Kyoto is awesome

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I didn't dismiss cost... I brought it up. I just don't see $ as the single most important resource we have. It can be spent to improve other resources. I'd considering it an investment in the future.

You brought it up... and subsequently marginalized it.

If $s are going to the poorer countries, they can't be used as incentives for companies to create better technology.

The is the biggest problem with Kyoto. It's a huge cash cow. It should take a whole lot less than $12 billion over 7 years to offer incentives for companies to come up with cleaner technology. Incentives may not be the best but ad campaigns, like the useless "One Tonne Challenge", sure don't help.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Creating a better quality of living for the human race (through the elimination of massive pollution) is a great idea. One of the very best ideas; and it deserves some investment.

Sure it is... but there are better ways to do it.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Blink of an eye as far as I'm (and the earth is) concerned. Had heavy incentives begun a decade ago... they'd be kicking in right now! How many more decades should we wait?

A decade is a blink of an eye, and yet since one idea is brought up you want it implemented ASAP with no time to develop another proposal?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well, I guess we'll disagree on that point. I think if one ever decides to criticize a policy or idea, they'd better have another one that's better... or at the _very_ least evidence to support your points. You don't have any. If you don't have a better solution, what exactly have you contributed? Nothing.

You may as well have come out and said you hate the colour blue. So? Anything else to declare?

Your unbelievable.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I just dont understand why people think CO2 is this terrible gas. As many people have said in this post lets worry about the real pollution. Not something plants need to survive on.

There aren't enough plants around to deal with it all. Desertification (partially due to global warming), deforestation, removal of wetlands, etc... all diminish the environment's ability to deal with carbon dioxode.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There aren't enough plants around to deal with it all. Desertification (partially due to global warming), deforestation, removal of wetlands, etc... all diminish the environment's ability to deal with carbon dioxode.

Thanks tips.

Doesnt mean the gas is bad or posinous.

More important pollution to worry about than CO2 emissions is my point.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

You brought it up... and subsequently marginalized it.

Well... I identified it as the main 'con' to Kyoto, and then 'marginilized' it as less important than the quality of life on the earth itself. I stand by my 'marginlization'.

If $s are going to the poorer countries, they can't be used as incentives for companies to create better technology.

Well... I don't see massive incentives OR Kyoto being implemented... were I to see at least one implemented I'd be a happier individual.

The is the biggest problem with Kyoto. It's a huge cash cow. It should take a whole lot less than $12 billion over 7 years to offer incentives for companies to come up with cleaner technology. Incentives may not be the best but ad campaigns, like the useless "One Tonne Challenge", sure don't help.

Sounds good to me. So what does help? What is the answer? And why is more time being spent refuting Kyoto than figuring out a better solution? I've heard a lot more 'no-to-Kyoto' then 'yes-to-anything else'. Thats why I stick by Kyoto; its the only option I see on the table. I would love for other options to crop up, but until they do, I can't sympathize with those who are against Kyoto 'because there are better ways to achieve the goal'. What ways?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Your unbelievable.

Quality post.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Thanks tips.

Doesnt mean the gas is bad or posinous.

More important pollution to worry about than CO2 emissions is my point.

It's not inherently bad or poisonous, but it does have physical properties that allow it to trap heat. This is a proven and very observable fact. In fact, most matter has this property, but CO2 is very good at it. Iron is an essential element too, but too much would be harmful for us. It's not unlike certain atmospheric gases and our planet. It's not the idea that there is a lot of CO2, but it is that we are upsetting a fragile balance. There is a subtle but important difference.

And sure, there are many other harmful pollutants out there, and we should be doing what we can to cut down on all of them as much as we can. It certainly is not a case for ignoring CO2 if there is something that can be done to help. It would be like ignoring diabetes because there are worse diseases out there.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Show me where I said "do nothing". I am debating the validity of kyoto. In my view it is useless and designed to transfer wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries.

Just because people are against kyoto doesnt mean the want the world to go to ##### or dont care about the environment. Come on.

Another reminder about this.

Do not use typos to get by the language filter. They are not there for you to find creative ways to get around. They are there for a reason.

Respect the rules of the site please.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's not inherently bad or poisonous, but it does have physical properties that allow it to trap heat. This is a proven and very observable fact. In fact, most matter has this property, but CO2 is very good at it. Iron is an essential element too, but too much would be harmful for us. It's not unlike certain atmospheric gases and our planet. It's not the idea that there is a lot of CO2, but it is that we are upsetting a fragile balance. There is a subtle but important difference.

And sure, there are many other harmful pollutants out there, and we should be doing what we can to cut down on all of them as much as we can. It certainly is not a case for ignoring CO2 if there is something that can be done to help. It would be like ignoring diabetes because there are worse diseases out there.

And that is why we spend much more on Cancer rather than diabetes. Kyoto on the other had is trying to cure Diabetes rather than Cancer

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Another reminder about this.

Do not use typos to get by the language filter. They are not there for you to find creative ways to get around. They are there for a reason.

Respect the rules of the site please.

OK ALREADY!! I got it the first time.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Why can't those "pro-environment" people do the same thing? I guess it's not their dime...

What do you mean by "it's not their dime"? Isn't this issue everyone's dime?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What do you mean by "it's not their dime"? Isn't this issue everyone's dime?

The "pro environmental" as they were called tend to belch out their propaganda and expect big business and government to pay for the cost yet we see the urban sprawl of most Canadian cities while everyones driving around in their SUV. More would be done if the average Joe and Mary six pack decided to make some personal changes.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

And that is why we spend much more on Cancer rather than diabetes. Kyoto on the other had is trying to cure Diabetes rather than Cancer

The CO2 portion of the Kyoto Protocol is only part of it. As well, we spend more money on things other than controlling greenhouse gases, so the comparison is still appropriate.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... I don't see massive incentives OR Kyoto being implemented... were I to see at least one implemented I'd be a happier individual.

In your ideal dream world, what would you do? What would be your plan?

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

And why is more time being spent refuting Kyoto than figuring out a better solution?

Who says this has to be a mutually exclusive situation?

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I've heard a lot more 'no-to-Kyoto' then 'yes-to-anything else'. Thats why I stick by Kyoto; its the only option I see on the table. I would love for other options to crop up, but until they do, I can't sympathize with those who are against Kyoto 'because there are better ways to achieve the goal'. What ways?

Essentially what you're saying is that "something is better than nothing". That is true. What a lot of others (including me) are saying is that something IS better than nothing, unfortunately Kyoto is not that something.

You even admit that Kyoto is not perfect, yet you do not want to put your ideas on the table and make another proposal. Others are doing the same thing and you are calling them on it. I'm going to call you on the same thing. Try coming up with your own solution instead of piggy-backing on someone else's. You'll find it's not as easy as you think.

[theJuice]

I always wanted to go to Japan.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The CO2 portion of the Kyoto Protocol is only part of it. As well, we spend more money on things other than controlling greenhouse gases, so the comparison is still appropriate.

The primary goal of Kyoto is the reduction of Green House Gases (namely Carbon Dioxide). That is the MAIN goal. So your comparison doesn't really work. Sorry.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What do you mean by "it's not their dime"? Isn't this issue everyone's dime?

I don't think that the average "environmentalist" (to paint them with an extremely wide and unfair brush) has a good grasp about how much these solutions actually take. I hear "solve the solution no matter what", without even asking how much. They don't care about the cost, as it's coming out of the gov'ts pockets (without realizing it comes out of theirs too).

Coming up with a solution is a good thing... but it should be evaluated against cost as well. Demanding a cost-effective solution should lead to other solutions.. but instead they just want A solution and solely promote that solution instead of first evaluating it. I have a hard time figuring that their own personal finances are performed in this same way.

I admit that there are lots of generalizations in the above... but it's how I see it. A solution is a good first step, but it shouldn't be the only step.

[Azure]

IMO, the best solution is to find alternative means. Use the money we waste on prevention programs to find clean, renewable energy.

Find out how to use nuclear power in a safe manner and use it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The primary goal of Kyoto is the reduction of Green House Gases (namely Carbon Dioxide). That is the MAIN goal. So your comparison doesn't really work. Sorry.

It is still an appropriate comparison because CO2 is only ONE type of greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases are just one type of pollutant; just as diabetes or cancer are each one type of disease.

I was comparing greenhouse gases to diseases. One might be worse than the other, but that doesn't mean that they both don't deserve to be dealt with.

BTW, what in your opinion is a worse type of pollutant? What is so bad that we must ignore greenhouse gas emmissions?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It is still an appropriate comparison because CO2 is only ONE greenhouse gas, just as diabetes or cancer are each one type of disease. I was comparing greenhouse gases to diseases. One might be worse than the other, but that doesn't mean that they both don't deserve to be dealt with.

Methane gas, coming mostly from cows is also a big producer of greenhouse gases.

Ban Beef!!