« Muslim Homicide Bombers Murdering Muslim Children | Main | SPIEGEL ONLINE's Marc Pitzke Reports: Socks, Aliens and Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer »


I get so tired of the German media's anti- american bias.
I guess the Goebbels Lehrlinge have now become his Gesellen?
I know that isolationism would be completely wrong and actually damaging to the world economy. However, I do beleive that the disengagement from Germany which started in 2000, both economically and militarily should be at least be continued, if not accellerated.
While the USA only has an 18% direct influence over the economy unlike Germany's 58%, it can reward repatriation of the more than 2000 US employers present in that country, by giving them incentives to return.
This whole thing about "we are your Allies", while constantly bashing everything we do is getting old and tiresome.
I guess there is still a feeling of Arian supremacy present among many living on the socialist dole. Unfortunately they don't understand what "La Dolce Vita" has wrought.

It's the same story with ANWR. Most Europeans simply use that issue to pile onto the United States as well. They are all for exporation in the North Sea, or in a desert in the Middle East, but our glacier is OFF LIMITS.

I just read this:

6 % have electricity in Afghanistan. I remember the media reports about Iraq and electricity and water.

"Auch dreieinhalb Jahre nach dem Fall der Talibanregierung
stecken wichtige Infrastrukturprogramme wie umfassender
Straßenbau (Ausnahme ist die Strecke Kabul–
Kandahar), allgemeine Stromversorgung (nur 6% der afghanischen
Haushalte haben eine regelmäßige Stromversorgung),
Wiederherstellung der Bewässerungssysteme noch in
den Anfängen. Vielfache Hindernisse erschweren den Aufbau."


"The SDZ piece also never brings up the fact that India and China, the world's two most populous nations, are exempt from the treaty, meaning that nearly half the world's population is exempt"

we had this kyoto not kyoto discusion here.

1. The USA is the world biggest poluter of greenhouse gases and htat is what kyoto is about.
The topic of the kyoto treaty is emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Us is number one in absolute numbers and per capita ( OK if you make some research you will see that the small populated Australia is because of its economic structure a little bit worse than the USA)

China produces per capita 20 times less emissions than the USA and india 10 times less.
So call me if that has changed in some decades.

3. The us produces also more than twice per capita than germany and while in germany the numbers are in decline they still are increasing in the US.
Although in Germany the industry still plays a much higher role as in the USA
USA:industry: 19.7%
Germany industry: 31%
percentage of GDP.

The US is wasting energy and produces greenhousegases like no one else on this planet.
There is no one to blame as the US because the uS is the number one the alltime winner and the advantage is still rising.

So don´t expect any aplause from the other people that have to live on this planet whern you behave in the way as the us does.
What sort of reaction do you expect?

It is the decission of the americans to change that or to be blamed and the blaming will increase over the next years.-

As a regular SZ, please don't call it SDZ :-), reader I totally agree. I cannot remember of any article that correctly explained the US environmental protection strategies compared to Kyoto. The place where I first learned about the differences was a Slashdot discussion! And the only German media so far which repeatedly had quite objective comparative articles about the topic was Telepolis (http://www.telepolis.de).

But I don't really see a reason why different pollution reduction approaches are a reason to close down the economical relations like the first comments suggests.

Lars, I did not imply that Kyoto' money redistribution scheme should or would be a reason for the shut down of economic realtions.
It is simply a fact that 2000 started a withdrawal of Investments in Germany. There are many reasons for that. Foremost the extremely high costs associated with production in Germany as well as inflexibilty in the workforce as well as numerous other reasons.
Compared to the world market, Germany can't compete anymore against other countries. Of course that doesn't mean a total drop from today to tomorrow. It takes years for certain labor contracts to end, etc.
The trendlines are visible. Just look at German companies investment overseas. Today, Germany invests twice as much in the US than the US invests in Germany. In 1999 it was completely opposite.
Again, watch the trendlines which are always a precursor to the actual events.
The cooments about the constant Anti-Americanism are simply my own thoughts after getting nauseated on a daily basis after reading the German media.

@ Lars,

Thanks, I don't know why I put the "D" in there. I've made the adjustment.

Walter, I'd like to remind you that the US is also responsible for over 25% of the world's GDP and that the health of the German economy is closely tied to the health of the US economy. As far as energy use goes, some of the additional use is due to the geographic size of the United States. Some of it is wastefullness. Certainly, America can do a better job. But this does not mean being forced to sign a treaty like Kyoto that will have significant negative effects on the US economy and society. If the US economy goes south, the German economy will likely follow. So Kyoto is also not in Germany's interests in that respect either.

I have read that a "Merkel" led Government may look at Kyoto very closely since it costs an arm and a leg. Australia and Canada are not happy anymore either.
Russia loves it because it rakes in Billions, China and India couldn't care less since they are excempt.


Who's expecting applause? Kyoto will cost a crapload of money with negligible results. The United States is seeking other alternatives. Why the hell must it be Kyoto? Is that all you see--Kyoto or nothing?

"Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about 60.7 billion dollars, while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.000630088° Celsius (to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean) and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C."

BTW, where's Gavin? Now he's finally got the topic he was trying to hi-jack the other thread with?

"Another key fact that is largely ignored by the German media is that the US Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted unanimously (95-0) to reject Kyoto in 1997."

And that would be the critical fact as well.... Al "lil' wooden boy" Gore signed onto this treaty with NO constitutional authority to do so. Then the Senate, which is part of the legislative branch of our federal government (the branch that enacts laws in the US) resoundingly crushed this nonsense, as you mentioned. This was done while Slick Willie Clinton was the President (executive branch) and dumb ole W. was the governor of Texas- so uh, why again is Bush to blame for Kyoto not being enacted in the US?

@ Walter:

I was riding my Harley Davidson through the wind-mill free hills of New Hampshire last weekend. What did I see crossing the highway?....a 1.3 meter long black bear.

Ditto the week before, I was powering my modest fishing boat through the Iles of Shoals, which border Maine and New Hampshire. I passed a 5 meter long Minke whale.

Despite having toys like a Harley or fishing boat, we Americans tend to take good care of our environment. When was the last time you saw a bar in the Black Forest or a whale on the north sea?

If you really want to be condescending towards the Americans, than you should cut off our ration of Mercedes S class or BMW 5 and 7 class. That would really teach us not to mess with the environment.

Even if Bushh wanted to sign Kyoto, it would have to be ratified by the Senate, which already said no unanimously.

Remember what happened to President Wilson and the Versailles Treaty????


"So call me if that has changed in some decades."

Hi Walter, yes it is changing.

China's economy is growing at a rate of 9% per year and will do so for the next 10 years. It's growth is in manufacturing, the largest contributor to Greenhouse gasses next to the automobile. The number of automobiles in china is expected to reach 30 million in the next 5 years (from the current 500,000 or so). Their automobiles do not have to meet the pollution standards of Europe nor the more strict standards of the US, so will contribute more to pollution.
(source, Dr. Robert Fogel, Nobel Prize winner, Economist and Demographer at the University of Chicago and my Professor last quarter)

The vast growth in Greenhouse gasses will occur in India and China; an area specifically exempt by Kyoto. That's not smart.

Greenhouse gasses may be a great concern as all acknowledge. But Kyoto will be expensive and ineffective, as the current signers of the Kyoto protocol are learning, few of whom will ever meet their Kyoto targets. Perhaps you would prefer the US sign the Kyoto agreement and ignore it like the rest of the signers.

It is much better to fight the increase of these gasses as outlined at the recent G8 summit than to pretend to follow an ineffective and uneconomic agreement like Kyoto.

Here’s an example of how Germany has "reduced" CO2 emissions:

"Im Ruhrgebiet werden ganze Stahl-Werke zerlegt und nach China transportiert, um dort wieder Koks und Stahl zu produzieren."

Translation: "In Ruhrgebiet complete steel mills are being dismantled and transported to China to produce coke and steel again there."
- Deutsche Welle, Sept. 16, 2003

And this was a modern steel mill in western Germany.
The closing of this large steel mill significantly reduced Germany’s CO2 Emissions, and has helped Germany’s effort to meet the limits of the Kyoto Protocol.
But it hasn’t reduced global CO2 emissions.
Unfortunately, here in Germany there is hardly any reporting about how the holes in the Kyoto Protocol promote exportation of CO2 emissions (and jobs) instead of reduction.

Here is the root of the problem: Environmentalism isn't a science any more (if it ever was). It's a religion. And as a religion, it holds things like Kyoto to be doctorinaire. Science and evidence simply does not matter; the U.S. (along among all nations of the Earth) must abide by Kyoto, because the religion's doctorine says so. Those who question it are heretics.

The sad part is: Most environmental spending in the U.S. since about 1980 has been misdirected. Regulations that seek to improve the environment nearly always wind up having the opposite effect. Anyone know of the Envrironmental Protection Agency's Superfund? It was set up in the mid-'70s, supposedly to provide funds to clean up the worst environmental disaster areas and spill sites in the nation. Yet, over the 30-odd years that it has existed, over 90% of Superfund's total funding has gone to legal fees. Less than 5% of it ever gets spent on actual cleanup. It's basically a retirement plan for environmental lobby lawyers. The wasted money probably totals over $100B now. What if all that had been spent on something that actually did some good?

Here's a couple of more examples. The EPA imposes very stringent regulations on coal-burning power plants. And, as we saw in the article that Ray D. quoted, it's going to get even more stringent. These punitive measures have created perverse incentives for power companies. It costs more to make a coal plant clean than it does to simply convert it to burn natural gas. So guess what happens? And the thing is, while power production is a good use of coal, it's a terribly inefficent use of natural gas. The switchover has hugely increased the consumption of natural gas in the U.S.; some of that has to be imported from the Middle East ("American imperialism" to you leftists), and the distribution problems caused by this sudden increase have caused regional shortages during the winter months. So, even though we have plenty of coal, we are increasing our energy imports in a way that jeopardizes our security and provides funding to the jihadists.

Here's another example. The EPA keeps tightening regulations on cities' drinking water supplies and sewage treatment. Now, public water supplies are already very good in the U.S. generally, and sewage could be better but it's a damn sight better than it was just a few decades ago. But the EPA insists in squeezing out that last part-per-billion in the regulations. They impose measures that are very expensive and have vanishingly small health effects. So guess what happens? People move out of the cities, to unincorporated areas. They drill their own wells. They put in septic tanks. No treatment whatsoever. So the regulations, instead of making things a tiny bit better, actually make it significantly worse. And: Costs force small towns to disincorporate. Cities can't annex suburbs. And people move further out of town to escape the cost of these mindless regulations. (And then liberals complain about "suburban sprawl".) A lot of money is spent, and it's completely counter-productive.

Although I don't agree with all of the specifics, I applaud the Bush administration for trying to get environmental regulation back on a scientific footing. But the truth is, a lot of what needed to be done has already been done. The U.S. is a substantially cleaner nation now than it was in 1970, and there just isn't a lot of need for additional regulation. That in itself frosts a lot of lefty environmental types, because environmental regulation is, to them, their foot in the door to start excercising government control over all aspects of daily life. And that, frankly, is what this argument is all about: who's going to rule the U.S., its citizens, or a bunch of self-appointed lefty elites?

Oh, and here's another of my favorite examples, because it features one of the big bad American corporations that Euro-lefties love to pick on, even while they partake of that company's products. McDonald's used to package its burgers and sandwiches in nice styrofoam boxes that kept the burgers warm and the buns moist. But then the enviros had a fit, and they pressured McDonald's to stop using the boxes and start wrapping the burgers in wax paper, which doesn't keep them warm and lets the buns dry out.

Well, guess what? The Styrofoam boxes were recyclable, and before the pressure got too high, McDonald's had an experimental recycling program for them that they were about to take nation-wide. Thoughtful citizens would deposit the empty boxes in special cans, from where the boxes would go to be washed and then melted and blown into new boxes. Wax paper, on the other hand, is not recyclable once it's been in contact with food. Every bit of it goes to landfills. Does that matter to the enviros? Noooooooo! You see, styrofoam is an evil man-made high-tech plastic, while wax paper is doctorine-approved because it's "natural". (I'll bet you didn't know that wax paper grows on trees.) Getting rid of that evil product of technology, styrofoam, is what the doctorine says to do, and the enviros walked away from that confrontation patting themselves on the back for having carried out the wishes of their deity, whatever it is. That it actually makes the waste situation worse matters not a bit to them. It's an article of faith.

Walter wrote: "1. The USA is the world biggest poluter of greenhouse gases and htat is what kyoto is about.
The topic of the kyoto treaty is emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Us is number one in absolute numbers and per capita ( OK if you make some research you will see that the small populated Australia is because of its economic structure a little bit worse than the USA)"

Walter, the typical European analysis usually completely omits the 'carbon sink' effect. The fact that enormous forests (and to a lesser extent) grasslands and farms take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and therefore reduce 'net emmissions' a great deal. The US probably isn't the greates on a per-capita basis. Australia and Canada with huge landmasses and small populations probably take that title. New Zealand also.

The US probably IS the greatest 'caqrbon sink' on an absolute basis, and in the top few globally.

The Clinton administration was apparently given assurances that the 'carbon sink' effect would be written into the final draft of the Kyoto treaty. But the Europeans later had second thoughts and it wasn't.

So - the Senate voted the resulting extremely one-sided treaty down 95-0; and so things remain to this day. The Europeans carefully overlook their own bad faith and use Kyoto as a club to emphasize their own virtue and the US' inherent evil. The US obdurately refuses to cut it's own economic throat to provide competitive advantage to a bunch of hypocrites - Germany being first on the hypocrite list of course....

If Europe had kept it's word the US would be in Kyoto right now - and Al Gore would probably be President.

"The closing of this large steel mill significantly reduced Germany’s CO2 Emissions, and has helped Germany’s effort to meet the limits of the Kyoto Protocol."

Smart Germany! Export the pollution to a country with no limits!

Smart? I wonder what the (ex) German steelmakers think of this piece of cleverness? You can always import steel if you need it. But what happens to the 'human capital'. I guess they go on the dole.

I wonder what the German taxpayer thinks of that? Or the potential investor in Germany?

Exporting pollution by exporting economic activity is highly akin to economic suicide. Wy not tryh to work out how to make the steel mill both efficient and clean?

Off topic, but here's a good article w/ some analysys of what to expect if Angela Merkel is elected PM


Walter says:

"The US is wasting energy and produces greenhousegases like no one else on this planet."

Yes, the US is "wasting" energy like nobody else. As the parrot-cry of the Euro left-wing goes, the US has 4.5% of the world's population but produces 25% of its greenhouse gases. The same lefties hardly ever mention that the same 4.5% of the world population also produces 30% of the world's economic product, 50% of its industrial patents, 40% of the world's R&D spending, and 60+% of all science Nobel prizes. The US also outspends all other nations on foreign aid, and has twice the economic growth rate of Greater Eurabia.

I think Walter ought to look up that word "waste". I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

We won't sign Kyoto because we won't give up one more shred of our sovereignty or to dictator loving undemocratic cabals. Every time we sign a piece of paper some think they own a little bigger piece of me.

To those who think the US owes them a signed Kyoto: Screw you. We don't trust you. We have seen how these things work. We agree to a set of rules. If the US doesn't hit it's numbers under a spotlight, all hell breaks loose. Anyone else (including brutal dictators) break the rules, and you work to change the rules so you can keep profiteering like a pirate in a three piece suit.

Walter, there have been a great many statments here that are both scientifically and philosopically true. The entire "CO2 is causing a global disaster" outlook is bogus. They say that "scientific consensus" supports the Kyoto Accord, but the fact is that this isn't true. Scientific consensus, 1) doesn't matter in science (you're either right or wrong, and even a vast majority of scientists who think wrongly are still wrong... see Galileo, Copernicus, etc), and 2) there is NO consensus at all in support of Kyoto.

You see, the people supporting Kyoto MUST say the earth is doomed and that there is a "scientific consensus" about it because billions of dollars of government grants depend upon it... their income... as well as their scientific reputations, which will be shattered when word of this petition becomes as widely known in Europe as it is in the US. The Kyoto support is about money and pride and very little science.

However, if you absolutely MUST have "consensus", try this petition:

The petition: Supporters of Kyoto have tried their best to ridicule the petition that helped stop the US Sentate from ratifying the Kyoto treaty, but they are refusing to see that the Senate and the general public in the US isn't at all impressed with their attempts. They tried the claim that only 2/3 of the "scientists" (their scare quotes) had advanced degrees, but that means that some 11,000 scientists with advanced degrees from all over the world DID sign the petition. The others without advanced degrees are technicians of various disciplines quite capable of evaluating the information in the report that accompanied the petition. All 17,800 scientists and technicians whose names appear on the petition have been verified as legitimate, with another 1900 names who don't appear on the 2001 document because the names had not been confirmed by the publication date. In other words, 19,700 people signed the petition, and the 17,800 whose names are listed are verified as very real scientists and technicians competent to evaluate the data given.

The evidence

Explanation of the petition

A pertinent comment from the Explanation:

“Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.”

The petition itself

Letter from Frederick Seitz

Frederick Seitz, who organized the petition, is a past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, so this is NO lightweight, fly-by-night daydreamer with delusions of grandeur (which describes most of the Kyoto supporters!)!

The Global Warming Folly, a linked article by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc., who is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiologi-cal Protection in Warsaw (so, see? This isn't just a "US" thing!). Here is a pertinent comment from his article:

Climate warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases, is usually presented as a gloomy catastrophe that will induce the mass extinction of animals and plants, epidemics of contagious and parasitic diseases, droughts and floods, and even invasions of mutated insects resistent to insecticides. Melting glaciers are predicted to raise sea level by 3.67 meters, flooding islands, densely inhabited coastal areas, and great metropolises. 6, 8 There will be mass migrations and a host of other social and environmental effects – always detrimental, never beneficial.

According to one American climatologist, the "scare-them-to-death" approach seems to be the best way to get money for climate studies. Dr. Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of man-made climate warming, stated this bluntly:

"To capture the public imagination... we have to... make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest". 9 (Mama's comment: The leader of the Kyoto pack is saying here that it's perfectly OK to be dishonest, as long as they reach their goals, which now appear to be ripping off taxpayers in the form of billions in government grant funding.)

The IPCC reports, which have become bibles for bureaucrats and environmentalist fanatics, accuse modern civilization of being responsible for global warming, and repeatedly state that they reflect a true "consensus" of the scientific community. This statement about consensus is totally false: The assessments, conclusions, and even the working method of the IPCC are criticized by numerous scientists today. A more accurate description of the current situation would not be consensus, but rather controversy. Science does not progress via a process of consensus, or voting. There was no "consensus" for Copernicus's idea, in his time, that the Earth orbited the Sun. Consensus is not needed in science; it is for politicians.

and... your science is absolute crap. Do Europeans ever get the opportunity to study geology and science? I have to ask because you've apparently never heard of the Ice Age and your meteorologists are always spot on. It's crap.

And, via Tim Blair, here's the latest in the story of that great, massively polluting nation, New Zealand.

Even Greenpeace is in a state of shock over this!

And some FAQs on CO2:

Climate Change FAQs

There actually IS a group of climate scientists who think that the recent increase of CO2 is actually GOOD for life on earth. These FAQs show an abstract of their position.

And another comment:

I've been suspicious of Kyoto ever since I learned that it is based on computer-generated climate models.

Why? Because I've been involved with computers since 1969, and can promise you that it is not possible for a computer model of the climate to be correct.

My bona fides in the field of computers go back to the beginning of the Arpanet. I was on the Internet in my private life, on my own home computer, when the only way to get around was to log in with a "handshake" procedure, then enter a series of mile-long navigation commands. Compared with most people under 50, my resume is a 600 pound gorilla. I not only know how computers work, I know why they work, which is significantly more important than the "how".

Computers are complex pieces of equipment today, but at the end of the day, they can STILL do only two things: Store information and add ones and zeros. That's all they've ever been able to do; they just do it a lot faster and in greater measure than they used to so we are able to perform some interesting new tricks with them via phone lines.

This means that ALL climate models are bogus, created by people who have no clue as to why computers work. They can create complex programs, but are totally clueless about why their programs don't work. So the climate models are completely bogus.

Why is this so? Because the second function of a computer is to add ones and zeros. If your math is not exact, if there is only one error or one "guess" about what you are doing, your answer will be wrong. If the script that provides the parameters for that answer is in the wrong place, your answer could be wrong by orders of magnitude, not merely wrong.

You see, somewhere in that script, there HAS to be an argument along the lines of, "if co2=x, then 1 deg of temperature increase".

The problem is that we don't know what "x" is.

No one knows.

We aren't even sure whether the CO2 increase causes the temperature change, or the temperature change causes the CO2 increase, so how COULD we know the exact mathematical processes?

So the "x" is being guessed at, or even worse, totally fudged by people who are highly motivated to "prove" their point via a "gee whiz" technical display that can't possibly be correct without ABSOLUTE knowledge of what "x" is, or even if a temperature increase is caused at all. No one knows either parameter.

Climate models are all smoke and mirrors, and "gee whiz" window dressing to impress the ignorant.

Computer models of planetary orbits work for NASA. The reason they do is because humanity has been watching the skies for as long as we've been able to look up and wonder about those mysterious "moving stars". We have a database of hard mathematical information about planetary movement that goes back to ancient Babylon.

NASA planetary orbit models were good enough to get the Voyagers to reach their rendevous points at the time and place planned. The reason is because the NASA planetary database is based entirely on hard math.

The climate databases are based on theories and half-assed guesses.

I dismiss them utterly. And because the Kyoto Accord is based upon them, I dismiss Kyoto utterly.

It's deja vu all over again. We had a lot of this discussion already on the other hijacked thread... but thanks, Don, Mama, and Tom for some great inputs.
I believe and continue to believe that the Euros had no intention of complying with Kyoto because it is economic suicide. They were only hoping that the US would be stupid enough to even try to comply.
As I've said before, if CO2 is so evil, we better start litigating against volcanos.

Hmmmm... I reckon a volcano would have to pay out a settlement in diamonds coughed up from its mineral resources... :D


Am not really sure if there are any potential active volcanos in the EU.

If there are not then you can be assured the EU will pass some law or regulation outlawing volcano eruptions

This is a non-issue. In the US. (Gott sei dank!) Bush may sign onto some international declaration about the climate, or whatever. It matters not a whit. It is such a non-issue that he gets a permanent "free-pass" on it, no matter what he says. The US is not going to implement anything remotely resembling Kyoto-like restrictions on GreenhouseGasses. Neither will -- a dirty little secret -- anyone else! (Well, maybe some little country here or there -- but nothing that will matter.) The reasons, of course, are economic: such restrictions would be disastrous. This is a case in which selfish economic reasons are in perfect harmony with good public policy. Some (in fact, a lot) of so-called "global warming" will be unambiguously a PUBLIC GOOD! Bring it on! The best policy for the US would be to implement a policy to INCREASE GreenhouseGasses, to enhance "global warning". Were such to occur (within the scope that could reasonably be expected), it would be a positive boon to humankind.
But, on the basis of what "science" now claims to know, we could not, not at all, expect any such enhancement of global warming. Just look at a graph of earth temperatures over several thousands of years. (And ask yourself: do you really believe this is accurate? How can we really know what temperatures were thousands of years ago?) If you accept such a graph (and it is produced by the same "science" that now predicts "global warming"), the most obvious conclusion is: the temperature of the earth changes over time: sometimes it cools, sometimes it warms, on a scale of thousands of year. The current warming is absolutely within the ranges/scales characteristic of past warming/cooling. There is nothing, (absolutely nothing!) in current data to suggest that we are not undergoing anything other than a routine (on a millenia-scale!) warming -- one that will certainly not lead to catastrophies (if anything, precisely the opposite), and one that is perfectly consistent with the hypothesis that global temperature changes, EVEN TODAY, are due to normal cyclical forces, unaffected, to any significant degree, by human activity. The scientific support for this conclusion is, in fact, wide-spread and substantial (though you would never know it from reading just the MSM!).
The upshot is: in this instance (as in many others), selfish economic self-interest undergirds (that means "supports", for those of you in Rio Linda) good public policy, which is (I announce it here for the First Time!):
(1) Say whatever you want, but do nothing to impede economic growth/activity. That means, in particular, no binding restrictions on energy (in the form of greenhousegasses, or whatever).
(2) Give not a shit what the Libs/Europeans/EnviromentalWhackos say/do/think. They are, on the scale of climate change, HISTORY. (That is, we will, on that scale, not see their like again.)
(3) There may be some global warming underway -- in the real sense, the consequence of natural/physical forces beyond our control. Welcome it! Champion it! It will, on the whole, be a blessing.
(4) Attack, belittle, crucify those who pervert science for political objectives. Here I fault the Bush Administration. Nobody seriously expects it will actually do anything about all this bullshit. But it should aggressively attack the Euro/EnvironmentalistWhaco ideology. Aggressively! Ok, I know it won't. Maybe there are broader reasons to go soft on this one. Like getting cooperation on things that really matter: killing IFBs.

Actually not too long ago there were several articles in the euro M$M, outside of france and germany of course, which stated how poorly the EU was doing in complying with Kyoto and how it would not meet its signed up to and agreed upon goals.


Like most things from these “so called” allies and their elites, it is better to scream about the US than to address their own failures. Pick an area and both of them are in decline. So what better way to fool their citizens than to scream and shout about what the US is or is not doing.

I am slowly becoming to believe the french and now possibly the germans have to be some of the most insulated from reality people who walk the earth.

So people like Walter will be quick to point out what the US is not doing BUT will never recongize what his own nation is not doing.

He likes to occupy the moral high ground just like his nation does. The problem with that is more and more of the world is seeing that he is standing on a sand castle.

Of course, lots of times the germans just change the rules when they don't like them.

Anyone remember the stability pact. It is now a joke.

Why in the world would anyone trust the Germans?

how dare those dumb amis ignore international agreements?

BTW how is that Euro Stability pact thing going?
What you say, it was Germany's idea?
What, you say, German hasn't met the goals and won't in ther foreseeable future?
What, you say, that Germany hasn't paid the fines that were supposed to be applicable for non-compliance?

It is terrible when countries ignore international treaties, isn't it?

Just what international agreements is the US failing to comply with?

I don't think the ones the US have not ratiffied count for much in the US but are a huge source of outrage from our "so called allies".


The US formally rejected Germany's bid to become a member of the UNSC today.

Every time I hear this Kyoto stuff I want to laugh.

I good friend of mine lives in the Netherlands. His brother just reimported a vintage 911 Porche. The first thing they did was remove all the California emmisions control equipment, they are not required in the EU on cars that vintage. He drives a diesel fueled Alpha. Diesel polution controls and fuels are far from as good as those for gasoline engines, yet diesls are common in the EU. Take Kyoto and stuff it. I'll take practical steps to clean up the air I breath over paper ones any day, and since Bush was elected I can't see the air I am breathing on more days than I could when Clinton was running the show. Kyoto is a joke for the fools who signed on to it.

Media that beat this dead horse are not worth reading.


"The topic of the kyoto treaty is emissions of greenhouse gases."
"The Us is number one in absolute numbers and per capita "

Walter, maybe you work for a government agency or in a subsidised R&D project ?
There's no need in discussing kyoto, this "knowledge" of yours is completely worthless.
Better forget all of it, it will actually make your smarter !

Global warming is just as boring as socialism or islam.
It is also equally irrelevant and "passé".

You may have built your life around it, but you have to accept the fact :

>>>>>>>>>> NOBODY CARES <<<<<<<<<<

Thank god !


Totally agree, been there done that ;-))

book tip: "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World" by Bjorn Lomborg

Oh - that damn Stability Pact.

I kind of view Kyoto as another distraction for the masses. The elites sure seem able to fool the German people, but then again maybe the German people want to be fooled.

Once again Germany will exceed the terms of the Stability Pack for 2006 even with its one time saving and every accounting trick it can use. Beginning in 2007 the spd projects a structural deficit of €25bn.

Of course, Hans Eichel, has been promising for years that he would present a budget that complied with the Stability Pack just like Gerhart has promised jobs. Of course, I have observed that “our so called allies” are long on talk and short on both action and results. They suffer from confusing words with action. Still it does not seem to matter much to the citizens of Germany.

Mean while in the US, the deficit is heading downward. It is now projected to end 2005 at some where around 2.5% compared to Germany’s 3.7%.

With news like this, maybe the topic for discussion should focus more on the right of Germany to become a member of the UNSC. Why those stupid Americans are acting like cowboys, etc

"Walter, I'd like to remind you that the US is also responsible for over 25% of the world's GDP and that the health of the German economy is closely tied to the health of the US economy. As far as energy use goes, some of the additional use is due to the geographic size of the United States. Some of it is wastefullness. Certainly, America can do a better job. But this does not mean being forced to sign a treaty like Kyoto that will have significant negative effects on the US economy and society. If the US economy goes south, the German economy will likely follow. So Kyoto is also not in Germany's interests in that respect either."

What sort of argumentatiuon should that be.

1. You can say i don´t care about greenhouse emissions and the environment because if i limit the emmisions it has negative effects on the economy. I don´t care about other people on this planet or generation after us.

That´s a oppinion i don´t share but it is a point of view.

But then you have to live with the blame and it is right to blame the US for their record because the numbers and facts show that.

By the way i don´t share that economy argument and as for the US GDP. The uS GDP is mainly based on consumtion and according to that based on services. The industry plays a smaller role in the US compared to other developed countries like germany but we archive to limite greenhouse emissions.


i proved this forest argument wrong several times but you guys still post it here.
Besdie that kyoto includes foreste in the agreement. So if the situation in hte us is so briliant you can sign it without having any problems.


you want to talk about public debt

The predicted federal US debt is something about 430 billion this year.

Now they reduced the forcast for 2005 to 340 billion we will see at the end of the year.

compared to a gdp of 11,75 trillion numbers 2004

this is 3,65% or 2,8 %


The federal budget has a deficit of 22 billion Euro this year but it is likely that we will see an increase there when new numbers are available.

GDP 2180 billion euros

so this makes a federal deficit of 1% compared to the GDP.

Now you are confused and you posted different numbers.

The simple reason is you compare different things.

The maastricht kriterium includes all types of deficits not only the federal deficit.
So you have to compare the overall deficits of the US with the maastricht numbers or the federal deficit.

The same is true for the myth that germany has the same percentage of debt as the US when it is compare dto the GDP. if you add only the 2 trillion dollars of state debts in the US you will see that the US has a higher debt problem.

But i agree with you both governments don´t deserve to stay in office because of their financial policy.

The true measure is GDP per capita per barrel. To address the question of how many barrels produce how much GDP, I recall seeing the measure in the Economist. But, it clearly refuted the notion that "America is dependant on oil." In fact, that moreso describes India and China. Which explains Chinas recent negiotiations to secure oil from Iran and Sudan.

Additionally, Kyoto has no mention of methane gas emmissions, which are also a greenhouse gas. The building of huge dams (like in China) will release more methane instead of CO2.

Europeans rejected Clinton's idea of Carbon trading. Later they embraced it.

But, what I observe having lived here in Germany for the last 10 year is that Europeans are obsessed with defining themselves with America. Whereas America is not, the US is more global in it's outlook. I mean, this could be an entire thread, but the US is composed of all natinalities, more and more from SE Asia. Take for example the Lisbon Agenda, where the EU "...tends to deal with the low productivity and stagnation of economic growth in the EU, through the formulation of various policy initiatives to be taken by all EU member states. The broader objectives set out by the Lisbon strategy are to be attained by 2010." It was all in the context of their obsessive definition of competition with the USA! However, since 2000, it has come clear that the EU hasn't an economic problem with it's relationship with the US, but instead with China. I think that this obsessive consumption of everything American (from music, to culture, to Nato, to Bosnia, to Bush, to JFK, etc) isn't necessarily healthly. I'm NOT opposed to the EU, in fact, I'm a big supporter and a big supporter of Europe. I do however wonder about the wisdom of the CAP, the EURO, and the obsession of the EU defining itself within a contemptious shadow of the US.

Additionally, I recently read in Bill Bryson's book "A brief history of nearly everything", that volcanos produce anually 70 times more CO2 than all human combined activity. The Earth (Gaia) is alive and is respirating.

Also, leaded gas was restricted here in Germany well after it was abolished in the US...

Germany only recently devised a (redicously complicated) bottle bill. Before, all alluminium cans were thrown away. That was really good for the environment!


Why can't you people add your name when posting? Why is that difficult?

I'm not sure if you have access to This Week's Economist but it shows budget deficits. The USA and Germany are predicted with -4.1% and -3.5% budget deficit respectively. Additionally, I have never seen variation in these quoted figures or other quotes when speaking about budget deficits. Furtermore, I'm not sure of any variaion in calculation on this issue, it's not like the assesment of unemployment figures which do vary. But the OECD does provide harmonised estimation of these numbers who is ultimately the provider of the numbers I quoted above.

Keep up people.

James the reason people choose not to use a name is because most of the time they are a bit stupid. You are exchanging discussion points with one such person. One who confuses national public debt with annual budget deficits. In both cases Germany is in worse fiscal condition than the US. Combine this with a declining and aging population and things are really worse than they appear for “our so called ally”. But none of this is a concern to people like you are exchanging comments with. They are young are willing to pay for social justice and do not need the system at this point in their lives. To them it is more about scoring discussion points. I chose not to address them.

If you choose to James, here is some information for you. Both reported yesterday.

Here is the link on the current projection by the government of “our so called allies” in Berlin. Of course, who should believe it as this same government has been promising both jobs and compliance with the Stability Pact for more than a few years now. And yes, please do not go down that annual GDP rate of growth road. It is not to be believed. Remember these people see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil unless of course it is something concerning the US.


Now this is the latest projection for the US.


Of course both nations face large structural deficits going forward. The question is which nation is better prepared to meet these challenges. It would appear Germany thinks it has no problem while the US recognizes it does. Equally as taxes are lower in the US there is room for tax increases. In Germany where there appears to be little room, this does not mean taxes will not be raised. In the name of social justice of course. Cannot have any home grown "root causes", you know.


You will note how the euro's disregrad anything which does not fit their view of the world.

Guess you call them anti-visionaries

@ Joe

"the federal budget for 2006 foresees a deficit of €21.5bn"

This is what is written in your article about the german federal deficit.
The german deficit will be higher for 2005 and 2006 in my view.
But if you would start thinking and reading my post above you will see that is lower thna the deficit of the us as the german deficit was lower every year during the bush administration.
Ok it is not very hard to archive this.

Now for the US

"The federal budget deficit will slip to $333 billion this fiscal year"

Your article just underlines my calculations if you are able to read. Just as i said there was a new prediction last week. before that the prediction was 430 billion for the US.

But this all will not be true simply because huge parts of the irraq costs are not included in the budget and so the deficit will be somewhat around 400 billion in the uS this year. However

It is only to compare bad ( Germany) with worse ( USA)

What sort of people are you guys????

I present you the numbers and i showed you that the deficit of the US is higher htan in Germany

As an answer you posted links to articles that support my view and calculations while you still say that i am wrong????

I help you :

1. you can agree with someone a good decision

2. you can disagree you post some informations or facts that prove that the other person is wrong.

3.But you can not post articles that prove that someone is right while saying that he is wrong

One of the first things I say when the topic comes up in conversations with Germans who think that the Germany is far ahead of the US in environmental protection is “Really? Well in the US I was already driving a car with a mandatory catalytic converter before you had even heard of such a thing (not just optional with tax benefits, but MANDATORY). And unleaded gas was outlawed in the US many years earlier than in Germany too.”

And here are some interesting facts about auto fuel efficiency and US tax policy that absolutely astound most Germans who believe the popular myth about the US doing nothing about environmental protection:

Interessante Fakten zum Amerikanischen PKW Kraftstoffverbrauch und zur Steuerpolitik:

Beim Kauf eines „Sauber-Brennstoff“ Autos gibt es bis zu $2000 Steuerabschreibung.
Beim Kauf eines Elektroautos gibt es bis zu $4000 Steuerkredit pro Fahrzeug.

Beim Kauf eines Hybrid Benzin-Elektro-Fahrzeugs bis Ende 2005 gibt es bis zu $2000 einmalige Steuerabschreibung.

Beim Verkauf eines Neuwagens mit besonders hohem Verbrauch muss ein „gas guzzler tax“ (Sprit Säufer Steuer) je nach Verbrauch von $1000 bis $7700 bezahlt werden. Die Höhe der Steuer muss am Fenster angebracht sein.

Auto Hersteller, deren verkaufte Autos im Durchschnitt zu viel verbrauchen, müssen „CAFE“ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Strafen zahlen.
BMW, zum Beispiel, zahlte 2002 über $27 Million.
Die Hersteller die die Untergrenze von 27,5 mpg (=Obergrenze 8,6 l/100km) unterschreiten und Strafen zahlen müssen, sind hauptsächlich Europäische Hersteller. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/overview.htm

Der Durchschnittsverbrauch von alle in 2004 verkauften PKW war 29,3 mpg (8,0 l/100km).

(Der Durchschnittliche PKW Verbrauch in Deutschland 2004 war 8,4 l/100km)

Bei allen Neuwagen ist es ist gesetzlich vorgeschrieben, das bestimmte Kraftstoffverbrauchsinformationen am Fenster angebracht sein müssen.

One major difference between the U.S. on one hand and Germany and France on the other is that the United States generally holds itself to the letter of its agreements.France and Germany have no such compunctions (consider their cavalier attitude toward their EUROZONE agreements, for example). Should the U.S. ever decide to sign the Kyoto Accords (putting the merits of doing such aside, for the sake of argument), it would likely find itself to be one of the only countries taking its Kyoto commitments seriously.


If you are dealing with percentages you can do just that. Of course 25 is much less than 333 or whatever the number will be.

At the same time as you all tend to like to use percentages when it suits your position, then 2.7% is much less than the current percentage for Germany. But here you want to use absolute numbers instead of percentages. Interesting.

By using percentage of GDP as a measurement of deficit spending, a comparison can be made between different economics can be made. This is the standard measurement. Then again you must live in Germany or read or listen to German M$M so it suits your nation to use absolute numbers for this discussion.

But of course, you know this already or at least I hope you know this. If you do not then not only is your education system failing you but so is your media. Then again this is not new news.

By the actions of the government in Berlin, those political parties seeking power, the desires of the German people and statements like yours it would appear economics is not taught or understood in your nation.

As the other component of this percentage is GPD and the US GDP figure has already been discounted by some euros as being a bad number then you are completely correct.
It just cannot be that the US is growing and old Europe is not. It does not matter of course that GDP is calculated the same way for both nations. Or that the current percentage of GDP from services for the US is 79% and for Germany it is 68% and that Germany too is becoming more of a service economy with each passing year.

You have, as Germans and euros, do created a perfect set of circumstances to support your position. Again it does not matter if it is based in either reality or factual. So why not pick some good numbers. Let’s say German GDP growth is 4.5%, unemployment is 2.1% and there is a budget surplus. If you are going to live in this make believe world you choose to live in, at least make it better than the one are arguing about.

With performance like this then, I would only hope you return the spd to power. They deserve it. You have the perfect performance to impose your form of “social justice” on the rest of euroland.

If it will you happy, I shall agree with your position completely. The deficit in Germany is less than the deficit in the US. The GDP for Germany is greater than that of the US. I will even agree that the total US unemployment for 2004 of 8.1 million is greater than the total unemployment for the same period in Germany.

Happy? Good! Don’t want to have any unhappy euros and “so called allies” running about.

I shall however not agree with you on the total number of jobs. That number for the US is almost 140 million. I would hope you would allow me just one point of disagreement. Then again what do I know, there might be even more jobs in Germany than 140 million.

BUT wait…

I forgot those jobs don’t count.


Do not know if you get the WJS on line but an interesting article about the upcoming election in Germany. Clinton would say, “It’s the economy, stupid.” The author, MICHAEL MIERSCH a columnist for Die Welt says this will not fly in Germany. He says the correct phase is “It’s the emotions, stupid.”

If you cannot read this article. Here are a couple of interesting sections.

. . . For over two years, the media have written and spoken almost incessantly about reforms. Now, when a political transformation is really possible, fatigue has set in. It's easier to forget than to change. Reforms are for talk shows, not for reality, and certainly not for electoral campaigns . . .

. . . Free trade, a trimmed-down state and strengthening the individual's rights and responsibilities are generally considered rich people's hobbies. Make no mistake: Clinging like this to the welfare state is an entirely rational and economic decision. After all, the large majority of voters in Germany are paid by the state, whether as civil servants, public-sector employees, pensioners, unemployment or welfare recipients. They have no interest in a leaner state. The only question is, who will keep paying them if the productive sector continues to shrink? . . .

. . . Civil society, the educational system and the cultural scene are dominated by a leftist, green ethos. The major media are either left-wing or statist-conservative. Liberal positions appear occasionally in the business sections, but almost never make it onto the opinion pages that determine the political debate. "Hatred of liberalism," Ludwig von Mises wrote already in 1927, "is the only point on which the Germans are united." . .

But is this really important to anyone? I would say it is not.


" shall however not agree with you on the total number of jobs. That number for the US is almost 140 million. I would hope you would allow me just one point of disagreement. ... BUT wait…
I forgot those jobs don’t count. "

Well, of course not. As we learned in the tsunami-relief debate, if it comes from the private sector, then there must be an ulterior motive somewhere; therefore, it shouldn't be counted in the official statistics. Most American jobs are in the private sector; therefore, American unemployment is actually around 80%.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27