[Mark A]

The real issue at Kyoto (which the media will not explain to Americans) is
that there are basically two choices:

1. Decrease the rate of increase in CO2 emissions with energy conservation,
or
2. Reduce CO2 emissions by converting to nuclear power plants

The only way the Europeans and Japanese are able to even think about
implementing the Kyoto accord is because they have made a wholesale switch
to nuclear energy. During the last 30 years there have been hundreds of new
nuclear power plants built (most notably in countries like France and
Japan), while none (zero) have been built in the US.

But the environmentalists in the US who insist we must comply with Kyoto are
the same ones who oppose nuclear power plants. This is the hypocrisy.

The Kyoto treaty has nothing to do with whether one believes in global
warming. It has to do with whether one believes in nuclear energy for the
primary means to produce electricity.

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

The real issue at Kyoto (which the media will not explain to Americans) is
that there are basically two choices:

1. Decrease the rate of increase in CO2 emissions with energy conservation,
or

Decreasing the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 won't help us at all if the
AGWists are right.


2. Reduce CO2 emissions by converting to nuclear power plants

Would have to be a massive conversion. Certainly tinkering at the edges with
windpower and solar is a drop in the ocean and near worthless.


The only way the Europeans and Japanese are able to even think about
implementing the Kyoto accord is because they have made a wholesale switch
to nuclear energy.

I agree.


During the last 30 years there have been hundreds of new
nuclear power plants built (most notably in countries like France and
Japan), while none (zero) have been built in the US.

Finland is building one right now AIUI. Some countries are starting to think
about re-evalauting their bans on nuclear. Interestingly Italian energy company
(damn I forget the name now) is investing in new French nuclear generation since
nuclear plants are banned in Italy itself !

Framatome (Areva as it is now) is probably the leader reactor builder worldwide
in fact.


But the environmentalists in the US who insist we must comply with Kyoto are
the same ones who oppose nuclear power plants. This is the hypocrisy.

The Kyoto treaty has nothing to do with whether one believes in global
warming. It has to do with whether one believes in nuclear energy for the
primary means to produce electricity.

I'm sure that wasn't the intent of those drafting it.

Graham

[Mark A]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
The Kyoto treaty has nothing to do with whether one believes in global
warming. It has to do with whether one believes in nuclear energy for the
primary means to produce electricity.

I'm sure that wasn't the intent of those drafting it.

Graham

It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in nuclear,
notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
economy. People in France are suffering from very high unemployment and they
are rioting in the streets over jobs and economic issues. French exports
(and jobs) are dwindling due to the strong Euro and weak US Dollar. The
French government is not naive about these issues, nor are they benevolent
about their desire to improve their own economy at the expense of the US.
The do intend to use Kyoto to accomplish that.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 14, 11:45 am, "Mark A" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

...

The Kyoto treaty has nothing to do with whether one believes in global
warming. It has to do with whether one believes in nuclear energy for the
primary means to produce electricity.

I'm sure that wasn't the intent of those drafting it.

Graham

It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in nuclear,
notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
economy. People in France are suffering from very high unemployment and they
are rioting in the streets over jobs and economic issues. French exports
(and jobs) are dwindling due to the strong Euro and weak US Dollar. The
French government is not naive about these issues, nor are they benevolent
about their desire to improve their own economy at the expense of the US.
The do intend to use Kyoto to accomplish that.

This is the biggest conspiracy in like, forever! And it's all the
French!

This is even bigger than the cover up about who actually killed JFK.

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

People in France are suffering from very high unemployment and they
are rioting in the streets over jobs and economic issues.

Not actually true. I guess you must be American. Your news media is hardly
reknowned for accurate reporting of overseas issues.

You're thinking I suspect of young French Muslim kids who are suffering from
certain 'social exclsusion' issues allegedly. How much of this might be
self-impsoed is probably worthy of debate in its own right.

The general French population is doing OK.

Unemployment in France at 8% is higher than the USA at 4.7% but hardly 'very
high'.

Graham

[Mark A]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Not actually true. I guess you must be American. Your news media is hardly
reknowned for accurate reporting of overseas issues.

You're thinking I suspect of young French Muslim kids who are suffering
from
certain 'social exclsusion' issues allegedly. How much of this might be
self-impsoed is probably worthy of debate in its own right.

The general French population is doing OK.

Unemployment in France at 8% is higher than the USA at 4.7% but hardly
'very
high'.

Graham

In general the French are OK? You must be kidding me if you think 8%
unemployment is not high.

Yes the Muslims are rioting, but so are the students and socialists who want
guaranteed jobs for life. I guess your news media doesn't tell you what is
going on in France.

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Not actually true. I guess you must be American. Your news media is hardly
reknowned for accurate reporting of overseas issues.

You're thinking I suspect of young French Muslim kids who are suffering
from certain 'social exclsusion' issues allegedly. How much of this might be

self-impsoed is probably worthy of debate in its own right.

The general French population is doing OK.

Unemployment in France at 8% is higher than the USA at 4.7% but hardly
'very high'.


In general the French are OK? You must be kidding me if you think 8%
unemployment is not high.

You said VERY high. I certainly don't think 8% is VERY high.


Yes the Muslims are rioting, but so are the students and socialists who want
guaranteed jobs for life. I guess your news media doesn't tell you what is
going on in France.

The French have a national trait of demonstrating at the drop of a hat. That
doesn't mean their society is about to fall apart, it's simply what they do.
Quality of life in France is excellent.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in nuclear,
notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
economy.

I rather think NOT.

France has had a deep commitment to nuclear electricity for many decades.
They're simply reaping the benefits of staying the path.

Silly USA for giving up on nuclear. You're also 'reaping the benefits' of your
actions.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Mark A said:

It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in nuclear,
notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
economy.

Oh, right. That was their motivation. Uh-huh. Sure. Absolutely.

[Mark A]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...


Mark A said:

It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in
nuclear,
notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
economy.

Oh, right. That was their motivation. Uh-huh. Sure. Absolutely.

Yes. If you prefer to put it in a more benign light, the French have spent
billions on nuclear energy and they expect to reap the rewards for that.

If they were seriously interested in only environmental issues, do you think
they would have built so many nuclear power plants, and via Kyoto,
encouraging everyone else to do the same?

[George M. Middius]

Mark A said:

Oh, right. That was their motivation. Uh-huh. Sure. Absolutely.

Yes. If you prefer to put it in a more benign light, the French have spent
billions on nuclear energy and they expect to reap the rewards for that.

Congratulations on remembering to take your anti-psychotic meds.

If they were seriously interested in only environmental issues, do you think
they would have built so many nuclear power plants, and via Kyoto,
encouraging everyone else to do the same?

Uh-oh. It's wearing off already.

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote
Mark A said:

It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in
nuclear,
notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
economy.

Oh, right. That was their motivation. Uh-huh. Sure. Absolutely.

Yes. If you prefer to put it in a more benign light, the French have spent
billions on nuclear energy and they expect to reap the rewards for that.

A sensible business decision as it turns out.

The main reason for it though AIUI was France's relative shortage of domestic
fossil fuel resources.

Graham

[dizzy]

Mark A wrote:

It was the intent of certain nations who have heavily invested in nuclear,
notably France, to gain economic advantage over the US by damaging the US
economy. People in France are suffering from very high unemployment and they
are rioting in the streets over jobs and economic issues. French exports
(and jobs) are dwindling due to the strong Euro and weak US Dollar. The
French government is not naive about these issues, nor are they benevolent
about their desire to improve their own economy at the expense of the US.
The do intend to use Kyoto to accomplish that.

Kook.

[Mark A]

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
...
Yeah; sure; whatever you say. Oh, you majored in burger flippin' at Jerk
in
the Box. I see that you're an expert.

No I majored in political science with an emphasis in foreign relations. All
nations act in their self interest, all of the time. France is hardly an
exception.

This Kyoto smokescreen about "environmental concerns" should be transparent
to anyone with brains. Proliferating the earth with nuclear power plants is
not exactly what most environmentalists would call a good idea. There is no
way anyone can achieve the Kyoto reductions without nuclear power plants.

[George M. Middius]

Mark A said:

No I majored in political science with an emphasis in foreign relations. All

I think you majored in Redneck Jingoism with an emphasis in Paranoid
Raving.

nations act in their self interest, all of the time. France is hardly an
exception.

A non-psychotic political scientist might conceive that one country's
"self interest" is not necessarily congruent with a plan to undercut
some other country's economy. Happy trails, crazy man.

[Mark A]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...
A non-psychotic political scientist might conceive that one country's
"self interest" is not necessarily congruent with a plan to undercut
some other country's economy. Happy trails, crazy man.

I don't know about "one country's self interest" but in the case of France
it is definitely the case.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Mark A" wrote in message
. ..
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
...
Yeah; sure; whatever you say. Oh, you majored in burger flippin' at Jerk
in
the Box. I see that you're an expert.

No I majored in political science with an emphasis in foreign relations.
All nations act in their self interest, all of the time. France is hardly
an exception.

**True. France is not trying to destroy the US economy. The French
government is rightly concerned about the effects of global warming. Global
warming will cause problems for France (and everyone else).


This Kyoto smokescreen about "environmental concerns" should be
transparent to anyone with brains. Proliferating the earth with nuclear
power plants is not exactly what most environmentalists would call a good
idea. There is no way anyone can achieve the Kyoto reductions without
nuclear power plants.

**Nonsense. Building nukes is one, short term, solution. There are other,
more prosaic, practical and environmentally benign methods.

Trevor Wilson

[Mark A]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
**True. France is not trying to destroy the US economy. The French
government is rightly concerned about the effects of global warming.
Global warming will cause problems for France (and everyone else).

France wants to destroy everyone else's economy else France. Pretty much the
same as every other country in the world. Maybe destroy is the wrong word,
perhaps "beat the hell out of them" is a better description.

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Mark A" wrote
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote

Yeah; sure; whatever you say. Oh, you majored in burger flippin' at Jerk
in the Box. I see that you're an expert.

No I majored in political science with an emphasis in foreign relations.
All nations act in their self interest, all of the time. France is hardly
an exception.

**True. France is not trying to destroy the US economy. The French
government is rightly concerned about the effects of global warming. Global
warming will cause problems for France (and everyone else).


This Kyoto smokescreen about "environmental concerns" should be
transparent to anyone with brains. Proliferating the earth with nuclear
power plants is not exactly what most environmentalists would call a good
idea. There is no way anyone can achieve the Kyoto reductions without
nuclear power plants.

**Nonsense. Building nukes is one, short term, solution. There are other,
more prosaic, practical and environmentally benign methods.

Energy efficiency being the big one which sadly often gets overlooked and
rarely merits any serious attention. Quite bizarre.

Reducing how much you use is almost invariably more cost effective than burning
or generating more too.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

Proliferating the earth

I think you need to consult a dictionary about usage there old chap.


with nuclear power plants is not exactly what most environmentalists would
call a good idea.

Are you trying to suggest that 'what most environmentalist think are good ideas'
should be our benchmark !! ??

Graham

[Mark A]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Are you trying to suggest that 'what most environmentalist think are good
ideas'
should be our benchmark !! ??

Graham

No, the title of this thread is the Kyoto Hypocrisy. The environmentalists
thinks that reducing CO2 emissions is important, but I never met any ardent
environmentalist who was willing to go nuclear to achieve that end. And
nuclear is the only way a country could possibly comply with Kyoto, unless
there was a serious economic depression.

So the environmental criticize the US for not signing Kyoto, but they don't
seem to say anything about the countries rapidly building nuclear plants
(which they at least despise).

[Mark A]

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
...
Wow. Now i understand why all US foreign policies have been dismal
failures.

Oh really! Like the foreign policy of France that:

- Had to be rescued by the US in World War I
- Unfairly punished Germany after WWI which led to rise of Adolf Hitler and
caused WWII
- Had to be rescued again by the US in WWII
- French Colonialism in Vietnam and elsewhere in Indochina brutalizes people
for 100 years until the only nationalists still alive are the Communists who
eventually take over Vietnam.
- Colonized the Middle East to make it the mess it is today
- French Colonialism Algeria and killed 2 million Algerians before the
French gave up and left
- etc, etc

Is that the foreign policy you are talking about?

[Eeyore]

Mark A wrote:

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote

Wow. Now i understand why all US foreign policies have been dismal
failures.

Oh really! Like the foreign policy of France that:

- Had to be rescued by the US in World War I

By the time the US entered WW1, it was already merely a matter of time before
Germany surrendered.

Graham