Kyoto is pointless, say 60 leading scientists
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
Oh, I don't think that the numbers supporting Kyoto are anywhere as near as high as you think. I was amused this past January when Alberta had the warmest January in 65 or 70 years (I think), and one particular witty guy wanted to know what caused the warm January in the thirties? Based on January being so warm back then, Kyoto should have been insituted then. Of course, it would then take another 65 years or so to get back to being that warm, so what happened in those years to cause a cooling? Oh yes, that's right, global warming is to blame for any deviance in temperatures or weather patterns, up or down.
There was another interesting theory that explained some of the weather changes in the western US and western Canada, and that was the eruption of Mount Saint Helens. Some scientist came out with "proof" that because of that eruption, weather patterns changed, which was "proven" to be the cause of the eighties droughts in Western Canada. I emphasize proof and proven, because this was simply another so-called proven theory, much like the so-called proof now being bandied about the the supporters and opponents of Kyoto. Until there is a consensus, and there is not one supporting either side, then there is no need to implement Kyoto for the very reasons Zoofer stated: It is simply a money transfer scheme for Western nations to transfer money to poorer European nations. Does anyone wonder why this became an issue only after the Soviet Union broke apart and Russia becam a poor country? How better to get money to Russia than under the guise of a so-called environmental issue? Bu credits from Russia (give money to Russia), and they still don't have to reduce any emissions. What a scam, and the tree huggers and environmental types have and are falling for it hook line and sinker.
There was another interesting theory that explained some of the weather changes in the western US and western Canada, and that was the eruption of Mount Saint Helens. Some scientist came out with "proof" that because of that eruption, weather patterns changed, which was "proven" to be the cause of the eighties droughts in Western Canada. I emphasize proof and proven, because this was simply another so-called proven theory, much like the so-called proof now being bandied about the the supporters and opponents of Kyoto. Until there is a consensus, and there is not one supporting either side, then there is no need to implement Kyoto for the very reasons Zoofer stated: It is simply a money transfer scheme for Western nations to transfer money to poorer European nations. Does anyone wonder why this became an issue only after the Soviet Union broke apart and Russia becam a poor country? How better to get money to Russia than under the guise of a so-called environmental issue? Bu credits from Russia (give money to Russia), and they still don't have to reduce any emissions. What a scam, and the tree huggers and environmental types have and are falling for it hook line and sinker.
zoofer said:
The only measure that means anything when it comes to pollution is per capita emissions. When you look it on a per-capita basis, China & India are nowhere near the pollution levels of North Americans. The Russian phenomenon is just that: a one time phenomenon because of an economic collapse that occured after the benchmark had been set. So 'buying' credits from Russia with no net decrease in pollution is also a one-time phenomenon. Pollution credit trading is in fact one of the best aspects of Kyoto as it finally puts a cost to pollution. And since global warming is a global problem, the accord recognizes that emission reductions anywhere are just as valuable. If a country or company sees some 'low-hanging' fruit in another country that they can realize at less cost than reductions at home, they can invest their money or technology there. Either way, emissions go down.
RE: Kyoto is pointless, s
Ah, yes, but Global Insight is the one who did the actual study.
Who funds the ICCF in this case is pretty much irrelevent since the outcome of a study on the economic impact of Kyoto is about as predictable as commissioning a study on which direction the sun rises and sets every day.
Ah, yes, but Global Insight is the one who did the actual study.
Who funds the ICCF in this case is pretty much irrelevent since the outcome of a study on the economic impact of Kyoto is about as predictable as commissioning a study on which direction the sun rises and sets every day.
Re: RE: Kyoto is pointless, s
How about a study on not implementing Kyoto, Toro? What is the cost of that? What is the cost of losing massive tracts of our shoreline to rising sea levels? What is the cost of sustained droughts in the prairies? Or the cost of structural failures throughout the north due to melting permafrost? What is the cost of breathing polluted air? That's predictable too, maybe not to those with their heads firmly planted in the sand. :roll:
Toro said:
How about a study on not implementing Kyoto, Toro? What is the cost of that? What is the cost of losing massive tracts of our shoreline to rising sea levels? What is the cost of sustained droughts in the prairies? Or the cost of structural failures throughout the north due to melting permafrost? What is the cost of breathing polluted air? That's predictable too, maybe not to those with their heads firmly planted in the sand. :roll:
That's a different argument though, isn't it Mike? I'm not arguing that. In fact, if I had to make a decision, I would agree with those who say global warming is a man-made problem.
However, there is a cost to Kyoto. Are you saying we shouldn't understand those costs? Are you saying we shouldn't be well informed before making a decision?
We must understand all the costs. The cheerleaders of Kyoto are trying to spin it that Kyoto would be beneficial to the economy. That is almost certainly wrong. But maybe that's the price to pay, I don't know. However, to stick our heads in the ground and blithely assume there are no effects is bad policy.
However, there is a cost to Kyoto. Are you saying we shouldn't understand those costs? Are you saying we shouldn't be well informed before making a decision?
We must understand all the costs. The cheerleaders of Kyoto are trying to spin it that Kyoto would be beneficial to the economy. That is almost certainly wrong. But maybe that's the price to pay, I don't know. However, to stick our heads in the ground and blithely assume there are no effects is bad policy.
We should understand all the facts, Toro. But many Kyoto bashers set up a false dynamic, where Kyoto is costly, and the status quo without price. The problem with the whole system is that these environmental effects and health effects of fossil fuel use is not factored into the price. Not only is this foolish and short-sighted, it acts as a massive subsidy to these industries and consumers.
Knowing what we know the question should not be 'do we act?', it should be 'how fast? and how?'. If we invest in r&d and green technologies, we can position ourselves to export this expertise.
Knowing what we know the question should not be 'do we act?', it should be 'how fast? and how?'. If we invest in r&d and green technologies, we can position ourselves to export this expertise.
Good point, MMMike, particularly your comparison
of Kyoto being costly and "the status quo" of not doing
Koyoto is "without price."
Well said.
However, not including developing China is certainly
unfair.
But who cares about unfair, if we can make an
economic profit out of leading edge environmental
technology ?
An American government championed a Moon program
with Gemini and Apollo, and so why not have the same
competitive vigor towards a goal of pioneering new
technology that is Green ?
Sometimes the market will not invest in NEW, whereas
a government can take the lead and hand off the baton
to the market.
Sometimes pioneering technology must be made free
to all. Then the next phase kicks in.
of Kyoto being costly and "the status quo" of not doing
Koyoto is "without price."
Well said.
However, not including developing China is certainly
unfair.
But who cares about unfair, if we can make an
economic profit out of leading edge environmental
technology ?
An American government championed a Moon program
with Gemini and Apollo, and so why not have the same
competitive vigor towards a goal of pioneering new
technology that is Green ?
Sometimes the market will not invest in NEW, whereas
a government can take the lead and hand off the baton
to the market.
Sometimes pioneering technology must be made free
to all. Then the next phase kicks in.
RE: Kyoto is pointless, s
I'm all for giving tax credits and incentives for investment and research into green technologies. Its good policy. Damn, I bought a new car, and it was a shock when I saw that baby top up! So I'm all for cheap, clean fuel.
I'm all for giving tax credits and incentives for investment and research into green technologies. Its good policy. Damn, I bought a new car, and it was a shock when I saw that baby top up! So I'm all for cheap, clean fuel.
I would have read the studies in more depth if there was any mention of NET job losses, something besides market-price influences of implementation and a better demonstration of understanding options besides existing alternative source development.
As it stands the whole charade comes off like a glorified op/ed from yet another corporate lobby group. Which it is. That's the crowd would consider reduced spending on health to be a negative impact to GDP.
Of COURSE there's a cost to Kyoto since its all about motivating the end to taking environmental shortcuts. The debate is about the impact of countervailing benefits, and there are many. Considering your source I'll assume these to be the numbers involved in a worst case scenario.
"The cheerleaders of Kyoto are trying to spin it that Kyoto would be beneficial to the economy."
you mean something like this?
haven't read it yet. just asking.
As it stands the whole charade comes off like a glorified op/ed from yet another corporate lobby group. Which it is. That's the crowd would consider reduced spending on health to be a negative impact to GDP.
Of COURSE there's a cost to Kyoto since its all about motivating the end to taking environmental shortcuts. The debate is about the impact of countervailing benefits, and there are many. Considering your source I'll assume these to be the numbers involved in a worst case scenario.
"The cheerleaders of Kyoto are trying to spin it that Kyoto would be beneficial to the economy."
you mean something like this?
haven't read it yet. just asking.
Of course there are costs
Does that mean we just leave the problem to our children and their children? Meteorological data alone should suggest that something serious is going on. Every year for the last fifteen or so has been the warmest on record. The retreating ice packs are a self feeding thing. The ice reflects a lot of heat back into space. Less ice means that more of this heat stays to melt more ice. We also know that the ocean is warming.
What else do we need?
Does that mean we just leave the problem to our children and their children? Meteorological data alone should suggest that something serious is going on. Every year for the last fifteen or so has been the warmest on record. The retreating ice packs are a self feeding thing. The ice reflects a lot of heat back into space. Less ice means that more of this heat stays to melt more ice. We also know that the ocean is warming.
What else do we need?
Toro, LOL, you're no Ted Bell.
The Delays in Market Capitalism are notoriously
inefficient some times. Therefore it takes a societal
push to create a leader who will lead the market.
The Delays in Market Capitalism are notoriously
inefficient some times. Therefore it takes a societal
push to create a leader who will lead the market.