Why the Kyoto treaty is a very very very bad idea

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rmeijer

Member
Oct 3, 2000
133
0
0
But what we dont want to do is go so drastically in one direction, our economy is greatly damaged and many people loose their jobs.

Why do you think conservation will translate to lost jobs? Creating alternate energy sources might actually stimulate jobs.
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<< Sorry
But telling me I want to punish America is a elitist, self serving statement. Poor us, the world is against us, I am in the same boat these issues go beyond the borders of Texas.
Canada actually consumes 15% more energy per capita than does the States.
So far the only ones to come to the defense of this argument really is Texans really who do have the most proportinally to lose.
Again trouble with those numbers!
What happens to any population whose workers become unemployed?
Like always they retrain and move into different sectors. Been going on that way for a hundred yrs here.

The &quot;ship motor&quot; is not ships its all pleasure craft which the hunting fishing industry is greater than all other NA recreational activeties combined. It was used to point out that Mercury and Johnson and Honda and Yamaha were satisfied with the status quo because until pressure came from the yuppies who go to the lakes on the weekend and noticed the blue green sheen ruining their lakes finally put some pressure on an Industry that had been using 40 yr old technology.

http://www.maxpages.com/globalwarming/global_warming_facts_to_know
You might like this one it says CO2 isn't responsible at all!
Feel free to use it to debunk Kyoto.
>>




LOL Right. All Texans are oil men and Texas is the only one who would be hurt by the treaty. LOL Give me a break.

You are being extremely bigioted by generalizing my entire state. Grow up.

The economic impact is enormous. A sudden loss of 300-400,000 workers who were in the production industry caoud only be rivaled by the Great Depression.

And again, what happens to these comapanies? Their stock plummets which means more layoffs in DIFFERENT industries who reply on energy comanies like IT, automobile, heat and air conditioning, and the list goes on and on.

You just dont realize how much of an impact the Energy Industry has on the economy. I thought these recent oil prices and the economy would be enough for you.

You are not talking about a small impact on the economy. You are talking about a MAJOR impact.


Again, stop trying to compare the impact of a recreational market to a Nationwide market that effects multiple businesses and the economy. To compare the recreational ship motor industry to the oil and energy industry is not only igorant but borders on sheer stupidity.

Its not making you look very bright.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
why is everyone blaming bush? clinton had 3 years in office after the treaty was negotiated in 1997 to try to push it through, and he didn't. so now you expect bush to? please.
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<< But what we dont want to do is go so drastically in one direction, our economy is greatly damaged and many people loose their jobs.

What do you think conservation will translate to lost jobs? Creating alternate energy sources might actually stimulate jobs.
>>



It would stimulate some but no where near the unemployment that would result from it.

And dont forget about the damage to the economy when these businesses' stocks start to tank.

Just ask California how much of an impact an energy crisis is to your economy.
 

shifrbv

Senior member
Feb 21, 2000
981
1
0
I think the argument that reducing emissions will kill off so many jobs and devastate the economy is somewhat akin to how Luddites reacted in the past.

Everytime people are confronted with a need for technological change, there will always be those who sit back and fret over how society will collapse if these endeavors are undertaken. How many people lost their jobs due to the information age? How many lost their jobs due to the natural cycle of globalization? Things change, society changes, attitudes change, and people recover and move on. We don't have milkmen or icemen anymore, yet my parents distinctly remember these folks from their younger days. Someday, we might not have GM or Ford around and we'll all be talking about it to the younger generations as well.

It takes time, the US has spent a huge amount of money developing infrastructure built around the use of fossil fuels. But if you ask any scientist, they'll tell you that as a world, we need to kick the fossil fuel habit. Already, the US is seeing an energy crunch. Not only in California, but prices are going up around the country. It's time to act now. Either adapt or die.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
Californias problem was deregulation not Energy prices
Pretty much only Pennsylvania has done deregulation right.
Lets see East/West Texas and the gulf currently constitute half of total US reserves.
How is this not a Texas issue? I wasn't talking about people as much as % of Economy
Again there is those wonky numbers again!

If you can't read an example of what can be done, best of luck discerning any information given to you today.
I don't worry about how bright I &quot;appear&quot;
This is computer generated cyberspace, I use it as a tool to get information from BOTH sides of an issue in fact I pointed you to some.
Do you bother to just read what reinforces your opinions?
You don't seem to be countering with any new information.
 

rmeijer

Member
Oct 3, 2000
133
0
0
It would stimulate some but no where near the unemployment that would result from it.

I just don't see it. Maybe if we were talking about toppling the auto industry or something.... but as shifrbv indicates, economies change and there is always some pain associated with such changes.
 

yellowperil

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2000
4,598
0
0
Addressing Texmaster's post from page 1:



<<
I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this. Do you support the treaty or not?
>>


I am not educated to the specifics of the treaty so I can't say. Sorry, this is not meant to be dodgy. I can say that in general I favor
balancing environmental conservation and industry, and not giving industry top priority.


<<
I think Bush is right. If we dont have conclusive evidence that not only are we responsible but conslusive evidence this so called treaty would actually work, we need more research.
>>


My argument by analogy was that we pour tons of money into defense spending without looking for conclusive evidence that these programs will be effective (much less efficient), and any research that disputes our defense spending seems to be pigeonholed (at least, I haven't heard any, aside from the occasional 60 Minutes story). I think this analogy is ironic given that GWB is currently pushing two agendas publicly - fighting against the treaty, citing the need for more research, and trying to sell a beefier missle defense system. I haven't heard him citing the need for more research on that issue.


<<
And what do you think about the 2 largest countries being exempt from the treaty?
>>


I assume this is regarding population and not land area. I think it's fair to say that first-world industrialized nations are in a better position to cut emissions. If it has to start somewhere, shouldn't it start at the top (so to speak)? Then we can work out the logistics of cutting emissions in China and India. BTW, the only light in which your question makes sense is one of political badgering. Who cares about China and India being exempt? Cutting emissions in our own country should be a benefit in itself.


<<
As far as your defense question I'll give you some very good reasons the military needs a hefty budget


#1 the military was gutted under Clinton with the result of a massive amount of officers leaving the service in search for better pay.
>>

Stats? Also, I'm not an economist, but don't workers leave an industry in search of better pay when said industry becomes stagnant? The military's primary purpose is to provide a service, not a source of jobs. When there is less demand for those services, people leave.



<<
#2 Russia's new weapons they are selling to everyone including the Chinese

The rocket torpedo developed by the Russians which China is purchasing can hit any American ship with less than 2 seconds warning and thats with the latest radar

New air to air missiles that have a longer range than our current ones

And a new nuclear sub that China is also purchasing

Nuclear weapons in China, Pakestan, and India not to mention terrorist cells all over the world.


Yes we need a strong military. Not everyone thinks as we do. Large portions of the world are still very primitive.
>>



Which brings me back to my first post. If we need to be prepared for a nuclear attack from China, Pakestan, and India, and need to spend billions of dollars on systems that don't get researched properly as to whether we need all this 'stuff', why can't we do the same for the environment? Why aren't we blindly throwing money into conserving the environment like we are with defense spending? Because 1) defense contractors have close ties with government, and 2) conserving the environment is bad news for certain industries, which also have close ties with government.
 

WordSmith2000

Banned
May 4, 2001
328
0
0


<< The economic impact is enormous. A sudden loss of 300-400,000 workers who were in the production industry caoud only be rivaled by the Great Depression. >>



First, the word is could. Second, what in the world is the &quot;production&quot; industry?

If we have 100,000,000 people at work in this country, the loss of 400,000 workers is what, 4%? Sorry dude, even if these figures were true (and we have already established that they have NOTHING to do with reality), the fallout would be nothing like the great depression.

So let's tally it up:

You have no concept of science (you ask everyone else to offer more than a shred of evidence when it is clear you have not looked inside a science textbook in ages).

You have no concept of politics (keeping China and India exempt from these accords is blindingly obvious to anyone who has read a paper in the last 10 years).

And you have no concept of math/the economy.

You are so far behind, you really ought to quit before we lap you.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,545
20,239
146
The treaty was worked out in 1997. Clinton/Gore could not get it ratified. No other nation has ratified it. You'd think they would to set an example if they were REALLY committed to it, but they haven't.

Yet everyone goes on and on about it.

Why?

Because it's being used as a political tool. Everyone, including the leaders of the nations supporting the treaty, know it is unreasonable in it's present form, but are using it as a hammer against their opponents.

We heard virtually nothing about until Bush took office. Why?

Because even when Clinton/Gore came back with it, it was known to be unworkable.
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<< I think the argument that reducing emissions will kill off so many jobs and devastate the economy is somewhat akin to how Luddites reacted in the past.

Everytime people are confronted with a need for technological change, there will always be those who sit back and fret over how society will collapse if these endeavors are undertaken. How many people lost their jobs due to the information age? How many lost their jobs due to the natural cycle of globalization? Things change, society changes, attitudes change, and people recover and move on. We don't have milkmen or icemen anymore, yet my parents distinctly remember these folks from their younger days. Someday, we might not have GM or Ford around and we'll all be talking about it to the younger generations as well.

It takes time, the US has spent a huge amount of money developing infrastructure built around the use of fossil fuels. But if you ask any scientist, they'll tell you that as a world, we need to kick the fossil fuel habit. Already, the US is seeing an energy crunch. Not only in California, but prices are going up around the country. It's time to act now. Either adapt or die.
>>





First off, the information created far more jobs than it lost and it was gradual.

What you are dismissing is the sheer dependence we have on energy and how much it effects our lives every single day.
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<< Californias problem was deregulation not Energy prices
Pretty much only Pennsylvania has done deregulation right.
Lets see East/West Texas and the gulf currently constitute half of total US reserves.
How is this not a Texas issue? I wasn't talking about people as much as % of Economy
Again there is those wonky numbers again!

If you can't read an example of what can be done, best of luck discerning any information given to you today.
I don't worry about how bright I &quot;appear&quot;
This is computer generated cyberspace, I use it as a tool to get information from BOTH sides of an issue in fact I pointed you to some.
Do you bother to just read what reinforces your opinions?
You don't seem to be countering with any new information.
>>



Nope sorry California suffered from a Partial deregulation, they never had full degregulation.

And you dont see the correlation between partial deregulation and energy prices in California? The two go hand in hand.

Partial Deregulation capped prices on the consumer end forcing companies to eat the cost. The result, companies went out of businesses which forced blackouts and Syrocketing energy prices when the California legislature had to come in.


Last time I looked the Gulf borders on 5 other states besides Texas. Funny you didn't mention that.

California does get their energy from 5 other states. You've been watching too much tv and not enough reading.

You haven't given me any new information to discern. The only thing you gave was an alternate budget given by the Clinton Adminstration. Try finding a non Partisan group like I did to evaluate the Kyoto Treaty.

You have still not addressed:

The impact of China and India being exempt,

Where the money would come from to pay for it,

What to do with the layoffs who need retraining,

how it will effect the stock market,

Or and most important, not a SHRED of concrete evidence it would work!
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<< It would stimulate some but no where near the unemployment that would result from it.

I just don't see it. Maybe if we were talking about toppling the auto industry or something.... but as shifrbv indicates, economies change and there is always some pain associated with such changes.
>>



LOL we ARE talking about toppling the automobile industry! And the computer industry and so on and so on...

Business depends on energy as much if not more than the individual. What effects them, effects us.
 

GL

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,547
0
0


<< This is a NASA site that shows pollution tracked from satelite.
Before considering more on Kyoto, you should look at it.
>>



It would help if it tracked Carbon Dioxide and not Carbon Monoxide. That pic is also of the time of year that the rainforests are being burned. The rest of the time the northern hemisphere has the greatest emissions of carbon monoxide.
 

rmeijer

Member
Oct 3, 2000
133
0
0
<<LOL we ARE talking about toppling the automobile industry! And the computer industry and so on and so on...

Business depends on energy as much if not more than the individual. What effects them, effects us.>>

LOL! You thought the Kyoto treaty was asking governments to stop energy production! That is funny.

Oh - oops. You were serious?

Do you think energy can only be generated by burning fossil fuels? Hmm. If we have to discuss things at this level then we ain't gonna get far...
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
24,176
1,816
126
Texmaster, I don't think that treaty will ever get signed. However I do think it's a step in the right direction. People are too quick to criticize without having any better solutions.

As for that carbon monoxide map, it's interesting but not particularly useful in the wider context. Carbon monoxide is only one polluter. Indeed, carbon dioxide is only one polluter as well - that's why emission standards are based on non-greenhouse gases including just about everything else. Furthermore, the map does not indicate what the per capita energy usage and pollution is.

But what that map does tell us, is that there an awful lot of pollution in lots of places and we definitely need to address these issues.
 

Sybz

Junior Member
Jun 7, 2001
20
0
0


<< Saves the world? What evidence do you have that the world is in Danger? The temperature is up a degree since we have been recording granted. But where is the evidence that its purly man made? >>



Please don't rip my words out of context. I never stated the Kyoto treaty saves the worlds (or costs billions), I nearly pointed out you shouldn't rant about just one of the 2. So why are you asking this question?
 

GL

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,547
0
0
Eug, The EU is going ahead without the U.S. and ratifying the Kyoto Treaty. As far as the map, It's based on work by the U of T and seeing that I've seen similar maps at my own school, this is strikingly similar to one they had of the rainforests burning (which is only a fraction of the year).
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<< Addressing Texmaster's post from page 1:



<<
I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this. Do you support the treaty or not?
>>


I am not educated to the specifics of the treaty so I can't say. Sorry, this is not meant to be dodgy. I can say that in general I favor
balancing environmental conservation and industry, and not giving industry top priority.


<<
Then we agree. Conservation has to be ONE priority. Conservation cant last without production and production cant balance without conservation
>>


My argument by analogy was that we pour tons of money into defense spending without looking for conclusive evidence that these programs will be effective (much less efficient), and any research that disputes our defense spending seems to be pigeonholed (at least, I haven't heard any, aside from the occasional 60 Minutes story). I think this analogy is ironic given that GWB is currently pushing two agendas publicly - fighting against the treaty, citing the need for more research, and trying to sell a beefier missle defense system. I haven't heard him citing the need for more research on that issue.


<<
I understand your premise and I partially agree with it. I will say however, that in light of defense, there is a real threat behind it. There is no doubt that there is a threat to our national security. I just dont see that concrete threat the Kyoto Treaty makers see. Dont misunderstand, I think something NEEDS to be done, but not the way the treaty reads now.
>>


I assume this is regarding population and not land area. I think it's fair to say that first-world industrialized nations are in a better position to cut emissions. If it has to start somewhere, shouldn't it start at the top (so to speak)? Then we can work out the logistics of cutting emissions in China and India. BTW, the only light in which your question makes sense is one of political badgering. Who cares about China and India being exempt? Cutting emissions in our own country should be a benefit in itself.


<<

I agree that we produce more emissions than they do at the moment. However, in 10-15 years each of these countries will outproduce ALL the western countries in greenhouse gas. How will we force them to comply with new regulations?

Where do we draw the line between their 3rd world and first world status?

How do we know that when they reach that level of pollution their countries even then will be stable enough to implement the new emission standards?

At least start them on small measures of conservation and pollution control now so it wont take them by surprise later when we come calling.



&quot;&quot;As far as your defense question I'll give you some very good reasons the military needs a hefty budget


#1 the military was gutted under Clinton with the result of a massive amount of officers leaving the service in search for better pay.
>>

Stats? Also, I'm not an economist, but don't workers leave an industry in search of better pay when said industry becomes stagnant? The military's primary purpose is to provide a service, not a source of jobs. When there is less demand for those services, people leave.



<<

Very true but the cutbacks were so great, the military cannot function as we would need it to.

Joe Lieberman in 2000:

&quot;Our military faces readiness problems, including falling recruitment and retention in critical skill areas, aging equipment that costs more to keep operating at acceptable levels of reliability, a need for more support services for a force with a high percentage of married personnel and frequent deployments.&quot;

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/31/123543
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/26/214332
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/5/25/152949

#2 Russia's new weapons they are selling to everyone including the Chinese

The rocket torpedo developed by the Russians which China is purchasing can hit any American ship with less than 2 seconds warning and thats with the latest radar

New air to air missiles that have a longer range than our current ones

And a new nuclear sub that China is also purchasing

Nuclear weapons in China, Pakestan, and India not to mention terrorist cells all over the world.


Yes we need a strong military. Not everyone thinks as we do. Large portions of the world are still very primitive.
>>



Which brings me back to my first post. If we need to be prepared for a nuclear attack from China, Pakestan, and India, and need to spend billions of dollars on systems that don't get researched properly as to whether we need all this 'stuff', why can't we do the same for the environment? Why aren't we blindly throwing money into conserving the environment like we are with defense spending? Because 1) defense contractors have close ties with government, and 2) conserving the environment is bad news for certain industries, which also have close ties with government.
>>



Interesting point. I like the logic. And I agree with your reasons to a certain extent.

But my argument remains the same, the threat to defense is real and documented. The threat the Kyoto Treaty wants to meet is not.

That doesn't mean there isn't a threat. All that means is that it doesn't need to be attacked with the verocity of this new treaty and the damage that can be done because of it.

There needs to bea middle ground.

#1 a cutback to 20 instead of 10 years to implement the changes.

#2 Some accountability for pollution from the 2 largest nations in the world and other developing nations with a promise to increase as the emissions do.

#3 Less Stringent goals. ie 2/3s the cut in emissions for the US to balance the cost and loss of jobs for the American economy and people

I could agree to that


Enjoyed your post. You make some great points.

Until tomorrow.


 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
24,176
1,816
126


<< Eug, The EU is going ahead without the U.S. and ratifying the Kyoto Treaty. >>

Yeah with the US responsible for about a 3rd of the greenhouse gases it's really unfortunate. US involvement was key to its success. Bush's decision may help prove Texmaster right to a certain extent.
 

Praetor

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 1999
4,498
4
81
Texmaster - first off, thanks for the posts. I don't necessarily agree with you, but you've given me something to think about.

Secondly, about your &quot;let's not resort to name calling&quot; remark. Don't attempt to pander or talk down to people. Most of these posts have been intelligent and polite, if not down right reserved compared to other threads. Keyword being most. And even then, you should keep a level head and just use logic and facts to disprove them and move on, ignore the snide remarks.

And hey, it'll give your posts more weight in people's minds and persuade them to agree with you. :)
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
I just want you to remove all the &quot;verys&quot; and just acknowledge it might only be a &quot;bad thing&quot;

http://www.pewclimate.org/media/oped_climatechange.cfm
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change is a non-profit,
non-partisan and independent organization dedicated to providing
credible information, straight answers and innovative solutions in the
effort to address global climate change. Established in 1998 by the
Pew Charitable Trusts, the Center is led by Eileen Claussen, former
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs, and staffed by a dedicated team
of professionals who are committed to advancing the debate in a
credible and stimulating manner

We stand at a critical juncture, and whether nations can agree on a
common path forward depends heavily on decisions now being weighed at the White House. The United States bears a special
reponsibility here, because we account for roughly a quarter of
global greenhouse gas emissions and also because our economy is
the largest and most vibrant in the world. If the United State wishes
to be a leader in this global effort ? rather than sit on the sidelines as other nations push ahead with the Kyoto Protocol ? it must come forward with a credible proposal that provides a basis for further negotiation. To be credible, though, the United States must demonstrate that it is prepared to back up commitments abroad with
real action at home. This requires a comprehensive climate policy
that moves us forward, in a coordinated fashion, on both the
domestic and the international fronts. We must close the gap
between what we promise and what we can deliver.

The economies of the world are inextricably linked today with the
availability of low-cost energy supplies, primarily fossil fuels. To
effectively arrest the growth in emissions and ultimately stabilize
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level that
would prevent dangerous human-induced interference with the global
climate system will require a revolutionary new approach to satisfying the world's hunger for energy. There is considerable merit to beginning this process now, not only as a climate change insurance
policy, but also to propel our economy to greater heights.
With this nation's robust economy, powered largely by fossil fuels,
greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise at a rapid rate. U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions are nearly 12 percent higher than 1990
levels today and are expected to rise to 30 percent above 1990 levels
by 2010 under a business-as-usual scenario. With proper incentives,
the private sector can partner with the public sector to develop the
technologies and other measures needed to lower emissions and
lead the world in addressing this important environmental and
economic challenge.
Climate change is a complex global problem that will take several
decades to effectively address. Legislation on early action represents
a common-sense approach that can begin the process of lowering
emissions along a gradual, cost-effective glide-path.

&quot;We agreed to create new channels of co-operation on this
topic,&quot; Bush said. &quot;We don't agree on the Kyoto treaty, but we
do agree that climate change is a serious issue and we must
work together.&quot;

He said he objects to the Kyoto pact because it exempts
developing countries. &quot;The goals weren't realistic. But that
doesn't mean we can't work together,&quot; Bush said.

Swedish Prime Minister Goeran Persson said the EU would
stick with the treaty, while the United States would &quot;go on
with their policy.&quot; But he was sharply critical of Bush off-stage,
telling reporters that Bush's position is a heavy blow to the
international effort to curb global warming.
&quot;It will have a tremendous impact, sorry to say, because it
would have sent an extremely strong signal if the U.S. had
stuck with the Kyoto protocol,&quot; Persson said.
He said he found Bush sincere in his desire to work with
Europe on climate change, but &quot;the problem is we think that
he has chosen the wrong policies, and I have the impression
he thinks the same way about Europe.&quot;
EU Commission President Romano Prodi said he was pleased
that, despite its opposition, the United States would take part
next month in a global warming conference in Bonn, Germany.
&quot;So the dialogue goes on, even if there are big differences,&quot;
&quot;We agreed to create new channels of co-operation on this
Prodi said, adding that ratification is under way in some European countries and will begin soon in others. &quot;There is no
one message of refusal or delay over ratification,&quot; he said.
 

shifrbv

Senior member
Feb 21, 2000
981
1
0
Texmaster - I like to see that you conceded to a middle ground. This gives me some hope at least.

You said that I was diminishing our reliance upon energy in my argument. I guess I failed to say that I also agree with a timeframe of 10-15 years to see this accomplished. With this in mind and some of the emerging technologies, I don't feel that it's not doable. While you like to focus on the negative aspects, which there will be some, I like to see the positive aspects that could result. Already, fuel cells are slated to come to market within the next 5-10 years. This will have a huge impact upon our fossil fuel use in the automobile industry. Recyclable alternatives to petroleum-based plastics are now becoming a reality and could be cost-effective within the next 10 years. These 2 alone could reduce the amount of fossil fuels consumed in our environment by a significant amount. In some areas of the country, high speed trains and monorails are coming into place. If energy prices continue to rise and the population incrases, this might become more prevalent which will have a positive affect as well.

The petroleum industry would be hurt by this as well as anyone else relying up these natural resources as a way to derive their income, but that's the way the game is played. In the early 20th century, the 10 industries at the top in the US were natural-resource based. They employed hundreds of thousands of people. Today, only 1 of those companies still survives (GE) and only because they have expanded into many, many different areas. The other 9 are gone. Today, the top industries are information based. Tomorrow, they might be healthcare and bioscience based. Times change, people adapt and move on.