You need a modicum of critical thinking, I'm afraid. The text of Kyoto will not tell you the reality.

First, look in the Annex for the list of thr countries affected. Who do we not see: China, India, all of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South and Central America. Economically poor countries tend to have filthy air; prosperous countries tend to have the luxuriy money to be environmentlly friendly.

Right off the bat, the vast majority of people are exlcuded from the Kyoto strictures. Now look further at Annex 1. Then note the baseline year, carefully chosen at 1990. Since eastern European countries' economies collapsed after that point, reducing their greenhouse gases anyway, they have plenty of pollution "credits" (per the later Bonn agreement) to sell. Russia, whose economy also collapse, post-1990, is obliged to effect no reductions at all.

Between eastern Europe and Russia, it is unlikely that the other signatories -- aside form the US -- will need to reduce emissions by a single drop; they can buy Sov-block credits to offset all of it.

Only the US's vibrant economy would be substantially damaged.

Let's put this nonsense to rest now.

http://www.isop.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=1900

"Most scientists say we need a 50% reduction of current levels by 2050 to stabilize world climate. But human emissions of greenhouse gases are expected instead to quadruple in the next hundred years. A 5.2% reduction in the next sixteen years would compound to an 8% reduction by the end of this century, i.e., it allows a 92% increase. At this pace we would need another 29 protocols to get where we should be." Apart from the fact that it has not been ratified by enough governments to implement it, its very modest goal has been bargained down still further. "Since 1997 the accepted goal has been cut to an effective 2% reduction. Russia, Australia, and Canada have been making the following argument: we have these extensive forests, if we cut them this would release carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. If we don't cut these trees we should get credit for that against our 5.2%. At every conference Russia finds a new forest in Siberia. What they argue is that modernization leads to cutting trees, and by forbearing they should be credited as much as if they actually did something."

And in the end you prove that you are taking others words instead of doing any serious study-- I will take one example of another country that would be hit fairly hard by the Kyoto Treaty-- New Zealand would by 2016 have a minus of 18% in thier GDP-- as you can see by just that ONE example the United States would not BE the only ONE to suffer some financial woes.

As such the Kyoto Treaty is not just a Treaty out to subvert the United States economy. Any sort of change in energy resources is going to cost. It will cost us less now than when we absolutely have to.

Now an 18% lessening in New Zealands GDP is a shaky proposition and this I do grant you YET it does not mean that New Zealand would be BANKRUPT-- nor would the United States.

Now do you have any other evidence which you might present besides that??

Annex 1. That tells you percentages. My other posts explain why it's a crock.

Now how about addressing all my points.

We are not arguing that now are we. Quit changing the topic.

You specifically claimed that the Kyoto Treaty would bankrupt the United States. You are wrong. Completely wrong in that claim. Unless you can come up with some good evidence I would suggest just admitting that you made an overblown claim and we can move on to whatever it is you were changing the topic too above.

This has been addressed. NZ's utterly trivial greenhouse gas production can be easily offset by buying credits from other countries.

NZ is small potatoes economically compared to the US.

Of course it is.

Your turn to answer my points.

Start with this: if Kyoto were implemented fully, what reduction in greenhouse gases would that accomplish, compared to no Kyoto.

Then answer my other questrions.

It was here in your original Paragraph that you made that claim.

Do you still back that claim?? If you do what evidence do you have to back it up??

So far you have changed the subject--- tried to make me get mired in figuring out something which I alreeady had figured-- and attempted to frustrate me so I would lose focus on the original subject.

So what is next??

Ahh.. I see.. now you subvert focus to questions of your own hoping that I might get offset by doing so or if I do not you can say that since I did not answer your questions there is no reason for you to do so with mine.

Nice ploy.

Now how would any of the Articles in Kyoto bankrupt the United States.

you do know what bankrupt means correct??

BS. The value of Kyoto IS a main issue. If full implementation of Kyoto achieves virtually nothing, then it can't justify ANY cost, no matter how small.

BS again. YOU have provided zero economic evidence at all, so your opinion is dismissed out of hand as completely worthless. In the cite I provided, energy price increases as decreases in GDP and therefore jobs lost are documented. Now deal with those cites and stop pretending they don't exist.

It's been given repeatedly.

I don't have to "prove" that a one-worrld empire won't be oppressive. Rather, you have to prove the opposite, if that's your utopian delusion of the moment.

How about, just once, you bring some facts to the table?

Prove it. Show cites and numbers.

Note that NZ only has to meet their 1990 numbers, NOT reduce them as the US does, at least per original Kyoto.

Note that NZ has plenty of forest "sink" space and will be able to export emission credits and EARN money.

Actually, I'm guessing you simply couldn't read and thought a projected 0.18% reduction in NZ meant 18% :

http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/res...omes-nov01.pdf

Wow, I said AC.
I meant AD.

Too much AC/DC for me I guess.

And still-- I went with this just to show another claim of yours was wrong--- IE that the Kyoto Treaty was some sort of "Conspiracy" to drain the United States-- You AVOID the original question I presented to you.

Mainly because you know for a fact that you were and are wrong. The Kyoto Treaty would not have Bankrupted the united States. It would have presented a huge debit to our economy which is very true and our GDP would be hit hard BUT we would still be FAR from Bankrupt.

You have yet to show how the United States would fall into bankruptcy due to following the protocols of the Kyoto Treaty.

So either back your claim up or admit your mistake.

No amount of changing the subject will draw my attention away from this. Though I will admit you almost did so with the New Zealand factor. I almost decided to argue that you were wrong until I remembered that you have yet to admit that you were wrong in your original assessment of the claim you made.

I answered your question, although you've been dodging mine.

Kyoto presents a SLIGHT drain on the NZ economy. You were wrong by a factor of 100. By far, the US economy would be the hardest hit of all. This supports my point.

Are you still harping on figures of speech? "Bankrupt the US" is a figure of speech. Countries don't go bankrupt; that's a corporate phenomenon. The US economy would be severely hit, its ability to compete internationally destroyed, standard of living for US citizens would plummet, unemployment would increase significantly.

The point -- which no one is even addressing, in their haste to quibble semantics -- is that a) of all the signatories, only the US would be economically savaged and b) the reduction in greenhouse gases would be less than trivial.

The treaty has therefore two results:

1. Destroys US ability to compete economically.
2. No perceptible ecological result.

Now....what do YOU think the real purpose is?

If your purpose in this thread is to quibble semantics and avoid the essence, don't waste my time with this silly over-literalness on figures of speech. And you might want to reconsider the precedent you're setting -- the semantic error level and general verbal sloppiness on this board is pretty high. Think twice before you decide that that's the only thing worth debating. Not one of the leftists on the board would EVER escape the starting line.

Ok-- so you admit your first claim that the US would go bankrupt is overblown. You admit that a country is incapable of going bankrupt. Thanks. That was after all the only thing I was attempting to get across.

The rest of the argument is null and void.

It wasn't a literal claim. "Bankrupt" was a figure of speech, a synonym for "extreme damage." I made the mistake of doing you the courtesy of addressing you like an intelligent grownup, someone who could figure out what adult conversation means, rather than an over-literal 6 year old who ignores the substance so he can play "GOTCHA!"

Don't worry -- I won't make that mistake again.

So that's your role in this debate: to bicker about figures of speech and to become the Literalism Nazi? Your intellectual surrender about the thread substance is accepted. Fine. Now, just remember the new standard that you've introduced: all prose is now subject to 100% scrutiny for exact literalness. No figures of speech ever. And when you find that you can't say ANYTHING without it being shredded, remember this was YOUR idea.

Dude, dgg9, get laid.