Kyoto Protocal - Political Discussion - Shroomery Message Board

Home | Community | Message Board

You are not signed in.
New Account

Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post

Pages: 1

MokshaMan
enthusiast

Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 280

Kyoto Protocal

#473682 - 11/29/01 02:24 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

Just out of curiousity, how many of you support this and why? If you do, do you support the move to globalization? Why do you support it? How many of you do not support Kyoto and why? If you don't, are you also against the move to globalization? Why don't you support it?

I'm sure that some of you will be curious as to how I feel since I'm asking this question. I do not support the protocal for a number of reasons. First of all the treaty gives developing nations unrestricted rights to pollute. While I do think that developing nations need more leniency than developed nations, I don't see how giving developing nations a free pass is going to help anything(esp since India and China(2 developing nations) are expected to surpass the US in pollution in the next 20 years). Second, based on a number of studies carbon dioxide is not the major cause of damage to the atmosphere. If you look at how much the envirnoment produces(100 million tonnes) compared to how much man produces(7 million tonnes) it's just a drop in the bucket. I think far more attention needs to be paid to other pollutants, such as soot(it's been shown to cling to water molecules and cause harm to the formation of clouds, which help sheild the earth from some of the sun's heat and rays). Third wouldn't all manufacturing jobs be lost from civilized countries since it would likely be cheaper to move to another country where they did not have to worry about how much they pollute and the wages of their workers. Take the US for example, it is likely that many business that have not already moved to Mexico would do so since we have "free trade"(not really always that free, look at what's happening with lumber between the US and Canada). This would cause a severe down turn in world economy, possibly a depression and leave possibly billions without work. Those are the major problems I have with the treaty. I do support globalization though, especially with things like the environment which have global implications. I think there needs to be a global treaty on substances which are proven to cause great harm(such as was done with CFCs). There should also be greater investment by the world community for cleaner better energy sources. The reasons that I support globalization is because with greater trade there exists a greater dependence on each other. As this dependence flourishes the world technically should become more civil. This would indicate that there are ways to deal with disputes in non-violent ways. It's also economically good for the world. Though there exists a level of exploitation throughout the world of workers in developing countries, I have to ask isn't exploitation better than starvation which in many cases is the alternative? Also I have to ask those that support the global environmental movement, but not the economic, how do you reconcile the two? Isn't something like Kyoto a global movement, and therefor a type of globalization? And the reverse of those that support economic, but not environmental.

--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell

Extras:

Top

mm.
addict

Registered: 06/15/99
Posts: 605
Loc: England
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days

Re: Kyoto Protocal

[Re: MokshaMan]
#474908 - 11/30/01 02:25 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

In reply to:
First of all the treaty gives developing nations unrestricted rights to pollute. While I do think that developing nations need more leniency than developed nations, I don't see how giving developing nations a free pass is going to help anything(esp since India and China(2 developing nations) are expected to surpass the US in pollution in the next 20 years).

Agree with you there. I think a global agreement to cut emissions is a good thing though, the Kyoto protocol was a pretty poor attempt.

In reply to:

Second, based on a number of studies carbon dioxide is not the major cause of damage to the atmosphere. If you look at how much the envirnoment produces(100 million tonnes) compared to how much man produces(7 million tonnes) it's just a drop in the bucket. I think far more attention needs to be paid to other pollutants, such as soot(it's been shown to cling to water molecules and cause harm to the formation of clouds, which help sheild the earth from some of the sun's heat and rays).

Drop in the ocean?
In the last one hundred years, The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased 25%. CO2 output levels are still rising dramatically. This table shows how much we could expect the temperature to rise if we stabilised CO2 emissions in different years. As you can see, if the levels had stopped increasing last year, we would still get a 2.8 degree rise.

Estimates for 2100
Year / (Pgr/year) / CO2 (ppm) / Temp rise (?C)
1990.........6.7..........522....... .2.5
2000.........8.1..........567.........2.8
2025........12.4.........686.........3.5
2050 .......16.9 ........786.........3.9
2075........22.0 ........862.........4.2

The USA prodcues 23% of world CO2 emissions, despite having only 4.8% of the worlds population, so the fact that it refuses to cut emissions is clearly irresponsible. The Kyoto protocol might not have been to it's liking, but refusing to even negotiate any cut in output shows what influence the energy companies have in the administration.
All these figures from US government websites:
http://www.cnie.org/pop/bongaarts/popgrowth/b.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/tableh1.html

In reply to:
Though there exists a level of exploitation throughout the world of workers in developing countries, I have to ask isn't exploitation better than starvation which in many cases is the alternative?

No, it's not the only alternative, its a case of whether globalisation benefits everyone or only a minority. A global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions clearly would benefit everybody in the long-term. It is just the short-term interests of a few that are the obsticle to such a treaty.

--------------------
MAPS.org: supporting psychedelic and medical marijuana research since 1986

Edited by mm. (12/02/01 08:27 AM)

Extras:

Top

Lenore
enthusiast

Registered: 01/30/00
Posts: 366

Re: Kyoto Protocal

[Re: mm.]
#476589 - 12/01/01 10:28 PM (21 years, 9 months ago)

the powerful few

Extras:

Top

Jump to top

Pages: 1

Shop: Red Vein Kratom

General Interest > Political Discussion

Similar Threads	Poster	Views	Replies	Last post
Kyoto debunked.	luvdemshrooms	552	7	11/05/03 04:56 PM by luvdemshrooms
The Kyoto Accord....a retraction ( 1 2 3 4 5 all )	Rono	3,836	91	05/03/06 09:35 PM by Catalysis
Kyoto Protocol: Yay or Nay.	meatcakeman	446	9	03/26/09 09:38 PM by dill705
ron paul and the environment	JonnyOnTheSpot	621	1	08/10/07 11:29 AM by gettinjiggywithit
Pure Capitalism ( 1 2 3 4 all )	Lallafa	10,744	76	12/25/01 11:30 PM by Phred
Kyoto	luvdemshrooms	584	11	12/31/05 07:13 PM by Catalysis
Yet another example of why Kyoto is worthless	Seuss	768	8	06/26/06 06:20 AM by Seuss
Michael Badnarik on the Environment	silversoul7	510	3	01/01/17 02:57 PM by akira_akuma

Extra information

You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
921 topic views. 7 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]