tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in message news:<DWhrb.109394$9E1.542147@attbi_s52>...
> In article <221fa157.0311081811.4c9bf6e4@posting.google.com>, st3ph3nm wrote:
>
> >> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use it as an
> >> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals.
>
> > What goals could they be?
>
> Social and political ones. (see earlier posts)
Yep. Not really an issue. I can only see ways to develop alternative
technologies that have less impact on the environment as being an
opportunity, not a problem.
>
<snip>
> But it doesn't spend much time at all how the "solutions" aren't going
> to a damn bit of good. Only how nasty republicans and right wingers
> stand in the way.
They've spent more time repudiating the findings of the UN
investigations, and less time offering alternative emissions reduction
programs. The attitude seems to be obstructive, not constructive.
>
<snip>
> > This is fine for people in the US. If you had been born and raised on
> > the Solomons, though, you might be annoyed to find that the world
> > doesn't care if your entire homeland is inundated. This is a very
> > simplistic argument - I'll address it more further down.
>
> Then why does the proposed solution, the kyoto treaty, do nothing but
> encourage the relocation of CO2 output to China, India, and other such
> nations?
Kyoto may be short-sighted, but at the moment, we've got the old 80/20
rule happening. IE, 80% of the problem being caused by 20% of the
people. (This isn't specific figures, more a figure of speech). If
developed nations can reduce their impact on the environment - it's
going to be a dramatic improvement. It would also make the
technologies to do this cheaper, and therefore promote the use in
developing countries of cleaner, more efficient setups. But you've
gotta start somewhere. At the end of the day, I can't, tell someone
else what to do. I just have to look at my own backyard, and keep it
clean. It'd be nice and neighbourly if other members of the community
did that too, of course. What I don't understand is reticence to do
so.
>
> >> If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
> >> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
> >> rearranged for no reason.
>
> > If they're right, we'll be moving almost 50% of the world's population
> > inland.
>
> And if they are right, then their proposed solution won't stop it.
> It's so obvious that their solution won't stop CO2 based global warming
> that it makes me think that they either *want* it to happen, or know
> it *isn't* going to happen.
Then what is the alternative? Lead by example, I say. Make it easier
for developing countries to take advantage of our example at the same
time.
>
> >> We will just continue to move most of our CO2
> >> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will still be
> >> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work anyhow.
>
> > What on earth brings you to this conclusion?
>
> The proposed solution to stop global warming by CO2 emissions is to put
> tight controls on developed nations and none on developing nations. All
> this will do is further fuel a relocation of factories to the developing
> nations where they won't have to buy carbon credits. In turn all the
> products will have to be shipped longer distances resulting in *MORE*
> CO2 output per product.
>
> Or do you think that companies will just stop making stuff and go out
> of business? No, they will relocate or be replaced by businesses that
> are in a more favorable environment. So, more CO2 is released into the
> atmosphere. Some solution.
I understand what you're saying. I do believe that developing
countries need to have checks on their outputs as well. Having said
that, I still stand behind what I've said, above.
>
> > You talk about the effects on Americans to change the way they live.
>
> And here we hit the nail on the head, it's about telling americans
> how to live. As much as I dislike the wasteful stereotypical american,
> I can't get behind a flawed policy that only has a chance of making
> things worse if the theory is correct.
So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
an alternative.
>
> > Efficiency isn't a bad
> > thing, you know. Nor is change.
>
> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
> is about in this regard.
Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?
> If they were about conservation they would
> be for limiting *GLOBAL* CO2 output, not that of only selected nations.
They're trying to deal with the biggest sources first. And the ones
that can most easily adapt. And the ones that are always trying to
lead the way. So far, not much of a lead.
> They would be *for* making sure that the developing countries develop
> clean instead of making the same mistakes the 'west' made over again.
> We know better now. When I see a proposed solution that really does
> lower global CO2 output, I can get behind it. Until then, all I see
> is a bunch of people who feel guilty and/or want to punish the USA and
> are using this topic as their tool to do so.
Not guilt, not punishment. Just noting that the countries that make
the most impact can be making the biggest changes...
Cheers,
Steve