It's everyone, not just wealthy corporate folk that don't want to decrease their profit margin. In fact, they won't decrease their profit margin. They'll keep earning the same amount of money and to cope with higher costs they will just move those factories into exempt countries and take the jobs of the average Joe with them.
Mr. CEO will still be collecting his multi-million dollar salary and probably even earn a bonus for his cost-saving business decisions. Meanwhile, hundreds or thousands of ex-employees of that company will be out of work and certainly producing less CO2 because they have no friggin' money to spend.
No, Kyoto will not harm the rich CEOs. It will most specifically harm the grunts making the CEOs rich.
Redistributing wealth around the world is a worthy cause anyway
Redistribute your wealth, then, and let me decide whether or not I want to redistribute mine. But if you're going to try to pass legislation (in the form of a treaty) that requires me to redistribute my wealth then you damn well better present it as a treaty to redistribute wealth... Not try to sneak it in under the radar hoping that some people won't be able to differentiate between economics, politics, and environmentalism.
and in any case, the politics of Kyoto are more important; implementing it will cause people to be more open to the idea of further greenhouse gas cutbacks in future.
Ahh, just like the Patriot Act is good because it will cause people to be more open to even further restrictions in their civil rights? Both are examples of incrementalism and both should be rejected.
And what's wrong with a little redistribution of wealth ?
Well, nothing, I guess... as long as the plan that is to distribute our wealth to foreign countries is presented to the world and American citizens as "The Plan to Redistribute Your Wealth to Developing Nations" and not done under the banner of "environmentalism."
Kyoto is not an environmental protocol. It's a political and economic protocol disguised as environmentalism. Plain and simple. That's why we dropped it like last week's news.
Heck, had Kyoto ever been seriously considered in the U.S. the FTC should have gone after it as a violation of "truth in advertising."
In other news, 75% of the owners of McDonald's franchises believe that including McDonald's in your diet is not a bad idea. The other 25% had no opinion but that may be because they didn't stop munching on their Big Mac.
This is not surprising at all. Very few human beings bite the hands that feed them and scientists are human--those in academia are especially human and especially political. They're not going to be out there proving that global warming isn't happening or that it is a natural phenomenon when doing so, in sufficient numbers, will guarantee that funding will dry up on the topic and they'll have to find another research gravy train.
This also doesn't consider how many studies may have been done, submitted for publishing, and rejected. This could be just as much a political condemnation on those that decide whether or not a study is worthy of being published as it is any comment on the validity of global warming and/or its possible human sources.
Any time you see every scientist agree (or at least no scientist disagree) on a very controversial topic, be very suspicious.
"In some cases, Web surfers would be well-advised to stay clear of banner ads. Last month, ZDNet UK reported that hackers have attacked ad servers and have modified the banner ads so that they redirect users to Web sites that download malicious code."
Perhaps users should stay away from Internet Explorer rather than the banners ads!
They started doing this in Mexico probably 2 years ago. It used to be that everything started on the hour or half hour. But for some time (I can't remember exactly when, I don't watch TV myself... my wife does) the evening programs started at 8:15pm and 9:15pm on one station. I concluded that this was done precisely so that people could not watch their shows and also watch the shows on the competition network (there are only 2 primary TV networks in Mexico).
Personally it doesn't bother me because none of the crap on either of the TV networks down here is worth watching. It's even worse than American networks.
The latter measure is better than the former. However using GDP itself is flawed since GDP also includes a measure of the value of the currency, not necessarily the intrinsic value of the item produced. For example China's currency is effectively devalued compared to the dollar and so its GDP per unit of CO2 produced looks worse than it should because of this.
Perhaps, but GDP is the only way to accurately measure its potential contribution to the world economy. That is, even if China's GDP is devalued due to its devaluated currency then any contribution China can make to the world economy is also depressed. If they want to invest or purchase foreign goods they will be limited by the same depressed GDP. So GDP is the best measure to compare global economic activity.
Agreed, I am just pointing out the two extremes of measures of economic acitivity. However it is wrong to assume that GDP measures economic activity per se as it measures a combination of economic activity and currency fluctuatons.
True, but again currency fluctuations do impact how much their economy can invest or purchase from the rest of the world so it is valid to use a measure that takes that into account.
However looking at CO2 production per unit of GDP (as PPP) is useful in the sense that allows you to get some measure of the amount of CO2 produced for a given standard of living. There are many measures you can use, though. The old lies, damned lies, and statistics issue.
Agreed on the issue of statistics. But I'm not talking about the amount of CO2 produced for a given standard of living. I'm talking about the amount of CO2 produced for a given amount of economic activity--or generation of wealth. I think that the issue of pollution has to be separated completely from the issue of standard of living. They are two very different issues. This is why I think GDP makes a better measure. Granted, we're not determining their standard of living... we're just taking a cold, hard look at how good they are at producing wealth compared to how much pollution they create. If this is truly about the environment then that's all we care about at this time.
Raising the standard of living in developing countries is another issue that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the environment.
It's difficult, as if you impose that now you may have the side effect of saying that rich countries should be able to stay rich. If Kyoto included those terms right now those countries wouldn't sign it.
I think we're getting closer to agreeing on what we're each arguing here.
I agree. If you apply reductions to everyone then developing countries won't like it. But that, to me, suggests they really aren't interested in the environment anyway. Which I still believe is a large factor. As long as there are exceptions--as valid as those exceptions may be for the political reasons you state--the treaty will not achieve CO2 reductions. It will move the production of CO2 from where there are strict limits to areas where there are not. Jobs will go with it. But the CO2 production hasn't been reduced at all, just moved elsewhere in the world. Net effect on the environment: None.
The best chance at improving the environment is to make sure that developing countries that are constantly building new plants are building plants with the most CO2-efficient technologies in place. It's cheaper to build a brand new plant with efficient CO2 production in a plant you were going to build anyway than to try to retrofit an already relatively efficient plant to achieve the same reductions. And there are a heck of a lot more people (and thus potential industry) in the developing world. So we must focus on the developing world if our real goal is to reduce worldwide CO2 production. Anything else just doesn't make sense if the goals are truly environmental.
Given that several countries have created a CO2 credit trading sche
It does nothing of the sort. One of the most efficient Western nations in terms of GDP production per unit of CO2 produced is Italy, but Italy has a significantly lower GDP per capita than the USA.
So? GDP per capita has nothing to do with GDP production per unit of CO2 produced. I'm not saying that the most pollution efficient countries will necessarily be the richest. I'm saying that production should occur in countries that most efficiently generated GDP with low CO2--or less efficient countries should be made more efficient.
If what you say about Italy is true (I haven't checked but I'll take your word on it) then just as it makes more sense (from a pollution standpoint) to produce economic activity in the U.S. over China, it would also make more sense to produce economic activity in Italy over the United States.
Me: "The U.S. has an $11 trillion economy and produces 1,446,777 kilotons of CO2. China has a $6.449 trillion economy and produces 917,997 kilotons of CO2"
You: Only if you measure the economies in terms of dollar value. If you use PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) the difference isn't so obvious. So the question is do you measure GDP in terms of dollar value, which is subject to currency fluctuations, or based on the level of actual economic activity?
GDP measures economic activity in absolute terms. PPP does not. If you're comparing worldwide economic activity and the contribution of each country to that worldwide economic activity the GDP is a better choice of measurement.
Certainly moving production to a location where the total person-industry CO2 production per unit of economic activity is better makes a lot of sense. I am not sure if this is necessarily the USA as you have to take into account both the CO2 cost of the good and the CO2 cost of the worker and their consumption.
Whatever. I'm not trying to make the case that the U.S. is the #1 most efficient country in regards to CO2 production compared to economic activity. I am making the case the Kyoto--which currently exempts the most inefficient countries--should be focused on making those inefficient countries more efficient rather than limiting the output of relatively efficient countries like the United States (and Italy and whatever other countries are relatively efficient).
If you have an inefficient industrial process but poor workers who produce little CO2 in their daily consumption it might be more efficient overall in terms of CO2 than a very efficient industrial process with workers that are rich and consume a larger amount of resources and conequent CO2 production. You'd have to look per country and per industry on this. The most efficient (in terms of CO2 production), though is to have efficient factories and poor workers that can't consume many material goods.
You're getting into hypotheticals. Which is fine. But I don't think we have CO2 production broken out on a consumer and industrial basis. We have totals for each country which somtimes are divided by population to get per capita production of CO2--but that doesn't necessarily mean the consumers consume more CO2... it may simply mean they live in countries with industries that produce a lot of CO2.
However the analysis above is assuming that the consumption of goods is based on traditional models. There is a great opportunity for the USA to fund modes of living that are efficient in terms of energy, consumption, and production which might allow a good standard of living while consuming relatively few natural resources. This would effectively transform the footprint of the affluent worker into that of the currently poor worker. This would be the best of both worlds.
I agree. I fully support research and eventual deployment of alternative energies such as solar, wind power, nuclear, etc. What I don't support is arbitrary draconian cuts in CO2 production that don't apply equally to all countries before we have alternative energy sources available. That's what Kyoto does. Once we have alternative energy sources I fully support moving to those energy sources and, as a result, automatically reducing CO2 production--with or without Kyoto.
There's really no point in continuing an argument with someone that can't even spell tariffs or ridiculous.
Ahhhh, I see. That makes all the difference right? I'm far more concerned about your lack of understanding of the difference between the UN, WTO, and Europe. I'm far more concerned about you opining on Bush's political decisions when you clearly don't have a clue as to his motivations. Yeah, misspelling two words is far more relevant and reveals just how little I know, right?
Would it make any difference if I told you that I'm bilingual and the reason I sometimes make spelling mistakes in English is because I've lived outside the United States for the last 9 years and, believe it or not, your native language does get rusty when you are pretty much only using your second language? Nah, that wouldn't coincide with your stereotype of an American not knowing anything about the rest of the world, only speaking English, and basically being unlightened.
If your sole contribution to this discussion is reenforcing your own stereotype of Americans then I don't think this discussion will lose anything by you withdrawling. It is clear you have very little information relevant to the real topics being discussed and your views are based more on your stereotypes than on knowledge of the topics or anything resembling reality.
Sit down, anonymous troll, and let the adults discuss this.
I don't live in this alternate universe of yours where companies always look several years down the road.
If the efficiency to be gained by installing new plants were as significant as the environmentalists would have us believe, damn right companies would do it. But in reality the gain in efficiency is much less--and probably even a loss of efficiency--which is why they don't do it unless the government forces them to.
For a large number of companies, making money next quarter to keep shareholders happy a little longer is all that matters, and the capacity to make money in the far off future just doesn't matter to them.
That's a typical Slashdot anti-corporate view. Yes, there are short-sighted companies. Yes, they might sometimes make what appear to be decisions based on only short-term benefits. But in the end many of these companies have existed for decades and they didn't accomplish that by consistently being stupid. Slashdot airmchair quarterbacks that normally have little or no experience in business administration and finances second-guessing the moves of multi-billion corporations just seems a little whimpy to me.
That, plus the problem of early adapters always getting the shaft.
Bingo! Wait for the technology to mature! Wait for the technology to be ready! And you're holding this against the companies? Come on, it makes complete sense. The technology will be ready someday and when it makes financial sense to upgrade, they will.
Even if a technology will eventually be usefully profitable, it won't be to the first few companies that try it, and when you have an industry with a small number of large companies (like the electricity business), nobody wants to be that first innovator that gets hosed. They want the others to try it first.
So if this is so important then the government should fund research to mature the technology so no-one takes a risk. It makes no sense to simply mandate that everyone must take a risk on immature technology.
This would all be rather moot if environmentalists weren't so opposed to building new nuclear power plants. It's the least pollutive, and cheapest, and most efficient electrical production method available.
I agree. Which pushes me further towards my belief that environmentalists aren't really concerned about the environment. They're agenda is social and economic reorganization of the world. They just use the environment as a means to an end.
1) option one: it's called self-employment. Using your own money in your own small-business. They create their own jobs.
Yes, and some of us start poor. But most either become richer and start employing others or eventually give up and get employed by someone that is richer than us that had better luck. My statement stands. Poor people don't employ people. They may be self-employed but that's not the same as giving jobs to others. Rich people do that.
2) option two: everybody who is saving money in the bank is generating jobs per definition of investment. savings => credit => investment
And relatively rich people usually end up borrowing money to make more money. It's not impossible, but few poor people get business loans because they are a credit risk. So even though the money saved by a bunch of poor people makes credit available, it's usually the relatively rich that actually put that money to use, invest it in their idea, and employ others.
The key fallacy in your world view (by this I mean the way you believe that the world works) is that the economy can not exist and work without rich people, because only they can generate jobs. This leads to the immediate conclusion, that bigger wealth disparities are benefitial because they create more jobs.
No, of course not. It's not that bigger wealth disparities are beneficial. But it's a recognition that wealth disparities will always exist.
That exclusive claim is false. All that is really needed are people willing to save their money and entrepreneurs with ideas for investment.
And that depends on people having enough money to save in the first place (most poor people don't) and also depends on banks making high-risk loans to low-income entrepreneurs--something that is also unlikely.
None of the person playing these two roles needs to be really, badly rich. The investors can be poor people saving their money in current accounts. The banking sector does a good job of converting these short-term savings into long-term credits for entrepreneurs.
But only people with some amount of collateral are going to get loans from a bank. The poor sure aren't. I'm not saying that anyone has to be filthy rich like Bill Gates, but the rich are not the enemy.
Let me restate my point: Rich people are not the sole creators of jobs in the economy. There is no need worship them for it. Please stop propagating such a personality cult
I do not worship them and I do not claim they are the sole creators of jobs in the economy. But you are denying reality if you don't accept that they are the major creators of jobs in the economy.
I don't deny the logic that some jobs might be lost. That isn't the issue.
Well you better start making it the issue. As long as environmentalists push draconian environmental regulations on the world in the form of things like Kyoto without considering the fact that jobs will be lost they are bound to encounter resistance.
Most critics of global warming don't deny the logic that man-made pollutants can affect the climate. But what has been repeatedly called into question by critics is the statistical significance of these changes compared to the climate's natural fluctuations. All I ask is that these dire economic forecasts of yours be held to the same standard of statistical proof as the environmentalist's dire climactic forecasts.
So you're saying that even though global warming scaremongers haven't proven a statistically significant change in temperature beyond natural fluctuations that we still have to prove business (not economic!) forecasts are correct? That's bogus. We still don't have a statistically significant proof that climate change is human-induced which means any policy changes are very premature.
If it can be shown that there is a statistically significant movement in temperature above and beyond natural fluctuations and if it can be shown that this higher temperature will actually provoke climate changes that are detrimental to the human race and if it can be shown that these detrimental effects will have an economic cost higher than the economic cost of implementing these regulations then we're good to go. But so far the environmentalists haven't proven any of these points much less all of them.
Is there any scientific proof that the unemployment rate has ever been significantly affected by environmental legislation? I didn't think so.
Huh? That's bogus logic too. Because since 1948 we've never implemented environmental legislation so draconian as what we'd have to do if we implemented Kyoto. And please understand that Kyoto is not environmental legislation. It is a sociological and political document. As long as the same terms don't apply to all countries, industry will move to those countries where both labor is cheap and environmental regulations are lax. That's simply not debateable. It's a fact. We see companies moving overseas just for the cheap labor. If you further push them with draconian and expensive environmental legislation they will leave. They will pick up and move to India and keep producing the exact same amount of pollution but now they'll do it in India instead of the United States. On a worldwide basis the amount of CO2 has not been reduced, it's just been relocated.
If Kyoto is not going to reduce pollution then what in the world do you think it is meant to do? As soon as you come to this realization you find that it is not paranoid to believe that it's real agenda is simply sociopolitical. They want to allocate more wealth and jobs to developing countries and take them away from developed nations. It's that simple. They want to make poor countries richer and rich countries poorer. It's the only explanation for an "environmental" treaty that doesn't actually help the environment but does encourage companies to move overseas.
I won't be surprised if you find this to be a radical point of view, but it's the truth. The sooner people realize that Kyoto is not going to help the worldwide environment the sooner people will recognize it for what it is. If the world wants to engage in a massive transfer of wealth and jobs then they need to propose that kind of treaty as exactly what it is and let the chips fall where they may. But I resent it being proposed under the guise of environmentalism when it is anything but.
i don't understand. this does nothing other than allow the rich to remain rich. clearly not fair, good luck getting the rest of the world to agree to that obviously.
No. It allows the efficient to continue producing efficiently while pushing the inefficient to produce more value for the amount of pollution they create.
Let me put this in perspective. The U.S. has an $11 trillion economy and produces 1,446,777 kilotons of CO2. China has a $6.449 trillion economy and produces 917,997 kilotons of CO2. So the U.S. produces 1.58 times as much CO2 but our economy is 1.71 times larger. From a pollution perspective we're doing more economic activity with relatively less pollution.
So who needs to adjust their habits? The U.S.? Buzzzz. Wrong answer. Currently China and the U.S. together produce 2,364,774 kilotons of CO2 per year with total economic activity of $17.449 trillion. Let's say you arbitrarily say that we need to reduce our emissions by 10% from 1,446,777 to 1,302,099. Let's just say that means our economy will drop 10% to $9.9 trillion. Let's say that that lost $1.1 trillion goes to China so their economy increases by 17% to $7.549 trillion and that that means a 17% increase in their economy means a 17% increase in their emissions to 1,074,056 kilotons per year.
The result? The total economic activity of China and the U.S. hasn't changed but now CO2 output has increased from 2,364,774 kilotons to 2,376,155 kilotons and jobs have been lost in the United States as economic activity moved to China. And that's not even realistic--in reality there would also be a loss of economic activity because the movement to China wouldn't be 100% efficient. So you will have lower worldwide economic activity and higher pollution.
No, punishing the United States isn't the answer. There are two possible solutions that will help the environment: 1) Move more production to the United States where we are better at producing goods at a lower rate of CO2 production. This would generate more employment in the U.S. and lower employment in China but it would lower total CO2 production. 2) Improve the efficiency of China's economy so it can produce more goods with the same or lower CO2 production. If China were as efficienct as the U.S. they would be able to generate the same amount of economic activity and produce less CO2.
I personally think the solution is making inefficient countries more efficient so they pollute less. But any way you analyze it it makes no sense to have a treaty like Kyoto that actually discourages activity in the countries that produce the least pollution for a unit of economic activity and encourage it in those countries that pollute more per unit of economic activity.
If the costs for changing the environmental conditions now is less than the costs for healthcare + the costs of lawsuits + the costs of environmental changes later, isn't that good for business? is that good for the people who work in and around there? why not do it now?
Because there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that CO2 causes higher healthcare costs for employees.
I'm 100% behind eliminating truly toxic substances and reducing smog. That makes sense from a health perspective which in turn helps the economy by people being healthier and missing fewer days of work and spending less money on their own body. It also makes sense because I prefer to see the blue sky rather than some brown cloud hovering over the city. I absolutely condemn any company or individual that dumps toxic chemicals into the sewer or a local stream. They are poisoning the local environment.
But that's not what Kyoto and most environmental efforts are aimed at. It seems most environmentalism is focused on CO2 which is not something that hurts humans or animals and helps plant life. Beyond that human-generated CO2 may or may not have an effect on global warming which may or may not hurt the environment which in turn may or may not harm the economy. Those that presume to know exactly how much impact CO2 has on the environment based on today's models are arrogant and think too highly of very inadequate models. And even if the models predict the right amount of temperature change people are arrogant if they presume to know exactly what effect that will have on the planet or if they presume to know that the effect will actually be a bad thing. There are far too many unknowns and the mantra of "Well if we're right then we have to do it and if we're wrong then it's still the right thing to do" is not an exceptable excuse when you're contemplating policy changes that may literally throw millions of people out of work and drastically change the world economic order. Let's get the facts straight and then make wise policy decisions. Recklessly entering into treaties that will reduce our economic activity (which in turn reduces the amount of money we can devote to clean energy research) is not the answer.
If the environmentalists would drop unfounded "the sky is falling" alarmist nonsense and focus on what really matters (toxic chemicals) I think they'd find a lot more people willing to support them.
As long as it's per capita GDP, fine. If you base it on per capita then you come up with idiotic conclusions such as "The U.S. can produce only 3 times as much CO2 as Mexico" even though the U.S. economy is about 12 times larger.
The only way to factor in efficiency is to look at CO2 compared to per capita GDP. Otherwise you are punishing those that most efficiently use energy.
I'm not sure but I suspect that a majority of the EU nations have ratified it, to such an extent that it might be expected that the EU will enforce it through sanctions and other economic incentives.
That would be against the rules of the WTO. Just like Europe used the WTO when it came to the steel tarrifs Bush imposed, the U.S. would use the WTO to get those tarrifs axed.
You have to realize that last year when Bush changed to laws on Steel production and export/import it wasn't because he wanted to, it was because the EU forced him to change the laws of the US. And they knew and that is exactly what they intended on doing.
It wasn't Europe. It was the WTO. And Bush didn't really want to impose the tarrifs and he knew it was wrong going in. He knew they would be opposed in the WTO and he knew we would lose. It was a purely political move to try to gain political support in the steel industry. The tarrifs were overturned by the WTO, the tarrifs were removed, but Bush was able to tell the steel industry, "Well, I tried."
The consolidation of the EU has resulted in their becoming the new Super Power. While they do not have the military forces to claim the title, they have greater economic and representative influences on the World economies, organizations, and the UN.
Nope. The EU is not a super power. Everything it accomplishes is via the WTO and the UN. Like I said, Bush knew he would lose the tarrifs on steel. It was purely political. And just like the WTO declared those tarrifs illegal, so would the WTO declare any EU tarrifs on the U.S. based on Kyoto acceptance illegal.
The consequences, if we refuse to do anything because it might harm our economy, could be much more damaging to our economy if the rest of the world decides to exercise Trade Sanctions against us. After all, we import just about everything.
Like I said, such sanctions would be illegal and declared invalid by the WTO. And, if anything, the fact that we import just about everything gives us leverage, not the exporter. If Europe wants to try to put sanctions on us, fine, we'd just reciprocate and put sanctions on them. Who gets hurt more? The U.S. that doesn't export that much anyway or the rest of the world that exports so much to the U.S.? It would harm the rest of the world.
Don't worry, the U.S. is still the economic superpower and even though we are often criticized for it, we are the #1 consumer. And he who is buying has the power. And that'd be us.
Economic forecasts are just theory, and are not known for being overwhelmingly accurate. The fact is that economies rise and fall with or without treaties like Kyoto. Jobs are lost. Jobs are gained. It happens all the time.
It's already happening now without Kyoto. Are you suggesting that if U.S. companies are restricted in CO2 production and the same company can operate in India with lower labor costs and no CO2 restrictions that that company isn't going to pick up and move? Come on... Economic forecasts are one thing. Obvious business decisions are another.
This is a no-brainer. The companies would move to India. No question. That's why a bipartisan U.S. Senate voted 98-0 to dump Kyoto 6 years ago.
Now maybe, in theory, a treaty like Kyoto might cause some job loss, but there is no hard scientific evidence that it would cause any significant job loss compared to the natural rise and fall of the economy.
That's nonsense, sir. This is not about theory. All you have to do is see that U.S. companies are already flocking to India just to take advantage of lower labor costs. If they're suddenly forced to spend billions to update their U.S. plants do you really think they're going to think twice about moving to India? They'll do it in a heartbeat.
Anyone that denies this is either deceiving themselves or deceiving you. In either case you shouldn't trust them. This is not vague economic theory. It's just capitalism at work and it's as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow. And the current outsourcing trend gives us plenty of evidence to see just how little motivation companies need to make those kinds of moves.
So, the US is producing and consuming more than every other country (World export 11%), and that entitles it to produce more CO2?
Yes. Total economic activity is higher than every other country and every country should be entitled to produce an amount of CO2 that is proportional to their contribution to the world economy.
And, no, just because we don't export all of that doesn't mean it's not a contribution to the world economy. Financial markets and investments are very integrated and just because we don't export everything we produce doesn't mean the financial benefits generated by the economic activity don't contribute to the entire world economy.
If you are crashing your car every year you are raising the GDP. If you produce weaponry and dispose it one way or another, you are raising the GDP. It is no measure of benefit to humankind.
Maybe. Assuming you have insurance they're going to have to pay to buy your new car which is going to reduce their profits which reduces GDP--on balance it should be close to a wash. And if you don't have insurance and have to pay for it yourself you're going to spend money on a car that you would have spent on other things anyway--so the GDP hasn't changed.
If you are producing weapons then, yes, that generates economic activity. But the government is your main customer and there is a limit to what they can buy so increasing GDP by buying arms is not a sustainable model.
I realize GDP isn't a perfect measure of the benefits of economic activity, but it is not bad for comparing the relative contribution to the world economy of each country.
Is it? After an initial industrialisation phase with a corresponding growth of both, no statistical correspondance [oxfordenergy.org] can be found.
I don't see what bearing that has on the discussion (aside from the fact that the organization in question seems to be a group of sociologists/environmentalists).
The fact remains that if Plant A is producing $100,000 worth of good for the economy and generating 100,000 tons of CO2 and Plant B is producing $50,000 worth of good for teh economy and is generating 75,000 tons of CO2, the focus should be on improving Plant B because it is producing a disproportionately high amount of CO2 for its contribution to the economy. An environmentalist would say Plant A is the problem because it produces more polution without taking into account the relative contribution to the economy.
That's the same problem with Kyoto. It looks at the U.S. and sees us as the #1 producer but ignores the fact that the amount of economic activity that we create is equally high. The focus needs to be on less efficient countries that produce half as much pollution but only generate a quarter of the economic activity.
Some will, yes. The smarter companies will develop alternative energy resources and clean-burning fuel solutions, knowing that they will outlast the companies that jump from country to country making a quick buck on a dying business model.
Again, that's pie in the sky thinking. If a company--who is not in the business of developing alternative energy resources--has the option of spending 20 billion to update their U.S. factory and spending 5 billion/year on labor when they can spend 1 billion to build a new factory in India and subsequently spend 500 million/year on labor, why do you think that company would stay? Why not move to India and save $19 billion now and 4.5 billion/year in labor until the price of new clean technology comes down. By the time it is required in India perhaps it will only cost $5 billion (instead of $20 billion). So you'll have spent $6 billion in a couple of decades instead of $20 billion now and, the whole time, your labor costs are 90% less.
Tell me again why the "smarter" company is going to stay in the U.S.?
Transitions take time, and they will be painful for some. But if we want to survive as a species on this planet for longer, we will have to deal with this transition sooner or later.
Technology moves fast and the last 100 years has shown us that we can't possibly know where technology will be 100, 50, 20, or even 10 years from now. I would rather wait for clean technologies to become mature at which time they will be adopted because it makes economic sense. And don't worry, the day will come when it does make economic sense and companies and individuals will move to clean technology all by themselves.
The argument goes (and I'm not saying I agree with it, in fact I don't) like this: If you upgrade a plant to new technology, it will become more efficient than it was. So along with the pollution controls, which are a waste from an economy point of view, you also get better efficiency to offset this. So the new plant would NOT cost $120B per 100,000 consumers served (100 as before, plus 20 in wasted overhead) to serve 100,000 consumers. It would cost about $100 still (80 or so for improved efficiency, plus 20 in wasted overhead). (Again, just like yours, these numbers of mine are made up.)
But that's not reasonable. If that were true then the company would do that now with no environmental incentive. They'd like to keep charging $100B but see they could achieve it with only $80B in costs. So they'd do that now from a strictly economic perspective. The fact that they don't is plenty of evidence that this argument doesn't work out for the environmentalists.
In this case the right way to critisize it would be to shoot down the premise that the newer plants would be efficient enough to have that effect.
That's a given. Like I said, if that were the case then the companies would make the investments in newer plants just to gain that additional efficiency and increase profits. The fact that they don't do this is virtually conclusive evidence that the environmentalists are dreaming. The only other explanation is that these big bad businesses are just so evil that they won't make an investment that would increase their profits by 20% in 5 years. I know companies work for the next quarter results but if the efficiency is really there then this is still a no brainer, especially with accounting tricks that would let them distribute the cost over 5 years (or more).
What would be better would be if the punative measures were based on the RATIO of pollution to economic benefit produced. If one small factory only outputs $100,000 into the economy, and yet it pollutes just as much as a factory that outputs $5,000,000 into the economy, then its pollution is less justifiable.
Absolutely! I agree 100%. If we are going to presume that pollution and CO2 production is the problem it supposedly is then the way you describe is the only logical way to address it.
When China out-pollutes the US, they will move to the "Annex I" country list, and will no longer be "exempt."
In the meantime companies will pick up and leave the United States to countries with more liberal environmental regulations which, today, is China and India. By the time they crank out as much pollution as we do and are subject to the same rules we are then the exodus will slow down or stop.
At that point we will all be equally miserable. Sorry, I still don't see the benefit.
You are biggest polluter of entire world 1/4th of CO2 emissions.
Our economy also makes up 21% of the Gross World Product.
Russia and china combined are as large polluter as you are.
Russia makes up 2.6% of the GWP and China makes up 12%. So those two countries produce 14.6% of the gross world product but produce the same amount of CO2 as we do? Sounds like, on balance, we're not doing too bad. Yes, we produce more CO2 than other countries but we also produce a hell of a lot more economic activity in the world.
Calling the U.S. the biggest polluter just because it produces more quantity is rediculous. Even calculating it on a per capita basis is unfair. The only way to rationally look at CO2 production is to evaluate the amount of CO2 produced for each unit of economic activity. Russia and China are generating way too much CO2 considering their relatively small contribution to worldwide economic activity. They are the countries that need to be made more efficient, not the United States.
1. Eligibility is a separate issue. It could be done as-is, could be some kind of government ID card (I don't like that), but whatever. Let us assume that by some mechanism a valid voter is established.
2. Voter votes. A unique "voting ticket #" is assigned to the ballot. The vote is saved on a hard drive, it is printed behind the machine for a paper trail, and an ATM-type receipt is given to the voter which indicates his or her voting ticket # and his or her vote for each issue/race.
3. At the end of the day each precint does a complete dump of the votes where each voting ticket # is printed along with the votes of that person. This is posted at the precinct and/or published on the web.
So anyone that wants to verify that their vote was recorded correctly can look at the posting or the website and see their voting ticket # and see how it made a difference. If the data shown does not coincide with their vote they can protest it by taking their printed voting ticket. Anonymity is achieved but everyone can verify their vote was recorded correctly.
The only problem with this, of course, is the possibility of organizations offering $X for each vote for their candidate. You take your voting ticket to them and show you voted the "right way" and they pay you $X. That's a major problem.
I think the solution could be to print the ticket but with the actual vote encoded rather than printed in plain English. You know how you voted and if what you see published doesn't coincide with your vote you take your ticket to the election officials where their machines could decrypt the voting ticket # and see whether it coincided with what was published or not. But a normal idiot paying $X per vote wouldn't be able to look at the ticket and verify who you voted for.
Of course they could look at the published record and look up your voting number. In that case I think the solution would be enforcement. Investigate anyone that seems to be checking an unusual number of votes at the precint.
First, it's not dead, that's the whole point of this story.
It is dead as far as the United States is concerned.
Just because Kyoto is "taking effect" that doesn't mean that non-signers are bound by it. They are not. This is not like an amendment to the U.S. Constitution where a cetain % of support from the Congress and state governments forces the amendment on the entire country. Those that signed Kyoto will be bound by Kyoto. Those that didn't aren't bound by it.
The U.S. didn't ratify Kyoto. Other countries are free to go ahead if they want but at least it won't harm us.
Second, what is unfair about the treaty? It's only "not in our interest" because we are the world's biggest polluter.
No, it's unfair because it applies different terms to different countries. Some of the upcoming largest polluters (China, India, etc.) are exempt. Why in the world should the U.S. (or any other country) willingly give up competitivity to other countries?
I think Kyoto is a bad idea regardless but if the same rules applied to all countries I would at least be willing to consider it (as would the U.S. Senate). But as long as certain countries are given a "free pass" there is absolutely no way this treaty will ever be passed by the U.S. And it shouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said!
Mr. CEO will still be collecting his multi-million dollar salary and probably even earn a bonus for his cost-saving business decisions. Meanwhile, hundreds or thousands of ex-employees of that company will be out of work and certainly producing less CO2 because they have no friggin' money to spend.
No, Kyoto will not harm the rich CEOs. It will most specifically harm the grunts making the CEOs rich.
Redistribute your wealth, then, and let me decide whether or not I want to redistribute mine. But if you're going to try to pass legislation (in the form of a treaty) that requires me to redistribute my wealth then you damn well better present it as a treaty to redistribute wealth... Not try to sneak it in under the radar hoping that some people won't be able to differentiate between economics, politics, and environmentalism.
and in any case, the politics of Kyoto are more important; implementing it will cause people to be more open to the idea of further greenhouse gas cutbacks in future.
Ahh, just like the Patriot Act is good because it will cause people to be more open to even further restrictions in their civil rights? Both are examples of incrementalism and both should be rejected.
Well, nothing, I guess... as long as the plan that is to distribute our wealth to foreign countries is presented to the world and American citizens as "The Plan to Redistribute Your Wealth to Developing Nations" and not done under the banner of "environmentalism."
Kyoto is not an environmental protocol. It's a political and economic protocol disguised as environmentalism. Plain and simple. That's why we dropped it like last week's news.
Heck, had Kyoto ever been seriously considered in the U.S. the FTC should have gone after it as a violation of "truth in advertising."
This is not surprising at all. Very few human beings bite the hands that feed them and scientists are human--those in academia are especially human and especially political. They're not going to be out there proving that global warming isn't happening or that it is a natural phenomenon when doing so, in sufficient numbers, will guarantee that funding will dry up on the topic and they'll have to find another research gravy train.
This also doesn't consider how many studies may have been done, submitted for publishing, and rejected. This could be just as much a political condemnation on those that decide whether or not a study is worthy of being published as it is any comment on the validity of global warming and/or its possible human sources.
Any time you see every scientist agree (or at least no scientist disagree) on a very controversial topic, be very suspicious.
"In some cases, Web surfers would be well-advised to stay clear of banner ads. Last month, ZDNet UK reported that hackers have attacked ad servers and have modified the banner ads so that they redirect users to Web sites that download malicious code."
Perhaps users should stay away from Internet Explorer rather than the banners ads!
Personally it doesn't bother me because none of the crap on either of the TV networks down here is worth watching. It's even worse than American networks.
Perhaps, but GDP is the only way to accurately measure its potential contribution to the world economy. That is, even if China's GDP is devalued due to its devaluated currency then any contribution China can make to the world economy is also depressed. If they want to invest or purchase foreign goods they will be limited by the same depressed GDP. So GDP is the best measure to compare global economic activity.
Agreed, I am just pointing out the two extremes of measures of economic acitivity. However it is wrong to assume that GDP measures economic activity per se as it measures a combination of economic activity and currency fluctuatons.
True, but again currency fluctuations do impact how much their economy can invest or purchase from the rest of the world so it is valid to use a measure that takes that into account.
However looking at CO2 production per unit of GDP (as PPP) is useful in the sense that allows you to get some measure of the amount of CO2 produced for a given standard of living. There are many measures you can use, though. The old lies, damned lies, and statistics issue.
Agreed on the issue of statistics. But I'm not talking about the amount of CO2 produced for a given standard of living. I'm talking about the amount of CO2 produced for a given amount of economic activity--or generation of wealth. I think that the issue of pollution has to be separated completely from the issue of standard of living. They are two very different issues. This is why I think GDP makes a better measure. Granted, we're not determining their standard of living... we're just taking a cold, hard look at how good they are at producing wealth compared to how much pollution they create. If this is truly about the environment then that's all we care about at this time.
Raising the standard of living in developing countries is another issue that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the environment.
It's difficult, as if you impose that now you may have the side effect of saying that rich countries should be able to stay rich. If Kyoto included those terms right now those countries wouldn't sign it.
I think we're getting closer to agreeing on what we're each arguing here.
I agree. If you apply reductions to everyone then developing countries won't like it. But that, to me, suggests they really aren't interested in the environment anyway. Which I still believe is a large factor. As long as there are exceptions--as valid as those exceptions may be for the political reasons you state--the treaty will not achieve CO2 reductions. It will move the production of CO2 from where there are strict limits to areas where there are not. Jobs will go with it. But the CO2 production hasn't been reduced at all, just moved elsewhere in the world. Net effect on the environment: None.
The best chance at improving the environment is to make sure that developing countries that are constantly building new plants are building plants with the most CO2-efficient technologies in place. It's cheaper to build a brand new plant with efficient CO2 production in a plant you were going to build anyway than to try to retrofit an already relatively efficient plant to achieve the same reductions. And there are a heck of a lot more people (and thus potential industry) in the developing world. So we must focus on the developing world if our real goal is to reduce worldwide CO2 production. Anything else just doesn't make sense if the goals are truly environmental.
Given that several countries have created a CO2 credit trading sche
So? GDP per capita has nothing to do with GDP production per unit of CO2 produced. I'm not saying that the most pollution efficient countries will necessarily be the richest. I'm saying that production should occur in countries that most efficiently generated GDP with low CO2--or less efficient countries should be made more efficient.
If what you say about Italy is true (I haven't checked but I'll take your word on it) then just as it makes more sense (from a pollution standpoint) to produce economic activity in the U.S. over China, it would also make more sense to produce economic activity in Italy over the United States.
Me: "The U.S. has an $11 trillion economy and produces 1,446,777 kilotons of CO2. China has a $6.449 trillion economy and produces 917,997 kilotons of CO2"
You: Only if you measure the economies in terms of dollar value. If you use PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) the difference isn't so obvious. So the question is do you measure GDP in terms of dollar value, which is subject to currency fluctuations, or based on the level of actual economic activity?
GDP measures economic activity in absolute terms. PPP does not. If you're comparing worldwide economic activity and the contribution of each country to that worldwide economic activity the GDP is a better choice of measurement.
Certainly moving production to a location where the total person-industry CO2 production per unit of economic activity is better makes a lot of sense. I am not sure if this is necessarily the USA as you have to take into account both the CO2 cost of the good and the CO2 cost of the worker and their consumption.
Whatever. I'm not trying to make the case that the U.S. is the #1 most efficient country in regards to CO2 production compared to economic activity. I am making the case the Kyoto--which currently exempts the most inefficient countries--should be focused on making those inefficient countries more efficient rather than limiting the output of relatively efficient countries like the United States (and Italy and whatever other countries are relatively efficient).
If you have an inefficient industrial process but poor workers who produce little CO2 in their daily consumption it might be more efficient overall in terms of CO2 than a very efficient industrial process with workers that are rich and consume a larger amount of resources and conequent CO2 production. You'd have to look per country and per industry on this. The most efficient (in terms of CO2 production), though is to have efficient factories and poor workers that can't consume many material goods.
You're getting into hypotheticals. Which is fine. But I don't think we have CO2 production broken out on a consumer and industrial basis. We have totals for each country which somtimes are divided by population to get per capita production of CO2--but that doesn't necessarily mean the consumers consume more CO2... it may simply mean they live in countries with industries that produce a lot of CO2.
However the analysis above is assuming that the consumption of goods is based on traditional models. There is a great opportunity for the USA to fund modes of living that are efficient in terms of energy, consumption, and production which might allow a good standard of living while consuming relatively few natural resources. This would effectively transform the footprint of the affluent worker into that of the currently poor worker. This would be the best of both worlds.
I agree. I fully support research and eventual deployment of alternative energies such as solar, wind power, nuclear, etc. What I don't support is arbitrary draconian cuts in CO2 production that don't apply equally to all countries before we have alternative energy sources available. That's what Kyoto does. Once we have alternative energy sources I fully support moving to those energy sources and, as a result, automatically reducing CO2 production--with or without Kyoto.
Ahhhh, I see. That makes all the difference right? I'm far more concerned about your lack of understanding of the difference between the UN, WTO, and Europe. I'm far more concerned about you opining on Bush's political decisions when you clearly don't have a clue as to his motivations. Yeah, misspelling two words is far more relevant and reveals just how little I know, right?
Would it make any difference if I told you that I'm bilingual and the reason I sometimes make spelling mistakes in English is because I've lived outside the United States for the last 9 years and, believe it or not, your native language does get rusty when you are pretty much only using your second language? Nah, that wouldn't coincide with your stereotype of an American not knowing anything about the rest of the world, only speaking English, and basically being unlightened.
If your sole contribution to this discussion is reenforcing your own stereotype of Americans then I don't think this discussion will lose anything by you withdrawling. It is clear you have very little information relevant to the real topics being discussed and your views are based more on your stereotypes than on knowledge of the topics or anything resembling reality.
Sit down, anonymous troll, and let the adults discuss this.
If the efficiency to be gained by installing new plants were as significant as the environmentalists would have us believe, damn right companies would do it. But in reality the gain in efficiency is much less--and probably even a loss of efficiency--which is why they don't do it unless the government forces them to.
For a large number of companies, making money next quarter to keep shareholders happy a little longer is all that matters, and the capacity to make money in the far off future just doesn't matter to them.
That's a typical Slashdot anti-corporate view. Yes, there are short-sighted companies. Yes, they might sometimes make what appear to be decisions based on only short-term benefits. But in the end many of these companies have existed for decades and they didn't accomplish that by consistently being stupid. Slashdot airmchair quarterbacks that normally have little or no experience in business administration and finances second-guessing the moves of multi-billion corporations just seems a little whimpy to me.
That, plus the problem of early adapters always getting the shaft.
Bingo! Wait for the technology to mature! Wait for the technology to be ready! And you're holding this against the companies? Come on, it makes complete sense. The technology will be ready someday and when it makes financial sense to upgrade, they will.
Even if a technology will eventually be usefully profitable, it won't be to the first few companies that try it, and when you have an industry with a small number of large companies (like the electricity business), nobody wants to be that first innovator that gets hosed. They want the others to try it first.
So if this is so important then the government should fund research to mature the technology so no-one takes a risk. It makes no sense to simply mandate that everyone must take a risk on immature technology.
This would all be rather moot if environmentalists weren't so opposed to building new nuclear power plants. It's the least pollutive, and cheapest, and most efficient electrical production method available.
I agree. Which pushes me further towards my belief that environmentalists aren't really concerned about the environment. They're agenda is social and economic reorganization of the world. They just use the environment as a means to an end.
Yes, and some of us start poor. But most either become richer and start employing others or eventually give up and get employed by someone that is richer than us that had better luck. My statement stands. Poor people don't employ people. They may be self-employed but that's not the same as giving jobs to others. Rich people do that.
2) option two: everybody who is saving money in the bank is generating jobs per definition of investment. savings => credit => investment
And relatively rich people usually end up borrowing money to make more money. It's not impossible, but few poor people get business loans because they are a credit risk. So even though the money saved by a bunch of poor people makes credit available, it's usually the relatively rich that actually put that money to use, invest it in their idea, and employ others.
The key fallacy in your world view (by this I mean the way you believe that the world works) is that the economy can not exist and work without rich people, because only they can generate jobs. This leads to the immediate conclusion, that bigger wealth disparities are benefitial because they create more jobs.
No, of course not. It's not that bigger wealth disparities are beneficial. But it's a recognition that wealth disparities will always exist.
That exclusive claim is false. All that is really needed are people willing to save their money and entrepreneurs with ideas for investment.
And that depends on people having enough money to save in the first place (most poor people don't) and also depends on banks making high-risk loans to low-income entrepreneurs--something that is also unlikely.
None of the person playing these two roles needs to be really, badly rich. The investors can be poor people saving their money in current accounts. The banking sector does a good job of converting these short-term savings into long-term credits for entrepreneurs.
But only people with some amount of collateral are going to get loans from a bank. The poor sure aren't. I'm not saying that anyone has to be filthy rich like Bill Gates, but the rich are not the enemy.
Let me restate my point: Rich people are not the sole creators of jobs in the economy. There is no need worship them for it. Please stop propagating such a personality cult
I do not worship them and I do not claim they are the sole creators of jobs in the economy. But you are denying reality if you don't accept that they are the major creators of jobs in the economy.
Well you better start making it the issue. As long as environmentalists push draconian environmental regulations on the world in the form of things like Kyoto without considering the fact that jobs will be lost they are bound to encounter resistance.
Most critics of global warming don't deny the logic that man-made pollutants can affect the climate. But what has been repeatedly called into question by critics is the statistical significance of these changes compared to the climate's natural fluctuations. All I ask is that these dire economic forecasts of yours be held to the same standard of statistical proof as the environmentalist's dire climactic forecasts.
So you're saying that even though global warming scaremongers haven't proven a statistically significant change in temperature beyond natural fluctuations that we still have to prove business (not economic!) forecasts are correct? That's bogus. We still don't have a statistically significant proof that climate change is human-induced which means any policy changes are very premature.
If it can be shown that there is a statistically significant movement in temperature above and beyond natural fluctuations and if it can be shown that this higher temperature will actually provoke climate changes that are detrimental to the human race and if it can be shown that these detrimental effects will have an economic cost higher than the economic cost of implementing these regulations then we're good to go. But so far the environmentalists haven't proven any of these points much less all of them.
Is there any scientific proof that the unemployment rate has ever been significantly affected by environmental legislation? I didn't think so.
Huh? That's bogus logic too. Because since 1948 we've never implemented environmental legislation so draconian as what we'd have to do if we implemented Kyoto. And please understand that Kyoto is not environmental legislation. It is a sociological and political document. As long as the same terms don't apply to all countries, industry will move to those countries where both labor is cheap and environmental regulations are lax. That's simply not debateable. It's a fact. We see companies moving overseas just for the cheap labor. If you further push them with draconian and expensive environmental legislation they will leave. They will pick up and move to India and keep producing the exact same amount of pollution but now they'll do it in India instead of the United States. On a worldwide basis the amount of CO2 has not been reduced, it's just been relocated.
If Kyoto is not going to reduce pollution then what in the world do you think it is meant to do? As soon as you come to this realization you find that it is not paranoid to believe that it's real agenda is simply sociopolitical. They want to allocate more wealth and jobs to developing countries and take them away from developed nations. It's that simple. They want to make poor countries richer and rich countries poorer. It's the only explanation for an "environmental" treaty that doesn't actually help the environment but does encourage companies to move overseas.
I won't be surprised if you find this to be a radical point of view, but it's the truth. The sooner people realize that Kyoto is not going to help the worldwide environment the sooner people will recognize it for what it is. If the world wants to engage in a massive transfer of wealth and jobs then they need to propose that kind of treaty as exactly what it is and let the chips fall where they may. But I resent it being proposed under the guise of environmentalism when it is anything but.
No. It allows the efficient to continue producing efficiently while pushing the inefficient to produce more value for the amount of pollution they create.
Let me put this in perspective. The U.S. has an $11 trillion economy and produces 1,446,777 kilotons of CO2. China has a $6.449 trillion economy and produces 917,997 kilotons of CO2. So the U.S. produces 1.58 times as much CO2 but our economy is 1.71 times larger. From a pollution perspective we're doing more economic activity with relatively less pollution.
So who needs to adjust their habits? The U.S.? Buzzzz. Wrong answer. Currently China and the U.S. together produce 2,364,774 kilotons of CO2 per year with total economic activity of $17.449 trillion. Let's say you arbitrarily say that we need to reduce our emissions by 10% from 1,446,777 to 1,302,099. Let's just say that means our economy will drop 10% to $9.9 trillion. Let's say that that lost $1.1 trillion goes to China so their economy increases by 17% to $7.549 trillion and that that means a 17% increase in their economy means a 17% increase in their emissions to 1,074,056 kilotons per year.
The result? The total economic activity of China and the U.S. hasn't changed but now CO2 output has increased from 2,364,774 kilotons to 2,376,155 kilotons and jobs have been lost in the United States as economic activity moved to China. And that's not even realistic--in reality there would also be a loss of economic activity because the movement to China wouldn't be 100% efficient. So you will have lower worldwide economic activity and higher pollution.
No, punishing the United States isn't the answer. There are two possible solutions that will help the environment: 1) Move more production to the United States where we are better at producing goods at a lower rate of CO2 production. This would generate more employment in the U.S. and lower employment in China but it would lower total CO2 production. 2) Improve the efficiency of China's economy so it can produce more goods with the same or lower CO2 production. If China were as efficienct as the U.S. they would be able to generate the same amount of economic activity and produce less CO2.
I personally think the solution is making inefficient countries more efficient so they pollute less. But any way you analyze it it makes no sense to have a treaty like Kyoto that actually discourages activity in the countries that produce the least pollution for a unit of economic activity and encourage it in those countries that pollute more per unit of economic activity.
Because there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that CO2 causes higher healthcare costs for employees.
I'm 100% behind eliminating truly toxic substances and reducing smog. That makes sense from a health perspective which in turn helps the economy by people being healthier and missing fewer days of work and spending less money on their own body. It also makes sense because I prefer to see the blue sky rather than some brown cloud hovering over the city. I absolutely condemn any company or individual that dumps toxic chemicals into the sewer or a local stream. They are poisoning the local environment.
But that's not what Kyoto and most environmental efforts are aimed at. It seems most environmentalism is focused on CO2 which is not something that hurts humans or animals and helps plant life. Beyond that human-generated CO2 may or may not have an effect on global warming which may or may not hurt the environment which in turn may or may not harm the economy. Those that presume to know exactly how much impact CO2 has on the environment based on today's models are arrogant and think too highly of very inadequate models. And even if the models predict the right amount of temperature change people are arrogant if they presume to know exactly what effect that will have on the planet or if they presume to know that the effect will actually be a bad thing. There are far too many unknowns and the mantra of "Well if we're right then we have to do it and if we're wrong then it's still the right thing to do" is not an exceptable excuse when you're contemplating policy changes that may literally throw millions of people out of work and drastically change the world economic order. Let's get the facts straight and then make wise policy decisions. Recklessly entering into treaties that will reduce our economic activity (which in turn reduces the amount of money we can devote to clean energy research) is not the answer.
If the environmentalists would drop unfounded "the sky is falling" alarmist nonsense and focus on what really matters (toxic chemicals) I think they'd find a lot more people willing to support them.
The only way to factor in efficiency is to look at CO2 compared to per capita GDP. Otherwise you are punishing those that most efficiently use energy.
That would be against the rules of the WTO. Just like Europe used the WTO when it came to the steel tarrifs Bush imposed, the U.S. would use the WTO to get those tarrifs axed.
You have to realize that last year when Bush changed to laws on Steel production and export/import it wasn't because he wanted to, it was because the EU forced him to change the laws of the US. And they knew and that is exactly what they intended on doing.
It wasn't Europe. It was the WTO. And Bush didn't really want to impose the tarrifs and he knew it was wrong going in. He knew they would be opposed in the WTO and he knew we would lose. It was a purely political move to try to gain political support in the steel industry. The tarrifs were overturned by the WTO, the tarrifs were removed, but Bush was able to tell the steel industry, "Well, I tried."
The consolidation of the EU has resulted in their becoming the new Super Power. While they do not have the military forces to claim the title, they have greater economic and representative influences on the World economies, organizations, and the UN.
Nope. The EU is not a super power. Everything it accomplishes is via the WTO and the UN. Like I said, Bush knew he would lose the tarrifs on steel. It was purely political. And just like the WTO declared those tarrifs illegal, so would the WTO declare any EU tarrifs on the U.S. based on Kyoto acceptance illegal.
The consequences, if we refuse to do anything because it might harm our economy, could be much more damaging to our economy if the rest of the world decides to exercise Trade Sanctions against us. After all, we import just about everything.
Like I said, such sanctions would be illegal and declared invalid by the WTO. And, if anything, the fact that we import just about everything gives us leverage, not the exporter. If Europe wants to try to put sanctions on us, fine, we'd just reciprocate and put sanctions on them. Who gets hurt more? The U.S. that doesn't export that much anyway or the rest of the world that exports so much to the U.S.? It would harm the rest of the world.
Don't worry, the U.S. is still the economic superpower and even though we are often criticized for it, we are the #1 consumer. And he who is buying has the power. And that'd be us.
It's already happening now without Kyoto. Are you suggesting that if U.S. companies are restricted in CO2 production and the same company can operate in India with lower labor costs and no CO2 restrictions that that company isn't going to pick up and move? Come on... Economic forecasts are one thing. Obvious business decisions are another.
This is a no-brainer. The companies would move to India. No question. That's why a bipartisan U.S. Senate voted 98-0 to dump Kyoto 6 years ago.
Now maybe, in theory, a treaty like Kyoto might cause some job loss, but there is no hard scientific evidence that it would cause any significant job loss compared to the natural rise and fall of the economy.
That's nonsense, sir. This is not about theory. All you have to do is see that U.S. companies are already flocking to India just to take advantage of lower labor costs. If they're suddenly forced to spend billions to update their U.S. plants do you really think they're going to think twice about moving to India? They'll do it in a heartbeat.
Anyone that denies this is either deceiving themselves or deceiving you. In either case you shouldn't trust them. This is not vague economic theory. It's just capitalism at work and it's as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow. And the current outsourcing trend gives us plenty of evidence to see just how little motivation companies need to make those kinds of moves.
Yes. Total economic activity is higher than every other country and every country should be entitled to produce an amount of CO2 that is proportional to their contribution to the world economy.
And, no, just because we don't export all of that doesn't mean it's not a contribution to the world economy. Financial markets and investments are very integrated and just because we don't export everything we produce doesn't mean the financial benefits generated by the economic activity don't contribute to the entire world economy.
If you are crashing your car every year you are raising the GDP. If you produce weaponry and dispose it one way or another, you are raising the GDP. It is no measure of benefit to humankind.
Maybe. Assuming you have insurance they're going to have to pay to buy your new car which is going to reduce their profits which reduces GDP--on balance it should be close to a wash. And if you don't have insurance and have to pay for it yourself you're going to spend money on a car that you would have spent on other things anyway--so the GDP hasn't changed.
If you are producing weapons then, yes, that generates economic activity. But the government is your main customer and there is a limit to what they can buy so increasing GDP by buying arms is not a sustainable model.
I realize GDP isn't a perfect measure of the benefits of economic activity, but it is not bad for comparing the relative contribution to the world economy of each country.
Is it? After an initial industrialisation phase with a corresponding growth of both, no statistical correspondance [oxfordenergy.org] can be found.
I don't see what bearing that has on the discussion (aside from the fact that the organization in question seems to be a group of sociologists/environmentalists).
The fact remains that if Plant A is producing $100,000 worth of good for the economy and generating 100,000 tons of CO2 and Plant B is producing $50,000 worth of good for teh economy and is generating 75,000 tons of CO2, the focus should be on improving Plant B because it is producing a disproportionately high amount of CO2 for its contribution to the economy. An environmentalist would say Plant A is the problem because it produces more polution without taking into account the relative contribution to the economy.
That's the same problem with Kyoto. It looks at the U.S. and sees us as the #1 producer but ignores the fact that the amount of economic activity that we create is equally high. The focus needs to be on less efficient countries that produce half as much pollution but only generate a quarter of the economic activity.
Again, that's pie in the sky thinking. If a company--who is not in the business of developing alternative energy resources--has the option of spending 20 billion to update their U.S. factory and spending 5 billion/year on labor when they can spend 1 billion to build a new factory in India and subsequently spend 500 million/year on labor, why do you think that company would stay? Why not move to India and save $19 billion now and 4.5 billion/year in labor until the price of new clean technology comes down. By the time it is required in India perhaps it will only cost $5 billion (instead of $20 billion). So you'll have spent $6 billion in a couple of decades instead of $20 billion now and, the whole time, your labor costs are 90% less.
Tell me again why the "smarter" company is going to stay in the U.S.? Transitions take time, and they will be painful for some. But if we want to survive as a species on this planet for longer, we will have to deal with this transition sooner or later.
Technology moves fast and the last 100 years has shown us that we can't possibly know where technology will be 100, 50, 20, or even 10 years from now. I would rather wait for clean technologies to become mature at which time they will be adopted because it makes economic sense. And don't worry, the day will come when it does make economic sense and companies and individuals will move to clean technology all by themselves.
But that's not reasonable. If that were true then the company would do that now with no environmental incentive. They'd like to keep charging $100B but see they could achieve it with only $80B in costs. So they'd do that now from a strictly economic perspective. The fact that they don't is plenty of evidence that this argument doesn't work out for the environmentalists.
In this case the right way to critisize it would be to shoot down the premise that the newer plants would be efficient enough to have that effect.
That's a given. Like I said, if that were the case then the companies would make the investments in newer plants just to gain that additional efficiency and increase profits. The fact that they don't do this is virtually conclusive evidence that the environmentalists are dreaming. The only other explanation is that these big bad businesses are just so evil that they won't make an investment that would increase their profits by 20% in 5 years. I know companies work for the next quarter results but if the efficiency is really there then this is still a no brainer, especially with accounting tricks that would let them distribute the cost over 5 years (or more).
What would be better would be if the punative measures were based on the RATIO of pollution to economic benefit produced. If one small factory only outputs $100,000 into the economy, and yet it pollutes just as much as a factory that outputs $5,000,000 into the economy, then its pollution is less justifiable.
Absolutely! I agree 100%. If we are going to presume that pollution and CO2 production is the problem it supposedly is then the way you describe is the only logical way to address it.
In the meantime companies will pick up and leave the United States to countries with more liberal environmental regulations which, today, is China and India. By the time they crank out as much pollution as we do and are subject to the same rules we are then the exodus will slow down or stop.
At that point we will all be equally miserable. Sorry, I still don't see the benefit.
Our economy also makes up 21% of the Gross World Product.
Russia and china combined are as large polluter as you are.
Russia makes up 2.6% of the GWP and China makes up 12%. So those two countries produce 14.6% of the gross world product but produce the same amount of CO2 as we do? Sounds like, on balance, we're not doing too bad. Yes, we produce more CO2 than other countries but we also produce a hell of a lot more economic activity in the world.
Calling the U.S. the biggest polluter just because it produces more quantity is rediculous. Even calculating it on a per capita basis is unfair. The only way to rationally look at CO2 production is to evaluate the amount of CO2 produced for each unit of economic activity. Russia and China are generating way too much CO2 considering their relatively small contribution to worldwide economic activity. They are the countries that need to be made more efficient, not the United States.
1. Eligibility is a separate issue. It could be done as-is, could be some kind of government ID card (I don't like that), but whatever. Let us assume that by some mechanism a valid voter is established.
2. Voter votes. A unique "voting ticket #" is assigned to the ballot. The vote is saved on a hard drive, it is printed behind the machine for a paper trail, and an ATM-type receipt is given to the voter which indicates his or her voting ticket # and his or her vote for each issue/race.
3. At the end of the day each precint does a complete dump of the votes where each voting ticket # is printed along with the votes of that person. This is posted at the precinct and/or published on the web.
So anyone that wants to verify that their vote was recorded correctly can look at the posting or the website and see their voting ticket # and see how it made a difference. If the data shown does not coincide with their vote they can protest it by taking their printed voting ticket. Anonymity is achieved but everyone can verify their vote was recorded correctly.
The only problem with this, of course, is the possibility of organizations offering $X for each vote for their candidate. You take your voting ticket to them and show you voted the "right way" and they pay you $X. That's a major problem.
I think the solution could be to print the ticket but with the actual vote encoded rather than printed in plain English. You know how you voted and if what you see published doesn't coincide with your vote you take your ticket to the election officials where their machines could decrypt the voting ticket # and see whether it coincided with what was published or not. But a normal idiot paying $X per vote wouldn't be able to look at the ticket and verify who you voted for.
Of course they could look at the published record and look up your voting number. In that case I think the solution would be enforcement. Investigate anyone that seems to be checking an unusual number of votes at the precint.
It is dead as far as the United States is concerned.
Just because Kyoto is "taking effect" that doesn't mean that non-signers are bound by it. They are not. This is not like an amendment to the U.S. Constitution where a cetain % of support from the Congress and state governments forces the amendment on the entire country. Those that signed Kyoto will be bound by Kyoto. Those that didn't aren't bound by it.
The U.S. didn't ratify Kyoto. Other countries are free to go ahead if they want but at least it won't harm us.
Second, what is unfair about the treaty? It's only "not in our interest" because we are the world's biggest polluter.
No, it's unfair because it applies different terms to different countries. Some of the upcoming largest polluters (China, India, etc.) are exempt. Why in the world should the U.S. (or any other country) willingly give up competitivity to other countries?
I think Kyoto is a bad idea regardless but if the same rules applied to all countries I would at least be willing to consider it (as would the U.S. Senate). But as long as certain countries are given a "free pass" there is absolutely no way this treaty will ever be passed by the U.S. And it shouldn't.