Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Kyoto-Are Americans Eco-Terrorists?

  1. Dec 22, 2004 #1
    Because of their policy on signing the Treaty on Greenhouse emmissions:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/climatechange/kyototreaty.shtml [Broken]

    Will some countries in the future feel a neccessity to "Invade America" on Enviromental Morals?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 22, 2004 #2
    Good quesiton.

    Some other good questions:

    Are the european countries that signed Kyoto and repeatedly failed to meet its standards ecoterrorists? Are the "developing" countries that burn huge amounts of oil but weren't included in the Kyoto protocol ecoterrorists? Are the politicians who failed to come up with a plan that actually reduced co2 emissions ecoterrorists? Are the media "journalists" that promoted kyoto without ever critically examining it ecoterrorists?

    Are the people who complacently and blindly believe Kyoto is a meaningful solution to a real problem ecoterrorists?

    Yes, I'd love to hear answers to all these quesitons. Why dont you tell us what you think? :uhh:
  4. Dec 23, 2004 #3
    My interest is based on a very basic knowledge, which to be honest petered out a couple of years ago. Recently the above issue's were brought up in conversations with some friends (it is their wordings I have tried to convey here), I did instigate the conversation with reference to "The Skids-Working for the Yankee Dollar".

    What started out as a conversation about music, I explained that:Working for the Yankee Dollar, the song, was about economical "hand-cuffs", that America imposes on the rest of the World, based on the strength of the Dollar?

    The 'Eco' crusade of the Eighties has fallen way below expectations, due to I believe, the political loyalties that certain countries want to preserve, Europe included.

    The reference to the "Invading of America", was a notion put to me by one friend, who I think see's just 'surface politics', and forms ill guided opinions from this lack of understanding, every nation has its own Agenda is what I believe is the root of major problems, with some countries avoiding their duties in favour of other "hidden agendas". This is not a slating of America by myself, its a fact of life, I believe.

    Europeans are not Angels, I pointed out to my friends that their internall distrust of America, is leading to a biased point of view, and if their knowledge of music was really that good, then they would know that there are many different aspects to music, more than just "Country AND Western"!
  5. Dec 23, 2004 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Simply put, Kyoto is bad for the US and useless for the world. Doing something useless is worse than doing nothing because it convinces people they don't have to do anything else - at least if we had done nothing, everyone would still agree we need to do something.
  6. Dec 23, 2004 #5
    Whomever wrote that song needs a lesson in economics. The strength of the dollar over the past two decades has been almost entirely financed by foreign (non-US) governments. Recently the only reason the dollar has had any strength at all is due to the Chinese government - well, with a little help from a few other asian countries.

    The only other reason the dollar was ever strong was because it was a reasonably stable currency backed by a huge government that was issuing bonds of high grade with good interest. Blaming america for any of that is rediculous.

    If the strong dollar is a hand cuff.... well, the US didn't put it on, and we don't have the key.

    Talk to the Chinese for that.
  7. Dec 23, 2004 #6
    I think, Russ, that Kyoto is very important to the world. It moderates our psychological needs for an enemy and it ensures that we don't use our protection instinct to a more disastrous cause like accumulating enemy images that is ultimately causing world wars, etc.

    More about that effect here

    However, starting to build enemy images with eco-terrorism is not that helpfull.

    And if fossil fuel really is about to deplete it may come in handy to think about alternatives, although the truth would still have been better.
  8. Dec 26, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For example at least many of the European countries participating are pushing emissions down in accordance with the treaty ... and since nothing else seems to be done on the matter on a global scale, it's hard to see it as a wasted effort.
  9. Dec 31, 2004 #8
    The question is highly slanted. Many European countries are struggling hard to comply, some are close. They recognize the problem and are making an effort.
    Nonsense. The developing countries do not burn huge amounts of oil compared to the United States. Furthermore they are in a desperate economic situation compared to the leisurely life of Americans. So the Americans ought out of fairness be obligated to reduce their emissions much more.
    The Kyoto plan is a good first step. It is being implemented voluntarily by many companies even in the US. The Kyoto plan is just a first step. Stricter plans without loopholes are contemplated and hopefully will follow swiftly.
    The only folks who failed to critically examine the Kyoto plan are its opponents. It is scientifically sound because it demonstrates intention to fix a very serious problem.
    Any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is part of the solution.

    The global warming problem was first brought to scientific credibility in 1980 according to an article in Physics Today. Since then the enormous volume of measured data has brought the global warming problem to near certainty. The scientific community stands solidly behind it. Those who disparage the United Nations report have been reduced to a few industry motivated quacks. In the United States there is a large political following opposing the greenhouse solutions. These people are by and large the same folks who are ignorant of science and oppose it in other areas such as evolution, cosmology and artificial intelligence. By means of a very expensive public relations misinformation campaign these folks have delayed public recognition of the problem twenty years, and government action (USA) an additional possible decade. History is repeating itself. The fight over chloroflourocarbons was equally bitter and ended with a solid defeat of these same folks.
  10. Dec 31, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Er, the latter does not support the former...
  11. Dec 31, 2004 #10
    OK, The Kyoto protocol is based on the United Nations report which is certainly scientifically sound.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2004
  12. Jan 1, 2005 #11
    Somehow I deeply regret my decision to ignore the messianic prophecies of heroic warriors like these, but it hurts deeply to see the truth so totally deformed. But it’s probably better for mankind to deflect our devastating natural human instincts to a harmless enemy. So I swallow my pride and my instincts for the truth to prevail.
  13. Jan 1, 2005 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    My criticism of Kyoto focuses specifically on China, which does burn huge amounts of oil, and worse, coal (political-environmentalists always seem to forget about coal...), and does not have a "desperate economic situation." With around 10% annual economic growth, China's pollution output is rapidly increasing.
    You're missing the entire point of the criticism: you're right that very few people think recducing emissions isn't a good idea (and global warming is not the most important reason why - regular old air pollution kills 20,000 people a year in the US right now). The point of the criticism is the way the reductions are structured and that is a political issue, not a scientific issue.
    No, it wasn't as bitter. I it happened fast and it happened fast for a reason: everyone contributed to the solution. Everyone banned CFC's.
  14. Jan 3, 2005 #13
    And failing. The question isn't slanted. If someone is an ecoterrorist for not complying with kyoto...well, that makes many countries ecoterrorists. If you'd like to label them as such, that is fine with me, but at least be consistent.

    Yes, they do. China is the second biggest producer in the world. Take a look at where it will be over the next twenty years. It's staggering.

    Provide evidence of this. Otherwise it is merely an extremely cheap ad hominem attack.
  15. Jan 7, 2005 #14
    China emits only about half as much greenhouse gas as the US yet China has twice as many people. These publications show that China is already making an effort to comply with Kyoto even though it is not expected to become binding until 2012.
    Shame on the USA:
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1201-04.htm [Broken]

    The claim about CO2 absorbtion saturating near present levels is not relevant because the saturation occurs in the short wavelength band of sunlight and not the long wave band of Earth emission. The graph shows short wave characteristics well below 5 microns.
    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/LabManual/lab.modtran.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. Jan 8, 2005 #15
    The reference you site does not suggest this at all. If you look more closely, the CO2 absorption bands in the infrared saturate almost immediately. They do not increase significantly with increasing co2. Obviously they saturate to a warmer air level due to the fact that the saturation occurs closer to the earth's surface.

    That reference you site actually makes it look like increasing co2 from current levels does absolutely nothing. Of course, it is just a model. What's more, it does not take many other factors, such as water vapor into account. If your goal is to make a case for global warming through co2, then you should have someone with more knowledge on the subject make it.

    Still no backing for this statement? Do you make a habit of making such rediculous accusations without supporting them?
  17. Jan 8, 2005 #16
    Oops, Charles, better restudy the modtran link a little bit closer and perhaps reconsider your post.

    You see, It just happens to be the singlemost important refutation of the greenhouse gas hype, very bad for would-be heroic greenhouse gas warriors.
  18. Jan 8, 2005 #17
    Neither of the supposed refutations in the previous two posts is valid.

    To refresh your memory the saturation claim stated that "Adding CO2 to the atmosphere above the present levels will have no effect because the absorbtion has already saturated." (That means we can pollute all we want and get away with it.) I lost the thread where the link was posted but this one is similar. The point made is that this graph and saturation are only relevant for sunlight impinging on the earth in the short wave band near one micron. The graph coordinates 200 to 1200 are .2 to 1.2 microns as far as I can see. How he gets the radiation curves for temperatures shown beats me. It is not consistent with the link below. It would be nice if he labeled his axis with units. The modtran author is talking about light going out in this band. The Earth radiates very little in this band. In the IR band (above five microns) where the Earth radiates there is no such saturation effect, therefore the saturation is of minimal effect. For a comparison of incoming and outgoing bands see http://www.heliosat3.de/e-learning/radiative-transfer/rt1/AT622_section10.pdf

    As for my last statement, anyone who knows the politics of the US is aware of it. In particular you might remember those who called Al Gore "Ozone man." This is testimony to the political heat associated with the ozone gas restrictions. Somehow right wing folks always seem to act like they were born yesterday (Both their spokes people and their audience).
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2005
  19. Jan 8, 2005 #18
    Heh, it appears someone isn't familiar with spectroscopy... or blackbody radiation, for that matter. That graph's x axis is in wavenumbers. This obvious error renders your previous posts on the subject invalid.

    This is not true. I am aware that many conservatives dissagree with the kyoto protocol. To say that people who disagree with the kyoto protocol are ignorant of science, or even conservative, is an entirely different argument that requires validation.

    You suggested that several people in this thread have opinions that are usually associated with those ignorant of science. Coming from someone who so blatantly confuses his units, this requires more evidence than "anyone who knows politics is aware of it."
  20. Jan 8, 2005 #19
    By the way, why not a physics problem?

    What wavelength does 1400 correspond to? How about 200? Where is the peak in the blackbody spectrum at 300 degrees kelvin? What wavenumber does this correspond to?

    Is that wavenumber on the graph in the link you posted?
  21. Jan 8, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Shouldn't this be in the "Politics" sub-forum?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook