DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> >lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> >is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
> >are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>
> You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.

I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.

Cheers,
Steve

 

DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>. ..
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> >lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> >is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
> >are using this topic as their tool to do so.
>
> You hit the nail on the head. The left has a single purpose - punish
> those in the United States by redistributing our wealth to others.

I would disagree. Coming from a (well, for you guys, fairly
extremely) leftist background (my Dad was a member of the Labour party
here back when that's what it was) that's not surprising, though I
guess. I don't think the US needs to be punished for being rich. I'm
not jealous of your lifestyle, or your political system. Having said
that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts? And
there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
sell them on to the developing markets. I wish Australia hadn't
followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.

Cheers,
Steve

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<DWhrb.109394$9E1.542147@attbi_s52>...
> In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
> >> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
> >> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
>
> > What goals could they be?
>
> Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)

Yep. Not really an issue. I can only see ways to develop alternative
technologies that have less impact on the environment as being an
opportunity, not a problem.
>
<snip>
> But it doesn't spend much time at all how the "solutions" aren't going
> to a damn bit of good. Only how nasty republicans and right wingers
> stand in the way.

They've spent more time repudiating the findings of the UN
investigations, and less time offering alternative emissions reduction
programs. The attitude seems to be obstructive, not constructive.
>
<snip>
> > This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
> > the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
> > doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
> > simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
>
> Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
> encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
> nations?

Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
going to be a dramatic improvement. It would also make the
technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
so.
>
> >> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
> >> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
> >> rearranged for no reason.
>
> > If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
> > inland.
>
> And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
> It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
> that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
> it *isn't* going to happen.

Then what is the alternative? Lead by example, I say. Make it easier
for developing countries to take advantage of our example at the same
time.
>
> >> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
> >> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
> >> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
> > What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
> The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
> tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
> this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
> nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
> products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
> CO2 output per product.
>
> Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
> of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
> are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
> atmosphere. Some solution.

I understand what you're saying. I do believe that developing
countries need to have checks on their outputs as well. Having said
that, I still stand behind what I've said, above.
>
> > You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
> And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
> how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
> I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
> things worse if the theory is correct.

So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
an alternative.
>
> > Efficiency isn't a bad
> > thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
> is about in this regard.

Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?

> If they were about conservation they would
> be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.

They're trying to deal with the biggest sources first. And the ones
that can most easily adapt. And the ones that are always trying to
lead the way. So far, not much of a lead.

> They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
> clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
> We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
> are using this topic as their tool to do so.

Not guilt, not punishment. Just noting that the countries that make
the most impact can be making the biggest changes...

Cheers,
Steve

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<DWhrb.109394$9E1.542147@attbi_s52>...
> In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
> >> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
> >> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
>
> > What goals could they be?
>
> Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)

Yep. Not really an issue. I can only see ways to develop alternative
technologies that have less impact on the environment as being an
opportunity, not a problem.
>
<snip>
> But it doesn't spend much time at all how the "solutions" aren't going
> to a damn bit of good. Only how nasty republicans and right wingers
> stand in the way.

They've spent more time repudiating the findings of the UN
investigations, and less time offering alternative emissions reduction
programs. The attitude seems to be obstructive, not constructive.
>
<snip>
> > This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
> > the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
> > doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
> > simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
>
> Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
> encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
> nations?

Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
going to be a dramatic improvement. It would also make the
technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
so.
>
> >> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
> >> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
> >> rearranged for no reason.
>
> > If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
> > inland.
>
> And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
> It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
> that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
> it *isn't* going to happen.

Then what is the alternative? Lead by example, I say. Make it easier
for developing countries to take advantage of our example at the same
time.
>
> >> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
> >> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
> >> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
> > What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
> The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
> tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
> this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
> nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
> products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
> CO2 output per product.
>
> Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
> of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
> are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
> atmosphere. Some solution.

I understand what you're saying. I do believe that developing
countries need to have checks on their outputs as well. Having said
that, I still stand behind what I've said, above.
>
> > You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
> And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
> how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
> I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
> things worse if the theory is correct.

So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
an alternative.
>
> > Efficiency isn't a bad
> > thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
> is about in this regard.

Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?

> If they were about conservation they would
> be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.

They're trying to deal with the biggest sources first. And the ones
that can most easily adapt. And the ones that are always trying to
lead the way. So far, not much of a lead.

> They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
> clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
> We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
> are using this topic as their tool to do so.

Not guilt, not punishment. Just noting that the countries that make
the most impact can be making the biggest changes...

Cheers,
Steve

 

tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<DWhrb.109394$9E1.542147@attbi_s52>...
> In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
> >> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
> >> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
>
> > What goals could they be?
>
> Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)

Yep. Not really an issue. I can only see ways to develop alternative
technologies that have less impact on the environment as being an
opportunity, not a problem.
>
<snip>
> But it doesn't spend much time at all how the "solutions" aren't going
> to a damn bit of good. Only how nasty republicans and right wingers
> stand in the way.

They've spent more time repudiating the findings of the UN
investigations, and less time offering alternative emissions reduction
programs. The attitude seems to be obstructive, not constructive.
>
<snip>
> > This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
> > the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
> > doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
> > simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
>
> Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
> encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
> nations?

Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
going to be a dramatic improvement. It would also make the
technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
so.
>
> >> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
> >> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
> >> rearranged for no reason.
>
> > If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
> > inland.
>
> And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
> It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
> that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
> it *isn't* going to happen.

Then what is the alternative? Lead by example, I say. Make it easier
for developing countries to take advantage of our example at the same
time.
>
> >> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
> >> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
> >> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
> > What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
> The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
> tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
> this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
> nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
> products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
> CO2 output per product.
>
> Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
> of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
> are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
> atmosphere. Some solution.

I understand what you're saying. I do believe that developing
countries need to have checks on their outputs as well. Having said
that, I still stand behind what I've said, above.
>
> > You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
> And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
> how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
> I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
> things worse if the theory is correct.

So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
an alternative.
>
> > Efficiency isn't a bad
> > thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
> is about in this regard.

Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?

> If they were about conservation they would
> be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.

They're trying to deal with the biggest sources first. And the ones
that can most easily adapt. And the ones that are always trying to
lead the way. So far, not much of a lead.

> They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
> clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
> We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
> are using this topic as their tool to do so.

Not guilt, not punishment. Just noting that the countries that make
the most impact can be making the biggest changes...

Cheers,
Steve

 

In article <221fa157.0311091806.63ccb4ec@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

> Yep. Not really an issue. I can only see ways to develop alternative
> technologies that have less impact on the environment as being an
> opportunity, not a problem.

Again, no problem there. Nobody has a problem developing technology
that conserves resources, etc etc.

>> > This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
>> > the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
>> > doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
>> > simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.

>> Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>> encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>> nations?

> Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
> rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
> people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
> developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
> going to be a dramatic improvement.

NO IT ISN'T. Because the means of production simply get RELOCATED.
Worse then that, they get relocated to places without the environmental
protections of developed nations.

> It would also make the
> technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
> developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
> gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
> else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
> clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
> did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
> so.

Make all relocated factories be as clean as those in developed nations.
Make the carbon quotas based on the *ITEM* being made, not by where it's
being made. If this is a global problem the way the left says it is, it
needs to be addressed as such. It's being addressed as a 'the USA is
evil and must be punished' issue. And that will meet significant and
continued resistance.

You want the people in the USA to get behind it? Demand that factories
in china, india and elsewhere meet the same requirements as ones in the
USA, Germany, Japan, France, UK, etc. They are being built by or with
the money of the same corporations. The money being made comes from the
same markets, so there is no reason to allow them to be dirty. Do that
and sell it as leveling the playing field for the american manufacturing
worker and you might get some support. Until then, you are telling
americans that you want their jobs to go to china.

>> >> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>> >> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>> >> rearranged for no reason.

>> > If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
>> > inland.

>> And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
>> It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
>> that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
>> it *isn't* going to happen.

> Then what is the alternative? Lead by example, I say. Make it easier
> for developing countries to take advantage of our example at the same
> time.

See above for an alternative. If this is a real, global, serious problem
then there is no reason to allow nations that are manufacturing on the
scale of china not be restricted.

>> >> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>> >> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>> >> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.

>> > What on earth brings you to this conclusion?

>> The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>> tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
>> this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
>> nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
>> products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
>> CO2 output per product.

>> Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
>> of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
>> are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
>> atmosphere. Some solution.

> I understand what you're saying. I do believe that developing
> countries need to have checks on their outputs as well. Having said
> that, I still stand behind what I've said, above.

So you now see why kyoto is hopelessly flawed, can only make matters
worse, yet support it because? It feels like something is being done?
It feels good? I want to see real solutions, not ones that feel good.

>> > You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.

>> And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
>> how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
>> I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
>> things worse if the theory is correct.

> So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
> been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
> an alternative.

If CO2 is really a problem, then it should be considered on a per
product manufactured, per unit of fuel consumed, etc basis. Not a
which-country-emits-it basis.

>> > Efficiency isn't a bad
>> > thing, you know. Nor is change.

>> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>> is about in this regard.
>
> Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?

Conservation. But the kyoto treaty doesn't encourage conservation, it
encourages relocating manufacturing.

>> If they were about conservation they would
>> be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.

> They're trying to deal with the biggest sources first. And the ones
> that can most easily adapt. And the ones that are always trying to
> lead the way. So far, not much of a lead.

Again, doing it that way is hopelessly flawed. The CO2 sources simply
get moved to where there are no restrictions. If this is a global problem
then what difference does it make if the widgets people in the USA
buy are made in China or Ohio? The Kyoto treaty concept tells is there
is some difference between the two, or the people who drafted it were
too stupid to figure out what it obviously encourages. In either case
it's worthless. It's a direct parallel to addressing fleet fuel
consumption with CAFE. All CAFE did was give us even lower fuel economy
then we would have had without it as people converted from large passenger
cars to passenger trucks.


>> They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>> clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>> We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>> lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>> is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>> are using this topic as their tool to do so.

> Not guilt, not punishment. Just noting that the countries that make
> the most impact can be making the biggest changes...

There would be *NO* impact. The factories that make things would get
shutdown and new ones would be built in china, india, etc and the
products shiped back to the markets in the developed countries. So
instead of just the CO2 from the widgets, you get the CO2 from building
a new factory plus the CO2 transporting the widget to market.

So it's not a solution at all. It makes no impact other than maybe
put more CO2 into the air. Lovely. Typical feel-good policies that
are using the environment as an excuse for something else, nothing
more.

 

In article <221fa157.0311091806.63ccb4ec@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

> Yep. Not really an issue. I can only see ways to develop alternative
> technologies that have less impact on the environment as being an
> opportunity, not a problem.

Again, no problem there. Nobody has a problem developing technology
that conserves resources, etc etc.

>> > This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
>> > the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
>> > doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
>> > simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.

>> Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>> encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>> nations?

> Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
> rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
> people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
> developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
> going to be a dramatic improvement.

NO IT ISN'T. Because the means of production simply get RELOCATED.
Worse then that, they get relocated to places without the environmental
protections of developed nations.

> It would also make the
> technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
> developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
> gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
> else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
> clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
> did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
> so.

Make all relocated factories be as clean as those in developed nations.
Make the carbon quotas based on the *ITEM* being made, not by where it's
being made. If this is a global problem the way the left says it is, it
needs to be addressed as such. It's being addressed as a 'the USA is
evil and must be punished' issue. And that will meet significant and
continued resistance.

You want the people in the USA to get behind it? Demand that factories
in china, india and elsewhere meet the same requirements as ones in the
USA, Germany, Japan, France, UK, etc. They are being built by or with
the money of the same corporations. The money being made comes from the
same markets, so there is no reason to allow them to be dirty. Do that
and sell it as leveling the playing field for the american manufacturing
worker and you might get some support. Until then, you are telling
americans that you want their jobs to go to china.

>> >> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>> >> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>> >> rearranged for no reason.

>> > If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
>> > inland.

>> And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
>> It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
>> that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
>> it *isn't* going to happen.

> Then what is the alternative? Lead by example, I say. Make it easier
> for developing countries to take advantage of our example at the same
> time.

See above for an alternative. If this is a real, global, serious problem
then there is no reason to allow nations that are manufacturing on the
scale of china not be restricted.

>> >> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>> >> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>> >> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.

>> > What on earth brings you to this conclusion?

>> The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>> tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
>> this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
>> nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
>> products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
>> CO2 output per product.

>> Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
>> of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
>> are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
>> atmosphere. Some solution.

> I understand what you're saying. I do believe that developing
> countries need to have checks on their outputs as well. Having said
> that, I still stand behind what I've said, above.

So you now see why kyoto is hopelessly flawed, can only make matters
worse, yet support it because? It feels like something is being done?
It feels good? I want to see real solutions, not ones that feel good.

>> > You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.

>> And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
>> how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
>> I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
>> things worse if the theory is correct.

> So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
> been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
> an alternative.

If CO2 is really a problem, then it should be considered on a per
product manufactured, per unit of fuel consumed, etc basis. Not a
which-country-emits-it basis.

>> > Efficiency isn't a bad
>> > thing, you know. Nor is change.

>> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>> is about in this regard.
>
> Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?

Conservation. But the kyoto treaty doesn't encourage conservation, it
encourages relocating manufacturing.

>> If they were about conservation they would
>> be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.

> They're trying to deal with the biggest sources first. And the ones
> that can most easily adapt. And the ones that are always trying to
> lead the way. So far, not much of a lead.

Again, doing it that way is hopelessly flawed. The CO2 sources simply
get moved to where there are no restrictions. If this is a global problem
then what difference does it make if the widgets people in the USA
buy are made in China or Ohio? The Kyoto treaty concept tells is there
is some difference between the two, or the people who drafted it were
too stupid to figure out what it obviously encourages. In either case
it's worthless. It's a direct parallel to addressing fleet fuel
consumption with CAFE. All CAFE did was give us even lower fuel economy
then we would have had without it as people converted from large passenger
cars to passenger trucks.


>> They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>> clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>> We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>> lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>> is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>> are using this topic as their tool to do so.

> Not guilt, not punishment. Just noting that the countries that make
> the most impact can be making the biggest changes...

There would be *NO* impact. The factories that make things would get
shutdown and new ones would be built in china, india, etc and the
products shiped back to the markets in the developed countries. So
instead of just the CO2 from the widgets, you get the CO2 from building
a new factory plus the CO2 transporting the widget to market.

So it's not a solution at all. It makes no impact other than maybe
put more CO2 into the air. Lovely. Typical feel-good policies that
are using the environment as an excuse for something else, nothing
more.

 

In article <221fa157.0311091806.63ccb4ec@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

> Yep. Not really an issue. I can only see ways to develop alternative
> technologies that have less impact on the environment as being an
> opportunity, not a problem.

Again, no problem there. Nobody has a problem developing technology
that conserves resources, etc etc.

>> > This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
>> > the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
>> > doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
>> > simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.

>> Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
>> encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
>> nations?

> Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
> rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
> people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
> developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
> going to be a dramatic improvement.

NO IT ISN'T. Because the means of production simply get RELOCATED.
Worse then that, they get relocated to places without the environmental
protections of developed nations.

> It would also make the
> technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
> developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
> gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
> else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
> clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
> did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
> so.

Make all relocated factories be as clean as those in developed nations.
Make the carbon quotas based on the *ITEM* being made, not by where it's
being made. If this is a global problem the way the left says it is, it
needs to be addressed as such. It's being addressed as a 'the USA is
evil and must be punished' issue. And that will meet significant and
continued resistance.

You want the people in the USA to get behind it? Demand that factories
in china, india and elsewhere meet the same requirements as ones in the
USA, Germany, Japan, France, UK, etc. They are being built by or with
the money of the same corporations. The money being made comes from the
same markets, so there is no reason to allow them to be dirty. Do that
and sell it as leveling the playing field for the american manufacturing
worker and you might get some support. Until then, you are telling
americans that you want their jobs to go to china.

>> >> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
>> >> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
>> >> rearranged for no reason.

>> > If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
>> > inland.

>> And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
>> It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
>> that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
>> it *isn't* going to happen.

> Then what is the alternative? Lead by example, I say. Make it easier
> for developing countries to take advantage of our example at the same
> time.

See above for an alternative. If this is a real, global, serious problem
then there is no reason to allow nations that are manufacturing on the
scale of china not be restricted.

>> >> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
>> >> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
>> >> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.

>> > What on earth brings you to this conclusion?

>> The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
>> tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
>> this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
>> nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
>> products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
>> CO2 output per product.

>> Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
>> of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
>> are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
>> atmosphere. Some solution.

> I understand what you're saying. I do believe that developing
> countries need to have checks on their outputs as well. Having said
> that, I still stand behind what I've said, above.

So you now see why kyoto is hopelessly flawed, can only make matters
worse, yet support it because? It feels like something is being done?
It feels good? I want to see real solutions, not ones that feel good.

>> > You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.

>> And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
>> how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
>> I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
>> things worse if the theory is correct.

> So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
> been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
> an alternative.

If CO2 is really a problem, then it should be considered on a per
product manufactured, per unit of fuel consumed, etc basis. Not a
which-country-emits-it basis.

>> > Efficiency isn't a bad
>> > thing, you know. Nor is change.

>> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>> is about in this regard.
>
> Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?

Conservation. But the kyoto treaty doesn't encourage conservation, it
encourages relocating manufacturing.

>> If they were about conservation they would
>> be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.

> They're trying to deal with the biggest sources first. And the ones
> that can most easily adapt. And the ones that are always trying to
> lead the way. So far, not much of a lead.

Again, doing it that way is hopelessly flawed. The CO2 sources simply
get moved to where there are no restrictions. If this is a global problem
then what difference does it make if the widgets people in the USA
buy are made in China or Ohio? The Kyoto treaty concept tells is there
is some difference between the two, or the people who drafted it were
too stupid to figure out what it obviously encourages. In either case
it's worthless. It's a direct parallel to addressing fleet fuel
consumption with CAFE. All CAFE did was give us even lower fuel economy
then we would have had without it as people converted from large passenger
cars to passenger trucks.


>> They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
>> clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
>> We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
>> lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
>> is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
>> are using this topic as their tool to do so.

> Not guilt, not punishment. Just noting that the countries that make
> the most impact can be making the biggest changes...

There would be *NO* impact. The factories that make things would get
shutdown and new ones would be built in china, india, etc and the
products shiped back to the markets in the developed countries. So
instead of just the CO2 from the widgets, you get the CO2 from building
a new factory plus the CO2 transporting the widget to market.

So it's not a solution at all. It makes no impact other than maybe
put more CO2 into the air. Lovely. Typical feel-good policies that
are using the environment as an excuse for something else, nothing
more.

 

In article <221fa157.0311091750.1d3a33e5@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts?

Why does it make you feel better that the CO2 released to make the
crap americans buy comes from factories and power generation facilities
with no required pollution controls in china instead of much cleaner
facilities in say Ohio?

Or is your proposal to stop americans from buying the crap?

> And
> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> sell them on to the developing markets.

Another illogical posistion straight out of the sci.environment crowd.
That the evil-corporations and government facilities that spew pollutants
unless forced not to in the 'west' will be clean all of their own accord
in china, india, etc. It's one or the other, either they are clean and
efficient of their own accord or they have to be forced.

> I wish Australia hadn't
> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.

From what I've seen on a couple issues Australia's elected officals seem to
know a hopelessly flawed policy when they see it. Maybe that's why they
didn't follow the US lead on CAFE.

 

In article <221fa157.0311091750.1d3a33e5@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

> that, IIRC, something like 22% of our (human caused) greenhouse gas
> emissions come from a country that has 7% of the worlds population.
> Surely if that 7% can dramatically reduce the amount it's putting out,
> it's going to have a significant impact on overall amounts?

Why does it make you feel better that the CO2 released to make the
crap americans buy comes from factories and power generation facilities
with no required pollution controls in china instead of much cleaner
facilities in say Ohio?

Or is your proposal to stop americans from buying the crap?

> And
> there's no reason not to reduce output of these gases, when in most
> cases it can be done by being more efficient - which I would have
> thought guys on the right would be into. I would hope that in any
> Western country, we could lead the way, develop the technologies, and
> sell them on to the developing markets.

Another illogical posistion straight out of the sci.environment crowd.
That the evil-corporations and government facilities that spew pollutants
unless forced not to in the 'west' will be clean all of their own accord
in china, india, etc. It's one or the other, either they are clean and
efficient of their own accord or they have to be forced.

> I wish Australia hadn't
> followed the US lead on Kyoto, but there you go.

From what I've seen on a couple issues Australia's elected officals seem to
know a hopelessly flawed policy when they see it. Maybe that's why they
didn't follow the US lead on CAFE.