Peter Cole <
[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Obviously this can't possibly happen, but I've left a nice "time bomb"
>> for my evil Republican successor. He takes office, tears up my bill,
>
>There's plenty of real opposition to the administration's environmental
>policies, and there has been for 6 years now. It's not a matter of a
>Clinton-era "time bomb".
Here's the thing... Clinton did NOTHING to improve air quality, and
yet you never heard a peep from the media about any angst over his
environmental policies. Bush actually implements the most
comprehensive measures for clean air in decades, and he's considered a
huge problem. I guess I don't have what it takes to understand
politics (I keep getting mired in facts).
>> Of COURSE they're self-serving (we pay them to be that way). The
>> issue isn't whether it's the right thing to do or not - it's whether
>> signing up for Kyoto would be creating a significant hardship on the
>> citizens of those countries without providing any measurable benefit.
>
>Well, we disagree. I think the real issue *is* to do the right thing.
Which would not be to throw money down the toilet chasing the CO2
problem.
>> CO2 simply isn't the
>> problem, but that fight has superceded the actual issue to become the
>> "sound bite du jour".
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Objectives>
>
>"According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Programme:
>
> "The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialized
>countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by
>5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions
>levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target
>represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions of six
>greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur
>hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the
>five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions
>for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan,
>0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for
>Iceland."
Goals which almost all the signees are entirely ignoring, BTW.
>> I'll give you the same challenge as I did another poster recently:
>>
>> 1) How much of the total CO2 released into the air every year is
>> caused by man?
>> 2) How much would a reduction of 7% of the man-caused (as opposed to
>> total) CO2 released into the atmosphere every year reduce the
>> temperature of the planet?
>>
>> I would think you'd want to know these things in order to complement
>> your obvious interest in the issue.
>
>The questions you pose aren't really the essence of the debate. The real
>questions are:
>
>1) How much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to man-made CO2
>emissions?
>
>2) How fast is the planet warming?
>
>3) How much of the warming is from increased CO2 levels?
>
>The consensus of the scientific community seems to be:
>
>1) virtually 100%
>
>2) pretty fast, and getting faster
>
>3) virtually 100%
Nonsense. There is not now, nor has there ever been a significant
correlation between CO2 levels and the planet's temperature. In fact,
the planet was cooling rapidly during the real increase in CO2 levels
from the 40's through the 70's. There IS a huge correlation between
solar activity and the planet's temperature, and if you think there's
100% consensus that CO2 is the source of the problem, you're deluding
yourself (and haven't been reading the links I posted).
>A reduction of consumption would achieve a reduction of emissions. Left
>alone, the free market won't reduce consumption.
I agree this is true, and think the only solution is more expensive
oil - but I don't think that's a solution to global warming as much as
it is to a stable political atmosphere (talk about pollution!). ;-)
>Conservation alone would achieve Kyoto goals and reduce dependency on
>unstable global markets. We've tripled our dependency on imported oil
>since the crisis of the 70's and because of that are in an unacceptably
>vulnerable situation.
I couldn't agree more.
>We've had over 30 years to prepare for the
>inevitable and haven't done squat. Cutting our per capita energy use to
>industrialized European levels will cost "many billions", but it will
>save many billions, too.
I'm not sure how to go about reducing our energy usage that much
though. $3 gas will help, but we live in big houses many miles from
our work, and don't have the mass transit infrastructure (I'm a big MT
fan). It's a tough and painful transition from one to the other.
>Conservatives like to argue that Iraq isn't an oil war (despite the fact
>that nobody really believes that -- here or there). Even if it wasn't,
>it should be. We're (the industrial West and emerging East) teetering on
>a knife's edge. There's chaos, hostility, corruption and instability
>across OPEC and any serious hiccup will throw the economics of the world
>into disarray. We've painted ourselves into a corner where we have to
>fight for control of those resources -- despite the crippling costs.
>This was not an inevitable situation.
Iraq WAS an oil war, starting with the invasion of Kuwait. And yes,
it wouldn't be so globally important if it wasn't for the potential of
the disruption to the world's oil supply that you mention above. But
that's a far cry from the "invasion to steal the Iraqi's oil" that it
was painted to be originally.
>The Kyoto Protocol (and the world opinion it represents) is just another
>clue that we have to change our ways. Those changes will make a stronger
>and richer America, not a poorer and weaker one.
And here I simply have to disagree - Kyoto itself isn't the answer,
since it adresses an issue that's not really the problem. I have no
problem with conservation for conservation's sake - but to wrap it all
around CO2 reduction is letting the tail wag the dog, IMHO.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
