Climate Change

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]If we continue as we do the future generations could see us as worse people than the nazis. Destroying the whole planet...

But if we destroy the planet , how can they survive to curse us

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ]If we continue as we do the future generations could see us as worse people than the nazis. Destroying the whole planet...

But if we destroy the planet , how can they survive to curse us

Well it's not like the earth will be wiped out. There will still be people (and animals) but they'll have sucky living conditions...

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]If we continue as we do the future generations could see us as worse people than the nazis. Destroying the whole planet...

But if we destroy the planet , how can they survive to curse us  

Well it's not like the earth will be wiped out. There will still be people (and animals) but they'll have sucky living conditions...

Mangos and bananas will be growing wild in Siberia.

What's sucky about that?!

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]If we continue as we do the future generations could see us as worse people than the nazis. Destroying the whole planet...

But if we destroy the planet , how can they survive to curse us  

Well it's not like the earth will be wiped out. There will still be people (and animals) but they'll have sucky living conditions...

Mangos and bananas will be growing wild in Siberia.

What's sucky about that?!

And the arabian peninsula might become a lush jungle , who knows

[Akira 0]

It's amusing to see everyone's missed the single biggest flaw with the Kyoto protocol...

The Kyoto protocol works on a "Carbon Credit" basis.

It's amusing to me to know that we have discussed that topic numerous times prior to your 2003 joining.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Well most of Texas, Florida and the Southern US will be a sea as will Holland, Belgium and the east coast of England.

Haifa along with London most other coastal and estuary cities will disappear under the waves.

No more Bondai beach.

If the Atlantic conveyer better know as the gulf stream is stopped, where I live will have its snow back in spades.

Climate change is not weather change it is weather pattern change and causes the attractors in the climate to change.

This leads to wild swings and ocilations in weather, breaking of weather records, shifts and expansions in huricane amd monsoon seasons making them more severe or moving them somewhere else.

Anybody notice that where they live?

It is simple physics people more energy is being put into the climate engine. Where does it go?

Kind Regards

[Jinef 2]

Lack of concern is prominent in America, now mirrored by a Israeli member ... gosh what a coincidence. The world is farked up and noone gives a shit, i'm not having children because of this shit. End the human species now before it's too late. If you are bringing up children I feel really sorry for them as currently few of them give a shit too due to moronic parents, however when it's their turn things will be very different.

[mattxr 9]

Lack of concern is prominent in America, now mirrored by a Israeli member ... gosh what a coincidence. The world is farked up and noone gives a shit, i'm not having children because of this shit. End the human species now before it's too late. If you are bringing up children I feel really sorry for them as currently few of them give a shit too due to moronic parents, however when it's their turn things will be very different.

erm no no one says the End is near.. people will still live on no matter what the conditions..

we will have to adapt to the planet, and not make the planet adapt to us..

[Placebo 28]

Walker please don't reply 4 times one after the other in the space of a few minutes, simply edit your first post

You too Gordy.

[SpongeBob 0]

Quote[/b] ]Kyoto protest beaten back by inflamed petrol traders

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-4646-1487741,00.html

By Laura Peek and Liz Chong

WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.

What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.

"We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs" one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull, "I've never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view."

Another said: "I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot." Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: "Sod off, Swampy."

Greenpeace had hoped to paralyse oil trading at the exchange in the City near Tower Bridge on the day that the Kyoto Protocol came into force. "The Kyoto Protocol has modest aims to improve the climate and we need huge aims," a spokesman said.

Protesters conceded that mounting the operation after lunch may not have been the best plan. "The violence was instant," Jon Beresford, 39, an electrical engineer from Nottingham, said.

"They grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us." When a trader left the building shortly before 2pm, using a security swipe card, a protester dropped some coins on the floor and, as he bent down to pick them up, put his boot in the door to keep it open.

Two minutes later, three Greenpeace vans pulled up and another 30 protesters leapt out and were let in by the others.

They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards. Rape alarms were tied to helium balloons to float to the ceiling and create noise out of reach. The IPE conducts "open outcry" trading where deals are shouted across the pit. By making so much noise, the protesters hoped to paralyse trading.

But they were set upon by traders, most of whom were under the age of 25. "They were kicking and punching men and women indiscriminately," a photographer said. "It was really ugly, but Greenpeace did not fight back."

Mr Beresford said: "They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement."

Last night Greenpeace said two protesters were in hospital, one with a suspected broken jaw, the other with concussion.

A spokeswoman from IPE said the trading floor reopened at 3.10pm. "The floor was invaded by a small group of protesters," she said. "Open outcry trading was suspended but electronic trading carried on."

Eighteen police vans and six police cars surrounded the exchange and at least 27 protesters were arrested. A small band blocked the entrance to the building for the rest of the evening.

Richard Ward, IPE's chief executive, said that the exchange would review security but denied that protesters had reached the trading floor. However, traders, protesters and press photographers confirmed to The Times that the trading floor had been breached.

Mr Ward would not discuss whether he would press charges, and said he would not know until this morning if there had been any financial loss.

Greenpeace later started a second protest at the annual dinner of the Institute of Petroleum at the Grosvenor House Hotel on Park Lane, in Central London. Greenpeace claimed that five campaigners had got into the Great Hall. About 30 protesters were outside the hotel, some blocking the front entrance by sitting down and locking themselves together, while others sounded klaxons and alarms. Climbers scaled scaffolding to unfurl a banner reading, "Climate change kills, oil industry parties".

edit them fucken” 𕬸

From Thisislondon.com

Quote[/b] ]The protest began just after 2pm when two smartly dressed protesters walked into the exchange, distracting security by dropping money on the floor. They then made their way to the trading floor, linking up with another group and sounding horns to drown out 'open outcry' trading.

But the campaigners were forced to retreat by the reaction from irate traders. Peter Mulhall, 49, was taken to St Thomas' hospital with a swollen jaw after he was hit with shelving and punched in the face. Colin Newman was treated for concussion at the Royal London.

Mr Mulhall said: 'Right away when I got hit I said, 'It's okay we are going now - there's no need for violence.' But there was still kicking, punching and swearing.

'One trader pushed me against a wall and as I turned back, a very tall trader punched me full in the face. There was a guy unconscious on the floor, so we dragged him out. But initially he was still getting kicked by the traders.

'I thought this was supposed to be professional business. I did not expect it to be like the worst hooligans you see on a Friday night. I have been campaigning for 15 years, but I have never experienced violence like that. Never.'

Trader David Collins said: 'I was scared. I thought they might pull out weapons. We didn't hurt them but we made sure they didn't hurt us.'

[Winters 1]

This leads to wild swings and ocilations in weather, breaking of weather records, shifts and expansions in huricane amd monsoon seasons making them more severe or moving them somewhere else.

Anybody notice that where they live?

Last year 3 hurricanes hit central florida, it was the first time that 3 hurricanes hit the same state since it happened in Texas around 100 years ago and it was the first one was the first Hurricane to hit central florida in 40 years.

[theavonlady 2]

Lack of concern is prominent in America, now mirrored by a Israeli member ... gosh what a coincidence.

Care to substantiate your claims?

Quote[/b] ]i'm not having children

Here I'll confess to a lack of concern.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Kyoto protest beaten back by inflamed petrol traders

LOL

[BlackScorpion 0]

This winter here in Finland it hasn't gone below -15 many times, while few years ago it was -30... Talking in Celsius degrees.

We're going towards Mars or Venus, I say... Venus, Earth and Mars formed a trio long time ago...

Water level will rise, atleast in NY...

http://www.filmweb.no/thedayaftertomorrow/images/bilder/DAT-5.jpg

http://www.filmweb.no/thedayaftertomorrow/images/bilder/DAT-141.jpg

http://www.unreel.co.uk/reviews/t/The_Day_after_Tomorrow/co1.jpg

http://www.unreel.co.uk/reviews/t/The_Day_after_Tomorrow/coa.jpg

More hurricanes will come.

http://www.filmweb.no/thedayaftertomorrow/images/bilder/DAT-7.jpg

http://www.filmweb.no/thedayaftertomorrow/images/bilder/stfcxxr43.jpg

[Noon416 (OFPEC) 0]

It's amusing to see everyone's missed the single biggest flaw with the Kyoto protocol...

The Kyoto protocol works on a "Carbon Credit" basis.

It's amusing to me to know that we have discussed that topic numerous times prior to your 2003 joining.

he he Akira, I've discussed this many times in many forums in many years, and the 'sink credit marketplace' issue is, without fail, always overlooked.

It surprises me that, given your statement, that you're obviously willing to overlook a system that is so easily abused to breach the Kyoto's overall & specific targets.

Discussed before, maybe.

Understood? Likely not. :P

Go back to denoir's country A & B example, if you will...

Quote[/b] ]To illustrate, suppose you have country A and B. Both A and B used to each dump 100 units of CO2 and must now reduce it to 70 units each. Now A invests in über-green technology, and in fact reducing its output to 40 units. Country B can now buy the surplus 30 units from A, and keept dumping 100 units.

The result? An overall reduction of 60 units, while country A gets a ton of cash because it invested in green technology. Less Co2 is dumped and economic incentive is created for greener technology.

If Country A reduces it's production from 100 to 40, and then sells it's 60 extra credits to Country B, Country B can actually increase it's production of pollutants by 30% on top of the base 100 units.

So overall, you only have half the reduction (net pollution is reduced to 170 units instead of 140 units, down from a base 200) required to meet Kyoto targets, yet country B hasn't breached the protocol and won't be punished for increasing it's output by 30%.

If you take the same example and adjust it against real world averages, you're looking at an average required drop of 20% to reach 5% below 1990 levels, which equtes to 20 units in the A/B example.

So A still goes ahead and reduces it's levels to 40 units per year.

Country B buys up the 60 units and applies it to its current 100. It can now produce up to 140 units/year without fear of breaching the protocol.

Net reduction in the area: 20 units/year, or 200% higher than the stated target of Kyoto.

[Tovarish 0]

Water level will rise, atleast in NY...

*proof from that great scientifically based masterpiece of a film*

More hurricanes will come.

*some more proof*

You forgot the gigantic robots that will attack New York for it's power generators.

http://www.movie-fever.com/gallery/albums/album03/robot_6.jpg

You're not really seriously posting that to support your opinion...are you?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Discussed before, maybe.

Understood? Likely not.

No its quite understood. What I think you fail to understand is that even in your example pollutants are reduced even if "Country A" increases.

So even though Kyoto is flawed the bottom line is A) there is still reduction, and B) its far more effective than sitting around twiddling our thumbs.

Maybe you don't understand it?

[Noon416 (OFPEC) 0]

I understand it very well, thank you. But do you, honestly? Or are you debating with me because I've challenged denoir's statements?

Because it appears that when I research your previous discussion about the Kyoto Protocol, you were in fact siding with my point of view that we shouldn't be willing to implement a "proven to be broken" system that might achieve a short-term reduction, when with some more work, a more stable and less exploitable long-term solution could be presented instead.

Quote from Akira, Nov 2002, Bush & the Environment thread:

Quote[/b] ]Kyoto Agreement Kyoto Agreement!" The rallying cry of liberal enviromentalist....the very ones who ignore the fact the US is doing the same thing on its OWN, and until your precious fractured unenforceable agreement has the ability to do something substantial thats the way it will be.

Source thread

To address your two recent points specifically:

Point A: Kyoto demands a reduction on average of 5% less than 1990 levels globally. Yet Kyoto is designed in such a way that adherance to that target is not mandatory and is highly likely not to be met globally. The current estimates are a 1% reduction globally...

Point B: Who says we're sitting anyone's sitting on their thumbs? Even countries that refuse to ratify the treaty are introducing voluntary targets, which is a far superior solution to a Protocol that can end up punishing countries even if they adhere to the targets. Voluntary targets are often more easily achieved than those imposed by economic and political force.

"I want to do it" is far more powerful a motivator than "I have to do it".

Ask yourself why the Kyoto Protocol has taken so long to reach this stage? Ask yourself why if it's such a great idea, your nation refuses to ratify it, Akira.

Oh and btw: Just because "Noon416 (OFPEC)" has only been around since 2003 in here, doesn't mean that "Noon416" wasn't around here long before that.

Edit: Broken quote closure

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ask yourself why the Kyoto Protocol has taken so long to reach this stage? Ask yourself why if it's such a great idea, your nation refuses to ratify it, Akira.

Thats too easy.

Bush.

Thats why. You forget that the US was set to sign it when Clinton was President, and then pulled out when Bush came in.

Quote[/b] ]But I wouldn't be willing to implement a "proven to be broken" system that might achieve a short-term reduction, when with some more work, a more stable and less exploitable long-term solution could be presented instead.

Then ask yourself, through your own words, why hasn't such a solution been given? Because politically it is extremely difficult to get the world to agree on anything. That is why Kyoto has taken this long. Now a sizable chunk of the world has agreed, and even despite your "current estimates" the net is still a reduction.

Quote[/b] ]Who says we're sitting anyone's sitting on their thumbs? Even countries that refuse to ratify the treaty are introducing voluntary targets, which is a far superior solution to a Protocol that can end up punishing countries even if they adhere to the targets. Voluntary targets are often more easily achieved than those imposed by economic and political force.

Really? Taking the US for example, you trust an Administration that has deep ties and financial stakes in the energy, particularly petroleum, business to come up with voluntary pollution reducing initiatives? An Administration that had closed-door energy talks with major energy and oil companies, including one now charged with illegally jacking prices and taking advantage of the California power outages, and refuses to release any notes from that meeting, to come up with something better than Kyoto? You seriously trust them?

Quote[/b] ]

"I want to do it" is far more powerful a motivator than "I have to do it".

Ah. And there is the fundamental flaw in your logic. You presume that people will voluntarily give up their Hummers and SUVs, and countries will voluntarily give up dirty businesses. A far more powerful motivator is what do I have to give up now? People will not see beyond their own nose when asked to sacrifice for the future.

You think people do their taxes because they want to?

Quote[/b] ]Oh and btw: Just because "Noon416 (OFPEC)" has only been around since 2003 in here, doesn't mean that "Noon416" wasn't around here long before that.

Thats nice. But you obviously weren't around when we discussed the credits before.

Quote[/b] ]Quote from Akira, Nov 2002, Bush & the Environment thread:

Quote

Kyoto Agreement Kyoto Agreement!" The rallying cry of liberal enviromentalist....the very ones who ignore the fact the US is doing the same thing on its OWN, and until your precious fractured unenforceable agreement has the ability to do something substantial thats the way it will be.

Source thread

Nice try.

So I suppose that I am suppose to remain stagnant in my beliefs, and just as ignorantly stubborn as Bush? Lemme help you out with something else. Do some research in the Iraq thread. And then try and come back with something a little more substantial then something I said 3 years ago.

Some of us research, and read, and reason the alternatives and present realities and come to the conclusion that our beliefs might be a bit wrong. I decided some time ago to take the "liberal enviromentalist" cause rather than the "big business we can do it ourselves (but not really)" cause. If voluntary enforcement was just that easy, it would have been done already. The sad fact is, you cannot expect big business or any country to cut into the bottom line and decrease the ever important cash flow, without non-voluntary enforcement.

EDIT: Thanks for the link though. Man that brings back memories.

[denoir 0]

I understand it very well, thank you. But do you, honestly? Or are you debating with me because I've challenged denoir's statements?

Because it appears that when I research your previous discussion about the Kyoto Protocol, you were in fact siding with my point of view that we shouldn't be willing to implement a "proven to be broken" system that might achieve a short-term reduction, when with some more work, a more stable and less exploitable long-term solution could be presented instead.

The problem is that it is very difficult to get a global agreement on something like this. And it's enough that a couple of the major polluters refuse cooperate for it to break down.

Kyoto has its flaws and it certainly isn't demanding enough, but that's the best we can do at the moment. The importance of it is to acknowledge that we have a problem, that we must start thinking in terms of fixing it and that it won't be cheap.

It's a first step to international environmental regulations - and that alone justifies it. Pollution is not a national issue.

Quote[/b] ]Quote from Akira, Nov 2002, Bush & the Environment thread:

Quote[/b] ]Kyoto Agreement Kyoto Agreement!" The rallying cry of liberal enviromentalist....the very ones who ignore the fact the US is doing the same thing on its OWN, and until your precious fractured unenforceable agreement has the ability to do something substantial thats the way it will be.

Source thread

LOL. "Guest", that's me and my old deleted account.

Quote[/b] ]To address your two recent points specifically:

Point A: Kyoto demands a reduction on average of 5% less than 1990 levels globally. Yet Kyoto is designed in such a way that adherance to that target is not mandatory and is highly likely not to be met globally. The current estimates are a 1% reduction globally...

5% of 1990 levels equals some 30% of the projected 2010 levels. So 1% (I'm not sure where you got that number from, but never mind), would correspond to 10% of 2010 levlels. The big point is that it's not only going to stop increasing, but it will go down. Right now we're looking at the following development:

(Source BBC)

Quote[/b] ]Point B: Who says we're sitting anyone's sitting on their thumbs? Even countries that refuse to ratify the treaty are introducing voluntary targets, which is a far superior solution to a Protocol that can end up punishing countries even if they adhere to the targets. Voluntary targets are often more easily achieved than those imposed by economic and political force.

"I want to do it" is far more powerful a motivator than "I have to do it".

You can't trust voluntary targets. It's too easy and convenient to ignore them - and we can clearly se that from the fact that nobody has actually voluntarily reduced their emissions. Just like you can't set speeding limits for cars on a voluntary basis, you can't set this. There has to be a badass punishment for breaking it.

Quote[/b] ]Ask yourself why the Kyoto Protocol has taken so long to reach this stage?

Because it requries sacrifice and certain countries have been obstructing the process.

Quote[/b] ]Ask yourself why if it's such a great idea, your nation refuses to ratify it, Akira.

LOL, yes, what the Bush administration says must be right. I'm thinking they lost the US signature for the Kyoto treaty in the same place where the Iraqi WMD are...

[Noon416 (OFPEC) 0]

Since I don't have the time to read 519 pages of thread (7776 posts), I'm going to address this now:

Quote[/b] ] And then try and come back with something a little more substantial then something I said 3 years ago.

People can and do change, you've no argument from me there. It's human nature.

But when you try to use an old argument to dismiss my points arbitrarily, it pays to make sure that your stated position back then is valid to the discussion today.

Although, I really should thank you, because now that your previous position has come to light, the context of your post changes to one of agreement with my position on the Protocol.

Next time you want to try the 'old-timer' card, I suggest that you might want to fold before losing the hand.

Quote[/b] ]Ah. And there is the fundamental flaw in your logic. You presume that people will voluntarily give up their Hummers and SUVs, and countries will voluntarily give up dirty businesses. A far more powerful motivator is what do I have to give up now? People will not see beyond their own nose when asked to sacrifice for the future.

You think people do their taxes because they want to?

I'm not talking about personal volunteering as you're right, people won't change in a hurry or give up personal freedoms when they have the choice to keep them.

However, the level I'm referring to is governmental.

Governments impose their will over the people (thats why people pay taxes), and because of that my point is still valid.

A government that voluntarily opts to reduce emissions and enforce voluntary controls will achieve a lot more in the long run , than one that is forced to do so through a flawed agreement.

This is because the most common result of forcing a government to do something is that the government will often devote resources trying to find a way out, instead of applying those resources to the problem. Human history is full of examples of such behaviour.

Quote[/b] ]If voluntary enforcement was just that easy, it would have been done already.

It is being done, thats my point.

And because of that, why roll out a "fractured unenforceable agreement" (in your own words, still valid today) when governments are addressing the problem themselves, voluntarily.

Quote[/b] ]LOL. "Guest", that's me and my old deleted account.

he he, that makes it a very interesting read.

Quote[/b] ]LOL, yes, what the Bush administration says must be right. I'm thinking they lost the US signature for the Kyoto treaty in the same place where the Iraqi WMD are..

LOL, nice one.

The actual reason appears to be because the other largest polluters have refused to sign as well, and I knew I would concede that point but I was waiting to see what Akira came back with first.

[denoir 0]

Go back to denoir's country A & B example, if you will...

Quote[/b] ]To illustrate, suppose you have country A and B. Both A and B used to each dump 100 units of CO2 and must now reduce it to 70 units each. Now A invests in über-green technology, and in fact reducing its output to 40 units. Country B can now buy the surplus 30 units from A, and keept dumping 100 units.

The result? An overall reduction of 60 units, while country A gets a ton of cash because it invested in green technology. Less Co2 is dumped and economic incentive is created for greener technology.

If Country A reduces it's production from 100 to 40, and then sells it's 60 extra credits to Country B, Country B can actually increase it's production of pollutants by 30% on top of the base 100 units.

Actually, there's an error in your calculations.

Quote[/b] ]If Country A reduces it's production from 100 to 40, and then sells it's 60 extra credits to Country B, Country B can actually increase it's production of pollutants by 30% on top of the base 100 units.

It's no longer base 100 units, but base 70 units, as country B has agreed to reduce from 100 to 70.

If agreed reduced base level + bought credits < actual pollution then sanctions are triggered.

The overall idea is that the total number of credits available on the market equals the amount of global emissions allowed. You can take sell them from one company to another, but the total number of credits still stays the same.

And to enforce sanctions, we need everybody playing according to the same rule book. If it's a global agreement, then there's little chance of anybody weaseling out from punishment.

[Noon416 (OFPEC) 0]

My apologies for that, the math does actually take into account the new base of 70 per country and is accurate, but I neglected to include my statement.

Quote[/b] ]The overall idea is that the total number of credits available on the market equals the amount of global emissions allowed. You can take sell them from one company to another, but the total number of credits still stays the same.

That would be the sensible thing to do, but so far I've seen nothing to indicate that this will be the case.

Will have to look into that when I get home, see if I can find the details from the Protocol on that one (something we could all do, if we're going to use this point).

[denoir 0]

Will have to look into that when I get home, see if I can find the details from the Protocol on that one (something we could all do, if we're going to use this point).

Here's a reference that should have a fairly neutral point of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Emissions_trading

And here is the raw text of the protocol (although I doubt it is of much practical use here as it's just lots of legal stuff):

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

To me, what is still unclear about the protocol is the enforcement. I've seen examples of various agreements within the EU that have been blatantly violated when the bigger countries, France, Germany and the UK had for some reason or another not been able to fulfill their parts.

The question with Kyoto is what happens if for instance China in 5 years says: "Sorry, we tried, but we can't keep our promise". Sanctions?

IMO the sensible thing would be to use sanctions to get a sum that would be required to get the reductions done elsewhere. Actually, I'd like to see that done even for the countries refusing to sign Kyoto - i.e slap on import fees on goods from those countries to such a degree that those fees would finance an equivalent emission reduction elsewhere.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]People can and do change, you've no argument from me there. It's human nature.

But when you try to use an old argument to dismiss my points arbitrarily, it pays to make sure that your stated position back then is valid to the discussion today.

Although, I really should thank you, because now that your previous position has come to light, the context of your post changes to one of agreement with my position on the Protocol.

Next time you want to try the 'old-timer' card, I suggest that you might want to fold before losing the hand.

1) I didn't dismiss your points arbitrarily.

2) You really shouldn't use a position of mine from 3 years ago that I have already admited was flawed and wrong. By association that makes your position wrong as well.

The reason for the change of heart is simple. While the Kyoto Protocol is flawed, it does far more, and far better than Bush's own idea of voluntary emission control, which you advocate. While in no way do I dismiss voluntary controls, if implemented with enforceable controls, Bush's voluntary controls leaves a little something to be desired, especially his "greenhouse gas intensity" reduction targets which actually allow emissions to increase.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not talking about personal volunteering as you're right, people won't change in a hurry or give up personal freedoms when they have the choice to keep them.

However, the level I'm referring to is governmental.

Governments impose their will over the people (thats why people pay taxes), and because of that my point is still valid.

Governments can not be trusted to voluntarily reduce emissions. Again, I point to Bush's "enviromental" plan.

But I think you and I are arguing the smae point. The governments that signed the Protocol did so voluntarily, and it will be up to the governments to legislate those reductions in their territories. Exactly what you want.

Quote[/b] ]The actual reason appears to be because the other largest polluters have refused to sign as well, and I knew I would concede that point but I was waiting to see what Akira came back with first.

So you knowingly espouse flawed arguments? What does that say about the rest of what you have said?

Or you think I'm here for your misplaced amusement?

Quote[/b] ]That would be the sensible thing to do, but so far I've seen nothing to indicate that this will be the case.

Will have to look into that when I get home, see if I can find the details from the Protocol on that one (something we could all do, if we're going to use this point).

Article 3 is the one you want I believe. If each country has a certain number assigned to its emissions that it can sell, if it has surpassed targets, to another country, then the net amount will remain unchanged globally.

One problem is that after 3 years, any party can withdraw from the Protocol without penalty.

EDIT: Denoir beat me to it.