Russia ratifies Kyoto

[FluffyMcDeath]

I mentioned a few months ago that they were going to. Well, now they have.

So now it's in force. Seems that Tigger isn't the only one who never thought it would happen. The Canadian government was living in denial too and forgot to get ready. Story (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/30/kyotocdnreax_040930.html)

It won't take too long to turn it around though once folks realize how much money there is to be made.

[Cyberus]

Bah, this is old news...


:-)


I'm only saying that cos I was gonna post it yesterday. Its only a matter of time before this thread turns into a US vs Europe and Canada row...;-)

[Dan]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
It won't take too long to turn it around though once folks realize how much money there is to be made.
CO2-tax?
Every government loves to get more taxes!

[Dan]

Cyberus wrote:
Bah, this is old news...
:-)

I'm only saying that cos I was gonna post it yesterday. Its only a matter of time before this thread turns into a US vs Europe and Canada row...;-)

La la la la global warming doesn´t exist la la la la la la
la la lala la la it´s not our fault its natural la la lala la lala la la

[KennyR]

Before anyone gets too excited, Russia don't believe in global warming by CO2 emissions either. They're probably doing it for better trade relations to the EU.

[redrumloa]

It's a shame Russia is going commie again :-(

[Cyberus]

redrumloa wrote:
It's a shame Russia is going commie again :-(

I hope not, communists seem to be the worst polluters...

[whabang]

redrumloa wrote:
It's a shame Russia is going commie again :-(

Since when is the Kyoto-agreement about left and right? :-?

[redrumloa]

whabang wrote:

Since when is the Kyoto-agreement about left and right? :-?

I didn't say it was.

[the_leander]

@Red I know what you mean, ol putin is definately putting the kabosh on the young free press in that country. Any buisness that tries to get involved in politics gets stomped on etc etc..

Not good.

[Tigger]

So we have the EU who have increased there CO2 output the last two (or is it 3 now) years, Canada also not making there quota (and increasing there CO2 output levels) as signers of the plan also China who are #2 in CO2 output and dont have to cut back at all (and arent cutting back at all) and then we have the US who has cut CO2 production the last 2 years. So who is really doing somethig to cut CO2 production, those who are cutting there CO2 output and not signing Kyoto, or those who are not cutting there CO2 production but are signing Kyoto??
-Tig

[whabang]

@red

Ok, after Leanders post I understand what you mean.

[whabang]

@Tigger

True words. It is a shame that they don't live up to their own standards...

[bloodline]

Tigger wrote:
So we have the EU who have increased there CO2 output the last two (or is it 3 now) years, Canada also not making there quota (and increasing there CO2 output levels) as signers of the plan also China who are #2 in CO2 output and dont have to cut back at all (and arent cutting back at all) and then we have the US who has cut CO2 production the last 2 years. So who is really doing somethig to cut CO2 production, those who are cutting there CO2 output and not signing Kyoto, or those who are not cutting there CO2 production but are signing Kyoto??
-Tig


/me gives Tigger the "I'm better than you" badge and 2 brownie points.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

redrumloa wrote:
It's a shame Russia is going commie again :-( Becoming a dictatorship again, you mean.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:
[...]China who are #2 in CO2 output and dont have to cut back at all (and arent cutting back at all) and then we have the US who has cut CO2 production the last 2 years.


China's output is going up for the same reason the US output is going down. Offshoring.

[Cyberus]

Well if it should be ratified by anyone,
it should be....





http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/ys3/issue8/images/roland.jpg


Tadaaah!

[the_leander]

LMAO!!!!!

[smithy]

China: An additional 110 million cars on the road by 2020.

here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3701486.stm)

[smithy]

Tigger wrote:
So we have the EU who have increased there CO2 output the last two (or is it 3 now) years,


The EU didn't sign it. Would you like if I started grouping statistics about the USA together with, say, Brazil's? (you are both on the same landmass.. whereas the member states of the EU are not!) :-P

[Tigger]

smithy wrote:

Tigger wrote:
So we have the EU who have increased there CO2 output the last two (or is it 3 now) years,


The EU didn't sign it. Would you like if I started grouping statistics about the USA together with, say, Brazil's? (you are both on the same landmass.. whereas the member states of the EU are not!) :-P


Smithy you are more then a little confused. First of all as has been reported virtually everywhere the EU is planning on passing as an entity, not as individual nations. The EU is all on the continent of Europe (one landmass), while the US and Brazil are on two different continents (two landmasses).
-Tig

[Dan]

Ok, we can lump the US togheter with Canada, Mexico, Honduras and Belize then.
Oh, and we all live under the great president of the united earth states Dick Cheney.
Let´s all live in the present for the moment.

[Dan]

Kyoto is to little to late anyway!
Either we put up with a climate-change or take more drastical high tech solutions.
Another thing is that we don´t know how much of it that is manmade and how much that is a natural problem.
Not that it matter anyway earthquakes and volcanoeruptions are natural to, but nobody is suggesting that we shouldn´t take safety precautions against them.

I demand that the weather is put on the terrorist-list, it is certainly terrorizing a lot of people including me. :-P

[Dan]

smithy wrote:
China: An additional 110 million cars on the road by 2020.

here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3701486.stm)



Can you imagine the traffic jams? :lol:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Tigger wrote:
The EU is all on the continent of Europe (one landmass), while the US and Brazil are on two different continents (two landmasses).Are you on drugs??!!
so we have to add whole Asia to the EU? And what about the UK?

read how the EU is officially organized, before you write down this, this....

I mean, the EU is officially not a country (yet).

[Wilse]

Kyoto is to little to late anyway!

Agreed.
To paraphrase prot (K-PAX), our lame attempts at pollution control are like sticking a band-aid on a tumor.

Still, at least it's a step in the right direction.

[Tigger]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Tigger wrote:
The EU is all on the continent of Europe (one landmass), while the US and Brazil are on two different continents (two landmasses).


Are you on drugs??!!


No, though you are acting like you are.


so we have to add whole Asia to the EU?

Asia is another continent, it is in fact the largest of the 7 continents.


And what about the UK?

The UK is clearly part of the continent of Europe, is this really that confusing for you??


read how the EU is officially organized, before you write down this, this....

I mean, the EU is officially not a country (yet).


I know all about how the EU is officially and unofficially organized, that has nothing to do with this conversation, this conversation is about two things, are the countries in the EU on the same continent (answer is Yes, unless you have an example otherwise). And how is the EU planning on making their Kyoto reductions which is the other thing I was talking about. I know its not a country yet, however the member nations are planning on adding their total output allowed up and comparing that to total output actually produced in the EU in order to make "the EU" Kyoto compliant. There are dozens of quotes from the EEA to that effect, so not sure why you are arguing this.
-Tig

[the_leander]

Tigger wrote:


And what about the UK?

The UK is clearly part of the continent of Europe, is this really that confusing for you??


Last time I checked the UK was still an Island...


read how the EU is officially organized, before you write down this, this....

I mean, the EU is officially not a country (yet).


I know all about how the EU is officially and unofficially organized, that has nothing to do with this conversation, this conversation is about two things, are the countries in the EU on the same continent (answer is Yes, unless you have an example otherwise). And how is the EU planning on making their Kyoto reductions which is the other thing I was talking about. I know its not a country yet, however the member nations are planning on adding their total output allowed up and comparing that to total output actually produced in the EU in order to make "the EU" Kyoto compliant. There are dozens of quotes from the EEA to that effect, so not sure why you are arguing this.
-Tig
[/quote]

Each country will have to ratify it individually, just like before, just like everything else that the EU throws our way.

I guess what isn't plain to you is that whilst the polititians are happy to go on about "The EU" like it was a single entity, thats as far as it goes, the people still for the most part identify themselves by their nationality, rather then "European".

As for how they rate their output, tbh I don't really care, so long as it goes down. Kyoto has in it a sliding scale, so the longer you agree with it, the more you have to work to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Tigger wrote:
The EU is all on the continent of Europe (one landmass), while the US and Brazil are on two different continents (two landmasses).


Are you on drugs??!!


No, though you are acting like you are.


so we have to add whole Asia to the EU?

Asia is another continent, it is in fact the largest of the 7 continents.




Traditionally, Europe and Asia have been considered seperate but that's only because of politics (the Europeans thought themselves quite distinct from the Asians and therefore the reality MUST be that the Asians inhabited a different continent.

So, Europe and Asia are political constructs. Talk to the earth scientists and the continent that both Europe and Asia sit on is called Eurasia.

[Tigger]

the_leander wrote:

Last time I checked the UK was still an Island...


Which is definitely part of the continent of Europe, this is really getting silly. Do you consider Long Island New York not part of North America??


Each country will have to ratify it individually, just like before, just like everything else that the EU throws our way.


The first 15 countries had the EU president turn in all 15 acceptances at once to the UN, but hey if you dont think that in any way implies they are working together on this Kyoto thing thats great, but not terribly accurate.


As for how they rate their output, tbh I don't really care, so long as it goes down. Kyoto has in it a sliding scale, so the longer you agree with it, the more you have to work to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions.

You really need to understand how Kyoto really works before saying something silly like that, for instance how much does China (and many other countries) have to cut by 2008?? Can you say nothing?? Yes you can, in fact China #2 on the emission list and climbing) can double there output and be larger then US output and still not be violating Kyoto. Its a hugely flawed treaty, the recent EU nonsense just pointing how badly it is flawed. Output will increase in Germany, France, Italy, etc and the EU will say they are in compliance because they are sharing with Slovenia, Latvia and Serbia. US is actually decreasing its output, the leaders of the EU are increasing and living off the lack of industry in their fellow EU members.
-Tig

[Tigger]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

So, Europe and Asia are political constructs. Talk to the earth scientists and the continent that both Europe and Asia sit on is called Eurasia.

Which still has nothing to do with the Speel original and inaccurate point that the EU wasnt on one land mass and Brazil and the US were.
-Tig

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Tigger wrote:

Which still has nothing to do with the Speel original and inaccurate point that the EU wasnt on one land mass and Brazil and the US were.
-Tig
Where the heck did you read that? I never wrote such down!

[smithy]

Which still has nothing to do with the Speel original and inaccurate point that the EU wasnt on one land mass and Brazil and the US were.


The US and Brazil are on the same landmass. You can walk from New York to Rio. Unless you assume the Panama Canal makes them on different landmasses. But then you'd also assume that the English Channel makes the UK and continental Europe on different landmasses too... some consistency please!

Oh... Europe and Asia are different continents. They're on different tectonic plates. The Cauacuses is where the dividing line is.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Tigger wrote:

so we have to add whole Asia to the EU?

Asia is another continent, it is in fact the largest of the 7 continents.

-edit-

tower of babel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent)
http://www.amiga.org/images/subject/icon8.gif

[Speelgoedmannetje]

smithy wrote:

Oh... Europe and Asia are different continents. They're on different tectonic plates. The Cauacuses is where the dividing line is.


hm, not really (btw. it's Caucasus)

http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eastern/plates.gif

(these are the major tectonic plates)

To what continent does Iceland belongs to ? :-P

[Tigger]

Sorry Speel, it was smithy.
-Tig

[Glaucus]

Welcome to geography 101. :-D

- Mike

[Cyberus]

Nice image mannetje :-)

[whabang]

It's suggested that Euroasia was once two continents that have merged so much that they became one.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Well, if you look closely on the pic I've posted, you can see the official "Eurasia" continent consists of 3 tectonic plates: the North American, Indian and Arabian plate.
IIRC the Indian plate merged with the rest of the Eurasian plate, I think that's what you mean, Whabang.
IIRC in the beginning there was just one continent (I always call it middle-earth), and the Eurasian continent is what's left of that, the rest floated off (or collapsed again (like India)

(this thread should be moved to the scientific ch methinks, Blob surely knows alot more about this than I do :-))

ah,. here's (http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/geo_history_wa/Dance%20of%20the%20Giant%20Continents.htm) a nice site about it (I had the Pangaea continent in mind)

[whabang]

No, that was not what I meant.

The tectonic plates have changed during the ages. Their form changes, as does their location.
The large plates, Antarctica and Euroasia, are probably results of pre-historic merges between smaller ones.

As Earth's volcanic activity decreases, the plates will become more static. In the end we'll end up with a single crust sealing Earth's interior permanently. That's basically what's going on on Mars right now.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

whabang wrote:
No, that was not what I meant.

The tectonic plates have changed during the ages. Their form changes, as does their location.
The large plates, Antarctica and Euroasia, are probably results of pre-historic merges between smaller ones.I'd say without doubt you're right, considering the change of shape of the continents. Also, the site of that map stated about the major tectonic plates, so that implies also that there are minor tectonic plates (but now comes to mind they might be mentioning "little crumbs" between the major tectonic plates)

Anyhoo, back on topic, I don't know where Tigger gots his ideas from 'bout this, but surely Kyoto (and other agreements) has nothing to do with landshape, tis surely purely political. For instance, the Dutch Antilles belong also (partially, their economy is not connected to the EU) to the EU.

[Tigger]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Anyhoo, back on topic, I don't know where Tigger gots his ideas from 'bout this, but surely Kyoto (and other agreements) has nothing to do with landshape, tis surely purely political. For instance, the Dutch Antilles belong also (partially, their economy is not connected to the EU) to the EU.

I got my ideas from the EU site, the 15 nations before May 2, 2004 expansion were:

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The 10 nations who joined on May 2, though some still require votes are:

The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus.

Those all appear to be part of the continent of Europe.
Which is was what Smithy was saying was untrue. However back to Kyoto, since the UK, Italy, Germany and France have increased there CO2 outputs and are not on the way to making their Kyoto commitments, a combined EU pass for Kyoto is going to be attempted, its not a secret, not sure why anyone is arguing this, the question is even given the help they will get from the new 10, whether the EU can pass, and why should the new 10 nations have to pay for the CO2 of Germany and France.
-Tig

[smithy]

Tigger wrote:
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

[...]

The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus.

Those all appear to be part of the continent of Europe.
Which is was what Smithy was saying was untrue.



I didn't dispute that they were all part of Europe. I said they weren't on the same landmass. Ireland, the UK, Cyrpus, and Malta are all islands and unconnected by land to continental Europe.

You disagreed with this, and then you also then said that Brazil wasn't on the same landmass as the USA.

But you are wrong on both counts. The USA and Brazil are connected by land (unless you take into account the man-made Panama canal), and the countries of the EU aren't all connected by land.

[smithy]

However back to Kyoto, since the UK, Italy, Germany and France have increased there CO2 outputs and are not on the way to making their Kyoto commitments, a combined EU pass for Kyoto is going to be attempted, its not a secret, not sure why anyone is arguing this, the question is even given the help they will get from the new 10, whether the EU can pass, and why should the new 10 nations have to pay for the CO2 of Germany and France.

The reason for that is simple. The Franco-German axis has made a lot of anti-American capital of Kyoto. They don't want the headlines that show that the two countries had no interest in the environment, but in fact, used the EU and Kyoto to further their anti-American agenda.

If France and Germany is anything like here in the UK, then all the Governments will have done is publish a few targets and dropped the occasional token soundbite into speeches.

[Cyberus]

As an aside, but still roughly in the 'landmass' discussion - why does Israel compete in the Eurovision song contest and European Football?

I think they should be booted out NOW!

Otherwise, couldn't Madagascar compete in Eurovision? Can't Japanese football teams compete in the UEFA cup?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Eurovision as a whole is just humiliating and should be forbidden :lol:

[Tigger]

smithy wrote:

But you are wrong on both counts. The USA and Brazil are connected by land (unless you take into account the man-made Panama canal), and the countries of the EU aren't all connected by land.



No, you've just decided land mass is some new mythical entity which has things like South Africa being on the same "Landmass" as France, while being on different continents, and totally disregard standard geography which shows they are on different continents and different continental plates, unlike the nations of the EU which are all on the same continent and same continental plate. But thanks for playing Smithy, and thanks for taking us more and more off topic. It still doesnt change that facts about the EU and the Kyoto treaty and that a number of nations of the EU can't pass unless they all pass as a group.
-Tig

[the_leander]

Tigger wrote:
No, you've just decided land mass is some new mythical entity which has things like South Africa being on the same "Landmass" as France, while being on different continents, and totally disregard standard geography which shows they are on different continents and different continental plates, unlike the nations of the EU which are all on the same continent and same continental plate. But thanks for playing Smithy, and thanks for taking us more and more off topic. It still doesnt change that facts about the EU and the Kyoto treaty and that a number of nations of the EU can't pass unless they all pass as a group.
-Tig


Where to begin, if I take your viewpoint, you're talking about continental plates, Smithy and I were talking about the bits that actually sit above land, since afaik there are no (living) underwater nations anything else is really pointless and imho was purely an excersise on your part to twist what you'd said (or made it ambiguous enough) to be able to step out of the hornets nest you stirred up. Nice!

I have read the treaty, and it does indeed make it a requirement of the signatory that over time emissions would be reduced. One of the Reasons Russia was in two minds about this is because about 10 years into it, they would have had to seriously overhaul their powerplants etc's outputs, at the cost of millions (Source:BBC).

Admittedly it does leave a lot of wiggle room at the start, but then again, thats to be expected. The crunch will be after 10 years if the nations who have signed the treaty have reduced in real terms its greenhouse gas emissions.

So I'll say it again, does it matter how they sign (As individual states or done on their behalf by the EU) it so long as once they've signed it, they stick to it?

Another thing to add is that that member states have at all points had the oportunity to be able to bail on this one, the reason that the signatures were all passed through is because european leaders have (for once) agreed on something and are as individual nations going to have to put a framework together in order to comply.

[Tigger]

the_leander wrote:

Where to begin, if I take your viewpoint, you're talking about continental plates, Smithy and I were talking about the bits that actually sit above land, since afaik there are no (living) underwater nations anything else is really pointless and imho was purely an excersise on your part to twist what you'd said (or made it ambiguous enough) to be able to step out of the hornets nest you stirred up. Nice!


Its what I said in response to his very first post, I said:

"The EU is all on the continent of Europe (one landmass), while the US and Brazil are on two different continents (two landmasses)."


Thats what I said, and thats what I have been arguing, and that is correct. The British Isles and Ireland are part of the continent of Europe.


Admittedly it does leave a lot of wiggle room at the start, but then again, thats to be expected. The crunch will be after 10 years if the nations who have signed the treaty have reduced in real terms its greenhouse gas emissions.

So I'll say it again, does it matter how they sign (As individual states or done on their behalf by the EU) it so long as once they've signed it, they stick to it?


Because developing nations (including China) dont have to reduce at this time, that happens later, the EU is using its "developing nation members" as catch all for the CO2 increases of France, Germany, UK and Italy, not only for the the last 3 years, plus of course the increases they have had since the 1990 frozen numbers we are using for Kyoto goals.


Another thing to add is that that member states have at all points had the oportunity to be able to bail on this one, the reason that the signatures were all passed through is because european leaders have (for once) agreed on something and are as individual nations going to have to put a framework together in order to comply.

The fact that acceptance of Kyoto is a requirement for entry into the EU probably has alot more to do with everyone passing it then you want to accept.
-Tig

[the_leander]

Tigger wrote:

the_leander wrote:

Where to begin, if I take your viewpoint, you're talking about continental plates, Smithy and I were talking about the bits that actually sit above land, since afaik there are no (living) underwater nations anything else is really pointless and imho was purely an excersise on your part to twist what you'd said (or made it ambiguous enough) to be able to step out of the hornets nest you stirred up. Nice!


Its what I said in response to his very first post, I said:

"The EU is all on the continent of Europe (one landmass), while the US and Brazil are on two different continents (two landmasses)."


Thats what I said, and thats what I have been arguing, and that is correct. The British Isles and Ireland are part of the continent of Europe.



by that definition, thers no such thing as an island, mearly extentions of continents with bits of water over parts of them...

Seriously now what is the point in talking in terms of plate tectonics when everyone else is talking in regard political constructs, as Speel put nicely regarding Europe and Asia...

Oh and manhatten Island (I believe thats the island that makes up part of New York?) is part of America because America lay claim to it, in the same way that the Shetland Islands are part of the UK. As Far as I am aware, No mainland European Nation currently (at least legally) has any claim on the UK (with the possible exception of Spain with regard Gibralter).


Admittedly it does leave a lot of wiggle room at the start, but then again, thats to be expected. The crunch will be after 10 years if the nations who have signed the treaty have reduced in real terms its greenhouse gas emissions.

So I'll say it again, does it matter how they sign (As individual states or done on their behalf by the EU) it so long as once they've signed it, they stick to it?


Because developing nations (including China) dont have to reduce at this time, that happens later, the EU is using its "developing nation members" as catch all for the CO2 increases of France, Germany, UK and Italy, not only for the the last 3 years, plus of course the increases they have had since the 1990 frozen numbers we are using for Kyoto goals.
[/quote]

but that doesn't answer the question I put, I asked does it matter how its been set up now, so long as in real terms 10 years down the line real term emissions of these gasses are actually reduced.

Moreover, I would add to that, and continue to go down to go down at a steady rate.


Another thing to add is that that member states have at all points had the oportunity to be able to bail on this one, the reason that the signatures were all passed through is because european leaders have (for once) agreed on something and are as individual nations going to have to put a framework together in order to comply.

The fact that acceptance of Kyoto is a requirement for entry into the EU probably has alot more to do with everyone passing it then you want to accept.
-Tig[/quote]

Afaik kyoto wasn't even a consideration when Britain joined up... Nore was it I believe a twinkle in anyone's eye at that time...

Now, the new members who joined up this year, thats a whole different ball game. If that is the case then I'm more then a bit miffed. EU member states already in the EU were given a free vote on this, just like everything else. My understanding of this was that this would be extended to the newer members. Because of the massive amount of law created by Brussels, the new states were supposed to be getting some breathing space on implimenting new laws they accepted, sort of a transision period.

If that right on something this important was removed as you said it was (I have no reason to doubt that) then I am most annoyed.

[Dan]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
To what continent does Iceland belongs to ? :-P
Europe of course! Historical and cultural that is.
Tectonical? No idea.

So does anybody have any solution to the real problem here?

[Cyberus]

Tigger wrote:
The fact that acceptance of Kyoto is a requirement for entry into the EU probably has alot more to do with everyone passing it then you want to accept.
-Tig

You talk of it as if its a bad thing
:-?

[T_Bone]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. The oil will run out eventually, why not let the CO2 "problem" take care of itself?

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:
I don't know what all the fuss is about. The oil will run out eventually, why not let the CO2 "problem" take care of itself?
I tend to agree with you there. Economics drives the planet. The only reason we use oil is because it's still cheaper and more plentyful then most alternatives. We're already seeing the price of oil going up, and the higher it goes the more we hear of alternative fuels. It's really just a matter of time before economics forces us to abandon oil as a fuel and move onto other sources. I also think this will happen sooner rather then later. Of course we'll keep on using oil for a long time to come, but I think we'll start seeing switch overs fairly soon.

- Mike