Skip to comments.Rebuffing Bush, 132 Mayors Embrace Kyoto Rules
Posted on 05/13/2005 10:06:06 PM PDT by FairOpinion
click here to read article
See this goes right along with our mandated green public buildings that cost more to maintain and keep people less comfortable.
Low cost internet access - don't you read the ads.
If they were REALLY concerned about so-called "greenhouse gasses" they would use nuclear power.
It produces none of those...
Bet you you're wrong.
Someone should stick a mike in their faces and ask them.
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. :)
the United States is the #1 Polluter?
Wrong, the #1 polluter in the world is China.
This statement is completely and inherently flawed.
And, China is/would be exempt from the Kyoto protocol, as is Russia.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
"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?
Those parts were only meant for enforcement against the United States.
Which is why they are nothing more than mayors.
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.)
How many mayors are there in the US?
And don't forget India.
Maybe they're doing some sort of carbon sequestration program. I would be curious to know myself.
Technically, that is not an engine.
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.
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.
Well, I was giving you credit that you weren't really assuming that fuel-burning engines were the only ways to turn turbines... ;)
why they want china and india to get a free pass is beyond me.
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.
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 Clintons 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 Unions 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 Clintons 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 todays 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.
It is remotely possible that I could strangle on a glass of water, therefore I resolve to drink Bourbon only from now on.
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. ;-}
It is because they are considered "developing nations".
Kyoto is only designed to bring down capitalist nations, ie; the USA.
The air is the most obvious pollution problem but the water is the most serious. And it is a very serious problem.
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.
"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*
And not having 100" of rain is bad because?
No offense meant,
I was just setting the record straight as too who was the #1 polluter... just in case some didn't know.
Cool, Bush represent the other 280 million who thinks those mayors are a bunch of socialist whackos who are clueless about the environment.
Thank you. A cash prize will be gladly accepted. :-)
Please accept my IOU.