Slashdot Mirror
Kyoto Protocol Renewal Efforts Struggling
Hugh Pickens writes "Economics trumps the environment. The emission targets set by the Kyoto Protocol will expire next year, and negotiators are fighting to keep UN climate talks on track while efforts to save the Euro push the struggle to save the planet down the priority list. In the United States, seen as the biggest single obstacle to a new global climate deal, academic opinion says an 'iron law' means economics trumps the environment in times of crisis. Meanwhile, some leading voices on climate science have suggested the Kyoto Protocol be put to pasture, since clinging to hopes of a renewal of that agreement does more harm than good in achieving meaningful dialogue on how to fight climate change. When the agreement was negotiated in the 1990s, the world was more clearly divided into 'rich and poor' countries. However, China and India have seen unexpectedly strong economic growth since then, and currently make up 58 per cent of global emissions. 'Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that countries such as Japan, Canada and Russia adamantly refuse to assume new binding targets unless the other major economies at present outside Kyoto's reach — most notably, the United States and China — do so as well,' writes Elliot Diringer, executive vice-president of the U.S.-based Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 'And for now, the odds of that happening are nil.'"
One world government is a horrible, horrible idea. Where can you escape to when the one world government becomes intolerable?
Truly representative government on such a scale is impossible--we might as well have a global hereditary monarchy.
pray tell me, where can you escape to now ? Our multinational overlords are everywhere.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
This isn't just about the econmy trumping the environment, it's about the economy now trumping the economy in the near future. Global warming will have enormous associated costs... but not yet, so it somehow doesn't count?
Canada can barely manage with two languages.
This concept of yours is based on...?
A nation... and that was the eventual goal of the whole EU dream...
Quite simply wrong. The EU, as a concept, was formed in the crucibles of WW1 and WW2.
You were never going to erase the French from a Frenchman
More hyperbole. Where exactly do you get all these kooky ideas from?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
EU started out with the goals of guaranteeing food security for Europe with agricultural programs to stabilize prices, and also to boost international trade by harmonizing safety and export legislation.
No. I hope you're American, because at least you have a reason to be clueless about the reason behind the existence of the EU. If you're british..... well, I hope the US won't save your ass next time the continent decides to blow up again.
Here's how the EU got started: http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/1945-1959/index_en.htm The start of the EU was a steel and coal industry treaty. It's purpose? To keep countries from trying to monopolize steel and coal to build the best armies. In short, the EU has its roots in a very simple idea: the only way to prevent Europe from being engulfed in another massive war is to economically integrate everybody. France won't start a war with Germany for the same reason you don't shoot your foot (on purpose, at least).
That is why everyone is up in a fucking tizzy over the possible breakup of the Euro, and consequently the EU. There WILL be another war in Europe in our lifetime if that happens. There might be one if the EU sticks around, but it's far less likely.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Ah, some of us Americans are actually engineers and whatnot. People need energy. You need to produce energy semi-locally. If you move power from Maine to California, you're going to lose a lot of juice along the way. This is very important, because reliability can be more important than just the base cost of electricity production.
A power grid needs large, cheap, reliable electricity generation. Solar/wind are not (yet?) reliable, even if they could scale cheaply. Reliable as in "It WILL make X, on demand, with a guaranteed uptime of 99.99%." Tidal/geothermal may pan out in the scaling, availability and cost. We'll see, and we should explore it. Hydro, coal and nuclear are RELIABLE. That is why we are dependent on them for electricity. Base cost is not everything.
Nuclear power currently is the cleanest and safest power source that can scale, is highly available and cheap enough. Safest, if you factor number of deaths per TWh. We can build reactors that are even safer, cheaper and more efficient, and very much should. Being environmentally clean is a form of efficiency, of course. Problem is, America and the world is filled with too many folks with superstitious beliefs regarding nuclear power. But we cannot do without nuclear power. As a result, we are stuck with aging, marginally safe reactors. Largely because of anti-nuclear activists who are attempting to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Don't get me wrong. Anything involving nuclear power should be monitored very closely. It does have danger, and only a fool would think otherwise.
Big surprise, any specific industry has considerations that are complicated. Simple "clean energy is our only consideration" positions are nice and all. Some of us have to actually keep the lights on while the ideology debate rages on. All I ask is you do your homework, and counterbalance your ideology with education. I don't necessarily want you to agree with me, just be informed enough to actually have a knowledgeable opinion.