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

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/27/04 

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:30:31 -0400

SwimJim wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> news:<gatXc.22788$_H5.704483@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> SwimJim wrote:
>>> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:<NmOWc.14216$_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]
>
> [deletions]
>
>>> 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.
>
> Ian, thanks for your comments. I appreciate your position. Note that
> I said "today".

And I will point out that I mentioned the low status of the U.S. in
international negotiations where they have a current record of ripping up
treaties as soon as everyone ELSE does what is necessary or ignoring their
responsibilities without even justification. I doubt if you could get an
international treaty to regulate dog food today, much less something that
would take real work like Kyoto.

> I'm of the mind that believes a poor treaty is not
> better than none at all.

A reasoned position but hardly supportable by my lights. I have found that
the first stage to getting public support is showing that you are SERIOUS
and thus making them start to think about it. A poor treaty would set the
stage for something better in the future and a steady clamor for a better
idea. A non-treaty just means that you consider it an issue of little
importance and sets the stage for it to be ignored totally.

> I think they should have stayed at the
> table, or perhaps waited until there was more international political
> will for a better treaty, with more teeth, with better approaches to
> the problem.

But staying at the table would have done NOTHING. They already HAD what they
came for. A treaty with so many loopholes and free passes that it was almost
meaningless except for it's use to define the problem as worthy of effort
and form a basis for measuring the progress.

>
>>> 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'.
>
> See my comments above. Perhaps it would have been better for me to
> have said a better treaty _should_ have been negotiated,

Maybe but that is the scientist talking. The art of politics is in
compromise, not absolute answers. You have to 'evolve' the answers, and it
is more important to get the issue ON THE AGENDA rather than try for
perfection. An 'elegant solution' sitting forever on your desk is not much
use.

> rather than a
> better treaty (protocol) _could_ have been negotiated. Maybe the
> Kyoto Protocol is the best that could have been achieved at this point
> in time. If so, then I think they could have saved a lot of money and
> time and breath and ink not bothering with it.

So ignoring the issue is better? By the way, sneering is not a particularly
reasoned response. Personally I think it could have been better. I even
outlined how I think it could be highly effective at using the market forces
to make real cost effective solutions. To some degree the problem was that
it defined goals, not methods so everyone was free to find the worst
possible implementation to criticise it on. But regardless, it is more
important to START.

>
>>> 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.
>
> Our main point of disagreement is whether or not it is better than
> nothing. I don't think it's better than nothing. I think if the IPCC
> 2008 report is strong enough, then we can start talking about a better
> treaty. (Long time to wait, though.)

O.K. So you feel that it is better to wait for a 'wakeup call' crisis and
then you will have too little too late in a vacuum of solutions? Sure. But
that is independent of the fact that you could have SOMETHING before that.
The wakeup call will come and they may *renegotiate* rather than negotiate,
but doing something will start the ball rolling and make for a better
'viewpoint' on just how much needs to be done in the later effort.
>
>
>>> -- 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
>
> Europe hasn't shown that's serious yet. Wake me up when something
> happens.

I *could* say something nasty at this point..

>
>> us get in on the action' one. THAT is the most important reason for
>> Kyoto.
>
> Ignoring Kyoto for a moment, a bright spot in this is that businesses
> are realizing it's probably in their best interest to be ahead of the
> curve on climate change issues. I don't think that Kyoto is the main
> reason for this, but if you want to argue that it's part of the reason
> for this, I wouldn't take issue with that.

IPCC, NSA, etc and the state, municipal levels are not controlled by the
executive so they have not been 'stopped' in progressing. However, without
the whole team together under real leadership, the efforts are fragmentary
and conflicting. The end effect is much noise and no output. Kyoto does
nothing but make a rallying point for those who take responsibilty and shows
that *the world* is also involved, so it is not a 'solo act'. The
'legitimacy' of an international agreement is really necessary to stiffle
the petty infighting and dismissals by those who do not want to recognise
the issue as important.

>
> [deletions]
>
>>> 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.
>
> I'll keep watching the news.
>
> [deletions]
>
>>> 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
>
> Isn't that what I said? ;-) Sure a BMW coupe is better than my
> minivan, but I'd need three coupes -- and two more drivers -- to get
> my kids to preschool!

Comparing a sports car to an SUV for passenger volume is rather facetious.
The issue was a cheap SUV vs a much better, safer and more fuel efficient
SUV at a slightly higher price. Guess which one has the bigger sales volume?

The point is that the cheaper price is almost the only 'factor' that is
considered in expensive due to the fact that people prefer a lower 'price of
entry'. This become more important as the price of the article goes up.
Quality on cars and homes is almost not a factor. Quality in food,
cleansers, etc is more of an issue. You do NOT want to scrub for hours or to
gain weight. The lack of quality in 'expensive toys' is not much of an issue
since they get used so rarely. Mostly it is the 'keeping up with the Jones'
that drives such things.

>> 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.
>
> Disagreements are healthy. And occasionally enlightening. Thanks.

Thanks. I think we have illustrated the two opposing opinions. I do not
expect to change your mind, but the readers now have a choice to make as to
which argument they consider to have 'won' the debate.

Loading