« Der Spiegel on the Dollar: Exaggeration, Sensationalism and Bipolarity | Main | Stern: "America is Destroying the West" »

Comments

I know this is off-topic, but in light of this moment's world-changing events, I'd like to congratulate Americans for signing the Bali agreement and finally acknowledging that they need someone else to tell them how to run their lives.

The obvious headline would be "ZDF's Other Side"

Jeremy, re: "...in light of this moment's world-changing events, I'd like to congratulate Americans for signing the Bali agreement and finally acknowledging that they need someone else to tell them how to run their lives."


Even if some representative of the US signed this agreement, it is not binding until it is ratified by the Senate. And the Senate voted against the original Kyoto Treaty 97-0.

Sorry. If some idjit signed it, the signature is as worthless as President Clinton's was on Kyoto. The US SENATE is the only party who can legally ratify our treaties.

Deleted by Davids Medienkritik.

We do not allow defamation of American soldiers as "terrorists" on this site. Your comment is painting all GI's based on the alleged actions of individuals.

This is particularly important to us as the American soldier has guaranteed the freedoms of individuals like Phil for decades now. We therefore are practicing our right to run our site as we see fit and we would like to take this opportunity to invite Phil to take these sort of comments and practice his freedom of speech elsewhere.

@LC Mamapajamas

You are suspecting that the Senate won't ratify the agreement that the representative signed? Has that happened before? That's going to be interesting.

---"need someone else to tell them how to run their lives"---

Interesting motto. I think that sums up the differences between Americans and Jeremans.


As far as this film "America's Other Side" goes. I wonder how those who keep repeating that "Bush doesn't care about the environment" would react to the comparisons of Bush's house to Gore's house?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

You can read up on Bush's environmental record here. It's a long read
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=the_bush_administration_s_environmental_record

@ Jeremy:

Wow, you really don't understand how these things work over here do you? Maybe you should read up on the difference between a self-executing treaty and a non-self executing treaty.

@ Phil:

So tell me, what's the real motivation behind this? Were you beaten as a child? Were you a social outcast in school or did you have some sort of traumatic childhood experience which accounts for this irrationality? Are you 15 years old? As long as this place seems to be unmoderated I think we could at least have a little fun playing "name Phil's disorder".

Hey, icarus, how about all of the above? My theory is: He IS 15 years old (or maybe 30 and still living in the basement of his parents' house, sponging off them for all aspects of his miserable existence, including the internet connection), but in any event certainly not independent, working, paying taxes, or anything like that.
Further, I postulate that he was not only beaten as a child, but that somebody in Germany ran over his puppy and he just KNOWS it was a GI. This was the traumatic childhood experience that you refer to. That would explain a lot, for example, his hatred of America and especially the US military. But then again, just watching/reading/listening to German so-called "news" will influence the weaker minds that way as well, so maybe the puppy isn't even necessary. WDYT?

Jeremy, re: "You are suspecting that the Senate won't ratify the agreement that the representative signed? Has that happened before? That's going to be interesting."

Exactamundo. President Clinton signed the original Kyoto Treaty himself. The Senate said, not just "no", but "HELL NO!" with a 97-0 vote against. That's why it it has no legal influence in the US.

That 97-0 against vote, BTW, included many Democrat senators who today fuss and complain that BUSH didn't sign Kyoto. The fact is that the Kyoto Treaty came up in CLINTON'S term, and the SENATE, including those who are presently trying to rewrite history, said, "No."

This is another example of people blaming everything on "Booooosh!"

@icarus and Scout, that you think it's normal to support war crimes and abnormal to oppose them just shows your inverted morality, probably due to years of brainwashing in US public schools or the military. According to your sick minds it's me who is in the wrong for pointing out war crimes, not you for supporting them.

Deleted by Davids Medienkritik.

We do not allow defamation of the American soldier on this site. Your comment is painting all GI's based on the alleged actions of individuals.

This is particularly important to us as the American soldier has guaranteed the freedoms of individuals like Phil for decades now. We therefore are practicing our right to run our site as we see fit and we would like to take this opportunity to invite Phil to take these sort of comments and practice his freedom of speech elsewhere.

Further - Phil has now been placed on "Hold for Approval" status until further notice. He may still post - but his comments must first be checked and approved by Davids Medienkritik before appearing on our site. This is standard procedure for any person found to be in violation of our comments policy.

LOL. Let me be as simple as possible:

Objectively noting that Phil=fucktard does NOT = I support war crimes.

Phil the dill pill created so much ill-will that RayD has had his fill up to the gills because Phil thinks U.S. soldiers will kill like it is run of the mill; so with a stroke of a quill it is off to the ville on the hill for Phil in his broken-down Zil where he’ll sit on the sill by the rill and play his zills dreaming of Jill until he realizes he is nil.

Hey Atlantickegler!

This was taken from Nonparasan today. Nonparasan is listed on the right hand column under English language blog sites.

"The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

· Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
· Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
· Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
· Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

· Maldives, 252%.
· Sudan, 142%.
· China, 55%.
· Luxembourg, 43%
· Iran, 39%.
· Iceland, 29%.
· Norway, 24%.
· Russia, 16%.
· Italy, 16%.
· Finland, 15%.
· Mexico, 11%.
· Japan, 11%.
· Canada, 8.8%."


Germany is not listed. But little Luxembourg has increased its carbon emissions 43% since signing Kyoto. The U.S. has increased its carbon emissions only 6%. Those countries that did not sign Kyoto have a better handle on carbon emissions than those pious countries that signed the treaty.

Heuchler!

Something else on those numbers... the US has a growing population whereas Europe....

PS
Pamela, if your still around I got around to reading a book on Heidegger that had been sitting on shelf...

Boy, I hope none of you guys commenting on Kyoto are American citizens. Clinton never signed it because he never sent it to the Senate to be voted on. The Senate, on hearing of its provisions voted 97-0 on a sense of the Senate measure that essentially told Clinton "don't bother". So he didn't.

Posted by: Randy | December 18, 2007 at 07:50 PM

"Boy, I hope none of you guys commenting on Kyoto are American citizens. Clinton never signed it because he never sent it to the Senate to be voted on. The Senate, on hearing of its provisions voted 97-0 on a sense of the Senate measure that essentially told Clinton "don't bother". So he didn't."

I think you have it totally backwards man.

He did sign it near the end of his term.

The Senate did not vote it down, they voted on a resolution about the treaty, not the treaty…

They, the Senate, could probably take up the treaty and vote on it if they wanted to. Then Bush would have to go through the process of removing the US from it (or go to the courts to argue that a former president’s signature shouldn’t be valid, during his term, in a treaty ratification)… Alas, the politicians in the Senate realize it’s not a winning issue for them to really vote it in… its better to snipe that we don’t have it than to actually have it...

Pres. Bush wouldn't have to go to court, if on the unbelievable possibility that the Senate ratified the treaty for two simple reasons. 1st, only the President can send a treaty to the Senate. The Senate cannot act on any treaty unless submitted by the president 2nd, the Vice President signed the treaty in '98, and even though Gore is a constitutional officer his signature has absolutely no legal authority. Akin to signing one's name in the cement on the sidewalk in front of the Empire State Building and then claiming ownership.

Randy stated the constitutional parameters correctly. No valid signature, an overwhelming sense of the Senate resolution telling the president to not even bother sending the treaty for ratification and the Senate being constitutionally incapable of acting on the treaty on their own volition.

@George M

Some of the countries you mentioned where 'allowed' higher emissions since they were considered 'emerging economies', such as Spain, while the U.S. is a 'mature' economy that, while the population admittedly is growing, is fast transitioning to a service economy. I guess each country's quota was arrived at by some considerations about how much it could 'afford' to cut. Germany was allocated -18% (a goal which has been almost met), mostly since the dismantling of the former communist economy offered some easy savings potential, same with other Eastern European countries.

However, you are (unfortunately) still right that many signatories are far from reaching their goals. All this howling about who signed and who didn't sign the treaty is not important if countries first sign it and then don't fulfill their quota. First signing and then not delivering is arguably even worse than not signing in the first place, after all what's the point of inviting them to treaties in the future with such a record.

This doesn't bode well for the Bali agreement and the Copenhagen agreement.

Jeremy

"Germany was allocated -18% (a goal which has been almost met)"

This demonstrates why the treaty is totally unfair to the U.S. If there is an economy out there that can be deemed mature, it is Germany.

Germany does not have the diversity of climate that North America has. It does not have the problem of distance that North America has. And it has not experienced the rapid population growth that the U.S. has had in the last ten years.

Yet the U.S. has decreased its carbon use 66% more than Germany, a rich industrial nation. Bill Clinton was a fool to accept this treaty under the terms that you mentioned that allows 18% carbon growth for rich European countries like Germany and Spain. George Bush was absolutely right to say that the U.S. would not accept such terms.

When is Germany going to make real sacrifices? When will there be a speed limit on the Autobahns? When will the vaunted German auto industry offer a Hybrid or alternative fuel automobile? Why do 25% of automobiles in Germany run on diesel fuel, which not only leaves Co2, but pollutes the air with soot.

The world is watching!

@ george

the eu reduction target was -8% on average. there was an inner-european agreement to reduce co2 emissions according to the "maturity" of the individual countries. this allowed a relatively poor country like spain to surpass the 1990 level by 15 percent, while countries like germany and the uk had relatively strict emission targets -21%, resp. 12.5% by 2012. the uk already reached their goal of reducing co2 emissions (reduction of 14%), while germany only managed to cut their emissions by roughly 17% (still 4% missing). it's estimated that at least 50% of the german co2 reductions were caused by the shutdown of east-german brown-coal power plants. so it seems germany will not quite meet the inner-european emission targets (the eu overall won't either - a decrease of only 2.4% in 2004).

"Yet the U.S. has decreased its carbon use 66% more than Germany, a rich industrial nation."
sorry, but that's wrong. co2 emissions in germany declined by 17 percent while the us emissions grew by 16%.

"When is Germany going to make real sacrifices? When will there be a speed limit on the Autobahns?"
that won't be a real sacrifice, at least not a very effective one. but since you asked for it, the german left has been saying this for years (mainly because a speed limit will reduce the number of accidents and will save at least a few lives).

"Why do 25% of automobiles in Germany run on diesel fuel, which not only leaves Co2, but pollutes the air with soot."
diesel fuelled cars produce less co2 than gasoline cars. the german car-manufacturers totally screwed up. their main focus was on diesel and fuel cells, while the japanese better gaged the demand of the us market and focused on hybrids.

Posted by: Pat Patterson | December 19, 2007 at 08:54 AM

You may indeed be right that only Gore signed it.

From that, most of your other comments would be correct.

300 millions Americans produce 6.000 megatons of CO2, while 80 million Germans are "only" responsible for 800 megatons. Twice the emissions per capita!

Americans should reduce their carbon footprint to German levels, before bashing Germany on emissions ...

@George M

As Lars has pointed out, that's a little minus sign before the "-18%" that I quoted which means a reduction in emissions (mostly due to the East German thingie) and he also pointed out correctly that the actual number is -21%, so there's a fair bit to go from the current -17%. This puts Germany in the club of promising-but-not-delivering countries which is a shame, since Germany too is a country where fossil fuels are still gratuitously wasted and there are easy savings to be had.

@Tropby:

Reduce to German levels- period paragraph? Wow, that's some real deep logic considering the differences between Germany and the US that George pointed out. (Not to mention our faster growing economy)

Where has Helian gone? He's usually pretty cogent on such matters.

I wonder if my asking Phil about Dresden in the previous thread helped put him over the edge.

Having forgotten more science,including ecology, and engineering than Al Gore ever learned,I am somewhat skeptical about the apocalyptic predictions about global warming. At the same time, apparently Europe has seen more warming trends in climate than the US has, which may account for part of the differences in perspective. By now it is an old saw in the US that the best way to predict winter snowstorms and cold weather in the US is to track Al Gore's speaking tours.Strange coincidence.

In any event, because of global warming or peak oil,say what you will, we need to be making the transition to other forms of energy. Spurred by legislation passed when GW Bush was governor of Texas, wind energy production in Texas has increased over 4 times since 1999. Texas recently became the leading wind energy producer in the US. Since Texas has such a strong reputation for blowhards, it is good that some of that energy be harnessed.

Maybe, just maybe, there will be an increase in fair reporting about the US from Germany.
Enough stream of unconsciousness writing.

Said differences are lame excuses:

Nationwide population density is of little relevance, as US inhabitants tends to be concentrated in certain areas, that often have a higher population density than their German counterparts. But if You insist on this excuse, then please explain to this humble poster how e.g. Norway with less than half the population density of the US manages to have much lower carbon emissions per capita ...

A growing population and economy equals new facilities, modern stuff creates less carbon emissions ... the US should have much lower emissions than old Europe.

I have little problems with global warming (every year, my garden produces more and better stuff), but the US excuses for "being dirty" are ridiculous, sorry. Just admit that You -at least until very recently- simply did not care.

@ icarus
differences?
population density doesn't really matter as tropby already pointed out (although the underdeveloped public transport system - a prime example would be la - is certainly a problem).
it isn't climatic differences either. a country like israel with a pretty warm climate has lower per capita emissions than the us and scandinavian countries like sweden or iceland have even lower per capita co2 emissions (only a third of the us per capita emissions).
the economy? if you take a closer look at the gdp/co2 ratio ($/metric tons of co2) you'll see that a country like germany generates 3393 $ per ton of co2 while the us only generates 1936 $ with the same ammount of co2 emissions.

Trophy and all,

Here is the source for the No Parasan article: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html

I have not read any source about how much Germany has decreased its carbon use for this year or 2005 and 2006.

However, for the years 1997 (when Kyoto was signed by Germany) to 2004, Germany reduced its carbon use from 239 to 235. A whopping reduction of 1%

I can not talk for Norway or Sweden, but Iceland has abundant Geothermal power. The city of Reykjavik heats its buildings with geothermal water.

I'll give Germany credit for its magnificent 1% reduction. I must give credit to the Schroeder/Fischer regime for its leadership. (Could be that the one percent was achieved by recession! Or the negative population growth!)

However, since Germans take great pride in that they belong to "Europe," your neighbors are lacking way behind in reducing their carbon usage as compared to the U.S.

I am not an expert in internal combustion engines. I do not know if a diesel produces less CO2 than a gasoline engine. However, I do know that diesels produce "C" (real carbon). It admits it into the atmosphere, which also causes a greenhouse effect.

This is the first smell that an American notices when he steps out of Frankfurt airport: The stench of diesel.

Here is more fuel for the carbon-fed fire.
Germany Cries Foul Over EU Plans to Cut Car Emissions.

Real smooth again Tropby. I didn't exactly claim that population density was THE determining factor to look at now did I? You mention Norway as if it's a real "apples to apples" comparison. Traveling from one side of that country to another; shipping goods by plane, truck, train, etc. to the farthest reaches of Norway means covering a hell of a less open land in the middle.

This of course doesn't take into consideration other factors such as the comparative economies of US/Norway (and other's I can't think of after a 14 hour work day and you obviously didn't feel like including)

Hmm, this also makes me wonder about something? If a plane (or any vehicle) starts out in say Portugal and ends up in Poland- carrying cargo, people, whatever- which country(ies) get the credit/blame for the resulting pollution?

Maybe none of this stuff matters in the end and I am certainly no expert on the topic but if you think you can:

- make unequivocal conclusory statements about the US adopting German standards,
- snarkily follow up a challenge to your simplistically stated challenge with a logistically piss-poor retort
- calling yourself 'humble' of all things

and then expect any of us here to simply roll over in the face of your underwhelming mental effort than you need to get a damn clue.

As for "caring"- I don't even know how you would define that yourself. I tend think Kyoto and Bali and other conferences like them are just wastes of time which tend to mostly benefit blowhard politicians.

But they do have to wear those shirts in public and try not to notice the laughter.

@ george
that no pasaran article screwed up the statistics, so it's quite useless. use the stats from the us energy department instead.
as far as the kyoto reduction targets are concerned: germany and all the other eu15 countries had to reduce their emissions by 8 percent on average. an inner-european agreement distributed the reductions according to the economic maturity of each member state (i already told you that) demanding from a decrease of 21% from 1990 levels. what happens between 2004 and 2007 or between 1997 and 2004 isn't really important, the co2 emissions simply have to be cut back by 21 percent between 1990 and 2012.
i really can't understand what you're aiming at. i already told you that germany, since germany only managed to cut back emissions by 17 percent between 1990 and 2004, still has much to do and will most likely not be able to meet it's eu emission target. the same can be said about the eu (only minus 2.4% between 1990 and 2004), as i already mentioned above.
my point however is, stop lecturing others while "your" own country is far, far away from even keeping co2 emissions at the same level (even the per capita emissions in the us grew by nearly 8 percent since 2004).
and yes, diesel engines produce co2. who denied that? they just produce less co2 if compared with gasoline engines. however, diesel has other disadvanteges, e.g. soot (you already mentioned that). those problems occur mostly local (primarily a problem for areas with a huge amount of traffic).

@ gringotex
the german car manufacturers and the german car lobby (mostly politicians from the spd, the cdu and the fdp) are constantly complaining. this is unfair, that is unfair, the obligatory airbags aren't good for the competitiveness of german cars, yadda, yadda. we've been hearing this for decades.
i don't think these folks will ever change. the important thing is that they don't get through with it.

ah, typo
the 8 percent per capita increase was between 1990 and 2004, not since 2004.

and another one. it should have read "demanding from germany a 21% decrease...".

@Thomass
Pamela, if your still around I got around to reading a book on Heidegger that had been sitting on shelf...

I'm back after almost a month of dealing with those POS we elected to Washington. Thankfully, the little bastards have left/are leaving town, our clients are all funded and won't lose their jobs and we can enjoy the holidays those mofos came so close to wrecking for so many people.

God, I love my job.

Thomass, what are you reading exactly? Heidegger wasted his soul, you know.

Re: globular warmening (yeah, where is Helien BTW - I should shoot him an email)

It's all crapola, folks. The models are completely hosed and people know it.

Errors in IPCC climate science

But this is very different from assuming mere linearity. It supposes that the physical representation of the global climate itself — the physical theory in the GCMs — is complete and accurate. The errors are merely from imperfect measurements and a too-coarse resolution because of computer limitations. This assumption — assertion, really — is entirely unjustifiable.

For example, all GCMs include a hyperviscosity because the Navier-Stokes equations can’t be solved at all the necessary levels of resolution. The hyperviscosity, which is completely unphysical, is the only thing that makes the GCMs integrable — they would catastrophically diverge otherwise. Because there is an unphysical hyperviscosity, the parameterizations in GCMs must also be unphysical in order to compensate. Consequently, GCMs inherently cannot be physically correct.

There actually are heros. Benazir Bhutto was one of them. There is such a thing as glory. Benazir Bhutto was glorious. Let the talking heads snipe at her. They can't detract from that glory. She knew the risk she was taking. Still, she faced death without flinching. As for her enemies, the enemies of us all, the vile fanatics who murdered her, I can only say with Voltaire, "ecrasez l'infame!"

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

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
28