• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warming

a_unique_person said:
It's the basic principle, one won't do the job because the other one isn't. Sooner or later, somone has to go first. Either way, the dishwasher has to be emptied.
Click to expand...

Except in international politics, where the whole point of putting together a treaty is to get them both to do it at the same time.
 
a_unique_person said:
It's the basic principle, one won't do the job because the other one isn't. Sooner or later, somone has to go first. Either way, the dishwasher has to be emptied.
Click to expand...
It is not at all a good analogy.

I am talking about competitors in a global economy where trillions of dollars are at stake. And you want to rig the rules so that the US has its economy impacted, but some of our competitors do not. No way. I will not support it. I don't play games that are rigged against me.
 
Mycroft said:
Except in international politics, where the whole point of putting together a treaty is to get them both to do it at the same time.
Click to expand...
But that's NOT the whole point of the Kyoto treaty. ;)

The point (one of them, not the entire idea) is to damage the US economy, since many supporters of the Kyoto treaty have not been able to reign in the US in other ways. The Kyoto treaty is a great way for the US-bashers to attack our economy, while allowing some of our competitors to go on their merry way without restrictions.
 
DavidJames said:
I'd love to see you support that with independent, unbiased evidence.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't the point, then why does it exclude some of the major emitters? What other reason can there be, other than choosing to single out particular nations (for reasons other than the environment), and not others? Why do that, if not to deliberately target some nations?

If it was really solely about the environment, then shouldn't it hold all the major offenders to similar standards?
 
Freakshow said:
It is not at all a good analogy.

I am talking about competitors in a global economy where trillions of dollars are at stake. And you want to rig the rules so that the US has its economy impacted, but some of our competitors do not. No way. I will not support it. I don't play games that are rigged against me.
Click to expand...
You know, a more neutral observer might point out that the rules of this game allow a systematic bias to emerge in favor of whichever economies happen to be already established, and that the "rigging" here is distinctly in favor of us, not them. This is fair in the same way that, for example, preventing governments from making social policies without any distinction on the basis of income is fair, which is to say not fair at all.

But I agree that it's a bad analogy. A better one would be finding yourself on a sinking lifeboat and refusing to bail water until the guy with a broken arm and a bad cough (but who does seem to be recovering, and might even one day be as healthy as you are if you all survive this) chips in.

This, incidentally...
The point (one of them, not the entire idea) is to damage the US economy, since many supporters of the Kyoto treaty have not been able to reign in the US in other ways. The Kyoto treaty is a great way for the US-bashers to attack our economy, while allowing some of our competitors to go on their merry way without restrictions.
Click to expand...
...is part one in a conversation that ends with you complaining about the black helicopters flying over your house and the communists putting flouride in the water supply. Just FYI.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
You know, a more neutral observer might point out that the rules of this game allow a systematic bias to emerge in favor of whichever economies happen to be already established, and that the "rigging" here is distinctly in favor of us, not them. This is fair in the same way that, for example, preventing governments from making social policies without any distinction on the basis of income is fair, which is to say not fair at all.
Click to expand...
Results do not necessarily indicate unfairness. They can indicate that some societies were purposefully designed to have better economic opportunities than some others. There are rewards in life for doing things well.

This, incidentally...

...is part one in a conversation that ends with you complaining about the black helicopters flying over your house and the communists putting flouride in the water supply.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. But nice try.
 
Freakshow said:
If it wasn't the point, then why does it exclude some of the major emitters? What other reason can there be, other than choosing to single out particular nations (for reasons other than the environment), and not others? Why do that, if not to deliberately target some nations?

If it was really solely about the environment, then shouldn't it hold all the major offenders to similar standards?
Click to expand...
BTW...

It is totally irrelevant to me whether that truly is people's intentions or not. Regardless of what they truly think, I have to live my life under the assumption that they are trying to screw me over. It is a fiercely competitive world, and I will meet more than enough people who want to succeed at my expense. My absolute primary responsibility in life is to look after myself. No one else is going to do it, and I don't expect them to. Nobody is obligated to look after me, other than me.

So when I see a deal that is obviously rigged against me, don't expect me to sign up. That's just the way it is. Life is one big fight. I have been very successful thus far. I plan to continue that trend.
 
a_unique_person said:
Kyoto is about getting the most difficult part of the job done first, getting the many nations of the planet to agree to a plan of action. As history has shown, that task is indeed hugely difficult.
Click to expand...
That's the thing isn't it? It isn't a plan of action, it's a plan of building bureaucracy on a global scale with a built in bias against certain nations.

The EU has stirred up further controversies surrounding the Kyoto Protocol. The EU emits 15 percent of the total CO2 emitted worldwide each year (see Figure 2), and presumably should be on the forefront of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Although the fifteen nations involved in the EU heavily pressured the United States and other nations to quickly ratify the former treaty, their reactions to ratification were much more delayed. Prior to the Bonn meetings, none of the fifteen nations in the EU had taken action towards ratification of the treaty, a treaty whose terms were exactly what the EU wanted. If the prior treaty brought about no ratification action from the nations of the EU, what in this new treaty would bring about an expeditious reaction? The other 163 nations who recently ratified this new Kyoto Protocol hold an overly optimistic view that the EU will actually be a player instead of a cheering spectator standing on the sidelines or a referee calling all the shots.
An Economic Ploy: How the Kyoto Protocol Does the Dirty Work for Uncompetitive Nations
Click to expand...
 
If the US considerably decreases its green house gas emissions on its own, by enforcing its own regulations, without ever signing the Kyoto agreement, I wouldn't care less about the Kyoto agreement. All that matters to me is reducing green house emissions.

The deal is, is the US federal gov. doing anything about green house gas emissions? I know that at the local level there are quite a lot of initiatives... But is the Bush administration doing something concrete, besides temporising and hoping that the problem will magically go away?

I don't think they are.
 
Orwell said:
If the US considerably decreases its green house gas emissions on its own, by enforcing its own regulations, without ever signing the Kyoto agreement, I wouldn't care less about the Kyoto agreement. All that matters to me is reducing green house emissions.

The deal is, is the US federal gov. doing anything about green house gas emissions? I know that at the local level there are quite a lot of initiatives... But is the Bush administration doing something concrete, besides temporising and hoping that the problem will magically go away?

I don't think they are.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I don't think any administration has done enough in this area. It's going to take political pressure from US citizens on whatever party is in power. Air pollution and acid rain are still damaging forests and part of the problem is deforestation. I happen to think that massive reforestation is the quickest path to reducing global temperature averages. Trees soak up tons of C02.
 
Freakshow said:
If it wasn't the point, then why does it exclude some of the major emitters? What other reason can there be, other than choosing to single out particular nations (for reasons other than the environment), and not others? Why do that, if not to deliberately target some nations?

If it was really solely about the environment, then shouldn't it hold all the major offenders to similar standards?
Click to expand...

It was based on the CFC protocol, which worked successfully.
 
a_unique_person said:
It was based on the CFC protocol, which worked successfully.
Click to expand...
So? Lots of stuff in history "worked successfully", while also having severe negative consequences.

We have a much more global economy now, especially with competition from China and India, than we have in the past. Rules rigged against the US will hinder our ability to compete with China and India much more than they would have in the past.

Why would you object to applying the rules more equally? What is the problem you have with that?
 
Last edited:
Another way of looking at all this is that it doesn't matter.

I suspect that mathematical grade, near certainty proof of anthropogenic global warming is impossible, at least at the level that would convince the most strident AGW doubters as evidenced by some of them in this forum.

So, pretty much regardless of what the scientific evidence is from here on out my guess is that the US (and perhaps Europe and Asia) will not do anything significant with regards to reducing carbon emissions for a long time.

Assuming that the AGW forecasts are roughly right eventually we will experience many of the serious effects predicted by climate scientists which will probably lead to a willingness by the citizenry to do something about it even if the science can not provide absolute answers. But about the same time that a consensus to do something about the problem finally develops carbon emissions will already be headed downwards because of the decline in the availability of oil which will force a reduction in world wide CO2 emissions without a need for any governmental actions..

On the other hand, things might not work out all that well because there is a lot more coal energy available than oil energy and burning coal produces more CO2 per energy produced so as the world shifts to coal things might get even worse.
 
Last edited:
peptoabysmal said:
Sadly, I don't think any administration has done enough in this area. It's going to take political pressure from US citizens on whatever party is in power. Air pollution and acid rain are still damaging forests and part of the problem is deforestation. I happen to think that massive reforestation is the quickest path to reducing global temperature averages. Trees soak up tons of C02.
Click to expand...

You probably haven't seen that latest research that has found that plants emit methane. And CH4 is a much more powerful forcing agent than CO2.

And what you will note that it is C1 in and C1 out => one molecule of carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere to produce one molecule of the more powerful grenhouse gas, methane.
 
Freakshow said:
So? Lots of stuff in history "worked successfully", while also having severe negative consequences.

We have a much more global economy now, especially with competition from China and India, than we have in the past. Rules rigged against the US will hinder our ability to compete with China and India much more than they would have in the past.

Why would you object to applying the rules more equally? What is the problem you have with that?
Click to expand...

You may also consider the US is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. Another reason why 'you first' is not a valid position to take.
 
a_unique_person said:
You may also consider the US is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. Another reason why 'you first' is not a valid position to take.
Click to expand...
I am not advocating "you first". I am advocating "we together".

Yes, we are first. But some of the other top producers are excluded. Why is that? Why do you object to their being included?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom