Keith Devens .com

Even with Russia on board, the Kyoto treaty will do little to global CO2 emissions considering that 70 per cent of the world's CO2 is emitted by countries not subject to Kyoto restrictions. Moreover, this share is growing as China, India and other non-Kyoto developed and developing countries grow faster than pro-Kyoto ones. Countries around the world must choose what is more important for them -- stagnating, at best, living standards due to Kyoto sclerotic regulations or the rising well-being of billions of people without them.

"Because so many countries so not sign the treaty, it is quite useless. And because it is quite useless, we will not sign it either" !?

Silly.

Well, that was just part of his point from earlier in the article. Here's a fuller quote:

ACCORDING to the Kyoto protocol proponents, Australia and the US are the rogue nations. But in the eyes of the absolute majority of the world, they are reasonable and smart.

After all, Australia and the US -- along with nine developed countries and 167 other nations -- are refusing to undertake legal obligations in restricting their greenhouse gas emissions.

The Kyoto treaty means a heavy price in terms of economic growth. Tentative early evidence of this can be seen by examining growth rates of those nations that have and have not enforced restrictions on their emissions.

Since 1997, the 17 pro-Kyoto developed nations (15 EU countries, Canada and Japan) have had slower economic growth rates than the 11 non-Kyoto nations (including Australia and the US) -- 1.9 per cent annually compared with 3.3 per cent. There is no way to cheat economic laws -- increase in wealth creation requires more energy.

CO2 is a natural result of the use of fossil fuels that still account for 80 per cent of energy consumed globally. Nuclear energy today is the only commercially viable alternative. But even if green activists and Euro-bureaucrats secretly desire a rapid expansion of nuclear energy, there are still objective limits to how fast hydrocarbons can be replaced. Therefore, limiting emissions means limiting energy consumption, limiting economic activity and limiting technological progress.

Even with Russia on board, the Kyoto treaty will do little to global CO2 emissions considering that 70 per cent of the world's CO2 is emitted by countries not subject to Kyoto restrictions. Moreover, this share is growing as China, India and other non-Kyoto developed and developing countries grow faster than pro-Kyoto ones. Countries around the world must choose what is more important for them -- stagnating, at best, living standards due to Kyoto sclerotic regulations or the rising well-being of billions of people without them.

The message for Australians is clear: continued economic growth and rising living standards or make your future and the future of your children a victim of Kyoto-ism, one of the most aggressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism.

So, he's taking the non-signing of other countries as a given and using that as part of his argument against Kyoto for Australia. In other words, why should Australia sacrifice economic growth while it will do little if anything to cut global emissions? That's a perfectly valid argument. The other parts of his arguments, of course, are based largely on the negative economic consequences of signing onto it (regardless of if everyone else did it), but primarily on that it is based on faulty science.

If no one ever makes a "first step", nothing will ever happen.

That kind of thinking is just ... oh well. It is the same as if I would throw away all my waste out of the window of my car: it does so little harm to the environment, so why should I not?

(the other - or maybe only - argument imo is the lack of scientific proof for the ill effects of global warming although I have my own opinion on this as well.

But the ignorance, which was shown in the paragraph i quoted, made me sick and made me posting that comment)

But the ignorance, which was shown in the paragraph i quoted, made me sick and made me posting that comment)

Like I pointed out, it was you who was ignorant in criticizing that portion of the article.

the other - or maybe only - argument imo is the lack of scientific proof for the ill effects of global warming

Not proof for the ill effects of global warming, but the very fact itself of global warming due to human activity. I'd recommend reading that article I linked to above.

Also, your argument about throwing garbage out the window is a poor one. To continue with a car analogy, signing Kyoto is more akin to voluntarily driving your car less, even if it means you have to, say, work less and therefore earn less money with which to provide for your family. And then losing your job to people who are willing to drive more.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Of the 928 papers published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 with a keyword of "climate change", not a single one disputed the theory.

Living in Britain I have to say that I find the widespread American belief that climate change is not caused by human activities completely baffling - that simply isn't an issue here; the country as a whole has accepted the scientific majority opinion.

I saw that on /. too.

There's global warming on Mars too, you know. This article at the Denver post has more:

Michael Malin, president of Malin Space Science Systems, talked about gullies that may have been sculpted recently by liquid water; evidence of ancient seas; and the discovery that the planet's south polar cap of dry ice is losing weight.

"Mars is experiencing global warming," Malin said. "And we don't know why."

Supposedly there's been more extreme solar activity in (geologically) recent history that may be the cause of warming both on Mars and on Earth.