• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Many Kyoto signers will not meet goals

F

FireUltra 98

Most of Europe set to miss Kyoto goals
Most of Europe, which has criticized the United States over its stance on global warming, looks set to miss a set of goals to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol. The findings by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), revealed Tuesday, will make embarrassing reading for European governments that have berated Washington for its refusal to ratify the United Nations pact.

Of 15 countries in Europe signed up to Kyoto, only Britain and Sweden were on target to meet their commitments on reducing harmful gas emissions by 2012, said the IPPR, Britain's leading progressive think tank.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/051227123412.ec9anvg1.html
>
>
10 EU nations to miss Kyoto emissions goal

Ten of the European Union's 25 members are set to miss their Kyoto Protocol targets by 2010. Of the other 15, Great Britain is the sole member of the European Union to have made significant steps toward reducing greenhouse gases and honoring Kyoto commitments.

Europe is not alone in the disparity between promise and action. According to the Canadian government Web site, Canada agreed to cut emissions by six percent below 1990 levels. Canada's emissions are up over 20 percent since 1990.
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051228-044857-1435r
>
>
This guy may be on the right track.

Kyoto a failure, Macfarlane says

Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has declared the Kyoto Protocol on climate change a failure.

The minister says a new Asia Pacific forum will be more effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Representatives from six countries including Australia, the US, and China, will gather in Sydney next month for the first meeting of a Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

"By working together particularly with developing countries like China and India, we are going to make a far bigger impact on greenhouse gas reduction than a diplomatic protocol that has already failed which is the case with Kyoto," he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539517.htm
 
T

The Real McCoy

Kyoto's goals were unrealistic from the get go and would have been detrimental to our economy had Bush signed the accords, something he would most likely have been blamed for as well by the liberal left.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kyoto is a disaster for everyone involved, and I for one am glad that the United States is not party to it. It shows that once again, the world is interested in self-righteously shaking their fingers at countries like the United States that will not sign it, even though most of them don't uphold it anyway.

Here's my solution for dealing with global warming that will maximize the standard of living and minimize human suffering worldwide: Ignore it. At least for a few more decades. Every dollar that we waste on something like the Kyoto Protocol is one less dollar that can be spent to help feed the hungry, or to develop an HIV vaccine, or to provide mosquito nets and DDT to malaria-infested areas, or to be given back to the taxpayers so that they can educate themselves or their children, or pay their medical bills, or plan their retirement, or any millions of other things that are a much better use of the money than Kyoto.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Green: It's the new Red White and Blue

To have a goal and not meet is not neccesarily a failure. To ignore the problem altogether is assinine. The fact that Bush doesn't believe in the Science of Global Warming is an embarrassment. His non-binding, voluntary policy was a bit of lip service to the problem. It's hardly a stretch coming from someone who thinks the jury is still out on evolution...:roll:

The Big Oil lobbyists spreading propaganda to the masses about global warming has, unfortunately, been successful.

Tony Blair put a good goal out there - to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions 60% in 50 years. It's a good goal - and he took a leadership role on this. Whether Great Britain meets that goal 100% is not the real issue. At best, KYOTO is a good first step for the world. Bush wants to keep his head in the sand while big oil funds the Republican party.

If the oceans raise 20 feet - a good part of Florida is gone - so maybe it's not such a bad thing that we ignore Global Warming. :roll:

It's the US and Australia v. the world almost on this one. Typical

 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
hipsterdufus said:
To have a goal and not meet is not neccesarily a failure.
What if you commit to a goal, and then barely address it at all?

hipsterdufus said:
To ignore the problem altogether is assinine.
No it's not. We can "ignore" the problem in the sense of not implementing any policies to do anything about it, but still monitor the climate change.

Sorry, global warming is WAYYYYYYYYYYY down on the list of problems facing this world, and shouldn't be a priority for any government, especially since their top scientists and engineers know fully well that the nanotech age (less than 20 years away) will offer the ultimate solutions to this problem for a fraction of the cost of trying to tinker with the world's economies today.

hipsterdufus said:
The fact that Bush doesn't believe in the Science of Global Warming is an embarrassment.
Agreed.

hipsterdufus said:
The Big Oil lobbyists spreading propaganda to the masses about global warming has, unfortunately, been successful.
It's not about Big Oil propaganda, it's a question of priorities. The fact that the global temperature will most likely continue to rise over the next century (assuming that nothing is ever done about it for 100 years, and we invent nothing at all of merit for the next 100 years) simply is alarmism. There are people that need money NOW, and the Kyoto Protocol uses up valuable resources that can be better used elsewhere. Furthermore, it slows down the rate of progress by fooling people into believing that we're actually capable of doing something substantial about global warming at this point in time.

hipsterdufus said:
Tony Blair put a good goal out there - to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions 60% in 50 years. It's a good goal - and he took a leadership role on this. Whether Great Britain meets that goal 100% is not the real issue.
If I set a goal to eliminate world hunger and cure AIDS by tomorrow, but do nothing to even remotely help solve the problem, is it a "good goal" despite the fact that it will be a complete and total failure in implementation?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's very possible that we'll be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 50 years (probably much more than 60%). But if we do so, it won't be because of government intervention, it will be because of new science and technology developed in a free-market economy where the government keeps out of the way.

hipsterdufus said:
At best, KYOTO is a good first step for the world. Bush wants to keep his head in the sand while big oil funds the Republican party.
Again, it's simply a matter of priorities. We don't have the luxury of living in a world where global warming is the biggest problem we face. We can save a lot more lives per dollar through food donations, or malaria prevention, or developing an AIDS vaccine, than we ever can through the Kyoto Protocol.

Furthermore, Kyoto is fundamentally unfair. Why should a green country like Canada have to pay money for the "right" to emit a few greenhouse gases, while a disgusting, dirty country like Russia can pollute all it wants and be rewarded?

hipsterdufus said:
If the oceans raise 20 feet - a good part of Florida is gone - so maybe it's not such a bad thing that we ignore Global Warming. :roll:
Well that's not going to happen.

hipsterdufus said:
It's the US and Australia v. the world almost on this one. Typical
Since when is the majority always right?
 
Last edited:

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,970
Reaction score
939
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Some time you have to spend money not only just to save the enviroment but also save money. Just look at gasoline there the market have basicly free hands compared to EU there gasolin has been heavily taxed, the result? Less oildepedence and negative effect on trade balance. Also much more efficient build cars that leads to easier export, less killed in trafic and also that europeans almost spend less driving around in cars even with the high taxes.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And this is exactly why either a Dem. or Rep. U.S president would sign the treaty, it was not feasible. I am glad to hear that Britain and Sweden are on track, but after that explosion in the U.K, I wonder how they plan to work that in to the equation?:confused:
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,970
Reaction score
939
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
And this is exactly why either a Dem. or Rep. U.S president would sign the treaty, it was not feasible. I am glad to hear that Britain and Sweden are on track, but after that explosion in the U.K, I wonder how they plan to work that in to the equation?:confused:
Can't you see the big problem with your statement. That the USA economy that is the richest in the world needs a endlesly increasing consumtion of natural reasources and polution to stay alive? Something that is not possible.

Maybee I took your statement to far. But the year 1992 (the year you have to go back to in levels of polution according to Kyoto) you hade the greatest amount of resources in the worlds history to create happiness to your people. Also you had the best scientist in the world to come up with more efficient technology that would not only benefit you but the entire world. But instead of using this enormous opportunity you have during the last 13 year had a development that doesn't even make it feasible to get back to 1992 years polution. This make me extremly sad for the human race...
 
Last edited:

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Bergslagstroll said:
Can't you see the big problem with your statement. That the USA economy that is the richest in the world needs a endlesly increasing consumtion of natural reasources and polution to stay alive? Something that is not possible.

Maybee I took your statement to far. But the year 1992 (the year you have to go back to in levels of polution according to Kyoto) you hade the greatest amount of resources in the worlds history to create happiness to your people. Also you had the best scientist in the world to come up with more efficient technology that would not only benefit you but the entire world. But instead of using this enormous opportunity you have during the last 13 year had a development that doesn't even make it feasible to get back to 1992 years polution. This make me extremly sad for the human race...

We are making improvements, just not at anyones pace that they set for us.
 
H

hipsterdufus

The other part of this equation is the jobs that would be created trying to meet the goals of Kyoto. You could also add jobs created by an Apollo type program for energy independece to the list as well.

Green - it's the new Red, White and Blue!
 
T

The Real McCoy

hipsterdufus said:
The other part of this equation is the jobs that would be created trying to meet the goals of Kyoto. You could also add jobs created by an Apollo type program for energy independece to the list as well.

Green - it's the new Red, White and Blue!
Yes, jobs to make sure that the economy is properly hindered.
 
H

hipsterdufus

The Real McCoy said:
Yes, jobs to make sure that the economy is properly hindered.
If you use Portland as an example, I would say that your assumption is 100% wrong:


A Livable Shade Of Green
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: July 3, 2005

When President Bush travels to the Group of 8 summit meeting this week, he'll stiff Tony Blair and other leaders who are appealing for firm action on global warming.

''Kyoto would have wrecked our economy,'' Mr. Bush told a Danish interviewer recently, referring to the accord to curb carbon emissions. Maybe that was a plausible argument a few years ago, but now the city of Portland is proving it flat wrong.

Newly released data show that Portland, America's environmental laboratory, has achieved stunning reductions in carbon emissions. It has reduced emissions below the levels of 1990, the benchmark for the Kyoto accord, while booming economically.

What's more, officials in Portland insist that the campaign to cut carbon emissions has entailed no significant economic price, and on the contrary has brought the city huge benefits: less tax money spent on energy, more convenient transportation, a greener city, and expertise in energy efficiency that is helping local businesses win contracts worldwide.

''People have looked at it the wrong way, as a drain,'' said Mayor Tom Potter, who himself drives a Prius hybrid. ''Actually it's something that attracts people. It's economical; it makes sense in dollars.''

I've been torn about what to do about global warming. But the evidence is growing that climate change is a real threat: I was bowled over when I visited the Arctic and talked to Eskimos who described sea ice disappearing, permafrost melting and visits by robins, for which they have no word in the local language.

In the past, economic models tended to discourage aggressive action on greenhouse gases, because they indicated that the cost of curbing carbon emissions could be extraordinarily high, amounting to perhaps 3 percent of G.N.P.

That's where Portland's experience is so crucial. It confirms the suggestions of some economists that we can take initial steps against global warming without economic disruptions. Then in a decade or two, we can decide whether to proceed with other, costlier steps.

In 1993, Portland became the first local government in the United States to adopt a strategy to deal with climate change. The latest data, released a few weeks ago, show the results: Greenhouse gas emissions last year in Multnomah County, which includes Portland, dropped below the level of 1990, and per capita emissions were down 13 percent.

This was achieved partly by a major increase in public transit, including two light rail lines and a streetcar system. The city has also built 750 miles of bicycle paths, and the number of people commuting by foot or on bicycle has increased 10 percent.

Portland offers all city employees either a $25-per-month bus pass or car pool parking. Private businesses are told that if they provide employees with subsidized parking, they should also subsidize bus commutes.

The city has also offered financial incentives and technical assistance to anyone constructing a ''green building'' with built-in energy efficiency.

Then there are innumerable little steps, such as encouraging people to weatherize their homes. Portland also replaced the bulbs in the city's traffic lights with light-emitting diodes, which reduce electricity use by 80 percent and save the city almost $500,000 a year.

''Portland's efforts refute the thesis that you can't make progress without huge economic harm,'' says Erik Sten, a city commissioner. ''It actually goes all the other way -- to the extent Portland has been successful, the things that we were doing that happened to reduce emissions were the things that made our city livable and hence desirable.''

Mr. Sten added that Portland's officials were able to curb carbon emissions only because the steps they took were intrinsically popular and cheap, serving other purposes like reducing traffic congestion or saving on electrical costs. ''I haven't seen that much willingness even among our environmentalists,'' he said, ''to do huge masochistic things to save the planet.''

So as he heads to the summit meeting, Mr. Bush should get a briefing on Portland's experience (a full report is at www.sustainableportland.org) and accept that we don't need to surrender to global warming.

Perhaps eventually we will face hard trade-offs. But for now Portland shows that we can help our planet without ''wrecking'' our economy -- indeed, at no significant cost at all. At the Group of 8, that should be a no-brainer.
Must be a subscriber to access full story:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40C1FFC38550C708CDDAE0894DD404482
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Kandahar said:
No it's not. We can "ignore" the problem in the sense of not implementing any policies to do anything about it, but still monitor the climate change.
Here's a better idea. How about we just all stick our heads in the ground and wish the problem goes away? What good is monitoring if you're not going to act on the data?

Kandahar said:
Sorry, global warming is WAYYYYYYYYYYY down on the list of problems facing this world, and shouldn't be a priority for any government, especially since their top scientists and engineers know fully well that the nanotech age (less than 20 years away) will offer the ultimate solutions to this problem for a fraction of the cost of trying to tinker with the world's economies today.
Yes the future will solve all the problems in the world. In the mean time lets create a mess that we can not reverse. Ignorance solves nothing.

Kandahar said:
It's not about Big Oil propaganda, it's a question of priorities. The fact that the global temperature will most likely continue to rise over the next century (assuming that nothing is ever done about it for 100 years, and we invent nothing at all of merit for the next 100 years) simply is alarmism. There are people that need money NOW, and the Kyoto Protocol uses up valuable resources that can be better used elsewhere. Furthermore, it slows down the rate of progress by fooling people into believing that we're actually capable of doing something substantial about global warming at this point in time.
YEs there are people that need money now. IS the US though, the world's largest contributor to global green house gases and world's largest economy, not to mention most wealthy nation one of those "people" that NEED MONEY NOW?
Just what funds does the Kyoto protocol eat up? You're merely submitting to the same energy company rhetoric.

Kandahar said:
If I set a goal to eliminate world hunger and cure AIDS by tomorrow, but do nothing to even remotely help solve the problem, is it a "good goal" despite the fact that it will be a complete and total failure in implementation?
You're goal by tomorrow is impossible. But this analogy is not even close to what the Kyoto Protocol is stating.

Kandahar said:
Don't get me wrong, I think it's very possible that we'll be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 50 years (probably much more than 60%). But if we do so, it won't be because of government intervention, it will be because of new science and technology developed in a free-market economy where the government keeps out of the way.
Not likely unless there is another energy crisis. Auto makers actually drove back efficiency and milage in favor of larger, gas guzzelers in the 90's because with inflation taken into account gas was cheaper than water in contrast to the 80's.
Another example, just a few months back when oil hit record highs demand for SUV's bottomed and demand for hybrids sky-rocketed. That is, free market alone will do nothing to drive the development of energy efficiency, supply will.

Kandahar said:
Again, it's simply a matter of priorities. We don't have the luxury of living in a world where global warming is the biggest problem we face. We can save a lot more lives per dollar through food donations, or malaria prevention, or developing an AIDS vaccine, than we ever can through the Kyoto Protocol.
There will be no more world as we know it. It's not merely a stance on when temperatures actually rise and cause melting of the ice caps. The more important and eminent threat is when we reach the point of no return. And that point is quickly approaching.
China and India are both developing countries that are heavy heavy polluters. Yet the greatest contributor of green house gases of all is the self proclaimed leader of the industrialized free world, the US. Yet the US today is acting like a spoiled child that is unwilling to even try to help.

Kandahar said:
Furthermore, Kyoto is fundamentally unfair. Why should a green country like Canada have to pay money for the "right" to emit a few greenhouse gases, while a disgusting, dirty country like Russia can pollute all it wants and be rewarded?
Canda is fully industrialized and modern. Thus using economics as a methodology to keep it that way and to promote it to be greener. Russia on the other hand, backwards still in terms of modernization and industrialization needs to be able to afford for it's green house gases first.
Is it fair that Canadian GDP is 5 times higher than Russian GDP? Is it fair that most Canadians have stand alone houses and can afford winter heating where as many Russian's have no such luxury, still live in soviet style congregate housing that hardly has any heating or that they work just to, quite literally, put bread on the table? It's only fundamentalist rhetoric and oil company propaganda that is saying the Kyoto Protocol is unfair.

But why not try to fix it as opposed to tossing it?
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,970
Reaction score
939
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
We are making improvements, just not at anyones pace that they set for us.
What improvments are that? Is that to stop at todays level there you have 25 % of the polution of C02 or is it even a increase in polution? Because remember Kyoto doesn't obey you to back to the stoneage but the year 92. Also remember even in 82 and 72 you had a large enough production to take care of the needs of the people. But instead of making the development more sustanaible you have countine the increase in use of resuorces and polution all those years. In that process you have become more dependent and vunerable.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
jfuh said:
Yes the future will solve all the problems in the world. In the mean time lets create a mess that we can not reverse. Ignorance solves nothing.
I'm not the one being ignorant if you're completely ignoring the certainty that future technology - specifically nanotech - WILL solve all of the (environmental) problems of the world.

jfuh said:
YEs there are people that need money now. IS the US though, the world's largest contributor to global green house gases and world's largest economy, not to mention most wealthy nation one of those "people" that NEED MONEY NOW?
Well, that's another topic for debate. But even if the answer is "no," certainly there are much more efficient ways of sharing the wealth than Kyoto. In fact, Kyoto is about the least efficient way possible of doing so.

jfuh said:
Just what funds does the Kyoto protocol eat up? You're merely submitting to the same energy company rhetoric.
Profits in industry that could have been taxed. Investment dollars in industry that could have been taxed. If the companies lay off workers to compensate for these losses, then there's the worker's income that could have taxed.

jfuh said:
Not likely unless there is another energy crisis. Auto makers actually drove back efficiency and milage in favor of larger, gas guzzelers in the 90's because with inflation taken into account gas was cheaper than water in contrast to the 80's.
The 90's was an anomaly, and even in the 90's the United States was the ONLY country in the world that moved toward gas guzzlers. This trend will almost certainly never happen again, and in fact it has already reversed.

jfuh said:
Another example, just a few months back when oil hit record highs demand for SUV's bottomed and demand for hybrids sky-rocketed. That is, free market alone will do nothing to drive the development of energy efficiency, supply will.
Is "supply" not part of the free market? This is a PERFECT example of the free market spurring along scientific development. (Not that I think our government shouldn't fund alternative energy, because of national security concerns)

jfuh said:
There will be no more world as we know it. It's not merely a stance on when temperatures actually rise and cause melting of the ice caps. The more important and eminent threat is when we reach the point of no return. And that point is quickly approaching.
There is no credible evidence of that. In fact, there is no credible evidence that a "point of no return" even exists.

jfuh said:
China and India are both developing countries that are heavy heavy polluters. Yet the greatest contributor of green house gases of all is the self proclaimed leader of the industrialized free world, the US. Yet the US today is acting like a spoiled child that is unwilling to even try to help.
China or India (or anyone else) didn't exactly bend over backwards to reduce their pollution emissions either. They signed Kyoto because the requirements happened to be within what they were already doing.

jfuh said:
Canda is fully industrialized and modern. Thus using economics as a methodology to keep it that way and to promote it to be greener. Russia on the other hand, backwards still in terms of modernization and industrialization needs to be able to afford for it's green house gases first.
Ah I see. So even though global warming is a problem that's supposedly going to be the doom of humanity in the next few decades when we reach this point of no return, it's OK for backward countries to continue to drive us off the cliff.

This shows what I suspect is the real motive behind many Kyoto supporters. It has nothing to do with the environment, it's all about wealth redistribution and punishing wealthy nations.

jfuh said:
Is it fair that Canadian GDP is 5 times higher than Russian GDP? Is it fair that most Canadians have stand alone houses and can afford winter heating where as many Russian's have no such luxury, still live in soviet style congregate housing that hardly has any heating or that they work just to, quite literally, put bread on the table?
None of this has the slightest bit of relevance to Kyoto or global warming.

jfuh said:
It's only fundamentalist rhetoric and oil company propaganda that is saying the Kyoto Protocol is unfair.
No, it's only knee-jerk environmentalist luddites and socialist propaganda saying that Kyoto will greatly benefit the world.

jfuh said:
But why not try to fix it as opposed to tossing it?
Because we are simply not capable of doing much about global warming at this point in time. There's no need to ruin the economy today, when in just a few decades we'll be able to impact the environment by many orders of magnitude more than we can today.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I believe that global warming is real, but if the current lip-service approach to dealing with it was implimented, the economy would be trashed. This is why we need to research ways to fix it and keep the market free. I of course think the best way is actually making the market more free so government will no longer subsidize oil companies and green fuel companies will have a chance to compete in the truly capitalist world.
 

bigorangetruck2

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So Europe misses the mark set by Kyoto.....I figure they are closer to the goal than the U.S?
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
bigorangetruck2 said:
So Europe misses the mark set by Kyoto.....I figure they are closer to the goal than the U.S?
Well the US is the world's biggest polluter, but in a few years that dubious honor will go to China.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Kandahar said:
I'm not the one being ignorant if you're completely ignoring the certainty that future technology - specifically nanotech - WILL solve all of the (environmental) problems of the world.
Yes I am denying it all together. It's not just scientifically but logically impossible for a single technology to be the "answer" to all problems in the world. You're thought that nano-tech will solve everything is just pure arrogance.

Kandahar said:
Well, that's another topic for debate. But even if the answer is "no," certainly there are much more efficient ways of sharing the wealth than Kyoto. In fact, Kyoto is about the least efficient way possible of doing so.
Care to elaborate on it's inefficiencies?

Kandahar said:
Profits in industry that could have been taxed. Investment dollars in industry that could have been taxed. If the companies lay off workers to compensate for these losses, then there's the worker's income that could have taxed.
What industry. Considering that nearly 70% of all manufacturing industries have shipped abroad (another topic) what industries in the US remain to be so taxed? The prominant industry today within the US comprises of mostly services not manufacturing. More than sufficient research (just google it, there's plenty) has shown that participation in Kyoto would actually promote green manufacturing industries. ie Wind turbine technology, clean carbon tech, agriculture. So the way that all research has shown is that there would actually be more industry to tax then what you're advocating.

Kandahar said:
The 90's was an anomaly, and even in the 90's the United States was the ONLY country in the world that moved toward gas guzzlers. This trend will almost certainly never happen again, and in fact it has already reversed.
Is not the US the definition of free market today? There's no anomaly. It's simple human desires.

Kandahar said:
Is "supply" not part of the free market? This is a PERFECT example of the free market spurring along scientific development. (Not that I think our government shouldn't fund alternative energy, because of national security concerns)
For you to claim that it is free market that is spurring scientific development again is ignorance. If scientific and technological developments were to only be spurred by supply and demand of the market. Than we'd never have any products at all because the market changes daily if not hourly. The Kyoto protocol would stress the development of inevitable technologies. Why wait till tomorrow when the rest of the world is then decades ahead in development of such technologies. Ie the Japanese now lead the world by at least 10 years in the development and manufacturing of hybrid vehicles, while detroit is trying to figure out how to break even. Where's your economy there?

Kandahar said:
There is no credible evidence of that. In fact, there is no credible evidence that a "point of no return" even exists.
Perhaps you would prefer to stick your head in the sand like Bush does. There is more then enough credible evidence of a point of no return within 20 years. ie: http://www.livescience.com/environment/global_warming_050124.html
http://www.feem.it/NR/rdonlyres/4977D42D-2ADA-49A2-BCD6-60F62B402501/129/8099.pdf


Kandahar said:
China or India (or anyone else) didn't exactly bend over backwards to reduce their pollution emissions either. They signed Kyoto because the requirements happened to be within what they were already doing.
Wa wa wa, so and so didn't do such and such either. There's a fallacy of tu quo kuoi for you. So what? Does that signify that Kyoto is thus mean the the leader of the free world should not then lead? Since when has the US begun to back up on it's leadership roll to compare itself with backwards developing nations? Is not the US supposed to be 2nd to none? Yet in such matters as important as pollution we go backwards and compare ourselves to dictatorship or supremesist countries.

Kandahar said:
Ah I see. So even though global warming is a problem that's supposedly going to be the doom of humanity in the next few decades when we reach this point of no return, it's OK for backward countries to continue to drive us off the cliff.
Like I said, why compare yourself to backward countries? So what you're saying then is sounding like this. It's not ok for backwards countries to drive us off the cliff, because it's not fair, we should participate in driving everyone off the cliff. Please show me if I've miss-represented what you've said.

Kandahar said:
This shows what I suspect is the real motive behind many Kyoto supporters. It has nothing to do with the environment, it's all about wealth redistribution and punishing wealthy nations.
Please explain and point out if and where I've ever noted anything of punishing wealthy nations. All I've noted thus far is of plausability of reducing green house gases. Nice of you to edit out everything else I've stated.

Kandahar said:
None of this has the slightest bit of relevance to Kyoto or global warming.
Of course it does. It's exactly why developed nations have more stringint rules than less developed or non-developed nations. It's all about affordability and reality.

Kandahar said:
No, it's only knee-jerk environmentalist luddites and socialist propaganda saying that Kyoto will greatly benefit the world.
Is this the best response you have? Alright, care to point out studies then that are contrary to what I've said? Or cases that are contrary to the benefits of Kyoto? I thought the main benefit to the world was exactly what it's meant to do, that is decreasing global greenhouse gases that were contributed by human development.

Kandahar said:
Because we are simply not capable of doing much about global warming at this point in time. There's no need to ruin the economy today, when in just a few decades we'll be able to impact the environment by many orders of magnitude more than we can today.
There isn't? Wind turbines? Wave generators? Alcohol based liquid fuels? Clean coal power plants? Hybrid vehicles? I challenge you to provide evidence that the development and manufacturing of any such technology I've listed or other green tech that is detrimental to the economy.
You ever wash dishes? It's always easier to wash clean after the meal (unless it's baked) than it would be several days later. Why do you advocate waiting for a technology that is still theoretical when there are already several technologies and products here today that can do just the same? PLease, enlighten me.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
jfuh said:
Yes I am denying it all together. It's not just scientifically but logically impossible for a single technology to be the "answer" to all problems in the world.
How is it impossible for one technology to solve all current environmental problems? Besides, nanotech isn't really a single technology. It's a new paradigm entirely.

jfuh said:
You're thought that nano-tech will solve everything is just pure arrogance.
Do you even understand what nanotech is, and how versatile and powerful its potential applications are?

If you learned about the concept, you'd see that it's not arrogant to realistically expect it to solve all of our current environmental problems (as well as many other problems).

jfuh said:
Care to elaborate on it's inefficiencies?
Sure. Getting back to your question of whether the US "needs money now" as opposed to lots of other countries, why not set up a treaty to share the wealth if that's your desire? (No, I'm not advocating doing that either.) Logically, is a treaty about climate change really the most efficient way of getting money to those who need it now? Certainly not. People are starving by the millions in Africa, and AIDS and malaria are out of control. Of all the problems facing the world, global warming is rather low on the list.

jfuh said:
What industry. Considering that nearly 70% of all manufacturing industries have shipped abroad (another topic) what industries in the US remain to be so taxed? The prominant industry today within the US comprises of mostly services not manufacturing.
Well obviously the industry exists, or you wouldn't have anything to complain about in terms of American greenhouse gas emissions.

jfuh said:
More than sufficient research (just google it, there's plenty) has shown that participation in Kyoto would actually promote green manufacturing industries. ie Wind turbine technology, clean carbon tech, agriculture.
We can promote green manufacturing industries in many ways that have nothing to do with Kyoto.

jfuh said:
So the way that all research has shown is that there would actually be more industry to tax then what you're advocating.
I see no reason to think that the amount of industry we'd gain from Kyoto would come anywhere close to the amount of industry we'd lose. Do you have a study or something that supports your conclusion?

jfuh said:
Is not the US the definition of free market today? There's no anomaly. It's simple human desires.
I know. The point I was making is that just because the United States moved away from fuel efficiency in the 90s, doesn't mean it will continue to move away from fuel efficiency. The 90s were a downturn in an otherwise upward-sloping trend. Today, Americans are buying more fuel efficient vehicles and that trend is likely to continue into the indefinite future.

jfuh said:
For you to claim that it is free market that is spurring scientific development again is ignorance. If scientific and technological developments were to only be spurred by supply and demand of the market. Than we'd never have any products at all because the market changes daily if not hourly.
That is a ridiculous assertion and goes against even the most basic principles of economics. It shows that you know very little about the subject and therefore are not qualified to weigh the economic costs of Kyoto versus the environmental benefits.

jfuh said:
The Kyoto protocol would stress the development of inevitable technologies.
Once again, there are plenty of other ways to encourage alternative-energy technologies that don't involve bankrupting our industries.

jfuh said:
Why wait till tomorrow when the rest of the world is then decades ahead in development of such technologies. Ie the Japanese now lead the world by at least 10 years in the development and manufacturing of hybrid vehicles, while detroit is trying to figure out how to break even. Where's your economy there?
The economy is global. If American consumers are happier with the more fuel-efficient Japanese cars than they are with American gas guzzlers, great. If Japan is better at producing fuel-efficient cars than the United States, so be it. I don't see the big tragedy.

jfuh said:
Perhaps you would prefer to stick your head in the sand like Bush does.
There's a difference between believing global warming is fiction because Jesus told you so, versus believing global warming is reality while also accepting the reality that there is little that can be done about it for the next couple decades.

jfuh said:
Within 20 years? That is simply absurd. The global temperature will be less than one degree warmer in 20 years; it fluctuates more than that from year to year. The report cites "abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change" but I don't see anywhere it mentions that that will happen on so short of a time scale.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Continued:

jfuh said:
Wa wa wa, so and so didn't do such and such either. There's a fallacy of tu quo kuoi for you. So what? Does that signify that Kyoto is thus mean the the leader of the free world should not then lead? Since when has the US begun to back up on it's leadership roll to compare itself with backwards developing nations? Is not the US supposed to be 2nd to none? Yet in such matters as important as pollution we go backwards and compare ourselves to dictatorship or supremesist countries.
I was simply pointing out that self-righteously condemning the United States for not following Kyoto is silly, when almost no country that actually signed on has made any serious effort to control their carbon emissions. In most cases, other countries were either were already operating within the confinements of Kyoto, or made some token effort to control carbon emissions that did nothing. I know of no country that has seriously reduced their carbon emissions since signing the treaty.

jfuh said:
Like I said, why compare yourself to backward countries? So what you're saying then is sounding like this. It's not ok for backwards countries to drive us off the cliff, because it's not fair, we should participate in driving everyone off the cliff. Please show me if I've miss-represented what you've said.
I think we'll all have a parachute long before we reach that cliff, in nanotech. The only goal of any present-day efforts to control global-warming should be to encourage R&D in nanotech as quickly as possible.

jfuh said:
Please explain and point out if and where I've ever noted anything of punishing wealthy nations. All I've noted thus far is of plausability of reducing green house gases. Nice of you to edit out everything else I've stated.
Here are a couple of things you've said that make me suspect this is all about wealth redistribution, rather than climate change:

"Canda is fully industrialized and modern. Thus using economics as a methodology to keep it that way and to promote it to be greener. Russia on the other hand, backwards still in terms of modernization and industrialization needs to be able to afford for it's green house gases first."

"YEs there are people that need money now. IS the US though, the world's largest contributor to global green house gases and world's largest economy, not to mention most wealthy nation one of those "people" that NEED MONEY NOW?"

jfuh said:
Of course it does. It's exactly why developed nations have more stringint rules than less developed or non-developed nations. It's all about affordability and reality.
But if we're really cruising toward the point of no return in less than 20 years, as you claim, shouldn't that be the world's number one priority? Shouldn't the world devote as much as necessary to fighting global warming... even if that means almost everyone in countries like Russia, China, and India will continue to live in poverty? Your logic seems inconsistent.

jfuh said:
Is this the best response you have? Alright, care to point out studies then that are contrary to what I've said?
No, as I haven't disputed the existence of global warming.

jfuh said:
Or cases that are contrary to the benefits of Kyoto? I thought the main benefit to the world was exactly what it's meant to do, that is decreasing global greenhouse gases that were contributed by human development.
Can you find me an example of a country that has significantly decreased its greenhouse gas emissions as a result of Kyoto?

jfuh said:
There isn't? Wind turbines? Wave generators? Alcohol based liquid fuels? Clean coal power plants? Hybrid vehicles? I challenge you to provide evidence that the development and manufacturing of any such technology I've listed or other green tech that is detrimental to the economy.
I have nothing against development of those technologies, in fact I think they should be encouraged. That doesn't make Kyoto any less stupid.

jfuh said:
You ever wash dishes? It's always easier to wash clean after the meal (unless it's baked) than it would be several days later.
Did you really think that I was going to be impressed by that analogy? I shouldn't even have to say this, but the earth is not a dirty dish, and is in no way comparable.

jfuh said:
Why do you advocate waiting for a technology that is still theoretical
It's only "theoretical" in the sense that the machines haven't been built yet. The engineering designs for many various nanomachines have already been developed, and they don't violate any law of physics. There is every reason to believe that nanotech will revolutionize the world in a way not seen since at least the Industrial Revolution.

jfuh said:
when there are already several technologies and products here today that can do just the same?
Because there aren't several technologies and products here today that can do just the same...at least not at an affordable cost.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Kandahar said:
How is it impossible for one technology to solve all current environmental problems? Besides, nanotech isn't really a single technology. It's a new paradigm entirely.

Do you even understand what nanotech is, and how versatile and powerful its potential applications are?

If you learned about the concept, you'd see that it's not arrogant to realistically expect it to solve all of our current environmental problems (as well as many other problems).
As so happens I work in nanotech. How much do you understand of it? You really think it's a magic wand that will make all the troubles go away?


Kandahar said:
Sure. Getting back to your question of whether the US "needs money now" as opposed to lots of other countries, why not set up a treaty to share the wealth if that's your desire? (No, I'm not advocating doing that either.) Logically, is a treaty about climate change really the most efficient way of getting money to those who need it now? Certainly not. People are starving by the millions in Africa, and AIDS and malaria are out of control. Of all the problems facing the world, global warming is rather low on the list.
Perhaps you are also knowledgable then of how diseases and global warming are often hand in hand.


Kandahar said:
Well obviously the industry exists, or you wouldn't have anything to complain about in terms of American greenhouse gas emissions.
Ignorance is bliss isn't it? The predominent form of green house gases in the US are not from the manufacturing industry at all. But primarily from the general populice, power plants so on. THere is already a very very small percentage of manufacturing industry in the US as of today.

Kandahar said:
We can promote green manufacturing industries in many ways that have nothing to do with Kyoto.
True, but it's undeniable that Kyto serves as a catalyst.


Kandahar said:
I see no reason to think that the amount of industry we'd gain from Kyoto would come anywhere close to the amount of industry we'd lose. Do you have a study or something that supports your conclusion?
HAd you read through that second article I posted last time you would have much of your answer. You're blindness to see of the industry gains from the catalyzing effect of Kyoto protocol stems from your ignorance of the industries.

Kandahar said:
I know. The point I was making is that just because the United States moved away from fuel efficiency in the 90s, doesn't mean it will continue to move away from fuel efficiency. The 90s were a downturn in an otherwise upward-sloping trend. Today, Americans are buying more fuel efficient vehicles and that trend is likely to continue into the indefinite future.
In the 80's there was a tremendous trend of efficiency and self-reliance. That was when oil prices were high. Then in the 90's the price dropped substantially, as did any desire for efficiency and economy. Thus it is more than likly that should there be an additional drop in oil prices in the near future, the markets current trend of seeking efficiency and economy will also cease. Thus the reason for Kyoto is for the promotion that regardless of oil price trends there will be a persuit of decreasing global greenhouse gas emmissions.

Kandahar said:
That is a ridiculous assertion and goes against even the most basic principles of economics. It shows that you know very little about the subject and therefore are not qualified to weigh the economic costs of Kyoto versus the environmental benefits.
edit edit edit. Name one single point that I made that is just so rediculous following my premises.


Kandahar said:
Once again, there are plenty of other ways to encourage alternative-energy technologies that don't involve bankrupting our industries.
Such as? Care to elaborate on other methodologies of "encouraging alternative-energy" technologies?

Kandahar said:
The economy is global. If American consumers are happier with the more fuel-efficient Japanese cars than they are with American gas guzzlers, great. If Japan is better at producing fuel-efficient cars than the United States, so be it. I don't see the big tragedy.
What ever happened to your preservation of the American economy? Taxing of those industries? Everything you have just stated as premise for your arguments you have just contradicted right here. You don't see the big tragedy? How about being unemployed?

Kandahar said:
There's a difference between believing global warming is fiction because Jesus told you so, versus believing global warming is reality while also accepting the reality that there is little that can be done about it for the next couple decades.
To believe that there is little that can be done again stems from your ignorance of the entire topic.

Kandahar said:
Within 20 years? That is simply absurd. The global temperature will be less than one degree warmer in 20 years; it fluctuates more than that from year to year. The report cites "abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change" but I don't see anywhere it mentions that that will happen on so short of a time scale.
You know otherwise because of what reason or what facts? There're more scientific estimates that support my claim which I can cite easily if you wish to read them. Unfortunately they are not free to read and would require subscription on your behalf.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Kandahar said:
Continued:I was simply pointing out that self-righteously condemning the United States for not following Kyoto is silly, when almost no country that actually signed on has made any serious effort to control their carbon emissions. In most cases, other countries were either were already operating within the confinements of Kyoto, or made some token effort to control carbon emissions that did nothing. I know of no country that has seriously reduced their carbon emissions since signing the treaty.
Same fallacy. So what? ARe you saying the US is worse than those countries? What of Britain and Sweeden that will meet the goals? Is the US no better than neither of those two countries? AT least countries that had signed it are trying to do something productive, what has the US done but backwards comparisons to developing countries.

Kandahar said:
I think we'll all have a parachute long before we reach that cliff, in nanotech. The only goal of any present-day efforts to control global-warming should be to encourage R&D in nanotech as quickly as possible.
Again, I question of your understanding of nano-tech as this magic bullet that will destroy all the wrongs in the environment.

Kandahar said:
Here are a couple of things you've said that make me suspect this is all about wealth redistribution, rather than climate change:

"Canda is fully industrialized and modern. Thus using economics as a methodology to keep it that way and to promote it to be greener. Russia on the other hand, backwards still in terms of modernization and industrialization needs to be able to afford for it's green house gases first."

"YEs there are people that need money now. IS the US though, the world's largest contributor to global green house gases and world's largest economy, not to mention most wealthy nation one of those "people" that NEED MONEY NOW?"
This is about the approachability, applicablitity and reality of implementing Kyoto protocols. Money is not everything, but you can not accomplish anything without money. How do you expect developing nations that are struggling with feeding thier populations to conform to guidlines of rich wealthy nations. Yes of course this is about money, but not limited to my arguments alone. For the only reason I have seen thus far in which you are against Kyoto is financial impacts on the US econmoy that are compeltely baseless and contradictory as with your purchase of Japanese goods vs support for US goods.

Kandahar said:
But if we're really cruising toward the point of no return in less than 20 years, as you claim, shouldn't that be the world's number one priority? Shouldn't the world devote as much as necessary to fighting global warming... even if that means almost everyone in countries like Russia, China, and India will continue to live in poverty? Your logic seems inconsistent.
Yes it should be a top priority, however climate does not get you elected. Most people are just too ignorant about the problem to care otherwise.
Did the US care about terrorism before 9/11, no we didn't, not until we got our teeth knocked out.

Kandahar said:
Can you find me an example of a country that has significantly decreased its greenhouse gas emissions as a result of Kyoto?
Simple, the UK, Germany, Sweeden, want more?

Kandahar said:
I have nothing against development of those technologies, in fact I think they should be encouraged. That doesn't make Kyoto any less stupid.
Just how is Kyoto so stupid then? I don't see any reasoning here that Kyoto is stupid when it promotes green industries.

Kandahar said:
Did you really think that I was going to be impressed by that analogy? I shouldn't even have to say this, but the earth is not a dirty dish, and is in no way comparable.
I wasn't trying to impress you. However the earth right now is a "dirtying" dish. So why are you against washing it? or in this case, cleaning up?

Kandahar said:
It's only "theoretical" in the sense that the machines haven't been built yet. The engineering designs for many various nanomachines have already been developed, and they don't violate any law of physics. There is every reason to believe that nanotech will revolutionize the world in a way not seen since at least the Industrial Revolution.
I can recall a similar phrase said before. Oh yes, that was related to nuclear power in the fissible form. Hmm, I have yet to see the revolution.
Is nano-tech going to be a problem solver of many of todays problems? YEs particularily in the electronics and medicinal fields. Will it have any part in the environmental area, likly, but not as much as biological research would be.
Again I'm going to ask you the same question. Why wait for a technology that is theoretical and only in developmental stages when there are already several mature and proven technologies today that do the same thing?

Kandahar said:
Because there aren't several technologies and products here today that can do just the same...at least not at an affordable cost.
Wind turbines are not afforbale? Solar pre-heating is not affordable? Alcohol fuels are not affordable? Hybrids are not affordable? Just what products are you refering to that are not affordable?
I suggest you do some more research into current technologies as opposed to your optomism for waiting for startrek tech to solve a monstering problem.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
jfuh said:
As so happens I work in nanotech.
What an amazing coincidence. You'll have to forgive me if I don't believe you.

jfuh said:
How much do you understand of it? You really think it's a magic wand that will make all the troubles go away?
Many of them, yes.

jfuh said:
Perhaps you are also knowledgable then of how diseases and global warming are often hand in hand.
You're correct that global warming would increase, say, the area of the world in which malaria spreads. However, investing a dollar in global warming prevention doesn't buy nearly as much malaria prevention as investing a dollar in mosquito nets or DDT. The same goes for nearly any other disease that is spread by global warming.

jfuh said:
Ignorance is bliss isn't it? The predominent form of green house gases in the US are not from the manufacturing industry at all. But primarily from the general populice, power plants so on. THere is already a very very small percentage of manufacturing industry in the US as of today.
I know, this doesn't change the point. You're first saying that the United States emits too much greenhouse gas, then claim the American economy won't be affected much by Kyoto because the United States doesn't emit that many greenhouse gases.

jfuh said:
True, but it's undeniable that Kyto serves as a catalyst.
There are other catalysts that we could devise, that would specifically take American considerations into account unlike Kyoto. I would completely support efforts by the US government to fund energy independence and efficiency; what I have a problem with is a treaty that mandates how much we're "allowed" to pollute while ignoring economic concerns.

jfuh said:
HAd you read through that second article I posted last time you would have much of your answer. You're blindness to see of the industry gains from the catalyzing effect of Kyoto protocol stems from your ignorance of the industries.
Of course I didn't read through the second article, as it is 74 pages long. How about you just point me to the page where it explains how Kyoto will create more industry than it destroys.

jfuh said:
In the 80's there was a tremendous trend of efficiency and self-reliance. That was when oil prices were high. Then in the 90's the price dropped substantially, as did any desire for efficiency and economy. Thus it is more than likly that should there be an additional drop in oil prices in the near future, the markets current trend of seeking efficiency and economy will also cease.
Maybe a little bit, but it's unlikely that oil prices will ever again be as low as they were in the 1990s. We either reached global peak-oil production last year, or we will reach it this year. That should keep oil prices generally high. If oil prices drop, it will be temporary and short-lived.

jfuh said:
Thus the reason for Kyoto is for the promotion that regardless of oil price trends there will be a persuit of decreasing global greenhouse gas emmissions.
That's not realistic. Demand for energy efficiency (and therefore declining greenhouse gases) is linked to the price of oil. It's simple economics that if a product is expensive, you look for alternatives.

jfuh said:
edit edit edit. Name one single point that I made that is just so rediculous following my premises.
That there would be no products or services in a free market.

jfuh said:
Such as? Care to elaborate on other methodologies of "encouraging alternative-energy" technologies?
Government funding for R&D in those technologies; a "Manhattan Project" for energy independence seems like a good idea to me. Government funding for those alternative-energy industries. Tax cuts for those alternative-energy industries.

jfuh said:
What ever happened to your preservation of the American economy? Taxing of those industries? Everything you have just stated as premise for your arguments you have just contradicted right here. You don't see the big tragedy? How about being unemployed?
There's no reason to expect American consumers to overpay for American cars when they can get better cars for cheaper from Japan. The savings to American consumers will create more investment dollars to spend on other companies where the United States is better able to compete.

Protectionism never makes economies stronger.

jfuh said:
To believe that there is little that can be done again stems from your ignorance of the entire topic.
No, it stems from realism. Your belief that we can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions (at this point in time) without harming the economy is naive and idealistic. As for Kyoto, individual countries should set their own policies on global warming, rather than adhering to a rigid global document that ignores the concerns of any specific nation.

jfuh said:
You know otherwise because of what reason or what facts? There're more scientific estimates that support my claim which I can cite easily if you wish to read them. Unfortunately they are not free to read and would require subscription on your behalf.
Like I said, the average global temperature in 20 years will be less of a change than the fluctuation in global temperature from year-to-year, so it's not realistic to believe that we'll suddenly reach a point of no return.
 
Top Bottom