Kyoto and GW

[Drooper]

Did the Russian response to ratification of the Kyoto treaty receive much debate here?


It is pretty significant and gives a decent knock on the head to all those who claim that the science of global warming is settled and agreed.

This quote struck me:

Yuri Izrael, Putin's most influential science adviser, declared: "All the scientific evidence seems to support the same general conclusions, that the Kyoto Protocol is overly expensive, ineffective and based on bad science."

CNN - The Russians Didn't Bark (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/column.novak.opinion.russian/)

"...based on bad science."

That has been the position of objectors to the Kyoto Treaty. Proponents now need to go back and justify the science. It is clear there is significant scientific objection.

[DaChew]

Weeeeellllll, sort of. Remember that Russia was looking forward to selling their credits to the U.S.. Now that the U.S. is out, (or officially stated they were never in if you like.) Russia has nobody to make billions off of. That means that going ahead with Kyoto would actually cost them money. That, they are not prepared to do.

[a_unique_person]

That's right, for all of last century, Russia=Worlds Biggest Losers, now, Impeccably Best Scientists.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by DaChew
Weeeeellllll, sort of. Remember that Russia was looking forward to selling their credits to the U.S.. Now that the U.S. is out, (or officially stated they were never in if you like.) Russia has nobody to make billions off of. That means that going ahead with Kyoto would actually cost them money. That, they are not prepared to do.

Soooo, you're saying that there will not now be a large monetary windfall to Russia from ratifying the Kyoto Treaty.

Soooo, that presumably means that when Russia's scientific advisors state that Kyoto is based on bad science, we can presume that statement isn't tainted by non-scientific influences.

[Kodiak]

Actually, Putin was quoted as saying that Russia would welcome the predicted global temperature increase forcasted by the HCGW "doom-and-gloomers"...

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Actually, Putin was quoted as saying that Russia would welcome the predicted global temperature increase forcasted by the HCGW "doom-and-gloomers"...

Actually, Putin made a joke about Russians being able to throw aware their fur coats.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Drooper
Actually, Putin made a joke about Russians being able to throw aware their fur coats.

I wasn't joking!

Putin speaks about benefits of global warming for Russia (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20030929/putin_kyoto_030929/?s_name=)

From the link:

"Pressed by some of the conference's delegates for a commitment to ratification, Putin responded ambiguously, citing domestic critics of the Kyoto pact who theorized that Russia could even profit from global warming. He added, however, that Russia may see some adverse effects too.

"They often say, half-jokingly and half-seriously, that Russia is a northern country and if temperatures get warmer by two or three degrees Celsius, it's not that bad — we could spend less on warm coats and agricultural experts say that grain harvests would increase further," Putin said with a grin."

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Drooper


Soooo, you're saying that there will not now be a large monetary windfall to Russia from ratifying the Kyoto Treaty.

Soooo, that presumably means that when Russia's scientific advisors state that Kyoto is based on bad science, we can presume that statement isn't tainted by non-scientific influences.

I take it that he is saying that now, there is non-scientific influence to the negative - the costs of ratifying Kyoto. They are, if you excuse the pun, their mouth where their money is.

[Quasi]

I think that if it were in Russias best interests to ratify, they would. If not, they won't. The reality of environmentalism is that you have to have a lot of money before you can spend enormous amounts on extavagant, ill founded campaigns like GW. Although I think everyone can agree that GW is ocurring (except Exxon, which denies this,) the cause is not clear at all. So we in the USA may give trillions of dollars to corrupt foreign government officials for absolutely nothing. The treaty itself naively implies good money management by third world dictators. So the treaty defenders merely need to show how much human activity is contributing to GW overall, in hard numbers. Then they need to control the money for the treaty such that it is used only for GW improvements such as sanitation and clean drinking water. Until then, I am opposed to the treaty.

[Chaos]

Quasi:
You say yourself that GW is happening. Does it really matter what causes it?
If (and only IF) we agree that GW is a bad thing, then we should determine if human actions can stop and/or reverse it.

I´m with you about the "third world dictator" part, however.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I wasn't joking!




I said he was joking. And he clearly was being facetious.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Quasi
I think that if it were in Russias best interests to ratify, they would. If not, they won't. The reality of environmentalism is that you have to have a lot of money before you can spend enormous amounts on extavagant, ill founded campaigns like GW. Although I think everyone can agree that GW is ocurring (except Exxon, which denies this,) the cause is not clear at all. So we in the USA may give trillions of dollars to corrupt foreign government officials for absolutely nothing. The treaty itself naively implies good money management by third world dictators. So the treaty defenders merely need to show how much human activity is contributing to GW overall, in hard numbers. Then they need to control the money for the treaty such that it is used only for GW improvements such as sanitation and clean drinking water. Until then, I am opposed to the treaty.

That is the point about the statements that came from Russia's scientific advisors. Not everyone is agreed about it.

Not everybody is agreed about the science behind it.

Not everybody is ageed to the policy to combat it.

[Q-Source]

The other responsible for not applying the treaty is the USA, such an hypocrite country. It contaminates the whole world with the production of tons of gases that destroy the ozone layer and think that they can continue with this attrocity. The USA only obeys economic interests, that is for sure.

What more do we need to realise that the USA has never really cared about the protection of environment and animals?, oh wait!!!!, it cares only when there is a threat from other countries to sell cheap goods in the USA that can compete with their domestic industry like tuna & tomatoes from Mexico :rolleyes:

Q-S

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Q-Source

The other responsible for not applying the treaty is the USA, such an hypocrite country. It contaminates the whole world with the production tons of gases that destroy the ozone layer. It only obeys economic interests, that is for sure.

Repeat 100 times please:

Kyoto Accord unrelated to Ozone layer.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Repeat 100 times please:

Kyoto Accord unrelated to Ozone layer.

What is the ultimate purpose of the treaty?

You ignorant, no wonder why the world is such a mess
:rolleyes:

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Q-Source
What is the ultimate purpose of the treaty?

To limit CO2 emmissions, a response to possible global warming.

Originally posted by Q-Source
You ignorant, no wonder why the world is such a mess
:rolleyes:

I think a person with as little knowledge about the subject as you seem to have should hesitate before calling others ignorant.

MattJ

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


To limit CO2 emmissions, a response to possible global warming.



With all respect Matt, excuse my ignorance, what causes global warming?
Thank you very much.
Q-S

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Q-Source


With all respect Matt, excuse my ignorance, what causes global warming?
Thank you very much.
Q-S

A great many things are being blamed for global warming. Kyoto advocates believe that the primary driver for global warming is CO2 production, and they wrote the treaty to decrease the amount of CO2 that we produce.

What the Kyoto treaty does not address, in any way, shape, or form, is chlorofluorocarbon production, which is accused of being the main driver behind the destruction of the ozone layer. (The word 'ozone' does not appear in the treaty (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/)) There was already a different international treaty, the Montreal Protocol, designed to do that. The US is a signatory to that treaty, and we are in full compliance.

MattJ

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Q-Source
The other responsible for not applying the treaty is the USA, such an hypocrite country. It contaminates the whole world with the production of tons of gases that destroy the ozone layer and think that they can continue with this attrocity. The USA only obeys economic interests, that is for sure.

What more do we need to realise that the USA has never really cared about the protection of environment and animals?, oh wait!!!!, it cares only when there is a threat from other countries to sell cheap goods in the USA that can compete with their domestic industry like tuna & tomatoes from Mexico :rolleyes:

Q-S

I take it, then, that you've never heard of NAFTA or the double-decker bus?...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
What the Kyoto treaty does not address, in any way, shape, or form, is chlorofluorocarbon production, which is accused of being the main driver behind the destruction of the ozone layer.

Maybe we should stop the production of volcanos...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Q-Source
The other responsible for not applying the treaty is the USA, such an hypocrite country. It contaminates the whole world with the production of tons of gases that destroy the ozone layer and think that they can continue with this attrocity. The USA only obeys economic interests, that is for sure.

What more do we need to realise that the USA has never really cared about the protection of environment and animals?, oh wait!!!!, it cares only when there is a threat from other countries to sell cheap goods in the USA that can compete with their domestic industry like tuna & tomatoes from Mexico :rolleyes:

Q-S

Yes, USA is a hypocrite. :rolleyes:

Kyoto treaty is wishful thinking and neither EU nor Japan has met (nor are projected to meet) the standards they so enthusiastically proposed and complained to USA about. For source check link below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2996219.stm