Will Kyoto cause the US problems? 29

[QCE]

Please read the following article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4254877.stm

Any comments?

Will the Kyoto accord coming into effect cause the US to change its position on emissions?

I realize that many people don't believe that the US is a major polluter and that the 3rd world is doing all the polluting. Please refrain from dragging that arguement into this thread. The main issue is that other countries are going to be buy/selling/devloping new technologies to reduce emissions. Will the US be majorly involved?

 

[CajunCenturion]

People get so worked up trying to prove there point on global warming that it is perfect for these kind of threads. People can argue in circles for years on this stuff. The fact is that we don't currently know what is going on.

(emphasis mine)

The emphasised portion is the most honest said in this thread.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[moltenmetal]

The point is that we don't need to KNOW what's going on. All we need to know is that there's a significant RISK of something enormously bad and irreversible resulting from our wanton consumption of fossil fuels, and surely that is certain. That alone should be enough to spur us into action. What's your threshold of proof, and is it greater or less than the threshold of the cigarette companies with respect to the effects of THEIR products?!

There are enough PROVEN harmful consequences of this idiotic wasteful energy consumption behaviour that frankly global warming need not be one of them. But so far, thousands dying yearly from smog in my city hasn't been enough to motivate people and governments to take action to reduce fossil fuel consumption in any significant way. If the global warming bogeyman is more effective at doing so, frankly I don't care whether or not it's real.

 

[BobPE]

I just read in the paper the other day that it is a good thing we are consuming fossil fules because it may be the biggest factor for us averting a major ice age in this century. Good thing I drive a lot...I did my part...Who would have know there was so much positive from burining fossil fules...shame no one talks about it lately....So I don't see the same picture you see moltenmetal...Something enormously good came from buring fossil fules....I read it in the paper....

Let science prevail....and data rule....

Bob

 

[QCE]

Welcome to the world of politics Bob. If logically thought out ideas ruled the day in politics what would there be to complain about.

The truth is that there will never be enough logical proof to prove things like this to everyone.

I'm not saying weather it is right or wrong to join the accord. I'm just saying that Bob seems to think that the USA didn't sign on because of science.

The fact remains that the USA is the world's largest polluter and even if there was plenty of evidence to prove global warming I still doubt it if the USA would agree to sign the Kyoto Accord. It is not for scientific reasons that this did not happen it is political.

 

[JAE]

I don't believe that the USA is the world's largest polluter - please provide some proof to that statement - I'd like to see it....really, I would.

Also, moltenmetal - I just don't agree with your underlying logic (hope I'm interpreting you correctly here): That if there is suspect risk of something bad happening then we should ere on the safe side and do something right away to avoid the risk at all costs. The reason I'm reluctant to have this knee jerk reaction to risks is that over and over again we have done this sort of thing only to have even worse results occur. And we never really know what the true risks are of doing something, doing everything, or doing nothing. Too many times we screw it up even worse.

Take DDT - banned because we "thought" that there was a big risk. What happened? Millions of people have died from Malaria due to an increase in mosquitos. And now there is serious doubt that DDT was as dangerous as once thought.

There isn't a "significant risk of something enormously bad and irreversible resulting from our wanton consumption of fossil fuels". The air in the USA is cleaner now than it has been in years. We have responded to the issues in measured, science-based ways. We have more trees in North America today than have been in hundreds of years. All this with an increase in fossil fuel usage.

 

[QCE]

JAE - you can just as easily look up total or per capita emissions by country. I have check several websites including US government sites. Even they list the USA as the top emitter. I did find one website were the USA was second in per capita emmissions behind Luxembourg. I looked up many different emmissions and the USA is top in almost everyone. I thought this was common knowledge to everyone in the world. However everytime I mention this on this website I receive many questions similar to JAE's. I'm not saying that Canada is a lot better. Actually 2 provinces in Canada are the highest greenhouse gas producers per capita anywhere in the world. Total emmissions are however a totally different story. the USA has a strangle hold on that one.

I do love how people are so outraged by one side not producing facts and then they launch into a bunch of arguements supporting their point of view without any facts.

By "air is cleaner" do you mean less smog or less emmissions. Because less emmissions is just wrong. I also heard this stuff on CNN. Please post the CNN website to back up your arguements. CNN home of the science based reporting. I would also like to see the tree thingy. I live in a logging community. I would like to see what they consider a tree. For every full grown tree that gets cut down they plant a few seedlings. However a seedling is not really a tree as it has a small chance of making it. I'm sure you would agree if you saw a 500 year old cedar tree next to a seedling.

For your info DDT is banned in the USA not the world. Some nations still use it.

 

[zdas04]

I recently read an article in the popular press (I can't find the link right now) that efforts to clean up the air in the L.A. basin have significantly reduced the particulate matter in the air.

Good deal, except the article went on to say that the junk in the air had been reflecting a lot of UV and the doctors were reporting increased skin problems and the average temperature in the basin was increasing.

I'm all for not polluting. I've done numerous big projects that reduced emissions significantly in my little world (tons of improvement, not kilotons). I'm all for mainimizing total energy converted to unused waste-heat (I've been working on beneficial-use projects as long as I've been in engineering). The economics of not venting saleable gas and of capturing waste heat are never stellar, but they often meet hurddle rates.

It is simply amazing to me that the politicans can make policy on "Dan Rather Science" when the marketplace will always eventually eliminate wasteful processes (sometimes "eventually" takes a long time though).

David

 

[SacreBleu]

I would feel really bad if I had the credentials of Dan Rather and end up being the butt of a joke based on one small indiscretion. It's like your life's efforts shot down the tubes.

President Bush and Michael Crichton can keep their heads buried in the sand all they want...just wait about 10 years when China and India are "swamped" with cars and factories...you will see the effects of global warming then.

 

[BitTwiddler]

Dan Rather had a long history of convoluting the facts of the news stories and his own personal opinions.

I remember watching him anchor the evening news back in the 1980's as he read a story about nuclear power. The story itself was written in a straightforward matter-of-fact manner. The anti-nuclear point of view was discussed, and at the end of the segment he said that the nuclear industry claimed that nuclear power was safe.

Then he added, "Of course nobody believes that anymore." This was while he was reading the news, not during an opinion or an editorial segment.

I quit watching because I no longer trusted Rather's ability to remain objective. So did many other Americans - CBS News was usually in last place while Rather was the evening anchor.

 

[BobPE]

zdasof:

What an awsome tag line...Dan Rather Science....Thank you for that, I am going to have to add that to my arsenal of catch phrases!!!!!

As far as the US it is like which came first, the chicken or the egg....In the US the science came first, then politics took over and we rightfully avoided the Kyoto disaster.

I do watch China and I agree, there is a big problem brewing there...not as much with global warmning since there is not data to support that, but with the deterioration of the quality of life for the poor people in that country.

May Dan Rather can fix the problem there....

Bob

 

[JAE]

QCE - thanks for the info - but I was talking about pollution - not just the emissions part of pollution. I've read many documents over the years that seem to indicate much of eastern Europe and Asia are absolute ecological disasters - pollution below ground and in the waters - not just the air.

With all the emission controls that the US now has, with none required in many countries - I just find it hard to believe that the US leads the world in "pollution". Just a joke - but maybe the US emissions are cleaner that other emissions - but I'm beyond my own knowledge here I admit.

Good website on forests (note this is forests, not total trees):

http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/forest/indicators.shtml

 

[SacreBleu]

The evening news in the USA is not objective - it has become nothing but a propaganda outlet for the military-industrial war machine . I salute outspoken men such as Dan Rather. During the Vietnam war, he championed the cause of the grunt soldier.
BTW..I don't waste my time watching the evening news any more.

 

[QCE]

Emissions are emissions, if you reduce your emissions (example:CO2) you reduce the amount of that emission (less CO2 emitted). You don't say we are emitting cleaner CO2.

Sound like a politicain with things like: We emit the most emmissions but we are not the biggest polluter. Our emmissions are cleaner then other places emmissions.

Your arguement shows that you just watch the news and spout facts. If you look at release of almost every emmission including ground and water contaiminents. The USA is very high on the list if not number one.

Well guess what people the news is also political. It is not always based on science. News facts are not always scientific facts. They are sometimes scientifc but always with considerable spin. People can make the data show what ever they want.

That is why this discussion will go on and on.

How about these questions:

Is it good to reduce total emmisions in the environment?

Is it possible to reduce emmisions without economic damage to the reducing countries economy?

I would say yes it is good and yes it is POSSIBLE to do it economically. So we have a problem to solve. Well we are engineers and we should get on with solving it.

 

[SacreBleu]

QCE,
I have personally done something about it, but I have no conrol over the thousands of idiots in this country (USA) who drive a full-size truck with a huge engine in stop-and-go traffic to work every day.

 

[JAE]

Another good source - a map of the world showing pollution levels. Note that NE USA, Europe, and China all have hot spots. Western USA is quite clean.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM340NKPZD_index_0.html

 

[BobPE]

SacreBleu:

Dan Rather??? you want him, we will ship him to France for people to enjoy there...he is about as one sided as they come. And I love my big 4x4 F250 with a big block 460 motor, but you are right, holding that clutch in stop and go traffic is a real pain....


QCE: To put your argument in simpler terms, I would rather a barrel of fuel oil (coal, natural gas, etc.) be burned in the US than in China. We will emit less pollutants on a whole for that barrel of oil.

Bob

 

[vulcanhammer]

The problem created by the greenhouse gases is being solved in some measure (and a more equitable one than Kyoto) by the increases in demand with the increases in the price of energy. This forces people to be more conservant of energy and to develop new technologies. This is discussed in more detail at

http://www.vulcanhammer.org/spp/solution.php

 

[SomeYahoo]

Just watched a special on PBS on emissions in China. Seems their vehicles use 10 year old technology for emissions control. Maybe not a problem now, but they are just getting into owning cars, and especially owning cars as status symbols. We in the US have adopted strict emissions laws not only on passenger vehicles, but off-highway engines as well. Seems that we are doing a pretty good job, if not leading the pack, in emissions controls implementation.

But what do I know... I'm just an idiot who drives a K2500 Silverado with a 454 Big Block to work.

 

[SacreBleu]

Typical American Francophobia. Whenever the USA screws up their forign policy, they blame French.

 

[SacreBleu]

The USA has imposed much more stringent emissions laws on passenger cars, and much less stringent laws on SUV's and trucks, which typically are much heavier and incur much more wind drag. Plus, there is a tax break for buyers of Hummers.

Typical commute to work: (in the fast lane) - accelerate to 60 mph, slow to complete stop for about 10 seconds every 1/4 mile, repeat - average speed = 25 mph. Does it make sense to have an overweight vehicle with a 400 ci engine for this?

Now I am an engineer, and the above doesn't make sense to me at all. Most trucks in cities are bought for "vanity" purposes.