OT: 'Kyoto tax' on the US

[Souljah]

'Kyoto tax' on the US

Thought I'd see what you guys think about this, it'll probably never make it in but I actually think its a reasonable idea, the US (and many others for that matter) cannot continue to be ignorant of the problems of greenhouse gases, perhaps this may sway them.
Although they could just pay the tax and still continue to emmit the same level.....

"There are very few signals the United States understands - they do understand economic signals," Mr Simms added.

[Kristoffer]

Pollution...... that's so gay

[Young Gotti]

be aware of chingei...

[yenhoi]

It wont happen, and you are wrong, the US and the others in power (the West) can probably continue doing whatever it is they please until someone else kicks thier ass.

For some it sucks, for others its very cool.

[Kristoffer]

Actually it will sucks the most for us westerners in the future when we die at an average age of 24 coz of all the toxic gas in our milk.

[yenhoi]

We will see wont we.

[Bluesman]

Originally posted by Kristoffer
Actually it will sucks the most for us westerners in the future when we die at an average age of 24 coz of all the toxic gas in our milk.

That is another good reason not to drink milk or water. Just belly up to the bar and have another round and global warming won't bother you anymore.

[Kristoffer]

That's true

[Christopher M]

I think one of the questions you have to ask yourself here is whether or not you support the sort of supernationalism or globalization wherein one sovereign nation forces another to create legislation through economic blackmail.

Or, I guess, is this something you support when it accords with your own desires and oppose otherwise; or is this something you support or oppose in principle.

[Brithlor]

I think it's a bad idea.

It's just another attempt to milk more prosperous countries, and do little about the "real" problem they are trying to fix. I guarantee that even if the USA did join in the Kyoto (which will not happen) that nothing more will be done about global warming anyway (which is nonsense to be begin with).

[Kristoffer]

What part of global warming is nonsense?

[Radhnoti]

The part where you assume that a species that only been around keeping records for thousands of years (overestimating) can predict long term climate change trends which cycle on hundreds of thousands of years (underestimating).

[Oso]

is it hot in here, or is it just me?

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Souljah
Thought I'd see what you guys think about this, it'll probably never make it in but I actually think its a reasonable idea,

It will never make it in, too many trade partnerships with... hmmm... just about everybody.

Plus, it's not a reasonable idea simply because it would start an all out trade war, which always leads to the US interfering with/stomping a smaller country (and no, I'm not talking about Iraq).

the US (and many others for that matter) cannot continue to be ignorant of the problems of greenhouse gases, perhaps this may sway them.

OOOOOhhhhh yes they can, just look at Radhnoti's post (and he's some kind of 'environmentalist' student). And ooooohhhhh no it won't!

Although they could just pay the tax and still continue to emmit the same level...

Wait, the US and its isolationist stance (sorry, stance strongly responsible for its own backyard... er, except for Alaska) after refusing the 'unreasonable' propositions and restrictions suggested by other countries is suddenly gonna turn round and say yeah it's fine for those countries to tax us...?! The only really powerful international courts: the WTF, would surely have something to say about that.

"There are very few signals the United States understands - they do understand economic signals," Mr Simms added.

Mr Simms is barely coherent, and will do more damage to the environment if ever anyone is ever stupid enough to give his idiot organasation a sniff of power than you would have thought possible for an espouser of environmental concerns.

I think one of the questions you have to ask yourself here is whether or not you support the sort of supernationalism or globalization wherein one sovereign nation forces another to create legislation through economic blackmail.

The US and other countries do this all the time through trade pressure. If not with legislation then with unofficial policy or political appointments. This doesn't mean it's OK, and I'd like to see a stop to it, and although example is important, what happens if the people you want to take notice don't even recognize the example?

And, what about when it is very many sovereign powers and one? Isn't that what international compromise in globalization is all about, instead of globalization with one set of rules for just who the hell ever decides to sit out? Hell, to take it one step further, it's kinda like idiocracy, which is as close as we'll ever get to democracy. Sure, it shouldn't be forced if it's real compromise/democracy. but if there's no other choice when dealing with a global threat. Just ask Saddam.



The good thing about global warming is this: it's not only global, but more localized climate change and very direct and devasting effects are being felt by local economies all over the world. So it's starting to effect most people directly and they are recognizing some of the problems.

The bad thing is, the US government refuses to acknowledge its urgency. The only people who say this are scientists working for the US govt, thinktanks or corporations. Most of the public in the US (hi Brithlor!) translate this as there being no global warming. Most of the environmental scientists who support this view fob it off as 'because we can't predict long-term climate cycles we can ignore immediate effects of short-term disruption of known climate cycles' with indifference (Hi Radhnoti!). Maybe they're right, but how many extra floods in Texas, thousands of desert hectares in the Sahara, forest fires throughout Europe do we need before we say 'doh well there might be a problem'. Time, and the effects so far witnessed of climate disruption (whether through emissions or other causes) are not on our side, nor are they reversible.

In principle I agree with self-regulation by the corporations and the other major actors in the chain of disruption. Hell, they made the mess, it shouldn't be the public burden to clear it up. In practise I don't think we have the time. There is no feasible (or 'democratically' desirable) way to speed up the process on the US side, so I'm just hoping that the US people can find some alternative the environmental disasters like Dubya or Clinton or Pappy Bush or Reagan or... oh ****... for subsequent elections... some hopes.

Or that the right enterprising companies in the US buy up the latest Icelandic and British green technologies and sell them through the States and China (as the fastest world developer with proven environmental damage causing a willingness to deal with the problem at a grassroots level)... as opposed to existing energy companies who are gonna restrict funding and ... oh ****... some hopes...

Unfortunately, I'm gonna do my usual trick of saying what I think and buggering off cos I'm busy, but if anybody really comes back with anything useful, I may be able to make it back... not good forum behaviour I know... so bite me! I mean... I'm sorry...

[Brithlor]

I don't feel like getting involved in a political debate... but I just wanted to follow up my last post.

Europe is just as warm as it was in the middle ages (truely). Same with the rest of the world. The earth naturally goes through various climate changes, like the ice age.

It may be a bit warmer right now than it was 100 years ago but it isn't because of the US (or any country or man made device).