Question:
The Kyoto Treaty has received a major, perhaps fatal, setback, though it was barely reported in the media. It occurred when British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the gathering at the Clinton Global Initiative in September, the same week that the United Nations had its annual gathering of world leaders, that the treaty was basically dead. Blair has been a major supporter of the treaty, and has unsuccessfully implored President Bush to sign on.
What Blair actually said was quite interesting. As reported by columnist James Pinkerton of TechCentralStation.com, Blair announced that he was going to speak with brutal honesty about Kyoto, and then proceeded to do so. My thinking has changed in the past three or four years, he said. No country is going to cut its growth. He added that countries such as the two largest in the world, China and India, who are both excluded from the terms of the treaty, are not going to start negotiating another treaty like Kyoto.
Blair suggested that instead, What countries will do is work together to develop the science and technology...There is no way that we are going to tackle this problem unless we develop the science and technology to do it. Thus, Pinkerton concluded, That's what eco-realists have been saying all along, of course—that the only feasible way to deal with the issue of greenhouse gases and global warming is through technological breakthroughs, not draconian cutbacks.
Currently there are 155 nations who have signed on to the treaty, but China and India, among the worst polluters, are exempt from its emissions standards.
In a recent commentary, we noted that the so-called overwhelming consensus by scientists, supposedly that human-influenced global warming is not a theory but a fact, does not really exist. The opponents of the Kyoto Treaty, the proposed remedy to save the world from global warming, have long realized what Tony Blair is now saying: it just won't work.
There is a clean source of energy available, namely nuclear power. It has received a couple of recent boosts. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brought it up at the Clinton gathering, as something that is going to have to be part of the mix. It currently represents about 75 – 80 percent of France's energy supply, and 20 percent of ours in the U.S.
As the Hudson Institute's Michael Fumento recently pointed out, the two so-called nightmare events involving nuclear power plants that have occurred in recent history proved to be far less disastrous than their press clips suggest. No one was even injured in 1979 because of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania. And a new report by the Chernobyl Forum, made up of eight United Nations agencies, puts the lie to the frightening figures attached to the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the former Soviet Union.
There is no doubt this was a serious accident. But while some five million people received excess radiation exposure, the actual number of immediate deaths was 47, all of which were either plant personnel or emergency workers. And the estimate by the Chernobyl Forum of those who later died from radiation-related cancer is some 4,000, far fewer than the estimated tens of thousands at the time, though even this new figure is questionable.
According to the report, the largest health problem created by [Chernobyl] is the damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information. Fumento points out that as a result, no new nuclear power plants have been ordered since the late 1970s and more than 100 new reactors have been canceled.
While the New York Times briefly mentioned the Chernobyl story, the Washington Post ignored it. Both papers chose to ignore Tony Blair's comments about global warming. Perhaps they are more interested in keeping that overwhelming consensus on global warming intact than helping their readers better understand the complexities of global energy issues and how the U.S. can secure our energy future.
The man-made global warming theory is dead. Let's move on.
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4081_0_2_0_C/
Answer:
very interesting...
Answer:
Hrmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....................
Answer:
G-UNIT!
If anyone becomes bored, I suggest reading State of Fear by Michael Crichton (guy who wrote 'Jurassic Park,' 'Congo,' 'Timeline,' and the TV series 'ER') his newest book addresses this exact issue in a very, very entertaining fictional novel.
Answer:
I agree that the treaty's biggest flaw is the fact that Asia's two biggest economic powerhouses are absent in the treaty.. however
In a recent commentary, we noted that the so-called overwhelming consensus by scientists, supposedly that human-influenced global warming is not a theory but a fact, does not really exist.
the article does very little to dismiss the theory, other than initially saying is not a fact, then by totally dismissing the theory itself as dead.
There is a clean source of energy available, namely nuclear power. It has received a couple of recent boosts. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brought it up at the Clinton gathering, as something that is going to have to be part of the mix. It currently represents about 75 – 80 percent of France's energy supply, and 20 percent of ours in the U.S.
I'm quite open to the idea of Nuclear energy as it's cleaner however what about the radioactive left overs? its gotta go somewhere, and this article completely avoids a very serious question. Furthermore I don't really see why they're trying to make a comparison between the US and France. The latter is a much smaller country, naturally nuclear energy would be able to power a larger percentage of a smaller population in a smaller country.
As the Hudson Institute's Michael Fumento recently pointed out, the two so-called nightmare events involving nuclear power plants that have occurred in recent history proved to be far less disastrous than their press clips suggest. No one was even injured in 1979 because of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania. And a new report by the Chernobyl Forum, made up of eight United Nations agencies, puts the lie to the frightening figures attached to the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the former Soviet Union.
But what about in today's scenario? with the media and homeland security constantly throwing news of terrorist alerts, having more nuclear plants means more potential targets. Furthermore, the article states itself, we haven't really built a new plant in decades (although ironically Cheney has been pushing US companies to build new ones for China). We'd probably need to learn a thing or two from foreign companies.
Answer:
yeah nuclear energy seems to be the way to go at the moment... even NK wants in on the action... what scares me though is a) higher-ups, especially in china and NK, can easily skimp on waste management and (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) the older a reactor gets, the more structurally unsound it becomes because of all the neutron emission from the fission (and sometimes even fusion) reactions
but you never know what kind of new power source is on the horizon, a lot of scientists work on the holy grail of improving power production efficiency i.e. some have made huge vats of electricity-generating bacteria... some have momentarily created cold-fusion in a device the size of a coffee-machine... although i'd question whether there's room for development in these examples, there are a lot of ideas out there and i guess that's encouraging
i'm still waiting for hydrogen cars though... earliest estimates put them at 2010 i think...
and i've forgotten what i was talking about...
