Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich
I referenced a paper earlier that showed a full-tilt compliance to Kyoto for a full century postpones the predicted temperature rise by maybe 5 years. 7 days postponement seems reasonable (if admittedly meaninglessly below the noise level) given how few nations are actually meeting the emissions reduction targets and given that Kyoto expires in 2012.
|
Well, there's your problem.
Quote:
|
A more fruitful strategy on your part, rather than just denying the claims and papers I put forth, might be to counter with studies and evidence that demonstrate how Kyoto will significantly combat global warming and how the benefits outweigh the costs.
|
Um, what part of "I'm not advocating Kyoto" is hard to understand?
Quote:
|
That's just swell. Everyone says to listen to the science. As soon as I do, it is summarily dismissed.
|
Calling a particular report biased is hardly "summarily dismiss"ing the science. The pure science isn't going to come from advocates of any side. Look at no one particular report, but the overall weight of evidence.
Quote:
|
If both sides are exaggerating, etc. then there is no reason to listen to either of them.
|
Exactly, the very concept of "sides" is biased. Look at the data-- all of it.
Quote:
|
We have no positive basis (in the sense of direct evidence) for a particular policy, Kyoto or otherwise.
|
Wrong. We have every reason to improve the efficiency of our technology. We have reasons, economic and scientific, to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels. These policies will reduce carbon dioxide production, with or without Kyoto or its descendants.
Quote:
|
Uncertainty and doubt are not arguments for anything.
|
There is no doubt about the amounts of CO2 we produce. There is no doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is no doubt the climate is shifting.
Quote:
|
Kyoto is already a failure and even if it was adhered to, it would have little effect. A treaty calling for far more drastic cuts will have less of a chance being signed and especially, less of a chance of being adhered to.
|
Personal opinion.
Quote:
|
Global warming is going to happen over the next century. We cannot stop it.
|
Personal opinion.
Quote:
|
As Bob Dylan says, “you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone.” I have been suggesting that we focus our resources on the swimming (that is, adapting) first because it is something we can do over the next century.
|
Yeah, because reducing our CO2 output over the next century is impossible.
It's not an either-or. Tastes great, less filling. We can do things to mitigate the effects, lessening the amount of radical rebuilding, relocating and the like we'd have to do.
Quote:
And how do you insure that money not used for one will go to the other? Or that that isn't how CO2 will be lowered?
Kyoto calls for lowering of CO2 emissions, not for any specific means of achieving it. We know that we have to move to a non-fossil fuel economy. Spend directly on that technology (tax credits, etc.) instead of calling for CO2 reductions and hoping that a particular technology comes out of it.
|
You answered you own question there. They are not mutually exclusive, so nothing prevents us from doing both. Since taxes are set by each country, there has to be something to motivate each country to do so. I agree, a treaty is a poor motivator. But short of military force, it's all we've got that can affect so many different nations.
Quote:
People tend to do what they can get away with. Kyoto and measures like it may help put a slight hammerlock on them (assuming, of course, they're ever enforced).
We shouldn't hammerlock people. Energy is our friend. Energy is why we live so comfortably today. Our goal, if anything, should be to have everybody living as well as Al Gore does—for the long term, of course. People of the future will be richer than we are today. It doesn't make sense for people in the developing world to have to sacrifice too much just to benefit some future rich guy.
|
So who's asking that? Developing countries can benefit more from greater efficiency and better technology, because they can install it right from the start. And for most developing nations, wind, sunlight and organic materials are more readily available than coal and oil.