|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Magik, your apology is accepted, but it was not needed. 
As for which administration approved Kyoto, it matters not for this discussion. The USA's interests as compared to other countries doesn't really change that much from president to president: those of us inside the USA see it as more different than it is. No matter the president, when we enter into ANY negotiation with other nations, we want our businesses and people to benefit - that gets any president re-elected.
Ok point conceeded [img]smile.gif[/img]
Proof of global warming: I have to send you to others to convince you - I am only a hack when it comes to science, I'm not a real pro. I encourage you the check out the PEW Center for Climate Change website. PEW is run by Eileen Claussen, who was at the State Dept. for years. It's really middle-of-the-road, and is the organization that got Shell, BP, etc. to agree to voluntary emission reductions. Ms. Claussen has told me, regarding her approach as "the middleman," that she needs the Sierra Club left and the OPEC right to help her stay where she is and get real things done in positive ways. If you like, I once compiled a list of websites, some liberal some conservative, to give to my students to educate themselves on climate change - I could dig it out and send it to you. IMHO, there is scientific evidence that supports a theory that we COULD change the climate, and also proof that some types of changes could be irreparable - and that, I think, should be enough to trigger the Precautionary Principle that is so common-sensical (not a word - I know).
Im not a pro either...at least not at weather scince (but I play one on Iron Works) But I do know a few, and have worked on a couple of contracts involving the hardware used to model weather. I have actually heard of PEW and I always laugh at the acronym, but will check it out again [img]smile.gif[/img]
I am all for comon sense approaches to cleaning our act up, wether it impacts the environment or not, I hate waste and detest inefficiency (must be the german in me) I believe our government's job is to find ways to encourage industry to do what they are already doing in the way of increasing efficiency and cleaning up process and to make sure such things as illegal dumping and such do not take place. I have read thru the Kyoto Protocols and will honestly tell you ...to me it looks like just so much legalese, I have relied on others to interpret it for me, people I trust. so won't argue details of the exact wording or meaning. All I know for sure, if enacted it would probably decimate our economy...especially right now.
I will point out that on a positive spin, current research and theory has us over due for a dramatic climate shift into an ice age so maybe whatever agency that is keeping us warm, may be a good thing. I could go on about deep oceanic currents and melting polar ice caps and ice cores taken in antarctica and many other things I have posted before, but its all out there for you to find to.
Economy: this seems to be your biggest concern. It shouldn't.
First, On the one hand, history has time-and-again proven that the industry can well-handle any increase in costs. Shrimpers screamed bloody murder and blocked ports in the south when they were forced to put Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) on their trawlers, saying they would all go under. A few years later, and we see no economic impact. Same with all the "big dirty" power plants targeted under the Clean Air Act and the CAA 1990 Amendments. Ditto for waste haulers and storers and the Resource COnservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
have you looked at our economy lately? Since the year 2000 we have been in one of the worst economic recessions in our history. It aint a pretty picture. Now I realize corporate misdeeds are partly to blame but there are plenty of businesses that are going under that did nothing wrong.
We are not out of our economic doldrums yet. Even the democrat type financial advisers are labeling it an unusual bear market.
Second, I again reiterate the Polluter Pays principle. Now, with GHGs I admit it may or may not be "pollution" and that there is debate as to how harmful it is, but I want to use a pollution analogy here. If you make my air dirty, i.e. take my clean air, and then use it to make a product you sell, without paying me for what you took - then you have been the beneficiary of a windfall. Quite simply, a business should pay for what it uses (i.e. resources) to make its product, otherwise its "profit" really is stolen from others. I'm a hard-core economic realist - I want real-cost accounting. But, I want to account for all the costs of doing business. If you cannot pay for the resources you use and still make a profit off of the product, then you are inefficient and need to shut your doors.
In this model you forget the fact that our industry produces more with less than most the rest of the world, the materials we use and waste it produces still does more good globally than harm (in my opinion) There are literally millions or hundreds of millions that would starve or die from disease were it not for the US and other generous western nations.
Im not sure about China (maybe KT could answer that) But there aren't any nations in Asia sending out billions in aid to the middle east, Africa or south america. Aid meaning, food, clothing, medicine, shelter, education, and technology not just moeny, and all of those things require a large production base to allow us to sustain that aid.
Third, there are large piles of money to be made in clean air. Seatbelt laws have created businesses that thrive making a product (seatbelts) to sell - and jobs are created. We and other countries had to spend money on National Defense - which is an economic externality just like environmental protection - but that necessity led to some of the most successful companies (and researchers I might add) in American history (cite: McDonald-Douglas, BMW [did you know they began a German airplane makers?], Mercedes-Benz). Who do you think will be at the forefront of development if/when climate-friendly products increase in demand - that's right, the developed countries' folks - our good ole US engineers. If you don't buy this line of reasoning, why don't you check the Chicago Board of Trade where Kyoto climate change credits have been listed as a futures commodity for years. And, believe me, that will really open your eyes to the increasing value of clean air. You really think China is going to make its clean coal plants? It already has projects where the US is helping build them. And even though there's an expense up front, guess who's collecting the money on the back end? There is a reason that the US is supporting over 35 joint climate change projects worldwide - and that reason is the boat-load of bucks to be made.
The US has had projects running for decades to clean up the air, water and land. We have had environmental policies for ages. Our programs are working and have been for the thirty years that I can recall seeing the clean ups. Kyoto would have completely blown us away I am convinced and so are our leaders apparently. As for us poluting the "worlds" atmosphere...I direct your attention to the recent gigantic dust/polution cloud that recently swept across China and into the western Pacific...that didn't come from us dude. I still believe that Kyoto was bad for the US and bad for every western nation but I will check out PEW [img]smile.gif[/img]
|
[ 09-16-2002, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
|