Slashdot Mirror
EU Ratifies Kyoto Treaty
An anonymous submitter sends: "Yahoo! News is reporting that all 15 member states of the European Union have just ratified the Kyoto treaty to cut greenhouse emissions by 8% over the next ten years (the US agreed to 7%.)"
IIRC, its not 7%, only 5% but below of the level of 1990. The final goal is 30%. Germany allready lowerd the emissions by about 10%.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Really why is it the US, as the biggest polluter in the world can't they make a significant effort to ratify the treaty like the rest of the world. Why should the US be treated to a special treatment when they set the worst example ?
:)
Sometimes life just isn't fair
The pact would have required the United States, which accounted for 36 percent of the industrialized world's greenhouse gas emissions in 1990, to trim emissions by 7 percent from 1990 levels. But the Bush administration has instead announced policy changes likely to push them up by 30 percent by 2010, the European Commission said.
The keyword here is "would." The US isn't ratifying squat, but who's surprised? Financing election campaigns is a costly business, and you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Bush is just behaving like the good boy he promised to be."If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
I live in Canada, and we are being asked to reduce our emissions by stupid amounts in 8 years. I think its on the order of 10% (i'm probably way off, but correct me if i'm wrong). Now Canada has about 30M people in it. China has over 1 Billion. China is NOT bound by the Kyoto treaty in any way. If each member of their population increases their CO2 usage by a few percent, it will totally wipe out any benefits that Canada, the US, and many other countries could make happen.
If this is a global question, why isn't their anything approaching global participation? Shouldn't the largest country on earth be bound by it as well?
And for a 2nd perspective, there is a lot of controversy in my Province over a proposed Alternative strategy to CO2 reduction being developed in Alberta. Most people supporting Kyoto say "NO! Do Kyoto NOW! It's the only way!" Well Mr and Mrs Environmentalist, if other plans don't reduce enough, fast enough, then you must be in favor of mass genocide of all polluters! In fact, wipe out 99% of the world's population! That'll put a big dent in CO2 production! Or if not mass deaths right away, how about banning the use of all types of fuels that produce CO2! "Sorry Mr Freezing person. Your wood campfire doesn't follow Zero Emmissions Guidelines. You'll need to freeze in winter. Sorry." Anybody can see both of these are unreasonable (well i HOPE everybody thinks these are unreasonable...), but we have to realize that Kyoto is not necessarily the best way of doing things.
There ARE better ways that reduce CO2 emmissions, perhaps not as fast, but not as devastating to economies traditionally dependant on "dirty" fuels. And ignoring other countries that aren't developed yet, just makes them more dependant on CO2, and doesn't help long-term. Get solutions for them implemented right away, because it is easier to change an infrastructure that isn't there yet, rather than try and make a dramatic shift.
Erioll
"all 15 member states of the European Union have just ratified the Kyoto treaty"
I'm going to instead "rapify" the Kyoto treaty:
We've agreed to cut back on our greenhouse emissions
Maybe use something clean like nuclear fission
The only thing now that this rapper be dissin'
Is the US of A, 'cos the point they be missin'.
graspee
Termites and other similar insects are probably the most prolific producers of greenhouse gasses on the planet, easily outstripping cattle, and motorvehicles.
Perhaps we could call all of their colonic (heh) Queens into some room somewhere, and demand that they chill for a while?
No? Didn't think so.
Duh.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
Uhm, I think, a point is that a large part of money will be spent in another place. As in enviromentally friendlier businesses will grow, it's not wasted money, it's money moved away from traditionally powerful companies that wish to keep going about things the same way they have for 200 years. But then, of course they will make it sound as an impossible task and that the Kyoto treaty is unamerican and could also pose a threat to national security.
Yes, it will give the US an advantage, just as your low taxes (compared to Eu) promote buying the industries products, just like your labour laws give the employer a lot of security and the employee a lot less. Low taxes, few labour laws, few restrictions means industry can bloom and keep prices low, of course, it all has a price that might not be obvious at first.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
The keyword here is "would." The US isn't ratifying squat, but who's surprised? Financing election campaigns is a costly business, and you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Bush is just behaving like the good boy he promised to be.
Bush couldn't ratify Kyoto even if he wanted to, since the Senate voted against it 95-0 in 1997 (admittedly it was non-binding, but it needed 67 votes to pass). Clinton signed the treaty, but during his term, he did nothing to try to implement it.
Not nearly so much as you think. Every time environmental regulations are imposed, people say that the economy will tank as a result. It just doesn't happen.
For instance, when CFCs were banned, some companies discovered they could use water or lemon juice in place of CFCs and actually wound up saving money, and the economy wasn't hurt by the end of CFCs either. Congress imposed new mileage restrictions during the oil crisis and while Japanese car makers innovated to meet them, American car makers sued and didn't. The result was it helped the Japanese to seize a huge portion of the global car market, causing major harm to the American economy. Business has cried wolf too many times about this sort of thing; everytime it turns out it's better for them to quit their whining and find a way to make money and help the environment.
The long-term trend is toward getting more and more $GDP out of a certain amount of fossil fuel anyway, and a large portion of Kyoto is just to give this an international shove forward. A lot of fossil fuel is burned pointlessly in the US. Emissions could be reduced substantially IMHO if SUVs had to meet real fuel economy standards and the nation's railways and mass transit systems were adequately funded and upgraded. Also, US reliance on foreign oil has never done anything good for it, and alternative energy sources offer the only way out. Kyoto would definitely encourage them, so from a political as well as environmental standpoint Kyoto makes sense. The treaty is good for the US, it just takes foresight to see it.
I posted and all I got was this stupid sig
Cato has the credibility of the Flat Earth Society, at this point. And the paper you linked to has no references to back it up, either.
I can't believe all the skeptism here against kyoto in certain posts. here's an analogy:
you are in a sinking vessel, do you refuse to bail out the water just because the deck is not below water? do you refuse to bail out the water because other people is not bailing out the water? do you refuse bailout the water just because you can't realistically save the ship? do you refuse to throw out the bagage on the ground that you don't want to reduce your comfort of living?
The truly important things in this world are never profitable economically, but without them we wouldn't be here.
Nope, Clinton and Gore put us exactly where we are today by killing any program related to nuclear power, including but not limited to:
- Killing the Integral Fast Reactor program at Argonne Nat'l Lab. This reactor design would recycle fuel, reducing the amount of waste produced.
- Killing transmutation experiments which might have been used to treat existing waste.
- Stalling waste disposal programs e.g. Yucca Mountain.
Ahh, so the pension plans of steel magnates have nothing to do with it?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Off topic? Now I HAVE to say something about how the moderating is going on this story... What IN my above post was NOT about the Kyoto treaty, which is the SUBJECT of the story?
/., then perhaps I should quit contributing.
But then, to the "true believers" of the "green" movement, ANY ARGUMET against them is "off topic".
I also note that anyone not bashing the USA for NOT ratifying Kyoto are having their posts modded down. If this is the attitude of
The facts are facts. Kyoto would have caused SERIOUS damage to the US economy. Which means fewer jobs. Which is why the Senate voted 95-0 to send a message to Clinton not to bother sending the thing up for ratification.
Now, we will see that they were right to do so. IF the EU actually impliments this thing, not just symbolically, we will get to see how right or wrong it is for economic development.
BTW, Kyoto exempts countries like China and India, and other "developing" countries who collectively pollute more than the US/EU ever dreamed of.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Yeah, how dare those pesky employees ruin their bodies working a company and then want to get a decent pension out of it? Don't they understand that it reduces the shareholders profits? Sounds very communistic to me, damn unions putting people ahead of profit, down right unamerican I say!.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Are you for real? I love the bit about the road deaths, and the vision of oppressive governments forcing people into tiny cars.
I'm glad to say that there's currently a long US waiting list for the BMW Mini, which is a truly fun car to drive (hint: it doesn't roll over when you go around corners).
To return to matters vaguely relevant to Kyoto, the nihilist "it's hopeless so why bother" argument IS dealt with by the treaty - Kyoto is part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, not a single set of regulations but a mechanism to establish fair rules as required. The hard part is establishing the level playing field, not playing the game.
The USA is the world's biggest polluter, both in total and, by a huge margin, per capita - it has a responsibility to lead. Do you really think that the US, Europe and Japan would be unable to bring remaining countries into line when necessary?
Actually, I am going to the US shortly, and no, I have no intentions of trying to impose my stupid rules. I would like to understand the american way of thinking, but it seems that it is impossible to get an american to share the basis for their views and thinking, they rather quickly resort to namecalling or childish arguments if anything about their lifestyle or system is questioned.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
-
Europe has recently engaged in many meaningless gestures in order to enhance its "moral" standing over the US. Europe has yet to understand that it is no longer the center of world affairs. It has no military worth discussing, and no will to create one. It has a living standard 2/3rds that of the US. It has a demographic problem that is causing its population to rapidly age and diminish relative to most of the rest of the world.
-
Europe will not change its behavior as a result of the signing, so it is a no-cost effort.
-
The EU is a bureaucracy, not a democracy. The Brussells bureaucrats are far removed from the votes of individuals in Europe, and acts on its own. Bureaucracies have significant intertia and often do irrational things just because they appeared rational when the process was started (see Laws of Bureaucracy).
-
It is not clear that the US will never sign the treaty. We have had previous fits of insanity, and as long as the treaty is out there, it could be signed in the future if we ended up with a sufficiently foolish senate. Furthermore, European signing of the treaty makes it easier for US environmental organizations to pressure the US into signing it. It is a no cost effort by Europe that could pay off big in the future.
Oh, btw... I am not a Europe hater. I have spent much time in Europe including living in France. I am, however, distressed at the irrational behavior of Europe in recent times.Furthermore, Europe has been losing other moral edges it had over the US. For example, the violent crime rate in Britain and France is now significantly higher than that in the US. The recent anti-semitism should be a source of great shame in Europe, but the rapidly rising percentage of muslims in France and England (see demographics above - the muslims are having more children) has muted the reaction to this.
Due to all of these factors, Europe is humiliated, and is reacting by attacking the United States wherever it can in the realm of ideology and international affairs.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Kyoto is nothing more than another European inspired attempt at hobbling the United States and improving European competitive position. Europe, because of its much greater population density, needs less fuel than the US.
This is such a bullshit, that I can't resist. Europe isn't pushing the Kyoto protocol, because they want to "hobble" the US. Come on guys, it's not always about you... Europe is pushing Kyoto, because they actually care about the environment! What many Americans don't get is that environmental concerns are far more common and usual in Europe than in the US. And I'm not talking about environmental extremist. People DO care about pollution and the environment in general here. BY FAR more than in the US. (Yes, and I've been and worked in both places...)
Furthermore, its citizens already drive in tiny cars (due to extortionate fuel taxes and other laws)
Bullshit Nr. 2. Yes, people drive smaller cars. (I do, for sure.) But it's not only because of the fuel taxes and "other laws", but more because most Europeans don't feel the need to have two meters of steel around you. I (and no European I know) never understood the American affection for SUVs (especially in Texas. Why do you need all that trucks??). And people look for cars with high mileage not only because of the costs, but mainly because it's perceived as bad for the environment, if the car uses to much gas.
There's actually a lot of research going in this field. VW just presented the first one-liter-car (translates to about 230 miles per gallon) as a prototype.
and already suffer a much higher traffic death rate per mile.
Would you care to back this claim with some official numbers?
Folks,
No matter what happens over the next 20+ years we will require industry to produce and transport the consumer goods we can no longer live without.
Subsequently, we will need factories and low labor cost countries to produce our 'necessities'.
Germany cut emissions? Guess what? It moved to China/Malaysia/Eastern European States, etc.
Analogous to the so called 'drug problem' in South America. We require drugs, they are farmed in S. America.
Then we spend tens of millions of dollars going after farmers who supply demand to. Then it shifts to another region.
Guess what? We still use the drugs: squeezing the balloon.
?sp
Actually, the mafia is currently trafficking in CFCs, and assumedly making huge profits. Maybe that is why the economy didn't suffer, because people kept using CFCs.
I'm not kidding, look it up.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
But its true. The gasoline taxes in Europe are extortionate. The fact that some European small cars are fun to drive does not negate the facts that Europe has a much higher percentage of people driving tiny cars with high mileage than the US - people make rational choices and it is rational to trade off some amount of safety for some amount of freedom as represented by the increased mileage of the tiny cars (although most environmentalists will deny us that freedom in any other areas). However, that choice is significantly dictated by the governments which set standards including the cost of gasoline.
Don't forget that big Mercedes and BMW's are also very popular exports to the US. And there is nothing like driving on the Autobahn and seeing the big European owned, gas guzzling Mercy's and Beamers zipping by at >200 kph. Of course, only those rich enough to afford them and the gas can drive them in Europe. In the more democratic US, our gas taxes are low enough that almost anyone can have a big car and drive it fast, if that is their choice.
In matters relevant to Kyoto, the "its hopeless so why bother" is not the US argument at all. But you imply that the Kyoto treaty is rational, when in fact it is not. Yes, now that the absurdities of the treaties have been shown, environmentalists are at last admitting that it is only the first step. Steps that would really make a difference (assuming that the science and other projections are correct) are obviously even more onerous, or they would have been put into the treaty in the first place!
The US is only the worlds biggest polluter if you consider CO2 to be pollution (not a totally unreasonable assumption). But we are not nearly the largest polluter relative to our productivity, which is a more rational measure. Every time somebody in the world uses a US product (including information/service products) they are benefiting from that pollution, but it does not get credited to us. Your use of internet technology and PC technology was directly subsidized by the pollution produced by our technologists!
Furthermore, Kyoto ignores China and India. If the US faces onerous charges for pollution, we will export much of our pollution to those countries, which are not required to reduce theirs. Net result: more pollution, since they are less efficient due to less capital available for technology.
What is fair in your mind is massive sacrifies by the US compared to Europe, and no sacrifices by rapidly growing, non-democratic countries such as China. This is fair?
Also, you ignore the points I made originally. Kyoto is based on global warming science. But that science is not in very good shape. Ignored is the fact that it has yet to come close to proving that the recent warming is anthropogenic, although I will grant that it possibly is. But more important is the highly bureaucratic assumption that somehow the magic signing of such a treaty will actually compel the world's population, for the next 100 years, to change their behavior even when it is against their best interests! In other words, it imagines that people will willingly suffer the degradation of their economies based on these treaties, and will continue to do so in the next 100 years.
Tell me, it were 1902 and you had the same science, would you be so confident in the treaty?
There were a few surpises during the subsequent 100 years that would have made the treaty meaningless: World Wars I and II, the rise of fascism, the rise of communism (the worst environmental disasters occurred in the USSR and Eastern Europe - I saw many of these myself in 1991), the development of the automobile, aviation, electronics, telecommunications, nuclear energy, etc.
Of course, you will say, it is part of a framework. This hardly inspires confidence.
The general increase in faith in the power of bureaucratic entities and international organizations seems inversely proportional to the ability of the faithful to enforce that power.
Finally, once again, you are pointing out what is the biggest problem with Kyoto.
Kyoto does nothing significant for the environment without further measures anticipated by its framework. Which leads one to the question of:
Why should we sign on to it, which clearly requires causes us more economic damage than the rest of the world, when even its proponents admit it won't do any good except to further the procedural path?"
The only good weather is bad weather.
Here's the text of the first article google pulled up about China's actual progress: DOMESTIC: World Bank Funded Research Contradicts China's Pollution Claims SUMMARY: (8/15) - New evidence funded by the World Bank contradicts China's claims that it is significantly lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Nobuhiro Horii, of Japan's Institute of Developing Economies, said coal mines in Hunan province that the Beijing government ordered closed were in fact kept open. Horii maintained talks he had with people in other provinces indicated the problem was nation-wide. Horii also said improving energy efficiency takes about a decade, and China's claims to be increasing energy efficiency in carbon dioxide production in much faster time are not credible. "Yes, China is increasing energy efficiency, but they are doing it slowly, like everyone else," he said. In April, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California reported that since 1996, China's energy output had fallen 17 percent and its carbon dioxide emissions had fallen 14 percent even as China's economy grew by 36 percent. That same month the European Union office in Beijing found that over five years, China had increased energy efficiency by 50 percent and diminished coal use by 30 percent. However, a report put out by the U.S. embassy in Beijing this month claims China's greenhouse gas emissions have hardly dropped any, if at all. And at a recent conference in Beijing, a Chinese scientist maintained that China will modify its coal consumption total for 1999, taking away half the reductions it previously claimed. Other research indicates China has underreported consumption of oil. Vehicle traffic in Chinese cities has approximately doubled every five years, yet China reported oil consumption increasing just 11.4 percent between 1996 and 1999. Zhou Dadi, director of the Energy Research Institute of the Chinese government's State Development Planning Commission, said while doubts about China's energy statistics are understandable, "we are clearly decreasing our coal consumption." (from uscpf.org)
Oh, and people care about the environment here in the US also. But we also care about freedom, and we would like our environmental sacrifices to be meaninful and likely to produce success.
Regarding smaller cars, your motives are fine. But you are you, and are not representative of all Europeans. Of course some people drive smaller cars out of environmental reasons (and they do in the US also). But there are other reasons (narrow streets in old European towns for example). You cannot deny that economics has a significant effect on the choices people make, however.
You ask about SUV's. I own two - one made by the Japanese (Toyota). I can tell you exactly why Americans drive SUV's - safety and comfort.
You ask... why SUV's?
Because of environmentalist-pushed regulations!
"WHAT?" You say.
Environmentalists pushed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law. This requires manufacturers to have an ever rising average fuel economy in the fleet of cars that they sell. However, light trucks were exempted, and SUV's are light trucks.
Thus, Americans who desired larger and safer automobiles were forced by the environmentalist regulations to buy SUV's!
Environmentalists, and statist in general who try to use the coercive force of government to alter individual behavior too often ignore The Law of Unintended Consequences, as this shows so well.
Of course, a reasonable question at this point is why Americans want larger cars. I have already mentioned safety. The National Academy of Science estimates that several thousand American lives are lost each year due to smaller cars resulting from CAFE. Americans understand this instinctively and they know that larger cars are safer (and they are).
Okay... but beyond safety, there is another reason that Americans want large cars. One of America's greatest innovations, and a significant reason for our very high standard of living, is our innovations in the consumer distribution network. In this case, supermarkets, large department stores (now almost obsolete), shopping malls, and large discount outlets (Walmart, Costco) have greatly reduced the cost of distribution to consumers by eliminating middlement and bringing wholesale prices to the final buyer. A side effect of this is that consumer goods are concentrated in central points, and these central points are a significant distance from where most people live. In comparison, in European cities (and older US cities), one can walk to the grocery store, the bakery, etc. But Americans, if they want to be efficient in their shopping (and coincidentally fuel efficient) need larger cars just to carry home the results of the shopping trips. This is also why mass transit is a loser of an idea in the US.
Another reason for larger cars is the fact that the US is a very big country. I just returned from an 8000 mile driving trip (hunting tornados). And yet I only touched a small part of the US. Just driving across Texas is equivalent to driving the length of Europe! And when you must drive long distances, comfort is important! Most foreign cars and even US CAFE limited cars are too small for a significant percentage of Americans (who on average are fairly tall) to drive long distances in.
Now, Europeans, with their provincial viewpoint don't realize most of these factors. They want us to follow the same rules that they, with their high population densities and inefficient retail systems must follow.
I will post another direct reply to the main article on what I consider to be a rational response to global warming.
The only good weather is bad weather.
This will give American companies an economic advantage. The Kyoto restrictions, if implimented, would bring any industrialized nation's economy to it's knees. Does anyone have any CLUE as to how expensive it will be to reduce all emissions 8%?
Germany follows the Koyto "restrictions" since the talks are over. The former german governmnet and the actual government field laws to direct the economy in that direction.
We suffer not at all by the economic changed based on CO2 reduction. We suffer far more from the dot com crash in the US as our economy likes the exhaustive living of teh US consumers buying our products.
You see, the money to do all that will come from somewhere. Largely from money that would have been used to build and grow companies, and thus, employ more people...
You can build and grow companies producing materials to reduce energy consumption.
You can build and grow companies producing H2 technology.
You can build and grow companies producing Solar Power technology.
You can build and grow companies producing Wind Power technology.
You can build and grow companies producing recycling technology.
You can build and grow companies producing low energy air conditioning technology.
[... furhter 30 to 100 technology areas ommitted]
I would bet in one or the other of such companies a job or two would be available.
Tzss
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"The science behind climactic change is beyond any serious dispute."
Nothing in science is beyond serious dispute; as that is the nature of science. Good science, anyway. Even someting as simple, elegant, and obviously correct as Sir Newton's theory of gravity was improved upon, and will likely be further refined in the future. I certainly think the science behind climate change is in its infancy, and if our present models of it are correct enough to make predictions centuries into the future then it is so only by some bizzare coincidence. We do not have nearly the amount of data we need to have refined our models that well through deliberate efforts.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should reveal that I am not a computer scientist. I worked for 5 years as an environmental enginneer doing research on air pollution from stationary sources. I now work for the "evil" oil industry (the one that builds the giant Gaia destroying, oil spraying robots that Capt. Planet fights in the cartoons... you may be surprised to discover that besides fighting the forces of Mother Nature, we also have a small side business providing the fuel that powers almost all the transporation in the modern world).
Yeah, you are soooo right.
Look at all those old scientific theories coming back - the heliocentric theory is totally discredited, the Milky Way is the only galaxy in the universe, and the electronic signals generating this message propogate through the ether - or was that pholgiston, I dunno, these old theories come back so often.
And I am sure you follow Bishop Ussher's view of cosmology, as that never went out of fashion with the sort of right wing morons you must hang around with.
Don't try and compare the America of today with that of 1941. You weren't there, and nationalists who thought like you were all in favour of staying out of the conflict.
The USA of Roosevelt and Stimson was one that saw the importance of establishing international law. The United Nations was a American idea (Churchill and Stalin didn't care much about it), one intended to replace the principle of 'might is right' with proper justice. As were the Nuremberg trials. The America of Bush and Cheney shares virtually none of these principles and can claim no inheritance or credit for them.
A few million dollars and stock options to an outgoing executive are pennies compared to the obligations held to the pensioners. Pension plans are notoriously difficult to handle efficiently. I used to work at an oil company, and pension management was bigger than the payroll department. I think we had something like 5000 employees, and almost 20,000 pensioners. That's a huge obligation.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
It's funny to see that everybody here is so concerned about this issue but a recent slashdot poll had the car as the top form of transportation chosen by /.ers.
If you want to do something you need to change yourself and the sytem will bend to accomodate your need.
To start with stop buying V8s till there will be more enviromental friendly and powerfull vehicles on the market. On the other hand stop purchasing products that involve high polution in their creation.
While science is far from proving that the current warming is caused by mankind, let us assume that in fact the hypothesis is correct. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, especially compared to the greenhouse gas called water vapor, but the actions of man have indeed caused CO2 to increase by over 30% in the last 150 years. So... assuming this increase will cause further warming, what should we do about it?
Kyoto attempts to simply reduce the warming. Environmental advocates also advocate a simple (if terribly expensive) strategy of stopping the warming and maintaining the status quo.
However, actually stopping the increase in CO2 is impossible without a massive reduction in population (i.e. a massive human catastrophe or global war). It won't happen for a number of reasons, the most important of which is the resistance of people, especally in developing countries, to the measures necessary to do so.
A more rational approach follows the following principles and facts:
The most rational approach is to accept that global warming is inevitable (if we believe any predictions at all from the imperfect science). We should:
The only good weather is bad weather.
You don't get out much ... do you ?
I'm currently planning my 3rd trip abroad this year, why?
I know many , many people who still hate Germany and frankly are afraid of its famous warmongering.
Sure, I don't doubt that. If you had employed your reading skills, you just might have noticed that I was talking about countries, not individuals.
Anyways, this is getting off-topic and I'm tired of talking to ACs. I put my name on my opinion, do likewise if you want a reply.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Having used European mass transit extensively, I think I am in a position to argue that it would not work well for Americans. The biggest reasons are our very low population density, and our highly concentrated (and efficient) retail distribution, which means that people need to be able to bring back a significant amount of goods per trip when they shop, because they have to go a significant distance to do so. In Europe, one is much more likely to have a short distance to go to a store, because they are not efficiently concentrated.
As far as reducing reliance on oil, the best way to do that is nuclear power, which is consistently blocked by environmentalists. We have not had a new nuclear plant started since 1979!
Many americans drive mid-sized cars. Hybrids are microscopic, they are kludges (extra parts). Many American drive small cars. However, unlike Europe, we seem to have more of a belief that freedom is a virtue, not a sin.
The only good weather is bad weather.
How pathetic.
BTW... Americans have a pretty good grasp of the facts in that conflict, and we get both sides of the story also. In fact, most of our major media is biased against Israel, and has been for at least a decade. The American left, which strongly influences our mass media, always sides with the "struggle against oppression," or what it views as such, regardless of facts.
The only good weather is bad weather.
I'm sure the US is, and always has been, a model society. However, I'm not sure whether a black person would have preferred to have been a slave in the USA or in a British colony.
Why don't you conduct a poll?
I still don't believe that. I don't even see, where the big advantage for Europe would be. We have to reduce our emissions, too. (Well, now only _we_ have to) Anyway, the motives are not really important in this case.
Oh, and people care about the environment here in the US also.
I know. I didn't say otherwise. I just said, that concluding from my observations the average "environmental awareness" is lot higher in Europe than in the US.
But we also care about freedom, and we would like our environmental sacrifices to be meaninful and likely to produce success.
Oh, and people care about freedom here in Europe also.
Honestly, I don't really get that CAFE law argument. Why are you forced to buy SUVs, because manufacturers have to make their cars more efficient?
Americans understand this instinctively and they know that larger cars are safer (and they are).
Yes, against other SUVs. I don't buy this safety argument. And of course if you add pedestrians and cyclists to the calculation, the safety record may look differently.
[Americans need big cars, because they have big shopping centers...]
You know... We have shopping outlets too. I agree, that they're much more integrated in the American culture. But anyway: The connection "Big shopping center" --> "Need for SUV" is totally bogus in my eyes.
Just driving across Texas is equivalent to driving the length of Europe!
Not even close... :-) Look at a map.
Most foreign cars and even US CAFE limited cars are too small for a significant percentage of Americans (who on average are fairly tall) to drive long distances in.
ROTFL!! You're not serious with that one, are you? Americans need bigger cars, because they're taller? Compared to Europeans? Come on, Americans _by_definition_ have to be smaller than Europeans in average, because the largest part of the US population originally steems from Europe, but you also have a lot of (originally) asian people, which in general are smaller than European people. Anyway, taller or not, I'm 6.6 feet tall and find my small car quite comfortable...
Now, Europeans, with their provincial viewpoint don't realize most of these factors.
I do. I agree that the US has far bigger distances than Europe and that having a car is much more important in the US. I also agree that that's the reason why US mass transportation (outside the cities) pretty much sucks and that it's probably impossible to change that.
Oh, and talking about "provincial viewpoints". Americans don't exactly have a great track record in having viewpoints other than their owns (i.e. considering out-of-america stuff...).
They want us to follow the same rules that they, with their high population densities and inefficient retail systems must follow.
Inefficient retail systems??? Anyway, they don't want you to do any of this. What they want you to do, is to be more aware about gas usage. That was the whole point I was trying to make. In my experience many Americans just don't REALLY care how much gas their car uses. Well, it's cheap, so why should they? I was just saying, that the awareness for these kind of things is a lot higher in Europe than in the US.
As I explained. If Americans are to buy safe cars that are large enough to hold a couple of people and the results of a weekly shopping trip, they need a relatively large car. Because of CAFE, the auto manufacturers do not make many large cars, and they charge a lot for them, because of the poor mileage of CAFE. But SUV's are exempt from CAFE, which is why Americans buy them.
Yes, against other SUVs. I don't buy this safety argument. And of course if you add pedestrians and cyclists to the calculation, the safety record may look differently.
Against other vehicles period. It is not only the relative mass of head-on vehicles that count, but also the relative mass of the vehicle vs. the person inside of it. And then there are side collisions, and collisions with stationary objects, of course. The National Academy of Sciences, not exactly a biased group, has estimated that somewhere between 2 and 3 thousand Americans die every year due to CAFE.
You know... We have shopping outlets too. I agree, that they're much more integrated in the American culture. But anyway: The connection "Big shopping center" --> "Need for SUV" is totally bogus in my eyes.
When I lived in Paris, I could buy all of my daily needs within a block. I didn't need to make a shopping trip. Americans, OTOH, need to go miles typically just to buy groceries. So naturally, they want to combine multiple trips into one, and that means they need to carry more. They don't need an SUV to do it, but a euro-midget car just is too small.
ROTFL!! You're not serious with that one, are you? Americans need bigger cars, because they're taller? Because they are on average tall, and because they drive much longer distances. It is the combination.
Oh, and talking about "provincial viewpoints". Americans don't exactly have a great track record in having viewpoints other than their owns (i.e. considering out-of-america stuff...). I know. I just put that one in their to tangle your tail :-) Americans in fact are pretty provincial. What Europeans tend to be is "superior" in that Americans are constantly getting lectured by you guys (at least in the media). So occasionally we feel like teasing back.
Inefficient retail systems??? Anyway, they don't want you to do any of this. What they want you to do, is to be more aware about gas usage. That was the whole point I was trying to make. In my experience many Americans just don't REALLY care how much gas their car uses. Well, it's cheap, so why should they? I was just saying, that the awareness for these kind of things is a lot higher in Europe than in the US.
I think Americans are more skeptical of environmentalist claims than Europeans are, and are (IMHO properly) much more skeptical of government intervention. But we to say that americans care less about the environment would be wrong. We care a lot about it - after all, we have a lot more of itI would argue that Europeans have the luxury of worrying about such things because it doesn't cost them much personally to do so. It costs us more to do something about it, so we do less. I don't think it is a matter of inherent superiority of attitude... it is more the matter of human nature. But... I also would argue that the Europeans are much more likely to approve of government regulating their lives and in general interfering more in their economy. Where this trust comes from, I don't know, given the apalling behaviour of many European governments in the first fifty years of this century.
Finally, I would agree with the Europeans on government intervention (and disagree with many free-market americans) in one way: pollution problems cannot be solved without the intervention of government, because the costs are not felt by the polluter and thus market mechanisms are not sufficient. The difference is that I have far less faith in governments to make correct interventions than Europeans seem to have. And in the case of global warming, a good argument can be made that no action other than research is appropriate at this time. The uncertainties are too high as I have mentioned in previous posts. The most important difficulties are not scientific, but rather human: getting the whole world to adopt a policy like Kyoto and keeping it in force for 100 years, in order to delay global warming for 6 years, is just not a reasonable expectation!
The only good weather is bad weather.
People in all countries vote with their wallet. For something that costs, say, a half-hour's wages, they might be OK with skipping past a cheap import for an expensive domestic. For something that costs a month's or a year's wages, most people will at least seriously consider the less expensive option, even if it is produced in a place they're not supposed to like.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
"The only thing standing between my freedom and some Chinese soldier with Ak47 is not a good will on Chinesse people or an international treaty but good old US military.
j pg) to pull your bacon out of the fire just in case you are wrong. If your method works for a few generations, then maybe we will try it to.
Possible.
Another possibility: You've bought into a great big myth that the right-wing media has deemed necessary for you to believe so that it can facilitate more money going to Boeing [boeing.com]."
Hmmm. Maybe your possibility is right. Maybe. Only one way to be sure...
Tell you what. You go over to China and demand that they pardon the two people they just sentenced to 10+ years in prison (Hu Mingjun and Wang Sen) for the horrible crime of trying to promote democracy and subverting the rule of the Communist Party. See how cooperative the PRC is. Maybe you can convince your nation to completely disarm itself, and we'll see how many generations it lasts. I'll stay over here in the United States with Boeing, Rockwell, and Northrup's fine products (http://www.af.mil/photos/images/bombers_b2_0010.
Bush couldn't ratify Kyoto even if he wanted to, since the Senate voted against it 95-0 [globalwarming.org] in 1997 (admittedly it was non-binding, but it needed 67 votes to pass). Clinton signed the treaty, but during his term, he did nothing to try to implement it.
Well. If you feel unhappy about it, you know what you have to do, don't you? I don't think giving authority to 3rd party in anything has much popular support Stateside right now. But if you don't vote, you didn't do anything. In any case, Kyoto requires nuclear power if you're being a realist. We're building a shiny new one right here.. You'd need to build 40 in US to have same effect per capita. You think that's going to happen?
Note I didn't say it wouldn't be a good idea to do so. Just that I don't think it'll happen, at least not until the deserts in US soil start creeping..
Tedious, emotional, nationalistic and irrelevant as this rant is, as some goddamned fool has decided that it counts as insight, I might as well trawl through the drivel:
1. The fact that the USA has withdrawn from so many international activities (climate change, international criminal court, land mines) has resulted in it being subject to criticism. I'm glad that the poster regards this as placing the USA in a morally inferior position, but that is entirely his interpretation. To suggest that these initiatives were deliberately developed to embarrass the USA is completely delusional.
Quoting random statistics about Europe internal difficulties, whether real (anti-immigration policies) or imagined (crime rates vs. the USA) have no bearing on the case for action on climate change. One might as well decide to ignore Nelson Mandela given the crime rate in South Africa.
2. Europe will continue to make a number of changes in its economy to keep to the protocol. Whether you view this as changing or not changing its behaviour is irrelevant.
3. Your confident assurance that "Brussells" bureaucrats are not democratically elected will come as something of a surprise to the European Parliament responsible enforcing the Kyoto protocol. Or is democracy outside the US of A not democracy by definition?
4. I'm at a loss as to how to respond to this bit of incoherent blather. It appears to be a recitation of the first point, with a dig at evil US environmentalists thrown in for good measure. Presumably they are also making 'meaningless gestures to enhance their moral standing over the US'?
US is not some flawless country, as it appears to be in your eyes.
Nothing like starting out with an incorrect and ad hominem assertion about your oponent. At least my ad hominem assertion is correct!
But anyway, to the point. You argue that we drive SUV's because we have the freedom to do so.
WRONG. I argue that we drive SUV's because we cannot buy large, safe cars instead.
Next you argue that we are limiting our options, well considering that polution does change the atmosphere composition and thusly must at least trivially change the climate, it is logical to assume that a solution that requires more man-hours to impliment but dosen't change the atmosphere composition and also advances research in alternate fuel devices, instead of stagnating on fossel fules would be a prefered solution.
In addition to be grammatically incorrect, the above is utterly illogical. It implicitly gives an infinite cost to altering atmospheric composition in regard to all other alternatives.
You argue that researching alternate fuel technology will destroy economies.
I did? Gee... care to put in a quote?
Unfortunatly you don't understand economics it seems, because if 1: there is a demand for a product, and 2: there are people to produce the product then 3: you have a working economy. No matter what form of energy you have, an economy will sprout up around it, because thats the way capitalism works.
Speaking of not understanding economics... the above statement stands on its own! Economics is not about the existence or non-existence of an economy. It's a little more complicated than that!
Following the logic that capitalism always finds the best solution, with no regulation is falwed, it's a fairly trivial argument to state that it would be benifical to hunt wales to extinction in order to aquire thier oil, when cheaper solutions exist. This is what pure unregulated capitalism causes, and obviously it is not the prefered solution.
You mean to hunt whales... to acquire their oil? Anyway... who are you arguing with? I didn't assert that capitalism always finds the best solution. And my argument is not falwed, whatever that means.
You state the law of unintended consequences (the what?) as the reason SUV's are popular.
Hey, you got one right, for a change!
You state that this obviously makes all envirmental action 'stupid' and 'limiting your freedom'.
I did?
Unfortunatly, the only thing that can limit our freedom, is censorship,
Oh, so the only freedom you value is the freedom to bloviate? Some of us value other freedoms.
I'm not going to debate this point farther, but if you provide a real rebutal, I'll argue it.
If I knew what a rebutal was, I'd try to provide it. Or perhaps you meant rebuttal?
Asking people to avoid being need-lessly wastefull is not adverting freedom, nor is it stupid.
I would agree that it is not "adverting" freedom, whatever that means. But governments don't ask, they tell.
I'd like to modify a quote at this point "Your right to freedom stops at my grandchildrens grandchildrens grandchildrens enviromental wellfare",
Oh, so you are so farsighted that you know which of my actions are good for your descendant's welfare?
You claim your more productive than the rest of the world, really? I'd like to see that backed up.
Yes. Go look up world productivity statistics.
I go to work every day at a corperate situation,
My sympathies. I work for a corporation, but I don't go to work every day.
and make sure my network and applications work, is this more productive than the same job in brittan, how?
Weren't you the one asserting that I have no understanding of economics? Get a clue dude... efficiency can be measured, but not by looking at just your own job!
I find it hard to believe we are the most prodicutive country in the world, I know alot of people who don't do anything productive at all. A great deal of our money is in the servicing of people, to make thier lives easier, not in the production of any tangeable good.
So obviously your personal acquaintances are more convincing than real statistics. Why am I not surprised...
And to believe that servicing people is not productive is rather ancient thinking... say 19th century, don't you think?
I'd like to close with, have you ever been overseas?
Yeah, dude. Many times. I've been to Europe, I've been to Korea, Japan, what was called then South Vietnam, and many other places. I've been to communist East Germany and just barely post-Communist Czeckoslovakia. I've been to Latin America and various other countries. I've lived in France and worked in Britain. So much for your assumptions.
However, as far as I know I have never been to brittan!
and it is ludacrist
Uh... is ludacrist a religious figure or a new rock group? Just asking, you understand.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Which part of But the Bush administration has instead announced policy changes likely to push them up by 30 percent by 2010 did you miss ?
The United States of America is the world's last hope. Read it and weap, CO2 breathers.
Nowhere here will you find demands for female clitorectomy, nor male circumcision, nor destruction of those who believe not in Allah, the Green Future, nor Socialism. Beyond our borders, well, there be dragons.
As a result we are hated by Usama, the Foes of Pym, The Friends of Pym, The Friends of the Spotted Owl, et al.
Ho hum. Thus the fate of the last defenders of reason.
Fortunately, we're armed. And we have the WTC as guidance.
Adopt ye'r treaties, ye mighty Europeans (you know, ye that surrendered at the first shot of WWIII). We'll be sipping umbrella drinks when the sands cover all but ye'r highest monuments to ye'r own greatness (Oui, j'include la Defense, you sack of decadent scum).
Ozymandias
--
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Ok, got it. Surprises me nevertheless, because I've seen quite some cars in the US, which I would consider "big" (I never said, everybody is driving a SUV). So why are SUVs excluded? Sounds pretty stupid...
The National Academy of Sciences, not exactly a biased group, has estimated that somewhere between 2 and 3 thousand Americans die every year due to CAFE.
At this point, it would be really interesting to see some reliable figures of traffic deaths per capita or per car in the US vs. Europe. Unfortunately, at least my quick google search didn't turn up anything official... Anybody?
When I lived in Paris, I could buy all of my daily needs within a block. I didn't need to make a shopping trip. Americans, OTOH, need to go miles typically just to buy groceries.
When I lived in San Francisco, I could buy all of my daily needs within a block (ok, actually two). I didn't need to make a shopping trip. You're comparing the wrong places. If you live in rural areas in Europe you have to drive to a shopping center too... However, as I said before, I agree that this is more often the case in America than in Europe. But still I don't see, why you would need a SUV for that...
What Europeans tend to be is "superior" in that Americans are constantly getting lectured by you guys (at least in the media).
Right. But it's not like Americans never feel like they know how we Europeans should proceed... :-)
I would argue that Europeans have the luxury of worrying about such things because it doesn't cost them much personally to do so.
You said that before, and I still don't get it. Why would it cost you more to care about the environment? The Kyoto protocol want relative reducement! Nobody says, the US should have the same level of car emissions as Europe. And honestly: The height of the emission per captia figure of the US (2.5 times as high as Europe or Japan) can't really be explained with more transportation usage... So there should be a big area of possible improvement.
I also would argue that the Europeans are much more likely to approve of government regulating their lives and in general interfering more in their economy.
True. On of the fundamental differences in European and American culture. Not a bad thing in my opinion. I never understood this "don't trust your government"-attitude some Americans have.
pollution problems cannot be solved without the intervention of government, because the costs are not felt by the polluter and thus market mechanisms are not sufficient. The difference is that I have far less faith in governments to make correct interventions than Europeans seem to have.
I agree with both points. As I said, I don't know where this gerenal government distrust of many Americans comes from... (And before somebody flaims: There's a big difference between trusting your government in certain area and not questioning anything it does...).
And in the case of global warming, a good argument can be made that no action other than research is appropriate at this time. The uncertainties are too high as I have mentioned in previous posts.
No. First off, there's already disagreement about if there are any uncertainties about global warming. But let's say there are. Let's assume, we don't know for sure if global warming is happening. Then it's still not worth the risk! Reducing emissions now is the only way to assure we're not destroying the environment (well, not more than we already do, anyway).
One of the insults was the assertion that the post was "nationalist." Damned right. I believe, and can back up with an argument that doesn't belong in this discussion, that the US is a better nation than any European nation that I know (Britain being a close second) and am not afraid or ashamed to argue that. I realize that Europeans believe that nationalism is out of date and that extra-national bodies and procedures and agreements are the future of man (this is relevant - see 3 examples in point 1 below). I believe this view itself is dangerous and neglects history and the unfortunate nature of man.
1. The fact that the USA has withdrawn from so many international activities (climate change, international criminal court, land mines) has resulted in it being subject to criticism. ...misinterpretation of myargument deleted.... To suggest that these initiatives were deliberately developed to embarrass the USA is completely delusional.
Yes, it would be. Of course, those initiatives were not deliberately developed to embarrass the us, and of course I never suggested that.
I did suggest that there was an economic incentive for Europe to try to get the US into the Kyoto treaty, and there is. And if you believe that your governments are operating solely for the good of man and are not affected by such considerations, you are delusional.
I would also argue that such initiatives are partly due to European discomfort at no longer being the most powerful nations on earth, and in fact are partly an attempt to counter the power of the US, which they feel is dangerous and wrongly yielded, whether in environmental policy or the war on terrorism.
It is also true, that I, like many Americans, believe that all the three initiatives you mention above are foolish and dangerous.
As far as criticism from Europe, we hear it constantly, although mostly in regard to foreign policy. We constantly hear (through our Europhile new media) that we are "cowboys" while Europeans or "more sophisticated" or "more subtle." That criticism, as silly as it is, naturally biases us to be a bit less receptive to other European criticism. If you detect some anti-European ranting here, it is because this is an opportunity to respond to some of the anti-American whining constantly coming from Europe.
Europe will continue to make a number of changes in its economy to keep to the protocol. Whether you view this as changing or not changing its behaviour is irrelevant.
Yes, it is. Why do you bring it up?
Your confident assurance that "Brussells" bureaucrats are not democratically elected will come as something of a surprise to the European Parliament [eu.int] responsible enforcing the Kyoto protocol. Or is democracy outside the US of A not democracy by definition?
Actually, you are right. Sorry about that. I had out-of-date information.
4. I'm at a loss as to how to respond to this bit of incoherent blather. It appears to be a recitation of the first point, with a dig at evil US environmentalists thrown in for good measure. Presumably they are also making 'meaningless gestures to enhance their moral standing over the US'? Perhaps English is not your native language. Or perhaps you casually throw around terms like "incoherent blather" just for the fun of it. The fact that you cannot understand coherent English is, of course, a possibility. To spell it out in detail for you, Point 4 shows that contrary to what the previous poster represented, it is in fact possible that the US will sign Kyoto. It also points out why. I am sorry that the injection of my personal opinion into this point made it impossible for you to understand the factual information contained therein.
What would be more interesting would be for you to actually debate the issue of global warming, instead of picking at a reply to a reply to a reply.
Oh well...
The only good weather is bad weather.
For everyone who has never been to a country like India, but just compares per capita pollution, let me tell you how wrong you are. The pollution in India will make your headspin, literally. I was caught in a bigger than usual traffic jam once, Literally _Gasping_ for air, wanting to leave the car right there and run for some breathable atmosphere, a reaction not unlike being held underwater. For the rest of the day I had numerous symptoms of CO poisoning, among other unpleasant things.
Vehicles there have no (enforced) emmissions controls, some barely have exhaust systems at all, on top of which almost everything is diesel, which means black smoke out the exhaust of everything. Vehicles, and the landscape around them in Calcutta literally have a black tinge to them, which is so consistant you don't even notice until you look up close and you can scrape it off with your fingernails.
Not that it should be an excuse for the US not to do everything it can.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
Ok, got it. Surprises me nevertheless, because I've seen quite some cars in the US, which I would consider "big" (I never said, everybody is driving a SUV). So why are SUVs excluded? Sounds pretty stupid...
It is, but government often does stupid things. This is one of the reasons for American distrust of government (which you asked about elsewhere). It was, of course, a political compromise, which is what democracies do.
At this point, it would be really interesting to see some reliable figures of traffic deaths per capita or per car in the US vs. Europe. Unfortunately, at least my quick google search didn't turn up anything official... Anybody?
I agree. I have read the statistics in the past. I don't have anything current. As of the time I read it, the European rate was quite high. Actually a death rate per mile/km would be more meaningful than per capita.
However, as I said before, I agree that this is more often the case in America than in Europe. But still I don't see, why you would need a SUV for that...
Yes, it is much more the case because so much of our country was developed more recently, and because we have so much land. The reason for the SUV is simply size and safety. And again, I think there would be a lot fewer of them if we didn't have the silly CAFE rules.
Oddly enough, SUV's are also a status symbol. Why, I don't know. I guess for the same reason that many urban Americans who have never been close to a live bovine wear cowboy boots and dress. Sort of odd. I own SUV's strictly for safety and comfort, and also at because I sometimes go into country where I truly need a powerful vehicle with four wheel drive. I live in Arizona and we have plenty of wilderness left.
Right. But it's not like Americans never feel like they know how we Europeans should proceed... :-)
True enough. The difference is that our own media is mostly Europhile and continuously agrees with you guys.
You said that before, and I still don't get it. Why would it cost you more to care about the environment? The Kyoto protocol want relative reducement! Nobody says, the US should have the same level of car emissions as Europe. And honestly: The height of the emission per captia figure of the US (2.5 times as high as Europe or Japan) can't really be explained with more transportation usage... So there should be a big area of possible improvement.
It is because of our dependence on automobile transport, which is where the majority of the reductions would come. You guys are already paying the high taxes on gas and the high taxes for train systems, etc. We are not, but would have to. So the delta is large for us, but not for you.
True. On of the fundamental differences in European and American culture. Not a bad thing in my opinion. I never understood this "don't trust your government"-attitude some Americans have.
This is hardly the place to get into it in detail, but it is a major difference. I know why I don't trust government, but I don't know why you would trust it. I view government as a necessary evil, which means that prudence to me dictates as little government as necessary. I do not view government as an instrument for moral good, but only as an instrument to prevent harm. I value my freedom from coercion, and I deeply resent the already large amount of interference that the US government has in my life (but I recognize the need for that government, of course).
No. First off, there's already disagreement about if there are any uncertainties about global warming. But let's say there are. Let's assume, we don't know for sure if global warming is happening. Then it's still not worth the risk! Reducing emissions now is the only way to assure we're not destroying the environment (well, not more than we already do, anyway).
Ah, here we get to the heart of the matter. Here are some issues to ponder:
These are effects in the human system, which are even harder to predict than the climate itself! Thus my version of the precuationary principle is to avoid such major changes without a good idea of the harm they may cause!
My objection to Kyoto is that it can only be one of two things:
Overall, I do not object to emissions reductions. I object to doing it in a dumb way. For example, in the US we have not built any nuclear power plants since 1979, due to illogical and hysterical reactions fired by environmental extremists. And yet nuclear power is by far the cleanest large scale power source available - i.e. the only one that can make a major difference. The other "power source" that is significant is conservation, but the US has already taken major steps in this direction, with little effect at all! It seems that the more efficient we make things, the more we use them!
An ideal solution would be a hydrogen powered transportation system. Unfortunately, this would require tens of trillions of dollars of investment, just for the US. Furthermore, hydrogen power is far less energy efficient than gasoline (hence my desire for nuclear plants - to produce the electricity necessary to prepare the hydrogen). It may be that over time, we are able to evolve in this direction.
What I will fight is anything that compromises the safety of myself and others so that the people in 2100 can wait until 2106 to get the same amount of global warming. And I will also object to schemes which are likely to result in vast deaths in the third world due to economic losses resulting form those schemes. I would rather see a few degrees of temperature rise (and related sea level rise) if those people can be brought into the second or first world! And that is one of the possible tradeoffs - in spite of the Kyoto attempts to adjust the balance. First... a meta-comment. Thanks for the tone of your post. I just responded to one that was quite disrespectful (of course I responded in kind). Yours is a breath of fresh air.
Ok, got it. Surprises me nevertheless, because I've seen quite some cars in the US, which I would consider "big" (I never said, everybody is driving a SUV). So why are SUVs excluded? Sounds pretty stupid...
It is, but government often does stupid things. This is one of the reasons for American distrust of government (which you asked about elsewhere). It was, of course, a political compromise, which is what democracies do.
At this point, it would be really interesting to see some reliable figures of traffic deaths per capita or per car in the US vs. Europe. Unfortunately, at least my quick google search didn't turn up anything official... Anybody?
I agree. I have read the statistics in the past. I don't have anything current. As of the time I read it, the European rate was quite high. Actually a death rate per mile/km would be more meaningful than per capita.
However, as I said before, I agree that this is more often the case in America than in Europe. But still I don't see, why you would need a SUV for that... Yes, it is much more the case because so much of our country was developed more recently, and because we have so much land. The reason for the SUV is simply size and safety. And again, I think there would be a lot fewer of them if we didn't have the silly CAFE rules.
Oddly enough, SUV's are also a status symbol. Why, I don't know. I guess for the same reason that many urban Americans who have never been close to a live bovine wear cowboy boots and dress. Sort of odd. I own SUV's strictly for safety and comfort, and also at because I sometimes go into country where I truly need a powerful vehicle with four wheel drive. I live in Arizona and we have plenty of wilderness left.
Right. But it's not like Americans never feel like they know how we Europeans should proceed... :-)
True enough. The difference is that our own media is mostly Europhile and continuously agrees with you guys.
You said that before, and I still don't get it. Why would it cost you more to care about the environment? The Kyoto protocol want relative reducement! Nobody says, the US should have the same level of car emissions as Europe. And honestly: The height of the emission per captia figure of the US (2.5 times as high as Europe or Japan) can't really be explained with more transportation usage... So there should be a big area of possible improvement.
It is because of our dependence on automobile transport, which is where the majority of the reductions would come. You guys are already paying the high taxes on gas and the high taxes for train systems, etc. We are not, but would have to. So the delta is large for us, but not for you.
True. On of the fundamental differences in European and American culture. Not a bad thing in my opinion. I never understood this "don't trust your government"-attitude some Americans have.
This is hardly the place to get into it in detail, but it is a major difference. I know why I don't trust government, but I don't know why you would trust it. I view government as a necessary evil, which means that prudence to me dictates as little government as necessary. I do not view government as an instrument for moral good, but only as an instrument to prevent harm. I value my freedom from coercion, and I deeply resent the already large amount of interference that the US government has in my life (but I recognize the need for that government, of course).
No. First off, there's already disagreement about if there are any uncertainties about global warming. But let's say there are. Let's assume, we don't know for sure if global warming is happening. Then it's still not worth the risk! Reducing emissions now is the only way to assure we're not destroying the environment (well, not more than we already do, anyway).
Ah, here we get to the heart of the matter. Here are some issues to ponder:
My objection to Kyoto is that it can only be one of two things:
Overall, I do not object to emissions reductions. I object to doing it in a dumb way. For example, in the US we have not built any nuclear power plants since 1979, due to illogical and hysterical reactions fired by environmental extremists. And yet nuclear power is by far the cleanest large scale power source available - i.e. the only one that can make a major difference. The other "power source" that is significant is conservation, but the US has already taken major steps in this direction, with little effect at all! It seems that the more efficient we make things, the more we use them!
An ideal solution would be a hydrogen powered transportation system. Unfortunately, this would require tens of trillions of dollars of investment, just for the US. Furthermore, hydrogen power is far less energy efficient than gasoline (hence my desire for nuclear plants - to produce the electricity necessary to prepare the hydrogen). It may be that over time, we are able to evolve in this direction.
What I will fight is anything that compromises the safety of myself and others so that the people in 2100 can wait until 2106 to get the same amount of global warming. And I will also object to schemes which are likely to result in vast deaths in the third world due to economic losses resulting form those schemes. I would rather see a few degrees of temperature rise (and related sea level rise) if those people can be brought into the second or first world! And that is one of the possible tradeoffs - in spite of the Kyoto attempts to adjust the balance.
The only good weather is bad weather.
The American media is biased against Israel ? You must be having a laugh. Even a cursory glance at the reporting from the US networks compared to teh rest of the world's media will show a huge pro-Israel bias, to the extend that many stories that run elsewhere that may result in Israel being seen in a negative light are simply not run in the US media.
You do not use a reasonable benchmark. Bias is not measured against other media reporting.. it can only be measured against objective reality.
I make my own judgements on media. I also know the attitudes of american media. Even though there are a disproportionate number of Jewish people in and owning the media, it still has had an anti-Israel bias - especially since the start of the first Intifada. The reason is that the media has a marxist bias (by that I don't mean that the media is marxist, but that it leans in that direction). And the American take on Marxism is to reflexively support the oppressed. And the Palestinians are oppressed. So the American media tends to support them.
It is only since the foolish use of suicide bombers that the American media has started a more favorable showing of Israel. This is because Americans can identify with innocent civilians who look like them, think much like them and live much like them who are mercilessly killed and maimed. Of course, the events of 9/11 amplify that psychological bond. Even our media can identify with these victims. Thus the Palestinians have made the error of turning their enemy into a victim, even more appealing to our media's bias towards any victims than the Palestinians themselves. And of course, the events of 9/11 amplify that psychological bond.
Thus today the American media reports much more of the terrorism than it did before the use of these tactics. The Palestinians have made a terrible mistake, not to mention having committed acts of extreme moral repugnance, by their use of these tactics. They have lost most of the American media's natural bias towards them.
BTW, I also read the Arab and Israeli media and find that the Arab media is by far the most biased. The Israeli media available on the web ranges from right wing to left wing, and get quite a diversity of reporting from there.
What this has to do with global warming... I don't know. But I am simply responding.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Hmmm... China and India's combined CO2 emissions total about 70% of the United States levels as of 1995. Looky here [geocities.com].
Which by the numbers in the article would mean they accounted for 25% the amount of the industrial nations. (36% [from the story] * 0.70)
Considering the US only accounted for about 11% more of the industrial nation aggregate than that and it is the "biggest polluter in the world" maybe other countries ought to clean up after themselves before getting high and mighty? >64% of the stuff isn't made by the US.
That also goes to show what skewed nonsense these numbers are. Unless developing nations C02 is of some different nature than US created C02, the aggregate numbers should include it. By not doing so, you ignore that there are several other countries combined making as much pollution as the horrible US and greatly inflating the percent created by the US. In this case, the US's 23%, by only including 80% of the total C02 output, inflates the US percentage by nearly 25% from 18%. (23% * 0.80 = ~18%)
Also look at the huge difference in the US and other countries with ton/km. Shouldn't this sort of thing be sorted by amount of space a country takes up? The world would have ended if the US polluted half as much as Japan or Germany per ton/km.
With skewed numbers and "the sky is falling" apocalyptic rational, I'm left wondering if there isn't something else at work here.
--
I'll forgive linking to Geocities, I think I had a site there in 1995 =)
Oh, but it is the way of the geek. To be so concerned about the world we live in, yet not really care that our dual athlons that run 24/7 might be contributing to what we care about. I have to laugh sometimes.
Basicly China and India CAN'T reduce their CO2 exhaust.
But China and India have other VERY serious pollution problems that is not addressed by the Kyoto Protocols.
I have relatives who have visited China in the last few years and they tell me the smokestack and vehicle exhaust pollution problems in Chinese cities make Los Angeles at a Stage II smog alert seem like a minor problem in comparison. And China has never really developed effective means to combat water pollution, with effluents from their major cities going straight out into the rivers and oceans with what amounts to no sewage treatment.
Like I said in another message, I won't support the Kyoto Protocol because it does nothing to reduce Third World pollution problems.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Look at the average size of a Mercury Grand Marquis, or a Lincoln Town Car. Compare them to the standard models of each fifteen years ago, both of which still appear on most roads. Are these cars even expensive? The Grand Marquis, IIRC, has a sticker price of about $22,000. What does an Expedition go for these days?
So it's crap. The argument "cleaner emissions standards forced people to buy SUVs" doesn't hold water, unless people are refusing to buy large cleaner cars because they're more efficient, which seems absurd to me.
People's decisions were made on the basis of a number of factors: Estate cars were replaced by minivans, but minivans weren't seen as "sexy" by consumers; SUVs appear more versatile than the Boats they competed against and "just as good" as minivans without the bad image; fuel prices were low (arguably too low); drivers of them (ironically, for it isn't true) feel safer driving them because of the height; and they've been well marketed.
That's why SUVs have taken off. Unintended consequences my arse, unrelated occurances perhaps.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is a common misunderstanding, based simply on the idea of momentum conservation in a head-on collision. Big cars are inherently safer - even if they collide with each other. Put another way, they are safer in a collision with a stationary boundary, they are safer in a side collision. An important ratio is that of the mass of the car to that of its occupants. This is in addition to the ratio of the mass of the car to the mass of what it collides with (conservation of momentum).
As to your argument about CAFE and SUV's, you just don't understand at all. Without CAFE, there would be much more choice in big cars. There would more choice... period. Certainly some people buy SUV's for other reasons (I originally bought SUV's to go to otherwise inaccessible places), but CAFE standards have a major impact.
If you don't believe me, read what the trade press has to say about it. Americans didn't make light trucks over 50% of total new car sales just out of wierdness!
The only good weather is bad weather.
>True. On of the fundamental differences in >European and American culture. Not a bad thing >in my opinion. I never understood this "don't >trust your government"-attitude some Americans >have.
This is hardly the place to get into it in detail, but it is a major difference. I know why I don't trust government, but I don't know why you would trust it. I view government as a necessary evil, which means that prudence to me dictates as little government as necessary. I do not view government as an instrument for moral good, but only as an instrument to prevent harm. I value my freedom from coercion, and I deeply resent the already large amount of interference that the US government has in my life (but I recognize the need for that government, of course).
I can tell you why there is a healthy need for a distrust of government: the use of force to achieve a goal.
Government, by its very nature, has the ability to use force on YOU to accomplish its goals. If the government decides to imprison you, they can do so at a whim, EVEN WITH A CONSTITUTION. The only thing keeping government powers in check is the willful outrage of the public -- the EXPECTATION that if the government DID start tromping all over citizen rights that the populace would revolt, or riot, or perhaps even "vote the bums out of office" (with the latter not being much of a threat to a truly aggresive government). Even Lincoln, a huge proponent of the Union, suspended habeus corpus. Go directly to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
Government is the only legal entity that can deprive you of life, liberty, or your pursuit of happiness. And they get to set the rules by which they operate. True, in an enlightened civilization this kind of abuse is rare, but it could happen anywhere, anytime, historical documents like The Constitution be damned. You could be killed tomorrow by the government, and years later the courts could decide that it was illegal. Someone might be punished, apologies could be made, money may even change hands betwixt your survivors and the government -- but you'd still be dead.
This may sound anti-government, but that's not my stance. "I love my country, I fear my government". We should always have a healthy distrust of any organization that wields power over our individual freedoms. This SHOULD be natural, but apathy and complacency generally work against these instincts.
Remember this: no person, no entity, no organization, NOTHING on this Earth, has your best interests in mind more than YOU. No one is better equipped to look out for you and what you want than you. YOU are BORN with freedom. Every law that exists beyond that is a restriction on said freedom. No one should take that lightly.
Europeans have (IMO) become quite used to a very authoritative governmental structure, so it's apparently easy for them to accept the idea that good 'old big government is quite correct to tell them what to do, when they can do it, and how they have to go about it. The U.S. was FOUNDED on the very principle that when it comes to your personal freedoms, NOBODY has the right to tell you what to do unless exercising your freedom somehow impinges on someone else's freedom. True, we have strayed far from that in the last half century, much to my/our chagrin, but it IS what the founding fathers had in mind.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Try comparing the choice of larger "cars" (including minivans) to that of 15 years ago. It's actually a bigger choice, as not only are the big 3 manufacturing minivans *and* boats, but a substantial number of the other manufacturers are making minivans as well, who simply didn't address that market 15 years ago.
And, yes, minivans are subject to CAFE. Nor would larger cars have been dropped for CAFE anyway - if you can make a Mercury Grand Marquis Saloon comply with CAFE, how could Ford not produce a CAFE equivalent Grand Marquis Station Wagon?
So number of choices has little to do with it (unless one wants to argue that it's TOO MUCH CHOICE that's caused the problem!.) All that we've seen is a real attempt to market SUVs, usually to people who would be actively better off with another vehicle but choose the SUV because it's "sexier".
I keep seeing the phrase "unintended consequences" applied to things that rarely are in fact consequences. Perhaps it's an unintended consequence of that book, Unintended Consequences...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It's not that I never drive: Feet, bus and bike can get me to most places. From time to time, I'll take a cab. When I do want to do somethign that requires my own car, I rent one (or borrow), but the setup structurally forces me to consider whether I really do need a car for a particular purpose (and most of the time, the answer really is no).
In the short time that I owned a car (about a year), what I found is that I used it far more often than I had to .. The convenience of starting a few minutes later, and using the car instead of the bus was far too fetching, but it kept on nagging on my consciense. I was very happy to finally let it go.
Cutting greenhouse gasses is both a political question and a personal question. If we want to slow down the greenhouse effect, we will have to make changes, and some of them will be inconvenient.
BTW: Using the bus isn't entirely a bad thing. When I drive, I have to devote my focus on driving. Using the phone is, at best half-hearted, and I definitely can't do things like sleep, study or work on paperwork -- all of which I can do while using transit. Of course, the occasional opportunity to hit on beautiful babes on the bus is far easier than the equivalent when driving a car.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
China has 4.6 times the population of the USA (1210 million people). India has 3.6 times the population of the USA (952 million people). Together thay have over 8 times the population of the USA.
They actually produce less than 1/8th of the USA's pollution per capita.
And both are extremely poor countries whose industry is mostly owned by foreign companies (mostly american).
The USA should save some money on bombs and aircraft carriers and spy satellites and spend some money modernising its industry. US industry needs to be competitive and play by global rules; not live off subsidies and tariffs and produce one quarter of the world's pollution. And the only way the american government is going to chage its policy is if the american people start to make some noise. Unfortunately, some (most) people in the USA don't know there's a planet outside their borders.
Funny thing is, the Earth fights back. The USA has more (and bigger) natural disasters (tornados, earthquakes, floods, etc.) than any other country in the world. Makes you think about the Gaia theory...
RMN
~~~
read some of the posts below and you will understand why the US withdrew. kyoto does nothing to prevent other countries not in the agreement from going apeshit in the CO2 department. China, for example. You say that the rest of the world could accept the protocol. There is the problem. The rest of the world did not accept it. Because of that fact it means that some countries will take a hard economic hit while others who are not in the protocol will not. So where is the benefit of joining?
SUV's safer???? Maybe, possibly you are less likely to be injured in the event of an accident. But their more difficult handling compared to a passenger car, and their greatly increased chances of rollover type accidents, I'd say you are more likely to get hurt simply due to the greater chance of an acccident.
One vehicle, that gets into 10 accidents at an 80 percent injury rate, is safer than one with a 50% injury rate but has 20 accidents.
Note, those numbers were plugged in for clarity of explanation only. They are not accurate except in the most general less/more sense.
The fact is, SUVs get in more accidents and tend to be more severe accidents, and regardless of how much safer they are in a fender bender, people die quite easily in them. The one auto accident I've ever been involved in(as a passenger) was in an SUV. My father survived ONLY because of his seat belt. WE rolled over THREE TIMES. All that happened was our tire blew out, and that flipped us. Out of the tens of thousands of times I've been in vehicles of all sorts, thats the only time I've ever been inside a vehicle during an accident.
When I buy an SUV for safety, I am not foolish enough not to use my seatbelt.
And, I tend to believe the NAS when they say that smaller cars are causing 2000-3000 deaths per year in the US. They have no axe to grind.
The only good weather is bad weather.
As I said, this is both a political and a personal issue, and the political decisions do affect the personal ones. As long as the Car and Petroleum industry lobbies have more sway in our legislative halls than most people, it will continue to be the case that cars will be easier to use than SOVs (Single Occupant Vehicles).
Driving a vehicle in rush hour is more stess-generating, more expensive and more environmentally taxing than taking transit, but people feel bound to do it because our lawmakers put way more money per user into Car support than we do into mass transit. That discourages people from using transit even though it is, in many cases, cheaper and faster and more relaxing (or would be with minimal investment).
With North America being
- The heaviest per-captia generators of greenhouse gasses, and
- The most unwilling to do anything about it
If we aren't willing to do something about global warming soon, Our grandchildren may find Los Angeles' beaches replaced with dikes and windmills.(both Canada and the US are refusing to ratify the treaty, even after getting massive concessions from the rest of the world)
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
As the submitter of this story, I'd like to say a couple of things:
;-)
1. Sorry. It wasn't meant to be submitted anonymously, I realised I'd done it only after I hit the final submit button. I assume I'd highlighted my name on the submission form or something and hit space, or otherwise cleared it. Either that or there's a bug in Slashcode...
2. The original was a little longer, and people complaining that I didn't read the article I linked to would have seen that the comment about the US agreeing to a 7% cut in emissions was coupled with a comment implying they'd gone back on their word. I assume the Slashdot editors thought I was trolling or something - no, I'm just pissed off about the issue. The US did agree to such a thing, that is, that's what they negotiated and agreed to at the Kyoto summit. They then went back on that agreement, with the legislature and Bush both rejecting what they'd signed up for.
Depressing.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
What about this, fuckwit?
Ever remember the Ozone hole craze? This was supposed to be uneviatable end of
the word and no measure should have been able to fix it in hundred s of years. So
where is the hole?
It's doing quite well, fuckwit. Just because it's not anymore fashionable to write about and you in your amazing ignorance would prefer to pretend it's not there doesn't mean it's any less of a threat.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Screw anyone that says I can not
--
E_NOSIG