He doesn’t need to have expressed any reason for his favoring something… and the fact that you do not understand his argument is not necessarily an indictment of his argument … the fact that he favors something proves that your unspoken assumption that FS has argued that “we don’t need to do anything” is an incorrect assumption.
I don’t want to speak for FS, but, IIRC, he favors encouraging and facilitating continuing technological and economic development everywhere rather than draconian restrictions and huge redistributions of capital. That is hardly the same as arguing that “we don’t need to do anything”.
I think my brain just tried to crawl out through my ears. Anyway, I wasn’t specifically pointing a finger at FS; I was speaking about denialists in general, who do have a very clear agenda. And I’d say he does need a reason: if one wishes to take a strong stand about something, then one should at least be logically consistent when presenting one’s case. One should be able to explain that position clearly so that others can understand it.
And to that extent I agree with FS. But he doesn’t seem to realise that those “huge redistributions of capital” will continue, in one form or another, regardless of the underlying science. Politicians aren’t going to lift their heads from the trough just because Fred Smith or Vincent Gray thinks he found new some scientific evidence about climate change. Can you really imagine that? “Goodness me, Mr Smith, it turns out you’re absolutely right. I guess I’d better stop shovelling all that cash into my cronies’ pockets, then. Well done, old chap.”
As CFI noted, Kyoto was a complete waste of time because everyone was happy to jet off to exotic locations and shuffle paper around, but when push came to shove, nobody wanted to actually take action. My opinion is that it unravelled because policymakers discovered they’d promised things which were technically impossible. Also, as Mick describes, the devil is in the details, and public policy inevitably descends into bickering. Far better for the rest of us to focus on things that know we can do - there are some massive opportunities in “green” industries - than rail against the unfairness of it all, which we don’t have a hope in hell of changing.
Not simply a redistribution meaning that Kyoto want just that. It was only a part of it - there was a lot more to it than just money going from developed to developing nations.
All countries were bound by it in per capita terms - that was the agreed upon method. At the time, Australia was the worst although with a relatively small population the total emissions weren’t that high. The per capita emissions in Aust were the highest in the world.
Kyoto was far from perfect but it was largely sabotaged by a couple of countries that meant it was doomed from the start.
There’s no real scientific doubt that global warming is a problem for humanity but the political fighting and anti-science propaganda from some on the right has meant that even the simple, relatively cheap fixes that could have been applied have been neglected in a lot of cases.
Imagine if legislation had been enacted in the 90’s that created minimum mileage standards for all new cars sold. It wouldn’t have cost government anything and would by now by showing some real results globally.
Not agreed by all it seems, and is that really the fairest way? I mean if 10 families share a field and crops, is it fair to distribute it by the number of family members?
By not perfect, you mean highly unfair, and those who sabotaged it were which ones again?
Yes I’m sure that might have helped, but if in pointing this out, you neglect to address the soaring emissions in China and India and other exempt countries as well as the money asked from the west, I would suggest the right might see this as not adequately addressing the concerns of policy that is being discussed and justify their (also) less than adequate looking at the facts of global warming.
Well, I think that there does seem to be somewhat waning evidence for the sort of intense, immediate human driven climate change that seemed more reasonable to assert just a few years ago. That is a good thing!
But before we go jumping to conclusions about the IPCC being inept, let’s see how they deal with the evidence in their 2014 report.
Like I said before: they may not be perfect, but they’re the best body we have to analyze the huge reams of complex data that comprise the findings and theories of climate science.
All countries were bound by it in per capita terms - that was the agreed upon method. At the time, Australia was the worst although with a relatively small population the total emissions weren’t that high. The per capita emissions in Aust were the highest in the world.[/quote]
Not agreed by all it seems, and is that really the fairest way? I mean if 10 families share a field and crops, is it fair to distribute it by the number of family members? [/quote]
AFAIK, it was agreed upon by the 190-odd states that took part. At the time it was deemed the best and fairest method, and probably still is.
By not perfect, you mean highly unfair, and those who sabotaged it were which ones again? [/quote]
No, I mean not perfect. Kyoto was as fair an agreement as could be made - the countries responsible for most of the emissions up to that point had to pay. It was sabotaged mostly by the US and Australia in the early days.
[quote][quote=“cfimages”]There’s no real scientific doubt that global warming is a problem for humanity but the political fighting and anti-science propaganda from some on the right has meant that even the simple, relatively cheap fixes that could have been applied have been neglected in a lot of cases.
Imagine if legislation had been enacted in the 90’s that created minimum mileage standards for all new cars sold. It wouldn’t have cost government anything and would by now by showing some real results globally.[/quote]
Yes I’m sure that might have helped, but if in pointing this out, you neglect to address the soaring emissions in China and India and other exempt countries as well as the money asked from the west, I would suggest the right might see this as not adequately addressing the concerns of policy that is being discussed and justify their (also) less than adequate looking at the facts of global warming.[/quote]
Kyoto was in 1997, which means the very latest full year’s data would have been 1996. At the time, the US and Aust had per capita emissions 10x that of China and 20x that of India. In terms of total emissions, they’d both gone from very little in the space of a generation or so - China’s 1996 total figure was about the same as what the US was emitting in 1960. Both China and India have soared in the last decade or so, but at the time of Kyoto they weren’t. They’ve basically doubled their per capita emission since then, and any future initiatives will have to include them but based on the situation in 1996 leaving them out of binding reductions while at the same time assisting in clean energy was the right call based on the situation at the time. China and India today are very different to China and India of the mid-90’s.
It would have been great if all countries had binding targets. At the time it was generally felt that Kyoto was a small, first step only. Not perfect, not ideal but probably the best start that could have realistically been hoped for.
Cf, I understand what you are saying and know the history and the reasons behind decisions that were made, but I don’t think you are engaging or addressing the issues I bring up.
When discussing the issue of global warming we are primarily addressing the future, it wasn’t long ago that China surpassed the USA to become the largest polluter, and 2011 figures show they now produce 50% more than the US, thats how fast their emissions are going up. India is at about half, but is expected to increase four fold in the next 20 years, which would put them at double that o the US now, and with such a high population, probably will continue to increase.
This means any reductions the west makes, and some counties are trying, like Denmark who have pledged to be 100% reliant on alternative energy by 2050 will be dwarfed by these developing nations increases. Nations that do not want any binding measures, nations that want the developed world to pay for mitigation despite if we look towards the future they themselves will be historically the largest emitters of CO2.
You talk about per capita emissions as if that is the fair way to discuss the issue, but I’m not at all sure that is the case. Back in the UK after the recent riots I was watching the news of some 13 year old whos mother had taken him to court, had another 6 children, single parent, received unemployment benefits, housing benefits, free education for the children, free medical, all paid for by the taxpayer. Why the hell was she having 7 children and then expecting the rest of society to pay. Why has India 1.3 billion people, four times that of the US yet only being a third of the size and then wants its responsibilities discussed on a per capita basis?
I don’t think you are addressing the economic issues, the likely increase of business relocation due to increased costs, perhaps to other countries where they make even more of a mess. You talk about policy like a minimum mileage standards for all new cars sold, is that a standard you would see implemented worldwide? Or is that just for developed countries? You say it wouldn’t have cost government anything , but it would have cost the manufactures in development, US car companies are struggling to compete as it is, do you know what the effect to these companies would be?
Is opposition to cap and trade really unjustified? To what extent is it a means for more redistribution of wealth?
I don’t disagree that China and India are skyrocketing. But at the time of Kyoto they weren’t, and that’s what the agreement was based upon. Nobody really foresaw the massive rises both countries have experienced over the past decade or so. If a similar agreement were to be pursued now then of course India and China would need to be included with the likes of US, Europe etc. If Kyoto had have worked as intended, by now we’d have likely moved on to more wide-ranging initiatives that would take into account India and China.
I don’t see any connection between your family size examples and per capita emissions, and I’m not going to debate that point on that basis.
At the time of Kyoto, Japanese car manufacturers were making cars that got better mileage than their American equivalents. (I don’t know if that’s still the case). If I remember correctly, at some engine sizes it was as much as 5mpg different. The technology was already there, so the costs of development would have been minimal. If Toyota and Nissan can do it, there’s no reason Ford and GM can’t do it for the same price. A worldwide standard would be great but even if it were only the car makers of the 37 Annex 1 countries, the effect would be basically the same. When you have the majority of the worlds car makers in the markets where the majority of cars were sold (and remember China and India’s private car boom happened later), the effect would basically become a worldwide standard by default.
I don’t agree with that. I think many people foresaw China and India booming. I sure did, and I’m not even in the know, so to speak. That’s much of the reason that I opposed Kyoto. Moreover, if Kyoto worked, what we likely would have seen would have been factories moving from very strictly regulated places to places where regulations were much looser, i.e., China and India. I don’t see how that would have helped the situation/problem that was the target of the protocol.
I’m not so sure, China at least is always incredibly reticent to do anything other than what is best for China. There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors here too, Germany for example signed off quite happily as due to the fall of the Berlin wall knew that by refitting the inefficient East German generators it was always going to meet its quota of reductions. Also, still you are not addressing if cap and trade is a sensible way to reduce emissions, very expensive policies, and what has been achieved and at what cost? Europe’s economy is not exactly doing too well right now, and people are wondering at how the governments mismanaged the peoples money and got themselves in so much debt.
China’s and Indias emissions were always going to go up, Africas will too. Peoples standard of living is going up, and the emissions are going to rise most notably in countries with high populations, with people rising from poverty to middle class status, and all the buying of electronics that goes along with that. Recently, James Hansen of NASA said a carbon tax must be universal, I would agree with that, but good luck getting other countries to go along.
Here is where we seem to disagree, you seem to suggest going along with a flawed and unfair agreement such as Kyoto is better than nothing and a starting point, yet I can see the Canadians, who want to make money for their people from oil they have, who might benefit from a warmer planet yet are expected to pay compensation to countries who they themselves in a very short time will be the biggest polluters on the planet, can you really blame them for calling bullshit?
Because you have a country that not only does not try to encourage restraint when it comes to numbers of children, their approach to encouraging birth control is pitiful, and the culture is such that people view the more children you have as a sign of wealth, irrelevant to the issue of if you can afford the children, provide them with clothes, food, healthcare, education. Yet these issues are of concern to most in the west, which is why the woman I used in the example, sponging of the taxpayer is vilified, and why populations in the west are not exploding.
How do you know how much it would have cost them, and at what effect? This is the problem the right wing have with all these policies that are put forward, exactly how well thought out are they? Don’t get me wrong, Im all for more environmentally friendly vehicles and policies, I just think the policies put forward to tackle the problem will not produce results, nor are they efficient, extremely damaging economically and for that reason I do understand the right wing stonewalling on the issue of science.
Thats simply not true, you have no idea of the costs involved. Europe has for a long time now had Rohs, (a standard to ensure more environmentally safer components are used), but it didn’t become default as it is cheaper to use the more toxic ones, so manufactures can and do use the cheaper ones where they can.
Think of it as an investment. Spending money now in order to save more money in the long term. Allowing developing nations access to technologies they couldn’t otherwise afford ultimately lessens the emissions they’ll produce. As those economies develop, they are then brought on board in future negotiations.
From the industrial revolution up until the mid-90’s, the vast majority of emissions were from developed nations. You can’t expect countries that had relatively low emissions during that time period to have to foot the bill. They should only start paying when they become part of the problem, as they increasingly are now.
Population increase is usually related to development status. Richer, more developed countries have fewer children. As poorer countries develop, they’ll naturally start having fewer children. The families in India the are still pumping out 7 or 8 children are generally the poorest. They aren’t driving cars and using much in the way of electricity at all.
Other companies in the same industry selling in the same markets were already doing it.
Environmental damage is more detrimental to humanity than economic damage, as it has much wider ranging effects, including on the economy.
Again, other companies in the same industries selling in the same markets (and often more profitably) were capable of doing it.
The economic costs are often put forward as an excuse not to do something. In the case of global warming, the economic costs under an average-case scenario in the future will be a lot more than the costs to do something then (after Kyoto) would have been.
I’m out of here for the rest of the day, so that’s my piece said for today.
Toyota has a large presence in the US with six major assembly plants in Huntsville, Alabama; Georgetown, Kentucky; Princeton, Indiana; San Antonio, Texas; Buffalo, West Virginia and Blue Springs, Mississippi. Unless I’m mistaken, Toyota has not used UAW workers at these plants.
Bullshit. China’s growth rate hovered around 7% in 1999. India’s was 5.5%. That’s a growth rate many a developed country would be envious of. India’s reforms started in the early 90s. At the time of Kyoto in the 1997 and the late 90s (when many countries signed on), they were skyrocketing. It’s been continuous year-on-year growth.
The west should be incentivized for spending money in the east to mitigate global warming. So any money contributed to building a nuclear power plant in India should go to western contracts employing western workers.
The best way to handle this is indeed a global carbon tax , the world is so interconnected now it has to be handled so that no country can exploit loopholes that will cause the end result to be a failure. A global tax says we are all in this together. As we are. It needs a WHO type agency for global warming.
I like the point about Denmark above , it’s a wasted effort in terms of global emissions reduction BUT it does provide important staging grounds for technology and social experimentation.
However, this argument is flawed. The amount of emissions today when compared to the industrial revolution are off the chart, the majority of emissions have occurred since the 70’s, give China another 20 years or so at the rate its going and it will have matched the US total historical emissions to date, of course the US emissions will be cumulatively higher then too, but you get the point another decade on that and they will overtake that too.
I sure the world will eventually be using renewables instead of fossil fuels, but not for a long time yet, China and India and Africa may have only taken a small amount from the first course, but we have many more courses to come. Yet you seem to suggest the West should not only pay heavily to reduce it’s own emissions it should pay to reduce those of developing countries as well as pay to help those who may have been effected by global warming. Basically footing the bill for the entire meal after the starter course, in the end and after all is added up, its quite likely they will not have been the ones consuming the most, and yet pay nothing, does that seen reasonable to you?
Whats Chinas position right now? If the West keeps to its commitments, and depending on whats going on in China by the year 2020, they may consider a binding treaty post 2020. That was from the Durban climate conference, and one can’t help view that in a very cynical light.
I’m not suggesting the west pay for everything at all. Far from it. The Kyoto target date was 2010. If it had have been abided by, sometime by then a follow up would have been negotiated that would have included the likes of China. Obviously that gets into the realm of speculation because Kyoto was doomed from almost the beginning so we don’t know what China or India or African nations would have agreed to.
… the fact that he favors something proves that your unspoken assumption that FS has argued that “we don’t need to do anything” is an incorrect assumption.