Re: AMD's well may be running dry
- From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Mar 2007 07:02:20 -0700
On 14 Mar, 14:35, "William Webb" <william.w.w...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ratification of foreign treaties is a function of the United States Senate,
not of the President.
He can't sign what they haven't ratified. (Well, I guess he could, but it
would be a meaningless gesture, and would not have the force of law.)
The Senate did debate ratification of Kyoto, and they rejected it 95-0.
That's Democrats and Republicans there, folks.
And this didn't happen under Bush, it was under Clinton.
WWWebb
On 14 Mar 2007 04:41:02 -0700, Andrew <andrew_harri...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13 Mar, 15:46, koeh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
In article <55mc3uF25oge...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, b...@xxxxxxxxxxx (BillGunshannon) writes:
Damn. And nature did all that without man's help. Go figure.
I don't care who did it. I don't care what's happening on Mars
with respect to global warming. I just want to do what we can to
aleviate it so all my great grandchildren don't starve.
I agree. There is almost unanimous scientific agreement that A the
world is getting hotter and B that mans activities through the release
of greenhouse gases and the destruction of CO2 regulators like the
tropical rainforest's is making the situation worse.
Idiots can argue about Sun cycles etc as much as they like but the sad
reality is that their arguments fall into the same category as early
theological arguments about the number of angels you could get on a
pinhead.
The sad irony is that there is also a very good economic argument for
ignoring the people who are in Global Warming Denial and pushing ahead
with CO2 reduction programs.
Oil and Coal are the two most significant sources of man produced CO2.
World Oil production has peaked while demand has not, this inevitably
will lead to long term price rises which will impact the economies
most dependent on Oil and Coal the worst while impacting low carbon
economies least. The Bush administration's inability to grasp this is
probably the biggest single long term threat to the US economy.
Even at current energy prices installing energy efficient light bulbs
and super insulating my house have paid for themselves in roughly 12
months in terms of reducing my utility bills while composting and
recycling costs me nothing while having a positive effect on our
carbon footprint. Our rain water recycling system will take longer to
pay for itself but I expect that to break even in 4 years. As business
cases I can sell this kind of return to almost anyone except it would
seem the Bush administration.
Nor is the US well placed to reap the benefits which will come from
the new industries spawned by the demand for renewables. Without
access to a large internal market and without government support the
US should expect to become a net importer of renewable technologies
and associated technologies such as nuclear power. The worlds largest
suppliers of Wind generators and Biomass heating systems are European
as are the most likely technologies for future Nuclear generation
facilities.
The state of California has recognized this.
To pile irony on irony, when the Bush administration ruled out
implementing Kyoto they did so ostensibly because of a claimed cost to
the US economy of 400 billion dollars. Not long after this Bush
invaded Iraq ostensibly to depose Saddam but in reality to get access
to a secure source of Oil in the middle east. The invasion of Iraq has
cost at least 400 billion dollars so far and has not resulted in a
secure Oil supply. At least ratifying Kyoto would have forced US
consumers and industry to address the issue which made a secure Oil
source an imperative if the economy is to survive.
Contemplate the situation the US may find itself in in the next 3
decades where they lose the top spot for CO2 emissions not because the
US has cleaned its act up but because the source of those emissions
has become too expensive for the US economy.
regards
Andrew Harrison
The Republican dominated US senate passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution
signalling that they would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol however this
was non binding and subsequently the Bush administration has never
asked Senate to ratify Kyoto instead in March 2001 the administration
rejected Kyoto.
The Byrd-Hagel resolution was drafted so broadly that many senators
who voted for it were pro having binding environmental targets to
limit greenhouse gases. Senator Byrd one of the draftees of the
resolution was in this category..
One reason stated by the Bush administration apart from cost was that
it was unfair because it excluded 80% of the worlds population.
Countries that between them emit 55% of the worlds CO2 have signed up
fro Kyoto, had the US joined this would have taken the total to 80%.
Australia which has like the US refused to ratify Kyoto has at least
decided to cap CO2 emissions at the levels required by Kyoto
Of course most environmental scientists now think that Kyoto is to
little too late hence the EU's unilateral agreement to implement more
stringent targets than required by Kyoto.
Regards
Andew
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: AMD's well may be running dry
- From: JF Mezei
- Re: AMD's well may be running dry
- Prev by Date: Re: Power Consumption (was: Re: AMD's well may be running dry)
- Next by Date: Re: Biofules was: AMD's well may be running dry
- Previous by thread: Re: AMD's well may be running dry
- Next by thread: Re: AMD's well may be running dry
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
