Kyoto Protocol
- Thread starter Reverend Blair
- Start date
Re: RE: Kyoto
Bush backed out? What about Clinton? It was done on his watch. Gore proudly brought the treaty home and knowing that he would have to have the science soundly behind him for the people to support it, had administration sceintists examine it to determine what full implementation (including USA) would achieve. The result; a reduction in the rate of warming of 7/100ths of one degree over the next 50 years. And that's based on the full assumption that human emissions are responsible. We would still warm up, it would just take a very little more time. Implemetation is a complete waste of time and money. If our emissions were the cause, they would have to be practically eliminated to stop it. For some reason (dogmatic ideology most likely) you just refuse to face reality.
Reverend Blair said:
Bush backed out? What about Clinton? It was done on his watch. Gore proudly brought the treaty home and knowing that he would have to have the science soundly behind him for the people to support it, had administration sceintists examine it to determine what full implementation (including USA) would achieve. The result; a reduction in the rate of warming of 7/100ths of one degree over the next 50 years. And that's based on the full assumption that human emissions are responsible. We would still warm up, it would just take a very little more time. Implemetation is a complete waste of time and money. If our emissions were the cause, they would have to be practically eliminated to stop it. For some reason (dogmatic ideology most likely) you just refuse to face reality.
RE: Kyoto
How would Clinton have got the bill past the Republican congress? Even slowing the rate of warming would afford us a little more time to find a real solution. Look how many advances have been made in the last fifty years...the last twenty years. Just slowing the rate of warming could make a big difference. That's why Kyoto is an important first step. It gives us a position we can start from. You have to start somewhere. Then you can make corrections to the plan. Iron out all the unfairness after you've made a start...then we can make some real progress.
How would Clinton have got the bill past the Republican congress? Even slowing the rate of warming would afford us a little more time to find a real solution. Look how many advances have been made in the last fifty years...the last twenty years. Just slowing the rate of warming could make a big difference. That's why Kyoto is an important first step. It gives us a position we can start from. You have to start somewhere. Then you can make corrections to the plan. Iron out all the unfairness after you've made a start...then we can make some real progress.
RE: Kyoto
It was Bush who refused to ratify Kyoto. Look it up. A slowing of 7/100ths of a degree is a hell of a lot better than an increase too, Extrafire.
It was Bush who refused to ratify Kyoto. Look it up. A slowing of 7/100ths of a degree is a hell of a lot better than an increase too, Extrafire.
Re: Kyoto
If human emissions are causing global warming, Kyoto will have no noticeable effect. Not one nation would have signed an agreement that would cut emissions enough to do any good at all. Kyoto is at best symbolic, no real substance, and a wealth transfer from producing nations to the third world.
Let’s see.... You’re the Chinese gov’t. After many decades of stifling communism your country is finally making progress in transforming into a market economy. Growth is at 8% per year. Wealth is being created, a new experience, and a very pleasant one. Now all of a sudden, along comes Kyoto II. They’re saying that all those factory emissions you’ve just spent 15 years establishing have to be stopped. What would you do? My observations of China leads me to believe you won’t be able to sucker them into it like we were.
Re: Kyoto
It’s a slowing of 7/100ths of a degree in the rate of increase. Over 50 years. It’s not measurable, it doesn’t even exceed the error bar, and it’s still an increase. It’s totally ineffective in making any progress towards the goal it was intended for.
Re: Kyoto
Wow, this just gets sillier and sillier. China welcomes new technology. They have no vested interest in the old technology, all they care about is the power. What is your excuse?
Ummm. You need to do some things. First of all, read the damned agreement instead of oil-patch propaganda.
Second of all, learn a little about politics.
Third of all, learn math. A tiny lessening (7/100ths) is far less than an exponential increase.
Lastly, at least for now, learn English. It's the language the scientists are using to tell you that you are wrong.
Wow, this just gets sillier and sillier. China welcomes new technology. They have no vested interest in the old technology, all they care about is the power. What is your excuse?
Ummm. You need to do some things. First of all, read the damned agreement instead of oil-patch propaganda.
Second of all, learn a little about politics.
Third of all, learn math. A tiny lessening (7/100ths) is far less than an exponential increase.
Lastly, at least for now, learn English. It's the language the scientists are using to tell you that you are wrong.
Re: Kyoto
Why do I bother with you?
Yes, you are.
Coal prices are high. BC coal mines are re-opening due to increasing demand from China. What do you suppose they're doing with it, if not burning it? An aquaintance took a holiday in China a few years ago. River tour. Nice in daytime, but he woke at midnight and looked out as they passed mile after mile of factories spewing emissions. China uses available technology, whether new or old.
It's a very tiny bit less than an increase without Kyoto. So tiny that over 100 years, it would make a difference in that we would reach the same temperature in about a month later. Gee, that's a big help. Get real.
Why do I bother with you?
Re: Kyoto
Yes. So if we develop clean, efficient technolgies what do you think they'll buy from us?
It's an tiny decrease instead of an exponential increase. That's huge all by itself, but the other fact is that you have to start someplace. Four years ago George Bush was unwilling to even admit that the world was round. Now he accepts, in public, that anthropogenic (don't Georgie to pronounce it) global warming is real.
Kyoto is not a magic bullet. It was never meant to be. It is a first step to get us on the right track...like driving hitchhikers out to the truckstop or teaching a heifer not to kick you when you put the milkers on. The good stuff comes later.
Yes. So if we develop clean, efficient technolgies what do you think they'll buy from us?
It's an tiny decrease instead of an exponential increase. That's huge all by itself, but the other fact is that you have to start someplace. Four years ago George Bush was unwilling to even admit that the world was round. Now he accepts, in public, that anthropogenic (don't Georgie to pronounce it) global warming is real.
Kyoto is not a magic bullet. It was never meant to be. It is a first step to get us on the right track...like driving hitchhikers out to the truckstop or teaching a heifer not to kick you when you put the milkers on. The good stuff comes later.
Re: RE: Kyoto
Let’s just assume for the moment that human emissions are the problem and it is as serious as we have been told. In that case, those emissions must be virtually eliminated. Not 6% below 1990 levels, not 1980 level, not 1950 levels. Eliminated. If it isn’t so, then the whole scare is nothing more than a lie and a wealth transfer. That means all emissions from all nations, not just the west. To stop all emissions without replacing the energy source would plunge the world into poverty, rebellion and war, and of course, emissions would quickly resume. So you need to replace all energy that produces emissions with new technology. To a certain extent that can already be done with existing technology, but nowhere near enough. Not only would you need emission free or neutral electrical generation, you would also have to provide some way to power cars, trucks, trains, heavy equipment, ships and planes. You’d need to invent ways to replace coal for such things as smelting. And you’d have to replace all existing emission energy in short order. Do you think this is realistically possible? (And don’t say that this is just fear mongering by energy corporations. If it’s as bad as you say it is, you know that this has to be done.)
First step? Forget about Kyoto and focus all resources toward creating these new technologies and implement them as soon as available. This must be a world wide effort, with no nation singled out for penalties or benefits or exemptions. Of course, being realistic, that’s not going to happen either. So believing as you do, you might just as well put your head between your legs and kiss your butt goodbye.
zenfisher said:
Let’s just assume for the moment that human emissions are the problem and it is as serious as we have been told. In that case, those emissions must be virtually eliminated. Not 6% below 1990 levels, not 1980 level, not 1950 levels. Eliminated. If it isn’t so, then the whole scare is nothing more than a lie and a wealth transfer. That means all emissions from all nations, not just the west. To stop all emissions without replacing the energy source would plunge the world into poverty, rebellion and war, and of course, emissions would quickly resume. So you need to replace all energy that produces emissions with new technology. To a certain extent that can already be done with existing technology, but nowhere near enough. Not only would you need emission free or neutral electrical generation, you would also have to provide some way to power cars, trucks, trains, heavy equipment, ships and planes. You’d need to invent ways to replace coal for such things as smelting. And you’d have to replace all existing emission energy in short order. Do you think this is realistically possible? (And don’t say that this is just fear mongering by energy corporations. If it’s as bad as you say it is, you know that this has to be done.)
First step? Forget about Kyoto and focus all resources toward creating these new technologies and implement them as soon as available. This must be a world wide effort, with no nation singled out for penalties or benefits or exemptions. Of course, being realistic, that’s not going to happen either. So believing as you do, you might just as well put your head between your legs and kiss your butt goodbye.
Re: Kyoto
They’ll buy the same stuff we’ll buy, when it’s available. But it’s going to be a long time before we can smelt steel without coal, so in the meantime, they’ll continue to use ever more coal and oil, and they won’t be suckered into shutting it all down when Kyoto II comes along before then.
Let me see if I can explain it better. After 50 years of full implementation of Kyoto, the climate would be 7/100th of 1 degree cooler than it would otherwise have been. That isn’t huge by any measure, it isn’t even measurable.
Except it isn’t even a step. It does nothing except remove wealth from the industrialized economies.
They keep saying that but nobody has the nerve to say just what the good stuff is. Get the rest of the world including India and China to join in reductions? That would also have no noticeable effect, and besides, some of them have never had it so good, they aren’t going to do it. If emissions are the problem that we’re told, we’re going to have to virtually eliminate them.
Re: Kyoto
Let me see if I can explain this...the Kyoto Accord is a beginning, not an end...if after 50 years of implentation, the Accord hasn't been improved upon, and strictly enforced, by all signatories, then we as a species have failed this planet and deserve to die by the pollution we've created...
Extrafire said:
Let me see if I can explain this...the Kyoto Accord is a beginning, not an end...if after 50 years of implentation, the Accord hasn't been improved upon, and strictly enforced, by all signatories, then we as a species have failed this planet and deserve to die by the pollution we've created...
RE: Kyoto
Ah yes, the, "It's too hard so we shouldn't bother trying," argument.
This argument is built on several fallacies, the first being that the Kyoto agreement is nothing more than a wealth-transfer mechanism. That is inherently untrue because Kyoto forces member nations to develop new technologies to meet their energy needs. New technologies always generate wealth.
The second fallacy is the dependence on misconstruation of how carbon credits work. While they can be bought and sold, that is unsustainable and does nothing to generate employment or economic activity in the countries doing the buying.
What is far more likely to happen is that technology will be used in other nations for credit against the carbon bill. Let's say that Canada needs to buy some credits. We can pay cash, which does nothing for us, or we can install wind turbines in Chile. Installing the turbines generates economic activity here and in Chile and there is still a net reduction in emissions. It makes far more sense than writing Brazil a cheque because they have credits to spare.
Oh, did I say Brazil? They are leaders in alternate fuels made from alcohol. Maybe we should buy some of that technology. Even better, maybe we should enter into a long-term partnership with them to share that technology and our developing hydrogen fuel cell technology.
The next part of this fallacy is that we can't develop the technologies fast enough to make a difference. Most of the technologies already exist. What is required is refinement and to put an infrastructure in place.
The final part of the fallacy is that Kyoto doesn't make a difference or even has a negative impact. Before Kyoto, nobody was doing anything. Nobody was even seriously talking about what to do. Kyoto got people up off their asses.
If you look at the initiatives that have taken place since Kyoto was first signed, then ratified, you will see that there has been a snowball efect. It started out small, but it's been growing. The more it grows, the faster it progresses. It has now reached a point where George Bush has to acknowledge that it exists, even if he is still working against it, because to continue to deny means risking the US becoming a technological backwater.
Ah yes, the, "It's too hard so we shouldn't bother trying," argument.
This argument is built on several fallacies, the first being that the Kyoto agreement is nothing more than a wealth-transfer mechanism. That is inherently untrue because Kyoto forces member nations to develop new technologies to meet their energy needs. New technologies always generate wealth.
The second fallacy is the dependence on misconstruation of how carbon credits work. While they can be bought and sold, that is unsustainable and does nothing to generate employment or economic activity in the countries doing the buying.
What is far more likely to happen is that technology will be used in other nations for credit against the carbon bill. Let's say that Canada needs to buy some credits. We can pay cash, which does nothing for us, or we can install wind turbines in Chile. Installing the turbines generates economic activity here and in Chile and there is still a net reduction in emissions. It makes far more sense than writing Brazil a cheque because they have credits to spare.
Oh, did I say Brazil? They are leaders in alternate fuels made from alcohol. Maybe we should buy some of that technology. Even better, maybe we should enter into a long-term partnership with them to share that technology and our developing hydrogen fuel cell technology.
The next part of this fallacy is that we can't develop the technologies fast enough to make a difference. Most of the technologies already exist. What is required is refinement and to put an infrastructure in place.
The final part of the fallacy is that Kyoto doesn't make a difference or even has a negative impact. Before Kyoto, nobody was doing anything. Nobody was even seriously talking about what to do. Kyoto got people up off their asses.
If you look at the initiatives that have taken place since Kyoto was first signed, then ratified, you will see that there has been a snowball efect. It started out small, but it's been growing. The more it grows, the faster it progresses. It has now reached a point where George Bush has to acknowledge that it exists, even if he is still working against it, because to continue to deny means risking the US becoming a technological backwater.
Re: Kyoto
And at the end of 50 years of implementation, improving, and strict enforcement by all signatories, the net result to the planet will be virtually the same as if it hadn't been implemented at all.
Re: Kyoto
Not at all. Just pointing out the reality.
This is true if the technology increases production, reduces costs etc. and is implemented.
A good idea that does indeed make sense. But really, how often does the Canadian government do the sensible thing? No, we’ll just pay and our emissions will continue to rise.
Always a good idea. I’m a big fan of hydrogen as a fuel. I hope (and believe) that in time it will become a viable fuel, but that time is quite far off as yet.
Some of them exist but many of them are not cost effective. The majority of emissions will not be affected yet by existing technology.
Pressure from the public got technology development a boost, but much of it was already in the works. Public demand is what fuels innovation from corporations who see a buck to be made.
The US has capitalism and free enterprise. It will never become a technological backwater as long as it has those.
Re: Kyoto
No, what you are doing is perpetuating a fallacy based in 19 century thought and 20th century technology because you are afraid you will be negatively impacted.
Nonsense. New technology creates wealth. Period. What good is TV? Not much, but it creates wealth. The lack of implementation is because the old technologies are being protected. Do you electric companies want people using solar and wind generators instead of buying electricity from them? Do you think the oil companies like the idea of alternative fuels?
Canada has gotten rich by being a trading nation and part of what we have always traded is technology. There is no reason to think that tradition would not continue.
Is it? We have the Ballard fuel cell. It's running some buses right here in Winnipeg as a matter of fact. Those same buses can, in times of emergency, also be used as electrical generators. There is also a company here in Winnipeg that has designed and built a hydrogen dispensing unit that looks very much like a self-serve gas pump.
Hydrogen is a viable fuel right now. Not only that, but the two things needed to produce hydrogen...water and electricity...are two things that we have in abundance. Manitoba, Quebec, and BC stand to become as rich as Alberta in a hydrogen economy.
What is keeping it from becoming a viable fuel? A lack of infrastructure...there is no place to buy hydrogen...and a lack of interest from the automakers...there is no reason why fuel cells cannot be placed in vehicles.
Most of them exist. Most of what keeps the prices high is that, because they are not in general usage, manufacturing prices are still very high. If more were being produced the prices would come down in a hurry.
There was hardly any public pressure before Kyoto. The agreement served to get people interested. It also served to make the naysayers look like a bunch nattering nabobs of negatism, if I might steal a phrase from Spiro Agnew's speechwriters.
US corporations, especially those involved in the energy and auto industries, show absolutely no signs of being inventive or innovative. They have fought advancement every step of the way.
No, what you are doing is perpetuating a fallacy based in 19 century thought and 20th century technology because you are afraid you will be negatively impacted.
Nonsense. New technology creates wealth. Period. What good is TV? Not much, but it creates wealth. The lack of implementation is because the old technologies are being protected. Do you electric companies want people using solar and wind generators instead of buying electricity from them? Do you think the oil companies like the idea of alternative fuels?
Canada has gotten rich by being a trading nation and part of what we have always traded is technology. There is no reason to think that tradition would not continue.
Is it? We have the Ballard fuel cell. It's running some buses right here in Winnipeg as a matter of fact. Those same buses can, in times of emergency, also be used as electrical generators. There is also a company here in Winnipeg that has designed and built a hydrogen dispensing unit that looks very much like a self-serve gas pump.
Hydrogen is a viable fuel right now. Not only that, but the two things needed to produce hydrogen...water and electricity...are two things that we have in abundance. Manitoba, Quebec, and BC stand to become as rich as Alberta in a hydrogen economy.
What is keeping it from becoming a viable fuel? A lack of infrastructure...there is no place to buy hydrogen...and a lack of interest from the automakers...there is no reason why fuel cells cannot be placed in vehicles.
Most of them exist. Most of what keeps the prices high is that, because they are not in general usage, manufacturing prices are still very high. If more were being produced the prices would come down in a hurry.
There was hardly any public pressure before Kyoto. The agreement served to get people interested. It also served to make the naysayers look like a bunch nattering nabobs of negatism, if I might steal a phrase from Spiro Agnew's speechwriters.
US corporations, especially those involved in the energy and auto industries, show absolutely no signs of being inventive or innovative. They have fought advancement every step of the way.
Re: RE: Kyoto
Who said anything about completely limiting emissions? That would be absurd. A gradual reduction in green houses gases would afford us more time to look for a real solution. Why does it have to be an either or solution ?
It is completely inept to watch something happen that can be stopped just because a proposal doesn't go far enough. Its like the ...Oh they'll find a cure for...insert illness or addiction here...before I have to worry about it. It may justify it to your own mind, but actually seeking out help or changing your lifestyle to accomodate a solution to a distinct probability is by far a better alternative.
As for a wealth transfer...that usually ends up increasing the amount of productivity and profit because you are now creating new markets for your product. Your looking at entire infrastructures having to be built into countries that otherwise couldn't afford it. Your looking at emerging technologies to deal with the problem of global warming. That means growth. Global growth is good for North American companies. Don't believe me...then why are our politicians and businesses courting India and China ? (rhetorical) You don't think our companies are eager to trade with the burgeoning middle classes in these countries ? Its all about profit and margins. The reality is that any solutions and technologies created by those concerned by global warming are likely to save the North American economies.
Extrafire said:
Who said anything about completely limiting emissions? That would be absurd. A gradual reduction in green houses gases would afford us more time to look for a real solution. Why does it have to be an either or solution ?
It is completely inept to watch something happen that can be stopped just because a proposal doesn't go far enough. Its like the ...Oh they'll find a cure for...insert illness or addiction here...before I have to worry about it. It may justify it to your own mind, but actually seeking out help or changing your lifestyle to accomodate a solution to a distinct probability is by far a better alternative.
As for a wealth transfer...that usually ends up increasing the amount of productivity and profit because you are now creating new markets for your product. Your looking at entire infrastructures having to be built into countries that otherwise couldn't afford it. Your looking at emerging technologies to deal with the problem of global warming. That means growth. Global growth is good for North American companies. Don't believe me...then why are our politicians and businesses courting India and China ? (rhetorical) You don't think our companies are eager to trade with the burgeoning middle classes in these countries ? Its all about profit and margins. The reality is that any solutions and technologies created by those concerned by global warming are likely to save the North American economies.