Kyoto I: Socialist Sucking Scheme

[madmax]

I would never vote NDP and the Liberals still need to be in the penalty box for a few years, I'll stick with the CPC for now.

You voted Liberal?

[madmax]

Well I think the environment is a very important issue, and we need to start making a lot of changes in order to protect it.

Are you commenting on GHGs or the "environment" in general which is a very broad topic.

However, that said, I think rejecting Kyoto was right----at the time I thought it was crazy to reject it, but I am starting to see some good reasons for its being rejected.

The Canadian Government has rejected Kyoto?

[madmax]

So what is the point of destroying the economy for something that can never be achieved. Kyoto is a dead end.

PROUD TO BE A REFORMER, BUY A GUN AND PO A LIBERAL! :angry:

Better email these guys. I don't think they believe you.

The planet's future is at stake," Baird told CBC News. "[Global warming] is a fact and it requires real action."

Continue Article

"I think the first … realistic step in any such plan would be to try over the next few years to stabilize emissions. Obviously over the longer term to reduce them, but as I said before, realistically, the only way to get … reductions is to develop technologies," Harper said.

Perhaps you need to broaden your tag line.

PROUD TO BE A REFORMER, BUY A GUY AND PO A CONSERVATIVE :angry:

Sounds pretty retarded this way too.

[Keepitsimple]

If you mean the US, you're right: emission stats from Wikipedia.

Here's another interesting emissions and climate change stats, from Env Canada.

I watched Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth the other day and I must admit - there was one piece of information that I did not know. We're always hearing about how the Oil and Gas industry are the main culprits but Gore clearly stated that 30% of all GHG come from the burning of forests - that would be South America and Africa. Yet I don't see this reflected in the per-capita emissions. As a matter of fact, the "notes" in the Wikipedia per-capita say that the US emmissions are based on Natural Gas. That would appear to mean that other countries are based on something else.....so I'm not sure how to interpret them on a comparative basis. But burning forests = 30% of all man-made GHG. Seems like a good place to start reducing.

[Leafless]

If you mean the US, you're right: emission stats from Wikipedia.

Here's another interesting emissions and climate change stats, from Env Canada.

I watched Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth the other day and I must admit - there was one piece of information that I did not know. We're always hearing about how the Oil and Gas industry are the main culprits but Gore clearly stated that 30% of all GHG come from the burning of forests - that would be South America and Africa. Yet I don't see this reflected in the per-capita emissions. As a matter of fact, the "notes" in the Wikipedia per-capita say that the US emmissions are based on Natural Gas. That would appear to mean that other countries are based on something else.....so I'm not sure how to interpret them on a comparative basis. But burning forests = 30% of all man-made GHG. Seems like a good place to start reducing.

Wink-wink.

Surely you must know developing countries are rated as Non-Annex- 1 economies and have NO GHG restrictions.

[myata]

....so I'm not sure how to interpret them on a comparative basis. But burning forests = 30% of all man-made GHG. Seems like a good place to start reducing.

I'm not sure where the figure came from ... but anyways, on the Wiki page you should be able to find links on the methodology and sources used to derive the data. I will be very much surprised if such a serious source of GHG was somehow left unaccounted for by people who compiled and reviewed these stats. And if it is the case you are welcome to publish your own results which would definitely make an impact due to its significance.

In any case this argument is beyond the point because West, which is responsible for at least the current state of affairs, has already burned all of its forests. So, making claims against others who are simply following in our own footsteps, is pathetic, not to say hardly credible.

[Leafless]

In any case this argument is beyond the point because West, which is responsible for at least the current state of affairs, has already burned all of its forests. So, making claims against others who are simply following in our own footsteps, is pathetic, not to say hardly credible.

When the U.S. and Canada cleared their forest, consequences of pollution were relatively unknown.

You are totally wrong and are immature to suggest it is okay for others to follow in the footsteps who already burnt their forest, as we know today, what the deadly consequences are to the planet.

I bet your also not aware that the planet is overpopulated by 30%. Pollution increases with population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

[jdobbin]

When the U.S. and Canada cleared their forest, consequences of pollution were relatively unknown.

You are totally wrong and are immature to suggest it is okay for others to follow in the footsteps who already burnt their forest, as we know today, what the deadly consequences are to the planet.

I bet your also not aware that the planet is overpopulated by 30%. Pollution increase with population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

One problem with your argument is that some people think that forests in the northern hemisphere increase warming and forests in the southern hemisphere increase cooling.

http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases...R-05-12-04.html

[myata]

You are totally wrong and are immature to suggest it is okay for others to follow in the footsteps who already burnt their forest, as we know today, what the deadly consequences are to the planet.

But of course it's OK for others to follow in our footsteps. Why shouldn't they? We did it, got our prosperity from uncontrolled unlimited consumption of carbon fuel, and now we want to stop them from doing the same? With nothing to show for it (other than hot air polemics on deficiencies of Kyoto)?

Countries like China, Brazil, India are still developing to have their people fed and clothed. Their choices are different from those we make (like should I buy a 6cyl city cruiser or SUV or a truck). Are we in any position to preach conservation and responsible use of resources to them?

[August1991]

... but anyways, on the Wiki page you should be able to find links on the methodology and sources used to derive the data. I will be very much surprised if such a serious source of GHG was somehow left unaccounted for by people who compiled and reviewed these stats.

The source of the data is the US goivernment which in turn got the data from the UN.

The UN asked each country to conduct an inventory of CO2 emissions. These calculations were never verified so each national government was free to make any claim. Furthermore, the methodology was inexact because of the uncertainty in including natural absorption of CO2.

We did it, got our prosperity from uncontrolled unlimited consumption of carbon fuel, and now we want to stop them from doing the same? With nothing to show for it (other than hot air polemics on deficiencies of Kyoto)?

Countries like China, Brazil, India are still developing to have their people fed and clothed. Their choices are different from those we make (like should I buy a 6cyl city cruiser or SUV or a truck). Are we in any position to preach conservation and responsible use of resources to them?

This is what I find so deplorable about this issue.

Myata, you don't primarily want to solve the problem of global warming. You really want the rich to pay.

The West is not rich because of consumption of cheap fuel. The price of oil quadrupled in the 1970s and western countries soon adapted without great harm to their standard of living. Western economic development has a much more fundamental basis than exploiting natural resources.

In any case, a policy based on taking from the rich and giving to the poor will get environmental protection precisely nowhere.

[myata]

The UN asked each country to conduct an inventory of CO2 emissions. These calculations were never verified so each national government was free to make any claim. Furthermore, the methodology was inexact because of the uncertainty in including natural absorption of CO2.

Well, I'm sure that a well documented research accepted by the peers will eventually make its way even into UN statistics. There's no point in blaming stats unless we can find better ones.

This is what I find so deplorable about this issue.

Myata, you don't primarily want to solve the problem of global warming. You really want the rich to pay.

The pay must come from those who 1) created the problem and 2) continue(s) to be the largest emitters on the planet. Looks simple, fair and logical to me. As to those member countries which signed the Kyoto. Recongnizing one's responsibility is the first step. Without it, nothing will (and can) happen.

[August1991]

The pay must come from those who 1) created the problem and 2) continue(s) to be the largest emitters on the planet. Looks simple, fair and logical to me. As to those member countries which signed the Kyoto. Recongnizing one's responsibility is the first step. Without it, nothing will (and can) happen.

As I have noted above, if we get into the blame game, we'll be arguing about this in 2050 - just like the Palestinians - and we'll be just as close to a solution.

Global warming is about the future and we shouldn't look at the past. You might say that that is "unjust" and I'll simply answer: what is more important, justice or a liveable planet?

[myata]

Global warming is about the future and we shouldn't look at the past. You might say that that is "unjust" and I'll simply answer: what is more important, justice or a liveable planet?

You're absolutely right, the blame game can go on until no one's left to have fun. The way to go is to own up responsibility and show the lead. It's lot easier to start in our own backyard and clean our own act than to persuade China and India that should lead the world in sustainable development.

As seen from the stats, China produced 6 times less per capita GHG than the US. What reasonable argument can you find to make them believe that they should start cutting their productions while the latter is sitting idle?

[Charles Anthony]

As seen from the stats, China produced 6 times less per capita GHG than the US. What argument can you find to make them believe that they should start cutting their productions while the latter is sitting idle?

Saying "China produced 6 times less per capita" is the height of absurdity unless of course you are playing politics. China has zillions more people than in the U.S.A. A per-capita figure is meaningless.

There is NO argument to make the Chinese start cutting their production. You have to either force them (which is impossible) or provide a market incentive. Until the self-proclaimed a-political environtalists can provide a market incentive for regular people to stop buying pollution-producing products, they are providing no solution.

[myata]

Other than the obvious one, of course - clean your own act first, then teach the others.

[Charles Anthony]

clean your own act first, then teach the others.

That is not a market incentive. You do not get it.

Continue the blame game.

[myata]

The world isn't build around "market incentives" only, important as they are. If your house is on fire, will you get out asap, or perhaps wait for a market incentive to do that?

[Charles Anthony]

If my house burns down, I will blame a right-winger.

[August1991]

As seen from the stats, China produced 6 times less per capita GHG than the US. What reasonable argument can you find to make them believe that they should start cutting their productions while the latter is sitting idle?

But should China (and Russia, and Germany and France and... ) be off the hook entirely?

Why should the US pick up the entire tab?

Moreover, we should really want to reduce global emissions, wherever they occur, at least cost.

[myata]

But should China (and Russia, and Germany and France and... ) be off the hook entirely?

Why should the US pick up the entire tab?

Moreover, we should really want to reduce global emissions, wherever they occur, at least cost.

No one is saying that they should be off the hook entirely, August, and as far as I understand it was in the concept of Kyoto that other countries will follow the suit in the Phase II. It's just that someone has (had??) to start.

And again, I don't understand this "least cost" part. Until there's a global government (and at the pace things are developing, we'll be long extinct by then), the cost for each country are owned by that country. There's no way someone could come to your door with a message like, you've got to cut your emissions more than me because it's less expensive for you. Each should clean their own act. Simple, really.

[Charles Anthony]

There's no way someone could come to your door with a message like, you've got to cut your emissions more than me because it's less expensive for you. Each should clean their own act. Simple, really.

Wrong. There is a way for someone to come to your door and tell you what to do. It happens all of the time.

Modern states have a lot of power. It just turns out to be inefficient to order people around at gun-point. The most efficient way is to create market incentives.

For example: make people pay for their garbage. Charge every bag that sits at the curb $5 on garbage day. Within one week, you will see people throwing out less and recycling more. Within one month, you will see people buying products that have little or no packaging. So on and so on.

An other example is taxation. [i can not believe I am saying this but anyway...] Charge taxes on polluting activties. Take your pick.

An other example is to cut down on cronyism. Stop subsidizing industry. Unfortunately, the bigger the country, the easier it is to hide cronyism and the more profitable cronyism will be.

My solution: we need smaller governments and smaller countries.

My practical solution: do nothing. Globalization is going to raise the standard of living throughout the world. If people in third world countries want a continued improvement in their standard of living, they will demand it themselves. They will reduce their polluting ways.

[myata]

[

My practical solution: do nothing. Globalization is going to raise the standard of living throughout the world. If people in third world countries want a continued improvement in their standard of living, they will demand it themselves. They will reduce their polluting ways.

Can you clarify this part? If it hasn't made us reduce our polluting ways in sufficient measure, why and how will it make them do it? Regarding the other part, i.e. market incentive, sure if come to their door with a big bunch of dough, they may reconsider. But that's exactly the part August wasn't happy about. Maybe it'd be cheaper to start here then?

BTW I'm all for $5 / garbage can (with proportional tax reduction of course). I take out one per month (composting, recycling and conscious buying) while my neighbours average one or two per week. Now, how they can be duped into accepting it, big question.

[Charles Anthony]

Can you clarify this part? If it hasn't made us reduce our polluting ways in sufficient measure, why and how will it make them do it?

Market prices will make us do it.

Right now, the populations of third world countries demand very little in terms of consumption. Food, clothing and shelter.

In the future, they will see their standard of living rise. They will demand SUVs and CDs and TVs and disposable this and disposable that. Eventually, we will have to deal with an increase in demand for the same things we all enjoy. This will make us pay for our pollution. The problem is then: will it be too late?

Regarding the other part, i.e. market incentive, sure if come to their door with a big bunch of dough, they may reconsider.

Sorry. I was not clear. I meant through the threat of force.

For example, if you do not pay your taxes, somebody will come to your door and force you to concede. I am speaking of this sort of State power.

Now, how they can be duped into accepting it, big question.

Simple: by denying pickup of his garbage.

[myata]

They will demand SUVs and CDs and TVs and disposable this and disposable that. ... This will make us pay for our pollution. The problem is then: will it be too late?

I've a hunch that when every other person in China and India is driving SUV or a truck, it'll be prime time to relocate to another planet. The problem is, will the service be availble and at what rate?

I meant through the threat of force.

Using threat of force against China would hardly yield much (other than bring the relocation time much closer).

Simple: by denying pickup of his garbage.

We'll have to stop being a democracy before that; I think even with all the issues we have, it's less likely solution than to convince them somehow that they should pay more for their garbage pickup (as we're going to pay for bottles now). Somehow, your solutions are even less realistic than those from enviro-crowd.

[Charles Anthony]

MyAta,

I think YOU have only two choices:

1) go find out where in the world it is most affordable to reduce emissions. Pay the inhabitants of that part of the world to reduce their emissions.

2) go find out where in the world you can most easily coerce people to reduce their emissions. Go to war against those inhabitants and force them to reduce their emissions.

Good luck.