Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
I would be happier if we increased substantially our use of nuclear power to gradually replace the fossil-fuels consuming plants. We need to export that coal to North Italy and to China.
I would also be happier to see more and more people turning to hybrid engines. Reducing our need to import oil. Increasing fuel prices seem likely to promote this shift.
As to the treaty, Kyoto failed in large part due to U.S. intransigence.
Thankfully.
Kyoto's underlying goal (which is NOT the altruistic goal from which it garners most of its support) was to hamstring the U.S. in order to promote Red China's development. Long-term goal was to re-establish political parity by having the U.S. unseated as a "sole" superpower and re-stablish a political system of "continuity" akin to than enjoyed from 1957 through 1988.
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Well, Vladmir, looks like you might want to read the history on this one.
The data that I looked at suggested that it had always been there from the first year they took measurements on it. Also the whole magically disappeared in 1988. Last thing I've heard is that it doesn't exist. As far as starting to stabilize and be reduced: How many countries still use Freon and CFCs? I believe Mexico is one of them. If the hole is gone as I have heard how can the levels only now start to decline? Instead of debiting the level of man made chemicals in the air we're debating the level of CO2? Seems to me that plants and algae breath this stuff and the more advanced we become the more of them are around. Think how much "green space" can be made if projects like Japan's sky city are successful? There's just too much junk science and uncertainty for me to buy into it. Some even say it's too late, there's nothing we can do about it. That and the anti US rhetoric makes me suspicious about the intentions. They should be about universal efficiency standards and not blame us for all the world's problems. Does anyone know how China, Russia, et. al. are doing on the environmental front?
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Kyoto's underlying goal (which is NOT the altruistic goal from which it garners most of its support) was to hamstring the U.S. in order to promote Red China's development.
Interesting hypothsis.
Some questions:
a) Do you have any actual prove for these allegations or is this a rant?
b) Why would Europe be interested in promoting China's industrial development?
c) How is the US hamstrung by achieving the same energy efficiency levels as other developed industrial countries?
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Kyoto's underlying goal (which is NOT the altruistic goal from which it garners most of its support) was to hamstring the U.S. in order to promote Red China's development. Long-term goal was to re-establish political parity by having the U.S. unseated as a "sole" superpower and re-stablish a political system of "continuity" akin to than enjoyed from 1957 through 1988.
Well I expect some Ad Hominem arguements will be forthcoming for adding the not so well known political aspects of the Kyoto Accords into the arguement. I steered away from this particular argument for a reason, one being that its a hard assertion to prove.
Second being that the underlying failure of the accords was more in line with the reasoning demonstrated in a previous quoted article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
We can see in the Kyoto Protocol a fundamental failure on all of these accounts. The scope and nature of the problem, carbon-dioxide emissions, is widely disagreed upon. If agreement on the problem is impossible, agreement on how to monitor compliance to any ameliorative agreement is certain to be impossible as well. Additionally complying with the agreement imposes high economic costs for both developing and developed countries, making compliance unlikely and monitoring difficult.
Adding the nefarious political reasoning to the arguement well - only shows why many in Congress would not have signed off on the treaty for ratification.
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
How many countries still use Freon and CFCs?
Global consumption of major CFCs went from ca. 1000kt in 1986 down to ca. 30kt in 2001 - I guess that qualifies for a major reduction ("Freon" is just the brand-name of Dupont's CFCs)
Quote:
Instead of debiting the level of man made chemicals in the air we're debating the level of CO2? Seems to me that plants and algae breath this stuff and the more advanced we become the more of them are around. Think how much "green space" can be made if projects like Japan's sky city are successful? There's just too much junk science and uncertainty for me to buy into it. Some even say it's too late, there's nothing we can do about it. That and the anti US rhetoric makes me suspicious about the intentions.
a) CFCs/ozone layer and CO2 emissions/global warming are two very separate issues
b) It's funny that you make you remark about how good increased CO2 emissions are for plants and about junk science in the same context. As amatter of fact the global deforestation (e.g., rainforest in Brazil) adds to the problem as we not only increase the CO2 emissions but at the same time destroy the "natural converters" of CO2. Your remark about some trees to solve the problem is at best funny, considering the scale of deforestation.
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Globally deforestation is much less severe than in your extreme, emotional plea for the rain forest. How much CO2 is consumed by plants in the ocean? What kinds of societies are participating in massive deforestation? Why is Mars getting warmer (or is it)? Look at the history of any developed country as to how they handled their forests. You'll see a dramatic increase in green space in developed nations than developing nations and clean coal vs. the old, black smoke.
I don't see how plants consuming CO2 is junk science, they actually breath it (sorry, being a smartass, please clarify). You have ignored my comments about advanced societies being environmentally friendly and the ozone hole "miracle". If entire cities can be replaced by a few, massive structures not only can the green space be improved but the heat generated and energy consumed by those cities is decreased as well. Of course the demand would have to be there but the technology would have ramifications outside the extreme example planned in Japan. If this is a crisis that only the US is willing to ignore why don't all other countries reduce their emissions now instead of being hypocritical?
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Globally deforestation is much less severe than in your extreme, emotional plea for the rain forest. How much CO2 is consumed by plants in the ocean? What kinds of societies are participating in massive deforestation? Why is Mars getting warmer (or is it)? Look at the history of any developed country as to how they handled their forests. You'll see a dramatic increase in green space in developed nations than developing nations and clean coal vs. the old, black smoke.
OK - could you please provide some facts that show that green space is (globally) increasing? (BTW, is there any purpose to your question about Mars?)
Quote:
I don't see how plants consuming CO2 is junk science, they actually breath it (sorry, being a smartass, please clarify). You have ignored my comments about advanced societies being environmentally friendly and the ozone hole "miracle".
The fact that plants are "breathing" CO2 is correct - the hypothesis that there are increasing "green spaces" that counter the increase in CO2 emissions is what falls into the realm of "junk science"
Quote:
If entire cities can be replaced by a few, massive structures not only can the green space be improved but the heat generated and energy consumed by those cities is decreased as well. Of course the demand would have to be there but the technology would have ramifications outside the extreme example planned in Japan. If this is a crisis that only the US is willing to ignore why don't all other countries reduce their emissions now instead of being hypocritical?
Not quite sure what the first part has to do with the issue...
Regarding the second part:
a) that the targets are not met is not equivalent to not reducing emissions at all (or reducing the increase)
b) as I said before - the problem is that the US is not only the largest economy but also has (even if normalized with GDP) higher CO2 emissions compared to most EU countries and Japan
EDIT to add:
Quote:
You have ignored my comments about advanced societies being environmentally friendly and the ozone hole "miracle".
On the "ozone hole miracle": The problem (CFCs) has been eliminated
What about the "advanced societies"? I think I don't understand your question.
Isn't being environmentally more friendly (e.g., reducing CO2 emissions) exactly what we are talking about?
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Interesting hypothsis.
Some questions:
a) Do you have any actual prove for these allegations or is this a rant?
b) Why would Europe be interested in promoting China's industrial development?
c) How is the US hamstrung by achieving the same energy efficiency levels as other developed industrial countries?
I don't know if I would label it a hypothesis, as there is no way to "test" it per se, aside from living through it.
A) No direct proof is available, as no reputable group/nation/government would ever admit to holding such a view.
Indirectly, the movement to invest China with superpower status has numerous supporters including Warren Christopher when serving as Sec of State for Clinton, members of national assembly of The Gambia, and author/journalist Emil Guillermo.
I can profer no verifiable proof of a connection between these two modes of thought, other than the correlation of those who wish to label China a superpower and those who support Kyoto. Correlation, of couse, is always suspect and can do no more then suggest a direction for proper inquiry.
B) For economic reasons. An expanded/industrialized China would become a greater market for European goods. China has demonstrated a preference for European firms where contracts/products/serivces in question were more or less equivalent -- which is, of course, their right. Europe, per capita, could end up benefiting more from and expanding China than does the U.S.A.
C) I am a fan of energy efficiency, as my first post on this thread should corroborate. The limits suggested by Kyoto, however, could have been met by the U.S.A. only through cutbacks forced through government regulations -- improved efficiency would not have sufficed. Few of the other signatories would have faced such cutbacks.
Don't mistake me. Better use of energy sources, a lessened reliance on fossil fuels for combustible purposes, clean air and water are all worthwhile goals. I do not see such vehicles as the Kyoto accord as being effective tools in pursuing such goals. Economic imperatives and pressures promote growth and change, and though some degree of regulation is necessary for the public good it should be sparing. To legislate and then force economics to live up to the legislative goal is somewhat akin to putting the cart before the horse. It may work, but not well.
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Well, if you have the highest emission levels its obviosly much easier to reduce them than if you already have a lower level.
So, although the US managed to increase emissions at a slower rate than European countries in the past 15 years, they still have not reached the same efficiency level, but are on a level with China, Malaysia and Korea...
Actually, all those countries are far more efficient on a per capita basis I believe (have not checked the numbers.) GDP basis, probably not (although China might be now...) Efficiency can be defined many ways. A nation like Singapore could be very energy efficient because of its small size, mass transit etc. It could excel both on per capita and GDP. The U.S. and Canada would be challenged by the distances involved in commuting, transporting goods, etc. Climate can also have an impact. Canada would likely suffer because of extensive heating requirements compared to the U.S.
Quote:
EDIT: The funny thing is - considering the high energy prices in the US, one should think that you would be interested in being more competitive in terms of energy consumption ... but I might be wrong
But U.S. energy prices are actually relatively cheap. Gasoline is dirt cheap. You wouldn't know it from listening to your average U.S. consumer, but few of them have ever bought gasoline in foreign countries. This has been a driver for the large vehicle demand and of course sales. Other nations with higher vehicle operating costs did not go the bigger vehicle route.
The U.S. consumer mindset is that cheap gasoline and energy prices are some sort of God given right. It is rather amusing since the average Joe has no idea how all this works. It really comes across in pump conversations where I try to get a feel for what other motorists think of things.
When I've seen studies on this in the past and from personal conversations the interesting thing is that folks want to shift burden to industry, and not pay an extra dime themselves. That is economically the worst way to do it. It is consumption behavior that needs to change. Production side is responding to consumption habits.
How many average folks have any clue where hydrogen comes from? They think it is some resource that we are just going to tap into, or mine, or pump.
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
The "Kyoto was intended ot decapitate the U.S. and help China" line is really weak. First of all, it is typical of scare mongering paranoia. More importantly, the rise of China is happening without Kyoto, and in fact will be assisted in the long run by the failure of the U.S. to recognize THE TREND. We have lost any political authority to join with others to get committments out of China. Short sighted thinking once again.
That's what I've been trying to get through to conservatives in my industry for years. With India/China it is not IF but WHEN their energy demand rises. I hit on the mark with respect to oil demand and pricing trends...while the same conservative voices in industry said I was crazy.
And the real kicker is that the same industry types that will claim Kyoto was selling us out to China are the ones selling us out to China themselves. The hypocrisy is hilarious and staggering. These same folks were opposing Kyoto, but shipping our plants, processes, and jobs to mainland China.
If you want to get upset about China, Kyoto has zip to do with it. What you should be concerned about is the way China has companies giving away all their trade secrets, processes, and production techniques (as well as jobs) to the Chinese govt. with little in return--market access, that's all. I've seen how these things work from inside the companies doing this. It's about equivalent to the deal the Indians got for Long Island...only in this case it is in reverse as the "lower tech Indians (Chinese) fleecing the "Europeans" (developed nations.) China created an inequitable market structure and everyone still wants to play, because if they don't someone else will.
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
The data that I looked at suggested that it had always been there from the first year they took measurements on it. Also the whole magically disappeared in 1988. Last thing I've heard is that it doesn't exist.
What you are repeating sounds like junk science acquired from some non-reputable source. The "hole" was first measured in the 70's. It grew larger and peaked in 2000. Check organizations like NOAA for summaries. One comment on their site says that the levels resembling a hole were not seen until the 70's despite annual data extending back to 1957.
Quote:
As far as starting to stabilize and be reduced: How many countries still use Freon and CFCs? I believe Mexico is one of them. If the hole is gone as I have heard how can the levels only now start to decline?
It isn't gone and the science for the levels actually peaking and declining over long time periods is well established. CFC use is a tiny fraction of what it once was, and it is not released nearly as often. Much of the science involves free radical chemistry in the upper atmosphere from what I recall (I haven't looked at that aspect in a long time.) CFC's were a problem because of their persistence and their catalytic destructive power.
The CFC link to ozone depletion was a happy accident. The researchers who discovered it were not looking for anything like that as best I recall.
Quote:
Instead of debiting the level of man made chemicals in the air we're debating the level of CO2? Seems to me that plants and algae breath this stuff and the more advanced we become the more of them are around.
This was suggested early in the CO2 debates. As I recall, studies have proven that increased CO2 levels do not result in accelerated plant growth as was hoped. That is why you won't hear much about it anymore.
Quote:
There's just too much junk science and uncertainty for me to buy into it.
The junk science has been coming largely from the same folks that opposed CFC phaseout. They like to label mainstream science "junk science." Handy little tag to confuse those without the technical background, knowledge and time to sift through the information.
Quote:
Some even say it's too late, there's nothing we can do about it. That and the anti US rhetoric makes me suspicious about the intentions. They should be about universal efficiency standards and not blame us for all the world's problems. Does anyone know how China, Russia, et. al. are doing on the environmental front?
This last part is easy if you are speaking of CO2. The nations you mention likely produce quite a bit less CO2 per capita than the U.S. because their energy use is a fraction of ours. China consumes about 1/8th as much, Russia about 60% as much. Considering climates and the fact that Russia is a large exporter (while the U.S. is a large importer) it is a rather unflattering comparison for the U.S.
As to whether it is too late: That is hard to say, since we are conducting a global experiment on a system we still don't fully understand. The outcome can only be predicted. CO2 is a greenhouse gas...the question is how large will the effect be. Lower growth rates in CO2 emissions could only be a positive.
Interestingly, ten years ago folks were still denying that humans were having an impact on CO2. That debate has largely ended. At that time I pulled global energy consumption, and did my own hand calcs to determine if human energy use would have the observed effect. My calcs agreed with what was being stated. That along with the ice core results were enough to convince me where the real junk science was emanating from.
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Redleg,
When I see "hyperbole, fallacy, Ad Hominem, and strawman" littered throughout, there isn't anything worth reading within. History will judge the wisdom of the U.S. position. I have no reason to suspect it will be kind. I'm comfortable with my assessment being closer to the historical mark than yours. ~:cheers:
Our nation is going through a repeat of the "me decade" only I would call 2000+ the "greed decade."
EDIT: Put in "generation" when I meant decade. Should have been obvious...
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Redleg,
When I see "hyperbole, fallacy, Ad Hominem, and strawman" littered throughout, there isn't anything worth reading within. History will judge the wisdom of the U.S. position. I have no reason to suspect it will be kind. I'm comfortable with my assessment being closer to the historical mark than yours. ~:cheers:
When I read your posts and your attempts to call other people's logic certain terms - I call it like I see it, remember who threw the terms out arguementive fallacy terms first in this discussion. What you should of done is left the rest of your post after we will have to agree to disagree, since after that your post was nothing but what I have alreadly posted about it.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...9&postcount=14
Your arguement about the Kyoto Accords failing is the fault of the United States falls on its face. The failure of the accords rest with each nation that signed the docuement.
I have not discussed the failure of the United States to address the ecological issues that it faces, since that was never my initial premise, you responded to my initial arguement - so I maintained the same premise that I had with my initial post.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...81&postcount=8
What I have addressed is only the failure of the Kyoto Accords to address the issues, and that the failure of those accords rest squarely on those who signed it. :juggle2:
Now if you are wanting to talk about conservation, the environment, and the failures of mulitple generations and adminstrations of the United States and its government - then lets discuss the issues in a seperate thread, as mentioned earlier I have issues with Clear Cut forest harvesting, and there are a few others but this thread was about the hypocrisy of the Kyoto Accords, not what I believe are the ecological concerns facing the United States.
What I have seen of your arguement so far reminds me of when the Germans were blaming Bush for the flooding in their country.
Quote:
Our nation is going through a repeat of the "me generation" only I would call 2000+ the "greed generation."
And you would be incorrect - the generation that is still effecting the policies of the government is the Baby Boomer Generation. But we are getting toward the time that the Baby Boomers will begin to retire very shortly, but unfortunely the generation grouping lasts to about 2 years before I was born. So you get to rile at the Baby Boomers for about 15 more years.
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Say what you want, Redleg, doesn't change a thing.
Fact: The majority of the U.S. was unconvinced on Global Warming and the need for CO2 controls.
Fact: The U.S. was unwilling to do anything requiring any sacrifice with respect ot CO2.
Fact: Conservatives were the ringleaders of the opposition to accords like Kyoto.
Fact: Lack of U.S participation made Kyoto unworkable. (Like OPEC without Saudi cooperation.)
Fact: U.S. leadership and credibility has fallen as a result.
Fact: Energy consumption and CO2 levels are worse for the lack of U.S. participiation.
Call it strawman/fallacy, etc. if you like. I'll let history be the judge.
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Say what you want, Redleg, doesn't change a thing.
You have not shown where my premise is wrong, only that your opinion is different. Again the discussion on this thread was about the Hypocrisy of the Kyoto Accords and its failure.
Quote:
Fact: The majority of the U.S. was unconvinced on Global Warming and the need for CO2 controls.
Sure they were - that is from a lack of knowledge on the subject and the failure of communicating the information. Care to guess what President and other political leaders that could be held responsible for that one - since your attempting to cast blame later on in one of your points. There are a few of them in fact, from both parties.
Quote:
Fact: The U.S. was unwilling to do anything requiring any sacrifice with respect ot CO2.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2000_11/alia/a0112107.htm
http://www.icfconsulting.com/Publica...-emissions.asp
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/environment/news_issues/news/ghgreport_2003.pdf#search='CO2%20emissions%20reduction%20in%20the%20United%20States'
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR5CZKVE/$File/ghgbrochure.pdf
Hmm I wonder how much of your fact here is based upon real evidence, or are you attempting to speak only of the government? I know some othe industries that have attempted to reduce CO2 emmissions on their own, plus some state regulatory attempts, to include emissions tests for motor vehicles.
Quote:
Fact: Conservatives were the ringleaders of the opposition to accords like Kyoto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by link
Of course, the critics are being disingenuous. Bush announced his opposition to Kyoto during his campaign and has never wavered. His position also reflects the U.S. Senate vote of 95 - 0 against any such treaty that would cause severe economic damage to the U.S. but exempt most of the rest of the world. And while the American public may express concern about global warming, a recent Time/CNN poll indicates that less than half would be willing to pay an additional 25 cents for a gallon of gasoline.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=296
Doesn't look to me like there was any oppostion in the Senate concerning the vote against the Kyoto accord. The ringleaders happen to be from both parties and all sides to get such a vote.
Quote:
Fact: Lack of U.S participation made Kyoto unworkable. (Like OPEC without Saudi cooperation.)
The flaws in the treaty made it unworkable. The lack of participation of the United States did not make it impossible for the signatory nations to meet the emission reductions that they agreed upon. If the conditions of the treaty were workable - those nations would of meet their agreed upon reductions without the participation of the United States. In theory if they would of meet the conditions the United States would have to rethink its postion on the Kyoto Accords.
Quote:
Originally Posted by from an alreadly established link and used in a previous post.
Samuelson itemized those increases:
France, a 6.9 percent increase; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; and Spain, a 46.9 percent increase over 1990 levels.
The failure of EU nations to meet targets under Kyoto further demonstrates the lack of will or ability by those claiming to be the biggest supporters of reducing greenhouse gasses. Catherine Pearce, global climate change spokeswoman for Friends of the Earth, is correct to ask: “If Britain and the rest of Europe cannot get it right, then how can anyone expect the US or developing countries to?” (John Vidal, “Europe fails to cut greenhouse gas emissions,” The Guardian, 6/18/2005)
One can not blame the United States for the failure of others in meeting thier agreed upon reductions.
Quote:
Fact: U.S. leadership and credibility has fallen as a result.
You are correct on this one.
Quote:
Fact: Energy consumption and CO2 levels are worse for the lack of U.S. participiation.
Not completely correct - the developing nations increasing their emissions also play a factor in this increase. The increases noted in Europe also have a part to play in this.
Quote:
Call it strawman/fallacy, etc. if you like. I'll let history be the judge.
History will be harsh on all of the developed nations in this issue. However the history on the failure of the Kyoto Accords will contain more then non-particapation of the United States.
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Actually, all those countries are far more efficient on a per capita basis I believe (have not checked the numbers.) GDP basis, probably not (although China might be now...) Efficiency can be defined many ways. A nation like Singapore could be very energy efficient because of its small size, mass transit etc. It could excel both on per capita and GDP. The U.S. and Canada would be challenged by the distances involved in commuting, transporting goods, etc. Climate can also have an impact. Canada would likely suffer because of extensive heating requirements compared to the U.S.
The following publication by the IEA gives some nice indicators (in chapter 8)
Key World Energy Statistics
Quote:
But U.S. energy prices are actually relatively cheap. Gasoline is dirt cheap. You wouldn't know it from listening to your average U.S. consumer, but few of them have ever bought gasoline in foreign countries. This has been a driver for the large vehicle demand and of course sales. Other nations with higher vehicle operating costs did not go the bigger vehicle route.
But aren't natural gas prices extremely high in the US currently?
Quote:
It is consumption behavior that needs to change.
Indeed - a major problem is not only the industry but also private households - the extreme use of air condition comes to mind (don't get me wrong - I know that in parts of the USA AC makes a lot of sense, and I also know that Europeans certainly also can improve a lot when it comes to the waste of energy)
Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I would be happier if we increased substantially our use of nuclear power to gradually replace the fossil-fuels consuming plants. We need to export that coal to North Italy and to China.
I would also be happier to see more and more people turning to hybrid engines. Reducing our need to import oil. Increasing fuel prices seem likely to promote this shift.
As to the treaty, Kyoto failed in large part due to U.S. intransigence.
Thankfully.
Kyoto's underlying goal (which is NOT the altruistic goal from which it garners most of its support) was to hamstring the U.S. in order to promote Red China's development. Long-term goal was to re-establish political parity by having the U.S. unseated as a "sole" superpower and re-stablish a political system of "continuity" akin to than enjoyed from 1957 through 1988.
This is about the time to start asking for tin foil hats, is it not?
