• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why won't Australia ratify Kyoto?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Vic
No matter what you think about global warming, Kyoto is highly flawed and will do NOTHING to help the problem. It simply moves the emissions from one country to another, as though global warming isn't a GLOBAL problem or as if we all aren't on the same planet. In other words, it's a political/economic solution as opposed to a valid scientific solution. Those who actually do want to do something to solve the global warming problem discredit themselves when they knee-jerk the Kyoto issue.

You see, you're ahead of people - you're talking about solutions when most of them don't acknowledge that there is a problem.

Well, the problem there is that any actual solutions are extremely difficult. It's not just that people don't want to give up their modern lives, it's that we couldn't sustain our current population levels if we were to. It's a rock and a hard place. Global warming might kill "billions" of people, but so certainly will reverting to pre-industrialism. This is why IMO the issue becomes divided between outright denial and non-solutions like Kyoto.

These are reactionary bogeymen - you won't find any reasonable people (that is, the vast majority which aren't a part of the Animal Liberation Front or other such crazies) saying that. In fact, people want the exact opposite - to be able to continue life without having to undergo any radical changes.

Is it going to cost money? Sure, much like car insurance and pension funds cost money. Of course, you could bet that you'll never get into an accident, or that you'll win the lottery (and a lot of people do that), but reasonable people would rather pay and plan for a predictable future, rather than take wild chances.

And like others have said, I don't really get the personal affront people take to this. This is not different from a lot of the environmental regulation already in place, as far as I know managing forests, fish stocks, and even CFC and Sulphur emissions isn't all that controversial.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Vic
No matter what you think about global warming, Kyoto is highly flawed and will do NOTHING to help the problem. It simply moves the emissions from one country to another, as though global warming isn't a GLOBAL problem or as if we all aren't on the same planet. In other words, it's a political/economic solution as opposed to a valid scientific solution. Those who actually do want to do something to solve the global warming problem discredit themselves when they knee-jerk the Kyoto issue.

another example of a flawed 'solution'

I'll agree that solution is flawed. But that isn't the only way to make biodiesel and its not the most efficient. Algae yields ten times the amount of biodiesel that palm oil can and it can be done in less useful areas.

I'm not understanding why some of you seem to take the idea of being green as an insult. Some of you are as bad as creationists. I see very little bad coming from reducing our pollution at a small cost. Yes, a small cost. It's nothing ridiculous like having to "revert to pre-industrialization." Stop spreading BS. No credible scientist has ever said anything of the sort. Going green can be fairly affordable and it's really not a bad way to go in the long-run. It doesn't make sense to continue to use scarce fuels for our energy production.

I'm not saying Kyoto is the best idea since it obviously isn't. But some of you seem to reject any possible solution because you don't think there is enough conclusive evidence to support the problem. If there are a ton of scientists that agree there is a problem, I'm going to repeat that I would rather err on the side of caution and prevent a possible catastrophe than to sit idly by waiting for said catastrophe to come.
 
Originally posted by: DVK916
Originally posted by: Compton
Originally posted by: DVK916
The death toll from global warming will aproch the billions by 2100 if kyto goals are not met.

ROFFLES!!!

Is billions dying funny to you. Temperature will continue to rise at an exponential rate a study found. Did you watch an Inconvienent Truth, it is very scary and very disturbing. I really am horrified what we are doing to our planet.

Go stick your head in an oven tubby.
 
Back
Top