|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
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.
Ok as I have said and posted statistics on before many times. The western countries have no population growth problem. Go talk to the people in the third world, asia and other developing nations (but not china..they have managed their growth) There is no reaosn to shcakle our industry either, the resources we consume go back into feeding the world (to a large extent) sending relife to developing nations foreign aid and yes our own economy too. There is also no reason not to pursue cleaner, more efficient power sources, fuels, and manufacturing processes. If you dig into some of the more balanced research on environment and not just the radical eco-inclined and on the things we as a nation (the USA here though others are doing their part) are working on, wether government run or privately funded, we are doing quite a bit to improve our environment. In southern California alone there are no less than a dozen different companies working on solar energy solutions not to mention how many there are across the rest of the nation. George Bush is also pushing for a multi-billion dollar budget to jumpstart oour fusion research programs too...now if congress will just act...
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 (exactly how did they "ramrod" this? Sounds like an incendiary statement rather than a cool collected assessment) 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.)
That was the previous administration and unfortunately that administration had some dubious motivations. The science behind Kyoto is bad science, theories with partial models with no real accounting for real world variables. Others on here have posted about the inadaquacies of the science and there are plenty of published works that indicate that man is not the boogieman when it comes to weather cycles. Aside from that, Kyoto would require that we wreck our economy and then who would feed the starving billions accross the globe?
On another tack, a Public apology for loosing my temper in my previous entry to you. I do tend to be touchy on some subjects.
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.
Last time I checked, people at Exxon have to breathe the same air, and drink the same water as everyone else. Just because they are against a policy that would destroy our economy and cause long term problems globally does not mean that they want to breathe dirtyier air or drink polluted water. Exxon makes billions off of Oil yes, so do others, BUT they also spend more than most governments on trying to find cleaner more efficient solutions...you see the more efficient their processes the bigger their profit margins. Also Exxon and every other NON-American oil industry is there to, don't just hang this on the US while were at it. Again, Kyoto is based on science that is not good science. They have partial theories and inadaquate models. So when people "fudge" the data to get their point accross their point is invalid. There are plenty of scientists who have admitted to the inadaquacies in the science behind Kyoto, but they say that doesnt matter. Because it is better to be safe than sorry....unless you end up making things worse by restricting the major contributor of the funding for reasearch, namely the industrielized nations. Cripple their economies and you cause ripple effects accross the globe. Kyoto is bad. (just my opinion though)
|
[ 09-16-2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
|