Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005  
User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

What's your opinion about teh Kyoto Protocol?

"Preface

From December 1 through 11, 1997, more than 160 nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate binding limitations on greenhouse gases for the developed nations, pursuant to the objectives of the Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992. The outcome of the meeting was the Kyoto Protocol, in which the developed nations agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, relative to the levels emitted in 1990. The United States agreed to reduce emissions from 1990 levels by 7 percent during the period 2008 to 2012.

The analysis in this report was undertaken at the request of the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives. In its request, the Committee asked the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to analyze the Kyoto Protocol, “focusing on U.S. energy use and prices and the economy in the 2008-2012 time frame,” as noted in the first letter in Appendix D. The Committee specified that EIA consider several cases for energy-related carbon reductions in its analysis, with sensitivities evaluating some key uncertainties: U.S. economic growth, the cost and performance of energy-using technologies, and the possible construction of new nuclear power plants.

The energy projections and analysis in this report were conducted using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), an energy-economy model of U.S. energy markets designed, developed, and maintained by EIA. NEMS is used each year to provide the projections in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). In its second letter, in Appendix D, the Committee requested that the analysis use the same general methodologies and assumptions underlying the Annual Energy Outlook 1998 (AEO98), published in December 1997; however, some minor modifications were made to allow greater flexibility in NEMS in response to higher energy prices and to incorporate some methodologies that were formerly represented offline. These differences are outlined in Appendix A. The macroeconomic analysis used the Data Resources, Inc. (DRI) Macroeconomic Model of the U.S. Economy, which is also used for the economic analysis in the AEO.

Chapter 1 of this report provides background discussion of the Kyoto Protocol and the framework and methodology of the analysis. Chapter 2 summarizes the energy market results from the various carbon reduction cases. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 analyze in more detail the issues and results for the end-use demand sectors, the electricity generation sector, and the fossil fuel supply markets, respectively. Chapter 6 provides the results of EIA's analysis of the macroeconomic impacts of carbon reduction under different monetary and fiscal policy assumptions. Chapter 7 compares the results of this study with those from other studies of the costs of carbon reduction, with accompanying tables in Appendix C. Appendix B includes the detailed energy market results from the carbon reduction cases.

Within its Independent Expert Review Program, EIA arranged for leading experts in the fields of energy and economic analysis to review earlier versions of this analysis and provide comment. The assistance of the following reviewers in preparing the report is gratefully acknowledged:

Joseph Boyer
Yale University

Lorna Greening
Consultant to Hagler Bailly Services, Inc.

William Hogan
Harvard University

William Nordhaus
Yale University

Dallas Burtraw
Resources for the Future

Richard Newell
Resources for the Future

William Pizer
Resources for the Future

Michael Toman
Resources for the Future

John Weyant
Stanford University Energy Modeling Forum.

The legislation that established EIA in 1977 vested the organization with an element of statutory independence. EIA does not take positions on policy questions. It is the responsibility of EIA to provide timely, high-quality information and to perform objective, credible analyses in support of the deliberations of both public and private decisionmakers. This report does not purport to represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Energy or the Administration. "


51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSolarix From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2316 times:



User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2301 times:

Not in the US.


The treaty was never ratified by the senate.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8459 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2280 times:

Not ratified here either although we are 'on track to meet kyoto protocol targets'. If thats the case it begs the question doesn't it?

User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2272 times:


Quoting L-188 (reply 2):
Not in the US.



That's really sad.


User currently offlineScanorama From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

It's good to see many countires signed it and shame on those developed countries didnt.

User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7961 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2259 times:

Solarix, the last global warming caused the ice age and weather (some very cold or hot days) isn't the same as climate, you know. Ok, you don't know ...

The Kyoto protocol can only be a first step, but it is a step in the right direction.

[Edited 2005-02-17 16:45:28]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4312 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2240 times:

While the United States is not participating officialy, it is slowly being forced to toe the line nontheless.

United States multinationals now HAVE to comply with the new regulations in the countries where the treaty is valid. Otherwise, they will face warnings, fines, revokation of expansion licenses, or even confiscation of their assets in that country. Many companies are beginning to comply even without such warnings.

Thus, if a US multinational wants to be in another country, they must comply. As such, some US companies have already stated they will soon be applying the same emission standards at home as they have to abroad.

They realize that they might as well do make the investment now and get it off the bottom line, rather than to delay the inevitable.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Save your breath Derico, many americans here really believe that just because their govt. didn't sign they aren't involved. Allow them their moment of bliss.


" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineFlybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1801 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

The Kyoto nonsense is for industrialized nations only. Only industrialized nations have the extra dough to burn on useless things like this. The developing third world economies need to pollute to develop themselves. That is a fact. Developing countries need not follow these wacky standards or greenpeace and the other eco-nuts will keep millions more people than necessary in poverty to save trees good for building materials and animals good for axle grease.


"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
User currently onlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21487 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2192 times:

Flybyguy: The Kyoto nonsense is for industrialized nations only. Only industrialized nations have the extra dough to burn on useless things like this.

Sure. Waiting for the last to catch up has always been a brilliant strategy for someone claiming to "lead the world", hasn´t it...?  Nuts


User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

Quoting Flybyguy (reply 9):
The Kyoto nonsense is for industrialized nations only. Only industrialized nations have the extra dough to burn on useless things like this. The developing third world economies need to pollute to develop themselves. That is a fact.



What are you talking about??????????


User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

I am very thankful that the US politicians saw the treaty for what it was-a bad agreement. Too bad the euros took Bushs' anouncement so personal, but Clinton agreed to it knowing it would never pass.

Now as it relates today. China and India are exempt, yet in todays news, I read that China is now the worlds second largest user of oil in the world. Their rate of use increased 15% last year. India is now the fourth largest user. This will grow tremendously in the near future as China still only uses 1/6 per capita of the US. Yesterdays news reports that China is now the largest consumer nation in the world, outstripping the US in everything except autos. Still less per person by far, but that only points to the fact that they, above all others, need to pay their fair share, especially since much of their infastructure is still being built. What Kyoto did was put the worlds pollution problems on the backs of US taxpayers.

I understand that the usual suspects will say that they deserve to pay since they use 25% of the worlds resources. On the other hand, the US produces 30% of the worlds goods. While doing so, our air is already significantly cleaner than it has been in many decades, and still getting better.

Kyoto was a bad agreement, and I am very happy not to take part.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7961 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

"Scientists say they have "compelling" evidence that ocean warming over the past 40 years can be linked to the industrial release of carbon dioxide."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4275729.stm



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5728 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2146 times:

What Kyoto did was put the worlds pollution problems on the backs of US taxpayers.

...since they are the world's largest polluters I see nothing wrong about it.

While doing so, our air is already significantly cleaner than it has been in many decades, and still getting better.

Kyoto is about greenhouse gases (CO2) so your illusion of "cleaner" air has nothing to do with it.  Nuts


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2133 times:

Quoting Mham001 (reply 12):
I am very thankful that the US politicians saw the treaty for what it was-a bad agreement.

Agreed


Quoting Mham001 (reply 12):
I understand that the usual suspects will say that they deserve to pay since they use 25% of the worlds resources.

Quoting L410Turbolet (reply 14):
...since they are the world's largest polluters I see nothing wrong about it.

....you only had to wait two posts for Moron#1, good call!  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5728 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2126 times:

Given the fact that 141 countries signed Kyoto and 2 did not I'd say it's self-explanatory who is the selfish moron and who is not.

But what else, other than insults, one can expect from a.net resident Bushjugend members if they have no arguments to support their claims, right?


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (reply 16):
Given the fact that 141 countries

To dust off a classic chestnut:
...were 141 countries to jump off a bridge....  Laugh out loud


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7961 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2115 times:

OK, Cboy, you smartie, if the Kyoto Protocol reminds you of 141 countries jumping off a bridge: What should the industrialized nations do to reduce greenhouse gases? At least as a start ...


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4312 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

It's sad to see that this topic, just like all others, de-evolves into a patriotic pissing match between U vs. E, with no arguments whatsoever to discuss anything.

As has been mentioned, the non-signing nations slowly will comply anyways.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently onlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21487 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2103 times:

The tanker is beginning to turn. It will take years and decades to reach a sustainable course, but blindly heading for the reef at full speed just doesn´t cut it any more.

Too bad foot-stomping and booing from the sidelines have never been a viable substitute for long-term thinking and plain old hard work...  Insane


User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

So.

The usual suspects have weighed in and as usual its George Ws fault. Yet by 2020, 60% of the worlds CO2 will come from developing nations.

I don't suppose they know the research that GW began, combined with private funds towards a hydrogen-fueled society? It is now beginning to show results, such as the the first automotive hydrogen-fuel infrastructure being built, and the worlds first zero-emissions coal fired power plant to produce that hydrogen as well as research money to develop other cheap ways of hydrogen production, including nuclear.

This years NASA budget also includes hundreds of million to develop the worlds first electric powered aircraft, fueled by a hydrogen fuel cell.

Do our usual suspects know what their own countries are doing in these endeavors? I don't, so please, tell, I am very interested.

I am aware of private German reseach, Siemans, BMW are notable. Curious, why hasn't the Euro auto industry produced a hybrid car yet?

Derico, you are corrrect, the US will not only comply, but will be leading the pack, just not under the constraints of a BAD agreement.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

Solarix, the last global warming caused the ice age and weather (some very cold or hot days) isn't the same as climate, you know. Ok, you don't know ...

During the last ice age the Saharah desert was also a grassy plain. Your point? The world doesn't end during climate changes, the comfortable areas just shift.

...since they are the world's largest polluters I see nothing wrong about it.

Will the US be the largest polluter before the end of the decade? No, China and India will well surpass us. The Chinese are already raping us up the trade deficit because of their cheap labor laws... why throw them another bone that restricts our economy while lets them pollute away?

Kyoto is about greenhouse gases (CO2) so your illusion of "cleaner" air has nothing to do with it.

What about smog forming particles, Nitrous oxides, sulfur emissions, and chloroflorocarbons?? CO2 doesn't cause health problems and cancer, Kyoto will prevent one tenth of a degree of warming before 2100. Wow... that's worth it... not  Insane

Too bad foot-stomping and booing from the sidelines have never been a viable substitute for long-term thinking and plain old hard work...

Here's a thought: look beyond the next two years and realize that the slowing the economy of developed nations will ironically burn the money needed to invest in cleaner industry world-wide.


User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2082 times:

"Curious, why hasn't the Euro auto industry produced a hybrid car yet?"

There are tons and tons of low-consumption Diesel engines. They're not sold in the US because there a) is no high-quality diesel available at enough fuel stations and b) there is no demand.

A Golf TDI with 140HP gets about the same mpg as a Toyota Prius. And those who have ever driven a TDI know that they go like hell...

If you're really interested in European, or German for that matter, hydrogen research and case tests, start your reading tour here:
http://www.dwv-info.de/e/index.html

If you want to learn more about the environment policy, continue there:

http://www.german-renewable-energy.c...www/main.php?tplid=6&aktuell_id=67
http://www.umweltministerium.de/english/aktuell/4152.php


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7961 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2079 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (reply 22):
Kyoto will prevent one tenth of a degree of warming before 2100.


Kyoto can only be a first step, true, and you are welcome to make proposals for more challanging steps. But the US and Australia didn't refuse to join because Kyoto would not have any effect but rather because it's their opinion that this first step already goes too far.



I support the right to arm bears
25 Post contains images NoUFO : Now, that's calming ... Sorry, source, please. Edit: And while you are looking for a source: what does that ominous source say concerning the huge co
26 DfwRevolution : The TDI engine also produce signifcantly higher smog forming pollutants and releases more sulfur into the atmosphere than the Toyota Pruis hybrid. Th
27 Post contains links DfwRevolution : Sorry, source, please. Pay $14 and buy yourself a Questia subscription. Search for pollution + developing nation. If you do any sort of research inten
28 NoUFO : If you want more, you have to go further. I didn't hear your President making suggestions for improvement.
29 Post contains images Klaus : Mham001: The usual suspects have weighed in and as usual its George Ws fault. Yet by 2020, 60% of the worlds CO2 will come from developing nations. I
30 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Hydrogen only makes sense with large scale conversion of energy production to renewable sources. Let's not forget that the intracies of the hydrogen c
31 NoUFO : Over 95 years? Who in his right mind would perdict the effects the Kyoto Protocol has on the world's economy for the next 95 years to come? The goals
32 Post contains links Mham001 : Klaus: ...Instead of leading the charge for new technologies and new processes so the developing nations will have a chance at all to follow us later
33 NumberTwelve : Absolutely right, Scanorama. I hate these pix with cold weather and people deny having Global warming. It's definitely proved that weather is getting
34 Post contains images Klaus : DfwRevolution: Let's not forget that the intracies of the hydrogen cycle in the atmosphere are not yet understood. Lage quantities of free hydrogen ga
35 Sebolino : The hypocrisy of Americans is a constant source of wonder.
36 Post contains images Gkirk : France are doing their bit by continuing their refusal to wash anything thus saving water
37 Airplay : As the US further isolates itself from the world, responsible countries are making a serious effort to address environmental concerns. Americans speak
38 Greaser : ratified Kyoto, tarrifs should be applied to products from non-Kyoto countries. I don't see this at all, considering what u apply tariffs, tariffs wil
39 Post contains images Klaus : Mham001: Your hatred of GW completly blinds you to the reality that the US is leading the way in many areas. "Hatred"? Well, yes, I do hate what he an
40 Airplay : NOT GOOD if you want to sell anything in the 2 largest markets (China,US). The 2 largest markets are also large manufacturers of goods and require raw
41 ConcordeBoy : Um, exactly how did any facet of the Bush administration plan/attempt "destroying the UN"?
42 Klaus : ConcordeBoy: Um, exactly how did any facet of the Bush administration plan/attempt "destroying the UN"? The Bush administration and its ideological ex
43 ConcordeBoy : Hmm, you saying that this is because of the Iraq War II? Dude, said assertions were in place lonnnnnng before GWB any any of his policies were; as we
44 TACAA320 : Many people get sick in southern Chile for eating poisoned sea food. According with CNN, Chilean authorities said that such bacteria proliferate due t
45 Post contains links Mham001 : Klau, I know you hate the US, your hatred of Bush is even deeper, but perhaps you will be open to learning. Your ideas that the US and Bush are only i
46 L-188 : Such bacteria poliferate because of the abundance of Salmon farms in Chile. One of these farms puts enough waste in the ocean to match a city with a
47 JetService : The refusal of the Kyoto Protocol only means the US does not believe it will be effective. First steps are great, but when they aren't effective, agre
48 Post contains images Klaus : Mham001: Klau, I know you hate the US, your hatred of Bush is even deeper, Defamation as a substitute for actual arguments may have worked in domestic
49 Mham001 : Nice side-stepping Klaus. You have been given solid information to prove that your claims that nothing substantial is being done on the energy front i
50 Aer Lingus : I think the Kyoto Protocol is a very good way to reduce pollution and reduce global warming. If everyone, every country work together we can in fact r
51 Klaus : Mham001: Nice side-stepping Klaus. You have been given solid information to prove that your claims that nothing substantial is being done on the energ
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Luton Mini Meet 16/4/2005 posted Sat Dec 18 2004 18:27:58 by RJ100
Russia Accedes: Kyoto Protocol Is On Its Way posted Fri Oct 22 2004 22:27:50 by Klaus
Mass MAN Meet 16-17 July 2005 PT2 posted Sat Jun 25 2005 11:33:59 by Trekster
Mass MAN Meet (16-17th July 2005) posted Sat Apr 23 2005 22:35:04 by Atco2b
Springbok A.net Meet At Joburg Feb/Mar - Who's In? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 15:35:43 by Birdwatching
Wesley Snipes Could Get 16 Years Jail posted Tue Oct 17 2006 18:39:31 by 9V
6 Metre Python Eats Sheep posted Fri Sep 8 2006 19:04:42 by Gr325
Starting To Sell Stuff On Ebay. Help. posted Fri Aug 11 2006 19:43:17 by Cadet57
Nuclear War Starting In 10 Days? posted Fri Aug 11 2006 17:57:25 by Clickhappy
Eric Clapton Australian Tour Jan/Feb 07 posted Mon Jul 31 2006 11:43:33 by Pulkovokiwi