Wow, so we've gone from saying the US didn't do enough to make Kyoto viable to saying its the US's fault for the problems of Kyoto and that opposition to just throwing out Kyoto is hating the US. And the right thinks that the left comes up with conspiracies. You see hate in everything.

Explain yourself then. What do you mean when you say that the US didn't do enough, if you don't mean that they are to blame for it being so worthless? If you don't see how we see you blaming the US by saying it didn't do enough, then you aren't even trying.

It means that I am not going to fall for your argument. I said nothing blaming the US for the failures of Kyoto. I find fault with our policy of backing completely out of Kyoto with the idea that it cannot be fixed. I don't blame the US, I find fault with those who made the policy.

So, if you're in no way blaming the US backing out of the Kyoto Protocol for it being such a joke, then what relevance does your post serve in this topic? Considering that this topic is about how worthless the Kyoto Protocol is and not whether the US should have backed out of it or not, what you said has no point in this topic whatsoever. By the way, if you aren't blaming the US for the Kyoto Protocol being such a joke, then why do you find fault in the position we took? Clearly it was a good thing we didn't bother with it since it's doing nothing to help the environment. Sure, we could have joined it and perhaps changed some of the stuff, but who cares that we didn't? After all, it's not our fault the protocol is worthless.

You see that I disagree with the current administration, so I must therefore hate America.

If you can show me where I said that, I'll apologize. However, I never said you hated America and you know it.

I like the assumption that Brazil is expected to clean up the pollution that other countries make. What gives the US or any other country the right to expect Brazil to maintain forests to scrub foreign pollution from the atmosphere?

Brazil is reducing it's emissions and sadly is loosing some forests as well. While I'm not happy at the further loss of Amazonian rainforests, I recognise that these are Brazilian rainforests. That is a decision for Brazil to make. Interestingly Kyoto would allow other countries to pay Brazil to maintain rainforests to offset their pollution, but we don't care about that do we, we just want to critise. So long as the net result is that Brazil releases fewer greenhouse gases then other countries don't have a right to complain. Especially when they are actually increasing the total quantity of greenhouse gases that they are emitting. If you're really worried then convince your own government to plant forests.

Paul.

Maybe I listened to the wrong people (environmentalists), but I always thought rainforests as a good thing and deforesting as a bad thing, and if Brazil is the one cutting down their rainforests, doesn't that make them the one responsible for the damage such an action would do?

Also, what about the animals in these rainforests? Are the environmentalists just deciding that animals are no longer as important as industry?

Rainforest are a good thing and I'm saddened that they are being cut down.

What is wrong though is for industrialised nations like the US to expect Brazilian rainforests to remove their CO2 emissions, rather than planting their own forest or cutting down their own emissions. It's so two faced. "How dare you cut down down your rainforests, we need them so we can pollute more!"

Paul.

You see that I disagree with the current administration, so I must therefore hate America. Ridiculous.

No, this is why they are saying it.

The US just throwing it out entirely instead of trying to fix it, shortsighted

Why should we be blamed for not fixing it when we already said it was broken, but none of the enviro whackos would listen?  Next you will be saying we should invade those countries and force them to listen.

You cant have it both ways.

I like the assumption that Brazil is expected to clean up the pollution that other countries make. What gives the US or any other country the right to expect Brazil to maintain forests to scrub foreign pollution from the atmosphere?

It is not an assumption. It is Kyoto.  Kyoto presumes that America must clean up more than any other country, so that other countries can pollute more.  Isnt that asking America to clean up for them?

There is no squirming.  Either the standards and regulations apply to all, or none.  As you can see, if you dont know what the hell you are doing (and Kyoto sure as shit does not), then you do more harm than good.

Kyoto presumes that America must clean up more than any other country, so that other countries can pollute more.

Kyoto asks America to clean up more than others because a) it pollutes much more than most countries and it has the technology and finances to clean up. It's only fair that the largest, most technologically advanced countries are expected to do more, because they are capable of far more. It would be an insult to the US for the world community to assume that they are too incompetent to be counted amongst the first world.

Kyoto presumes that America must clean up more than any other country

Pardon? Where did you get this false idea from? Kyoto sets reductions required by all industrialised nations. The US reduction is less than that of the EU and lower than many other countries. The US is still allowed pollute far more than any other country under the Kyoto agreement. So the US definitely is not required to clean up more than other countries.

Kyoto does NOT assume that we can let countries like brazil do all the work by forcing them to protect their carbon sinks. It assumes that ALL countries take responsibility by REDUCING their emissions. Some (all industrialised countries) are set immediate targets, others (developing countries) have to improve monitoring and put the apparatus in palce (legal framework) to prepare for targets to be set in a second round.

Paul.

     Solitair, the entire point here is that the net effect of Kyoto in Brazil is more pollution not less. The fact that anyone would support such a ridiculous plan sickens me. Here is the problem... Lets says that the US wants to reduce its emmisions by using cane alchohol like Brazil has done. Obviously Brazil can't even support it's own demand for this stuff with whacking down huge chunks of rain forest. So where do we get our cane from? Easy, we whack down more forest to plant cane just like they did. End result? Shitloads more pollution because we have removed one of the main scrubbers on the planet. Kyoto is an intellectually bankrupt exercise as it encourages fixes like these that seem to be a good thing while condemning the US for not blithley follwing their asinine protocols.

the net effect of Kyoto in Brazil is more pollution not less

How do you reach this conclusion? The net effect is Brazil emits less pollution every year even including pollution from cutting down the forests. That's a fact, measured according to stringent guidelines defined by Kyoto.

What people are upset about is that forests are reduced and their ability to produce Oxygen is reduced. Brazil however has more than enough forests to remove all the CO2 it produces many times over, so why should it nto be allowed to reduce them, especially if it also reduces CO2 emissions at the same time?

It's countries like the US who demand that Brazil maintain it's forests to remove their pollution that are the hypocrites. Expecially when they simultaneously increase the volume of CO2 they release.

Paul.

I don't understand why one oversight by one country throws the credibility of Kyoto completely out the window? If America makes a mistake can we throw it out the window as some failed project? "I made a bigger mess while trying to clean-up. I guess cleaning-up is a bad idea" - is this the mentality I'm dealing with?

The underlining premise of Kyoto - to clean the mess we have made in the past century and to try and prevent global castastrophy - I think is quite noble. And if the protocols seem a little harsh and you realize you won't make as much money are can't drive around in your SUV's as much, well - TOUGH SHIT. Buck-up sonny! Everyone here needs a new value system if they believe that the American economy is more important than the whole goddam entire planet. I'd rather my children and children's children grow up healthy than wealthy - which one do you think leads to more happiness - wait... hold your tongue corporate America.

Pardon? Where did you get this false idea from? Kyoto sets reductions required by all industrialised nations. The US reduction is less than that of the EU and lower than many other countries. The US is still allowed pollute far more than any other country under the Kyoto agreement. So the US definitely is not required to clean up more than other countries.

Try reading it first, before jumping to the wrong conclusion.  http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

Pay attention to Articles 10, 11 and 12.

Rainforest are a good thing and I'm saddened that they are being cut down. What is wrong though is for industrialised nations like the US to expect Brazilian rainforests to remove their CO2 emissions, rather than planting their own forest or cutting down their own emissions. It's so two faced. "How dare you cut down down your rainforests, we need them so we can pollute more!"

I definitely agree with you that the US is hypocritical to act as the environment-friendly nation when it clearly isn't, but with such wanton destruction of rain forests and wildlife influenced by the standards set by the Kyoto Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol can't really be considered environment-friendly either. Unless CO2 is such an immediate and dangerous threat that any sacrifice is just, I don't see how the actions Brazil are taking in concordance with the Kyoto Protocol are going to help the world.

I don't understand why one oversight by one country throws the credibility of Kyoto completely out the window? If America makes a mistake can we throw it out the window as some failed project? "I made a bigger mess while trying to clean-up. I guess cleaning-up is a bad idea" - is this the mentality I'm dealing with?

It is bad law.  And it begets behaviour contrary to its intent.  That is why it is bad.  The ecology is not one thing, it is all things, and yet Kyoto only addressed one thing to the detriment of all others.  It was a 'feel good' thing that in the end was as impotent as a gelding.

that is why it is bad.  A bad law is worse than no law, for it gives a false sense of security, where no law does not give any indication.