Cold, hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Lurch

I'd say the cost is actually lower because there are many cheap (or even economically attractive) options available to us that Europe already had fully utilized, but beyond that we sort of agree. We did not meet Kyoto b/c we had zero commitment, both at a national political level and at the individual consumer level.

As a simplistic example, what is the economic cost of fewer people driving large cars/SUV's? I'd argue there is no economic cost (in fact net benefit) in that the end product (miles driven) is constant and accomplished with fewer total resources. An efficient economy would re-allocate those freed up resources to better use - I can't imagine a rational argument that would convince me that accomplishing the same end production with fewer resources is bad for the economy. Consumer tastes may not be as fully met, but this is an entirely different argument than the "it will destroy our economy" argument that is typically tossed out.

On the other hand, Europe really does not have access to the example above. They either drive less or emissions rise with the slowly increasing population and car ownership rate, ie they have a true cost to reduce emissions in this sector.

I mostly agree with that. On an individual level there are lots of options. But they are drastic (change, not necessarily expense) so people don't want to make them. And governments have no will to make them for us (personally I'd argue they should not make them anyway, but that's another debate).

If we leave it to industry that is where it gets expensive. Downsizing a dump truck or big rig is not so easy as downsizing the SUV. And getting a new one with significantly different technology is not less expensive (if it is even available).

My point from the outset was that what we need(ed) to do to reduce emissions is not the same as what Europe and Japan need(ed) to do. I can't help but think if whatever Eurpoe and Japan did to hit their targets were available and easy to implement here, we would have done it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Nuclear power is actually a really good option in my mind. The reason it may get looked over by some (not all) environmentalists is because:

- Waste is very toxic. But it can actually be stored safely for a very long period of time.
- A plant malfunction can be potentially disastrous. See Three Mile Island, Chernobyl etc.
- Some reactors can be easily converted into nuclear warheads.

These aren't exactly small obstacles for some to over come to support this kind of power generation. The downsides to solar panels and wind turbines is pretty minuscule in comparison, and thusly easily favored by some. What's the worst that could happen with a wind turbine? Fall down on your field? However the output of a nuclear plant is far more substantial than solar panels and wind turbines.

Wind doesn't always blow...leaving the grid 'powerless'...especially in the summertime around here. That is why no new contracts to build windmills are being given out. But that might have changed lately.

Concerns about nuclear power are understandable. Yet, when I watched the Live Earth concert...how many idiots were there with 'say no to nuclear power' t-s...and yet they have no idea what they're against? How does that influence the rest of the world....especially people watching that concert?

Seems to me that instead of presenting the negatives of nuclear power...as well as the positives...people are dismissing it without exploring EITHER subject. Bit short-sighted IMO.

[Lurch]

[quote=Bend it like Bourgeois;974655]I mostly agree with that. On an individual level there are lots of options. But they are drastic (change, not necessarily expense) so people don't want to make them. And governments have no will to make them for us (personally I'd argue they should not make them anyway, but that's another debate).

If we leave it to industry that is where it gets expensive. Downsizing a dump truck or big rig is not so easy as downsizing the SUV. And getting a new one with significantly different technology is not less expensive (if it is even available).

My point from the outset was that what we need(ed) to do to reduce emissions is not the same as what Europe and Japan need(ed) to do. I can't help but think if whatever Eurpoe and Japan did to hit their targets were available and easy to implement here, we would have done it.[/quote]

And my point is that we did exactly nothing for 15 years and counting, so we'll never know. Those nations began the process over a decade before us, and managed it thus far. I think the very fact that we (as a group of Canadians/Albertans) are debating why Kyoto was so hard for us but easy for other nations illustrates why we failed. To suppose that Europe and Japan did nothing yet still acheived emission reductions seems self-serving, especially given the reality that they are miles ahead of us in terms of setting up emissions trading networks, efficiency standards, etc.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Lurch

And my point is that we did exactly nothing for 15 years and counting, so we'll never know. Those nations began the process over a decade before us, and managed it thus far. I think the very fact that we (as a group of Canadians/Albertans) are debating why Kyoto was so hard for us but easy for other nations illustrates why we failed. To suppose that Europe and Japan did nothing yet still acheived emission reductions seems self-serving, especially given the reality that they are miles ahead of us in terms of setting up emissions trading networks, efficiency standards, etc.

Fair. I would say would say we need to look back even further than 15 years. 20 and 30 years ago Japan and Europe made changes to their energy networks that are proving pretty beneficial today. There may be lots of good and not so good reasons why, but we're probably behind even that stage.