Korean Job Discussion Forums

[joe_doufu]

[rapier]

[rapier]

Australia recorded its hottest year in 2005, and is experiencing extreme heat, drought and bushfires as a result of abrupt global warming.
Australia continues to pursue with the U.S. and other leading polluters
the deadly charade that climate change can be sufficiently addressed
through voluntary pledges, industry leadership and new technologies.

Over the coming decades Australia's soaring temperatures will result in
agriculture becoming unviable over huge areas, water supplies for
millions will fail, rising sea levels will destroy substantial coastal areas,
modern urban infrastructure will be devastated by powerful extreme
weather events and bushfires, and countless environmental refugees will
overwhelm Australia's ability to cope.

Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol immediately. Though clearly imperfect and inadequate, Kyoto represents mechanisms for reducing emissions globally. As climate ravaged ecological systems continue to unravel, deaths mount and the media, public and governments wake from their stupor; Kyoto provides a foundation to build upon.

Send an email: http://www.climateark.org/action/alert.asp?id=climate

[khyber]

rapier:
Kyoto SUCKS!
The only reason that you are supporting Kyoto is that it's the ONLY agreement. But it CERTAINLY ain't the best one we could dream up.
My problems:
1) The sinks: Why should having "a lot of forest" allot you considerably more ability to pollute the air?
2) WHY does it COMPELTELY let developing nations off the hook? The top three (gross) contributors are China, India, and US. If NEITHER China NOR India are subject to the kyoto outline, what good is it? HOW could anyone EXPECT the US to follow suit? It would be hard enough to get industry to reign in their belching, but to see that the other big producers don't have to? Forget it.
It doesn't even make SENSE!!!!
4) Credits: Being able to SELL/trade/Buy pollution credits, in SOME theories is a very useful idea.
but I think that these credits will simply marginalize poorer countries. It's argued that "the income will help the countries". psshhht. Responsible development (both INTERNAL and abroad) would help those countries, not simply throwing money at them.
Another weird thing:
eg: uhm....Zaire sign the protocol (but doesn't have to abide by it) BUT is given their credits. They may trade these credits to richer countries. HOWEVER, with an ecnoomy as (relatively small) as Zaire:
a) Why should a .5% Zairian credit count for the same .5% of a Canadian credit when the gross amount is utterly imcomparable?

I'm ALL for treatise..... i just want REAL treatise that WORK and REQUIRE sacrifice from EVERYONE.

5)

[joe_doufu]

Nature doesn't exist in a static form. It always changes. Man has never been able to manage something even as small as a national park in a constant state of equilibrium. What makes you think reducing carbon dioxide emissions (and mankind's total production of CO2 is a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the atmosphere) will cause the temperature to stabilize forever? It's impossible. Change is constant. Maybe in some areas global warming hurts agriculture, but in other areas (think Canada) it could open up whole new regions of now-useful land. It doesn't make sense to sacrifice our economies and prosperity in the name of appearing to be working on a problem, politically. If we ever develop a real scientific understanding of climate and a real plan for stabilizing global climate, then and only then would I suggest trying to act.

[EFLtrainer]

[EFLtrainer]

[joe_doufu]

[laogaiguk]

[joe_doufu]

OK, that makes sense, but there's just one thing: carbon dioxide is not pollution.

EDIT: I wrote "that makes sense" when the previous post said "we should pollute less". He's subsequently changed it to say "we should emit carbon dioxide less" which indeed makes no sense.

[laogaiguk]

[joe_doufu]

[laogaiguk]

[joe_doufu]

[laogaiguk]