Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[agrohimgfu]

• <a href="https://www.port... by agrohimgfu
  [Today at 01:50:21 AM]
• Professional Advice: Reco... by Davidfak
  [Yesterday at 11:59:18 AM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [Yesterday at 03:21:43 AM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Antonioair
  [May 09, 2024, 04:28:57 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 07:52:26 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 01:37:16 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4952
• Latest: WllkeiJocky

Stats

• Total Posts: 129628
• Total Topics: 7187
• Online Today: 153
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[xolik]

I hope somone else explains it all to you cause i don't want to spend time and effort in doing it my self.

If you're not going to make an effort to explain yourself, then you have no business joining in these kinds of topics. This is a severe pet peeve of mine that people get cornered in a debate and play the 'Oh, it's not worth my time\effort' card to try to weasle out of it.

[TheJudge]

If I may make a suggestion, perhaps the scope of this discussion should be clarified before things start to get personal / out of control. I think we're are due for good discussion over here and this is an interesting issue.

I'm personally not that familiar with Kyoto and it's content so I can't really comment, but as a reader of this thread, I'de like to see some facts to back up your point of view. For example, when Reimero says:

Basically, it amounts to "let's impose a bunch of environmental restrictions on the US, but grant exemptions to a whole bunch of other countries who pollute almost as much."

To me, that's an opinion. Like I said, I'm not familiar with Kyoto, so perhaps you can refer me to the sections of the treaty that are problematic or that lead you to this conclusion.

TerraHammer, the mistake you made in this thread is you started with a false assumption. It's false to say that America isn't willing. The problem isn't willigness, it's more about the approach. I'm not really informed much on this particular matter, but it appears to me as though they are not onboard with the current proposal and therefore the discussion should revolve around the proposal itsef.

So if it's OK with everyone, I'll formulate a new question for this thread to give it a bit more scope:

What are the Pros and Cons of Kyoto, and does the treaty favour anyone more than the other, and how so? Is kyoto ultimatly an adequate solution or is someting missing?

Can we focus the discussion around that?

An BizB, for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that humans can have a direct influence on climate. It's easy to say if you can't prove it don't talk about it. But if it's never been done before, how can you prove if somehting is feasable or not? At some point, you need to test a theory in order to prove it. The only way to do that is by taking action and trying something new. Perhaps humans have never influenced climate before, thus there is no proof that it can be done. At least not yet! The lack of proof doesn't rule out the possibility.

[BizB]

The difference is in persepctive.  From my point of view, the environmentalist movement is an attack on economics from an emotional point of view.

Nobody wants to hurt the planet.  Nobody wants polluted water.  Nobody likes smog.  The question becomes, what are we willing to do about it and at what cost?  

Recycle!  Let's all recycle!  That was a great idea until someone discovered that the energy used to clean and prepare recyclable materials is actually a greater harm to the environment than the harm caused by just adding them to a landfill.  Yet still, there is the impression that recycling is the right thing to do.

Hybrids!  Let's all buy hybrid cars.  That'll reduce oil usage and limit CO2 emissions.  You bet it will.  However, at today's cost of both the fuel and the cars themselves, there is barely enough life-span in one of these vehicles to cover the cost difference.  Further, there are hidden costs to owning a hybrid car including the $6,800+ replacement battery in 8 years... not to mention the disposal of the old battery.

Let's restrict business emissions!  Well, if you're a student of economics and capitalism, you know that businesses don't pay costs.  They pass it on to the consumer.  Nobody wants to allow energy companies to pollute more than they already do, but when they have rolling-brown-outs in California everyone is up in arms.  Increased cost of energy is the first thing that people will bitch about.  Remember how $3.00/gallon gasoline made the headlines after Katrina.  Think about how the natural-gas companies announcement that fuel costs could rise by 100-150% because of production problems caused panic.  How will the poor get by?  Who will take care of those on fixed income?

The only way to change behavior is to change the reward/consequences balance for those behaviors.  The punishment for using oil today is a 2.5C degree change in the Earth's core temperature... 100 years from now!  Those consequences don't outweigh the reward I get for driving my 16mpg Ram pickup 20 miles to work every day so that I can provide for my family.  Decrease the reward, or increase the immediate consequences and I'd give thought to changing my behavior.  Until then, I'll see you at the gas station.

[TheJudge]

Very good points! ANd I htink you are correct in pointing the foundation of the problem as the way our economy works. It's true, additional cost is passed down to consumers. If business A from green country produces the same product than Business B from non green country, both products are identical, but product form business B is 20% cheaper due to not having to comply with all sorts of enviromental regulars that generate operational costs, then poeple will purchase from company B. Those are the very same people who complain about the problem, yet with it comes down to it, they are the problem. It's the same idea with child labor. operating cost of a sweatshop in some unknown country are not inflated by regulations, unions, minimum wages, and so on. They have the capacity to fabricate an identical product then their regulated competetors for much less. And if they still exist, it's because those products that were produced keep getting purchased.

[GenStyx]

Excellent points Biz and thanks Judge for being a sexy moderator to this discussion.

BizB: Don't you think emotions should be included in our formation of policy, standards, and trade?  I agree that they shouldn't be based solely on emotion, but it should be included with our reasoning, especially since there are so many unknowns and complications in economic theory.  After all, moral precepts are rules of behavior that establish as basis for cooperation and reciprocity on which civilization depends.  Either way, it is within our economic best interest to analyze detriments to nature.

We need to ensure environmental sustainability.  This can be done through integration of known principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs.  This includes providing access to safe drinking water to the 20% of the world that are neglected, particularly due to the IMF conditionality that requires the privatization of water.  More then just a Kyoto Treaty is needed in this effort.

I think it would be foolish if TeraHammer was assuming/basing his arguement on this sole occurance. The reality is that America has a complicated and developing policy that is influenced by a mixed popular will.  In some ways I find this to be beneficial in order to avoid extremes and debate on issues. ALthough, it does make bringing about change difficult.

[TheJudge]

Excellent points Biz and thanks Judge for being a sexy moderator to this discussion.

Thanks! If only I could learn how to tyupe, I'd be unstoopable! OMFGLOOL!!111

[ivan]

I've been mulling over this for the past two days. I wanted to post an amicable response to TeraHammer, pointing out that the stereotypes of Americans as foolish and thoughtless consumers is not true. I was going to talk about, for instance, the US National Parks system, the biggest state-mandated conservation plan in the world, which began in the 1870s even as Americans -- who were then essentially Europeans -- pushed greedily ever westward. I was going to use that example, among others, to illustrate the oft-observed dichotomous nature of Americans: we are greedy, and we are generous; we are miserly, and we are gregarious; we are provincial, and we are cosmpolitan; we are liberal, and we are conservative -- all at the same time. Nothing illustrates this better than our most recent presidential election: if you cannot comprehend why we elected Bush, it is because you forget that we voted in almost equal numbers against him. So the face we show the world is always a product of an intense inner struggle. Sometimes we lean a little to the left, and sometimes a little to the right, but in that struggle is our essence. In that struggle is our character. The results don't matter as much as the process, because it is the process that keeps us vital. If a day comes when we stop our inner struggle, it will be our death.

So you can see how something like the Kyoto accords is meaningless to Americans. We've been grappling with such issues for decades. We have, without the benefit of totalitarian rule, set aside millions of acres to be preserved intact for ever. We have passed numerous laws imposing restrictions on automobile manufacturers and petroleum companies long before "global warming" was a buzzword. We have reduced air polution dramatically -- do any of you remember smog alerts?  We have conservation laws that place a toad's survival over the needs of corporations. And we did this of our own accord, not because the world looked at us askance.

The problem with the Kyoto idea is that we are not being asked to help; we are not being asked to join; we are being asked to lead. We are already doing just that, and have been for some time, and don't need some poxy accord to figure out how to clean up our own mess.

Anyway, I was going to post something along those lines, and also touch on what BizB posted, but BizB hit it spot on. The needs of my family outweigh the needs of the world. When it is possible for me to both support my family and also comply with TerraHammer's notion of how Americans should lead their daily lives, then I'll be green as green can be. I'll make Ed Bagely Jr. look like a robber baron. Until then, I'll see you at the gas station.

[sociald1077]

When I frist heard about the Kyoto treaty, I really didnt know what it was about. All I knew was that it was a world wide effort to reduce carbon dioxide emmisions and other pollutants. So I, being the uniformed self I was, jumped on the "Lets Save the Earth" band wagon. Then I started to look around online and found out that the Kyoto Treaty, while a good idea, was flawed in that it was not a true world wide effort. China, India, and other developing countries are completely exempt from the treaty. It hardly seems fair to put the US through the economic hardships that would be caused by this treaty, when the other top world polluters get off scott-free. Also, the US government  has signed on to the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a treaty much like the Kyoto agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Pacific_Partnership_on_Clean_Development_and_Climate). And in some places, such as California, the Kyoto treaty goals for the US have been adopted at the state or local level. Just because there doesnt seem to be governmental support for the treaty doesn't mean that we as a country are not trying to help out.

[jeee]

100 years from now seems like a long time but it's not. It means that the grandchild that sits on my lap when I live to be eighty will be living in the mess I created. The  kyoto treaty in itself has no weight, it's a common deal to decrease emissions and the US along with for instance the Netherlands designed it, only the US never did ratify because at the time of ratification the republicans were in the house and they tought it was bad. So what is the value of a treaty if not all the original authors hold to it ? Nothing.

It is a proven fact that global warming is damaging our climate, the ozone layer is getting thin and the weather is changing, the poles are melting and that will do some serious damage. If certain aspects of life are getting more expensive but will save our environment I will  be more then happy to pay up for it. It is not thousands of euros i have to give in. If you look on the per capita amount of waste we produce the US is the no 1 in almost every list.

A few examples:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pol_mun_was_per_cap

Also the US has a large list of treaties they signed but did not ratify:

Air Pollution-Persistent Organic Pollutants, Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds, Biodiversity, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol, Hazardous Wastes

And in general the average american is using much more energy than average other inhabitant of this world:


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_usa_per_per

So that's where the image of the big consuming american comes from.
I am not saying everyone should jump into a hybrid but choosing a car that is more environmentally friendly only shows consideration and a sense of responsibillity. As fas as Terahammer's statement, he sees the same news that I see and that's not positive towards America. He does not look further and doesn't see the consequences it holds for an american when certain measurements are taken, because it will influence directly the ammount of money in their wallets because of the way the US economy is built up. And therefor I can understand why Ivan and Biz think the way they do. I will not see you at the gasstation, I don't drive a car.

[SlackMonger]

I'm not sure of the specifics, but scientist have done some deep coring of the  poles and found that right before the last ice age there was a ginormous spike in temperature. They also established that we are again on the incline(erm, duh).  Sounds like fun, I'm just glad I don't live in Louisiana.. although I guess it doesn't really matter in the long run, as our planet is destined to be destroyed anyway. If we can't finish it off the sun will.

I think our best bet is terraforming another planet, and besides.. that would be a hell of a lot more awesomer  :vader:

[Ronjun]

Well, I was wondering about the whole hybrid benefit/cost ratio, and found this:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/auto/car-guide/hybrid.asp

After reading this I don't think one could conclude that US government isn't doing anything to help in environmentalist issues. After all they are giving tax breaks for the hybrid users. Tough if they truly wanted they could push it, yet that would hurt the common folk's wallet pretty bad, I think...