the kyoto treaty

[skreamer 1]

I'm interested in getting the american perspective (which most of you seem to be) on George W. Bush's refusal to adhere to the Kyoto treaty. I know he wants to burn more fossil fuel to provide places like California with more power and help Big Business (f@cking the ozone layer further). A knock-on effect might be cheaper jump tickets, but I still think every industrialized nation should be part of the Kyoto Treaty.
Your thoughts please.
(I have my own thoughts on what the W. stands for...)/s
[drop till you party!]

[zelda 0]

skreamer,
I fully expect to be flamed mercilessly for this, but that's ok.
GW is all for catering to big businesses, and if that means raping the environment so folks can keep driving their SUVs and keep their houses heated to a cozy 70 degrees Fahrenheit, then so be it. It's easier to drill and drill and drill some more than to make changes in our lifestyles in an effort to preserve what landscape is left; also, there is a whole lot of money to be made in the drilling and chopping and mining, etc.(for a handfull of people, that is).
Sadly, the US is about profit, profit, profit-at any cost. Full speed ahead-regardless of the consequences.
Yeah, you could say I'm not feeling the capitalist love today...I'm also donning my fire-retardant cover-alls, so flame away...
-zelda

[Zennie 0]

The one thing about Dubya that worried me a little was how he'd deal with environmental issues.
Still, the fact is that the US has one of the most restrictive (if not the most) sets of environmental regulations in place. Sure the US has it's problems, but I really think the problems on the global scale are the other industrialized nations that have little or no regulations (S. American countries, Asia, Eastern Europe).
That doesn't mean we should slack off, I just think people's global concerns are misplaced.
------------
Blue Skies!
Zennie

[MC208B 0]

hey Skreamer. George W. Isn't the only person in America that is against this treaty. The US has already entered into to many BS things, i.e. NAFTA, WTO. Time for us (US citizens) to start taking care of ourselves more and the world less.
Earth first! We'll log the other planets later....

[zelda 0]

Zennie, you have a point about the US being more restrictive than most other industrialized nations, and we have a hell of a lot more space to restrict than they do. My concern is that GW will take back LOTS of those restrictions. In more normal times, he probably couldn't get away with it, but with the little energy fiasco here in the west, and the supposed economy crisis (which I suspect is 80% self-feeding), people will panic and allow measures that they wouldn't ordinarily allow-- short-term fixes that will screw us in the long run.
-zelda

[PLFXpert 0]

Well said, Zelda. Thanks for not posting "annonmously". Ha ha ha.
I will add to what Zelda said:
I have studied a LOT of politics and Sociological issues. Things like the enviroment, wellfare of humanity, and injustices are *very* important to me. I can tell you some facts and let you guys form your own opinions. If you'd like references to the facts I state, let me know and I'll e-mail you the documentation:
1. Although, like Zennie said, the U.S. has the most restrictive environmental regulations (by the EPA) we are still the leading producer of environmental waste, ext in the world.
2. A U.S baby born causes 100 times more stress for the enviroment than a baby in most other industrialized nations and a lot more than that for the unindustrialized ones.
3. Although we have the EPA regulations, big buisneses find their way around these by transporting their wastes to many 3rd world countries who allow it b/c they're so desperate for money.
4. Because the regulations for worker healthy safety and enviroment safety are so strict here, many big buisnesses only set up their headquaters here in the U.S. and set up their factories in 3rd world countries where they don't have the same restrictions and are therefore allowed to submit the workers there to things such as asbestos and other harmful, life-threatening substances.
5. Some argue that at least the above creates jobs in 3rd world countries but that is misleading. Because of technology, very few workers are needed in the factories b/c technology has replaced manual labor and is more profitable to use for the buisnesses.
I am not Republican nor Democrat but I do tend to side more often with the Democrats which, like Zelda said, I will probably get a lot of flaming for.
To answer the question, I am not sure what the treaty entails so I am not sure if I support George W. Bush's position on it or not. All I know is that he does not favor the enviroment and I'm disgusted with that. And if you really want to know how I feel about him taking away funding for family planning programs in foreign countries in desperate need of them b/c of huge population increases(which do not necesaarily include abortion but instead, simple birth control methods such as the pill, condoms, ext) then we can start another thread about that.
The facts I stated are real facts however, the comments made are only my opinions and I respect anyone who has differnt opinions. Trust me, my whole family are strict Republican wealthy folk except me so I take a lot of abuse for my views already but obviously, it's no mystery that so far, I do NOT like George W. Bush and I did NOT vote for him.
That's just my 2 cents. Feel free to flame me. I am VERY open-minded and can handle criticism. Although all the facts I stated about the U.S. are negative, the U.S. overall truly is a wonderful place to live.
Much love and blue skies,
Carrie http://www.geocities.com/skydivegrl20/

[Doasfu 0]

Skreamer,
As an American, I am disgusted by this and many other actions our government undertakes. Failure to adhere to the important Kyoto treaty is ridiculously short sighted, and I think its embarrasing.
Dubya was appointed, not elected.
Dan

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Time for us (US citizens) to start taking care of ourselves more and the world less.

The problem I see with your statement is that we (U.S) have the ability to take care of both but b/c there are certain selfish, self-motivated, profit-sniffiing politicians running our country, we do not see either happening. I will not go into detail unless you so desire, and if so, I won't clog up the thread with all the information, but instead e-mail it to you. Let's just say the U.S has enough $$$ w/out hurting it at all to take care of all of our hungry plus the rest of the world's hungry as well. Instead, this surplus of funds goes to things that do not need it. Like I said, if you'd like, I can e-mail you details.
Much love and blue skies,
Carrie http://www.geocities.com/skydivegrl20/

[PLFXpert 0]

As a funny note, I should add that it's nice to be talking about this subject b/c my boyfriend isn't ever thrilled when I go off on one of my tangents about how certain people (homosexuals, minorities, the poor, the enviroment, women) are mistreated and prevented by glass ceilings.
Needless to say, I'm sure he's glad I'm talking about it somewhere else for today....ha ha ha.
Much love and blue skies,
Carrie http://www.geocities.com/skydivegrl20/

[SpeedRacer 1]

I could straighten this country out. But I don't want to be President. Screw this mediocre "democracy" stuff. I propose to give America an enlightened but unapologetic dictatorship. (Run by me, of course). First thing on the agenda: get myself some cute interns !!
MY DECREES:
Marijuana is legal!!
Skydivers on commerical flights are allowed to exit early & avoid the long wait in the aisles!
Beer can be sold in coin-operated vending machines like they do in Japan!!
Beer & liquor can be delivered to your door just like pizza & Chinese food!
Extraneous politicians (just about all of them) will be put to work making clothes & shoes for Nike!!
Certain lawyers will be put to work as "Towel Boys" in the showers of Federal Penitentiaries, so they can have done unto them what they have done to so many others!
No more laws against indecent exposure (unless the perpetrator REALLY looks indecent)!!
Speed Racer
"Blue Skies, Red eyes, Sore thighs!"

[SkySlut 0]

Dude-you should come up to New England...They will deliver beer to your door in NH and Mass is looking at legalizing possesion of marijuana under an ounce...
"I'll jump anything!"

[SpeedRacer 1]

I don't ask for the love of the American people, all I ask for is their complete, abject obedience to my every whim------is that so wrong???
Speed Racer
"Blue Skies, Red eyes, Sore thighs!"

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Mass is looking at legalizing possesion of marijuana under an ounce...

I used to live in Boston. I doubt this will go through, Massachusetts is too tight-assed.
Speed Racer
"Blue Skies, Red eyes, Sore thighs!"

[SkySlut 0]

with a platform like that, I would follow you into battle!
"I'll jump anything!"

[Zennie 0]

All of your concerns are legit ones. But remember that Republicans aren't the only ones beholden to special interest money. The Democrats are equally bought & paid for.
I'm a Libertarian. So many of my views would probably truly scare you, but the environment and antitrust are two sets of regulations that I think are important. I don't think that it's right that a company poison us and future generations in the name of profits. And there's certainly no economic incentive to run a clean operation. I'll leave antitrust to another discussion.
I personally don't think loosening California's environmental restrictions is necessary. They *can* build more power plants to deal with the energy shortage. The problem is they seem to be fixated on dirty antiquated technology: plants that burn fossil fuels. There is another efficient, clean source of power: nuclear energy. The problem is that most people freak out as soon as the "N" word is mentioned. And it's all based on emotion rather than fact. Japan and Europe have been using it for years and it is *much* more environmentally friendly than burning fossil fuels. We're in the 21st century, technology has progressed far beyond Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
And don't believe everything you read. Animal rights activists come up with some of the most bizzarre "scientific facts" I've ever seen (and I'm a vegetarian). Everyone, particularly in environmental issues, has their own agendas. When I see a nice round number like "100 times", I get really suspicious. Just how are they calculating that figure? How "independent" are the people citing this statistic? Think for youself -- to find the truth you'll have to filter through the rhetoric on both sides of an issue.
------------
Blue Skies!
Zennie

[SpeedRacer 1]

See, this is what I'm saying. So many different political groups with their own agendas and their own brands of BS. So that's why I should be Supreme Dictator. Then you'd only have to worry about my agenda and bullshit, because everything else would be eradicated!Speed Racer
"Blue Skies, Red eyes, Sore thighs!"

[PLFXpert 0]

Zennie, I could find out for you their calulations on the 100x and e-mail that to you. The facts I stated are not from any political party, ext. They are from textbooks from many courses I have taken at Florida Universities (I say Universities, b/c so far, he he he, I've been a student at 3 since I've transfered so much) in political science courses and Sociology course. Most are Sociological.
I agree that some special interest groups do come up w/ some bogus facts to support their agendas.
As far as California. The problem there is privitazation. Privitazation is compenent of capitalism and big buisness which GWB supports. In this case, the companies that supply the electric companies with their facilities, ext. are privately owned and w/ no competition, they have monopolized the industry there and therefore can charge the electric companies whatever they wish and as a result, the electric companies can not afford to supply energy or have to give their customers ridiculously high priced bills. The answer, in my opinion, is for the government to step in and make some regulations so that these companies do not have a monopoly anymore. However, GWB supports a pure capitalist econonmy so he is for privitization and probably will not do anything about what is happening in Cali. Just my 2 cents.
Much love and blue skies,
Carrie http://www.geocities.com/skydivegrl20/

[Zennie 0]

I didn't want to get into a political debate, but oh well...
California's problem is not under-regulation but over-regulation. Capitalism isn't the problem. California's governmental interference with the free market has caused this mess.
I'll make my point in the form of a question. What happens to prices when you dramaticaly increase demand & yet keep supply fixed?
------------
Blue Skies!
Zennie

[Doasfu 0]

Quote

California's problem is not under-regulation but over-regulation. Capitalism isn't the problem. California's governmental interference with the free market has caused this mess.

I'll play, too. :) California's problem is not over-regulation or under regulation, its a hackneyed combination of the two. I won't pretend to know enough about the economics of energy to say that I know if the system would work better under a totally free-market approach, or under a completely regulated approach, but in allowing the price the utilities to pay for oil to flucuate, while at the same time fixing the price they can charge for consumers, we have the worst possible hybrid of the two. The State was moronic for proposing it, and the utilities were moronic for accepting it.
Just my $0.02
Dan

[Zennie 0]

Your right in that respect. You can't be half-pregnant. You either have to make the utilities totally public or totally private. You can't do this half-baked scheme that they did.
Being a big anti-government person, I think the free market is better equipped to deal with California's problems. So I guess I'll answer my own question....
With the high tech explosion, and general population growth over the past several decades, California's demand for energy increased dramatically. However, California also prohibited the construction of new powere plant due, ironically enough, to it's extremely stringent environmental regulations. So you have a limited supply of energy (i.e. a fixed number of old power plants) and an increasing demand. Thus prices naturally skyrocketed.
To make matters worse, the existing plants can't increase output because the environmental restrictions won't allow it. More output == more pollutants. These are old power plants using old technology so they can't produce more energy without going over their emissions alottments.
So why not build more power plants? Well, for starters, current environmental regulations won't allow more pollutant discharge than already exists. Thus you would need to de-commission an existing plant (they've already been retrofitted about as good as can be done) and build a new one that uses more modern technology. Problem is, the permitting process in California is a labrynth of red tape that takes years between when a plant could be proposed, permitted and built (as opposed to Texas, where we can build a new plant in six months).
So California needs to bring energy in from outside, but they don't want to pay open market prices. They want to pay government-regulated prices. That is, they want the consumers of other states to subsidze their current energy pricing scheme. Naturally, I'm not to thrilled with that idea.
California's lesson: you can't have three cakes and eat them too. You can't have stringent environmental regulations that hamper energy production, a ravenous energy appetite and expect prices to remain low. One of them is gonna have to give. But Californians don't want to give any of them up.
Californians are going to have to make up their minds as to what's most important. Is it their precious electricity? If so they're going to have to increase production to increase supply and stabilize prices. Is it the environment? Fine, but that means paying more to leech off everybody else's existing supply.
------------
Blue Skies!
Zennie

[Zennie 0]

Carrie: I'll add one little comment about monopolies, since you brought it up and I alluded to it a little in a previous post. Let's assume for a moment that California's power plants are all owned and operated by one private entity (which they aren't, but that's OK for discussion purposes). I would agree with you 100% that such a situation is bad for consumers.
I think where we disagree is in the nature of the problem and it's solution. The problem in the case of a monopoly isn't the existence of a free market, but the lack of it. Once again, competition doesn't exist and thus there is no incentive to keep prices low or provide good customer service.
My answer would not be government intervention (after all, you're just substituting one large, monolithic, inefficient bureaucracy for another), but the introduction of real competition to the market.
Here in Houston, SW Bell pretty much has a monopoly on phone service. Guess what? Their rates and service is terrible. Now Birch is coming into the picture and they've been clobbering SWB in the small business market. They're poised to move into the consumer market very soon. And they're going to clobber SWB again if SWB doesn't clean up their act.
The free market works. But you need to have a truly open market with real competition in order for it to work. That's why, even though I'm a Libertarian, I support antitrust regulation. I don't like big anything having complete control over something. It stifles innovation and harms consumers.
My $20.00 That's enough politics for me for a while. Back to my zafu. Om...om...om...
------------
Blue Skies!
Zennie

[Iflyme 0]

I'm not an American, but it's easy to see that greed is the driving power behind the economic engine of your country (and mine, too). someone mentioned "...that hurts the consumers". You have just proven that you are owned by big business, like it or not. Consumerism is really just a scheme to make a very few business leaders rich. Via advertizing, they make us think we need all these products they rape the earth to produce. I am a victim, too... Anyway, the President of the USA is owned by big business, and he will run the countnry in the way that best suits THEM, not anyone else. So don't go thinking the environment matters, because it doesn't. It's all about the allmighty dollar. That's my humble opinion. And did someone say "democracy"??? Ha ha ha ... now that's the funniest thing I've read here in a while... WHAT DEMOCRACY???

[Zennie 0]

Oh I see. You're free from consumerism and we're all slaves to evil Big Business.
So where'd that parachute that you wear come from? Off a tree? How 'bout the plane that takes you to altitude? Or the fuel it uses? How 'bout the food you eat or the clothes you wear? How 'bout everything that makes your current lifestyle possible?
I suppose all that just fell into your lap unsolicited and untainted by Big Business' nasty, greedy, polluting little hands.
You're no less a consumer than the rest of us.
------------
Blue Skies!
Zennie

[Zennie 0]

Oh wait, my bad. You admit to being "victimized" by evil, greedy Big Business as well. Yet I don't see you quitting your job (which apparently is not part of the Big Business apparatus), giving up skydiving and running out to the woods to live in a hut and off the land.
So that does that make you? Hmmm. Oh, what's that word I'm looking for? Ah! A hypocrite. Yes! That's it!
------------
Blue Skies!
Zennie

[Zennie 0]

This is why I try to avoid getting sucked into political debates. I hate acrimony. So, in the interest of maintaining the good faith that's prevalent on this board, I apologize for calling you a hypocrite. I'll even provide a response for you:
"Well gee Zennie. I guess I'm no more a hypocrite than an anti-government person thinking some government regulation is OK."
Touche...
------------
Blue Skies!
Zennie