Is the US destroying the planet?

[peaccenicked]

"The US has only 4% of the world's population but produces 25% of all greenhouse gases"

[RedRevolutionary87]

also out of all the industrialized nations the usa is doing the leest to reduce there output of polution

[sabre]

That is true redrevolutionary ,

the u$a refuses to regulate emissions like japan and i think germany do

why? because bush doesnt care abotu the environment and would rather spend the money destroying it

with factory emissions reduction (i.e. filters etc.) we could greatly reduce the greenhouse gases

[redpeekay]

even if we reduce the pollution the planet is still being fucked

[Moskitto]

Germany definitely regulate Greenhouse gases. The Green Party is one of the biggest parties in Germany and runs lots of advertising campaigns telling people to ride bikes and stuff.

They don't like Nuclear Power stations either (I don't see a problem if it's done safely, It's a more efficient use of space than wind power.)

[TheDerminator]

All I would say is that the murderer has many accomplices, but we the last international environmental summit showed the leader of the pack. Singing "do the Wall Street Shuffle"!
derminated.

[Guest]

"The US has only 4% of the world's population but produces 25% of all greenhouse gases"
Unfortunately, the emission of greenhouse gasses is not directly correlated to population. It's a function of industrial production. So this statistic means nothing.

[peaccenicked]

industry is connected to people.
I think you are trying to bury the point in pedantry.
You dont even seem to see any problems with greenhouse gas, just problems connecting industry to people.

[Julianemre]

The population of the USA is not in the least bit important, the fact of the matter is that as a nation they produce a quarter of global CO2 emissions.

Germany are most definitely not prominent destructors of the planet, they are perhaps the most environmentally astute nation in Europe if not the world. It is Japan, Canada and Australia that along with the USA pose the greatest threat to widespread action to safeguard the planet. However, the reluctance of these nations to take any positive action (a reluctance represented by a great lack of enthusiasm to ratify the Kyoto protocol) stems from America's outright refusal to have anything to do with safeguarding of the planet. The American stance helps to provide an atmosphere where attitudes are allowed to be determined by the economy and not a desire for a cleaner and safer planet.

[vox]

The US also uses about a quarter of energy resources annually, so there's the connection.

vox

[Rosa]

The Guest said:"Unfortunately, the emission of greenhouse gasses is not directly correlated to population. It's a function of industrial production. So this statistic means nothing. "?!
The US may make their own decisions about ecological matters, but if the results of their decissions are affecting other people, than it's not just about industry, but about PEOPLE.
And again: The Us are the ONLY state that refused to sign Kyoto's protocol!
Shame on them! (but does their government still have the feeling of shame? They have the money and technical power to preserve a life of Us people, or at least of the elite part...to make?a glass-sphere above their cities?and produce an oxygen for themselves?...PEOPLE OF AMERICA SHOULD BE INTRODUCED TO THAT FACT...ABOUT UNSIGNING THE KYOTO PROTOCOL!(belive that they're not)

[urib]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 3:04 pm on Feb. 23, 2002
"The US has only 4% of the world's population but produces 25% of all greenhouse gases"



Well, the statistic is a little misleading, as is noted later in the thread. This refers to CO2 emissions, not all greenhouse gases. The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor.

Also, if reducing CO2 emissions is the aim, then the Kyoto Treaty is a poor agreement. One, the US is singled out for costly measures, but the 2nd leading emitter of CO2, China, is essentially let off the hook. Two, the US has lots of vegetation which take that CO2 and convert it to O2 (oxygen). The Clinton administration wanted credits for this.

Just a couple of thoughts.

[Super Xero]

Quoting Bush:"He would not adopt the Keyotto Protocol because it deprived honest hardworking Americans of there jobs!", if u were bush and had to make the choice wat would if be?

[peaccenicked]

What would you rather do contribute to the destruction of the planet or have a job?
Thats not a nice choice but remember it is a problem of capitalism, which if you read 'capital' is a producer of waste, human resources and capabalities.
I dont see a solution within capitalist parameters
Bush does not means jobs, what he means is profits
as the replacement of pollutants with alternatives is deemed as unecessary labour to profiteers. Protecting the environment would create jobs.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:03 pm on Feb. 24, 2002)

[Julianemre]

The Kyoto protocol is not a "poor" arrangement, but a realistic one, aimed not at solving any problems, but hopefully begining the process of reducing emissions. Even if worldwide ratification of Kyoto is achieved, the planet is still going to be completely screwed within the next century, those who created and support Kyoto are fully aware that it is a minute step towards achieving their goals, however, it is still vitally important to take this first step.

I am not entirely sure about why you feel China is being "let off the hook" and would appreciate it if you explained this. However, despite what you feel about the consequences of the protocol in China, you should bear in mind that China are actually a part of the Bonn Accord (the agreement that fully legalises the ideas of Kyoto) and any weakening of Kyoto by any nation (including China) was allowed by the USA and their absence from an otherwise global consensus.

What you said about the vegetation in America acting as a sink for CO2 is not entirely relevant. Firstly, the plant activity in America does not even come close to absorbing the amounts of CO2 released in American industry, and this is the main reason why basing abstinence from Kyoto around such an argument is fundamentally flawed.
Secondly, the USA WOULD gain so called "carbon credits" in accordance with the amount of carbon sinks they have...if there was any dispute then it was probably due to the fact that the US wanted MORE carbon credits than they are actually entitled to.

Finally, if we look logically and rationally at the choice between jobs and a cleaner planet, there is really no doubt which is more important. With the current rate of climate change, in 100 years time, parts of our world will be submerged by water (were all of the worlds ice to melt then New York would be under water, I wonder what America's view of kyoto would be then:)), crop yields will be significantly less, hitting the third world especially hard, heat related illness such as maleria and cholera will be much more prominent and drought will take an even more damaging toll (than it does at present) on the third world.

We in the West can look forward to freak weather includinf flooding and storms.

(Edited by Julianemre at 1:22 pm on Feb. 24, 2002)

[Rosa]

During primary education process, I've learned that 1 tree needs 1year to restore the oxygen wasted by
1- day-driving car.( don't have the results with eco-gas driving car)...haven't noticed such a crowdy vegetation in USA

[Guest]

well the truth is the US has the most stringent environmental standards in the world, far beyond european standards.

Germans may not like nuclear power but it doesn't stop them from purchasing their energy from the abundant nuclear power sources that lie over the river and to the west in france.

And US green house production appears to be disproportionately higher than other nations when compared to population, but considering the US produces 25 percent of the world GDP the statistic doesn't seem anomoulous.

Kyoto was a flawed treaty that forced industrialized nations, like the US to cut emissions, while it allowed nations like China and India to increase emissions. This despite the fact that nearly all US plants run on more efficient fuel burning methods than their chinese or indian counterparts.

[Rosa]

An emission of CO2 by China or any other country is a bad excuse for US...that shows that the US government is concerned in making more power only. Shame on you!
And if the US would let other countries progress and become equaly developed, then it would stop.But no!They have to be the the bosses!
It's not just about people, it is about whole life on this planet! Of c that I can't expect you to symphatise with a tree loosing its leaves, or with sea gull covered with oil and hungry bcs there's no fish in the sea...and honest:don't consider you a human being

[Guest]

great someone here makes the claim that they can determine someones' "humanity"...

[Super Xero]

The Earth is like a house of cards take one out the rest fall down, ie. You kill one thing and the rest cannot survived, i wonder if the country's that realese the most emissions will be accountered for there actions in lets say 50 years when the planet is 5 years away from total destruction.

[Rosa]

human being= preserver, not the chaotic-evil-vicious destroyer. We've accomplished enough to secure our survival, so why killing and destroying other living creatures? That's evil, and "human" is not an evil one.
Human-looking-evil creature is a monster.