|
I quote:
"So the question is...Do we completely disolve our existing societies and make sure that at least 5/6ths of the world population dies out or do we ignore the irrational panic mongering that is going on and continue to improve our technologies as almost every western nation is doing while maintaing the best quality of life for every one (in the west) that is the highest in the known history of the planet? I vote for option #2....see my post above about the 1970's and the Enonut horror stories we had to grow up with."
Howsabout we just slow a exponential/geometric rate of growth a little bit? Note that exponential growth here refers not just to Population (world's single biggest enviro problem - but that's another post), but also to resource usage per capita, and consequently GHG output per capita and en toto.
As for concerns regarding the simple *buying* of clean air by rich countries, I have a few commments. Some articles, such as Article XII, of Kyoto that provide what the U.S. delegation championed and ram-rodded through committee in a 4 a.m. session the last night of Kyoto, the so-called FLEXIBLE MECHANISMS, allow countries that get below their targeted output of GHG to SELL the "clean air" they created to countries like the U.S. who would rather buy credits and keep polluting. As the U.S. delegation argued, however, this is the structure of the Clean Air Act which has worked amazingly well. (Note I would point out it's not *that* similar and the CAA is working all *that* well at this point, but that's a rather boring legal discussion.)
Moreover, because Kyoto did not provide limitations on the poorer/developing world, they cannot get *below* their targeted emission (they have NO target, you see). Thus, it is only those countries that are developed, large polluters who will be SELLING credits. Now there are other FlexMechs that would apply to the poorer countries, such as credit for technology transfers, etc.
The reason Kyoto was set up this way is the basic assumption (as the US argued) that a ton of clean air is as good in one spot of the world as in any other, as climate is holostic. Moreover, a ton of clean air costs less in some countries, because what we consider 20-year-old cleaning technology is *new* there. So, given X dollars in the pot, why not go where you can by the most clean air for your money?
As you can see, even though Kyoto is a framework document as to how the system will function, changing the system to force limitations on developing countries will result in the need to re-write the whole thing. That would be good for the U.S., because the longer it is before anything is done, the less money it costs the big polluters now. I liken it to the big belching chemical plant that wants to simply tie up the bill in committee until it's forgotten.
When we think of this climate change crap, we picture the butterfly-people all unwashed and high on idealism chanting outside the UN meeting house. Well, guess what, folks, Exxon is *inside* the UN meeting house, along with all the other big dirties, having daily meetings with various delegations. I must say, though, that the industry leaders always have the best free food at the climate change conferences.
__________________
 
|