digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Kyoto Failing to Cool the Planet

wired.com — Industrialized nations, including those which have signed the Kyoto Protocol, are having trouble reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as the planet continues to warm. The United States, which refused to sign the accord, remains the world's biggest polluter.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -39/+27"The United States, which refused to sign the accord, remains the world's biggest polluter."

    Really. Who's data do you believe? Reports say it's China. Others say the majority of global warming toxins come from burning in third world countries. Ah, I see since the U.S. didn't sign on they get the bad rap. These are U.N. reports, people. I would put little faith in these numbers.

    No digg.
    • vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25Jav: why don't you provide some links to back up your assertions? Why do you put little faith in the UN's findings? Who would be a credible source for you? Whose data would you believe?

      I've read that China is the biggest polluter for sulfur dioxide, and the biggest polluter for a developing nation. The US is labeled as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases for an industrialized nation as defined by the UN in 1992 which did not include China or India.

      Dugg.
    • Llan, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6Of course, since in the USA everyone uses a bicycle and is innnocent like a grazing sheep. Disgusting.
    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article358583.ece
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/climate_change/usa.stm
    • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm
    • thehud1, on 10/12/2007, -25/+20Jav's correct. The sources linked to by the pro-GW people are laughably biased. The science doesn't back up these hacks, who are out to guilt more money out of US taxpayers. No thanks.

      Kyoto was never going to work. It was only designed to hurt the US economy so the Europeans could do better. Naturally, they were angry when we didn't fall for it. Naturally, the capitalist haters on here want the US to fail no matter what.

      GW is a scam, people.
    • angrybulldog, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10ahhh, another U.N. basher, and yet for no reason whatsoever. Yes, have faith in the Bush anti-science, anti-media, pro-business at all costs, "fix the data around the policy" approach to governing versus rigorously analyzing all the available data to reach the smartest, most well informed decision possible. That's a great friggin' idea. That same philosophy left the US Atomic Energy Agency out of the Oval Office so that Cheney, Wolfy, Rice, and the CIA Director could conclude that those aluminum tubes in Iraq were for Nukes.

      Only later for the Atomic Energy Agency get the word to the Administration to conclude that they were for making rockets that couldn't even get over Iraq's own border.

      Bush may have wanted to shrink government, only he's ruined it in the process and made the world a much more dangerous place.

      I'll take the U.N. over the current governing body of the US any day!
    • Axim, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7yeah its all a conspiracy pumping ***** of carbon dioxide sulphur, waste into lakes, etc has absolutely no negative consequences..

      so any of you douches try swimming in any of the great lakes recently?
    • omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17"Kyoto was never going to work. It was only designed to hurt the US economy so the Europeans could do better."

      Kyoto set targets to reduce emissions to pre-1990 levels, which is only the first step in fighting global warming. It was never meant to be a complete solution. And it's a false dichotomy to say that we have to choose between the enivronment and the economy – creating new, eco-friendly ways to handle our emissions creates jobs in the science and technology sector that allows us to compensate for jobs lost to China in the manufacturing sector.
    • adminsr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7>so any of you douches try swimming in any of the great lakes recently?

      Actually, yes. I live a quarter mile from Lake Michigan and spend most of my summer there. It also happens that I (Scuba) dive there, off the south St. Joe pier, mostly, and the water hasn't been so clear for decades.
    • dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=4592
      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17039
    • Pharaoh777, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

      Kyoto is a moronic plan to begin with. Let's try technology instead of restrictions.
    • curunir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"so any of you douches try swimming in any of the great lakes recently?"

      You should have tried it about 30 years ago. It's MUCH better now. Environmental protections do work, and lakes and rivers are much cleaner now than they used to be.
    • Llan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hooray let's cite Junkscience. Why not interview the Exxon boss directly, what his opinion is, because he must know, he's probably better than 2000 scientists combined and of course has no other interests. Let's always just cite one page that is explicitly dedicated to LIE because some money hungry people that would sell their own genitalia for more profit willingly rape our planet. You have to be seriously intellectually challenged to not get the fact that all these pages really ARE junk! They are paid for by stubborn people who refuse to accept science, for whatever crazy reason. Millions of hours of work from scientists, all the same to them, and a lot of people here too. What is so hard to get about the facts that
      - 5 seconds of your brain time are not the same as millions of hours of educated scientists
      - There are specialists out there that actually know what they are talking about
      - The USA is not the world. The UN is not the world, but it at least is a compromise of the opinions of the world. The USA are NOT the UN, and if they act against all other countires, it is not because they are so great and free, it is because they are too stubborn to accept the fact that they are wrong; and that they are the worst country of ALL, again, OF ALL countries, looking from the prespective of a) a poor country or, more importantly, b) our environment
      - We are part of our environment. There's not humans on one side, and environment on the other. We are hurting ourselves
      - There are other humans we should care about. Everyone of us is guilty, each time he drives his car, showers too long. Not the others, not the politicians, not the scientists. YOU there are guilty of destroying this planet. If you don't care, at least care about the children, they sure are innocent.
      - There is not much effort needed. While I'd like to punch everyone who puts economy over environment in the first place, he is wrong to every extend. We now need to invest very little compared to the damages we would face. Oh, sorry, will face. Because even a laughable tiny effort like Kyoto is not really working because of the immense egos and arrogance of most people.
      I'm deeply disgusted.
    • Andronicus1717, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0axim, adminsr, and curunir ...

      I am from Traverse City, Michigan and the reason the great lakes are so clear is due mainly to the widespread introduction of the non-indigenous Zebra Mussels from the ballast of ships traversing the St. Lawrence seaway.

      From wikipedia: "Zebra mussels and the closely related and ecologically similar quagga mussel are voracious filter-feeding organisms. They remove particles from the water column, increasing water clarity."

      The clarity of the great lakes water is wholly unrelated to talking about the Kyoto Protocol.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The biggest polluter in America is the U.S. Army, which pollutes more than the top 4 private polluters combined.
  • anicejew, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9Hmmmmmm maybe just MAYBE this has something to do with the fact that the biggest polluters never signed on, Canada elected a pro-Bush government and dropped out, and Bush doesn't believe in science or global warming?

    Don't anyone dare suggest it's Kyoto's "fault" for failing to do anything. It's the FAULT OF THE UNITED STATES for failing to even PRETEND to act and make the SLIGHTEST EFFORT. I know people who sill use incandescent light bulbs!!!
    • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -15/+12Why is it OUR fault? We could have signed the stupid thing, spend a ***** load of money, ***** our economy, and not changed a damn thing. Kyoto has been an embarrassing failure. Incandescent lightbulbs? Cmon.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20The US didn't sign on because they said it wouldn't work. Now the nations that did sign on are coming to that realization and exempting their individual industries one-by-one. Everyone was so willing to sign on at first because the initial requirements were so small. Now that new requirements are kicking in and the nations that signed on have to actually DO something, they are backing out. You can blame Bush for a lot of things but not for this . . . he wasn't president in 1997 and he certainly hasn't told the nations that singed on to Kyoto to break their promises. The US could have signed on to Kyoto, and then just backed down like everyone else . . . what good does that do? At least the US was honest from the beginning that they had no intention of doing what Kyoto says. Moreover, greenhouse gas emission can be controlled on a state-by-state basis in the US, just look at California under Arnold. They are effectively joining Kyoto without signing any specific treaties.
    • p0ss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15In reality the Kyoto protocol has never been stringent enough.
      Even if every country had adhered to the recommendations, global warming would not have been halted, the effect would only have been mitigated.

      "Current estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol will reduce that increase by somewhere between 0.02 °C and 0.28 °C by the year 2050 (source: Nature, October 2003)."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

      The sad truth is that we are individually and collectively unwilling to make the financial and lifestyle sacrifices necessary to prevent the inevitable consequences.
    • chadkazulu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@nixonrichard

      Imagine if every MLB team were steroid free and constrained by salary caps, except one. How long would the league remain competitive? That's why Kyoto is struggling. The biggest team is playing by its own set of rules... we've become THE rouge state.
    • volscio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you have access to Foreign Affairs' past issues, they have some great articles that are well-balanced on the Kyoto Protocol.
    • Llan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The US didn't sign on because they said it wouldn't work. Now the nations that did sign on are coming to that realization and exempting their individual industries one-by-one."

      Oh that's such a sorry excuse. It's always been just a starter, so telling it won't work is just an excuse. Of course it is not enough, and more has to be done, but you'd have to start somewhere, which is not possible because people are afraud about MONEY. Stupid money! It's just money, what's that compared to living.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Stupid money! It's just money, what's that compared to living."

      Money helps you live. You know, buying foods and services, adapting to climate, etc?
  • BrienZee, on 10/12/2007, -17/+12warming is a natural thing, we just came out of an iceage (reletively speaking). most of earths history the planet has been warmer then it is now, it's just naturally warming up again.
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11See, here's the problem I have with your philosophy. If you're right, and we "waste time" working to reduce emissions, the results are: a reduction in artificial allergens; a reduction in the incidence of breathing disorders like chronic asthma or bronchitis; a reduction in our influence on natural habitats; a cleaner, more beautiful earth, all around.

      If we're right, though, and global warming really is happening at an unnatural and dangerous rate, the results are much more dire: higher sea levels; destruction of habitable land; dangerous temperature fluctuations that change the availability of the global food supply.

      At worst, without man made global warming, efforts to curb our output of pollutants cause minor inconvenience to our citizens, in the form of temporarily increased energy prices (which will fall as the tech develops), all while our quality of life improves.

      At worst, if man's influence on global warming is real, and nothing is done, our quality of life is worsened, illnesses rise, economies suffer, land is destroyed, crops are lost. LIVES are lost.

      How can you tell me it's not pragmatic to err on the side of safety? When every single respected scientist in the field (that is not in the employ of a corporation with a monetary stake in their findings) is telling you that the problem is REAL, how can you roll the dice like that?
    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2bury please
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Don't be such a coward. Don't be afraid to check the data for yourself. It's available freely on the Net. Don't fear what you don't understand, and don't be content with parroting propaganda from people you don't know who have an interest in keeping you ignorant.

      Check the science, not the politics. Human-induced climate change is real and no longer controversial within the expert scientific community.

      You can handle it, don't be afraid to look at the facts.
    • motionb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Finally some common sense @detlev409 i am behind you 100%
      I think we should try to find alternative energy sources and live cleaner, my problem is the dam greeners shoving this global warming FARCE down our throats, thinking this is the only way to do it.
      Find better and cleaner ways of doing things but quit shoving this load of CRAP on everyone. If you want to be dumb enough to believe it go ahead, dont forget your tinfoil hats and oh yea by the way the sky is falling, run you bunch of tree huggin chicken littles.
      100 years from now they are going to look by at how DUMB you all were for believing this load of garbage.
    • toconnor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Run away! Artificial allergens!
    • jcb1979, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Detlev~

      You make a valid point about not covering our eyes and hoping we AREN'T the cause. However, it can't be forgotten that, around 10,000 years ago there were giant sheets of ice covering a whole lot of land, and the earth warmed enough to melt them. It's been getting warmer, undoubtedly. It is also getting warmer on Mars, but little has been said of that. Should we dump pollutants all willy-nilly into the atmosphere? No--we should be good stewards. Should we become eco-terrorists and blow up SUVs? Nope.

      I see it as rather egotistical to assume that humanity has anything more than a minuscule affect on the planet. It's been around for 5 billion years, I really don't think 100 years of humanity (Industrial Revolution) is going to imperil it. Heck, there are volcanic eruptions every day that spew more pollutants into the air than the entire industrial revolution--what can we do about that? Krakatoa erupted and the explosion was heard in AUSTRALIA...Santorini erupted and left a gigantic crater in the Mediterranean, and Ash was found in CALIFORNIA and darkened the sky in China. HUGE volcanic eruptions, in other words, spewing out the worst pollutants AND debris straight into the atmosphere (and lush vegetation is the result, years later).
      Point is, Mother Earth has taken quite a bit. As George Carlin said (I think): maybe human beings are here just because Mother Earth wanted plastic. Now that She has plastic, we can die.

      We should be good stewards, undoubtedly. Most religions have some thought on that subject (Christianity and Judaism come to mind, with God's command that Man look after the planet, that the planet is here for us and we shouldn't abuse it), and I would agree. However, I also know that human beings are very apt at adaptation--we change our behaviors and our bodies modify themselves to suit our environment, so even if we run out of oxygen and have deserts and floods across the land, we will survive. Nihilist to a degree, I suppose, but I'll end on the thought that the Earth has been around for 5,000,000,000 years--***** Sapiens Sapiens has been around for about 130,000 and the move towards industrialization began bout 200 years ago. We really aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things, and we shouldn't assume that we have any more than a minuscule affect on the planet.
    • jcb1979, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Motionb~

      That is my problem PRECISELY. Global Warming is a buzzword, a cause celebre, not a genuinely-approached problem. Buy your Echo, use vegetable oil to power your Olds, but by all means don't live in a moderately sized house that is sensibly and ecologically heated and cooled, and don't take public transportation. As soon as Celebrities start lecturing on how we should live our lives, I know I should probably take the opposite course of action. "Global warming, global warming!" is the rallying cry, and then a bunch of crazies start telling me I'm killing the planet with my SUV (while they all DRIVE, en masse, to a protest or march...). Give me sound science, not scare stories. When Al Gore makes a movie about it, or Hollywood shows us the Statue of Liberty under snow, I don't take ANY of it seriously. Michael Crichton wrote a rather insightful article (and novel) about it, too, so who do we believe?

      And detlev, 'How can you tell me it's not pragmatic to err on the side of safety" is an interesting thing to say. How do you feel about the Iraq war? Sure, it's a mess now, but in 20 years what will it look like? Perhaps it was better to go through Hades NOW so that we don't have the problem in the future...

      And also, not "every single respected scientist" agrees with the assumption that humanity is causing the earth to warm. Is it getting warmer? Yes. Has it gotten warmer in the last 100 years? Yes. Did the Industrial Revolution start 100 years ago? Yes. Did humans start the Industrial Revolution? Yes. It is elementary, now, to assume that, since we started the Industrial Revolution 100 years ago and the earth has subsequently gotten warmer that we are the cause. Correlation does not mean causation. I woke up this morning and the Sun rose; every morning that I have awakened for the last 27 years the Sun has risen; does that mean I make the Sun rise? (Please forgive me if this seems directed at you--it is just a musing that I have roll around in my head when the topic arises).
  • Cylus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Hmm. I wish we had more accurate and extensive data on how temperatures have trended. There are times I doubt the science behind climate change, but then, I'm wary of politically motivated alarmism. There are people who have much to gain by making it "their issue."

    I'm not entirely sure what to think. Anyone have some good links on climate change theory - who's for and against?
  • Paal, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14why is this a BUSH THING??? Clinton wouldn't sign Kyoto either...
    • nblsavage, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"why is this a BUSH THING??? Clinton wouldn't sign Kyoto either..."

      That is a lie
      http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/kyotocol.htm

      The Clinton administation signed Kyoto but the Bush admin withdrew the U.S. signature.
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Bush is in power now, so it's his job to make the right decision. Thus, he's the one we rag on for not signing us up to do our part.

      Not that it would matter. If he signed it he'd probably just game the system like all of the other major players. Kyoto is a PR campaign, designed to make the signers look good.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3So which is it, Paal? Are you a deliberate liar, or just ignorant? Enlighten us, please.
    • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7nblsavage,

      Why did they bury the part about CONGRESS killing Kyoto? Oh wait, I know...it's a ***** thing. :::eyeroll:::

      CLINTON signed it, but according to the Constitution (You know, that paper thingie you guys are always screaming about) only CONGRESS has the power to enact a treaty with a foreign nation. Guess what, CONGRESS refused to ratify the thing.

      After years of Kyoto languishing in some dark world between Presidential signature and Congressional approval GW, mercifully, killed it.
    • gravytop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"The Clinton administation signed Kyoto but the Bush admin withdrew the U.S. signature."

      The signature on the treaty is largely symbolic. it was signed, yes, but Clinton never submitted it to the Senate. Until the Senate ratified it, the signature remained largely meaningless. Neither Clinton nor Gore (when in office) did anything of note to push the Kyoto Accord through.
    • RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually, Al Gore did "sign" the Kyoto Treaty. By sign I mean he put his signature on it as a symbolic gesture after the Senate decided on its own to reject it 95-0. You see, America cannot enter into foreign treaties without the approval of the Senate and not a single Senator, Democrat or Republican, voted for it. So when Gore flew to Kyoto to "sign" the treaty it was just a political show. This way, the Democrats could pander to environmental activists while saving industrial polluters and the jobs they create. Bush did not "withdraw" from Kyoto--we were never in it in the first place! If you believe otherwise, congratulations, you have been played for a fool by a political magic trick and an Orwellian obfuscation on the word "signed."

      http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
    • grizwald, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"The Clinton administation signed Kyoto but the Bush admin withdrew the U.S. signature."

      HAHA .. looks like you are a very informed citizen. Good thing you pay real close attention. Clinton simply 'supported' what they were trying to do. The USA has NEVER been a member of the Kyoto Protocol .. I beg you to read a little closer.

      Maybe you will start to ask yourself what other BS you believe so easily.

      Clinton sent Gore to Kyoto to 'support' the plan ... but let everyone know how we could not 'really' support it. This is the kind of ***** that makes me sick. Because I guarantee 100 people are going to digg this down, and reply saying I am wrong, when all you have to do is actually READ the very crap you post as evidence supporting your position.

      The very kind of people you guys dispise, are the ones you support... pretty sad.

  • steamedlice, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3With more biological activity on the planet, it only make sense the planet would warm up. There are more people and animals now than any time in recorded history. Cattle alone are known to be one of the major sources of pollutants.
    • jcb1979, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting viewpoint. China is the worst and they also have the highest population, and India is 2nd in both as well. I'd be curious to see some data and research it. Population growth is interesting, but is too easy (just like blaming it on the Industrial Revolution is too easy). As I said before, correlation doesn't mean causation. Interesting POV, however.
  • p0ss, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Global Warming IS real
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

    the VAST majority of scientists agree
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    We MIGHT be able to reduce the impact
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigation_of_global_warming

    Either way we WILL have to live with the effects
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_to_global_warming

    any disputation of these assertions should be regarded as erroneous and spurious.
    • KryptoZ, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3wikipedia for the fact win
    • p0ss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If wikipedia is not sufficiently comprehensive and reliable, please tell me which source you WILL accept information from.
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Heaven forbid people should be asked to do their own research, like say, following the links at the end of each article.
    • Llan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If wikipedia is not sufficiently comprehensive and reliable, please tell me which source you WILL accept information from."

      He probably won't believe anything Exxon hasn't faked themselves.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey! If you HAD to capitalize key words, it MUST be real!
  • frase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What about Australia? Our government has also refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and per-capita, we are the heaviest polluters in the world.

    It's time for *everyone* to stop shirking responsibility and do their part to help the environment. This isn't about nations and politics, it's about people and planet earth. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we keep our planet healthy for future generations.

    t
  • ColorsInMyHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11So basically no one is following the Kyoto Protocol, but at least the US isn't lieing to the world about it
  • SPNKrPunk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Glad to see the US is #1 in yet another category!
  • nblsavage, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6I have an idea, why don't we ***** argue about it for another 10-15 years and make sure we can't prevent what's coming. My God..basically all that is being asked of us is not to live like assholes, clean up after ourselves and try to do some small things to save energy.
    • tmk40, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1nblsavage...if you really believe that, then you should take a look at the Drudge Report today and see for yourself that people in Britain are about to have their taxes greatly increased due to global warming hysteria. All on the basis of one primary study. I agree that much can be done in our personal lives to make a difference in the planet...but I dont agree with governments taking our money and redistributing it to the 4 winds...or gov trying to control how we act. This global warming hype has gotten WAY out of hand (thanks largely to our former VP). The fact is there is not nearly enough RELIABLE past data to say what is going on to any degree of certainty. For a scientist, it seems to be a pretty safe position to agree with his colleagues in the scientific community...whether his research supports the conclusions or not..and continue to receive his grant money.
    • Llan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1tmk40: It's for arrogant socially challenged people like you that it won't work.
    • jcb1979, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Llan, it's because of elitist arrogant jerks like you that people like us don't want to work with you...
  • Gerbil, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDREN WE MUST ACT NOW!!!
    We must ban the worst producers of greenhouse gases - volcanoes.
    • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4And the single greatest source of all this extra heat that results in global warming... the SUN. Ban it now!!!

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
    • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2And cosmic rays
      http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.htm
    • p0ss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All right, time for a change of tack.
      In the spirit of friendly debate, i will for a moment accept your point of view.
      Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that humanity is not significantly contributing to global warming, and that it is in fact a natural phenomenon, How then can we hope to cope with the climate change we are experiencing?
      Our society is ill equipped to cope with a global temperature rise of even 1 degree, surely we must future proof ourselves against this "natural" temperature rise?
      Does it matter what the cause is?
      It is getting hotter, do we do nothing?
    • gravytop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I like this question about whether or not we are obligated to do something about climate change regardless of human contribution to the problem.

      That's something I have wondered about. If the earth were getting hotter because of a natural cycle, would humans (a) be obligated to stop it or even (b) have a right to stop it?

      If the world gets 10 degrees hotter, many humans may die, as well cold-loving animals and plants. But other things will thrive. Maybe like algae and Kimodo Dragons (for example.)

      I'm not kidding when I ask: who's to say that this isn't prefereable? It was once the state of nature, right?
    • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm sure we aren't helping things any, but I don't think humanity is the predominant factor in global warming. Yes, it would be wise to limit our contribution to global warming, but perhaps some money is more well spent adapting to it rather than trying to prevent/reverse global warming. I'm all for using common sense to find easy solutions, such as promoting mass transit or already existing technologies that have been suppressed like electric cars, but let's not spend ourselves into ruination to fix a problem that quite possibly can't be fixed.

    • jcb1979, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0dracostimpy - I like what you said about not trying to prevent/reverse it, instead spending our money on trying to adapt. Alternative energy, not abolition of industrial production; ecologically sound resource creation and maintenance, not taxes and regulatory controls...
  • Seal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Kyoto is a piece of paper.

    It's also a game. The Netherlands have reduced their greenhouse emissions. How? Because they built clean facilities in China. So you see, though they actually reduced their emissions, that number is inflated from their activities abroad. Other countries can buy pollution credits off countries that are far below 1990 levels, like Poland, which was in a state of de-industrialization following the fall of the soviets. But in both cases, nothing pro-active was done to cut current emissions. Sure there's legislation, but what of concerted efforts?

    Which all comes down to the fact that Kyoto is a piece of paper. This isn't like the ban of CFCs, which didn't have the major perceived backlash against implementation that anti-greenhouse gas policies have. No one cares about this piece of paper.

    It doesn't help that the US government is manipulating the information of its own researchers to belittle their findings on global warming. And FOX News... don't get me started on them and their trail of misinformation.
  • AlaskaJack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'd like to make a point without, hopefully, getting everyone all bent out of shape. I don't mean this in an angry or snarky way.

    I'm not sure if the U.S. is the "world's biggest polluter." It may be, maybe not, I just don't know. But even if true, keep in mind that it is, by a large margin, the world's biggest *producer* as well. See what I'm getting at? No process is 100 percent efficient. Anyone who builds something, or creates wealth, or grows something, or provides something, also creates waste. It stands to reason that the guy who produces the most also creates the most waste. So we may be the world's biggest polluters -- I'm just not sure how meaningful it is.

    To put it another way: During the cold war, the only thing keeping the Warsaw Pact from pouring through the Fulda Gap and into Europe was American steel. That steel was made in dirty, disgusting, polluting factories in the American Upper Midwest. But the security it provided enabled Western Europeans to focus their resources on other things, like investing in their economies, developing their infrastructure and criticizing Americans every chance they get.

    - Alaska Jack

    PS OK that was a little snarky. Sorry.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Of course, steel can be made in cleaner, less-polluting factories - and is, today, because of environmental laws, not because of voluntary corporate goodwill. And, it could be manufactured (or superior alternatives found) in far cleaner, less polluting factories, if we promoted the use of cleaner, renewable fuels.

      Computers are damned essential, yet Intel and other chip manufacturers have switched from a highly toxic wash for the circuit boards - which not only severely polluted our water sources but made workers sick - to a non-toxic solution based on citrus oil.

      Your intent may be good, but your logic is flawed. The ends don't justify the means - particularly when there are better means.

      You should check out the research on the economic benefits of green practices and technology, either from Gore's sources or the very recent (as in yesterday) report from the UK. Keeping the planet hospitable to human life happens to also be highly beneficial to capitalist markets. It is not an either-or choice.
    • AlaskaJack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Mr. Rationalist:

      A commendably rational reply. Of course, it doesn't have much to do with what I wrote. I simply pointed that saying the "US is the number one polluter" isn't necessarily saying that much. Obviously, one can reduce the waste per unit of output in various ways. But if everyone does that -- and they should -- it still leaves you right back as the "number one polluter".

      Conceivably, one could try to measure a country's pollution per unit of production, and compare countries that way. But there, real life intervenes: You're talking about so many difficult-to-quantify variables that the end result would be largely meaningless, and ultimately just be a political show.

      Hmm, sounds kind of familiar, actually.

      - Alaska Jack
    • Llan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Of course, it's not only the fact the the US is the largest polluter, it's the notion I get they most people there are actually PROUD of that fact!
    • AlaskaJack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Lian -

      No disrespect intended, but your "notion" says more about you and the rest of the world than it does about Americans. If we were to take your words seriously, and poll 1,000 Americans to see how they felt about being the "world's biggest polluter" (if indeed that is the case), I doubt you would get ONE SINGLE PERSON -- let alone "most people" -- who said they were "proud" of it.

      So think about it. If you are wrong about America on that point, isn't it possible you are also mistaken or misinformed on others?

      - Alaska Jack
    • Llan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1AlaskaJack: Did you even read the dribble people produce here? For me, they are proud that they put themselves and their money above everything else. Global warming isn't even disputed anymore.
    • AlaskaJack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Llan -

      The key words in your post are "for me...". Once again: Your "notions" say more about you than they do about Americans. In fact, you are just reinforcing a stereotype Americans have about the rest of the world: That it is increasingly quick to interpret everything in the most anti-American way possible, regardless of whether the facts actually support it.

      - Alaska Jack
    • Llan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But the facts support it??!
  • grizwald, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4unless you are prepared to go to war with China in 10 years, to force them to stop industrializing ... I suggest you suck it up and go cry in a corner somewhere.

    you might not like it, but time to live in the real world.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So, your idea of the "real world" is one where you can avoid the consequences of climate change by "sucking it up" and finding a "safe corner" to cry in? Explain the science behind that marvel.
    • grizwald, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3my point is simple, China is going to industrialize. It is a fact. They are well on their way already. They are going to make what the entire world combined produces look like chump change in about 5-10 years.

      So .. unless you are prepared to go to war with them to force them to stop, I fail to see the alternative than 'sucking it up'.

      You can wish for all you want, but sometimes you have to face reality.

      edit: you already made a fool of yourself above in regards to the Kyoto Protocol and how Clinton 'signed it', and Bush pulled us out of it .. so you might as well quit while you are ahead :p
  • gravytop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Everyone who is complaining about the evil administration/U.S/dead white males/anyone- but-themselves-group, I hope you guys are taking the bus to work and school and everywhere else instead of driving you sweet ride with the killer sound, otherwise it's all just phony holier-than-thou blahdyblahdyblah. Is this you? Someone confess.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4My family and I have completely changed our lifestyle after AIT (seeing the film, reading the book, and doing my own independent research) to reduce our carbon imprint on the planet. Wasn't all that difficult, actually, since we've never been wasteful. I know many others who are doing the same. What is your point? Even assuming nobody on Digg had done anything, would that make the problem any less severe? Will climate change just go away if we bury our heads in the sand - or will it not matter as long as you can say, "nyah nyah"?

      I'm trying to find something constructive in your comment, but I must confess I'm failing utterly to do so.
  • toconnor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Says it all...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNzWfguDjZU
  • Zique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Kyoto isn't meant to be a complete solution, it's meant to be a start. Its only job is to reduce emissions with economical tools, and it does exactly that. Still, the concept of giving up some economy to cut the pollution levels seems incomprehensible for majority Americans. What are they waiting for, some technological wonder to come and save the day? I know it's a bit of an exaggeration, but the American mindset seems to be that if it isn't a complete solution, it isn't worth anything.
  • spyk3d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lots of evidence for natural climate change
    No evidence for man made climate change
    CO2 rise does not cause warming, it follows it
    The Earth's normal temperature is circa 12C higher than today
    Earth without ice caps is normal
    Much higher sea levels are normal
    The current warming is predicted to continue up to 2012 and then decline
    Circa 2030 is going to be very cold.
  • noahfingway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The earth has been warmer before....much warmer...without human involvement... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/ for example

    And so what if it does get warmer.

    Nothing new here...just the same old regurgitated pablum on both sides

    You can't make me care either way.
    • jcb1979, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That is what people often forget--what happened to all those huge, billions-of-tons of ice sheets called Glaciers that once carved valleys and lakebeds? They still shifting around on the land? Nope. They melted. Must've gotten pretty warm to melt all that ice...
  • conna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Let the polar caps melt. That will make getting to the oil easier..
  • FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Kyoto isn't failing to cool the planet; countries who are unable or unwilling to adhere to Kyoto are failing the planet.


    http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page
    The National Academy of Science

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
    Union of Concerned Scientists

    http://www.cfact-europe.org/resolutions_1.html
    Their resolution

    http://environment.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329579929-121568,00.html
    How to Spot a Shill for Big Oil

    The debate is over, try that crap somewhere else.

  • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1China and India are the 2nd and 3rd largest polluters on the planet. China will overtake the US in 10-15 years. They got a completely free pass under Kyoto because they are so-called "developing nations". This is why Kyoto is a farce. Heck, nations who authored the treaty can't even abide by it.

    BURY - THIS IS INACCURATE for the anti-American slant.
    • Llan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh look, your mouth opened and random words fell out.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Llan: Oh look, your mouth opened and random words fell out.

      Im sorry you can't read. Reading is, after all, fundamental.
    • tmk40, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Llan...if you don't have anything intelligent to say or you can't contribute in a meaningful way to the conversation...keep your mouth closed. This is not the Daily Kos (thank God), the place where people get axed for a disenting view. You are acting like a typical liberal...thinking you have a moral high ground...yet you resort to name calling because you have no facts to offer. I agree with the previous poster...do some reading and see how things are in the REAL world where REAL people are affected by these policies.
    • Llan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would laugh hard if your ridiculousness wouldn't make me want to to cry long.
    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Speaking of ridiculousness.....

      Llan: "I would laugh hard if your ridiculousness wouldn't make me want to to cry long."

      ^^
      Sorry, that is not a defense of Kyoto.

      Thanks for yet another non-answer. Another -1 digg.
  • jcb1979, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I recall a map the other day, I think, showing the worst pollution in the world, and the US was no where on it. If anyone can find it, I'd like to be sure about it. I tried a search but didn't come across it. I did find these maps...
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4083331.stm
    http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM340NKPZD_index_0.html

    And, lest it be forgotten by those who call Bush anti-science, pro-business, blah blah blah, the Kyoto Protocol came around in 1995...why wasn't it signed then, if it's so important now?

  • Burritovision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Kyoto is good and better than a world without. If America had signed Kyoto and worked to upgrade our technology and replace our old systems and control pollution, we'd be in better shape today and in the future. ++

    • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0According to who?

      As a matter of fact, we have done more to slow or cutback on emissions than about 1/2 the countries on the protocol. LOL!
    • tmk40, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Burritovision...and who is going to pay for all that technology??? Our government is already running in the red...and over 40 million of us dont have healthcare...but gee maybe we should have the government pay for scrubbers and other things to clean factory emissions. Or maybe we should force industry to do it...so they can become more uncompetitive among world nations...so they can increase their costs of doing business and not hire more workers...and so they can leave their pensions underfunded even more...etc. I agree we need to do something because it makes good sense, but how fast and at what cost is truly open to debate. I dont think that Al Gore and most scientists have any idea about the cycles that our earth goes through and that maybe glaciers retreat some decades...and reform in others. We are all crying about the fact that manufacturing jobs are leaving our country...and yet these same people are willing to make things that much harder for these companies by saddling them with these stricter pollution restrictions. I think losing a job is a bigger problem for families, than learning to live on the earth 80 years from now when it is one degree warmer.
  • corporate70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The United States, which refused to sign the accord, remains the world's biggest polluter."

    Ya, I'm going to call ***** on this. Ever been to India? China?

    Only people who have never been outside of their own city believe that line.
  • bunnyhugger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0

    There is no quick fix for global warming in sight, we have to keep our machines oiled, this a tough call for us because we are locked into oil based economies, like most western based capitalist developments.
    History shows we don’t care for the environmental legacy we leave for others, so why now
    As a species we have never experienced the true nature of the planet we inhabit, because we’ve only been around for a few seconds in the over all time scale of her berth.

    From the outside looking in, it seems the planet is heating up
    Geological time shows us she has cycles, of cooling and heating, so why is she heating now
    (Is it a coincidence that as global industrial development gathers pace fuelled by Unprecedented technological advances, global warming increases expediently) interesting.
    Given the time scale and the laws of chance it seems very unlikely, but not impossible

    So we have a major problem to address, if we guess right we go to the next level, guess wrong and its curtains for our species
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.