Page 2 of 2

Re: Kyoto treaty source

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:04 am
by mart
Did you notice the date at the bottom? Copyright 2001!!!!!!

I think I prefer a more up to date source, like


Mart


Re: Kyoto treaty source

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:38 am
by Bob Singleton
mart wrote:

> Did you notice the date at the bottom? Copyright 2001!!!!!!
>
> I think I prefer a more up to date source, like
>
>
> Mart


Well at least that info is more up to date than the info the US "intelligence" services were using as evidence of Saddam having WMD!!!


Re: Kyoto treaty

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:31 pm
by Bronson Lee
Personly I think the US is very afraid of China's developing industrialisation and within ten years China could be in a position to challange the US !



The fact that only industrialized countries should lower their emissions of carbon dioxide and not developing countries like China, which is number three on the list of the world's biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, also rose prejudice.
The US also participated in the negotiations of the treaty but many still feared that the treaty was too much and too hard on the economy and that the treaty would intensify the amount of unemployed Americans.

The Republicans found that a cut in emissions of carbon dioxide would lead to a cut in the energy usage and that would have a serious impact on the economy since energy is what is used for production of goods to the markets. During the debate, the Republicans also talked about the cuts in carbon dioxide emissions as pure ``environmental correctness'' and they spread a certain amount of uncertainty about whether global warming was really caused by the human kind and used this uncertainty to deny the necessity of doing something against global warming here and now.

Where the Republicans saw no alternative to the cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, the Democrats had a much more optimistic vision of the future. The Democrats expected that the Kyoto Treaty and the cuts in the emissions of carbon dioxide would encourage a development of alternative energy sources that would not have to rely on fossil fuels. The Democrats did not accept the fear of the industry because the industry had shown the same fear earlier when the ``Clean Air Act'' had been approved. At that time, the act actually turned out to encourage industry and to make it stronger.

Re: Saudis refute Woodward book claims

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:23 pm
by jj
Look, we don't care any more- the Iraqis are even shooting at the Brits now, and it's all bloody Bush's fault for being a dickhead.