I do love it when my country does the wrong thing for the right reasons.

Yes, we should make a pledge and stand as an example to the world on how to off the last of our Industrial Revolution ghosts and create cheap, efficient, clean power for our citizens.

No, we shouldn't do it at the expense of honest competition or chain ourselves to other countries' expectations.

Meh. AIG got more.

Or, the right thing for the right reasons.

Kyoto was idiotic from the get-go.

Dubya refused to ratify Kyoto because it would hurt the economy*.

I'll give you a few seconds to think through the irony of that one. No, that's fine, I'll wait.


_{*"Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto."^
George W. Miserable Failure Bush}

Procedural Texture: I'll give you a few seconds to think through the irony of that one. No, that's fine, I'll wait.

Just think of how bad our economy would be if we had signed Kyoto.

Of course, if Bush really cared about our economy he wouldn't have spent money like it was water.

Besides the fact that our economy would REALLY be in the shiatter right now if we had signed it, China and India would still be spitting out smoke like chimneys, and would be doing even better in relation to us.

Yes, let's sit in this negative equilibrium instead of leading by example.

lexnaturalis: Procedural Texture: I'll give you a few seconds to think through the irony of that one. No, that's fine, I'll wait.

Just think of how bad our economy would be if we had signed Kyoto.

Of course, if Bush really cared about our economy he wouldn't have spent money like it was water.

ORRRRRRR we could all embrace reality and realize that imposing realistic regulations forces businesses to embrace the true cost of business rather than wasteful spending.

Bufu: Or, the right thing for the right reasons.

Kyoto was idiotic from the get-go.

It was indeed. But to a certain segment of the lunatic fringe, Kyoto was and remains the 'holy grail' of international treaties.

My god do hippies make me laugh. I swear I literally LOLed on this one, and had to call a few people over to read it so we could share in the pointing of fingers and laughing.

Kyoto is a total failure, as predicted.

Good idea, crappy execution. I mean, it's something worth chasing, but if the goals are unreasonable and the penalties stiff, it's a fool's errand and those with the most at stake won't bother even trying.

Basically, it was less advantageous to a country to attempt Kyoto, improve their processes, but fail because they didn't improve enough, than it was for a country to not attempt Kyoto at all.

With things as they are, environmentally, we will have to try and run another thing like this past everyone. But before we put it up for signatures, it has to include a basic hierarchy:

Those who try and succeed END UP BETTER OFF THAN
Those who try and fail END UP BETTER OFF THAN
Those who do not try

Even a broker cock er clock is right twice a day once every four years.

Can I still Blame American First some how?

So GWB didn't sign Kyoto because it would have screwed up the US economy.
But the US economy is still screwed up anyway.
But Kyoto didn't solve the problems it was meant to solve.

So even though we screwed up...we're still screwed.

Sounds about right.

Canaduh signed that piece of shiat too. ..Thanks for all the taxes on everything good that I buy now..Ass holes..

/$12 environment tax on an 22" LCD monitor.
//And a bunch of other taxes without an easy means to dipose of the stuff that is being taxed to allow for disposal costs..

Bufu: Or, the right thing for the right reasons.

Kyoto was idiotic from the get-go.

no, it was idiotic that Kyoto's teeth were pulled until it was useless, and even still businesses could not innovate enough to even reach lower-than-bare-minimum standards. It is testimony to the failure of the free market to achieve even piddling, worthless goals if those goals involve science.

Gyrfalcon: So GWB Bill Clinton didn't sign ratify Kyoto because it would have screwed up the US economy.

FTFY

hyperspacemonkey: no, it was idiotic that Kyoto's teeth were pulled until it was useless, and even still businesses could not innovate enough to even reach lower-than-bare-minimum standards. It is testimony to the failure of the free market to achieve even piddling, worthless goals if those goals involve science.

Wow. Not much of an economist, are ya?

hyperspacemonkey: It is testimony to the failure of the free market to achieve even piddling, worthless goals if those goals involve science.

No, it's testimony to the fact that if you're going to make shiat, you're going to emit pollution.

Man is an adaptable animal. So it gets warmer. We'll get over it. (No, really. We'll get over it.)

Gosling: Those who try and succeed END UP BETTER OFF THAN
Those who try and fail END UP BETTER OFF THAN
Those who do not try

You'd be absolutely correct if not for the vast sums of treasure expended in vain. Failing does not explicitly indicate someone is better off than those who did not try at all. It only means they were willing, wisely or not, to exert the necessary effort in attempting.

lexnaturalis: Procedural Texture: I'll give you a few seconds to think through the irony of that one. No, that's fine, I'll wait.

Just think of how bad our economy would be if we had signed Kyoto.

Of course, if Bush really cared about our economy he wouldn't have spent let Congress spend money like it was water.

The Executive can only ask for appropriations. It's the Legislative that grants them.

Where would the US economy be if we had adopted a carbon tax that started very small and gradually got bigger after the heat wave of 1988 when global warming first became an issue?

Stupid tree-hugging, dirt-worshipping, communist, pinko. elitist, socialist libtards!

Procedural Texture: Dubya refused to ratify Kyoto because it would hurt the economy*.

I'll give you a few seconds to think through the irony of that one. No, that's fine, I'll wait.


*"Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto."^
George W. Miserable Failure Bush

Yeah, because the current economic failure is largely due to our polluting ways. Wait, WTF are you trying to say? Or were you just trying to say "LOL BUSH FAILSSXDAIAGKELDSBFXV:F"FDLVBNT:"FHWATHSFLS>GDRGYAGF"

So who gets the 46 billion? Al Gore? I know his electric bills are high, but damn.

Let's see: the biggest polluters are the 'developing nations,' but they're exempt from the Kyoto rules. Not surprisingly, they were also the biggest proponents and some of the first signers of it.

Make China and India abide by the same rules, then we can talk about signing it.

China is currently polluting with impunity more than the US and England ever imagined possible back in the day they didn't realize the implications. Now China does it knowingly, and with the approving nod of the Western leftists.

Obama!
Libtards!
Mission Accomplished!!!
But Bush!!!!

/how'd I do?

cui bono?

It's not like any of these countries are actually going to pay a nickel of this b.s. fine.

By the way, who would they have written their checks to?

/DNRTFA &

//Haven't slashied in a while

///Forgot how much fun it is.

hyperspacemonkey: It is testimony to the failure of the free market to achieve even piddling, worthless goals if those goals involve science.

Yeah, that's what I concluded too. No one makes money doing science after all.

Paulistinian: Wow. Not much of an economist, are ya?

Yeah... about that, did you ever think what would happen to the beach towns if sea levels rise. You know, fun destruction on a massive scale, bankruptcy of many businesses, insurance collapsing AGAIN, money from our pockets being put to pay for FEMA. You know what would be more economic? Making sure the economy isn't destroyed by freak storms. Remember kids, a strong enviroment = a strong economy.

Procedural Texture: Dubya refused to ratify Kyoto because it would hurt the economy*.

I'll give you a few seconds to think through the irony of that one. No, that's fine, I'll wait.


*"Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto."^
George W. Miserable Failure Bush

Guys - a few facts first. Bush never had anything to do with Kyoto for two reasons. #1, all this happened in 1997 when Clinton was president. #2, the president has nothing to do with ratification - the Senate ratifies all treaties per the Constitution. And in a rare moment of bipartisanship the Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify. It was clear to all Senators that the demands were unfair to the US and unreachable.

Weaver95: Bufu: Or, the right thing for the right reasons.

Kyoto was idiotic from the get-go.

It was indeed. But to a certain segment of the lunatic fringe, Kyoto was and remains the 'holy grail' of international treaties.

We did the right thing, for a right reason, but this reason isn't the reason we didn't sign for it. One of the main reasons we didn't sigh was China wasn't held to any standards for pollution. Look at what the US has done to limit, prevent and convert pollution, and look at China. Sure, we use cars more than other nations...that's about the only significant reason we're "bigger polluters" than any other nation. Unlike plenty of nations we actually try to find more convient ways of industry without pollutants, instead of...being a small country, which is what helps many nations be "ahead."

/All that said, nuclear FTW
//Anyone, hippy or redneck, against nuclear power in this nation needs an acid shower

If we hadn't invaded Iraq we wouldn't have to worry about the price tag. (and think of all those Americans and Iraqis that wouldn't be dead right now)

Here is the Wikipedia link (new window) FYI

communistsarestupid: Gyrfalcon: So GWB Bill Clinton didn't sign ratify Kyoto because it would have screwed up the US economy.

FTFY

QFT.

Kyoto was dead in the US long before Bush took office. Blaming Bush for not signing Kyoto is deluded.

soze: I do love it when my country does the wrong thing for the right reasons.



Agrees....

Procedural Texture: Dubya refused to ratify Kyoto because it would hurt the economy*.

I'll give you a few seconds to think through the irony of that one. No, that's fine, I'll wait.


The US Senate rejected the treaty in 1998. I'll give you a few seconds to think about when Bush became prez. and who has to approve a treaty b4 the prez can sign it

From wikipedia...

On 25 July 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[70][71] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On 12 November 1998

/Doesn't like bush either but only blames him for stuff he did
// 2 months 5days

communistsarestupid: Gyrfalcon: So GWB Bill Clinton didn't sign ratify Kyoto because it would have screwed up the US economy.

FTFY

Bill Clinton didn't ratify anything because he couldn't. Only Congress can ratify treaties. I haven't googled it but I thought Congress did ratify Kyoto but Clinton left office before he could sign it, leaving it to GWB to either sign or not. So actually, the other guy was correct.

earlm: Where would the US economy be if we had adopted a carbon tax that started very small and gradually got bigger after the heat wave of 1988 when global warming first became an issue?

You mean if we stressed conservation and alternative energy then? Well you can subtract one if not both Iraq wars, and no troops reason for those bases in Saudi Arabia so no 9/11 and no post 9/11 economic downturn that saw the fed put rates so low to start the creation the housing bubble that just blew up in our face, and to top it off we would be driving in fuel efficient vehicles that would have saved the Big 3.

What a scary world indeed.

I find this awesome, in light of NASA falsifying climate data to justify more climate hysteria.

potee: So who gets the 46 billion? Al Gore? I know his electric bills are high, but damn.

I'm wondering that myself.
I think they're saying the credits must be bought from "nations with credits to spare". So those nations making less emissions would get the payment. But I think the problem is there's nobody with extra credits, or at least not nearly enough credits available. Basically, nobody reduced their output and the scheme fell apart.

You could say the goal was unrealistic, or you could say that with Bush defying the system it pretty much de-motivated the effort. Although I have to say, the goal IS pretty unrealistic. How do you just stop producing CO2 on a very significant scale without involving so much cost that your nation cannot be profitable?

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Besides the fact that our economy would REALLY be in the shiatter right now if we had signed it, China and India would still be spitting out smoke like chimneys, and would be doing even better in relation to us.

If your economy is in the shiatter, who precisely would the Chinese have been selling their shiat to to make that stuff?

Get Lost: Canaduh signed that piece of shiat too. ..Thanks for all the taxes on everything good that I buy now..Ass holes..

/$12 environment tax on an 22" LCD monitor.
//And a bunch of other taxes without an easy means to dipose of the stuff that is being taxed to allow for disposal costs..

Hey dumbass: Recycling surcharges on goods like this have nothing to do with Kyoto. They're designed to capture the cost of reclamation into the cost of the item. And if you can't afford the $12 tax on the $200 monitor that dropped 500% in the last 5 years, you can't afford the monitor.

squeez cheez: Procedural Texture: Dubya refused to ratify Kyoto because it would hurt the economy*.

I'll give you a few seconds to think through the irony of that one. No, that's fine, I'll wait.


*"Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto."^
George W. Miserable Failure Bush

Guys - a few facts first. Bush never had anything to do with Kyoto for two reasons. #1, all this happened in 1997 when Clinton was president. #2, the president has nothing to do with ratification - the Senate ratifies all treaties per the Constitution. And in a rare moment of bipartisanship the Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify. It was clear to all Senators that the demands were unfair to the US and unreachable.

YES, THANK YOU! ONE FARKER ACTUALLY farkING GETS IT.

/the rest of you need to read your farking Constitutions more and learn how our Gubmint actually works instead of blaming everything on Bush/Clinton

Good. You sign a contract, you live up to it.

I blame George Bush...

Looking back we may discover many things like this to blame Bush for.

Squeez Cheez
Guys - a few facts first. Bush never had anything to do with Kyoto for two reasons. #1, all this happened in 1997 when Clinton was president. #2, the president has nothing to do with ratification - the Senate ratifies all treaties per the Constitution. And in a rare moment of bipartisanship the Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify. It was clear to all Senators that the demands were unfair to the US and unreachable.


How DARE you interrupt this emotional Farkfest with facts.

The "penalty" sounds similar to cap and trade offsets, so I'm not that worried.