25-10-2004 19:03									#91
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The easiest way off hurting the economies of countries that don't start cutting emissions back is to slap really fat tariffs on everything produced in those countries. The revenues can then be used to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.

	25-10-2004 19:13									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I doubt the WTO would go for that.

	25-10-2004 19:16									#93
	Support Apolyton

TBH stuff the WTO. Free trade on an unlevel playing field is overrated.

	25-10-2004 19:18									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by lightblue The easiest way off hurting the economies of countries that don't start cutting emissions back is to slap really fat tariffs on everything produced in those countries. The revenues can then be used to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.

Except the EU, Canada, and Japan are basically the only countries which would have to lower emmissions under Kyoto. Every other signatory would get a free pass to pollute to their hearts' content. I seriously doubt you could try to tarrif 3/4 of the world without suffering even worse under their counter tarrif.

	25-10-2004 19:19									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Says the group of people who brought a case against us for protecting dolphins.

	25-10-2004 19:19									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by lightblue TBH stuff the WTO. Free trade on an unlevel playing field is overrated.

Other then Farm goods what is so unlevel?

	25-10-2004 19:28									#97
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Oerdin, If I understand it correctly, doing things to expand forests or control forest or grass fires gets no credit in Kyoto because they are not counted in the first place. Brazil would be the world's largest polluter if forest fires counted.

Burning wood does not give a permanent CO2 increase as long as you let the forest or other crops grow back.

	25-10-2004 19:28									#98
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I'm not overly concerned about CO2 -- it all goes into the carbonate sink eventually.

	25-10-2004 20:00									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The US is not a net emitter. A report, the FAN report, developed under the Clinton admin, apparently determined that the US and Canada were both net carbon sinks.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13379

As to Brazil, I don't buy the notion that constantly burning forests on the scale that occurs in Brazil does not add tremedous amounts of CO2. But, if you are willing to balance this with Brazil's forests and other vegetation that act as a sink, you should be willing to do the same with the US's forests and vegetation which makes the US a net sink.

	25-10-2004 20:12									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

From Ned's link:

quote: Air in the Northern Hemisphere is rich in nitrogen (a plant food), thanks to the area’s industry and agriculture.

Who'd a thunk the atmosphere has a lot of nitrogen.

	25-10-2004 20:14									#101
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Chemical Ollie Burning wood does not give a permanent CO2 increase as long as you let the forest or other crops grow back.

That would be problematic then for Brazil and other rain forest deforestation players as the clear cutting is not allowing for re-establishment of rainforest areas. More likely is pasture land.

	25-10-2004 22:12									#102
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe That would be problematic then for Brazil and other rain forest deforestation players as the clear cutting is not allowing for re-establishment of rainforest areas. More likely is pasture land.

Yes you are right, if the land turns into desert or wasteland. But my company owns large forest plantations in Brazil, on land that was clear-cut by other companies and used for beef production some decades ago. Now there are eucalyptus plantations on the flat hill tops and re-grown rain forest in the valleys.

I don't buy the argument "cutting trees or burning wood is bad". Wood is a crop just like any other and it's a part of the natural carbon cycle. It's like saying "Let's not eat so much bread, we need to preserve those straws".

	25-10-2004 22:22									#103
	Support Apolyton

Good show on the Eucalytptus. Perhaps the most favored long fiber wood used in papermaking today with incredible growth/yield. I agree rotating crops is good environmental sttewardship and one of the main reasons why I think paper companies get a bad rap as they have by and large embraced the concept of renewable resource and replenishment thereof.

	26-10-2004 03:33									#104
	Inflate your Upload Space

I don't get it, so make it real slow. If you never burn the trees, they are a carbon sink (growing leaves and the like) until they die and are replaced by younger trees. If you burn a tree, it contributes a great amount of CO2 and it takes a generation for a new tree to replace the burnt one. For all this time, the CO2 sink is not as great as the amout of CO2 released in the burn.

Now on a larger scale, if you burnt the entire Amazon rainforest this year, you would release, let us say, the equivalent of all the man made CO2 that could be produced in the next 50 years. But, you tell us, that is no problem, for over the next 50 years the forest will regrow and take that same CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

But, during the interim, there will be a global temperature rise attributable to the burning followed by global cooling as the CO2 levels fell.



If the process is continuously repeated. It seems to me that the

	26-10-2004 03:39									#105
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ned Now on a larger scale, if you burnt the entire Amazon rainforest this year, you would release, let us say, the equivalent of all the man made CO2 that could be produced in the next 50 years.

What are you pulling those numbers out of?

	26-10-2004 03:53									#106
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin What are you pulling those numbers out of?

Just guessing. I really have no idea. But it seemed right.

	26-10-2004 04:31									#107
	Tired of ads?

If you want to use plants as a heatsink, you have to bury them deep into the ground. Someday, these will become coal, petroleum and gas.

	19-11-2004 02:18									#108
	Put an end to popups!

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996678

quote: Russia formally ratified the Kyoto Protocol - aimed at curbing global greenhouse gas emissions - on Thursday. In doing so, it triggered a 90-day countdown to bring the international climate treaty into force. The United Nations protocol will become legally binding on 16 February 2005, committing the 30 industrialised countries that have backed it to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions to nearly 5% below 1990 levels. They will have until 2012 to achieve this drop. “This is an historic step forward in the world’s efforts to combat a truly global threat,” said Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the UN. The ratification documents, signed by Russian president Vladimir Putin, were handed to Annan by Russia’s UN ambassador at a meeting of the Security Council in Nairobi, Kenya. Most importantly, said Annan, Russia’s support “ends a long period of uncertainty”. The Kyoto Protocol has been in limbo since 1997, when it was first negotiated in Kyoto, Japan. Tipping the balance For the protocol to come into force it needed the support of countries that accounted for more than 55% of the industrialised nations’1990 greenhouse gas emissions. When the US said it would not sign up, this crucial threshold looked out of reach but Russia’s support has finally swung it, taking the percentage of emissions covered from 44.2% to 61.6%. “We have a board outside my office tracking the ratifications,” says Richard Kinley, acting deputy executive secretary of the UN’s climate change secretariat. He says that changing the emission levels on that board was “a symbolic event for me today”. Russia’s lower parliament, the Duma, voted 334 to 73 in favour of ratifying the protocol on 22 October 2004 after the cabinet gave their backing on 30 September 2004. This final ratification has been widely anticipated. “But for us, the aficionados, this is the moment that really counts,” Kinley told New Scientist. “Now the clock is ticking.” “The news that the Kyoto protocol is set to become international law is a victory for the climate,” says Professor Brian Hoskins, chair of the UK’s Royal Society global environmental research committee. “The protocol is an essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases."

Its soon to be law. How will those who break the law be punished*. I don't see how it can be enforced 'cept through gentlemen's agreement. Look how the stability pact in Europe has been ignored

*My understanding is that countries that break their emissions quota have to reduce even more in the second round of protocol negotiations.. i.e no financial penalties.

	19-11-2004 06:06									#109
	Support Apolyton

The thread for when it was ratified
http://www.apolyton.net/forums/show...highlight=kyoto

	19-11-2004 06:09									#110
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Russia is now more environmentally friendly than the U.S.?

that doesn't sound right.

I seriously doubt they will adhere to the protocol. who's going to check up on them?