Re: Dave Keeling: Global warming expert shares 50 years of research

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/26/04 

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:07:08 -0400

SwimJim wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:<NmOWc.14216$_H5.392270@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> SwimJim wrote:
>>> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:<OZGVc.31873$ZI1.1207808@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>>>> SwimJim wrote:
>>>>> Mike1 <Mitchell-Holman-special-ed-project@usfamily.net> wrote in
>
> [deletions]
>
>>>> Then you support Kyoto, because Kyoto is the 'best agreement' they
>>>> could
>>>> come up with to implement the UNFCCC.
>>>
>>> No, I think something more useful and palatable could have been
>>> achieved. See the other posts I put up on this today.
>>
>> But they didn't so you are proven wrong by history. And if you claim
>> that
>> something better could be negotiated today with the shape that the
>> U.S.
>> international image is in, I would say that you are seriously
>> delusional.
>
> I never said that I thought something better could be negotiated
> today.

Your words were. "I think something more useful and palatable could have
been achieved." Ergo you DID think that 'something better could have been
negotiated'. And you are shown wrong by the fact that something better was
NOT negotiatied.

> I said that I didn't support the Kyoto Protocol.

Yes. You have said that. You claim that something better could have been
negotiated despite the evidence of reality. Refusal to recognise reality is
known as 'delusion'.

> My position
> is that the Kyoto Protocol is the wrong way to accomplish anything
> meaningful or significant regarding climate change caused by
> anthropogenic GHG emissions

Quite probably. Myself, I would go for a universal carbon tax, but the point
is that you said something better could have been *negotitated* not that
something better could be found. The fact is that nothing better can or
could have been negotiated. Most of the people doing the negotiations were
more concerned with loopholes and exclusions rather than effectiveness.
However, the deficiencies of politics is not the issue. Kyoto. Love it or
leave it, you ain't going to replace it. And it is slightly better than
nothing with a hope that a more intelligent treaty can be negotiated in
2012.

> -- and you know that I think this is a
> significant concern. The reason I don't support Kyoto is that I
> don't think it really addresses the problem it ostensibly addresses!

And yet it does, no matter if it is perfect or not. The MAIN point of Kyoto
is to show that you are SERIOUS about climate change and willing to make
policies based on it. This will change the 'why bother' mentality to a 'let
us get in on the action' one. THAT is the most important reason for Kyoto.
>
>>>>> I don't know China's status regarding the Kyoto Protocol, since
>>>>> they were specifically exempted, along with India. I would have
>>>>> expected that they'd ratify it for that reason.
>>>>
>>>> No. They ratified it to be 'onboard' and then turned around and did
>>>> more to reduce their emissions than any other country, purely in
>>>> the name of saving money by increasing energy efficiency. They are
>>>> a prime market for processes
>>>
>>> Exactly my point, Ian, right there. Saving money -- making money --
>>> economic incentives must be part of it.
>>
>> Then you should back an international agreement putting a 'carbon
>> tax' on
>> all carbon based fuels. The tax can be offset by reducing other
>> taxes is
>> exact balance to prevent high energy prices from leading to a
>> recession, and
>> all participating trading partners would have to be included. It is
>> the only
>> suggestion that I have ever seen that really puts the market system
>> to work
>> at the problem. The others are artificial games that are easily
>> turned into non-functional exercises in legal manipulation.
>
> Now you're talking. Similarly to what I said to David Ball, work has
> to be done to accomplish a big step, so that small steps aren't
> perceived as important. A carbon tax like this would be a big step.

And totally impossible to get passed by ONE government, much less a large
group of them. It is politics, not wisdom.

>
> I think all of Europe is chuckling about the Kyoto shell game -- they
> can miss their minimal targets and they probably expect to, while at
> the same time piously bashing the U.S. for being realistic about how
> the public would choke on it, and not ratifying it.

No. They are legitimately trying to do their part, although with a certain
lack of energy due to the fact that others are slacking about.

>
> >> and technologies from the west that the west just won't adopt,
> such
>>>> as high efficiency turbines. Just as with the Montreal Protocol,
>>>> the developing nations are adopting the technology that the west is
>>>> developing to solve problems faster than the west is. Partly this
>>>> is because they do not have a saturated market, but also it is from
>>>> a positive and responsible attitude which the west lacks.
>>>>
>>
http://www.isr.gov.au/assets/documents/itrinternet/coal-BanshanFactSheetfinalAug2000.pdf
>>>
>>> [deletions]
>>>
>>>> * a play on rustbelt american and for the same reasons. Lack of
>>>> initiiative and the 'let it ride' culture.
>>>
>>> Don't forget "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>>
>> So you drive you great great great grandfathers chariot?After all,
>> it isn't 'broken' yet. Of course, this rule is what stops all
>> progress which was, I
>> think, my point. Sometimes you have to adopt new technology even
>> when the
>> old technology hasn't failed. Most *other* countries know this and
>> that is
>> why most other countries adopt modern technology much faster.
>
> Most of the time newer technology is adopted only when shown to be
> significantly better (by some measure) than older technology. The
> main "better" is usually cost-effectiveness.

Most of the time new technology is adopted because it can drop the price,
not because it is better. Beta was demonstrably 'better' than VHS and still
is despite the advances. VHS still won. It was cheaper to produce and thus
the 'entry cost' was lower. The 'race to the bottom' is driven by sales
volume and market share. Cost is ALL of the equation, not just the 'main'
part of it. The quality can go to *** ( or a long way towards that end) as
long as the price is cheaper.
>
> Jim Acker
>
> ------------------------------------
> SwimJim
> (formerly James G. Acker)
> jamesacker@eudoramail.com
>
> The great tragedy of science -- the
> slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
> by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
> ------------------------------------

Quantcast