Will the Democrat US President allow an agreement on Climate Change

2007-12-14 13:02:12

#1

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6664|Brisneyland

Bush will be gone soon and there is a good chance that his replacement will be a Democrat. With the current US administration advocating a " Do nothing" approach to Carbon emissions, do you think that a replacement Democrat President would come to the party and ratify Kyoto and/or agree to emission cuts. Or be hamstrung by lobby groups and continue to do nothing.
I am assuming that if Bush is replaced by another Republican then the current approach of " do nothing" will continue.
At the current talks in Bali, Al Gore reckons that the US should be allowed space at the table if the current US situation changes. Obviously he would have some links with the Democrats still and would know if they were interested in going down this path.
I am not pushing any side of politics here so I dont want to argue that liberals suck , or republicans rock etc. Just interested in Democrats and climate change.

2007-12-14 13:06:18

#2

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6887|The Land of Scott Walker

Kyoto is stupid, the nations that agree to it aren't even meeting the standards.

2007-12-14 13:13:44

#3

ELITE-UK: Scratching my back; +170|6916|SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND

Stingray24 wrote:
Kyoto is stupid, the nations that agree to it aren't even meeting the standards.

At least they are trying!!

2007-12-14 13:26:08

#4

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6887|The Land of Scott Walker

Yes, let's all "try" and get credit for doing nothing. Again, the signers aren't even keeping up so Kyoto is pointless. Gore should point his fat finger at China, they're #1 as of June this year in carbon emissions.

2007-12-14 13:34:12

#5

Gawwad: My way or Haddaway!; +212|7127|Espoo, Finland

Stingray24 wrote:
Yes, let's all "try" and get credit for doing nothing. Again, the signers aren't even keeping up so Kyoto is pointless. Gore should point his fat finger at China, they're #1 as of June this year in carbon emissions.

China being #1 hardly reduces the US emissions.

2007-12-14 13:34:34

#6

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6664|Brisneyland

Maybe is the US signed up then there would be more pressure on China to start. China will be seriously affected by climate change as a large proportion of their water comes from snow capped mountain runoff. More heat = less snow=no water. Big problem.
Still no one has mentioned the Democrat position. I personally think that a Democrat prez would come to the table on climate change. It is hard to say if they would meet targets though.

2007-12-14 13:37:49

#7

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6853|'Murka

Ratifying the treaty isn't up to the President. It's up to the Congress.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2007-12-14 13:39:11

#8

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6887|The Land of Scott Walker

Why would there be any pressure on China at all? The western world (not just the US) imports goods from China on a massive scale. Hence, there will be no slow down in China's production, even if the US or Europe slashed their emissions.

Edit: Rather ironic the Dem Congress is doing nothing yet you people still point at Bush.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-14 13:41:47)

2007-12-14 13:55:11

#9

CC-Marley: Member; +407|7270

Kyoto is crap! Read it! Learn.

2007-12-14 14:44:46

#10

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6664|Brisneyland

FEOS are u saying that a Democrat prez wont ratify? The prez has the right of Veto, can he Veto a ratification ( not sure how that works in US)

Stingray, you say that the rest of the world ratifying wont change Chinese production. Having less drinking water may make them think about the seriousness of the problem.

CC Marley, you say that Kyoto is crap ( and dont say why), the Kyoto agreement is nearly over, governments are negotiating for the Bali talks at the moment. The US isnt part of that either. Are the Bali talks crap too?

2007-12-14 14:48:47

#11

deeznutz1245: Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.; +483|6935|Connecticut

Nope. Because the first lady is guaranteed to be cold. All chicks always need a sweatshirt or an extra blanket. Global warming is caused by women.

Malloy must go

2007-12-14 15:44:16

#12

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6847|North Carolina

This is kind of redundant, since the Kyoto Protocol is a do-nothing resolution.

Real change involves forcing power companies to clean up their acts. Generally speaking, power companies are the main offenders, although China as a whole is one big offender altogether.

2007-12-14 15:59:16

#13

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,992|7074|949

Turquoise wrote:
This is kind of redundant, since the Kyoto Protocol is a do-nothing resolution.

Real change involves forcing power companies to clean up their acts. Generally speaking, power companies are the main offenders, although China as a whole is one big offender altogether.

Actually I think the farming industry as a whole is worse than power. I'll have to check on that though...

2007-12-14 16:34:45

#14

motherdear: Member; +25|7093|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)

ELITE-UK wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Kyoto is stupid, the nations that agree to it aren't even meeting the standards.
At least they are trying!!

just because you are not a member of that piece of shit Kyoto agreement it doesn't mean that you are not doing anything for the environment, the main reason that the US did not join it was because it's biased as hell.

actually 80% of all green technology is developed in the US and there are huge programs that try to make the environment cleaner, like a proper recycling service which is a lack in many european countries.

also companies are changing machines and other items so that they release less CO2 or other environmental damaging substances, the main reason that the US uses so much energy is that it's a huge country (it takes a long time to travel, like where i live it's over 15 min to school, and other places i want to go are rather far away to) but also one of the problems is that the US got a problem with cars, it is becoming better gradually and with more research into hybrid technology and car manufacturers will hopefully soon introduce some kind of hybrid engine in all cars so that they get energy by braking and just driving in general which will make the cars way more effective when the are driving at a steady speed, because the electricity can run the car and when you need to accelerate the fuel engine takes over (also diesel/ethanol should become more widespread and be cheaper than gasoline if possible since the main reason for higher prises are lack of demand and therefore fever truckload of it than gas making it more expensive.)

2007-12-14 17:06:34

#15

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6847|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
This is kind of redundant, since the Kyoto Protocol is a do-nothing resolution.

Real change involves forcing power companies to clean up their acts. Generally speaking, power companies are the main offenders, although China as a whole is one big offender altogether.
Actually I think the farming industry as a whole is worse than power. I'll have to check on that though...

The farming industry is worse on water pollution, but power is by far the worst in air pollution.

2007-12-14 17:33:33

#16

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7117|Canberra, AUS

CC-Marley wrote:
Kyoto is crap! Read it! Learn.

On this I submit.

Rudd has done little more than basked in his own inner glow following Kyoto AFAIK, 8% increase?! in carbon emissions? Give me a break, that's nowhere near what's required. PLUS it contains NOTHING about deforestation.

Hopefully the 2012 period agreement will be better.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-12-14 18:04:08

#17

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6664|Brisneyland

Whoa Spark. Those targets were negotiated by the Howard Govt, which after negotiations for an increase in emissions, walked away from the agreement and refused to sign. The stupid thing is they could have signed, met their targets and looked good.

Rudd has been in Govt for 3 weeks, sure he is looking good for signing Kyoto, but they were the conditions set by the previous govt. The important thing is that in signing he has guaranteed a place at the negotiating table at the Bali conference. Dont get me wrong Kyoto aint great but by signing Rudd has put Australia in a position to make a difference. That could never happen if Kyoto wasnt signed. Clearly Kyoto is nearly over, the important thing now is to get the next round right and make real progress.

2007-12-14 18:08:13

#18

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,072|7214|PNW

Gawwad wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Yes, let's all "try" and get credit for doing nothing. Again, the signers aren't even keeping up so Kyoto is pointless. Gore should point his fat finger at China, they're #1 as of June this year in carbon emissions.
China being #1 hardly reduces the US emissions.

Gore should point his fat finger at his own house.

2007-12-14 18:37:52

#19

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7117|Canberra, AUS

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Whoa Spark. Those targets were negotiated by the Howard Govt, which after negotiations for an increase in emissions, walked away from the agreement and refused to sign. The stupid thing is they could have signed, met their targets and looked good.

Rudd has been in Govt for 3 weeks, sure he is looking good for signing Kyoto, but they were the conditions set by the previous govt. The important thing is that in signing he has guaranteed a place at the negotiating table at the Bali conference. Dont get me wrong Kyoto aint great but by signing Rudd has put Australia in a position to make a difference. That could never happen if Kyoto wasnt signed. Clearly Kyoto is nearly over, the important thing now is to get the next round right and make real progress.

I know. It's still an extremely weak agreement.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-12-14 18:41:55

#20

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6853|'Murka

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
FEOS are u saying that a Democrat prez wont ratify? The prez has the right of Veto, can he Veto a ratification ( not sure how that works in US)

No. I'm saying the President doesn't ratify. That takes a vote of Congress--it's not up to the POTUS. Not sure if the POTUS can veto a treaty ratification or not.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2007-12-14 22:04:14

#21

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7117|Canberra, AUS

That begs the question - why hasn't the treaty been ratified yet? It's been about a year now, and they've [the democrats] done nothing.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-12-14 22:19:37

#22

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7158

The OP says that Bush is horrible and republicans dont want to do anything about globull warming... then he says not to make it political and bash either side... lol... The Democrats wont do much either... My Cousin is studying in China and she says that if China doesnt make some huge changes... it wont matter what the rest of the world does...

Love is the answer

2007-12-14 22:46:10

#23

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6664|Brisneyland

@ Catbox, Republicans wont do anything, its not a political veiwpoint, its a fact. I dont recall making a judgement saying this was good or bad, its just a fact. Thats why I asked if Democrats would basically do anything about it.

When you said "The Democrats wont do much either... " thats about the only useful thing you said in your post, except you should have gone into greater detail as to why.

As for your cousin, she says because of China we should throw our hands in the air and do nothing?? Unfortunately I doubt her opinion. What does she base her argument on? Has she got proper evidence? Or does she just go outside look at the sky and go " Aww crap sky is looking dark today ?"

All I wanted to do was avoid the political arguments that would sidetrack the main point. I am sorry you didnt pick that up, I look forward to your opinion as to why the Dems wont do anything.

2007-12-14 22:57:10

#24

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7117|Canberra, AUS

In the end the pressure shouldn't be on one party on another.

It should be on the entire system.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-12-14 23:05:19

#25

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7158

What she said was that the rest of the world can clean their act up and not pollute and live clean... But if China doesnt change their situation... than what the rest of the world does is inconsequential... and she did look at the sky and it was dark... lol j/k

And you know as well as i do that both parties are just concerned with being re-elected and maintaining their power... They are all well dressed used car salesmen... and we keep believing they want to do the right thing...

Love is the answer

BF2S Forums Will the Democrat US President allow an agreement on Climate Change

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ELITE-UK wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Board footer