Did you support the Kyoto Accord?

Answer 1

Yes, of course. Only those who worship the almighty dollar instead of recognizing the importance of having a habitable, sustainable planet oppose it.

Answer 2

If anything, the Kyoto Accord is somewhat weak. The reality is that our environment is degrading faster then most wish to accept. It's a state of denial for most people, and who can blame them for wanting to deny the horror that will be imposed on our descendents. Pass the beer!

As the environment degrades further, desperate attempts will be made to remedy the greenhouse problems. Like shielding the planet from the sun's heat. How? By generating clouds of barrier particulate matter in the atmosphere, ie. dust clouds, for instance. By then, the hydrocarbon resources will be dimimishing, resulting in a shortage of fertilizers to support the growing population's food needs. General air pollution will kill those with weak respiratory systems, drinking water will be a most valuble resource and in short supply, only enough for limited crops, and shrinking.

The pattern of life is already developing, the ultra rich will live in gated (fortified) communities where they will hoard those valuable resources like remaining oil supplies, water, food etc. while the remaining 90% of the population will be left to fend for themselves in a barren country, no wildlife to hunt, no water for crops. A real life Mad Max scenario.

The pattern is in play. Americans can look around and see these gated communities starting to appear already. First the ghettos appear, poor ones here, rich ones there. Then come the walls, followed by armed security, etc. The walls will get bigger, their police armies will be better armed, oh yes, the general population must be disarmed to remove their threat to 'gated' safety.

Hence the drive for space colonization, a place to start a seed population to 'insure' the survival of humans somewhere, because Earth will be a very unhealthy place to be.

Earth is our own special spaceship circling the sun. If we don't create a sustainable way of life here, THERE WON'T BE LIFE.

With the rising sea levels, and places like Florida less then 3 feet above sea level now, how long will it be before Fla, Louisiana, etc. are completely submerged. The ice caps ARE melting.

The race in the Western world is among those capitalists who wish to enter those gated havens of survival with the billion dollar entrance fee. Their narrow point of view, thinking they can survive if they have more money, is the problem, as they are spending the resources that should be there for the Earth's heirs, not just the heirs of a few.

We have here a predatorial pyramid, the best predator will be the last one alive, a very lonely and finite life.

We survive together or die, one by one. Hence we have these few who, in their shortsightness, are dooming the planet and ALL it's inhabitants to death.

By what right? Is might right?

Kyoto is a band aid to appease the masses, who feel the looming catastrophe coming, but need the reassurance that something is being done. However, things that need to be done are tempered by the drive for short term profits by selfserving meglomaniacs at a large cost to EVERYONE.

The problem is the dispositon of the Earth's resources, a few people want it all, resources that belong equally to everybody, not just a few.

How do we convince them of the error of their ways. It's not color against color, it's rich against poor, again just like it's been through history. Like the French Revolution, with the masses clamoring at the gates for food, No bread? LET THEM EAT CAKE.

Have we learned anything. Not much, just better toys and at what cost in life, now or later? The French had a good answer then, but they're back into the same oldcrap again, like the rest of us! What's the answer now?

Kyoto is something, but not enough. Mother Earth is moving to correct the imbalance that we humans have caused, and we are running out of time to stop our own demise and that of other life on Earth.

Answer 3

Its unfair towards the USA, ignores China's and India's growing pollution, and even the countries that signed onto the accords arent sticking to them, and there is no reason to think following the accord would help the enviornment (look at the last big enviornmental push before Kyoto, the Montreal Protocol which they now think may have caused more enviornmental harm then good)... so that would be a no

Answer 4

The Kyoto Accord is good because it imposed on the member countries to stop the use of machines and equipment with emissions of carbon dioxide and other dangerous gases that is threatening the climate of the world.

Answer 5

Its a weird issue. Although it seems "bad for the US" and china does get more benefits. But when do india and china get to modernize? My favorite idea was to support the accord but allow countries to pay off industrializing countries to lower their own pollution more. Therefore, pollution will be lowered at the same rate, industrializing countries will be able to industrialize and not pollute and current powers will not be hurt. I liked it because it showed once again that people think everything can be bought.

Answer 6

It seems I didn't, as I'm an American and we did not adopt the Kyoto Accord.
I think that's good. Because applying broad general rules to problems is a bad way to solve problems.

Answer 7

Yes, environment first. If it means that business won't grow and the economy may get hit hard, I'm fine with that. We need to take care of the Earth before we f*** it up even worse than we already did.

Vote Green!

Answer 8

not specifically but I support some control of greenhouse emissions and I hate pollution credits

Answer 9

Yes, of course!
It's one of the biggest, blatantly stupid thing the Liberals have ever done!
Let them waste their time and resources BIG TIME.

Answer 10

No. Bad for the USA.