Shane,
There were over 150 countries that refused to sign Kyoto including India, China, Brazil, (what I would call industrialized)and many other reasonably modern countries. Also, Kyoto was set up so that the trigger criteria would be very friendly to most of the European industrialized nations(actually quite brilliant on their part and stupid on ours-you gotta give em credit for that), not so for the US. In fact, it was so bad for the US that our Senate voted unanimously against it.
Even Clinton, with Big Al Bore in his ear, refused to put his John Hancock on it for 2 years, and only signed it towards the end of his time in office(which is why its so funny that Bush gets hammered for not signing it-he can't-the office of President already has-its illegal). We can talk about world leadership all we want but when dems and republicans alike see the threat to American security, even if it is in the name of some obscure noble concept I can only hail them as having done the right thing.
Kyoto was a a piece of garbage drafted with the intent of bringing down the world leader (the US as you admit), and removing the ladder for the less developed countries (China expicitly accusing the "industiralized nations" of developing and growing wealthy through these polluting technologoies and now trying to tell the rest of the underdeveloped world they can't-which of course lends itself to creating the need for pouring more money into them) and leaving those in the middle, those industrialized nations you speak of, in a position of greater power. The American Senate realized it. Thats a grasp of reality!
Also, Obama is not thinking outside the square. He is revisiting the same old tired environmental ideas that have been tossed around and rejected for decades, even by Clinton the hero of the left. He's just put lipstick on it. No matter how much money you throw at some of these technologies they are at worst losers and at best very inefficient or limited in applicability. But they have powerful lobbies in liberal circles with lots of money for campaigns.
As for going to war you might take note of how Obama's policy towards pulling out in Iraq evolved to become more and more like Bush's as he learned more and more about it. He started out talking about absolute, unconditional, and immediate withdrawal, and ended up talking about staged withdrawal with military leadership input. Exactly what Bush had been saying all along.
And let me say one more thing about the logic of the middle finger comment. A leader is exactly that. A leader. You seem to be arguing that a preferrable definition of a leader is his willingness to follow those who are following the leader. So the logic is lost on me. Not to mention that sometimes being the leader means people don't like you.
Also, the facts of it, that we are building geothermals, we are building solar plants (been working on many of these myself for decades), we are developing clean coal, and nukes are fixin to take off again. But if our congress refuses to allow it at such a pace that it is a threat to our security, if they refuse to allow countries who couldn't care less whether or not we even continue to exist, to control and dictate our internal economy, I say more power to them.
PS: Rant all you please. People feel strongly about their political views. It doesn't mean that things have to become personal. Nobody is shooting you down, just disagreeing.
js55,
President Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty. President Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty.
The signing is totally symbolic, without ratification it is non-binding, in other words useless. The USA is the only industrialized nation that has refused to ratify the Treaty (185 other nations already have).
President Bush gave one of his reasons for not ratifying as the supposed damage to the economy.
Australia (thanks to Bushes little mate John Howard) refused to ratify it as well for the same reasons. However, the incoming Labour Prime Minister (Kevin Rudd) bowed to public pressure and ratified Kyoto in Nov 2007 even though Australia has some of the largest reserves of coal and shale oil in the world. Tens of thousands of jobs in these industries are threatened but public pressure over the environment won out over the possible loss of jobs.
As to leadership, whether the US likes it or not, it is seen as a world leader - at the moment it is in 186th position on climate change.
The middle finger observation may not have been the best choice of words but how else would you describe this scenario.
The US is the largest polluter in the world per capita.
185 other nations consider the environment and changes to it to be a serious concern.
A leader leads by example, the US is sadly lacking in leadership on this issue.
And finally, whether it is due to global warming or just the earths natural evolution - one fact is undeniable - the ocean levels are rising. You don't need any scientific data to show that you have lost 20 ft of seafront on your island.
Another poster said how crazy it was to try and have 21,000 wind turbines. I was never trying to advocate the total reliance on one form of energy. Merely trying to state that for every wind farm built it is one less coal fired power station belching crap into the atmosphere.
Regards,
Shane
Shane,
FYI it is the responsibility of the US Congress to ratify treaties. The president then has to sign off on them.
Mankenberg
Bush did not sign the agreement because it exempted China who is the largest produces of pollution in the world and was an attempt to hamstring US production. If you want to talk about pollution go to a any third world country, India, or Bangladeshi where every vehicle is a 2 cycle engine spewing smoke, open sewers running done the street to the nearest waterway. Windmills will never take over a power plant. No way to store the energy and the wind does not blow all the time. I just drove across I 40 to Las Vegas and saw hundreds of the windmills in Texas and New Mexico and 90% of them were even not turning. Came back through Colorado and they were the same there.
Shane,
To say that "other" nations consider the environment and change to be a serious concern is just plain old America bashing. Now I know you aren't America bashing but you certainly implied we aren't concerned. We consider the environment to be a huge concern as well. We are leaders in nuclear(fixin to take off again here despite all the best efforts of our environmental lobby), clean coal(despite all the best efforts of our environmental lobby) , wind technology, geothermal technology, solar power, and agriculturally based fuels, not to mention biomass. Its just that many of us ain't buyin into Kyoto as the solution. The evironmentalists prize pig. The public of the "public pressure' of which you speak hasn't a clue as to what is actually contained in Kyoto. And when our Senate, made up of some the most liberal and environmentally political senators in the country reject it, someone needs to ask why. And many Americans did. And found out.
As for sea levels rising. It most certainy is deniable. In fact its more than that. On a global asessment its irresponsible. The data is all over the place.
As for Bush, Treaty's in the US are ratified by congress NOT the president. And congress, even the democratic majority congress refused to do so. Folks want bipartisanship in our government. Well, Kyoto gave it to us.
And yes, a leader leads by example. And sometimes that example must go against popular opinion. The very reason our founding fathers established our nation as a REPUBLIC. If this wasn't necessary then we should just have popular votes on everything and let mob rule, led around by the nose by mass media, decide or future.
Topic Chit-Chat & Non-Welding Discussion / Off-Topic Bar and Grill / Climate Czar?? A change is coming!
Amen brotha!!! That's what I tell everyone when I'm dumping all my used motor oil into our bon fires. I tell them that I'm trying to stop global warming, I need to make it smokey so the water particals cling to the smoke particals and freeze while making clouds to cool the erff. I can't get anyone on my band wagon though. I told them to take a meteorology class and they'd see. lol
It's really depends on when you try to compare the temp data from 1880....it is always changing. I tried to compare it in 2005 and then several times afterwards and NASA keeps changing the data that was recorded back in 1880 on up to present day. Yes I have proof, and have posted links on here in the past to that data on NASA's site so folks can see for themselves.
