quote:
Originally posted by dogscoff:
I'm kicking myslf already for getting into this but I had to make this point:
QUOTE:
However, that 7% of the world that produces 25% of the CO2, just happens to produce 25% of the world's Gross National Product ... So, if the US reduces CO2, it would, in a sense, be reducing the World's GNP.
/QUOTE
Sorry but that argument is nonsense. You don't *need* to produce C02 to generate GNP. The two _are_ currently linked, but that link can and must be broken. As one of the world's richer and more technologically advanced nations the US should be helping to set an example by switching that GNP to renewable energy.
QUOTE:
What effects do you think that would have on the economies of the world? How much are you willing to pay for a computer or a pair of Levi's?
/QUOTE
The question is, how much are *you* willing to pay? At the moment it's costing you your environment. (And mine.)
Hey, I was listening to the 'horribly biased liberal media' the other day when I heard some actual REASONS to reject the Kyoto agreement. It seems that the way it was structured would force the US to pay a much higher price to reduce it's CO2 emissions than the Europeans. For example, the target date for the emissions standard was set at 1990. Well, at that time West Germany had just absorbed East Germany and had hordes of grungy old communist era industries with coal-fired power/machinery to shut down and/or rebuild. Since these had to be replaced anyway, setting the date at 1990 gives Germany a huge head start or 'credit' on meeting their goals. They get to cheat on the way their CO2 is measured, in other words. There's a similar cheat for Britain in that they are switching from coal to gas fired power plants, too. They had to do this anyway but with the date for measuring the emissions set at 1990 they get credit for this in the treaty. The US would be stuck with having to restructure its industries according to the treaty rather than getting to synchronize with a genuine need for industrial renewal of some sort. The person explaining this was none other than Newt Gingrich.