Kyoto Won't Stop Global Warming - BBC

[hatrack]

"Even if the Kyoto agreement is fully implemented, greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will still increase by 70%

EDIT

America and Australia have opted out of the Kyoto agreement but will join those nations who have signed in Milan in December for talks on climate change.

EDIT

Professor John Whitelegg, Professor of Sustainable Development at the University of York, said the Green Party had always argued the protocol would achieve nothing without meaningful targets. Prof. Whitelegg, who is tipped to take up a leading role in the Green Party, said: 'Blair and Prescott have boasted about 'leading the world' in terms of Kyoto. 'But all they'd done was agree to a treaty aimed at 5% carbon dioxide reductions by 2012, with slightly higher but still completely inadequate targets for the UK.'

'Since then they've acknowledged that sopping climate change means achieving 60% carbon dioxide reductions globally by 2050, but in typical New Labour style they've called this an 'aspiration'.

EDIT

http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news070803-03

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

1. Bush* and Co. won't even acknowledge a problem.

The article is accurate, but at least the UK and EU acknowledge
GW is real and are taking steps toward the eventual elimination
of green house gases. Here in Texas, it's Hummers for everyone.

[cprise]

2. Kyoto was intended to be a starting point

It should have been ratified and implemented years ago!

[rman]

3. better start planning mass evacuation of costal regions

cause we did to little, to late.

(actually i'm not entirely convinced human activity is the primary cause - but that hardly matters now)

[BayCityProgressive]

4. Capitalist society

is not capable of taking this problem on in my opinion. Capitalism is at its root about profit, the earth is a product of profit and that is all it is seen as. By the time we finally take on this problem it may be too late.

[MattNC]

5. pre-emption

if we have a doctrine of pre-emption for meeting national security threats, why not one for environmental threats?

[BayCityProgressive]

6. Could Halliburton make money off it?

[damnraddem]

7. But how would that work?

After all, how could we convince anyone that Saddam Hussein caused global warming? That Baathists did? That Shia clergy did?

Nope, it won't work. On the other hand, if our military preemption keeps on, we may end up with a nuclear winter to fight against global warming. And even if that doesn't work, many of those coastal areas will be bombed out and irradiated anyway, so it won't matter.

Just trying to be optimistic!