Climate change is a function of the environment, not of man. Everywhere you look, real science tells us that on a global scale, our industrial society does not (meaningfully) contribute to global warming. I am not saying that we aren’t badly affecting the environment, just that we are not adding to global warming. We did come out of the last ice age without the evil smoke-stacks, right? 🙂
However, even if we were contributing to global warming, the Kyoto Protocol would be an economic disaster for developed nations, and a economic launcher for third world countries. These third wourld countries would have no restriction on their emmissions and would influence American (and other developed countries) companies to offshore their energy creation and manufacturing. This would loose many many jobs in established countries while increaseing trade deficits and INCREASING the very same emmissions that the ones who wrote this protocol are supposedly trying to reduce. Not to mention that the process is much less “clean” to the rest of the environment as it is in developed countries, so the adverse affect on the environment in other ways would be more intense.
There is no good reason for the Kyoto protocol except from the persepective of the economics of third world coutries. It has no real science backing even if it did results in no global decrease in emmissions.
The Kyoto protocol plays on people’s emotions who dislike how we are treating our environment to an economically devastating global regulation. Rhetoric is bad, people. 🙂
But that is just my opinion. Any pro-Kyoto’s otu there? 😉
Hey, I know its popular, especially among conservatives, to bash the Kyoto protocol and global warming. But the reality is that the general scientific consensus is that greenhous gases produced by man cause global climate change. This evidence has only been more and more consistent as time goes on. There is very good evidence that temperatures have been significantly changing in the twentieth century and at much higher rates than is historically possible except during massive climate change periods. There is politics involved, but this IS the general scientific consensus. When it could cause serious problems is under debate; some scientists believe it already is.
It really doesnt matter if only .28% of greenhouse gases are caused by human activity; in the environment there is often a balance and sometimes it doesnt take much to upset that.
Finally, the Kyoto protocol is one of the first efforts by industrialized nations to curb global warming. Yes, it does hit developed nations harder, but developed nations
1) cause more of the pollution, led by the United States
2) have more money and resources to make restrictions without starving their population or causing businesses to leave
3) should lead the world in being responsible with environmental control
It is easy to bash global warming and Kyoto, and some things on both sides of the debate are purely political, but global climate change is a serious issue and need to be dealt with.
James
As far as humans causing global warming, some say the warming caused by global warming may have actually saved us by pulling the global climate out of another ice age. We know that nature — particularly apart from the influence of man — can be brutal in it’s course. Perhaps our effect on the environment is serving to protect rather than to harm life on earth. Just a thought.
Also, my biggest concern with the Kyoto protocol is that it is so purely pollitical, laying down different guidelines for each of the nations it regulates. Besides allowing some developed nations under the protocol to produce more greenhouse gasses in the future, the protocol has no effect on undeveloped or developing nations. You may argue that these nations produce less polution, but using unregulated and outdated technology, these nations produce more harmfull pollutants and more of them per capita.
The protocol makes no recommendations at all for China (one of the world’s largest polluters) or the world’s other one hundred and sixty or so other countries on the basis that they wouldn’t agree to it anyway.
When it comes down to it, the Kyoto protocol is not good policy for the US.
Global Warming is bad for the environment. And it’s damn hot today.
Comment by Kelly — June 10, 2005 @ 10:24 am
Oooh, I said a bad word. Let me rephrase: “And gosh darn it it’s awful hot today.”
Comment by Kelly — June 10, 2005 @ 10:26 am
What about the Kyoto Protocol which the US administration is so insistent on not signing? What about the assertion that global warming is a natural phenomenon or that only 0.28% of greenhouse gasses are caused by human activity?
Comment by bdparker — June 10, 2005 @ 6:22 pm
Climate change is a function of the environment, not of man. Everywhere you look, real science tells us that on a global scale, our industrial society does not (meaningfully) contribute to global warming. I am not saying that we aren’t badly affecting the environment, just that we are not adding to global warming. We did come out of the last ice age without the evil smoke-stacks, right? 🙂
However, even if we were contributing to global warming, the Kyoto Protocol would be an economic disaster for developed nations, and a economic launcher for third world countries. These third wourld countries would have no restriction on their emmissions and would influence American (and other developed countries) companies to offshore their energy creation and manufacturing. This would loose many many jobs in established countries while increaseing trade deficits and INCREASING the very same emmissions that the ones who wrote this protocol are supposedly trying to reduce. Not to mention that the process is much less “clean” to the rest of the environment as it is in developed countries, so the adverse affect on the environment in other ways would be more intense.
There is no good reason for the Kyoto protocol except from the persepective of the economics of third world coutries. It has no real science backing even if it did results in no global decrease in emmissions.
The Kyoto protocol plays on people’s emotions who dislike how we are treating our environment to an economically devastating global regulation. Rhetoric is bad, people. 🙂
But that is just my opinion. Any pro-Kyoto’s otu there? 😉
Comment by Dave — June 13, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
Hey, I know its popular, especially among conservatives, to bash the Kyoto protocol and global warming. But the reality is that the general scientific consensus is that greenhous gases produced by man cause global climate change. This evidence has only been more and more consistent as time goes on. There is very good evidence that temperatures have been significantly changing in the twentieth century and at much higher rates than is historically possible except during massive climate change periods. There is politics involved, but this IS the general scientific consensus. When it could cause serious problems is under debate; some scientists believe it already is.
It really doesnt matter if only .28% of greenhouse gases are caused by human activity; in the environment there is often a balance and sometimes it doesnt take much to upset that.
Finally, the Kyoto protocol is one of the first efforts by industrialized nations to curb global warming. Yes, it does hit developed nations harder, but developed nations
1) cause more of the pollution, led by the United States
2) have more money and resources to make restrictions without starving their population or causing businesses to leave
3) should lead the world in being responsible with environmental control
It is easy to bash global warming and Kyoto, and some things on both sides of the debate are purely political, but global climate change is a serious issue and need to be dealt with.
James
Comment by James — June 21, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
As far as humans causing global warming, some say the warming caused by global warming may have actually saved us by pulling the global climate out of another ice age. We know that nature — particularly apart from the influence of man — can be brutal in it’s course. Perhaps our effect on the environment is serving to protect rather than to harm life on earth. Just a thought.
Also, my biggest concern with the Kyoto protocol is that it is so purely pollitical, laying down different guidelines for each of the nations it regulates. Besides allowing some developed nations under the protocol to produce more greenhouse gasses in the future, the protocol has no effect on undeveloped or developing nations. You may argue that these nations produce less polution, but using unregulated and outdated technology, these nations produce more harmfull pollutants and more of them per capita.
The protocol makes no recommendations at all for China (one of the world’s largest polluters) or the world’s other one hundred and sixty or so other countries on the basis that they wouldn’t agree to it anyway.
When it comes down to it, the Kyoto protocol is not good policy for the US.
Comment by bdparker — June 22, 2005 @ 6:21 pm