A dispute over aid to OPEC states clouded the last day of a U.N.
conference on global warming on Friday with the Kyoto protocol hanging
by a thread amid uncertainties over Russian ratification.

Delegates said that Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter,
wanted promises of aid if Kyoto spurs a shift to renewable energies
like
1. tidal,
2. solar or
3. wind energy at the expense of fossil fuels.

My question: which one of the 3 items does Saudi NOT have in
abundance. It's a windy, sunny place surrounded by water on 3 sides!




-A.Kiker
Houston

"kikers" <akiker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c275ed0.0312131827.1b80c63b@posting.google.com...

A dispute over aid to OPEC states clouded the last day of a U.N.
conference on global warming on Friday with the Kyoto protocol hanging
by a thread amid uncertainties over Russian ratification.

Delegates said that Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter,
wanted promises of aid if Kyoto spurs a shift to renewable energies
like
1. tidal,
2. solar or
3. wind energy at the expense of fossil fuels.

My question: which one of the 3 items does Saudi NOT have in
abundance. It's a windy, sunny place surrounded by water on 3 sides!




-A.Kiker
Houston


And with the billions they have made on oil, you would think they would have
known this issue was coming, and would be planning for it. Instead, what we
are finding, apparently, is that once again the middle east wants the world
to solve their problems. In this case it appears to be so that they can
keep their billions, and not have to spend any money whatsoever on R&D
themselves.

George wrote:
"kikers" <akiker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c275ed0.0312131827.1b80c63b@posting.google.com...

A dispute over aid to OPEC states clouded the last day of a U.N.
conference on global warming on Friday with the Kyoto protocol hanging
by a thread amid uncertainties over Russian ratification.

Delegates said that Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter,
wanted promises of aid if Kyoto spurs a shift to renewable energies
like
1. tidal,
2. solar or
3. wind energy at the expense of fossil fuels.

My question: which one of the 3 items does Saudi NOT have in
abundance. It's a windy, sunny place surrounded by water on 3 sides!




-A.Kiker
Houston


And with the billions they have made on oil, you would think they would
have
known this issue was coming, and would be planning for it. Instead,
what we
are finding, apparently, is that once again the middle east wants the
world
to solve their problems. In this case it appears to be so that they can
keep their billions, and not have to spend any money whatsoever on R&D
themselves.

I thought the Middle East wanted us to get the H out of their space!
Which I would personally be very glad to do. They can't even agree
amongst themselves, much less with Westerners. Other than the fact that
people in the US want cheap oil for their gas guzzlers, think with their
gas pedals, not their brains, don't think further than the next tank of
gas, and are not willing to acknowledge that it is cheaper and wiser in
money, lives and resource use to work toward energy self-sufficiency, we
don't need to be there.
Let them keep their oil. And their politics, too.
Jo

As far as the Kyoto Treaty is concerned, good riddance to bad rubbish.

Spoken like one of the terminally clueless.

Say What!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/12/climate.kyoto.reut/index.html

...Delegates said that Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter,
wanted promises of aid if Kyoto spurs a shift to renewable energies like
tidal, solar or wind energy at the expense of fossil fuels.

(Yeah, right! That's gonna happen. NOT!)

But Trittin said that the European Union only wanted to help the poorest
states adapt to climate change. "If such a fund is misused for targets we
don't share, because it is a voluntary fund we won't pay," he said.

Countries led by the EU have promised about $410 million extra a year to
help developing countries. A Special Climate Change Fund is likely to
total
about $50 million a year and would be bankrupted if it were to help OPEC
states.

Environmentalists accused Washington of trying to torpedo the accord.
"Kyoto
is moving forward despite efforts by the Bush administration to undermine
the process," Jennifer Morgan, director of the WWF climate change
programme.

Steve Sawyer, climate policy chief of Greenpeace, said that Russia's
choice
on Kyoto would be a test of its role in the world after the September 11
attacks on the United States.

"Russia can either be seen as a force for multilateralism or can decide to
go it alone and become a new rogue state like the United States," he said.

(Hmmm. Those rogue states are getting more numerous by the moment).

Trittin said that Kyoto would bring big foreign investments to Russia and
spur its economy.

Russia told the talks on Thursday that hopes of big economic benefits were
"illusory." It has also said that warmer weather might help extend farm
areas north towards Siberia. Diplomats say Russia may want membership of
the
World Trade Organization as a price for ratification.

Without Russia, Kyoto will collapse (see ya!) because it needs backing by
nations accounting for 55 percent of emissions of carbon dioxide to start.
So far it has reached 44 percent and needs Russia's 17 in the absence of a
U.S. stake of 36 percent.

As far as the Kyoto Treaty is concerned, good riddance to bad rubbish.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:25:06 -0800, "TL the Geologist"
notgoingto@tellyou.com> wrote:

As far as the Kyoto Treaty is concerned, good riddance to bad rubbish.

Spoken like one of the terminally clueless.

"TL the Geologist" <notgoingto@tellyou.com> wrote in message
news:lcudnb3mxYmH5UKiRVn-jA@comcast.com...
As far as the Kyoto Treaty is concerned, good riddance to bad rubbish.

You going somewhere TL?

Good Riddance.

"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:AnMDb.8231$mV5.3730@read1.cgocable.net...

"TL the Geologist" <notgoingto@tellyou.com> wrote in message
news:lcudnb3mxYmH5UKiRVn-jA@comcast.com...
As far as the Kyoto Treaty is concerned, good riddance to bad rubbish.

You going somewhere TL?

Good Riddance.


Do you two really believe that the Kyoto would have been any good to the
U.S.? Or any developed country at all? Hmmmm, it appears that the US was
not the only country that thought that the Kyoto was no good, even our most
ignorant and self serving president (Clinton) did not want to touch the
treaty. Only the most ignorant and blind would want to hurt themselves to
even remotly try to help another country out.... The Kyoto was an ill
conceved (at best), and extreemly destructive (at worst) plan. We might as
well just put the entire planet back into the Middle Ages.

"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:AnMDb.8231$mV5.3730@read1.cgocable.net...

"TL the Geologist" <notgoingto@tellyou.com> wrote in message
news:lcudnb3mxYmH5UKiRVn-jA@comcast.com...

As far as the Kyoto Treaty is concerned, good riddance to bad rubbish.

You going somewhere TL?

Good Riddance.



Do you two really believe that the Kyoto would have been any good to the
U.S.? Or any developed country at all? Hmmmm, it appears that the US was
not the only country that thought that the Kyoto was no good, even our most
ignorant and self serving president (Clinton) did not want to touch the
treaty. Only the most ignorant and blind would want to hurt themselves to
even remotly try to help another country out.... The Kyoto was an ill
conceved (at best), and extreemly destructive (at worst) plan. We might as
well just put the entire planet back into the Middle Ages.

TL the Geologist wrote:
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:AnMDb.8231$mV5.3730@read1.cgocable.net...

"TL the Geologist" <notgoingto@tellyou.com> wrote in message
news:lcudnb3mxYmH5UKiRVn-jA@comcast.com...

As far as the Kyoto Treaty is concerned, good riddance to bad rubbish.

You going somewhere TL?

Good Riddance.



Do you two really believe that the Kyoto would have been any good to the
U.S.? Or any developed country at all? Hmmmm, it appears that the US
was
not the only country that thought that the Kyoto was no good, even our
most
ignorant and self serving president (Clinton) did not want to touch the
treaty. Only the most ignorant and blind would want to hurt themselves
to
even remotly try to help another country out.... The Kyoto was an ill
conceved (at best), and extreemly destructive (at worst) plan. We might
as
well just put the entire planet back into the Middle Ages.

Clinton was for Kyoto;

the Senate wouldn't ratify it.

The whole point of
Kyoto was to put the issue into terms that the business community might
understand.

Obviously they haven't yet, because despite their efforts at
globalization they have not yet understood that the earth is one planet
with only one atmosphere that moves around the globe.

--
Geo Communications Services -- www.geocommunications.net
Jo Schaper's Missouri World -- http://www.missouriworld.net

TL the Geologist wrote:
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:AnMDb.8231$mV5.3730@read1.cgocable.net...

"TL the Geologist" <notgoingto@tellyou.com> wrote in message
news:lcudnb3mxYmH5UKiRVn-jA@comcast.com...

As far as the Kyoto Treaty is concerned, good riddance to bad rubbish.

You going somewhere TL?

Good Riddance.



Do you two really believe that the Kyoto would have been any good to the
U.S.? Or any developed country at all? Hmmmm, it appears that the US was
not the only country that thought that the Kyoto was no good, even our most
ignorant and self serving president (Clinton) did not want to touch the
treaty. Only the most ignorant and blind would want to hurt themselves to
even remotly try to help another country out.... The Kyoto was an ill
conceved (at best), and extreemly destructive (at worst) plan. We might as
well just put the entire planet back into the Middle Ages.

Clinton was for Kyoto; the Senate wouldn't ratify it. The whole point of
Kyoto was to put the issue into terms that the business community might
understand. Obviously they haven't yet, because despite their efforts at
globalization they have not yet understood that the earth is one planet
with only one atmosphere that moves around the globe.