$30.00
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think they entirely are clear what "unstoppable" means here.

I also don't understand what is the issue here really:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/global-climate-change-action-unsto...

Leave aside the silly shell games that China pretends on one hand while India and China are building plants like crazy on the other.

If we curtail back on solar and wind energy while we rev up our oil and gas infrastructure one presumes the other nations will quite happy to continue with their process of shutting down coal and natural gas, shutting nuclear power, building more solar and wind, etc. Twenty or so years down the road if we find out it's practically a nirvana for renewable solar energy I am quite sure we'll put our solar panels up and there will many many mea culpas as we shamefully realize they were right.

The US is ~20% of the AGW "budget" I believe.....so surely if they have ~80% they'll still do a pretty job, yes?

(BTW my house is a 100% solar powered affair, nothing on the grid at all. I have a small generator for backup power that has sit for over 6 months now--I'll actually need to run it just to exercise it. I did this because I had no other options (the grid is a good 5 miles away), not because silliness like global warming. I'm love off-grid though, and it's a good way if one can manage it.)


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris R.
United States
Unspecified
Missouri
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
The UN and France seems to be just like Iran in not understanding how the treaty clause of the US Constitution works.

"(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."

The UN and France seem to think it is fine for President Obama to act like a dictator, but they seem to have no concern about a future president correcting this act? I wonder they would feel about a dictator named Trump?

...

"The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998, during the Clinton presidency. To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the Senate, which had already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and 'would seriously harm the economy of the United States'. The resolution (against the Kyoto Protocol) passed 95-0. Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Non-ratificatio...

"(However,) the US has met the CO2 emissions target as laid out in the Kyoto agreement. The US is the only major country to have done so."

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/us-meets-kyoto-c...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sikeospi wrote:

...

"The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998, during the Clinton presidency. To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the Senate, which had already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and 'would seriously harm the economy of the United States'. The resolution (against the Kyoto Protocol) passed 95-0. Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Non-ratificatio...

"(However,) the US has met the CO2 emissions target as laid out in the Kyoto agreement. The US is the only major country to have done so."

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/us-meets-kyoto-c...


So wait, let me get this straight.

The US did not actually "agree" on paper, (via a treaty approved by the US Senate according to the US Constitution), to the Kyoto protocols, and yet they are the only major country currently compliant with the Kyoto protocols?

Hm...

Kind of makes you want to give a shout out to France, India, and China telling them to get their own house in order before they bitch about ours, eh? And by "shout out", I mean resounding "f*&k you!"

I am waiting for the inevitable line of "pretty legit source" since it was posted by you, so maybe this isn't true. But if it is, well, then...you know what to say.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris R.
United States
Unspecified
Missouri
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
sikeospi wrote:

...

"The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998, during the Clinton presidency. To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the Senate, which had already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and 'would seriously harm the economy of the United States'. The resolution (against the Kyoto Protocol) passed 95-0. Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Non-ratificatio...

"(However,) the US has met the CO2 emissions target as laid out in the Kyoto agreement. The US is the only major country to have done so."

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/us-meets-kyoto-c...


So wait, let me get this straight.

The US did not actually "agree" on paper, (via a treaty approved by the US Senate according to the US Constitution), to the Kyoto protocols, and yet they are the only major country currently compliant with the Kyoto protocols?

Hm...

Kind of makes you want to give a shout out to France, India, and China telling them to get their own house in order before they bitch about ours, eh? And by "shout out", I mean resounding "f*&k you!"

I am waiting for the inevitable line of "pretty legit source" since it was posted by you, so maybe this isn't true. But if it is, well, then...you know what to say.




http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-outshines...

"According to the Washington Times, the United States has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than virtually any other nation in the world. For comparison, the European Union, which has spent $1.2 trillion on support for wind, solar and bio-energy, increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 0.7 percent in 2015 over 2014 levels. The biggest increase was in Belgium, where carbon dioxide emissions increased by 4.7 percent.

The U.S. achievement is not due to the Obama administration policies that will end up costing Americans plenty in the future. In reality, it's thanks to the development of hydraulic fracturing, and its use in producing natural gas from shale formations...

The European Union has formulated policies against the use of hydraulic fracturing, has provided substantial support for the development of intermittent wind and solar technologies and biofuels, and has incorporated carbon reduction programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, the average European ... more than 2.5 times the average cost to a U.S. consumer. Denmark, which generates almost 40 percent of its generation from wind, and Germany, which generates almost 33 percent from renewable energy, have the highest electricity bills in Europe..."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.