Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Obama administration hopes to avoid repeat of Kyoto Protocol

World Mar. 28, 2009 - 07:00AM JST ( 12 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

12 Comments

0

smithinjapanMar. 28, 2009 - 10:26AM JST

That's funny... I don't remember 'domestic approval' being an element of GWB's decision to reverse the previous admin's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, though of course we all know he and some of his cronies had their thumbs in he pies of oil companies.
0

teleprompterMar. 28, 2009 - 01:52PM JST

Global Warming is a joke.
0

3ringcircusMar. 28, 2009 - 03:36PM JST

"The Obama administration wants a politically viable new global climate deal that avoids the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, which failed to win U.S. domestic support, a senior U.S. official said Friday."

Not to mention the embarrasing results by those nations that did ratify it. Countries like Canada, Japan, the whole of the EU, etc. either bailed out of their responsibilities, failed to meet their responsibilities, or just plain lied about their results. In the meantime American cities were reaching Kyoto Protocol type numbers on their own, reducing emissions by 8% or more. Time for the world to stop the America bashing and worry about themselves a whole lot more. Especially Japan... the host of this failed program.
0

smithinjapanMar. 28, 2009 - 05:00PM JST

3ringcircus: I agree that many of the countries that ratified it ended up making all sorts of excuses why they couldn't do it, but in light of the fact that the world's biggest CO2 emitter per capita refused to go along, the overall spirit of the Protocol was pretty much moot. Still, I'm not denying that those nations have heaps more work to come even near the goals they promised to.

Anyway, the fact of the matter remains that the US is still the world's top CO2 emitter per capita, and is supposedly the most 'developed' nation in the world. If they improved the former slightly in terms of cutting emissions, great, but I wouldn't be patting yourself on the back quite yet for it.

Hopefully Obama will help in this regard.
0

AlphaapeMar. 28, 2009 - 06:06PM JST

So, I guess that when the earth was warmer and went through an "Ice Age" and then got warmer again, it was the result of Cro-magnon and Neanderthal Man not being good stewards of the environment.

I am all for putting less mercury in the ocean, and less smog in the air. But the whole myth of Global Warming is just false. Another way for someone to hold on to the most important natural resource we all have: the environment. He who controls not the resources but the methods of production will come out ahead in this con game; and I feel many are falling for it.

Make sure in these new protocols, countries like China and India are given the same levels as the US. If they want to use that cliche "developing nation status" then instead of them building up nuclear arms and military might, they may want to jump ahead and make use of that brainpower to develop more cleaner methods of making energy and products.
0

SuperLibMar. 28, 2009 - 06:14PM JST

They shouldn't measure by overall levels, they should include some type of provision that measures sacrifices. Getting money from other nations because your nation's economy went into the tank and brought down CO2 levels isn't really within the spirit of the agreement. And shutting down older factories that you planned to shut down anyway isn't much of a sacrifice compared to a county like China that can't tap alternative resources so easily. You have other issues like country size and proximity to cleaner natural resources that makes one country's sacrifice minimal while the other loses jobs and money, but in the end you're stuck being measured by the same criteria.
0

likeitisMar. 28, 2009 - 06:27PM JST

Alphaape: So, I guess that when the earth was warmer and went through an "Ice Age" and then got warmer again, it was the result of Cro-magnon and Neanderthal Man not being good stewards of the environment.

I think the problem with that statement might be the time frame, as in we are accelerating the process, and also the idea that we might be preventing the next ice age, and I don't advise toying with natural cycles just because the term "ice age" sounds bad. Cro-magnon man arose during the last ice age, and they gave rise to us.
0

AlphaapeMar. 28, 2009 - 11:33PM JST

as in we are accelerating the process

likeitis: so if we did nothing, then Global Warming/Cooling would happen anyway since we are accelerating the process. That means that there is nothing we can do but invent better ways to live in frigid temperatures or extreme heat since by that statement it's going to happen anyway.
0

3ringcircusMar. 28, 2009 - 11:52PM JST

smithinjapan writes:

"I agree that many of the countries that ratified it ended up making all sorts of excuses why they couldn't do it, but in light of the fact that the world's biggest CO2 emitter per capita refused to go along, the overall spirit of the Protocol was pretty much moot."

Let me see if I understand your point, because the US saw no benefit by excluding countries like China and India, or the fact that all the American models clearly indicated that the proposal was dead in the water... they should have signed it anyway ?

Now years later the American predictions have all basically come true. Nations that signed on, like Canada, bailed at the first opportunity. Canada now has seen a 26% increase in their emission levels. And how about Spain 49%, or Portugal, Australia, Ireland, Greece... all outpacing US emissions by significant numbers. So many flaws in this global warming nonsense, its hard to tell where to begin. Your misinformed claim that the US is the worlds number one emitter is just that... wrong ! Fact is as much as 7-12 percent of whats measured over the US is generated in Canada. Throw in the fact that many nations like Mexico, Thailand, and China lack the technology to accurately measure their emissions, and there ya go... the US must be the worst. It's no wonder Americans tend to ignore the rest of the planet. My suggestion is just that, let the Americans take care of their business and the rest of the world should do likewise. When you all have figured out how to reach protocol type figures in a couple of years like Seattle Washington did... give us a ring, better yet, don't bother... the phone is off the hook, too many prank calls.
0

adaydreamMar. 29, 2009 - 02:15AM JST

It's either you believe that there is such a thing as global warming or you don't.

I think there has been evidence presented that global warming is a true man enhanced event.

Then there are those who wouldn't believe it no matter what you present.

I think we're speeding the cycle. I would like to see an agreement. < :-)
0

WolfpackMar. 29, 2009 - 07:22AM JST

The Little Ice Age that ended in the 1850's lasted hundreds of years. It's onset was very quick and it's end was just as sudden. This was a climate change event that had nothing to do with man. Global climate is always undergoing cycles of micro and macro change occurring over very short periods of time and also over thousands of years. The Earth warmed and cooled before humans even existed and it will do so long after we are gone.

The Kyoto Protocol is a feel good farce that is based in a socialist ideology of control over the ability of people to exercise their natural right to freedom and liberty. Copenhagen will be more of the same. Regardless of whether or not a country signed Kyoto or not, most did not adhere to it. Also, don't forget that like Bush, Bill Clinton also refused to submit it to Congress for ratification. He mouthed all of the socialist platitudes about global warming but did no more in reaction to the theory than did Bush. Therefore, it was rejected on a bipartisan basis in the US.

Global warming is fact. Global cooling is also fact. It just depends upon the historical context. The ability of man to cause short term or long term trends of warming (or cooling) is not proven no matter how often you hear a socialist tell you the science is settled. There are plenty of scientists that say that there are other reasons for the recent short-term warming trend. There is a great deal of evidence that solar cycles is most likely the cause for the warming that peaked in 1998 and has subsided a bit since. Socialist ideology does not allow for an open-minded consideration of this explanation for climate change. Ideology trumps science if you reject a theory that supports the socialist agenda. Global warming hype is a perfect mechanism for socialists to hi-jack the natural rights of individuals to liberty and freedom. It is an excuse to take your money in the form of high taxes thus limiting your ability to pursue your own desires. It is an excuse for government to intrude in every facet of the lives of private citizens.

Socialists are using global warming to pursue an agenda - regardless of the science. They know that they cannot prove that man is the main cause (or any cause) of global warming. They also know that it would be very difficult to definitively prove the negative as well. They can always say that we should do something "just in case". There are plenty of people ("socialists) that support their political policies to address this trumped up crisis and will go along whether man made global warming can be proven or not. The science is beside the point.
0

AlphaapeMar. 29, 2009 - 11:40PM JST

Wolfpack, well said!