tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-636951901001451111.post481804905156823294..comments2024-01-01T22:54:46.635-05:00Comments on Philosophy Monkey: An Inconvenient Truth and Al Gore's Nobel Peace PriceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-636951901001451111.post-45458348296998325642007-10-17T01:25:00.000-04:002007-10-17T01:25:00.000-04:00I read further into this and I'm part-wrong - the ...I read further into this and I'm part-wrong - the developing countries do not get carbon points that earn themselves extra emissions for a period of time...here's how it works:<BR/><BR/>The super-power countries are the only ones with emission limits - unfortunately, the developing countries do not have a ceiling. However, the developing countries do earn carbon credits whenever they participate in programs that are environmentally sound. Those carbon credits are sold to the super powers, so THEY can have higher emissions for that time period. There's even a market that will be traded like stock for carbon credits!<BR/><BR/>Sorry for my confusion...hope that clears it up.Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17277164080354223374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-636951901001451111.post-82898978509741957102007-10-16T00:08:00.000-04:002007-10-16T00:08:00.000-04:00Thanks for the info!That does sound very self-defe...Thanks for the info!<BR/><BR/>That does sound very self-defeating: we have reduced our carbon emissions thereby earning the right to increase them???<BR/><BR/>That makes no sense at all... which is not to say that it couldn't be true, unfortunately...Bertohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01503875646262119427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-636951901001451111.post-44289708137394852532007-10-15T17:28:00.000-04:002007-10-15T17:28:00.000-04:00As opposed to doing homework, I looked up what I c...As opposed to doing homework, I looked up what I could on the issue. The United States DID sign the protocol, I believe in 1997. However, it had to be sent to the senate to be ratified in 1999. With many senators saying how they would not ratify the protocol, Clinton decided to not send it to the senate - the issue was that the United States would not adhere to the policies if other developing nations did not, ie. India & China, as they are the biggest producers of greenhouse gas emissions. Until the Kyoto protocol was amended to have the developing nations follow the same program as America, the U.S. will not follow the recommendations of the Kyoto convention. The reason we (the U.S.) are against it is because developing nations receive Carbon points if they do certain things to make their nation more environmentally friendly, but in doing so, the Carbon points can be redeemed for the right to have a higher emission standard, basically negating the process in the first place. <BR/><BR/>So - that's pretty much what I gathered from the issue - if anyone checks my facts and I misconstrued them in anyway - let me know. :)Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17277164080354223374noreply@blogger.com