TACAA320
Topic Author
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:44 am

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. "
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
solarix
Posts: 839
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 11:56 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:36 pm

Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:42 pm

Not in the US.


The treaty was never ratified by the senate.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
bill142
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:17 pm

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?
 
TACAA320
Topic Author
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:14 pm


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



That's really sad.
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
Scanorama
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 4:04 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:35 pm

It's good to see many countires signed it and shame on those developed countries didnt.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:44 am

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
 
Derico
Posts: 4209
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Fri Feb 18, 2005 5:06 am

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
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:55 am

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 ... "
 
flybyguy
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:18 am

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
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:39 pm

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
 
TACAA320
Topic Author
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 4:56 am

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??????????
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
mham001
Posts: 4237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:06 am

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.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:06 am

"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
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 5434
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:35 am

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
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:32 am

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
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 5434
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:44 am

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?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:51 am

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
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:12 am

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
 
Derico
Posts: 4209
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:16 am

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
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:37 am

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
 
mham001
Posts: 4237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:32 am

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.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8576
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:08 am

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.
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:21 am

"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
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:34 am

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
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:39 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (reply 22):
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.


Now, that's calming ...  Laugh out loud

Quoting DfwRevolution (reply 22):
Here's a thought: look beyond the next two years and realize that the slowing (of) the economy of developed nations will ironically burn the money needed to invest in cleaner industry world-wide.


Sorry, source, please.
Edit: And while you are looking for a source: what does that ominous source say concerning the huge costs climate change already causes?

[Edited 2005-02-19 02:44:33]
I support the right to arm bears
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8576
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:43 am

Quoting Racko (reply 23):

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...


The TDI engine also produce signifcantly higher smog forming pollutants and releases more sulfur into the atmosphere than the Toyota Pruis hybrid. The Jetta TDI sold state-side has an EPA pollution rating of 8 of 10 (10 being the worst) despite excellent gas milage.

And the pure torque of an electric engine will beat a turbodesiel off the line any day...

Quoting NoUFO (reply 24):
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.


Too much for nothing in return. The extent that Kyoto shackles developed nations' economies will amount to trillions of dollars over 95 years... money that could be much better spent on simply investing in cleaner, more efficent technology!

And if you think industry won't do it on their own, look at the Boeing 787. The 20% reduction in fuel burn is a great selling point for airlines and has the secondary benefit of reduced emissions. Airlines make more money and pollute less, win/win scenario. Hybrid vehicles sell from dealership lots before they are delivered.

Emissions cutting technology sells itself, but leeching the money needed to invest in these products does nothing to help the enviornment.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8576
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:45 am

Sorry, source, please.

Pay $14 and buy yourself a Questia subscription. Search for pollution + developing nation. If you do any sort of research intensive work, this is a great purchase anyway.... you can view 40,000 works in their entirity, most peer-reviewed-

www.Questia.com

[Edited 2005-02-19 02:45:55]
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:47 am

If you want more, you have to go further. I didn't hear your President making suggestions for improvement.
I support the right to arm bears
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:55 am

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 see. Such a projection is surely a valid reason for the most advanced and richest nations to simply do nothing, right?  Insane
...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 on. But no, inaction is the motto of the day for some. Pathetic!


Mham001: I don't suppose they know the research that GW began, combined with private funds towards a hydrogen-fueled society?

"GW began"? Hilarious!  Big thumbs up

By the way: You´re obviously unaware of this, but hydrogen is merely a transport medium for energy, not an energy source!

Your political leaders have failed to explain this to you? Shame on them! More Kool-Aid, anyone?  Nuts

Hydrogen only makes sense with large scale conversion of energy production to renewable sources.


Mham001: 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.

If you´re burning coal to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn those two again later on, you´re simply burning coal as your energy source with hydrogen for intermediate storage - usually incurring additional losses and producing even more CO2 than by using the coal right away.

The nuclear waste problem is still on the agenda, and it is still completely unresolved.

Again: Hydrogen is almost entirely useless against climate change unless you´re transforming energy production!

The "hydrogen revolution" is simply a political decoy, a diversion, in the (apparently safe) assumption that the american public doesn´t really want to know and doesn´t care as long as it "sounds good" somehow. "Worked" with Iraq, seems to work with hydrogen. Swell, isn´t it?  Insane


Mham001: Do our usual suspects know what their own countries are doing in these endeavors? I don't, so please, tell, I am very interested.

Germany is one of the primary proponents of renewable energy and energy conservation right now; Hydrogen is just one transport medium among several to employ stationarily generated energy for transportation. More important is the buildup of an entire industry around energy conservation and renewable energy production, which is already the or at least among the leaders worldwide in these fields, with the US industry progressively falling behind due to lack of support.

Of course we´ve still got a bunch of our own problems; But at least we´re actively tackling them instead of just shrugging them off and saddling our children with the inevitable results of our wasteful lifestyle.


DfwRevolution: 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.

You wish. In practice it gets quite uncomfortable overall as far as is known. Billions of people would die in the transition and due to an overall reduction of fertile ground.


DfwRevolution: What about smog forming particles, Nitrous oxides, sulfur emissions, and chloroflorocarbons?? CO2 doesn't cause health problems and cancer,

Your air is still that bad!?  Wow!
Oh my, and you´re still sitting on your hands!


DfwRevolution: Kyoto will prevent one tenth of a degree of warming before 2100. Wow... that's worth it... not

Unlike your obvious expectation, the world cannot afford to let go again after the first stage. This is merely the starting point for much more challenging steps in the future.

By the way: Half a degree of global temperature change represents a huge change already, with noticeable shifts in climate zones, erosion, desertification and many other effects.


DfwRevolution: 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.

Sorry, but those who only imagine that nothing will ever work have never achieved anything. And that won´t change in the future.

Good night!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8576
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:07 am

Hydrogen only makes sense with large scale conversion of energy production to renewable sources.

Let's not forget that the intracies of the hydrogen cycle in the atmosphere are not yet understood. Lage quantities of free hydrogen gas can eat ozone like the best of pollutants.

Your air is still that bad!?
Oh my, and you´re still sitting on your hands!


You're full of shit. It's hard to find a bigger tree-hugger than me, but Kyoto is a sham. You're doing nothing to help the enviorment  Insane

I was refering to the fact that the Koyto treaty has a mypoic target at only a many factors of atmospheric pollution. Hard to enjoy a global-warming free planet without an ozone layer.

This is merely the starting point for much more challenging steps in the future.

In the sense that it represents the first steps toward international efforts to reduce pollution- yes

In the sense that it represents any vauge semblence to progress- in you're dreams

Sorry, but those who only imagine that nothing will ever work have never achieved anything.

Quick analogy- if the negative economic impact were to "help" exceeded $5 billion at say Boeing Commercial Aircraft, where would the RD dollars be for projects like the 787? Conservation sells itself... maybe you enlightened Kyoto signers might try selling it to the nations that are about to pull a Nanking on our environment...



[Edited 2005-02-19 03:08:48]
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:11 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (reply 26):
The extent that Kyoto shackles developed nations' economies will amount to trillions of dollars over 95 years... money that could be much better spent on simply investing in cleaner, more efficent technology!


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 the protocol sets should be reached by 2012.
And again: What does your source say to the already high and accumulating costs climate change causes?
How does Kyoto spoil research aimed at cleaner and more efficient technology?
I support the right to arm bears
 
mham001
Posts: 4237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:39 pm

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 on. But no, inaction is the motto of the day for some. Pathetic!

Your hatred of GW completly blinds you to the reality that the US is leading the way in many areas. Once again lets go over since you are clearly not well educated on some things....

Mham001: I don't suppose they know the research that GW began, combined with private funds towards a hydrogen-fueled society?

Klaus
"GW began"? Hilarious! Big thumbs up

By the way: You´re obviously unaware of this, but hydrogen is merely a transport medium for energy, not an energy source!

Your political leaders have failed to explain this to you? Shame on them! More Kool-Aid, anyone? Nuts

Hydrogen only makes sense with large scale conversion of energy production to renewable sources.


Yes, GW began funding hydrogen research in the US. For years Clinton pursued trying to make internal combustion more efficient. Bush changed course in 2001. Additionally, it was GW who changed the diesel to the low sulphar content that will allow your auto manufacturers to import their diesel cars next year.

I am well aware that hydrogen is a storage medium. What you carefully overlooked is the zero-emission research being done on coal, something we have in abundance. Guess who else has lots and lots of coal. The soon-to-be- largest pollluter-by-far, China.

Your statement that Hydrogen only makes sense with renewable sources is factually incorrect. At this moment, hydrogen is not commercially viable with any production method. Bush has persued a policy outlined here

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/

Klaus
If you´re burning coal to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn those two again later on, you´re simply burning coal as your energy source with hydrogen for intermediate storage - usually incurring additional losses and producing even more CO2 than by using the coal right away.

There you have shown your complete ignorance of the available processes. BMWs theory of using hydrogen in an internal combustion motor may burn it twice, but bear in mind the large power plant will always be more efficient and clean. Additionally BMW is the only auto manufacturer NOT using elecric propulsion which produces no CO2. You also might want to note that BMW is currently working with a grant from (hold your breath) the United States.

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_534.shtml.

Another idea in the works is using methane to create the hydrogen at its point-of-use, also with much less CO2 than the gas engine.

Klaus
The nuclear waste problem is still on the agenda, and it is still completely unresolved.

And given the benefits of nuclear power, certainly worth the effort to find a way with the waste.

Klaus
Again: Hydrogen is almost entirely useless against climate change unless you´re transforming energy production!

But we are. We must. It can be done in a variety of ways.

Klaus
Germany is one of the primary proponents of renewable energy and energy conservation right now; Hydrogen is just one transport medium among several to employ stationarily generated energy for transportation. More important is the buildup of an entire industry around energy conservation and renewable energy production, which is already the or at least among the leaders worldwide in these fields, with the US industry progressively falling behind due to lack of support.

Thats good for Germany. Conservation is good but there are only so many lightbulbs to convert to flourescent. I also like renewables, I have lived on solar panels and a small windmill for 15 years. I am literally a pioneer in the residential use of renewable energy. (Don't forget, solar panels were developed with US money and research) I am also practical, solar power will not meet more than a fraction of our needs anytime soon. All improvements in efficiency are incremental. Every 2-3 years there is some anouncement of a holy grail that is 10 year from production. It never happens. Wind has more promise, but there needs to be a storage medium. Somebody needs to figure that out. Do yo have a problem if we work on that? We (and China) also have a different situation in that we have a large, large abundance of coal. Cheap coal. Finding the ability to burn it cleanly is a very worthy cause. 20, 30, 50 years from now, maybe a true renewable will by practical. In the mean time a strong case can be made for clean technologies.
Another issue Europe does not have to deal with is a growing population, nor a growing economy for that matter. While you are shrinking, we are growing. Perhaps if we just planted Europe back to its original forests, out problem would be solved-the natural way.

Klaus
By the way: Half a degree of global temperature change represents a huge change already, with noticeable shifts in climate zones, erosion, desertification and many other effects.

What the studies have shown is that the earth has been on a warming trend since the 1800s, before the internal combustion motor was ever invented. Maybe about the time Europe was cutting its forests?? I cannot say what affects CO2 has on global warming, but science has indicated it will happen no matter what you tell us we must do. Im sure there are negative effects. There are also positive effects. Man will have to adapt.

It is unfortunate you allow your hate to blind you to varying views. There is more than one practical approach to problems.
 
NumberTwelve
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:57 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:16 pm

Quoting Scanorama (reply 5):
It's good to see many countires signed it and shame on those developed countries didnt.


Absolutely right, Scanorama. I hate these pix with cold weather and people deny having Global warming.
It's definitely proved that weather is getting warmer and warmer. Don't make jokes, just think about people in the Netherlands, Maledives, Seychelles, etc.

It's sort of brain wash. "Kyoto is bad for our economy" shows that only money counts. Bad Christians, who think money is more important than ecology.
signature censored by admin - so check my profile
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:29 pm

DfwRevolution: Let's not forget that the intracies of the hydrogen cycle in the atmosphere are not yet understood. Lage quantities of free hydrogen gas can eat ozone like the best of pollutants.

Possibly... In any case it will be essential to keep losses as low as possible anyway.


DfwRevolution: You're full of shit. It's hard to find a bigger tree-hugger than me, but Kyoto is a sham. You're doing nothing to help the enviorment

Now, now... Don´t get all enraged...  Wink/being sarcastic
As I said, Kyoto is not the be-all-end-all solution for the climate change threat, but it is the necessary starting point for a much longer-term strategy. It is hard to see how that was "not helping the environment".


DfwRevolution: Hard to enjoy a global-warming free planet without an ozone layer.

The ozone layer is already beginning to recover, although it will still take decades to undo the damage already done and the efforts must still be maintained and strengthened.


DfwRevolution: In the sense that it represents any vauge semblence to progress- in you're dreams

Progress on the global scale will probably never come in the form of a single clearly-visible decision that solves every problem in an instant. It will always be a huge political effort with leaders, followers and laggards, like a large naval convoy. But as dissatisfying it may look, success is just not reached without hard work.


DfwRevolution: Quick analogy- if the negative economic impact were to "help" exceeded $5 billion at say Boeing Commercial Aircraft, where would the RD dollars be for projects like the 787? Conservation sells itself... maybe you enlightened Kyoto signers might try selling it to the nations that are about to pull a Nanking on our environment...

It´s not a simple financing question. It´s primarily a question of the political will to engage in a joint strategy. And even China has agreed to participate right from the start - even though their targets leave a lot to be desired, they have now linked their national prestige with CO2 reduction, and that will have an impact on their policies. (In addition to a very much self-interested motivation to reduce expensive imports of fossile fuels.)
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:48 pm

The hypocrisy of Americans is a constant source of wonder.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23346
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:00 am

France are doing their bit by continuing their refusal to wash anything thus saving water  Wink/being sarcastic  Wink/being sarcastic  Laugh out loud
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:06 am

As the US further isolates itself from the world, responsible countries are making a serious effort to address environmental concerns. Americans speak of economic effects of ratifying Kyoto. They feel they can't be competitive. (read effectively rape the world like they always have)

In my opinion, in order to mitigate the economic effects of responsible countries that have ratified Kyoto, tarrifs should be applied to products from non-Kyoto countries.

Go ahead and continue to burn away energy at the highest rate of any country. Go ahead and continue to polute the world worse than any tropical rain forest hack and slash. But you shouldn't benifit economically by being irresponsible.
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:29 am

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 will be applied on you. NOT GOOD if you want to sell anything in the 2 largest markets (China,US).

Go ahead and continue to burn away energy at the highest rate of any country. Go ahead and continue to polute the world worse than any tropical rain forest hack and slash. But you shouldn't benifit economically by being irresponsible.

That would be ideal in a perfect world, but this is the real world where these ideals wont work, at least on the big pollutors.

Funny thing is everyone blames the US for everything. Even if we did sign it we'll be blamed for something else. Ever try to look at the 2 upcoming super polluters?? These 2 countries have yet to exercise their combustors. So you've got a choice whether to tame a lion now or prevent 2 monstrous godzillas from growing too big. Yes, we need to get clean and more efficient. But we're not the ones trying to double the no. of coal power plants, neither are we trying to breathe twice as hard to emit more CO2.
It's not the country's problem whether or not we prefer SUVs. If you can afford it, you can buy it. I'm sure it's the same in Europe, just that there gas is wayy more ex. and the base prices of cars arent cheap.
Now you're really flying
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:18 am

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 and his merry men have done to your country and to the world. That much is true.

But let´s see about "leadership":

- luring the world into the Iraq invasion: failed
- destroying the UN: failed
- destroying the ICC: failed
- destroying the Kyoto process: failed
- establishing unquestioned dominance of Washington´s interests in the world: failed
- getting the world to respect and admire US leadership: failed - a large majority worldwide distrusts and even resents the current US policies and government

Well, the track record doesn´t look so hot up to now, I´m afraid.  Wink/being sarcastic

Most major global cooperations of the past years had to be realized against aggressive resistance of the US government which is increasingly percieved as a problem, not a solution. So much about "leadership".


Mham001: I am well aware that hydrogen is a storage medium.

Doesn´t look like it.

Mham001: What you carefully overlooked is the zero-emission research being done on coal, something we have in abundance.

There is no "zero emission" coal burning. The conversion of carbon-based fuels will always create CO2 - the only thing you can attempt to do is limiting the even worse byproducts!

Coal even lacks the hydrogen compounds found in petroleum, so that naturally supplied hydrogen is not available as well (which provides a decent (if still minority) percentage of the energy gain from burning petroleum-based fuels); Practically all the energy you can generate with coal will come from the combination of carbon with oxygen - and the primary end product will be CO2.

I´m sorry, but you´re being misled again: Instead of just telling it like it is, they´re telling you a bunch of half-truths, hoping that you won´t see through them and you won´t be able to connect the dots yourself.

In fact, "zero emission" merely refers to the reduction of carbonmonoxide, NOx and sulphur compounds, exactly leaving the greenhouse gas CO2 as (almost) the only product of the combustion - and even slightly increasing its output that way.

By the way, we´re already using such power plants in Europe for a number of years by now; But we know about the implications and only use them as an auxiliary source, not as an illusionary main strategy.


Mham001: Your statement that Hydrogen only makes sense with renewable sources is factually incorrect. At this moment, hydrogen is not commercially viable with any production method.

"Commercial viability" is primarily dependent on a) technical yield and overhead and b) political circumstances, especially the presence or absence of direct or indirect subsidies for both the new and the existing technologies. Germany and other countries are pushing the development of renewable energy through support for its application; Others choose to subsidize conventional fuels. It´s all a matter of choices...


Mham001: There you have shown your complete ignorance of the available processes. BMWs theory of using hydrogen in an internal combustion motor may burn it twice, but bear in mind the large power plant will always be more efficient and clean.

If you want to appear competent, you should be able to recognize that even a purely theoretical coal-burning power plant with 100% efficiency would still produce huge amounts of CO2 in the process - it´s fundamentally inevitable! You can´t eliminate the CO2, you can just marginally improve the net amount of energy you´re extracting.


Mham001: Additionally BMW is the only auto manufacturer NOT using elecric propulsion which produces no CO2. You also might want to note that BMW is currently working with a grant from (hold your breath) the United States.

That´s completely beside the point as far as CO2 is concerned; This technology combination can merely slightly modify the amount of toxic byproducts overall (through optimized powerplants) and shift the generation of CO2 from the car to the powerplant; But the net CO2 balance remains mostly unchanged.


Mham001: Another idea in the works is using methane to create the hydrogen at its point-of-use, also with much less CO2 than the gas engine.

Only if methane is created from renewable sources. If you´re using fossile fuels to create (convert) it, it´s back to square 1 again. And methane is a potent greenhouse gas itself and therefore problematic as well.


Mham001: And given the benefits of nuclear power, certainly worth the effort to find a way with the waste.

Sure. Just magically solve all the problems that have so far stubbornly refused to get resolved and you´re all set.  Wink/being sarcastic


Klaus: Again: Hydrogen is almost entirely useless against climate change unless you´re transforming energy production!

Mham001: But we are. We must. It can be done in a variety of ways.

Sorry, but you´re being misled if they´re telling you the things you´ve presented above.


Mham001: Thats good for Germany. Conservation is good but there are only so many lightbulbs to convert to flourescent.

Building insulation actually makes a much bigger contribution. And, of course, more efficient transportation. Efficient industrial processes are another big contributor, where the US industry - much too long shielded against the realities by subsidized low-cost energy - has fallen behind in many cases.


Mham001: Every 2-3 years there is some anouncement of a holy grail that is 10 year from production. It never happens.

Real-world solutions are much more complex than a simple catch-all "holy grail". And it´s already visible in Europe how a concerted approach on all fronts can indeed effect large-scale changes.


Mham001: Another issue Europe does not have to deal with is a growing population, nor a growing economy for that matter. While you are shrinking, we are growing. Perhaps if we just planted Europe back to its original forests, out problem would be solved-the natural way.

Dream on! Europe is already much more densely populated, so we´ll simply respond with further accelerated efficiency gains in all areas.


Mham001: What the studies have shown is that the earth has been on a warming trend since the 1800s, before the internal combustion motor was ever invented.

Exactly; Before that, the "industrial revolution" was powered by coal! And the progressive acceleration of the warming trend is clearly linked to the rapidly increasing CO2 load in the atmosphere. Employing coal, of all things, for just further expansion of energy consumption, would substantially accelerate this trend again.


Mham001: I cannot say what affects CO2 has on global warming, but science has indicated it will happen no matter what you tell us we must do.

Sorry, but that ship has sailed. The evidence-backed consensus in the entire scientific community is overwhelmingly behind the CO2 / warming link. The Bush administration is gathering the shrinking number of dissidents around it, but since they´re short on evidence, they´re clearly on the retreat.


Mham001: Man will have to adapt.

As long as you´re aware that such extreme "adaptations" usually entail the eradication of the vast majority of the respective population, with only a few survivors managing the actual "adaptation"...


Mham001: It is unfortunate you allow your hate to blind you to varying views. There is more than one practical approach to problems.

Sure. As long as it works. What you presented so far is merely the reproduction of a well-known smoke-and-mirrors show which simply doesn´t help at all.

Bush´s "hydrogen revolution" may ultimately in fact help to distribute energy; Hydrogen is an interesting tool, but it is apparently used by the Bush administration as a political decoy in order to not have to admit that they´re on the wrong path regarding their much-hyped Kyoto refusal.

They´ve backed themselves into a corner and they know it; They´re counting on a gullible population which doesn´t pose the hard questions (such as "So where does the carbon from the coal actually go in your fabulous 'zero emission' powerplants!?").

Regarding Iraq the hard questions were not asked; Regarding global warming they still might be.

Just ask them!
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:49 am

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 materials. I don't think China and the US are holding the good cards in this case.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:55 am

Quoting Klaus (reply 39):
- destroying the UN: failed

Um, exactly how did any facet of the Bush administration plan/attempt "destroying the UN"?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:18 am

ConcordeBoy: Um, exactly how did any facet of the Bush administration plan/attempt "destroying the UN"?

The Bush administration and its ideological exponents have never left any doubt that the only role they had for the UN was as willing servant to US interests. When that failed (and the willing servants had to be retrieved elsewhere), threats, blackmail and declarations of the UN being "irrelevant" were the response. (Remember the threat of military invasion against the ICC and the Netherlands?)

I know that most of the mostly ignorant and highly ideological anti-UN rants were intended solely for domestic consumption. Too bad that much of the world knows more about US affairs than vice versa...
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:46 am

Quoting Klaus (reply 42):
When that failed ***, threats, blackmail and declarations of the UN being "irrelevant" were the response

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 well will they remain.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
TACAA320
Topic Author
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:21 am

Many people get sick in southern Chile for eating poisoned sea food. According with CNN, Chilean authorities said that such bacteria proliferate due to the global warming.
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
mham001
Posts: 4237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:27 pm

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 interested in oil and polluting the world are simply incorrect. I understand your media has an interest in anti-US propaganda, but there is much more to the story.

The worlds largest windmill farm is currently planned for the east coast off of Marthas Vinyard. It is being held up by people who don't want to look at it. Prominent among them are the liberal Democrat family of Kennedy who own a compound on that coast. It is expected to be built-eventually. The third largest farm in the world is being built in New Mexico, I believe as we speak. Your assertion that the US is doing nothing in the wind department is simply FALSE.

Also along the renewable front, last week the US Dept of Energy through it Sandia Lab announced the development of a Stirling motor which they claim produces 30% efficiency. This puts those 13% efficient solar panels to shame. This was developed in conjunction with SES and Boeing. It works to produce hydrogen. Yes, hydrogen is our future-get used to it.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,1018934,00.html
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/default.asp

All these things, combined with the coal research will drive our economy in the future and will do more to clear the air than any blowhard treaty that only seeks to punish the US. We are the leaders, get over your petty jealousies.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

Kyoto

Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:32 pm

Quoting TACAA320 (reply 44):
Chilean authorities said that such bacteria proliferate due to the global warming.


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 population of 10,000 people.

British Colombia has the same problem with sea lice in their salmon farms.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:31 pm

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, agreement is nothing. The climate will not give you points for trying (and I use the term loosely).

The Bonn revisions allowed countries to 'buy CO2 credits' from other countries. So an industrialized nation will buy these credits from a countries that will not and cannot produce these gases. This acheives what? A redistribution of wealth? This helps the climate how?

There are no sanctions or punishment for noncompliance. Only more strict goals for the future to make up for the noncompliance. Does this sound effective to you?

Multinational US companies have to comply. Great. This might make off-shoring jobs less appealing.

China and India are exempt? That alone is reason to reject it. Does this not bother any of you?

Don't be so quick to make Bush the bad-guy here. Remember the first round was rejected by the United States Senate by a vote of 95-0.

Save your sources and links on proof that greenhouse gases are spelling doom. That's not the issue. The issue is whether Kyoto actually do anything about it. The concensus in the US is that it won't. That is the issue.
"Shaddap you!"
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:45 am

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 US politics, but sorry, you´ll have to do better than that in here.  Yeah sure (Even discounting the misspelling of my name as yet another mistake.  Wink)

You still haven´t responded to my arguments above; I suppose you just can´t.


Mham001: All these things, combined with the coal research will drive our economy in the future and will do more to clear the air than any blowhard treaty that only seeks to punish the US.

"Clear air" is not the primary problem (at least over here). Kyoto is about getting the greenhouse effect under control. Without even understanding the problem (just look at the incorrect "zero emission coal burning" idea) you won´t go anywhere.


Mham001: We are the leaders, get over your petty jealousies.

With nobody following you that´s a pretty steep claim...!  eyebrow 
The world has changed course, and you´re alone on your road to nowhere. A few token projects and even local initiatives on the state level can´t overcome the lack of a consistent and effective nation-wide strategy, which would have to include a comprehensive concept for energy conservation as a key issue.


JetService: Save your sources and links on proof that greenhouse gases are spelling doom. That's not the issue.

Only a few months ago, the Bush administration claimed that link didn´t exist at all, even threatening government-dependent scientists in order to suppress unwanted findings. Since Bushs european visit we know how far they´ve back-pedaled already. In a few more months or years it will be only about superficial face-saving on how to rejoin the ongoing Kyoto process.


JetService: The issue is whether Kyoto actually do anything about it. The concensus in the US is that it won't. That is the issue.

The consensus worldwide is that it can only be the beginning of a long-term strategy. First steps never bring ultimate solutions. But they´re always necessary to reach the goals nevertheless.
 
mham001
Posts: 4237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Kyoto Protocol. Starting Feb 16, 2005

Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:12 am

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 in the US is absolutely false and ignorant. What is your response? You ignore those facts and continue with your hateful drivel. You deserve no respect.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], rfields5421, SonOfABeech, Tvilum and 8 guests