Kyoto pact

[silvia]

What do you think about it?
IMO it's a lost campaing as the most polluting country (USA) is not doing nothing to avoid the global warming.

Yesterday the spanish ecological ministre announced that Spain will be seriously affected bu the global warming, including hotter weather in summer (reaching 50ºC at the end of the century) and higher sea-level, what would mean the disapperance of deltas and beaches

 

[Conrado]

I think that in "four more years", Bush will be able to cause a lot more damage to the world already fragile equilibrium. His behavior is like the world gravitates around his own belly button.

 

[Dual_Life]

Yes, CO and CO2 are being pumped-out into the atmosphere in record amounts. The question that I ask is CO and CO2 what is making the Earth warmer?

First off, this fact: 94-97% of the atmosphere's heat is being held in by water vapor, not greehouse gases.

A study at MIT said that CO2 is causing the Earth to get warmer, thus the USA is at fault for global warming by pumping out too much CO2.

Many geologists say that it's not that the Earth is getting warmer because it is getting back to normal- what we are/were living in is a "mini ice-age" and that the warmer temps are what are normal, and will even out at some point, thus none are at fault and global warming isn't real.

A study at NASA says that the polar ice caps are melting because over the years a large amount of black soot is falling on said ice in an increasing fashion. Most people know that black snow melts faster than white snow because the black absorbs the heat from the sun better- thus melting the snow. Rising sea levels from the melting snow would cause the temp to rise because, as stated before, the majority of heat is being held in by water vapor, and with more liquid water there is more surface area for the sun to evaporate and put into the atmosphere. Where is all this soot comming from? NASA says that the majority of it is from crude petrol products, like diesel. Who burns the most diesel? Europe. Thus Europe is at fault for global warming.

What am I trying to get at?

SCIENTISTS STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING!. I am not saying that involvement in the Kyoto pact wouldn't be a good idea- better safe than sorry as my mother says, but don't pin it on anyone because you're guess is as good as anyone eles's.

Conrado- I hate Bush too, and I have to put up with him more than you do, but that's beside the point.

 

[silvia]

Is there any need to shout?

 

[Peppermint]

I studied geography, and even the professors were not convinced about the greenhouse effect. There has always been big fluctuation in the temperatures on the earth. Thing is, we only have records of weather changes from a couple of hundred years, which on the age scale of the earth is nothing so it's impossible to say whether the current situation is out of the ordinary or not.

So I don't know if global warming is a fact, but I think Kyoto pact is good in the sense that is tries to diminish pollution as such.
Not working out tho

 

[N8]

We do have a problem but it seems to get blown out of proportion a lot of the time.

A lot of these calims are often just scare mongering. After all it wouldnt be very interesting to say there isnt much of a problem.

My views - Global warming

The Earths temperature and climate has been changing for millions of years and has been hotter before than we could ever make it. The sun is 25% hotter today than when life on Earth begun.

Greens and scientists are always throwing computer models and the like at us. These models have been created, tweaked and worked to show the figues and results they want and that they originally thought of and wanted to predict. They can vary wildly depending on the input given to them and the scientists use them to the best effect they can - for themselves and their theories.

When asked to "predict" past climate changes that have happened these same models pretty much always mess up and get it wrong.

In recent history the earth has been hotter and cooler than it is today (medieval warm period 13th century, little ice age 18th century) and neither of these have anything to do with mans' CO2 generation.

The medieval warm period for example - That actually occurred with no cars or planes spewing out CO2 into the atmosphere. Must have been the metahne from all those cows then or all those bonfires they had eh. Couldn't possibly have been due to cirsumstances that were nothing to do with man at all could it...??? A big volcanic eruption in a couple of weeks could put the volume of CO2 into the atmosphere that mankind has ever produced burning fossil fuels.

All this Bullshit about the Earth having a fragile ecosystem, just that - bullshit. If it did have a fragile ecosystem it wouldnt have sustained supporting life for hundreds of millions of years even through all the HUGE natural events (we'd call disasters) that have happened, many so big we cant even imagine them. The earth has an amazingly strong and flexable eco system and the impact that man has had is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to what nature has thrown at it. Its not a case of how fragile the Earth and its eco-system is but a lot more to do with how fragile Humans are and how we think we actually matter one bit to the Earth when in fact in the grand scale of things we matter not at all.

 

[N8]

One thing the government (and other countries) need to sort out is their energy policy.

We're relying on more and more cheap Gas powered stations using cheap gas from other countries. This will run out in the next 10-20 years. Coal will start to run out too sooner than we think.

We need to start building more Nuclear power stations. Now. The latest nuclear reactor (pressurised water) designs by companies such as Westinghouse are fantastic with unbelievable safety levels and many many levels of fail safe redundancy. These are off the shelf that the government/companies could buy. No money wasted designing etc.

People point to Nuclear accidents but they were on old types of reactors, made when the technology was in its infancy and not fully understood. Most of the UKs reactors are at ot near the end of their life now and need to be replaced.

The barrier to nuclear power station building in this country is short term profit (Gas stations are most econominal in the short run) and political. No politician presently sees an openly pro nuclear stance as winning votes if people don't like you for your other policies, but it could be a vote loser with the anti-nuclear lobby. Give it 5-10 years, they'll be FORCED to "come out" when the supply of cheap gas is unstable and running out.

By then it will be too late and we WILL face power cuts and brownouts. This period of cheap energy we're having now thanks to privitisation of the industry is very bad for us in the long term with regards to future and current investment. Power costs will need to rise sharply to ensure that power is available. Nuclear power is more expensive than other types but we will HAVE to pay this in the end.

There is currently no other alternative other than Nuclear for the forseeable future. Wind power? Okay but what about when the wind doens blow? All the fossil fuel powered stations that would have to be on (extremely expensive relatively speaking) 'sleeply standby' would need to be brought back online temporarily to the grid. They'd still need to be there.

The only problem with Nuclear is waste management but even so the UK has since the 50's only produced the same mass of waste as say a small detached house. Theres more radioactivity in a jar of coffee than in the low level waste that we produce too.

 

[Peppermint]

I agree the earth will always survive (except when the sun blows out in about 5 billion years).
But it's the humans who won't, and the plants and the animals that are at the moment. It's actually them I feel more sorry for than the humans.

 

[MARKB]

One thing the government (and other countries) need to sort out is their energy policy.

We're relying on more and more cheap Gas powered stations using cheap gas from other countries. This will run out in the next 10-20 years. Coal will start to run out too sooner than we think.

We need to start building more Nuclear power stations. Now. The latest nuclear reactor (pressurised water) designs by companies such as Westinghouse are fantastic with unbelievable safety levels and many many levels of fail safe redundancy. These are off the shelf that the government/companies could buy. No money wasted designing etc.

People point to Nuclear accidents but they were on old types of reactors, made when the technology was in its infancy and not fully understood.
Most of the UKs reactors are at ot near the end of their life now and need to be replaced.

The barrier to nuclear power station building in this country is short term profit (Gas stations are most econominal in the short run) and political. No politician presently sees an openly pro nuclear stance as winning votes if people don't like you for your other policies, but it could be a vote loser with the anti-nuclear lobby. Give it 5-10 years, they'll be FORCED to "come out" when the supply of cheap gas is unstable and running out.

By then it will be too late and we WILL face power cuts and brownouts. This period of cheap energy we're having now thanks to privitisation of the industry is very bad for us in the long term with regards to future and current investment. Power costs will need to rise sharply to ensure that power is available. Nuclear power is more expensive than other types but we will HAVE to pay this in the end.

There is currently no other alternative other than Nuclear for the forseeable future. Wind power? Okay but what about when the wind doens blow? All the fossil fuel powered stations that would have to be on (extremely expensive relatively speaking) 'sleeply standby' would need to be brought back online temporarily to the grid. They'd still need to be there.

The only problem with Nuclear is waste management but even so the UK has since the 50's only produced the same mass of waste as say a small detached house. Theres more radioactivity in a jar of coffee than in the low level waste that we produce too.

Totally agree.

The ex - head of Greenpeace has now said that he believes Nuclear Power is the cleanect, most environmentally friendly source of power.

However, I don't agree that eco systems aren't fragile.

Granted eco systems change and evolve, but man's interference has needlessly damaged and even destroyed certain eco systems.

But Nature will have the last say, one way or another. WhhhhoooHAHAHAHAH

 

[I-Spy]

Also, lets remember China and India failed to sign as well.
If we are talking about soot, then almost all of China's electricity is produced by coal fired power stations.
At the rate China is developing, it will dwarf everybody elses emmissions within a few years. Just wait until it gets the hang of making cars and motorbikes.
China is like the Japan of the 1960's, initially producing bad quality goods, then better and better.
They, of course, feel that they have every right to go down this path (as
they do). But the awareness of controlling pollution is not rife there. You will not have your average Chinese person buying a particular deodourant because it's lack of CFC's. Kind of like Europe in the 1950's.
It's definately irresponsible of the USA not signing, not only because they are the current largest producers, but also to set an example to tomorrows. China and India see the US not signing, and think well bollocks to that neither are we. The Chinese are similar to the Japanese, they don't like to be embaressed, they would not want to be the only ones not aligning.

 

[silvia]

I haven't read all N8 posts (sorry, it would take me about 20 minutes) but... don't you think that, even if the global warming it's just an exageration, it's urgent to decrease the pollution.
I agree with Peppermint, I feel sorry for animals and plants

 

[N8]

I think pollution should be decreased but that it is not as urgent as some scientists like to say it is. I think the planet can and will cope with it a lot better than we think. I think green groups are trying to make people believe pollution should be decreased for the wrong/incorrect reasons because it is easy for them to say this.

 

[silvia]

. I think green groups are trying to make people believe pollution should be decreased for the wrong/incorrect reasons because it is easy for them to say this.

I totally disagree with you, but I'm not going to discuss it cos I can't in english.


I think political and economical groups has lots more of interests in the matter and that's why they are saying it's not that bad.

 

[N8]

But it's not just political and econimoc groups saying its not that bad, its other teams of scientists saying it as well. For every group of scientists or piece of research that says pollution is on the verge of creating a global warming crisis there is another group/research team that says it isnt...

 

[silvia]

But it's not just political and econimoc groups saying its not that bad, its other teams of scientists saying it as well. For every group of scientists or piece of research that says pollution is on the verge of creating a global warming crisis there is another group/research team that says it isnt...

And is it a reason to not care about environement?
IMO, even if the global warming it's just a bluff, any initiative or policy aimed to decress pollution is a good thing

 

[N8]

Ok, we've just gone round in circles here mate I see what you're saying though....

 

[Dual_Life]

We do have a problem but it seems to get blown out of proportion a lot of the time.

A lot of these calims are often just scare mongering. After all it wouldnt be very interesting to say there isnt much of a problem.

My views - Global warming

The Earths temperature and climate has been changing for millions of years and has been hotter before than we could ever make it. The sun is 25% hotter today than when life on Earth begun.

Greens and scientists are always throwing computer models and the like at us. These models have been created, tweaked and worked to show the figues and results they want and that they originally thought of and wanted to predict. They can vary wildly depending on the input given to them and the scientists use them to the best effect they can - for themselves and their theories.

When asked to "predict" past climate changes that have happened these same models pretty much always mess up and get it wrong.

In recent history the earth has been hotter and cooler than it is today (medieval warm period 13th century, little ice age 18th century) and neither of these have anything to do with mans' CO2 generation.

The medieval warm period for example - That actually occurred with no cars or planes spewing out CO2 into the atmosphere. Must have been the metahne from all those cows then or all those bonfires they had eh. Couldn't possibly have been due to cirsumstances that were nothing to do with man at all could it...??? A big volcanic eruption in a couple of weeks could put the volume of CO2 into the atmosphere that mankind has ever produced burning fossil fuels.

All this Bullshit about the Earth having a fragile ecosystem, just that - bullshit. If it did have a fragile ecosystem it wouldnt have sustained supporting life for hundreds of millions of years even through all the HUGE natural events (we'd call disasters) that have happened, many so big we cant even imagine them. The earth has an amazingly strong and flexable eco system and the impact that man has had is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to what nature has thrown at it. Its not a case of how fragile the Earth and its eco-system is but a lot more to do with how fragile Humans are and how we think we actually matter one bit to the Earth when in fact in the grand scale of things we matter not at all.

You had me the entire post. *bows*

 

[x-amount]

But it's not just political and econimoc groups saying its not that bad, its other teams of scientists saying it as well. For every group of scientists or piece of research that says pollution is on the verge of creating a global warming crisis there is another group/research team that says it isnt...

And is it a reason to not care about environement?
IMO, even if the global warming it's just a bluff, any initiative or policy aimed to decress pollution is a good thing

Nice sentiment, but wholly emotive and unrealistic.

Do you not think the world has better ways of spending and estimated £150 BILLION each year???

 

[Dual_Life]

Also, lets remember China and India failed to sign as well.
If we are talking about soot, then almost all of China's electricity is produced by coal fired power stations.
At the rate China is developing, it will dwarf everybody elses emmissions within a few years. Just wait until it gets the hang of making cars and motorbikes.
China is like the Japan of the 1960's, initially producing bad quality goods, then better and better.
They, of course, feel that they have every right to go down this path (as
they do). But the awareness of controlling pollution is not rife there. You will not have your average Chinese person buying a particular deodourant because it's lack of CFC's. Kind of like Europe in the 1950's.
It's definately irresponsible of the USA not signing, not only because they are the current largest producers, but also to set an example to tomorrows. China and India see the US not signing, and think well bollocks to that neither are we. The Chinese are similar to the Japanese, they don't like to be embaressed, they would not want to be the only ones not aligning.

Every automaker from Tokoyo, Hiroshima, Seoul, Detroit, Stuttgart, Lexington, Crewe and Munich is trying to make a cheaply manufactured automobile to sell to the Chineese. The Chineese are making more money and their economy is becoming increasingly Market, and it is only a matter of time before all of the 1.who-knows-billion peeps in Chinaland are driving around in cars- Cars that would probably use carbs with no emission equiptment of any kind running on high-sulfur gasoline. It's just The USA is more high-profile because we have the means to clean up our act. We should, I don't like polluting of any kind, but do I think people unfarly point out the USA as the reason? Yes.

 

[x-amount]

The Real Cost of Global Warming

By MATT RIDLEY


There is usually a rash of news about global warming just before the circus of international meetings on climate change begins again.

Last month brought stories about the melting North Pole. Even if it were true that such a temporary summer phenomenon at the pole was new, the very people peddling it as cause for alarm are the first to remind us not to read too much into single events. They cannot have it both ways.

The circus of comfortable meetings for politicians and diplomats begins again this month in Lyons, France, and moves in November to The Hague. The aim is to press forward implementation of the Kyoto agreement to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions.

Every climatic and economic model suggests the Kyoto agreement is expensive and futile - a spectacular combination. Yet those who oppose it are chastised for their moral failings. Arguing against Kyoto is like arguing against the Nicene Creed.

Yet the argument is simple enough.

Concede, for the sake of argument, that the climate is warming faster than it did in most of the past century (though the satellite and balloon data deny this).

Concede, too, that this is entirely due to man-made emissions (though variations in sunspot cycles have been exaggerating the effects of human emissions in recent decades).

Concede, further, that greenhouse gas emissions may grow by 1 per cent a year (though the actual rate since 1990 is 0.58 per cent and falling).

Concede also that fossil fuel use as a proportion of energy might rise rather than fall during the century (though it is actually falling).

Even with these absurdly pessimistic assumptions, the worst-case result is that global temperature will rise by three degrees by 2100. Most models predict a two-degree rise over the century. Adapting to this rise might cost the world a lot of money, but the effects would be severe nowhere.

It would have a minimal effect on sea level, a beneficial effect on agriculture, a minor effect on the ice caps, a marginal effect on biodiversity and no effect at all on the frequency of extreme weather or the spread of human diseases.

Now what would happen if we implemented Kyoto? That rise of two degrees by 2100 would instead be 1.85 degrees. Kyoto would postpone the two-degree rise until 2106.

Wow! That is from the "official" climate models, not from some flaky maverick - as indeed are all the statistics I cite in this article.

Kyoto, in other words, is irrelevant. One climate researcher calls it "inconsequential", another says that 30 Kyotos will be needed to halt global warming.

But it will not be inconsequential economically. Far from it: it promises to cost the world economy 2 per cent of the OECD countries' gross domestic product a year by 2050 and 4 per cent by 2100.

This means that by 2050 we will be paying every year, in lost economic opportunities, almost twice as much as the entire century's cost of global warming itself. Yet we will pay both costs, because Kyoto will make no meaningful difference to global warming. So say the economists.

Why should there be such a deafening consensus in favor of such an idiotic policy.

Partly because it is now theology, not science, that drives global warming alarmists. Kyoto was the green Council of Nicaea. And partly because it is such good business for them: politicians, journalists, scientists and environmentalists all make very good livings out of preaching from their pulpits.

There is every chance that carbon dioxide emissions will eventually fall naturally as new energy technologies come on stream for old-fashioned economic reasons - they pay. And cheap ways to absorb carbon dioxide into the ocean are already being dreamt up.

We have a century to get this one right, and the precautionary principle, if nothing else, would tell us not to hamstring the world economy now for no discernible benefit a century hence.