The Kyoto agreement, which is supposed to "safeguard" the planet from excessive emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a fraud.

Here's why:

(Human made) CO2 is said to contribute significantly to global warming. Global warming can cause melting of polar caps, and worldwide floodings as a result.

According to the WEC, 1998, the effect of the Kyoto agreement over the next 40 years, will be a reduce in temperature rise from global warming by LESS than 0,1 °C. Up to 2100 (within a century), Kyoto may have reduced the global warming by 0,2°C.

Ergo: Kyotos effects are insignificant.

But here comes part 2 - the economic consequences:

All of the industrialised countries will lose a significant part of their GNP, if an attempt to limit CO2 emissions are made:

According to OECD, 1994:

Japan: -2% within 2010, -3% within 2050
USA: -1% within 2050
EU: -2% within 2050

In actual currency (1997-rate US$), this will translate to:

USA: 2050: 300 billion
Japan: 2050: 350 billion
EU: 2050: 200 billion

***

Summarised:

Kyoto makes no difference.

Its economic effects are hardly catastrophic, but the money wasted on Co2 follies can be used better elsewhere - say Carbon reservior research and welfare.

Do you know what an increase over 2°C will eventually do????????????????????????????????????:bugeye:

Originally posted by thefountainhed
Do you know what an increase over 2°C will eventually do????????????????????????????????????:bugeye:

0,2 °C

And that will do nothing.

2°C+. Nothing??? Man, do more research from objective sources.

I cant be bothered arguing this because i dont know enough of both sides of the argument. Suffice to say, in 50 years time someone will say "I told you so".

The guys says 0.2. Two tenths. 20% of a C. A fifth of a tenth of a hundredth of 1000 degrees.

I bet on Kyoto!

DJSupreme23 : you make me think about the people who have smoked 2 packets per days for the last 30 years! "I thought that it was safe... :("
Ho, no! Do you really believe that it's not important to decrease the cars/industry polution? USA is the fist source of polution in the world! That's a fact.

Alright! Who cares about environment! Let's just go and pollute the world.

Don't just focus on global warming and the dilemma whether it's true or not. Polution of Earth, our home, is a good enough reason for Kyoto.

EDIT: The real fraud is global warming not being true argument.

Hamlet

Are you saying CO2 is poluting the environment??
Perhaps you should stop exhaling and set a good example.

"Don't just focus on global warming and the dilemma whether it's true or not. Polution of Earth, our home, is a good enough reason for Kyoto. "

Yay, I agree wholeheartedly.

http://www.wmo.ch/web/Press/Press695.doc

Given the magnitude of the what could happen if global warming turns out to be a legitimate fear(even if the likelyhood is small, which I don't think it is), we should be VERY careful about screwing around with it. Kyoto would have done something. If the US was serious about dealing with these problems they'd take unilateral action and wouldn't need a treaty, the fact that they have done neither shows that our government really doesn't care.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/Runaway_greenhouse.htm

SuperFudd, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. There are also others, like CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6. Kyoto protocal is not just about CO2 as the only greenhouse gas. Anyway, CO2 alone doesn't seem dangerous untill there's too much of it and that's then polution.

Andre,
Thanks for the links, I'm done posting in this thread after this one.
http://www.weblog.nohair.net/current/images/warming.gif

When coastal cities go under the waves I am sure the CO2 emissions will drop. Naure is a tough brawd and can take care of her self.

Originally posted by Clockwood
When coastal cities go under the waves I am sure the CO2 emissions will drop. Naure is a tough brawd and can take care of her self.
The link I gave suggests that within fifty years global warming could potentially release gasses that are currently trapped in the ice caps and ultimately lead to an earth resembling venus. I don't know anything of the science involved, but, if there's ANY chance at all of that happening then every precaution should be taken.

An earth resembling Venus??

I suggest you cut back in the completely unrealistic scary stories, now.

The planet Venus has completely different conditions to start out with than the Earth. Primarily, it recieves over twice the solar energy of Earth.

You cant to know anothing fact, jps?

The atmospheric surface pressure on Venus is ~100 atmospheres/bars. You know why that is? because, in primordial times, the oceans boiled off, and are now in vapor form in the atmosphere.

Another fact? ~99% of the Venusian atmosphere is CO2.

Another fact? Venusian surface tempreature is ~480°C. Enough to melt lead.

I believe that the current CO2 content in Earths atmosphere is at 0,04%. A doubling or even a tripling of the CO2 content will not bring venusian conditions - far from it.

Let's not get started on the ozone section.

DJ,
I'm not making it up myself. check the link.
I'm not saying its true, it does seem unrealistic, but if this is even a matter of debate, if any credible scientist thinks this is a probable scenario, then its not something to screw around with.

Off the top of my head, CO2 was nearly half the current level before the start of the industrial revolution. IE around 270ppm, now its around 400 as DJ says.

There's no risk of Earth turning into venus. When the dinosaurs ruled the earth, the CO2 concentration was about 1000 ppm.

Alright, I'm willing to take your word for it since I'm completely ignorant of the science surrounding it, but can you explain why the the UN?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change feels that the scenario is likely if it can be objectively proven false?

but can you explain why the the UN?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change feels that the scenario is likely if it can be objectively proven false? It's hype. A politician(most, anyway) wants votes, so he can be in office and have power. A company wants someone friendly in office so they can influence gov'ment to their benefit. A scientist wants research grants, and some have power similar to the politician. Many environmental groups have decayed into lobbyists. So here's what happens: The greens notice a paper that can easily be contrived this way. They hype it to thier supporters, to show that their concerned about the environment. They help a politician into office because he's thier puppet. A company supports him because they know that if his bill passes, they will gain, say in this case a company that sells equipment needed to modify furnaces to reduce the co2 levels. The greens get contributions from people who think that giving them money will help the environment. More scientists get on the bandwagon, and some control what's published in scientific magazines etc. and suppress contrary research(thsi is seen better in the ozone debate). It becomes less and less about science, and more about money and politics.

You guys seem to be focusing on the CO₂ in the atmosphere. I'm no biologist, but I don't see what the big deal is about that. Plants consume CO₂ and give back oxygen, so it seems that problem could be solved by planting trees.


Originally posted by Hamlet
SuperFudd, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. There are also others, like CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6.


Does anyone know the relative concentrations of these other gasses in the atmosphere? Is there a simple way to get rid of them?

The Earth actually suffers a deficit of CO2 at the moment - from a biota point of view, anyway. Try adding extra CO2 to your greenhouse and see the improvement in plant growth!

From a purely anthropogenic point of view, an increase in CO2 - assuming it causes global warming - may be bad (although even that is debatable). From the point of view of all life (particulraly plant life) on Earth it's probably a good thing.

We don't need to plant more trees to 'soak up' the CO2 - in the long term the biota will do it naturally...

Anyway, what's the problem with global warming? Or do we really want a large part of the world to be unproductive peri-glacial wasteland, and to have to fly abroad in order to enjoy a hot summer holiday? ;)

Of course, the main 'greenhouse gas' is H2O...

Originally posted by thefountainhed
Do you know what an increase over 2°C will eventually do????????????????????????????????????:bugeye:

Yeah, it will reduce my heating bill! Yah!!! :p

Originally posted by Gifted
It's hype. A politician(most, anyway) wants votes, so he can be in office and have power. A company wants someone friendly in office so they can influence gov'ment to their benefit. A scientist wants research grants, and some have power similar to the politician. Many environmental groups have decayed into lobbyists. So here's what happens: The greens notice a paper that can easily be contrived this way. They hype it to thier supporters, to show that their concerned about the environment. They help a politician into office because he's thier puppet. A company supports him because they know that if his bill passes, they will gain, say in this case a company that sells equipment needed to modify furnaces to reduce the co2 levels. The greens get contributions from people who think that giving them money will help the environment. More scientists get on the bandwagon, and some control what's published in scientific magazines etc. and suppress contrary research(thsi is seen better in the ozone debate). It becomes less and less about science, and more about money and politics.

Oh no! The enviro wacko conspiracy has been exposed!

Whatever will the enviro wackos do now?

Perhaps they will go concoct some more scare tactics junk science to deceive the people with? (After all, don't they say "a sucker is born every minute?")

(Ozone depletion is a hoax for the gullible too. Lighning creates ozone. Why don't more people know that?)

If they were to say, "Oh, no problem after all," then they would lose their government grants to study their non-problem?

Hmmm. I thought is was a "religious" think with the eco-nuts, not just politics. How so?

geez.
"(Ozone depletion is a hoax for the gullible too. Lighning creates ozone. Why don't more people know that?)"

Lightning creates ozone many miles lower than it is needed, ie up in the troposhere or whatever its called, the ozone created by lightning just reacts away. Therefore its no use. Are you trying to discredit decades of decent research here?

"We don't need to plant more trees to 'soak up' the CO2 - in the long term the biota will do it naturally...

Anyway, what's the problem with global warming? Or do we really want a large part of the world to be unproductive peri-glacial wasteland, and to have to fly abroad in order to enjoy a hot summer holiday? "

We do need to plant more trees, since we are reducing teh global forest cover. Plus experiments on greenhouses wiht CO2 enriched air, found that the plants did grow more nad bigger, but tended to fill out the bits that carry nutrients with carbohyrdates etc instead, thus having a lower nutrient value in the plant.

As for unproductive periglacial wastlenad, have you been to the SAhara recently? You do know that much of the farming in western america is done using water from an aqiuifer being drained at 8 times the rate it is being refilled, therefore theyre going to run out of water in a while. Plus creatures such as mosquitoes will move to new habitats, affecting more people, and the same will occur wiht other animals and insects. Various others will be wiped out, since we have reduced their habitat already by our activities, giving them nowhere else to go when global warming reduces say the amount of food for them available.

Are we not supposed to be stewards of the planet, not rapists?

Simply the whole Kyoto sumbit wasn't just about pollution increase, but what would happen if pollution was kerbed while the population grows.

Would you rather have the worlds governments plotting eugenic campaigns to kerb population growth just so you can output the same amount of pollution?

pollution does have an effect, you can say "the environment can handle CO2 emissions", but the reality is that when such gases getting into the atmosphere they get stuck in a photonic reaction cycle, where sunlight causes chemical changes.

Such changes could increase the Ozone (O3) for one month of the year, and then decrease it the next to higher concentrations of COx, then the month after there would be heavy rains.

As for the very start of this thread "Whats 2deg Celsius?", well just note that Water is frozen at 0deg Celsius, a rise of 2deg is a thaw.

There are mentions of plants growing at the poles that shouldn't be there, now that may not be important to you but since the poles are classed similar to Nature Reserves some people do complain.

If you think pollution isn't a problem, then I suggest you check out a nearby landfill, although you might want to take some breathing apparatus as sometimes they can kick out not just the usual CH4 but also H2S, which in high concentrates is a silent killer.

What would happen if somebody invented the stealth contraceptive bomb? Just drop it on unsuspecting civillians and half the population of the city is sterile and not even know it....

Not that it would be ethical....

Reduce pollution? Simple: reduce the human population. Big time. If we don't do it soon, it'll be done for us!

Right now what this planet really needs is a decent nuclear war ;)

:D