Heard in the news yesterday that the UK has finally adopted an official green energy policy. I gather that there are four objectives, the main one being to generate a low-carbon economy. A 60% cut in carbon dioxide emmisions is the target during the next 50 years. 60% was the figure recommended by an Environment group whose name I've forgotten a couple of years back in order to get a grip on climate change.
Whether it goes the way of so many other of the government's "official" policies only time will tell.
But then it got me thinking about the Kyoto agreement. I seem to remember America withdrawing from it a few years back, and that the vast majority of other countries were on board (that may be wrong), but haven't heard much of it since. Is America still on the outside of the agreement? And if so, without wishing to cause an argument, what are the reasons for America not signing up?
Originally posted by T1000Warning: This may, to some individuals, constitute a 'rant.'
Heard in the news yesterday that the UK has finally adopted an official green energy policy. I gather that there are four objectives, the main one being to generate a low-carbon economy. A 60% cut in carbon dioxide emmisions is the target during the next 50 years. 60% was the recommended figure that an Environment group whose name I've forgotten suggested a c ...[text shortened]... d if so, without wishing to cause an argument, what are the reasons for America not signing up?
This has been a matter of considerable internal strife within the US. The US, under the Clinton administration, was one of the initial organizers of the Kyoto agreement. While we certainly constituted one of the main polluters, at least it demonstrated a desire to improve our environmental record. The Bush administration withdrew the US from the agreement, claiming that it favored developing countries over industrialized countries, and that it 'didn't go far enough.'
To environmentalists like myself, this is indicative of a consistent lack of concern for the environment by this administration. From removing restrictions on the levels of arsenic in drinking water, to blocking California's attempts to reduce auto emissions, to withdrawal from international agreements like the Kyoto treaty, to the gutting of the Clean Air Act (initially instituted by George Bush Sr.) George W. Bush has shown a cavalier lack of concern for the environment whenever it conflicts with even minor business interests.
Rant over.
-mike
I'll disagree. The argument goes that the US is the main polluter of the world because we represent a certain percentage of the world's population and produce most of the world's pollution. In fact we produce resources for the world more cleanly than developing countries. The US exports progress and in turn exports a higher standard of living for the world. And we do not produce any more pollution today than when Bill Clinton was president. We just happen to have a republican president and they (republicans) are seen as being in the pocket of big oil. Follow the money. So are the democrats. I guess this debate deals a lot what one believes about government control, free markets, and how the two interact. Kirk
Originally posted by kirksey957Working in the chemical industry in the US, I will have to agree with kirksey. We spilled bottled drinking water down the storm sewer and that is classified as a spill. It is also a reportable spill if a water main breaks and releases drinking water. All waste must be accounted for and shipped off site where it is disposed of properly. Believe me, most smaller, undeveloped countrys do not do this. And yes, democrats are just as prone to not care as republicans. Show me the money! If big oil gave millions to the democrats, even the most liberal person would be the first in line to drill in Alaska.
I'll disagree. The argument goes that the US is the main polluter of the world because we represent a certain percentage of the world's population and produce most of the world's pollution. In fact we produce resources for the world more cleanly than developing countries. The US exports progress and in turn exports a higher standard of living for th ...[text shortened]... s a lot what one believes about government control, free markets, and how the two interact. Kirk
Originally posted by T1000Those opposed think that there is a real agenda embedded in the green movement. A good overview of the opposition to Kyoto and the greens in general can be had at :
Heard in the news yesterday that the UK has finally adopted an official green energy policy. I gather that there are four objectives, the main one being to generate a low-carbon economy. A 60% cut in carbon dioxide emmisions is the target during the next 50 years. 60% was the figure recommended by an Environment group whose name I've forgotten a couple of yea ...[text shortened]... d if so, without wishing to cause an argument, what are the reasons for America not signing up?
http://environmentalism.aynrand.org/
I find this point of view a little extreme, but find that it is in balance to the greens equally extreme point of view. There is a middle road that we need to find.