Kyoto Global Warming Pact Starts

I am very concerned about our impact on the environment and I don't think this being taken anywhere near seriously enough by most people and countries. I'm no scientist so I can't argue with whether the Kyoto Protocol would work or not but it does seem to be a step in the right direction.

At the very least, the destruction of the rainforest must be stopped.

 

I doubt the Kyoto agreement will last. Even in Finland we are starting to have doubts about it since we can't make the cuts.

I do however despise the way the US handeled this thing. Bush just decided to back out from an agreement made by a previous president just like that. How are we ever supposed to trust an agreement of a president if the next one can just back out of those agreements without consequences?

Russia agreed to the agreement simply because it will probably be profitable for them and if the economy within EU does not turn for the better soon we won't afford the changes and still be competitive in the worldwide markets.

 

I don't get the whole environmentalists hype, do you think that if we don't stop pushing toxic fumes into the air, it might mean the end of life on earth?
Hello? The meteorite strikes and the ice ages?
I think the earth has been through worse.

And then the whole "destruction of the rain forest", do you think the Aztecs placed a few thousands stones under a tree and called it a temple?
No, Azteks burned entire parts of the forest down, and then dumped their temples on it, and what do you know, now you can hardly tell.
Research has shown that an cleared area of rain forest is filled again within 25 years, complete with reintroduction of animals.

Yes, the earth is getting warmer, is it dangerous for animal life on earth? Hell no. Is it dangerous for mankind? Hell no.
And when it's warm, the artics will melt and the flow of ocean water will drastically change and come to a complete halt.
A new ice age will come onto this world, dangerous for animals and humans?
Well evolution takes a few million years, and the last ice age was, give or take, ten thousand years ago, which could mean that we survived it.

The Kyoto protocol is just a frightened reflex against a tide men can't resist, egoistically we assume that the whole global warming was caused by us, who cares that this has been going on for 5 billion years?

It's politics, when you are about to be removed from power and the opposition takes over, you sign all beautiful and ungainly agreements, so your succeeders are forced to take them back and making themselves a lot less popular with the crowd.

 

Well the election between Bush and Gore was hardly clear, and I doubt that Clinton signed that agreement just to have Bush cancel.

The question is not really will we survive the ice age the question is that how many people will die and how our quality of life and civilization will change when the climate changes and the polar caps melt.

Oh really? I would like to see this research since from what I've read from my geography books there are quite a lot of practical examples of how rainforest turns into desert when it is cut clear.

 

Actually, 2-3 billion years ago, the earth collided with the moon, it's still there isn't it?
Back then, the moon was as big as the earth.

I didn't say the rainforest grows back in 25 years, I said patches of the rain forest grow back in 25 years.
Oh wait, you mean rainforest as in, 200 meter tall trees huh?
87,5 percent of the rainforest is still intact, of the 12,5 percent that is deforested, 1/3rd is recovering, and as Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace said:

And still, even if the rainforest was cut down, it would be good for the rest of the world, because the rain forest takes in more oxygen than it produces, the ground floor is filled with rotten plants and trees, and there goes the oxygen.

I said humankind, not humans.
I said animal life, not animals.

Cut clear?? Do you think farmers cut the rainforest tree by tree? That statement is even more ridiculous than my 25-year-plan.
They torch it, because the ground is fertile then.

[ February 16, 2005, 23:58: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

The Aztecs!? Surely the Aztecs did not have the same capacity for rampant deforestation as modern logging companies.

Plus, surely one of the first places that would be under water if sea levels rose is Holland? Isn't that enough cause for concern for you?

 

No it is not since a lot of rainforest is cut clear every day. The treesorts in the rainforests are valuable and the people living there do cut the forest for the woodproducts to build houses etc. and unfortunetly they often cut the forests clear.

 

Now there's a new twist. This is the first time I've heard that rainforests are bad for us. Would like to see the source on that one. The standard theory is that rotting plants and undergrowth is not only necessary for a rich soil and preferred for lush growth, but necessary for long term survival. In a gardner's term, it's called "compost" and is vital to a well developed and productive root system.

 

Right on Morgoth. Global warming is a complete and utter farce. For every study done by some scientist predicting doom there is another study showing that the earth has been through countless warming and cooling periods and they have all been caused by the sun and we have nothing to worry about.

I consider this just about the phoniest of scientific research. I firmly believe both sides start with a conclusion and back into the facts. To expect nations to cripple their economies over this is ridiculous.

I also live by the rule that rich people like nice things. They don't like smelly and foul things. You won't find too many black smoke belching factories where rich people live. I have many manufacturing clients and not a one of them would I consider a "polluter" as their neighbors wouldn't like it very much.

 

Ah, you've never lived in Houston. If you ever get to spend anytime here, you may be forced to rethink that. The entire city smells like....

 

Global warming may or may not be an utter farce. But I’m amazed that anybody can deny that there are some severe environmental issues facing us at the moment. Any “crippling” of economies that may occur through sensible environmental planning would be insignificant next to the cost of dealing with eventual consequences of our shortsighted approach to our use of the Earth. Plus there is the intangible cost associated with such things as the extinction of many species of animals and the destruction of many beautiful areas of nature. Even in my short lifetime I know that there are many great natural areas near where I live that have been bulldozed to up more houses and shopping centres. And this is in New Zealand which is famed for being one of the most environmentally conscious countries in the world.

I’m probably getting off the specific topic of Kyoto here, but this whole area is something that is just not being taken sufficiently seriously by enough people. And don’t get me started on the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource that will run out at some point……………..

 

@ HB: Just be glad your country signed the protocol. There's only two Western nations who haven't IIRC, and guess who's the other one? Thank you, Mr Howard. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the most incredible natural formations in the world, and I strongly urge all of you to come see it in the next five years - odds are that with an increas of even 0.5 of a degree, the coral reefs will be bleached and dead within the next ten to twenty years.

@ TGS: While I agree with the comments you've made about the history of climatic change, all of those except the current one has occurred without the intervention of a species (us) capable of changing our surroundings and environment. I think the "green religion" goes too far in many cases, but the fundamental concern is sustainability of life.

That anyone would retreat from being a signatory on the ground of cost at the very least seems more concerned with the gains of today than the costs for the future, and at worst utterly reprehensible in their recklessness. It's not going to cripple the US economy to sign. It amazes me that we are willing to place economics, an imperative we have largely created, and pure politics above species survival without knowing the full scope of things. Surely a safer approach would be the best solution until one side or another is demonstrated to be right or wrong?

Ever wonder why there aren't a whole stack of factories near the beaches of California, or Florida, or near Hollywood? Why they seem to be concentrated more around predominantly blue-collar areas? And how many wealthy people use or take advantage of the products these factories produce? Separation doesn't absolve; we are all complicit in polluting our planet, and since I am more concerned with ensuring a future for myself and my descendants than with maximising growth and profit, I don't see the economic costs as justifying a retreat from responsibility.

 

The economics argument is specious. Every time industry has been "threatened" with new regulations, its response has been, "Those restrictions will ruin us, you can't make us do that, we'll all go out of business." And everytime the regulations have been implemented...did industries fail? Or even suffer significant losses and setbacks? Nope.

At least, not in America.

 

Some people think Global Warming is a load of crap but they do not see the effects. The seas surrounding Ireland have warmed by a few degrees over the last few decades and most people think "what harm could a few degrees do?" - well those few degrees have seriously harmed our Cod stocks. Pubs around Belfast used to be famous for their seafood's up until 1992 but now its extremely hard to find a pub that even has seafood on the menu.

Global warming also causes conflict. We had Russian and Portuguese fishermen in our waters mass fishing.

 

@Taluntain

Well the theory also states that in the collide, the earth became substantialy bigger, and the mars-sized planet smaller, so logically that means that before, the earth was smaller than the mars-sized planet or just as big, and did not 'split'.
I don't even think that planet-sized objects can 'split' in a collision, the effect of gravity will be strong enough to prevent that.

Okay, with area I meant a few square miles.
Not a field from Brasilia to Rio de Janeiro.

Facts lost in the deep dark jungle
The rainforest issue: myths and facts
The clear cutting facts of the rainforest

Exactly, and because they are the least accessible, we can't get there.

When 3 billion people die in a flood, it's not dangerous for mankind, just for individual humans, our species will still go on and reproduce.
Same goes for the animals, if 5000 species die a year(as Edward Wilson claims), that is not dangerous for animal life on this planet.

See first my source, even Worldwatch claimed that annualy only 1/5th of the total destruction is done by the timberindustry, the rest is burned for fertile farms and cattle ranches.
But you don't see that in the greenpeace commercials, they only show destruction, and they will be damned if they air a clip showing that plants are regrowing where the rainforest once stood.

And now Tal, I'd love to ask you, do you have a credible source of information showing that:
a) The global warming is solely caused by humans.
b) The Kyoto protocol will revert this global warming.


@Spellbound

Yes, and? It's still producing CO2.
Burning amounts of fossil fuel is too vital for a well developed human race.

@HBB

No no, of course the Azteks do not, but that was merely an example of regrowth after the destruction, every time I watch a greenpeace commercial they tell me that the rainforest is being destroyed with no chance of repair.

And yes, Holland will be the first country to fall to the flood, matter of fact, I live very close to the coast, the next big storm on the Northsea combined with a weak dyke and I'll one of the first to drown...

 

People! We're talking about science here, right? This is science, goddammit, not Creationism or stuff! It's not like everyone's free to choose convenient results and insights or that for every research there's a counter-research available. If you see contradicting "facts", what do you make of it? Do you think "anything goes"? Ha!

You have to trace back to the source of the contradiction. In some precious, special cases you will find that the contradiction persists - which gives you the chance to reevaluate your theory and adjust it to take care of the existing problem.

In most cases, however, you will find that the contradiction vanishes. Because it only seemed like there was any. Because people (and studies) didn't talk about the same thing. Because the assumptions being made in one case were not valid. And so on.

That said, here's some insights:

http://www.ipcc.ch

and, to be more precisely:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

It doesn’t get more basic and official than that.

Interesting:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_For_A_Constructive_Tomorrow

Hm.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

It is a lot of reading. Sure. But it is a complex topic, eh. No one said forming an opinion was easy.

Basically, it is like that: yes, there is something like an anthropogenic green house effect caused by CO2. The biggest part of the natural green house effect is caused by H2O. In the frame of global carbon circulation there are some buffering mechanisms (mainly the oceans take in half of the man made CO2 per year); nevertheless, there has been an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, starting with 280 ppm during the Holocene (pre-industrial) and ending with 370 ppm presently.

The consequences of this are a bit foggy, granted. But really more foggy in a “will it take another 100 years for the collapse to come or rather 25” way than in a “maybe it’s all a hype and we can ignore it” kind of way.

Some statistics (taken form a German site, PM if you’re interested in even more details…) for the global warming from 1750 until today in the lower atmosphere:

Climate factor - global warming – singal in Germany – structure of the signal
Green house gases – 0.9 to 1.3 °C – 1.5 °C – progressive trend (+)
Sulphate particles – 0.2 to 0.4 °C – 0.6 °C – variable trend (-)
Volcanism – 0.1 to 0.2 °C – 0.2 °C – episodically, 1 to 3 years (-)
Sun activities – 0.1 to 0.2 °C – 0.6°C – fluctuating (+)
El Nino – 0.2 too 0.3 °C – insignificant – episodically, monthly (+)

And we’re talking about climate, not about weather. 1 or 2 degrees may be crucial in this respect. Really, Kyoto is only the first step. But as long as neither USA nor China or other main contributors are involved…

Oh, and the rain forest. It doesn’t produce anything. It doesn’t use up anything. It stores . A living plant splits carbon and oxygen from CO2 through photosynthesis. Oxygen is released into the atmosphere, carbon is stored – the plant grows. At the same time, the plant breathes. This uses up some oxygen and produces some CO2. On the whole, more oxygen than CO2 is released. Then the plant dies. It rots. CO2 is released again. After the plant has vanished without a trace, the same amount of CO2 and O2 can be found in the atmosphere then before. It is like the plant never was there at all.

Now, the important part is in the “the plant lives, dies and rots” phase. During this time, CO2 is stored and does not contribute to the green house gases in the atmosphere. As long as for every dying plant there is a new one, it doesn’t make a difference. The rain forests hardly are a “green lung” or whatever. But (and this is a major “BUT”) what happens if we destroy all plants more or less simultaneously? All CO2 will be released at the same time. I don’t want to be around when that happens…