Happy QDrop?

[Ali]

Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/printerfriendly.jsp?sectionid=1260&storyid=3519346)

July 28, 2005

AUSTRALIA expects other countries to join the greenhouse emissions pact it has signed with the United States, Japan, China, India and South Korea.


The pact, which has been developed in secret over several months, was unveiled at simultaneous media conferences in Australia and Laos today.

The nations have agreed to combat global warming by developing technology to cut greenhouse gas emissions.


Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell said the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate showed optimism about the future in addressing climate change.


"We believe as a government that we can address climate change if we work in practical partnerships," Senator Campbell told reporters.


"The countries we have represented here today that have worked for so long to build this new partnership and will begin work today on the practical implementation of it can together make the difference the world needs on climate change.


"We will welcome in the future new partners to this partnership."


Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said the partnership had been formed against the stark reality that Kyoto would not deliver the greenhouse gas reductions it set out to.


He said the key to reducing greenhouse gas emissions was in developing new technologies.


"If we look at the countries that ... represent not only half the population and economy, but also represent half of the energy consumption in the world, you've seen technologies adopted in those countries, particularly in the area of energy production and steel production, that will exceed the Kyoto reductions by 50 per cent and that is the reality of where we are now," Mr Macfarlane said.


"The future of greenhouse gas reduction lies in the introduction of new technologies."


He said those technologies were particularly in the area of clean coal.


"So we are going to see an economic development process running hand in hand with an energy security and environmental responsibility policy through this partnership," Mr Macfarlane said.


"We're going to see policy integration, cooperation and collaboration and we're going to see the new technologies that we know are already being developed, make the real impact on greenhouse gas emissions that we need.


"We will see affordable, reliable and cleaner energy become part of the modern world and that is an important part of this partnership." So, is global warming real or not, now that the US has signed up to this new pact?

I do believe that Kyoto also advocated the use of technology to reduce emissions, it also asked people to use less energy... unacceptable!

Hey, I'm not complaining. Everything that is done to reduce the amount of shit that is pumped into the air, water and ground, is fine by me.

I am looking forward to seeing what 'clean coal' is. Infinitely renewable? like sunlight and wind? I think not. Hopefully some of the "new technologies" include renewables and fossil-fuel alternatives, not just methods to 'clean' fossil fuel exhaust.

Global warming DOES exist! Ask the Puffins. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/28/npuff28.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/28/ixhome.html)

[Qdrop]

So, is global warming real or not, now that the US has signed up to this new pact?

I do believe that Kyoto also advocated the use of technology to reduce emissions, it also asked people to use less energy... unacceptable!



this obviously doesn't make it "real".
it's more a global PR move brought on by national pressure.

slavery and segragation were once signed into law years ago- was that "right"?

congress passed a bill to put "in god we trust" on the dollar bills in the 50's. did that "prove" that god is "real"?

don't confuse politics with objective truth.

none the less, i don't have an issue with this as long as it doesn't have a severe effect on economies.
i like the idea of reduced pollution...who doesn't?

but are trapped greenhouse gases bad for the earth?
will this measure make any differance?

no one knows for sure.

but the liberal greens around the world have been appeased some....
that was the real reason for the US signing this....

[Ali]

congress passed a bill to put "in god we trust" on the dollar bills in the 50's. did that "prove" that god is "real"?Yes, it did.

[yeahwho]

this obviously doesn't make it "real".
it's more a global PR move brought on by national pressure.

slavery and segragation were once signed into law years ago- was that "right"?

congress passed a bill to put "in god we trust" on the dollar bills in the 50's. did that "prove" that god is "real"?

don't confuse politics with objective truth.

none the less, i don't have an issue with this as long as it doesn't have a severe effect on economies.
i like the idea of reduced pollution...who doesn't?

but are trapped greenhouse gases bad for the earth?
will this measure make any differance?

no one knows for sure.

but the liberal greens around the world have been appeased some....
that was the real reason for the US signing this....

You equate the reduction of greenhouse gases being emitted into our atmosphere to slavery and segregation?

Then the cherry advice on confusion follows. I'm sure there's a little more happening than you think, objective truth has been staring this administration (and previous) in the face for decades.

In God We Trust dollars is the real objective truth on why it's taken this long to get anywhere with an agreement and finally get serious about our Planet.

[Qdrop]

You equate the reduction of greenhouse gases being emitted into our atmosphere to slavery and segregation? no, dipshit.
i'm making the comparison to a previous decision by polititions that was based on public sentiment...not objective truth.


In God We Trust dollars is the real objective truth on why it's taken this long to get anywhere with an agreement and finally get serious about our Planet.
nice spin...

[yeahwho]

no, dipshit.
i'm making the comparison to a previous decision by polititions that was based on public sentiment...not objective truth.



nice spin...

dipshit? What are you 12 years old. You want to make a valid point about something on a political board and you talk like your in 7th grade. Your bravado and intelligent reply really have me second guessing my work on improving the enviroment.

[Qdrop]

dipshit? What are you 12 years old. You want to make a valid point about something on a political board and you talk like your in 7th grade.
yet you still can't grasp it.
go figure...

[yeahwho]

yet you still can't grasp it.
go figure...

As far as anything goes with the enviroment and your ability to make a valid point (ie; outdated studies, neo-con tools, wacko's and disturbingly old theories) I pretty sure you have a pretty firm grasp on yourself.

This recent pact signed by the Bush administration is more about protecting their fossil fuel interests and an attempt to derail the Kyoto Protocol, which 152 countries have signed.

The Kyoto Protocol, which contains legally binding emissions cuts for industrialized countries for the period from 2008-2012 (the first commitment period) and negotiations for the second and subsequent commitment begin in earnest later this year in Montreal.

So, you should be happy. Isn't this the compromise your looking for? An appeasement with no real consequences to the fossil fuel industry? It's business as usual at a fraction of the cost and sacrifice.

[Qdrop]

This recent pact signed by the Bush administration is more about protecting their fossil fuel interests and an attempt to derail the Kyoto Protocol, which 152 countries have signed.

and..

but the liberal greens around the world have been appeased some....
that was the real reason for the US signing this....


So, you should be happy. Isn't this the compromise your looking for? An appeasement with no real consequences to the fossil fuel industry? It's business as usual at a fraction of the cost and sacrifice.

none the less, i don't have an issue with this as long as it doesn't have a severe effect on economies.
i like the idea of reduced pollution...who doesn't?

[yeahwho]

I'm proud to be an American.

The best part of this new agreement is will give an even more focused picture of our (human) part in Global Warming. The folks who have formed the Kyoto Protocol (http://unfccc.int/2860.php) will have to buck up and answer to somebody. Which is what I think the real purpose of this new pact is.

For some reason all of the serious scientists and organizations involved in reducing greenhouse gases find the newest avoidence of joining the Kyoto Protocol nothing more than a way around the obvious.

Business as usual is going to destroy us.

[Documad]

Can I ask what the debate is about? I get that qdrop doesn't believe that scientists have shown that there is a greenhouse effect. But air pollution is still bad, right? No one disputes that the environment was in horrible shape in the early 70s before the regulations, right?


I'm not sure that eating rat shit in my hamburger will ever kill me, but I'd like to eat less rather than more. I feel the same way about air pollution.

I can't prove a link, but my state used to make sure that cars emissions were checked each year. Apparently, that cost a lot of money. Since they shut down the emissions checkpoints, we've had air pollution alerts--telling us not to be outside. We never had them before. :confused:

[SobaViolence]

i just hate smog. and that is caused by greenhouse gases.

reason enough to sign Kyoto.