Lifestyle > Train of Thought
US rules out joining Kyoto treaty
Don Rizzle:
you see the thing is when i come here i write very quickly and don't often read over what i'm about to post, cos i don't really care to be honest. The reason being is that its not like i'm doing something for work, or putting something into my dissertation which i'm currently working on for degree, this is a hiphop message board which people can interact with each other in an informal manner and who cares if they miss a word out or something as long as you can understand what their trying to say it ok. which i'm sure as you've had such a good education in the united states of america you are pefectly able to do.
Woodrow:
It's...
Just...
So...
Easy...
Don Rizzle:
i like to use my time more wisely lets just leave it at that because i'm not going to make an effort just to please you, so can we stick to the topics and actually talk constructivly from now on please.
Ant:
1. I stated that Bush did very little to help the environment during his first term. You responded "bullshit" and posted an article dated Nov. 17th. What does a recent bill have to do with the past? I understand it is still Bush's first term, but I was reflecting on the past.
2. I never argued for or against the Kyoto Protocol. I argued against your position, which was essentially "Kyoto is trash because emission control systems cost money." This position was clearly wrong. Kyoto would have forced the U.S. to aggressively reduce its energy usage. This has very little to do with emission control systems.
3. I stated that reducing energy usage would make America a more attractive place to do business. I don't see why this is difficult to understand but it is true. Here is an example from my company: we spend about 500k annually on utility bills. NYSERDA offers grant money that subsidized the implementation of energy efficient lighting systems, HVAC systems, motors, windows, etc. We are retrofitting one of our plants this year with new lighting, and we will save 20k per year because of it. When you use less energy you pay less, and also as the demand for energy drops, the cost of energy drops. How do you interpret this as a financial hardship for U.S. businesses?
Also, NY subsidizes the creation of solar electric systems... currently the payback on solar systems with government subsidizes is around 10 years, but still once you get past the ten year mark, your making pure profit. Things like this make American Businesses more competitive. More simply, if you reduce costs, you become more competitive. Energy efficiency reduces costs.
To be in compliance with the Kyoto accords, the U.S. would have to reduce emissions by becoming more energy efficient and by switching to clean energy solutions. This would be done by financing research that develop more cost effective means of reducing energy consumption. For example, if solar panels could be manufactured more effectively they could be sold for less, and the payback would be quicker.
The bottom line is energy-efficiency is good for the American economy, and the reduction in emissions would be achieved primarily through reductions in energy usage and a shift to clean energy.
Your mentioned that the economy took a down turn because the price of oil rose and then stated that Kyoto would cause the price of oil and energy to rise even further. This is simply absurd. The things i've talked about would reduce demand for oil reducing the price, and reducing costs for american manufacturers.
4. The only burdern for Kyoto would be on the Energy Industry who would see demand for energy decrease, and the U.S. government who would be required to do more to finance R & D and also finance subsidizes for corporations that want to become energy efficient.
5. The system of credits was devised to encourage countries to reduce emissions, and to reward countries who arent. For example, if the U.S. reduced emissions beyond the required point, it could sell credits to those who didn't reach their target. The credit system is how Kyoto is regulated. If you miss your target you are punished financially, if you exceed your target you are rewarded financially. This pushes countries to meet or exceed their targets. Sure if you are stupid, you can miss your target and continually pay for your poor performance, but the credit system encourages all countries to meet their targets by establishing an incentive for doing so.
rafsta:
just makes me hate on bush and the u.s govt. 100X more... i want bush to die.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version