In article <gu5tqvcuqj5rf4n4bie9qjjfd90nd2t66c@4ax.com>,
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:49:07 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>
>>I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>>is about in this regard. If they were about conservation they would
>>be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
>>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.
>
>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.

Another fool who seems a socialist (used to be commie) under every bed.

 

In article <3FAEE74F.9050500@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Me wrote:
>> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>>>than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>>>case is being dramatically overstated.
>>
>>
>> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
>Sensational topics get more research money.
>
>
>Matt
>

Another person who has no earthly idea how science works.

 

In article <3FAEE74F.9050500@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Me wrote:
>> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>>>than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>>>case is being dramatically overstated.
>>
>>
>> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
>Sensational topics get more research money.
>
>
>Matt
>

Another person who has no earthly idea how science works.

 

In article <3FAEE74F.9050500@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Me wrote:
>> In article <3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com>,
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
>>>than the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
>>>case is being dramatically overstated.
>>
>>
>> If I want my car's carb fixed, I will go to the best mechanic I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want my heart fixed, I will go to the best cardiologist I can find
>> to do the job.
>>
>> If I want information about a problem with the environment that has the
>> potential to wipe out life on this planet, I will go to scientists who
>> spend their lives investigating the environment. I will certainly not go
>> to rec.driving.autos for such information.
>
>They also spend their lives trying to get the next research grant.
>Sensational topics get more research money.
>
>
>Matt
>

Another person who has no earthly idea how science works.

 

In article <ssDrb.113604$mZ5.763812@attbi_s54>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>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.

Exactly. You should look at the CO2 per person, not per country. Agreed?

>
>>> > 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.

OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.

>
>>> 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 <ssDrb.113604$mZ5.763812@attbi_s54>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>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.

Exactly. You should look at the CO2 per person, not per country. Agreed?

>
>>> > 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.

OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.

>
>>> 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 <ssDrb.113604$mZ5.763812@attbi_s54>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>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.

Exactly. You should look at the CO2 per person, not per country. Agreed?

>
>>> > 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.

OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.

>
>>> 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 <2r1uqv0pio8e4j32l246i6sd8dqbf2diif@4ax.com>,
Matt Osborn <msosborn@attglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9 Nov 2003 18:06:51 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>warming'?
What if we did nothing and then found out it was too late?

Kind of like a forest fire burning up to your property but you refuse to
evacuate until you're 100% sure it's going to burn your house.

 

In article <2r1uqv0pio8e4j32l246i6sd8dqbf2diif@4ax.com>,
Matt Osborn <msosborn@attglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9 Nov 2003 18:06:51 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>warming'?
What if we did nothing and then found out it was too late?

Kind of like a forest fire burning up to your property but you refuse to
evacuate until you're 100% sure it's going to burn your house.

 

In article <2r1uqv0pio8e4j32l246i6sd8dqbf2diif@4ax.com>,
Matt Osborn <msosborn@attglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9 Nov 2003 18:06:51 -0800, sgam@hotmail.com (st3ph3nm) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>warming'?
What if we did nothing and then found out it was too late?

Kind of like a forest fire burning up to your property but you refuse to
evacuate until you're 100% sure it's going to burn your house.