Results 1 to 30 of 47

Thread: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Standing Up For Rationality Senior Member Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Lisbon,Portugal
    Posts
    4,952

    Cool Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar
    That first sentence

    makes me tired already...why does everything on this world have to do with being liberal or conservative? And why does the author of this article have to pick on liberals instead of presenting a solid article and letting the reader draw his/her own conclusions?

    that would be because he doesn´t have anything to make a solid article with....
    "If given the choice to be the shepherd or the sheep... be the wolf"
    -Josh Homme
    "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!"
    - Calvin

  2. #2
    Arena Senior Member Crazed Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Between the Mountain and the Sound
    Posts
    11,074
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

    Perhaps if you extended your reading past the first sentence. I know it's a tremendous effort, but you shouldn't pretend you've refuted the article or even dealt with its contents if you don't actually read the article, which is strong on facts and weak on hyperbole, which is why you may find it difficult to refute.

    Crazed Rabbit
    Ja Mata, Tosa.

    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder

  3. #3
    Insomniac and tired of it Senior Member Slyspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,868

    Default Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
    Perhaps if you extended your reading past the first sentence. I know it's a tremendous effort, but you shouldn't pretend you've refuted the article or even dealt with its contents if you don't actually read the article, which is strong on facts and weak on hyperbole, which is why you may find it difficult to refute.

    Crazed Rabbit
    If your article is clearly biased from the off do not be surprised if people do not want to read it. Certainly do not patronize them for it. Husar's point is entirely valid.

    I have not great love for Kyoto myself since, without the US on board and with a great many frankly hopeless signatories , it has no great impact. Wrong-headed from the word go and generally ineffective. At least Britain appears to be cleaning up its act (though since we have little heavy industry left this is not that hard).
    "Put 'em in blue coats, put 'em in red coats, the bastards will run all the same!"

    "The English are a strange people....They came here in the morning, looked at the wall, walked over it, killed the garrison and returned to breakfast. What can withstand them?"

  4. #4
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyspy
    If your article is clearly biased from the off do not be surprised if people do not want to read it. Certainly do not patronize them for it. Husar's point is entirely valid.

    I have not great love for Kyoto myself since, without the US on board and with a great many frankly hopeless signatories , it has no great impact. Wrong-headed from the word go and generally ineffective. At least Britain appears to be cleaning up its act (though since we have little heavy industry left this is not that hard).
    The United States not signing the Kyoto accord has nothing to do with its failure to address the issue, nor does it address the failure of the signatory nations in meeting the committments they agreed to when their nations signed the accord.

    http://www.beyondintractability.org/...agreements.jsp

    It is difficult for environmental agreements to be self-enforcing because of the nexus of actors involved. Corporations, interest groups, and other non-governmental organizations are important not only in communicating information, but in actually designing and implementing the agreements. Environmental agreements are difficult to enforce and monitor, for the same reasons that they are difficult to agree to. Agreements involving multiple and diverse actors tend to be more difficult to monitor because they create a multiplicity of interpretations and enforcement protocols. Effective agreements will specify in their design the means of enforcement and the standards by which compliance is judged.[8]

    The success of the Montreal Protocol and the failure of the Kyoto Protocol are two illustrations of this basic principle. One reason that the Montreal Protocol was successful was that there was a basic agreement on the severity of the problem and the requirements for successfully dealing with the problem. Widespread agreement on the issue can lead to widespread agreement on the methods of monitoring and enforcement. In the end with environmental issues, the agreements must largely be self-monitored within each nation. Another important issue associated with the success of the Montreal Protocol is the relatively low cost of compliance.

    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.


    Then again its not all fine and dandy in Britian concerning the Kyoto Accord either

    http://www.senate.gov/comm/environme...=rep&id=246497

    Kyoto Support Eroding

    Support for the Kyoto Accords, even among Europe’s one-time greatest supporters, is waning. Last month at Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative Conference in New York, Prime Minister Tony Blair made a stunning statement that initially went unreported by the press. Blair, as the London Telegraph reported Sunday, made a “U-turn” on Kyoto. The Telegraph reports, “Mr. Blair, who has been seen up to now as a strong supporter of the Kyoto Treaty, effectively tore the document up and admitted that rows over its implementation will ‘never be resolved.’ Regarding future Kyoto like plans Blair stated, ‘To be honest, I don’t think people are going, at least in the short term, to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto.”

    Europe’s Failure to Meet Its Kyoto Targets

    Prime Minister Blair’s “U-turn” comes as Europe struggles to meet the limits imposed by Kyoto. Robert Samuelson in a Washington Post op-ed on June 29th wrote: “Considering Europeans’ contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you’d expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto’s base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency.”

    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)
    So it seems at least the United States was honest in its refusing to sign the accords verus caving into the popularity of an accord that can not be enforce, regulated, monitored, or even agreed upon by those who actually did agree to sign the Kyoto Accord.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  5. #5
    Insomniac and tired of it Senior Member Slyspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,868

    Default Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

    With all due respect mate you need to tone down the knee-jerk nationalist response. Read the words of my post and you will see that at no point did I criticise the US for staying out of Kyoto. It is their call after all, and Kyoto was always a lame duck. What I did say was that Kyoto is effectively pointless without the US on board. I could of course have mentioned China as well, but thought that the US was more relevant to these boards. Neither did I claim that Britain was meeting its targets, or that anyone was or could, or that Kyoto was workable in the first place. Jeez, everyone is so prickly these days on this board, so eager to argue!
    "Put 'em in blue coats, put 'em in red coats, the bastards will run all the same!"

    "The English are a strange people....They came here in the morning, looked at the wall, walked over it, killed the garrison and returned to breakfast. What can withstand them?"

  6. #6
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyspy
    With all due respect mate you need to tone down the knee-jerk nationalist response.
    Oh look who needs to tone down their knee-jerk response. Pot calling the Kettle black I see.

    Read the words of my post and you will see that at no point did I criticise the US for staying out of Kyoto.
    Read the words of my post - and you will see that I am not criticising your post in a nationalistic defense. But pointing out that the failure of the Kyoto accords has absolutely nothing to do with the United States not signing it.

    It is their call after all, and Kyoto was always a lame duck. What I did say was that Kyoto is effectively pointless without the US on board.
    And see you missed the point of my post - Kyoto was pointless regardless if the United States was on board or not.

    I could of course have mentioned China as well, but thought that the US was more relevant to these boards.
    Tsk Tsk - an attempt to only criticize one nation when many are at fault because of the audience of the board. It seems my knee-jerk reaction was not so far fetched after all.

    Neither did I claim that Britain was meeting its targets, or that anyone was or could, or that Kyoto was workable in the first place.
    You might want to read what you wrote then, my impression was of something else, hence the response you got.

    Jeez, everyone is so prickly these days on this board, so eager to argue!
    Why not - when the opposition seem to only look at one narrow aspect of the issue.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  7. #7

    Default Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

    In a word, no.

  8. #8
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    The United States not signing the Kyoto accord has nothing to do with its failure to address the issue, nor does it address the failure of the signatory nations in meeting the committments they agreed to when their nations signed the accord.

    http://www.beyondintractability.org/...agreements.jsp
    ??? The U.S. has not only failed to address the issue, but it has denied it exists. Pointing out failures of others when we sabotaged the agreement, there is hypocrisy in the extreme.
    So it seems at least the United States was honest in its refusing to sign the accords verus caving into the popularity of an accord that can not be enforce, regulated, monitored, or even agreed upon by those who actually did agree to sign the Kyoto Accord.
    "Honest?" Not at all. The U.S. approach has been anything but honest. Denying the obvious is hardly honest. It is intellectually dishonest, and we will be paying the price of this for decades. It will set us back technologically, and economically. Short sighted approaches usually do. We have not invested properly for the future and will lag instead of leading.

    Hell, the anti-Kyoto approach has not even been good for us economically--and that is the whole basis for not dealing with the issue. What the knee jerk conservatives missed in all this was that Kyoto could be used to restrict other developing nations, and advance ourselves at the same time. Without international agreements there is nothing to prevent the world's most populated nations from using considerably more in the way of fossil fuels each year.

    The oil & gas price run up over the past few years? I predicted that based on the above reasoning about India and China and the fact that we were emerging from global recession. (I actually expected it to take a few years longer than it did to *consistently* run above $50--but my analysis of the trend was spot on.) I take a big picture, longterm view.

    By the way...with regard to Canadian CO2 emissions. The oil sands development is a killer in that regard...as it will be in the U.S. Remember that part of that is exports to the U.S. now that the oil sands projects are viable with higher energy prices. The CO2 cost of extraction is getting higher for oil in general.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  9. #9
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Harvest
    ??? The U.S. has not only failed to address the issue, but it has denied it exists. Pointing out failures of others when we sabotaged the agreement, there is hypocrisy in the extreme.
    The United States did not sabotage the agreement. The agreement was nothing from the beginning. No nation that signed the agreement had an honest expectation to fulfill the conditions within the agreement. No measures were established for monitoring the complaince for the agreement. In a nut-shell the agreement was sabotaged from the beginning by the inablity of the drafters to agree upon the conditions of the treaty. The United States only had a small part to play in that.

    "Honest?" Not at all. The U.S. approach has been anything but honest. Denying the obvious is hardly honest. It is intellectually dishonest, and we will be paying the price of this for decades. It will set us back technologically, and economically. Short sighted approaches usually do. We have not invested properly for the future and will lag instead of leading.
    THe dishonest approach was done by Bill Clinton when he signed the treaty and never sent it to Congress for ratification. So in that aspect you are correct - there was a dishonest approach to the treaty. Disagreement with what the conditions that cause global warming is not a dishonest approach.


    Hell, the anti-Kyoto approach has not even been good for us economically--and that is the whole basis for not dealing with the issue. What the knee jerk conservatives missed in all this was that Kyoto could be used to restrict other developing nations, and advance ourselves at the same time. Without international agreements there is nothing to prevent the world's most populated nations from using considerably more in the way of fossil fuels each year.
    You might want to go read the agreement. The developing nations were not restricted - one of the reasons the United States did not agree to the Kyoto Treaty was because it only placed constraints on the developed nations - not the developing nations.

    The oil & gas price run up over the past few years? I predicted that based on the above reasoning about India and China and the fact that we were emerging from global recession. (I actually expected it to take a few years longer than it did to *consistently* run above $50--but my analysis of the trend was spot on.) I take a big picture, longterm view.
    WIthout seeing such an analysis when it was made to show the date - I can not comment on your supposed findings. I could come up with data that shows that the Kyoto Treaty has no effect because it does not address the slash and burn of Rain Forests nor the logging of Rain Forests in Asia. Two can play that arguement - in fact about 1-2 years ago in a previous thread about the Kyoto Accords I brough up just that problem with it.

    By the way...with regard to Canadian CO2 emissions. The oil sands development is a killer in that regard...as it will be in the U.S. Remember that part of that is exports to the U.S. now that the oil sands projects are viable with higher energy prices. The CO2 cost of extraction is getting higher for oil in general.
    Speaking of short sightness - if your only address the CO2 emmissions from fossil fuels your just as short sighted as you are claiming the Bush Adminstration and intellectually dishonest is in regards to the Kyoto Treaty.

    Care to explain why Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Accords and never sent the treaty to Congress for Ratification?
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  10. #10
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    The United States did not sabotage the agreement. The agreement was nothing from the beginning. No nation that signed the agreement had an honest expectation to fulfill the conditions within the agreement. No measures were established for monitoring the complaince for the agreement. In a nut-shell the agreement was sabotaged from the beginning by the inablity of the drafters to agree upon the conditions of the treaty. The United States only had a small part to play in that.
    No, that won't fly. With the U.S. being unwilling to participate it had insufficient support to work. Saying what makes you feel good about our nation's irresponsible approach is not gonna work.
    THe dishonest approach was done by Bill Clinton when he signed the treaty and never sent it to Congress for ratification. So in that aspect you are correct - there was a dishonest approach to the treaty. Disagreement with what the conditions that cause global warming is not a dishonest approach.
    The fact that Americans have stuck their heads in the sand on the issue is not Clinton's fault. It does illustrate the intellectually dishonest approach of my countrymen on the matter.
    You might want to go read the agreement. The developing nations were not restricted - one of the reasons the United States did not agree to the Kyoto Treaty was because it only placed constraints on the developed nations - not the developing nations.
    It would have provided the political leverage to do so. Things like this must be done in steps. If you don't take the first step, you go nowhere (which is what has happened.) As I've maintained for many years, our best interests are to set a tone that gives us some authority in encouraging energy conscious development. If you won't do it at home, it won't happen abroad.
    WIthout seeing such an analysis when it was made to show the date - I can not comment on your supposed findings.
    If memory serves it would have been July or August of 2003 as we were doing our strategic planning for 2004, 2005 and beyond. I reviewed the industry projections and found them to be uniform, and bogus. They were typical conservative oil industry documents, telling industry what they wanted to hear (and thereby discouraging energy conservation projects.) Industry accepted them, because they were what they wanted to hear. In a nutshell prices were predicted to drop to $25/bbl for 2004, and rise about 4-6% per year for the next ten years or so. How they thought prices would fall when at the same time we were emerging from recession, and demand historically increases when that happens...it's called wishful thinking in the absence of contrary historical data.

    Anyway, I was looking at it considering whether or not we should be making plans for an investment of several hundred million dollars to get a permanent leg up on the competition by switching to a much cheaper feedstock (even then, with oil at $28/bbl!) Not surprisingly, the conservative execs had no interest in anything innovative because of risk potential. So they lost any potential initiative and lead on a long development project. Those of us who had an interest in such things along with the expertise and mindset to make them happen instead left the company or retired (or both.)

    These execs were the same clowns that took several months and tons of justification to decide on spending less than $20,000 to save over $200,000 annually on one of my projects just a few months before. In frustration I broke the impasse by telling them I would loan them the money out of my own savings for just a few percentage cut of the longterm benefits from such a pissant expenditure.
    I could come up with data that shows that the Kyoto Treaty has no effect because it does not address the slash and burn of Rain Forests nor the logging of Rain Forests in Asia.
    No you cannot, becaust that is 100% false logic. Whether or not you address one source does not mean that it has no effect. That's like saying if I reduce my discretionary spending I won't see a net improvement in my savings because my wife does not. I might not see as much improvement as I want, but I will see an effect. Pointing the finger at the other guy is a dishonest approach.

    Years ago I had a fellow engineer (true knee jerk conservative that prompted me to begin using the term) try to convince me that burning the rain forests would actually *reduce* CO2 because ag use would tie up more carbon. He must have read that in one of his conservative sources somewhere, as he was always repeating the stuff verbatim without doing a basic logic check. The guy was brilliant with process design, but when it came to social/political matters he became a nearly brainless automaton.
    Speaking of short sightness - if your only address the CO2 emmissions from fossil fuels your just as short sighted as you are claiming the Bush Adminstration and intellectually dishonest is in regards to the Kyoto Treaty.
    This is a "two wrongs make a right" approach, but it is far wide of the mark. I have not said anything should be off the table, so your strawman appears to have caught fire.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO