The W
Views: 101491433
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.12.14 2336
The W - Current Events & Politics - Russian scientists casts more doubt on Global Warming
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.95
Pages: 1
(1745 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (5 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1328 days
Last activity: 1125 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I can't wait for the environ-nuts to start attacking the credibility of the Russian scientists.

Hopefully this is the deathknell of Kyoto...

* * * * * *

Russia rows further away from Kyoto
By Tim Hirsch
BBC environment correspondent, in Moscow

A senior adviser to President Vladimir Putin has cast further doubt on whether Russia will ever ratify the Kyoto agreement on limiting emissions of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Andrei Illarionov, who advises the president on economic policy, was speaking the day after Mr Putin refused to set a timetable for Russian ratification, angering supporters of Kyoto around the world.

So long as Russia stays out, the UN protocol setting targets for cutting emissions from the burning of fossil fuels cannot take legal effect.

Speaking at the World Climate Change Conference in Moscow, Mr Illarionov told BBC News Online: "The words of President Putin cannot be interpreted as saying that Russia will ratify the Kyoto protocol but that it is just a matter of time. He never said that.

"The president said that we are in the process of studying the Kyoto Protocol and all the consequences of it. That will take time. What decision will be taken remains to be seen."

High costs
Mr Illarionov, a key member of Mr Putin's inner circle of advisers, went on to question whether it would be in Russia's economic interests to sign up to Kyoto, despite the 30% cut in emissions which have taken place since 1990 due to the collapse of traditional smokestack industries.

He argued that economic growth in Russia would bring its emissions back up to 1990 levels by the end of the decade, so it would not have any spare pollution allowances to sell - rejecting the claim that the country stood to gain financially from the treaty.

And beyond 2012, the end date for the targets agreed at Kyoto, the costs for Russia could start to mount if further cuts in emissions were required.

"It's quite clear that the Russian economy is not going to stop at the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that we have today or that we shall have in 2012.

"That's why it is necessary to calculate the costs which will have to be balanced against any possible gains," said Mr Illarionov.

"The United States and Australia have calculated that they cannot bear the economic consequences of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. If they aren't rich enough to deal with those consequences, my question is whether Russia is much richer than the US or Australia?"

Mr Illarionov's analysis is challenged by many economists, including some in Russia, but his downbeat comments indicate how difficult it is going to be to persuade Mr Putin to move ahead with Kyoto.

Taken together with a succession of Russian scientists using this conference to cast doubt on the science of global warming, the event is proving something of a nightmare for supporters of worldwide action to combat climate change.


(edited by Grimis on 3.10.03 0810)


2003 WORLD SERIES

vs

Please Believe It!
Promote this thread!
A-MOL
Frankfurter








Since: 26.6.02
From: York, England

Since last post: 3932 days
Last activity: 3874 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.35
The main problem with this kind of research is the agenda of the people who commission the reports - environmentalists have a report that says global warming is worsening, powerc ompanies find evidence we are in an ice age. This is one of those issues where it is going to be extremely difficult to find a balanced, definitive answer.

Besides, even if you don't want to go the Kyoto route, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world with less emissions anyway?



...full of energy. Multi-orgasmic, if you will, in a cosmic sort of way."
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1328 days
Last activity: 1125 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by A-MOL
    Besides, even if you don't want to go the Kyoto route, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world with less emissions anyway?

Contrary to popular belief, I like the environment. From an economic standpoint, it makes sense to preserve what we have. It's radical environmentalism as outlined in things like Kyoto tand in the radical plans put on by some that I don't jive with. Sudden, radical shifts in environmental policy like that can severely cripple an economy. We already have enough economic problems without sending us down the highway to hell.



2003 WORLD SERIES

vs

Please Believe It!
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 103 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.48
    Originally posted by A-MOL
    The main problem with this kind of research is the agenda of the people who commission the reports - environmentalists have a report that says global warming is worsening, powerc ompanies find evidence we are in an ice age. This is one of those issues where it is going to be extremely difficult to find a balanced, definitive answer.

    Besides, even if you don't want to go the Kyoto route, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world with less emissions anyway?


Only if the benefits outweigh the costs. Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense.



Everything that is wrong in this world can be blamed on Freddie Prinze Jr.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.23
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by A-MOL
      Besides, even if you don't want to go the Kyoto route, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world with less emissions anyway?

    Contrary to popular belief, I like the environment. From an economic standpoint, it makes sense to preserve what we have.

Actually, one could make the case very easily that the best thing for the economy would be balls out destruction of everything we can get our hands on. After all, if we drained all the oil in the next 50 years as fast as we could, our costs would be much lower. If we removed environmental protections on business costs would be lower (just look at the third world). And most of us wouldn't be around for the consequences. However we have decided that along with being the exploiters of the earth's resources, we should also be its steward as best we can. I generally disagree with you and your ideological ilk on how best to strike that balance, but it seems to be something we have all agreed on in our own way in most of the Western world.

(edited by spf2119 on 3.10.03 1706)


Coming to Chicago Nov. 12...I am SO there! - Brenda Weiler

blogforamerica.com
Thread rated: 5.95
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: New CA Field Poll
Next thread: CDC finds no proof gun-control laws work
Previous thread: Bush administration and for-profit education
(1745 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
from the BBC Henry Allingham, the world's oldest man and one of the last surviving World War I servicemen, has died at the age of 113, his care home has said.
- odessasteps, RIP World's Oldest Man (2009)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Russian scientists casts more doubt on Global WarmingRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.201 seconds.