Dooraven said:Unfortunatley the only most probable way China and the US will compromise is when the Communists get elected in the US or Communism collapses in China and I don't see that happening in a while..
arstal said:I'll say this- push comes to shove, at least Americans will fight for their lifestyle. There is no way I'd support a reduction in lifestyle to help out foreigners, especially when global warming isn't 100% proven or what the effects are. The cure to me would likely be worse then the disease.
Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, said the deal had "the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush."
"Mr President, I ask whether - under the eye of the UN secretary general - you are going to endorse this coup d'etat against the authority of the United Nations."
Forsete said:So now its a confirmed failure thanks to China, arab states and to a lesser part US of A. Great.
Can we eject these nations into space?
Neo C. said:Ultimately, we should do both. Invest heavily in research and put pigovian taxes on oil and electric power.
The faster we go green, the better. It's a shame that we are still heavily dependent on oil of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Chavez wouldn't be as successful as today without the oil.
Woodsy said:Just build some nuclear plants - we already have the solution without ridiculous taxes.
highluxury said:China is really beginning to piss me off. They're surpressing their own people, censoring journalism and the media, being secretive about their own goverment and their arrogance is leading them to being innegotiable.
Its really starting to paint the picture of a horrible country.
Chrono said:A couple of quotes I wanted to post here...
LOL @ this one:
What did arab states do? I barely heard them mentioned.
Anyway, when searching for 'arab' in this thread, looking for whatever it is you're talking about, I found this exchange I missed:
And for the millionth time I'd like somebody to tell me how the fuck can nuclear replace oil? Things like transportation fuel and plastics, do nuclear plants make those? No? Then why the fuck do I keep hearing this repeated too many times, including on a penn & teller episode.
Nuclear power replaces coal, not oil. Coal makes up 44.2% of the USA's domestic energy production. In places like India, it makes up 68% of India's CO2 emissions.Chrono said:And for the millionth time I'd like somebody to tell me how the fuck can nuclear replace oil? Things like transportation fuel and plastics, do nuclear plants make those? No? Then why the fuck do I keep hearing this repeated too many times, including on a penn & teller episode.
Yes and that is what should have been pushed instead of everyone slam down their economy and restrict the people from flying a lot as an example and blaming consumerism.Technology is going to be what solves global warming
How can you possibly blame this on the Republicans alone? The last time this came up for a vote regarding the Kyoto Protocol (Byrd-Hagel Resolution), 95 senators voted "yes", including 43 Democrats. Not one senator voted "no". Harry Reid, current majority leader, didn't even vote "yes".thefro said:It's really amazing how many people think that the US operates under a Parliamentary system.
President Obama can't make a binding International treaty without it being approved by 2/3rds of the US Senate. There are 40 Republicans in the Senate and lot of them are Climate Change deniers.
Now, if the Democratic Party would man up they could get Climate Change legislation through the Senate but it's not that easy and there are several corporate Democrats who would be right wingers in European countries who might filibuster a bill or at least who are too chicken to use the Senate rules to put the bill to a majority vote.
Rentahamster said:How can you possibly blame this on the Republicans alone? The last time this came up for a vote regarding the Kyoto Protocol (Byrd-Hagel Resolution), 95 senators voted "yes", including 43 Democrats. Not one senator voted "no". Harry Reid, current majority leader, didn't even vote "yes".
Neither party is serious about this issue.
Never approved it? That's because the Clinton administration never bothered to submit it because he knew the whole Senate would kill it anyway, Republicans and Democrats alike.thefro said:That's a meaningless vote... the fact that the Senate never approved Kyoto should paint a different story for you.
Rejecting Democratic proposals to postpone consideration of the accord, Craig called on President Clinton to "promptly submit the treaty and allow the Senate to kill it."
"What we have here is not ratifiable in the Senate in my judgment," Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said. According to aides in Washington, Kerry wanted Clinton to sign the deal but hold off submission of it until follow-on conferences scheduled for Bonn in June and Buenos Aires in November.
With the swift bang of a gavel on Saturday morning, a prolonged fight between nations small and large over an international pact to limit climate risks that was forged the night before by the United States and four partners came to a somewhat murky end.
The chairman of the climate treaty talks declared that the parties would take note of the document, named the Copenhagen Accord, leaving open the question of whether this effort to curb greenhouse gases from the worlds major emitters would gain the full support of the 193 countries bound by the original, and largely failed, 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The culmination of two weeks of talks here, capping two years of negotiation, came roughly 24 hours after President Obama swept into a conference center full of exhausted negotiators in the final hours of a deadlocked effort to produce a binding agreement curbing the surging global flow of greenhouse gases.
By late Friday night, he and leaders from Brazil, India, South Africa and China produced a short, last-ditch sketch of a nonbinding emissions deal that was also aimed at aiding those most vulnerable to warming.
Other countries, including Britain, quickly sought its approval by the full assemblage of 193 countries. But after dawn on Saturday, a half dozen countries loudly intervened, challenging efforts to approve the accord. Another group, from Venezuela to Sudan, stridently fought the pact.
Robert C. Orr, the United Nations assistant secretary general for policy and planning, said the wild roller coaster ride through the night was partly due to the authority of more than 120 heads of state being superimposed on a process normally driven by ministers and diplomatic protocols.
The document that resulted, still being refined Saturday morning and attacked by countries that claimed they were left out of the process is far less than a new binding climate treaty, which was the expectation of many countries when this negotiating process began in 2007.
Chrono said:And for the millionth time I'd like somebody to tell me how the fuck can nuclear replace oil? Things like transportation fuel and plastics, do nuclear plants make those? No? Then why the fuck do I keep hearing this repeated too many times, including on a penn & teller episode.
liquid_gears said:You said that 'in just a few years time, we will have technology that can compete with fossil fuels'. This isn't going to happen anytime soon, not until the oil runs out and massive, massive amounts of cash are injected into R&D. We're talking decades at the very minimum here.
Besides, your last comment doesn't make any sense. How do windfarms, photovoltaics and tidal power produce energy for transportation and plastics, as opposed to nuclear power? It's essentially just the same stuff, they're just different methods of producing electricity.
How the fuck can they ever replace oil? The answer is that nothing can.
This is why root and branch treatment is needed.
Rentahamster said:Nuclear power replaces coal, not oil. Coal makes up 44.2% of the USA's domestic energy production. In places like India, it makes up 68% of India's CO2 emissions.
Replacing coal power plants with nuclear, even just a small amount, will make a significant impact on CO2 levels. It will have an even greater positive effect on the environment locally - with reductions in smog, mercury, and other toxic byproducts of coal burning.
This eventually impacts transportation as well, if battery technology continues to progress. CO2 free electricity generated by nuclear plants can effectively power long distance and reliable electric/hybrid cars so they won't have to use petroleum based materials fuel.
Eventually, oil can be slowly phased out of transportation, leaving it only for stuff like plastics production - assuming we don't invent something better by then.
Pretty much.Ripclawe said:Yes and that is what should have been pushed instead of everyone slam down their economy and restrict the people from flying a lot as an example and blaming consumerism.
Ripclawe said:Yes and that is what should have been pushed instead of everyone slam down their economy and restrict the people from flying a lot as an example and blaming consumerism.
Dooraven said:One of the easy ways for people to switch to electric vehicles (when they become readily available which could be in the next 5 years) is by doing a programme similar to cash for clunkers but instead a "Gas for electric program". But I doubt it would happen.
I dunno who's saying nuclear could replace oil, and I don't watch that Penn and Teller show. I'm not sure what their viewpoints are, but their viewpoints are not the only ones. Nuclear power is for electricity generation, and if we can get it to replace fossil fuel electricity generation in significant amounts, it's good for the environment.Chrono said:When nuclear is talked about as if it could replace oil for transportation I never hear about batteries, and the tech still isn't there anyway. That penn & teller episode had nothing about batteries or at least said investment is needed to develop advanced ones.