Kyoto is awesome

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I see 2 choices too. Kyoto and a better option to Kyoto (whether it currently exists or not is irrelevant). I choose the better option. It must be nice to not want to strive for improvements and just choose the "best available". I'm really glad that the whole world isn't like you, as we would not have computers as fast as we have (or at all), cars as efficient as they are (with improvement yet to come), etc.

So... you choose the non-existant option. Ok. I guess I find the 'best available' solutions to be the ones I support. If a better one comes along (perhaps your, again, non-existant option?) I'll take a look at it.

Are you currently working on this new alternative to Kyoto? (oops, I forgot.. its MY job to find the alternative to the strategy I support... I'm still pretty confused about that)

Experts, while having an increased knowledge base to work from, should not get a free pass from questioning. While they can address most issues that the common person would question, they are not immune to overlooks or to focussing too much on one aspect and ignoring the rest. They are not the end-all be-all. If you think they are, you'd better not ever question anybody - including Flames management or players.

No... at the same time though, their opinion is probably more valid than yours or mine. I figure the best people to refute experts... are other experts. Not CalPuckers shooting from the hip.

The best inventions in the world do not come from experts. They come from someone who came up with an idea and then found experts to help bring that idea to fruition.

Well... I guess I believe that Global Comprehensive Environmental Management is something that several 'experts' are going to be involved in. 100's, if not 1000's.

I take my car to a mechanic, I get taught by a professor, and I leave environmental policy to environmental experts. I just see the work they've done and try my best to choose the right way. I don't have the thousands of hours required to fully understand global warming, let alone solutions to it.

Apparently you can dismiss Kyoto in 1/1000th of the time it took to create it. I'm not so bold.

[quoteI'm definitely getting the sense that instead of coming up with better ideas, you're happy with letting others do ALL the work instead.[/quote]
Uh... finding global comprehensive environmental strategies isn't my job. Its not yours either. Its the 'experts'. How much time have you put into coming up with a better idea? About the same as me?

You make it sound like all these organizations are just begging for my input and I'm not making the effort. I didn't create Kyoto, and I didn't create Global Warming. I support the best current initiative because thats exactly what it is.

It's the only plan available, so it's the best plan? WOW!

Well... by necessity, its obviously the best. Since its the only one, its also the worst, the biggest, the smallest, and the most likely to both succeed and fail. Whats your point?

I'm not saying that you have to come up with an entire solution. Just give the 15,000 ft version. Give an overview. Surely you can even do that. How would you improve on Kyoto?

I'm the Kyoto supporter. You're not. YOU provide an alternative.

This is the crux of this whole debate. I see a strategy, I see no others, I assume that this is the one to follow. If another strategy comes out (which I fervently hope) then maybe that one will be better.

How would you improve on Kyoto? I've chosen my side, what's yours? You've nimbly side-stepped on multiple occassions the fact that you don't have an answer. You don't know whats right to do, but you do know whats wrong?

so... "If we don't have to do it today, why not do it tomorrow" is a bad attitude... but "The first idea is the best idea and how dare you criticize it" isn't?

The first idea, currently, is the only idea.

For some reason you seem to imply that I am not open to any other strategy other than Kyoto. I am. Present one. Anything. I want to believe there is a better way.

If it comes in a month, year, decade, fair enough. When it comes, I'll take a look.

Believe it or not, there is something worse than spending more time to come up with alternate solutions... it's jumping in with both feet to a bad and obviously flawed solution. Sure it's a solution, and in an ideal world it might get to the same end point.. but the chances of it getting there are slim and the expenses incurred along the way are great. Give people time to come up with another solution, instead of hammering them on not believing in the only current proposal.

Sure, but I don't see anyone coming up with alternative solutions (seriously, is there a global forum on climate change/pollution that will be rivalling Kyoto that I'm unaware of?). Some people also believe that time is of the essence when dealing with the environment, and think that if you spend a penny now you save a pound later. Maybe thats true, maybe we have 1000 years until we have to start looking at our actions and the way they affect the planet.

Who says I'm not 'giving people time'? Jeez, all I'm doing is supporting a theory that I think is the best (only) one. If another comes in a couple years, I'll look at that. You could _always_ wait for a better solution just like you could always wait for a better computer... I'm sure technology will always be advancing, better ways will always be found. Why not start today with something, and, as we learn more, augment/change it as necessary, or scrap it if thats deemed best at that pont.

I'm really glad that the whole world isn't like you

Uncalled for in a civil debate. I haven't personally commented on you.

[calculoso]

Competing idea to Kyoto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Pa...nt_and_Climate

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by flames_fan_down_under

Anyone here ever read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton? I know he's a sort of commercial author, but he does present a good argument against the case for global warming. I'm not taking one side or another, but i do think many people are too willing to jump on the global warming bandwagon without considering the alternative argument.

It might be a good book, but the science content in "State of Fear" is widely discredited. Here are a couple of links--and a salient quote or two if you're strapped for time: most of these articles are pretty long.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp

Unfortunately, Crichton presents a error-filled and distorted version of the Global Warming science, favoring views of the handful of contrarians that attack the consensus science of the IPCC.

And this from NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt:
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.e...12-13-04b.html

[Chrichton] gives us his back-of-a-napkin estimate for the global warming that will occur over the next century -- an increase of approximately 0.8 degrees Celsius -- and claims that his guess is as good as any model's. He suggests that most of the warming will be due to land-use changes -- extremely unlikely, as globally speaking, land-use change has a cooling effect. As his faulty assumptions painfully demonstrate, simulations based on physics are better than just guessing.

And Time's "Eye on Science" blog weighs in:
http://time.blogs.com/eye_on_science...w_for_som.html

State of Fear" is an utterly misleading screed that denounces the idea of human-induced global warming as a fiendish lie concocted by evil environmentalists. In other words, it distorts the actual science beyond recognition.

In a way, it sounds like "State of Fear" is about as scientific as "Jurassic Park." Which is to say, not very.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Competing idea to Kyoto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Pa...nt_and_Climate

"Member countries account for around 50% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, GDP and population. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol (currently unratified by both the United States and Australia), which imposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, this agreement allows member countries to set their goals for reducing emissions individually, with no mandatory enforcement mechanism."

It doesn't sound ideal, but kudos for bringing up an alternative to Kyoto.

Do you support this initiative as 'the way' to go?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

I do not disagree. However, this is the problem:

Canada has too much emissions. We have to buy credits for them. Who has extra credits to sell? Oh, hey, look, China does! Nevermind that China pollutes way more than we do. Ok, so we buy credits from China. The environment isnt helped, becuase pollution levels have not changed. Meanwhile, we are supporting a communist and oppressive government because their economy hasnt caught up to ours yet, so they not only get a free pass on their levels of pollution, they also get rewarded.

Great system.

I fully agree that there needs to be costs associated with polluting, but this should not be done on an international level between nations. The Canadian government itself should be taxing the hell out of "dirty" companies, and using the proceeds to offer breaks and subsidies to "clean" companies.

And like White Doors states, it has to go way beyond CO2. There are other environmental problems that are of a far greater immediate concern to humanity.

That's not fair - you read my post up until it suited your response, then ignored the rest.

Once a balance had been reached, decrease the number of credits by a set percentage.

putting a cost per unit of pollution (whatever form you consider - CO2, NO2, ...)

come up with a way of integrating pollution into the profit equation (be it credits, or fines, or licenses or something else)

And I'm actually surprised to see you advocating "The Canadian government itself should be taxing the hell out of "dirty" companies, and using the proceeds to offer breaks and subsidies to "clean" companies."

At least with credits, you are allowing the free market to set the "tax".

Perhaps this credit approach should only be used nationally. Look at the pollution emmissions in 2000, assign credits based on that, then reduce the "pollution value" of each credit on an annual or bi-annual basis, then fine violators double the value of the emmisions credit they should have aquired.

That should cover the industrial side, but a method for the general public to do their share will need to be considered.

[White Doors]

That should cover the industrial side, but a method for the general public to do their share will need to be considered.

Well with the way fossil fuel prices are going, I don;t think any government encouragement of consumers will be needed.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Perhaps this credit approach should only be used nationally. Look at the pollution emmissions in 2000, assign credits based on that, then reduce the "pollution value" of each credit on an annual or bi-annual basis, then fine violators double the value of the emmisions credit they should have aquired.

I think a national credit system might alleviate a lot of the problems found an international credit system; namely money flowing out of some countries, into others, with no emissions actually being cut.

Good idea... to bad its probably 'too much'.

[Hakan]

The fact of the matter is that the marginal cost on carbon abatement is ridiculously high. All that 'low hanging fruit' has been and will be picked soon. The next step is making serious, painful and costly policies that will curb our emissions. Now of course this will never happen because most people would rather deny that there's a problem then pay through the nose to only have their sacrifices come to fruition years after they die.

But then again maybe it's time that western society adopt the First Nation's 7 generation principle and stop living so idiotically closed minded narcissistic lives where all we care about is whether we get to buy more stuff and drive wherever the hell we want.

But I hear you, **** the Walruses and Polar Bears, and oh yeah **** the Inuit too, I need my power to watch TV 3 hours a day and post on the internet.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Hakan

The next step is making serious, painful and costly policies that will curb our emissions.

I'm more of an advocate of technological spending to help reduce emmisions. Your had statement would work if it was implemented WORLDWIDE, and this is why.

As an ex-manufacturer who sent our entire line to China, one of the "benefits" we recieved was no longer having to put up with Environment Canada. Now I'm sure EC doesn't care all that much that we're not here anymore, and we save a load of money not having to control/catalogue/report emmisions, but what happened to all the pollutants they were controlling? Did they simply disappear? If you make it so incredibly hard for a manufacturer to make money, he'll leave and move the problem to another country, where those emmisions may or may not be controlled.

IMO, for any plan to be effective we need to ask if we would rather have something controlled (within reason) in our back yard where you can see exactly what is going on, or send it somewhere else where no one knows or cares what's happening. EC made it fairly clear that they would rather us send the problem elsewhere, which is acting totally regionally and not globally. To me this is no different than shovelling garbage into my neighbours yard. Yeah, I could recycle it, but why would I when I can pay him half of what it costs me to do so? Sure it's going to be a problem when his yard fills up, but what do I care? I won't be living there when that happens!!!

I'm more of an advocate of technological spending to help reduce emmisions. Spend the money coming up with better, more efficient ways to drive cars or manufacture steel.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by White Doors

yes they did, they just don't have to make any targets.

Didn't they? India too?

Yeah, but therefor the carbon credit trading does not apply to them, therefor Canada would never be paying $5 billion to China.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I am pretty sure those cars were not traveling 60 mph.

No seriously, I saw a smart car get rocked by an SUV on Bow a couple of months ago, and the SUV (an old school 80s suburban type) looked like it got owned by the smart car. It was crazy!

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Yeah, but therefor the carbon credit trading does not apply to them, therefor Canada would never be paying $5 billion to China.

So WHAT? Even if that is true, Don';t you have a serious issue with China and India not having to make any reductions?

it's ridiculous.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

So WHAT? Even if that is true, Don';t you have a serious issue with China and India not having to make any reductions?

it's ridiculous.

Not really. It was never intended that China and India would never have to make emissions reductions. Kyoto was designed to be re-implemented and negotiated every five years were developing countries would have certainly been brought into the fold. And really, it's not the developing countries' fault for where we are right now. China and India have only up until the past 20 years been emitting serious emissions and have emitted a mere fraction of the total emissions over the past 250 years that Western Europe and the rest of the developed world have emitted that have created the problem of where we are today.

So yeah, we have enjoyed all of the fruits of early development but the instant we have to pay some of the costs of early development all of a sudden it's okay to be indignant and point fingers at countries which aren't responsible for the problem at all because it isn't fair? The developing nations said that they wanted to see a real and concerted effort from the developed Annex B countries before they were shoulder the burden as well. They never said that no they would never sign on, they wanted us to be leaders but as anyone with any knowledge of international relations knows, the Western Industrialized countries are hardly the people you would want to entrust a responsibility so great upon.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by White Doors

So WHAT? Even if that is true, Don';t you have a serious issue with China and India not having to make any reductions?

it's ridiculous.

There are a lot of issues I have with China and India, their human rights or lacktherof, their suppressive governments...

Your argument that just because they're not doing it, we shouldn't do it is, like you say, ridiculous. Some people in China aren't allowed to practice their religions, do you think Canada should start following China now and ban the practice of some religions?

I have a serious issue with CANADA not making any reductions as well.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

So... you choose the non-existant option. Ok. I guess I find the 'best available' solutions to be the ones I support. If a better one comes along (perhaps your, again, non-existant option?) I'll take a look at it.

Are you currently working on this new alternative to Kyoto? (oops, I forgot.. its MY job to find the alternative to the strategy I support... I'm still pretty confused about that)

I choose the option to refuse Kyoto because another, better, solution is coming. If Kyoto is the only solution anyone ever puts any effort into, then of course there will be no more solutions.

I've put forth some ideas on how things could be improved. You, on the other hand, think there are problems with Kyoto yet choose to ignore them.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

No... at the same time though, their opinion is probably more valid than yours or mine. I figure the best people to refute experts... are other experts. Not CalPuckers shooting from the hip.

I'll keep that in mind the next time that you decide to comment on a topic. "It didn't come from the mouth of an expert, so it means nothing".

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I take my car to a mechanic, I get taught by a professor, and I leave environmental policy to environmental experts. I just see the work they've done and try my best to choose the right way. I don't have the thousands of hours required to fully understand global warming, let alone solutions to it.

Apparently you can dismiss Kyoto in 1/1000th of the time it took to create it. I'm not so bold.

I'm not any where close to dismissing it. I don't know what profession you're in, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that some non-expert can't look at my work and suggest an improvement, or ask a critical question which may lead to an improvement.

Take your car mechanic example. If the "expert" recommends that you need a new engine, are you going to take that at face value or are you going to question it? Are you going to ask questions? Look for a second opinion?

Perhaps they've already thought of the criticisms that are being levied upon Kyoto. Perhaps they haven't. Criticism and evaluation of an expert's work should still happen.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Uh... finding global comprehensive environmental strategies isn't my job. Its not yours either. Its the 'experts'. How much time have you put into coming up with a better idea? About the same as me?

Obviously I've put more time into it, as it doesn't look as though you've devoted one second into coming up with a better idea.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... by necessity, its obviously the best. Since its the only one, its also the worst, the biggest, the smallest, and the most likely to both succeed and fail. Whats your point?

If we have a flying car that can only fly for 5 minutes before needing recharging, it's gotta be obviously the best since it's the only one. Who cares if we can make one that will fly for 10 minutes. Let's just promote this one and come down on anyone who criticizes it.

Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

This is the crux of this whole debate. I see a strategy, I see no others, I assume that this is the one to follow. If another strategy comes out (which I fervently hope) then maybe that one will be better.

How would you improve on Kyoto? I've chosen my side, what's yours? You've nimbly side-stepped on multiple occassions the fact that you don't have an answer. You don't know whats right to do, but you do know whats wrong?

You're obviously confusing me with someone else. I've put forth ideas on how to improve it. Incentives to create cleaner technology, not paying another country for polution credits. Gee. That took a whole 20 seconds to type.

You, on the other hand, acknowledge that there are problems and yet choose to ignore them. You also, obviously, have failed to even look for alternatives. All I did was look up the Kyoto protocol on wikipedia, and I found that other link.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Who says I'm not 'giving people time'? Jeez, all I'm doing is supporting a theory that I think is the best (only) one. If another comes in a couple years, I'll look at that. You could _always_ wait for a better solution just like you could always wait for a better computer... I'm sure technology will always be advancing, better ways will always be found. Why not start today with something, and, as we learn more, augment/change it as necessary, or scrap it if thats deemed best at that pont.

Most people obviously did wait for a better solution where computers were involved. They did not buy one until it was smaller and much more affordable. How many people bought computers that were the size of rooms? Only the most wealthy. Until the technology matured and became more affordable, the general public looked at computes with awe but remained on the sidelines.

I'm saying, and I think others are too, that the same approach should be taken with the environment. One idea is not enough. One idea, the first idea, is not going to be anywhere as efficient, affordable or effective enough.

I have ideas (and have mentioned some) that I think would improve things. I'm willing to have these ideas examined, criticized, possibly rebuked or accepted.

I want to see your evaluation of the problems of Kyoto (even at a high and simple level) and possible or alternate solutions to those problems. From your developing track record, I doubt I'll see anything.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

That's not fair - you read my post up until it suited your response, then ignored the rest.

Fair enough. I was using that example to display why I oppose Kyoto. I realize that eventually the idea is for credits to be reduced, however that is not for some time, thus there is no environmental benifit to Kyoto, only economic.

And I'm actually surprised to see you advocating "The Canadian government itself should be taxing the hell out of "dirty" companies, and using the proceeds to offer breaks and subsidies to "clean" companies."

As much as I believe in a free market, the free market will not regulate itself. Personally, I see this as a form of consumption tax. I also threw it out as a spur of the moment idea. The point was that Canada should be repsonsible for its own backyard.

At least with credits, you are allowing the free market to set the "tax".

What do you do if everyone simply disregards the credit system?

The problem I have with credits is that if company x cuts it's pollution by z, but company y increases its polution by z, and buys credits from company x, how is the environment helped? The only thing that happens is money flows from company y to company x. The only effect is economic.

Though truth be told, my "tax the hell out of them" suggestion is just the same credit system with the government as the middle man, so it really isnt a good idea either.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

"Member countries account for around 50% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, GDP and population. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol (currently unratified by both the United States and Australia), which imposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, this agreement allows member countries to set their goals for reducing emissions individually, with no mandatory enforcement mechanism."

It doesn't sound ideal, but kudos for bringing up an alternative to Kyoto.

Do you support this initiative as 'the way' to go?

There are issues with this proposal as well. It isn't ideal, but it has different strenghts and weaknesses from what Kyoto does.

The idea is to spur discussion and come up with better ideas, not to silence opposition to existing ones.

[calculoso]

If it would be possible for Kyoto "credits" to be bought, I believe the resulting funds should go towards making cleaner technology cheaper. This way, not only would the developed countries (Canada, US, etc) reduce their environmental impact, but the developing countries (China, India, etc) would be able to purchase technologies that would not have to put them into a position where they would have to go through the environmental pains that others are having to go through now.

Sure China, India, etc want to catch up.. but "lets" make sure they catch up with more modern (read: cleaner) technology instead of the older (read: dirtier) technology.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I choose the option to refuse Kyoto because another, better, solution is coming. If Kyoto is the only solution anyone ever puts any effort into, then of course there will be no more solutions.

I've put forth some ideas on how things could be improved. You, on the other hand, think there are problems with Kyoto yet choose to ignore them.



I'll keep that in mind the next time that you decide to comment on a topic. "It didn't come from the mouth of an expert, so it means nothing".




I'm not any where close to dismissing it. I don't know what profession you're in, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that some non-expert can't look at my work and suggest an improvement, or ask a critical question which may lead to an improvement.

Take your car mechanic example. If the "expert" recommends that you need a new engine, are you going to take that at face value or are you going to question it? Are you going to ask questions? Look for a second opinion?

Perhaps they've already thought of the criticisms that are being levied upon Kyoto. Perhaps they haven't. Criticism and evaluation of an expert's work should still happen.



Obviously I've put more time into it, as it doesn't look as though you've devoted one second into coming up with a better idea.



If we have a flying car that can only fly for 5 minutes before needing recharging, it's gotta be obviously the best since it's the only one. Who cares if we can make one that will fly for 10 minutes. Let's just promote this one and come down on anyone who criticizes it.

Is that what you're saying?



You're obviously confusing me with someone else. I've put forth ideas on how to improve it. Incentives to create cleaner technology, not paying another country for polution credits. Gee. That took a whole 20 seconds to type.

You, on the other hand, acknowledge that there are problems and yet choose to ignore them. You also, obviously, have failed to even look for alternatives. All I did was look up the Kyoto protocol on wikipedia, and I found that other link.



Most people obviously did wait for a better solution where computers were involved. They did not buy one until it was smaller and much more affordable. How many people bought computers that were the size of rooms? Only the most wealthy. Until the technology matured and became more affordable, the general public looked at computes with awe but remained on the sidelines.

I'm saying, and I think others are too, that the same approach should be taken with the environment. One idea is not enough. One idea, the first idea, is not going to be anywhere as efficient, affordable or effective enough.

I have ideas (and have mentioned some) that I think would improve things. I'm willing to have these ideas examined, criticized, possibly rebuked or accepted.

I want to see your evaluation of the problems of Kyoto (even at a high and simple level) and possible or alternate solutions to those problems. From your developing track record, I doubt I'll see anything.

I wrote a whole response to this, but it seems pointless. You're not on the same wavelength I am. For some reason you're taking this debate to 'who can create a better Kyoto'. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to think I could whip out a few sentences and say 'there, a better plan!'. Utterly laughable considering the time, expense, and academia that went into the first plan.

I stand by my original point; if people want to bash Kyoto, Great! Provide an alternative solution and promote that. Be a 'can do' as opposed to a 'can't do'. Thats all I've ever been saying. I'm surprised its rankled you so badly. If the few ideas you've put forward in this thread, or the link you've provided are your alternative comprehensive global environmental strategies... sounds good. Thats all I asked for at the beginning of the thread. I had to pull them out of you like teeth, but eventually you came around.

I presume you'll now push your new strategy in the next round of Kyoto debates to be brought up by some newbie trolls?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

There are issues with this proposal as well. It isn't ideal, but it has different strenghts and weaknesses from what Kyoto does.

As far as I can tell its very similar, but has no mandatory emission cuts. Seems like an emmasculated Kyoto.