, as is Russia.

62 posted on 05/14/2005 4:56:59 AM PDT by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

You are exactly right, we would be fine with nuclear power. Infact it is the future of energy I believe sooner or later.

The green movements rejection of nuclear power leads me to believe their goal is de-industrialization, not concerns of environmental damage.


63 posted on 05/14/2005 4:57:44 AM PDT by ran15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
"The voters elected the mayors, didn't they?"

Indeed. And the voters in any particular city should be willing to accept the responsibility for the mistakes their elected leaders make. But they don't. They continually agitate to have others pay for their blunders.

So far is Kyoto is concerned, I'm sure liberals are counting on having everyone pay for it. After all, the costs involved are astonomical. And the cities mentioned simply cannot pay afford it.

64 posted on 05/14/2005 4:58:30 AM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
Make that "pay for it."

Thanks. :)

65 posted on 05/14/2005 4:59:16 AM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody

It seems like we can't handle the pollution that goes along with manufacturing, so we ban it here, or regulate it to death. So the Chinese just slam in the plants instead.


66 posted on 05/14/2005 5:00:03 AM PDT by ran15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
I understood, thanks. I am afraid I have little faith in voters who get their 'knowledge' from the MSM. If all the alphabet newsreaders on my TV reported blue skies and green grass, I'd feel compelled to check.

I have seen an awful lot of badly reported (and obviously misunderstood) science boiled down to slogans for the masses.

Unfortunately, I doubt that most people would adequately understand the implications of Kyoto or any other treaty, simply because they would never hear it on TV.

67 posted on 05/14/2005 5:09:13 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (Grant no power to government you would not want your worst enemies to wield against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw

I am sure Russia (former USSR) is in the running. Between their disastrous attempts at the oil industry (before US personnel made it over there to work) and Chernobyl, they at least get an honorable mention.


68 posted on 05/14/2005 5:11:17 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (Grant no power to government you would not want your worst enemies to wield against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"You've got to ask, 'Is it remotely possible that there is a threat?' " he said. "If the answer is yes, you've got to act now."

You've got to ask, 'Is it remotely possible that there is a threat that Saddam Hussein has WMD that he will use (again - remember the murdered Kurds) against the West, thus murdering potentially millions of people? and, is it remotely possible that he is supporting and harboring others who would do the same thing?'

If the answer is yes, you've got to take the Mother F***er out!

69 posted on 05/14/2005 5:29:10 AM PDT by Thom Pain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
Is it remotely possible that you could die the next time you get on the road in a car? If the answer is yes, you've got to stop driving now.

Is it remotely possible that your freedom and wealth will be reduced the next time Congress is in session? If the answer is yes, you've got to stop voting now.

As if it would help.

70 posted on 05/14/2005 5:46:21 AM PDT by Hardastarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: patton

"And by the end of this year the city's power utility, Seattle City Light, will be the only utility in the country with no net emissions of greenhouse gases, the mayor's office said."

omg!! they can be clean without signing a flawed treaty?
they dont need the magic Kyoto wand?


71 posted on 05/14/2005 5:50:18 AM PDT by Casaubon (Internet Research Ninja Masta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan
Overproduction of ozone, perhaps? or maybe for destroying ozone with fluorocarbons. With Kyoto, it's just such a fertile environment for suits the choices are endless.
72 posted on 05/14/2005 6:10:54 AM PDT by Colorado Doug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
Even the signatories to it at least have enough sanity to violate its senseless terms.

Those parts were only meant for enforcement against the United States.

73 posted on 05/14/2005 6:13:05 AM PDT by Colorado Doug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Which is why they are nothing more than mayors.


74 posted on 05/14/2005 6:43:39 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ran15
That 3-mile Island event wasn't what the media and the pseudo-eco-fascists made it out to be. It released only inert Xenon gas and is a far cry safer than Chernobyl could have ever hoped to be.

If the reactors we do have were running at capacity, I'll bet most of the energy supply problems would disappear. California could build two huge ones in the desert, one to supply the Northern state, and another to supply the Southern state. Crisis solved.

What about waste? Doesn't matter... If you don't take the uranium ore out of the ground, it leaches into ground water.

It would be a good idea to store the waste on the moon.
(I think this is why the television show Space 1999 was created - - to discourage the idea. They depicted the moon being blasted off into the nether regions of space by explosions. We know this is not possible. More info-tainment junk science for the unwashed.)

75 posted on 05/14/2005 7:09:30 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

How many mayors are there in the US?


76 posted on 05/14/2005 7:30:11 AM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody
And, China is/would be exempt from the Kyoto protocol, as is Russia.

And don't forget India.

77 posted on 05/14/2005 7:31:38 AM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
The headline should read, "132 mayors seeking to buy a clue."

5.56mm

78 posted on 05/14/2005 7:33:07 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patton
You know of a way to turn an engine without burning fuel?

Hydroelectric.

79 posted on 05/14/2005 7:36:10 AM PDT by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

Maybe they're doing some sort of carbon sequestration program. I would be curious to know myself.


80 posted on 05/14/2005 7:36:36 AM PDT by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
;)

Technically, that is not an engine.

81 posted on 05/14/2005 7:44:42 AM PDT by patton ("Fool," said my Muse to me, "look in thy heart, and write.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Can someone please post those charts of recent warming vs. the overall centuries-old cooling trend? I need them for an advertisement fighting these local efforts. Thanks in advance.


82 posted on 05/14/2005 7:46:18 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Yes the dangers of nuclear power are ridiculusly overstated. Including the fuel, we could just use breeder reactors like Japan has and throw the leftover fuel into a pit.

Use a standardized design, produced in clusters. Like California could have a bunch of nuclear plants all together. It makes things like repair, management etc.. a lot cheaper. Throw a couple breeders in with a cluster to recycle the fuel. And if its California throw a couple desalianation plants in too. And in the future plants to make hydrogen.


83 posted on 05/14/2005 7:47:50 AM PDT by ran15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: patton

Well, I was giving you credit that you weren't really assuming that fuel-burning engines were the only ways to turn turbines... ;)


84 posted on 05/14/2005 7:49:14 AM PDT by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

why they want china and india to get a free pass is beyond me.


85 posted on 05/14/2005 7:50:24 AM PDT by ken21 (if you didn't see it on tv, then it didn't happen. /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skybird
Here here my father often talks of the smog in London in the 40s and 50s that has long since disappeared.
86 posted on 05/14/2005 7:56:33 AM PDT by snugs (An English Cheney Chick - BIG TIME - And a Member of the Conservative Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan
The company I work for has a joint venture company in China and also has provided many installations of their equipment in the North of China and that is probably the worse polluted area known to man.

Health and safety is non existent and life is cheap so why worry about choking your population to death on all sorts of emissions that would break all other countries safety laws including probably Russia's
87 posted on 05/14/2005 8:00:57 AM PDT by snugs (An English Cheney Chick - BIG TIME - And a Member of the Conservative Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Mayor Greg Nickels has begun a nationwide effort to do something the Bush administration will not: carry out the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

The never-ending hypocrisy of liberals is truly breath-taking:  Bush shouldn't be fighting an "illegal war" in Iraq even though it was authorized by Congress but he should press forward with the Kyoto treaty even though the Senate unanimously voted against it?

It makes one's head spin.

88 posted on 05/14/2005 8:10:12 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (I know a great deal about the Middle East because Ive been raising Arabian horses" Patrick Swazey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Dead on.

The Truth About Kyoto

Why the Global Warming Treaty Will Ultimately Fail by Erin Schiller

While politicians, economists, and environmentalists squabble over the details of Clinton’s global warming proposal for the upcoming summit this December in Kyoto, Japan, everyone seems to have lost the forest for the trees. The debate should not center over how strict the Kyoto Treaty should be, but should emphasize that fact that the Kyoto Treaty is a sham: it will not prevent global warming and is a poor way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States is the most energy efficient and environmentally responsible nation in the world today. We have the strictest and most well inforced set of environmental regulations anywhere. Air pollution for the six major pollutants has significantly decreased over the past 15 years, and over the past 20 years U.S. contributions to carbon dioxide, the leading manmade greenhouse gas, have steadily decreased as well.

The U.S. uses the most advanced technology available to make us more energy efficient than any other nation. For example, India uses three times the energy and emits four times the carbon dioxide per unit of GDP than the U.S., and China use five times the energy and emits eight times the carbon dioxide.

Such facts question the motives behind China and the European Union’s call for stricter reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by developed nations. Environmental record does not show that these countries are more environmentally conscious than the U.S., but the fact that stricter reductions would undoubtedly hurt the U.S.’s international competitiveness would certainly benefit them economically.

If any form of the Kyoto Treaty is signed, it will incur multi-billion costs on the U.S. economy, despite Clinton’s rhetoric about trading programs and tax incentives. Countries in Europe will face economic costs as they too must reduce emissions, but comparatively, the U.S. will by far be hit the hardest because we are already the most energy efficient and are already using the most advanced technology available. And of course China favors stricter controls on American industry because they know that if the Treaty passes, much of that industry will flock straight to China where it can operate free from emissions controls.

While Clinton has stated that developing countries must “meaningfully participate” in emissions reductions, if they are not legally bound, they are not going to jeopardize their economy because they care about the environment. Are we to expect that China, a country that over the past 5 years has illegally transferred missiles and nuclear technology to Pakistan, has illegally transferred missiles to Iran, has repeatedly broken intellectual property rights laws, continues to break international standards of human and religious rights, and most recently may have violated our campaign finance laws is really going to voluntarily cut back on greenhouse gas emissions? Their record so far indicates otherwise.

But without the inclusion of developing countries, global greenhouse gases will continue to increase. By 2025, China will emit more carbon dioxide than the U.S., Japan, and Canada combined. If the goal of the Kyoto Treaty is to prevent global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it will fail unless the Treaty is globally applied. Yet given the fact that most developing nations cannot even feed their citizens, it is unrealistic to mandate that they divert economic resources to energy efficiency.

Almost every breakthrough environmental technology has come out of the U.S. Most recently, scientists have announced the successful completion of a revolutionary fuel cell operating on gasoline that will double the fuel economy of today’s automobiles and reduce automobile emissions of greenhouse gases by one-half, which currently account for one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions. The last thing the President should do is sign a treaty that will stifle the U.S. economy or hinder international competition, neither of which provide a good environment for innovation or rapid technology development.

The development, production, and export of such technologies much better addresses the problem of greenhouse gas emissions than does a Treaty dependent on inconsistent mandates for some countries and unrealistic expectations for others. The Kyoto Treaty will not only fail to prevent global warming, but it will hinder the very economic growth that stimulates advances in technology and trade that can make all countries, both developing and developed, more energy efficient and environmentally responsible.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/1997/97-11-04es.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Schiller is a Public Policy Fellow at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.

89 posted on 05/14/2005 8:17:54 AM PDT by JoeV1 (Democrat Party-The unlawful and corrupt leading the blind and uneducated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

It is remotely possible that I could strangle on a glass of water, therefore I resolve to drink Bourbon only from now on.


90 posted on 05/14/2005 11:08:33 AM PDT by RipSawyer ("Embed" Michael Moore with the 82nd airborne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pbrown
And don't forget India.

As soon as I hit the "post" button I said, "Ohh,I forgot India." I was going to do another post but decided to see if anyone was awake out there in cyberspace. Congrats - you win. ;-}

91 posted on 05/14/2005 11:42:44 AM PDT by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ken21
why they want china and india to get a free pass is beyond me

It is because they are considered "developing nations".

Kyoto is only designed to bring down capitalist nations, ie; the USA.

92 posted on 05/14/2005 11:49:38 AM PDT by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: snugs

The air is the most obvious pollution problem but the water is the most serious. And it is a very serious problem.


93 posted on 05/14/2005 1:06:10 PM PDT by BJungNan (Check out http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw
the United States is the #1 Polluter?

I did not say the U.S. was the #1 polluter. It definately is not. Maybe you understand my view in my earlier post. But in case you did not, I thought I better set the record straight.

94 posted on 05/14/2005 1:08:04 PM PDT by BJungNan (Check out http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

"I bet not a single one of them knows what's really in the Kyoto Treaty."

Exactly. I know the whack-o Mayor of Madison, WI doesn't. I'll bet you a doughnut he's in on this deal as well. (I'll go look...) He was just in Washington, DC a few weeks back demonstrating in an Anti-War Protest on the taxpayers dime. *Rolleyes*


95 posted on 05/14/2005 1:08:44 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Unsettled by a series of dry winters in this normally wet city, Mayor Greg Nickels has begun a nationwide effort to do something the Bush administration will not: carry out the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

And not having 100" of rain is bad because?

96 posted on 05/14/2005 1:09:09 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan

No offense meant,
I was just setting the record straight as too who was the #1 polluter... just in case some didn't know.


97 posted on 05/14/2005 1:12:22 PM PDT by chainsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
The mayors, from cities as liberal as Los Angeles and as conservative as Hurst, Tex., represent nearly 29 million citizens

Cool, Bush represent the other 280 million who thinks those mayors are a bunch of socialist whackos who are clueless about the environment.

98 posted on 05/14/2005 1:14:34 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody

Thank you. A cash prize will be gladly accepted. :-)


99 posted on 05/14/2005 1:56:32 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: pbrown
Dang - I wish I knew how to get all the cool pics everyone uses. I have been trying but all I've ended up with is a flag stuck to my curser that I can't get rid of. LOL

Please accept my IOU.
;-)

100 posted on 05/14/2005 2:42:20 PM PDT by Just A Nobody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson