Full Version: Kyoto: Real Economic Impacts
Kyoto 101: A Crash Course for Western Europe
Survey
Do Europeans actually know what impact that the Kyoto Treaty will have on their economies?
A study performed for the UK asserts that Kyoto could push the UK economy into a depression.
Study
Another study shows that the impact on the entire European economy could mean between a 3 and 5 percent retraction of the entire European economy.
Kyoto Protocol and Beyond
Question for debate comes from the first article:
QUOTE
The western European public overwhelmingly believes in global warming, and wants government to do something about it. Asked if "European governments should take the lead against global warming by bringing into force the climate treaty, even if the U.S. doesn't take part at this time," 80 percent of people in the United Kingdom answered "Yes." So did 82 percent in Belgium, 89 percent in Italy, and 88 percent in Spain. Even large majorities in the U.K., Italy, and Spain believed that government "should do more to reduce the country's own emissions of global warming pollution."
Survey
Do Europeans actually know what impact that the Kyoto Treaty will have on their economies?
A study performed for the UK asserts that Kyoto could push the UK economy into a depression.
Study
Another study shows that the impact on the entire European economy could mean between a 3 and 5 percent retraction of the entire European economy.
Kyoto Protocol and Beyond
Question for debate comes from the first article:
QUOTE
If Europeans knew that the Kyoto Treaty would seriously harm their economies and significantly reduce their standard of living, would they still support Kyoto? Would they be willing to suffer the economic damage if they learned that industrial activity was not a cause of global warming?
I wonder if global warming studies are similar in outcome and exactness as those economic impact studies...?
My take on the EU based on discussions with European friends is that they worry a lot about things like the environment and don't focus so hard on how social programs negatively affect their economy.
So... I think they'll implement their end of the accords up until it adversely affects their economy. Then someone else will get in office
My take on the EU based on discussions with European friends is that they worry a lot about things like the environment and don't focus so hard on how social programs negatively affect their economy.
So... I think they'll implement their end of the accords up until it adversely affects their economy. Then someone else will get in office
QUOTE
If Europeans knew that the Kyoto Treaty would seriously harm their economies and significantly reduce their standard of living, would they still support Kyoto?
I would hope so. For one thing, a study like this is educated conjecture. Freeing the slaves may have had a "negative" economic effect on the southern states, but it was the right thing to do regardless.
QUOTE
Would they be willing to suffer the economic damage if they learned that industrial activity was not a cause of global warming?
If a magic fairy waved her little wand and made industrial activity completely harmless to the environment, I would say no.
I frankly do not understand this belief. Most scientists do believe that industrial activity has an effect on global warning. Some do not. Since we don't know the answer conclusively, why wouldn't we want to play it safe?
Because if the majority of scientists do turn out to be correct, then making this type of thing a political game is quite despicable, really, because the stakes are pretty high. Even if industrial activity does not affect global warming, I don't really see how producing less pollution could be possibly viewed as a bad thing.
No one's arguing that pollution is good for our health, so curbing pollution will always have long-term positive effects, even if it causes short-term economic troubles.
When did "conservatism" become about conserving money over conserving a healthy environment?
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Nov 25 2003, 03:23 PM)
I frankly do not understand this belief. Most scientists do believe that industrial activity has an effect on global warning.
Some do not. Since we don't know the answer conclusively, why wouldn't we want to play it safe?
Because if the majority of scientists do turn out to be correct, then making this type of thing a political game is quite despicable, really, because the stakes are pretty high. Even if industrial activity does not affect global warming, I don't really see how producing less pollution could be possibly viewed as a bad thing.
Some do not. Since we don't know the answer conclusively, why wouldn't we want to play it safe?
Because if the majority of scientists do turn out to be correct, then making this type of thing a political game is quite despicable, really, because the stakes are pretty high. Even if industrial activity does not affect global warming, I don't really see how producing less pollution could be possibly viewed as a bad thing.
Sorry, quark, but I just can't see that. In fact, most scientists believe they DON'T KNOW what's causing global warming.
SEPP News Release: More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth
QUOTE
More than 15,000 scientists, [8/4/98: now about 17,000] two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, have now signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto (Japan) in December 1997. The Petition (see text below) urges the US government to reject the Accord, which would force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States. This is in line with the Senate Resolution, approved by a 95-to-0 vote last July, which turns down any international agreement that damages the economy of the United States while exempting most of the world's nations, including such major emerging economic powers as China, India, and Brazil.
Kyoto is focused on greenhouse gases, especially Carbon Dioxide. The study cited here deals specifically with Carbon Dioxide, which is not a pollutant unless you consider the greenhouse effect. Scientists clearly are NOT in agreement whether global warming is caused by greenhouse gases.
In opposition, I find that 1,500 scientists called FOR immediate action:
World Scientists' Call for Action at the Kyoto Climate Summit
QUOTE(quarkhead)
When did "conservatism" become about conserving money over conserving a healthy environment?
What's this got to do with "conservatism"? You did notice the vote in the US Senate on Kyoto: 95-0. Don't tell me the entire Senate is filled with Conservatives..
Stick to the facts, raising the "Why don't you conservatives care?" mantra doesn't advance your argument.
We should make rational decisions about what to do in the future.
This issue is politicized to no end. Check this article:
Scientists' Report Doesn't Support Kyoto
QUOTE
Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on
climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White
House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the
Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage
when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision
that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There
is no wiggle room."
As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is
simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants
agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the
span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no
consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends
and what causes them.
climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White
House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the
Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage
when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision
that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There
is no wiggle room."
As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is
simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants
agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the
span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no
consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends
and what causes them.
Or this article: Boston Globe: Scientists don't agree on global warming
QUOTE
''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''
The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?
No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.
''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''
The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?
No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.
QUOTE
The Oregon Institute petition is no anomaly.
More than 100 climate scientists have endorsed the Leipzig Declaration, which describes the Kyoto treaty as ''dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive.'' The endorsers include prominent scholars, among them David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
''The dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record,'' the Leipzig Declaration says bluntly. ''In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever - in direct contradiction to computer model results.'' The declaration, plus a wealth of information on every aspect of the global warming controversy, is posted at the Web site of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org
More than 100 climate scientists have endorsed the Leipzig Declaration, which describes the Kyoto treaty as ''dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive.'' The endorsers include prominent scholars, among them David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
''The dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record,'' the Leipzig Declaration says bluntly. ''In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever - in direct contradiction to computer model results.'' The declaration, plus a wealth of information on every aspect of the global warming controversy, is posted at the Web site of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org
This quote sums it up for me:
QUOTE
We've been down this ''consensus'' road before. Remember when the Chicken Littles were warning that the earth was getting colder? ''The evidence in support of predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively,'' Newsweek claimed in 1975, ''that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.'' Except that there was no global cooling. The alarmists were wrong then. They're wrong now.
Global cooling in 1975, Global warming in 1997.
So if we don't know what the problem is, how are we going to fix it?
If pollution were such a priority, why exclude Second and Third World Nations who will just become the largest polluters of the future? What's to stop unscrupulous energy companies from doing their business overseas in these "excluded" zones?
EDIT: Keep in mind that Kyoto is only about greenhouse gases, not other pollutants.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 25 2003, 12:30 PM)
QUOTE(quarkhead)
When did "conservatism" become about conserving money over conserving a healthy environment?
What's this got to do with "conservatism"? You did notice the vote in the US Senate on Kyoto: 95-0. Don't tell me the entire Senate is filled with Conservatives..
Stick to the facts, raising the "Why don't you conservatives care?" mantra doesn't advance your argument.
Perhaps because your primary source (from which you derived the "question for debate") was the National Review?
I didn't say "conservatives don't care." I questioned why conservatives (and yes, it is generally conservatives) would come down on the side of taking a risk (assuming that global warming is a myth, or that it is not exacerbated by human industrial output) instead of playing it safe. I can only conclude that, in this case, the economic factor is more heavily weighed than the potential human factor, and I think that is a shame.
As for science, I will counter what you are saying with a few links as well, perhaps people can debate and decide more effectively if they have a balanced collection of source material.
1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
QUOTE
Like the record of past climate changes, the data sets for forcing agents are of varying length and quality. Direct measurements of solar irradiance exist for only about two decades. The sustained direct monitoring of the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO 2) began about the middle of the 20th century and, in later years, for other long-lived, well-mixed gases such as methane. Palaeo-atmospheric data from ice cores reveal the concentration changes occurring in earlier millennia for some greenhouse gases. In contrast, the time-series measurements for the forcing agents that have relatively short residence times in the atmosphere (e.g., aerosols) are more recent and are far less complete, because they are harder to measure and are spatially heterogeneous. Current data sets show the human influence on atmospheric concentrations of both the long-lived greenhouse gases and short-lived forcing agents during the last part of the past millennium. Figure 8 illustrates the effects of the large growth over the Industrial Era in the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and sulphur dioxide, the latter being a precursor of aerosols.
A change in the energy available to the global Earth-atmosphere system due to changes in these forcing agents is termed radiative forcing (Wm -2 ) of the climate system (see Box 1). Defined in this manner, radiative forcing of climate change constitutes an index of the relative global mean impacts on the surface-troposphere system due to different natural and anthropogenic causes. This Section updates the knowledge of the radiative forcing of climate change that has occurred from pre-industrial times to the present. Figure 9 shows the estimated radiative forcings from the beginning of the Industrial Era (1750) to 1999 for the quantifiable natural and anthropogenic forcing agents. Although not included in the figure due to their episodic nature, volcanic eruptions are the source of another important natural forcing. Summaries of the information about each forcing agent follow in the sub-sections below.
A change in the energy available to the global Earth-atmosphere system due to changes in these forcing agents is termed radiative forcing (Wm -2 ) of the climate system (see Box 1). Defined in this manner, radiative forcing of climate change constitutes an index of the relative global mean impacts on the surface-troposphere system due to different natural and anthropogenic causes. This Section updates the knowledge of the radiative forcing of climate change that has occurred from pre-industrial times to the present. Figure 9 shows the estimated radiative forcings from the beginning of the Industrial Era (1750) to 1999 for the quantifiable natural and anthropogenic forcing agents. Although not included in the figure due to their episodic nature, volcanic eruptions are the source of another important natural forcing. Summaries of the information about each forcing agent follow in the sub-sections below.
2. Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources (National Academies Press)
QUOTE
Ozone is created mainly by the action of solar ultraviolet radiation on molecular oxygen in the upper atmosphere, and most of it remains in the stratosphere. However, a fraction of such ozone descends naturally into the lower atmosphere where additional chemical processes can both form and destroy it. This “tropospheric ozone” has been supplemented during the 20th century by additional ozone—an important component of photochemical smog—created by the action of sunlight upon pollutant molecules containing carbon and nitrogen. The most important of the latter include compounds such as ethylene (C 2H4), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitric oxide released in the exhaust of fossil-fuel-powered motor vehicles and power plants and during combustion of biomass. The lifetime of ozone is short enough that the molecules do not mix throughout the lower atmosphere, but instead are found in broad plumes downwind from the cities of origin, which merge into regional effects, and into a latitude band of relatively high ozone extending from 30°N to 50°N that encircles Earth during Northern Hemisphere spring and summer. The presence of shorter-lived molecules, such as ozone, in the troposphere depends upon a steady supply of newly formed molecules, such as those created daily by traffic in the large cities of the world. The widespread practice of clearing forests and agricultural wastes (“biomass burning”), especially noticeable in the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere, contributes to tropospheric ozone.
3. Another article
QUOTE
A new analysis of the climate of the last 1,000 years suggests that human activity is the dominant force behind the sharp global warming trend seen in the 20th century.
The study , by Dr. Thomas J. Crowley, a geologist at Texas A&M University, found that natural factors, like fluctuations in sunshine or volcanic activity, were powerful influences on temperatures in past centuries. But he found that they account for only 25 percent of the warming since 1900. The lion's share, he said, can be attributed to human influences, particularly to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" that come from the burning of fuels and forests.
The study , by Dr. Thomas J. Crowley, a geologist at Texas A&M University, found that natural factors, like fluctuations in sunshine or volcanic activity, were powerful influences on temperatures in past centuries. But he found that they account for only 25 percent of the warming since 1900. The lion's share, he said, can be attributed to human influences, particularly to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" that come from the burning of fuels and forests.
Agreed, the definitive answer is not known, as we have both stated. But is this something we should screw around with over economics or politics? I don't think it is. If you turn out to be wrong, what are the repercussions? Well, they could be serious enough to affect our entire ecosystem, causing deaths and extinctions over the next centuries. What if I'm wrong? Well, perhaps the global economy was affected for the few years it takes for industry to change their practices. And even if I am wrong, the net result would be good - there would be fewer emissions (and don't forget that CO, CO2, O3, and NO2 are all "greenhouse" gasses, among others), and industries would be more focused on alternative and sustainable energy sources.
So ask yourself this: is an economic slump a decent price to pay if Quarkhead is wrong?
And then this: is potential devastation of the ecosystem a decent price to pay if Amlord is wrong?
Biased questions? Maybe so. So find out what scientists think some of the results of unchecked global warming might be. Then ask yourself, if it turns out humans are significantly responsible for contributing to this, is that a worthy price to pay?
QUOTE
If Europeans knew that the Kyoto Treaty would seriously harm their economies and significantly reduce their standard of living, would they still support Kyoto? Would they be willing to suffer the economic damage if they learned that industrial activity was not a cause of global warming?
If Europeans knew that the Kyoto Treaty would seriously harm their economies and significantly reduce their standard of living, would they still support Kyoto?
I think they would and they do (as far as I can see).
There is a 'but', I also think they would change their tune if/when the actual economic damage ensues. People are generally the same around the world, and their voters are probably just as short-sighted and fickle. I know that people drop their ideologys awfully fast when it hits them in the pocketbook.
Would they be willing to suffer the economic damage if they learned that industrial activity was not a cause of global warming?
Nope... Europeans have common sense too. The problem here is proving it either way.
The countries which are backing the Kyoto treaty have been significantly effected by unusually hot weather for the past couple of years. Most Europeans have no central airconditioning in their houses, and even fish were dying from the heat last summer. This has a psychological impact on the population regarding the issue of 'global warming'. I have no doubt that has a great deal to do with its support in Europe.
The validity of global warming, and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions notwithstanding, this treaty would do little to hinder those emissions. It exempts China, India, and other developing nations, whose carbon dioxide emissions are very high and growing annually. Energy-intensive industries will simply move to areas of the world where energy use is less expensive. There is no reason to believe that this treaty would result in any reduction of CO2 emissions worldwide whatsoever, but we'd suffer massive job loss, and our economy would be devestatingly impacted.
The validity of global warming, and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions notwithstanding, this treaty would do little to hinder those emissions. It exempts China, India, and other developing nations, whose carbon dioxide emissions are very high and growing annually. Energy-intensive industries will simply move to areas of the world where energy use is less expensive. There is no reason to believe that this treaty would result in any reduction of CO2 emissions worldwide whatsoever, but we'd suffer massive job loss, and our economy would be devestatingly impacted.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 26 2003, 04:10 AM)
The countries which are backing the Kyoto treaty have been significantly effected by unusually hot weather for the past couple of years. Most Europeans have no central airconditioning in their houses, and even fish were dying from the heat last summer. This has a psychological impact on the population regarding the issue of 'global warming'. I have no doubt that has a great deal to do with its support in Europe.
Yes. I think that, because of the factors you identify, ordinary Europeans are in no doubt at all that Global Warming is already happening to a significant extent, in many cases deleterious. (Britain has so far seemed to benefit, although if the Gulf Stream current moves further North as many climatologists believe it will if warming continues, the British Isles may well become rather colder.)
Also, since Northern Europe was affected by the polar thinning of the ozone layer, which has been dramatically decreased since the global bans on the refrigerant gases thought to be causing the bulk of the ozone depletion, I think that there is a wider acceptance of the idea that, if Global Warming is indeed anthropogenic, urgent reductions to emissions will have a real beneficial effect.
The USA was not greatly affected by the ozone holes outside Alaska, but did agree to the changes. Possibly the emotive links to "cancer" caused by increased UV penetration were enough to bring everyone behind the policy.
QUOTE
The validity of global warming, and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions notwithstanding, this treaty would do little to hinder those emissions. It exempts China, India, and other developing nations, whose carbon dioxide emissions are very high and growing annually. Energy-intensive industries will simply move to areas of the world where energy use is less expensive. There is no reason to believe that this treaty would result in any reduction of CO2 emissions worldwide whatsoever, but we'd suffer massive job loss, and our economy would be devestatingly impacted.
I think you're wrong here. First off, there is now no serious scientific opposition to the idea that global warming is definitely underway. All the arguments now are about the causes. The USA and CO2 emmitting corporations mostly arguing that it is caused by events outside human control, and that any greenhouse effect is tangential, even if there is any validity to it as a theory. The rest of the world is mostly sold on the idea that a greenhouse effect is in place, and that it is mostly caused by CO2 emissions from direct human activity, and methane emissions (most of which, according to the arguments, comes from agriculture).
Secondly, while you're right to say that China and India are significant and rapidly growing CO2 emitters, much of their fuel is still wood (a greenhouse-neutral fuel). It's perfectly true that if they continue their industrial development to the levels currently enjoyed by the USA and Europe, they will outstrip both of us as polluters and sources of greenhouse gas.
But the fact remains that as things stand now, today, the USA far outsrips any other country or bloc in it's CO2 emissions, in part driven by the ubiquity of airconditioning, oversized road vehicles and their engines (two liters is large for most other nations, even ones of comparable size to the US e.g. Australia) as well as "dirty" industries.
It simply will not be possible for all the high-emissions industries in the USA to up sticks and go to India or China en masse without straining their fledging economies beyond breaking point, and a gradual drift would not threaten Kyoto's effectiveness (if global warming is indeed anthropogenic) because the Third World amnesties are not in perpetuity - Kyoto is a start point, not an end-point.
And while it is true to say that the Clinton administration would most likely have balked at full Kyoto implementation, the Bush II admin is not only refusing to accept even its theoretical legitimacy, but is systematically weakening domestic environmental protection legislation for short-term electoral gain. Europeans and other Kyoto supporters (clue - second largest world economy, which was host nation to the treaty) are not stupid, and despair of an administration prepared to cut off its nose to spite its face.
America will only suffer the most because it is the biggest problem, and only if America lacks the ingenuity and will to change her economic activity to relfect the new challenges. (A good start would be to set air conditioning to temperatures that do not require winter clothing indoors during the heat of summer, and beachwear in winter! That's just silly, but most all public and commercial buildings in the US seem to do it whenever I visit.)
To answer the original thread question - yes, Europe will implement Kyoto and will do so whether or not it adversely affects the European economy.
- Economies run in cycles, and the wider EU is in the doldrums while the USA (and the UK) is doing well. Sooner or later, the underlying EU economies will recover, just as the US economy will falter. Histroy suggests that these may happen at the same time, so it's possible that the US economy will go on a downturn without Kyoto provisions just as the EU economy rises with the "constraints" of Kyoto. Kyoto protocols may even help, by forcing EU business to come up with more innovative solutions to energy problems, where US business can continue on an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" course.
- Europe's social and welfare policies over the past 50 years have not really held back their economies - there are other more glaring reasons for French and German recessions, for example. So they have a track record for doing things that more right-leaning economists would describe as brakes on growth. Perhaps European nations just see economic growth as of less absolute import than Americans.
Who's right? Time alone will tell. However, I'm on Quarkhead's side on the motives for Kyoto compliance - why take the risk?
QUOTE(Julian @ Nov 26 2003, 01:17 PM)
Taken together, it is conceivable that Kyoto will just mean the EU economy (and other Kyoto-compliant ones around the world such as Japan) grows at a slightly lower rate than it would otherwise grow.
If Europe implements Kyoto, it will probably limit free trade to a great degree. Other countries without the implementation could easily undercut merchants in the compliant countries on products which use energy-intensive manufacturing processes (steel, paper, automobiles, chemicals, ect). I don't know how those countries would sustain employment and demand for their products. Perhaps they would need to impose protective tariffs. I would bet there will be a rippling effect throughout all world economies far beyond that of a regular economic down-swing, should the treaty pass. As you said, time will tell.
[QUOTE=Julian,Nov 26 2003, 08:17 PM][QUOTE=Mrs. Pigpen,Nov 26 2003, 04:10 AM]
Who's right? Time alone will tell. However, I'm on Quarkhead's side on the motives for Kyoto compliance - why take the risk?[/QUOTE]
Hello,
I'm a new member and my english is very lousy - so pardon me please, but I hope you can understand it.
Dear Julian - I think you are completly right - but I want to say some words too.
"Time will tell" - I hope it will not. Global warming is not a democratic problem - and it's not a pschycologial effect - and it's not something that can be influenced by economic theories. It depends on no cases on what humans are thinking or not.
The problem is - that we do not know or we even cannot know what will happen if it is going on in this way. Weather and clima has a mathematical-chaotic structure and we are living in an ice-time, where it is very chaotical. Indeed we are children of the ice-time, we are living in. The first biilion years for example there was no ice on the earth at all.
The global warming is in my eyes like the beginning of an avalanche. Or like the problem: How many grain of sand are giving a heap of sand. One or two or three? For sure not - but what's the exact number? And the higher the distance is from the avalanche, the greater the danger - because someone don't see it growing.
So - if we do nothing - perhaps there is no way to stop it, if the avalanche is starting. Even if we do not now the exact mechanism - it cannot be, that no one is doing nothing and just saying: makes no sense, because we do not know (We do not know it exactly because of the way of scientfic methods - perhaps we have to find the right methods).
So I hope - everyone is doing a little and tries not to put his/her grain of sand to the heap of sand. If it is working, we will never know, but if not - it's okay too: we will have better ideas how to produce and to use different materials and we will find different ways of producing energy.
by the way: Compare the way of oil pipelines with the use of violence. I'm not able to understand that all plans to use hydrogen instead of oil even in Germany are completly stopped. The argument: 2 million Euro per gas station costs in total a few billion or trillion or whatever dollars/Euros worldwide.
I cannot understand what's the problem is. First you have to give money - and then it's possible to earn money. With no investments nothing happens and all people will become poor - that's all. Seems to be more effective and cheaper to make war instead of scientific research.
By the way: we had a very nice summer this year in Germany. mediterrian. Perhaps we are lucky if the global warming goes on - but even this we will not know. Unfortunately.
Bernd / Regensburg
Who's right? Time alone will tell. However, I'm on Quarkhead's side on the motives for Kyoto compliance - why take the risk?[/QUOTE]
Hello,
I'm a new member and my english is very lousy - so pardon me please, but I hope you can understand it.
Dear Julian - I think you are completly right - but I want to say some words too.
"Time will tell" - I hope it will not. Global warming is not a democratic problem - and it's not a pschycologial effect - and it's not something that can be influenced by economic theories. It depends on no cases on what humans are thinking or not.
The problem is - that we do not know or we even cannot know what will happen if it is going on in this way. Weather and clima has a mathematical-chaotic structure and we are living in an ice-time, where it is very chaotical. Indeed we are children of the ice-time, we are living in. The first biilion years for example there was no ice on the earth at all.
The global warming is in my eyes like the beginning of an avalanche. Or like the problem: How many grain of sand are giving a heap of sand. One or two or three? For sure not - but what's the exact number? And the higher the distance is from the avalanche, the greater the danger - because someone don't see it growing.
So - if we do nothing - perhaps there is no way to stop it, if the avalanche is starting. Even if we do not now the exact mechanism - it cannot be, that no one is doing nothing and just saying: makes no sense, because we do not know (We do not know it exactly because of the way of scientfic methods - perhaps we have to find the right methods).
So I hope - everyone is doing a little and tries not to put his/her grain of sand to the heap of sand. If it is working, we will never know, but if not - it's okay too: we will have better ideas how to produce and to use different materials and we will find different ways of producing energy.
by the way: Compare the way of oil pipelines with the use of violence. I'm not able to understand that all plans to use hydrogen instead of oil even in Germany are completly stopped. The argument: 2 million Euro per gas station costs in total a few billion or trillion or whatever dollars/Euros worldwide.
I cannot understand what's the problem is. First you have to give money - and then it's possible to earn money. With no investments nothing happens and all people will become poor - that's all. Seems to be more effective and cheaper to make war instead of scientific research.
By the way: we had a very nice summer this year in Germany. mediterrian. Perhaps we are lucky if the global warming goes on - but even this we will not know. Unfortunately.
Bernd / Regensburg
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 27 2003, 04:21 PM)
QUOTE(Julian @ Nov 26 2003, 01:17 PM)
Taken together, it is conceivable that Kyoto will just mean the EU economy (and other Kyoto-compliant ones around the world such as Japan) grows at a slightly lower rate than it would otherwise grow.
If Europe implements Kyoto, it will probably limit free trade to a great degree. Other countries without the implementation could easily undercut merchants in the compliant countries on products which use energy-intensive manufacturing processes (steel, paper, automobiles, chemicals, ect). I don't know how those countries would sustain employment and demand for their products. Perhaps they would need to impose protective tariffs. I would bet there will be a rippling effect throughout all world economies far beyond that of a regular economic down-swing, should the treaty pass. As you said, time will tell.
No, I disagree. Kyoto implementation doesn't mean that less energy will be available in those countries that comply, just that other sources will be used (wind, wave, geothermal and nuclear forming the bulk of it as things stand today).
Nuclear is the only form of these greenhouse neutral energy generators that would be more expensive per unit (ongoing) because of the huge costs of decommissioning old plants and disposal of radioactive waste.
The other strand would be to fund R&D into more efficient use of energy - use do the same things by using less, which again would be cost-beneficial to Kyoto countries in the medium and long term.
Even if global warming is completely unconnected to human activity, Kyoto adoption could prove to be a nudge towards higher productivty and levels of economic activity.
I think that the USAs hostility towards Kyoto stems mostly from unfounded fears originating as PR in the energy industry, which has positioned itself so closely to the levers of power through lobbying and campaign contributions (to both parties) that it has become very hard to see them pulling the strings any more.
QUOTE
Even if global warming is completely unconnected to human activity, Kyoto adoption could prove to be a nudge towards higher productivty and levels of economic activity.
How do you know this to be true?
QUOTE
I think that the USAs hostility towards Kyoto stems mostly from unfounded fears originating as PR in the energy industry, which has positioned itself so closely to the levers of power through lobbying and campaign contributions (to both parties) that it has become very hard to see them pulling the strings any more.
I don't think so. If you actually read what science the Kyoto treaty is beased on it's absolute crap science and doesn't take into consideration of the Earths natural warming and cooling treads. I don't think the US has any hostility towards Kyoto, but is rather taking a harder look at the science behind it and rather than most people joining in lock-step questioning the junk science it's based on.
cusbilla
QUOTE(cusbilla @ Nov 28 2003, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE
Even if global warming is completely unconnected to human activity, Kyoto adoption could prove to be a nudge towards higher productivty and levels of economic activity.
How do you know this to be true?
I don't. That's why I said "could" and not "will".
QUOTE
QUOTE
I think that the USAs hostility towards Kyoto stems mostly from unfounded fears originating as PR in the energy industry, which has positioned itself so closely to the levers of power through lobbying and campaign contributions (to both parties) that it has become very hard to see them pulling the strings any more.
I don't think so. If you actually read what science the Kyoto treaty is based on it's absolute crap science and doesn't take into consideration of the Earths natural warming and cooling trends. I don't think the US has any hostility towards Kyoto, but is rather taking a harder look at the science behind it and rather than most people joining in lock-step questioning the junk science it's based on.
Oh, come on! The USA is hostile to any foreign or transnational organisation that tries to tell America what to do, and always has been!
On Kyoto itself, though - taken on it's own, you're absolutely right. However, this administration is also taking steps to relax clean air legislation, proposing oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, implementing trade tariffs to protect dirty domestic industries rather than allow them to be subject to competition that might force them to become more efficient (in all areas, but including energy use), and so on.
It is also very close to the oil and energy industries - Bush himself is an ex-oilman; Cheney has strong links to Halliburton; there were close political ties to Ken Lay and Enron; etc.
All these are presented as unrelated and coincidental, but to use an American idiom, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
In other words, in this context, it is hard to imagine that the US opposition to Kyoto is purely dependant on a scientific disagreement. Sure, most of the anthropogenic proponents had their research funded by environmental groups, but most of the
"natural causes" proponents were funded by the oil industry.
And the nature of climatology is such that we won't know who was right until the climate has changed, at which point, if the anthropogenesists are correct, it will be too late to do anything about it. It's not as if we have another Earth to use as a control.
But at root, my position is not that Kyoto would save us all but America's intransigence is dooming the whole planet (though many of the junk scientists do hold this view, foolishly in my opinion). It is a more pragmatic idea, akin to Pascal's Wager.
If you aren't familiar with this idea, here's a link. It's along article, so I'll summarise:
God's existence cannot be proven one way or another. But He either exists, or he doesn't, and you can either believe in Him, or not. Four outcomes are possible:
God exists: You win (i.e. you Believe)? - eternal bliss. You lose? (i.e. you don't) - eternal damnation
God does not exist: there is no win or lose, as you die in ignorance either way.
So, the worst outcome of Belief is as good as the best outcome of non-belief, so anyone sane should choose belief. (I don't buy this myself, but it's for another thread.)
Global warming can be looked at in the same way. (I'm making assumptions, but so does Pascal - most notably that if God exists he must be the Christian God.)
GW is Anthropogenetic and extreme: Everyone complies with Kyoto? - We're all alive and the US economy takes a short and medium term hit. USA doesn't comply? We're all dead
GW is Natural and cyclical: Everyone complies? We're all alive and the US economy takes a short and medium term hit. USA doesn't comply? We're all alive and America gets to say "we told you so".
It isn't quite as Manichean as Pascal's wager, but on the balance of risks, it is safer to act as if man is the cause of global warming and be proven wrong than to act as if we are not and and be proven wrong.
In one case, we end up alive and maybe a little poorer (although, as I've tried to indicate in my earlier posts, the case is not yet proven that Kyoto compliance will be a permanent economic disavantage. It may be a positive advantage in itself.). In the other, we end up dead and wealthy. It's a simple enough calculation.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.