Drmiller, the vast majority of pollutants (Ch4, SO2, NO2, CO2) are naturally occuring gases. Even the CFC and HFC gases can occur naturally at low levels. The reason they are pollutants is because we pump them into the atmosphere in larger concentrations than they naturally occur. This makes CO2 a pollutant. To suggest that CO2 is not a pollutant is to suggest that carbon monoxide, methane, or sulphur
Helix, you completely ignore the biological factors to humand and animals of increased CO2 levels. CO2 is a poison. We can argue the science another day if you'd like, but animal lifeforms cannot survive even on 4% CO2. So what if the trees survive when we all die? The fact of the matter is that we are pumping unsustainable levels of CO2 into the atmosphere which will eventually kill us irrespective of any change to global warming. The majority
Bakerstreet, your point may indeed be true, but two wrongs don't make a right. We cannot lower our moral standards for fear that others may lower their standards if we don't. The courts have no problems with arresting terrorists and holding them in prison for a few months while the case is built against them. Not having enough evidence to build a case however should result in their release, not in continued detention without trial. There are ple
drmiller, what do you think Kyoto is about? It's about climate control and hence green house gases. These are the pollutants kyoto talks about not particles which are a totally different type of pollutant. You're comparing apples and oranges. There are already agreed targets for particular emissions and air quality. No one disagrees that the US does a good job of reducing these particular pollutants.
JoeUser Forums
I don't believe Nato is in danger. Too many EU countries are actually neutral and so will not submit troops to a unified EU command. Britian will nto submit troops to a unified EU command either. Therefore an EU wide unified command is not going to happen any time soon if ever. What will happen is that various countries will form EU rapid reaction forces and these can be assigned on individual basis to troble spots so long as the countries they belong
Well done to California for reducing particulate pollution. Just to clarify, particulate pollution is different from gaseous pollution. Kyoto focusses on green house gases, therefore claiming you've done better than something that doesn't even target the particles is very silly. You should read what Kyoto is about before comparing it to something completely different. And before you say 'it should include particle pollution' there are already
Messybau, the kyoto accords do protect the forests. These are defined as carbon sinks and are carefully monitored. Destruction of these counts heavily against a country in emissions. Protection of these can be used to generate income from rich countries without large carbon sinks of their own. This is exactly what you desire and it is exactly what Kyoto gives. Your problem is that Kyoto is not yet in force and hence Brazil can curren
we put out more pollutants, but not on a per capita basis. per capita is a very misleading term. Does the US pollute more in total volume? Yes! Does the US pollute more per person? Yes! Does the US pollute more per capita GDP? No
I also hear the "If you don't agree we will punish you" in the message Such a message is not yet being given, but the last two annual climate control conference proceedings have had calls from delegates for trade tariffs to be linked to Kyoto target achievement. The WTO does allow for such tariffs. I do
fect on play? If the latter, then that is super cool. Paul.
ictory type. Paul.
There is a right to a fair trial under the European conventions on human rights. This right is applicable to all humans independantly of where they are from or what citizenship they claim. What the UK tried to do was to opt out of this and claim that it could legally detain non EU citizens without trial. The UK law lords have said that they cannot . Paul.
GalCiv2 Forums
uld happily change this, making it not researched at the start and changing the cost or the position in the tech tree thus creating the situation LDiCesare wants. Paul.
Brad, the US is the largest emitter of CO2, CH4 and N2O on the planet. No amount of accusations about European air quality changes that fact. Yes Europe needs to reduce it's emissions and that is exactly what is is going to do. No amount of excuses from the US changes the fact that it is the biggest polluter and that it has no intention of every changing from that. The suggestion that the EU 'fixed' the date at 1990 as it suited them the
Dr Guy, While this is a complex issue, I don't believe you are correct. Both the US and the EU are using 1990 as their base year and Appendix B lists their target reductions below that level. To my knowledge only Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Poland have used different base years (as allowed because they are in transition towards market economies). A base year of 1995 can be used for some minor green house gases, but NOT for CO2. S
Dr Guy, 5% is the minimum but 7% (US) and 8% (EU) are the targets. the point is that your earlier statement that the US must clean up more than any other country was wrong. Yo are correct that I have not addressed any issues of bad law and I will do so now. (a) carbon sinks: The Kyoto accords do deal with the issue of maintaining or creating carbon sinks. Reduction or creating
The highest court in the UK has rules by an 8 to 1 majority that detaining terrorist suspects without trial is a breach of the European convention on human rights and unlawful. The law lords (equivalent to a supreme court) ruled today that the UK may not detain terrorists under such circumstances. This is the second major legal ruling against the UK on human right abuses within a week and leaves the UK anti terrorist legislation in tatters. <
As for the Brazilian rainforests, I think we can all agree that destruction of these is not good. But individual countries need to start looking at their own emissions and not just blaming the Brazilians. Other countries need to start planting forests of their own and covering their land with as much forest as Brazil. It's very unfair to tell Brazil to stop cutting down trees while we use the maximum amount of our land to make money. Paul.</fo
Helix, the US is the largest polluter on the planet. It releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other country. More than 1/4 of all CO2 emissions from the planet come from the USA. Twice as much as from China. Eight times as much as from India. Only the USSR comes close and the US still emites 25% more. But the USSR has signed Kyoto and is reducing it's CO2 levels. Link
Dr Guy, I am very familiar with the Kyoto agreement. Try read appendix B of your link. You'll note that the USA was suppossed to reduce emissions to 93% while all EU countries were 92%. That means the EU has to reduce emissions by 12.5% MORE than the US. This is exactly what I have said and contradicts your assertion that the US must clean up more than any other country. The fact is that the US was required to make fewer reductions under Kyoto t
Patent law deals with ideas. You do not have to implement the idea. Not actually true. You must prove that the idea is workable and this usually requires working models before final patent approval. So for example, you cannot patent the idea of teleportation. You could describe in great detail how it wo
the net effect of Kyoto in Brazil is more pollution not less How do you reach this conclusion? The net effect is Brazil emits less pollution every year even including pollution from cutting down the forests. That's a fact, measured according to stringent guidelines defined by Kyoto. What people
I'm all for copyright on software. Remember that it's only the code that is copyrighted not the concept which you used the code to express. So MOO1 code is copyrighted, but Stardock can happily use any ideas it liked from that game in GC1 or GC2, so long as it writes new code to implement those ideas. MOO1 however belongs to owners can no one else can ever re-release that game and make money from it. Patents in software are a more com
Kyoto presumes that America must clean up more than any other country Pardon? Where did you get this false idea from? Kyoto sets reductions required by all industrialised nations. The US reduction is less than that
Rainforest are a good thing and I'm saddened that they are being cut down. What is wrong though is for industrialised nations like the US to expect Brazilian rainforests to remove their CO2 emissions, rather than planting their own forest or cutting down their own emissions. It's so two faced. "How dare you cut down down your rainforests, we need them so we can pollute more!" Paul.