Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077

    Arrow Science News :: Putin reconsiders Russia's position on Kyoto; is it back on? Possibly

    Article extract >>

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has surprised the world by promising to move quickly on ratification of the Kyoto climate change treaty.
    One environmentalist called it "a very welcome and positive signal" which could breathe life into the protocol.

    Mr Putin made the concession after the EU backed Russia's bid to join the WTO.

    The EU had made its support dependent on Russia ratifying Kyoto. Since the US rejected the treaty, Russia's backing has been vital to bring it into force.

    'Well-informed'

    Mr Putin said: "The EU has met us half way in talks over the WTO (World Trade Organisation) and that cannot but affect positively our position on the Kyoto protocol," he said.

    "We will speed up Russia's movement toward the Kyoto protocol's ratification.

    End extract <<

    For more info :: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3734205.stm

    Opinions?? Comments??

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,990
    Looks like good news.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    480
    a friend recently analyzed that...

    ...the U.S. started as the most free thinking nation on earth and produced great things for humanity and will slowly cycle the other way, becoming totalitarian and oppressive...it is happening today...

    Communist Russia started as a reasonably successful totalitarian and oppressive regime (it lasted more than 20 years) and is now swinging the other way and will soon become the most liberal, elightened, FUTURISTIC place on the planet...


    I don't know if that's true but I think parts of that analysis can be seen to be taking shape as each day passes.
    Each One Teach One~eduhosting.org
    Financial Software, Video Production
    Graphic Design, Free PC Labs 4 Kids. Start one in your town. It's a BLAST!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    2,194
    Originally posted by kckclass
    a friend recently analyzed that...

    ...the U.S. started as the most free thinking nation on earth and produced great things for humanity and will slowly cycle the other way, becoming totalitarian and oppressive...it is happening today...

    Communist Russia started as a reasonably successful totalitarian and oppressive regime (it lasted more than 20 years) and is now swinging the other way and will soon become the most liberal, elightened, FUTURISTIC place on the planet...


    I don't know if that's true but I think parts of that analysis can be seen to be taking shape as each day passes.
    Your friend and you are totally wrong!

    The U.S. will never be totalitarian as long as the people have any say in who gets elected. Russia is still ruled by leaders who know nothing more than totalitarianism (i.e. Putin, former head of the KGB and still communist at heart).

    Kyoto is dead in the U.S., now and in the future, no matter which party is in power. The most rapidly rising economy in the world is in China and they would not sacrifice their economy for Kyoto. Neither will India. If you have an economy of any significant size, Kyoto will stop it or slow it down.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    5,320
    Originally posted by kckclass
    Communist Russia started as a reasonably successful totalitarian and oppressive regime (it lasted more than 20 years)
    70 years to be exact.
    Hosting Discussion - web hosting community.

    Is your company represented?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    2,194
    Originally posted by Artashes
    70 years to be exact.
    Succesfull? Not even close.

    The only thing it was succesfull at was diverting any kind of pruductivity of its people towards creating the second greatest military power in the world. Military power alone gets you fear not respect, from the less powerfull countries in the world. Their economy was in shambles for all of those 70 years. Military power can help you conquer other countries, but your economic ideas have to follow. Communism has been a failure everywhere it has been practiced.

    There are people who still believe that communism is the way to help people in countries all around the world. The U.S.S.R. took 70 years to realize that communism was not helping them. That's not to say that there aren't people even in Russia that want to go back to the 'good old days'. It sometimes takes generations before people realize that some methods are terrifically flawed.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    most liberal, elightened, FUTURISTIC place on the planet...
    Don't hold back there kckclass

    Let's not restart the cold war on WHT eh?

    Back to the main issue of Kyoto

    adormo, you're right, America and China have not ratified the treaty, i'm not too sure about Inndia but if Russia goes with it as it looks it will, they're participation or lack thereof is no longer a problem that will prevent the treaty from getting off the ground. Kyoto might not be entirely the right way to go about it but it is a start and a necessary one.

    On the economy side of thigns i'll be back in a bit to expalin why i view that as a short termist and self defeating argument, for a country who wished to stay at the top in that area. You might agree, you might disagree, who knows.

    Critic,
    Last edited by Critic; 05-22-2004 at 01:26 PM.
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Here is some necessary reading on the subject of Kyoto >>

    http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf

    Why does the economy arguemnt not wash with me?

    Well, as i see it what is the economical and political sense in having a national economy nearly totally dependent on a dwindling resource. If others adaptand prepare for the shift to new resources and you don't or not in time, then how fast and how hard will you fall as a nation and an economy when the reality hits. How long will it take you to recover?

    This isn't just environmentally the right direction to be headed but the economically as well IMO.

    Critic,
    Last edited by Critic; 05-23-2004 at 12:49 AM.
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    2,194
    Originally posted by Critic

    Why does the economy arguemnt not wash with me?
    Because you are pro-Kyoto.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Originally posted by adorno
    Because you are pro-Kyoto.
    So you're saying that you see no logic at all in the argument that i put forward for Kyoto or its premise based on economic reasons?

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    2,194
    Originally posted by Critic
    So you're saying that you see no logic at all in the argument that i put forward for Kyoto or its premise based on economic reasons?

    Critic,
    Countries ratifying or not a treaty does not validate it or prove its necessity.

    Here are some links which take viewpoints different from yours:

    http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
    http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA428.html
    http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_236288.php
    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14870
    http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=56
    http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=365
    http://www.co2science.org/edit/v5_edit/v5n26edit.htm
    http://www.accf.org/Franclnadlerbast1098.htm
    http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_fr...chive/8281.cfm

    There are hundreds more links which I can post, but you could spend months reading them.

    By the way I have also read the pro-Kyoto views.

    In 100 years, the atmosphere will stink from all the farting by humans, cattle, and all other forms of animal that emit gases into the air. Can anybody disprove that or is it flawed science?

    Happy reading.

    adorno

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Originally posted by adorno
    Countries ratifying or not a treaty does not validate it or prove its necessity.

    Here are some links which take viewpoints different from yours:

    http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
    http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA428.html
    http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_236288.php
    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14870
    http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=56
    http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=365
    http://www.co2science.org/edit/v5_edit/v5n26edit.htm
    http://www.accf.org/Franclnadlerbast1098.htm
    http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_fr...chive/8281.cfm

    There are hundreds more links which I can post, but you could spend months reading them.

    By the way I have also read the pro-Kyoto views.

    In 100 years, the atmosphere will stink from all the farting by humans, cattle, and all other forms of animal that emit gases into the air. Can anybody disprove that or is it flawed science?

    Happy reading.

    adorno
    Yes, you're right, just because the majority of necessary sigtory nation's ratified the treaty, it doesn't mean it is definetely the right approach but they feel with the data available that it is. We cannot know for sure how exact a science Kyoto will eventually prove to be but most do concede that its premise and perceived goals are necessary and just.

    And of course you can find opposing sources and points of view, i've got no problem with that.

    I've read a few of the article's you've listed and they appear to concentrate on the accuract of Kyoto and its likley outcome economically and effect on climate but from what i've read does not tackle some of the main reasons for my economic argument which is also a biproduct of the Kyoto protocol.

    I'll bottom line this one for everybody.

    The world's leaing economy [America] is in the main nearly totally dependent upon fossil fuels and other resources which are becoming less abundant. One of you current initiatives to combat a reduction in supply is to go and search and make preparations to mine for more in Alaska.

    Now that's fine in the short term but what when it runs out and believe me most of us here on WHT will notice the effect in our time on this planet.

    That kind of approach is not realistic for the long term well being of any major economy and especially not one the size of yours [Adormo].

    As a result of Kyoto and its egacy, its signatory country's will begin to transfer their dependency on fossil fuels to other resources but i don't see any major sign or move toward this in the states, at least not on any ublic or national level.

    In recent monts some companies and scientists have downgraded their estimates concerning supply of Oil and Natural Gas.

    Now not everything that is planned to deal with this area is wrong necessarily, increased production of electricity from Nuclear power for instance but this is not across the board or the norm in this area from what i can tell.

    In 35 or 55 years time or whenever the reality really hits home on a global level, where will your economy be if they took your continued approach adormo?In only a very short amount of time your economy could go from being productive and vibrant and flexible to being sluggish and inflexible and ill equipped to deal with its needs and the global demands placed upon it.

    How long would it take you to recover and who would leave you in their wake as a result.

    If you think the problems that Kyoto highlight are merely figures and the odd degree celsius this way or another you are mistaken, it is something much greater than that. IMO anyway

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    2,194
    So, your argument turns from the merits of the Kyoto protocol to the dwindlling oil supply of the world.

    Kyoto is badly flawed and is based on junk science.

    But why even mention Kyoto when your argument is mostly about how economies should not be so dependent upon oil or fossil fuels.

    Nobody, not in the U.S. or elsewhere, knows how much oil is left underground, still to be discovered.

    The 2 biggest countries in the world, population wise, have not ratified Kyoto, and I doubt they will because their economies would be hurt. That's almost half the world's population in those 2 countries alone, who have not ratified Kyoto.

    And who is to say that the earth is not producing more oil as we speak. There are scientists who believe just that.

    And, the U.S. and other countries are investigating other fuels for the future, such as hydrogen, and atomic energy plants can also help in reducing the dependence on oil .

    But, in the U.S., Kyoto is dead, no matter who the president is now or in the future. The democrats can talk about the merits of Kyoto, but if they had the power to ratify Kyoto, they wouldn't dare.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Originally posted by adorno
    So, your argument turns from the merits of the Kyoto protocol to the dwindlling oil supply of the world.

    Kyoto is badly flawed and is based on junk science.

    But why even mention Kyoto when your argument is mostly about how economies should not be so dependent upon oil or fossil fuels.

    They are one and the same, one affects the other, they are not separate issues. A country cannot attempt to meet the targets set by Kyoto or follow some similar approach without looking at the other.

    Of course the Earth continues to produce Oil and Gas but it doesn't happen overnight as you are aware, i doubt that demand can meet supply or even clsoe. If i recall correctly, current predictions depending on whether you're talking about Oil, Gas or Coal put the length of time at between 45-75 years and there will be a downward curve leading up to that and rising costs. I did point out in my post America's approach with nuclear fuel and then there is also Hydrogen power cells as well but really from what i can make out, there is only half an eye on these greener methods but i could be wrong.

    You say Kyoto is dead in America, well in its curent form and at this current time, that maybe the case but things change, America and other countries might sit out this decade but who knows about the next. If from the outside looking in, at the signatory states it doesn't seem as bad as you first thought, you never know.

    All this said, only time will show us who was right if some don't ever sign up to this or any similar plan and make preparations.

    Critic,
    Last edited by Critic; 05-24-2004 at 11:22 AM.
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    2,194
    Critic:

    Kyoto is dead in the U.S. Now, 10 years from now, 100 years from now.

    However, the U.S. does take baby steps towards a better environment. All of those steps taken together may add up to more than what the Kyoto ratifiers will do under Kyoto. There is not a single Kyoto ratifier that will forgo economic progress in favor of the Kyoto protocol. Treaties are easy to sign but hard to enforce. Every country with a decent size economy and that ratified Kyoto, and wishes to continue to grow, will violate Kyoto.

    The earth is producing more fuel, and nobody really knows to what extent. If it were to be fossil based, the world as a whole has much more organic material currently than in the past. So, who is to say that more is not being produced.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •