I just love to see you generate 1000 g with your car. g-force isn't equal to 9.8 Newton 1g pulls with 9.8 newtons on 1 kg of mass. even is you can generate 9800N with your car, you'll never be able to generate 1000g with it.
let's assume graviry is mass, so shooting 'gravity' is shooting mass, you still need a counterforce to stop the gun from leaving earths orbit.
Probably this is solved if you fire an equally strong shot in the opposite direction (most likely not in the direction of earth). You might hit the moon or some other plantes on the way, but what the heck;)
I was thinking about the samg thing, but probably there are theoretical ways to do something like that. Think about radiating cancer. If you would use one beam, all the tissue 'in the line of fire' gets fried, so they use several beams that focus on one point. I can imagine the same thing for 'gravitational guns'.
That solves one problem. Now for an other. 1000 g. That is 1000 times the power of earth's gravitation. So how far stretches this gravitational field? The moon is influenced by the earths one g gravitation. And vice versa, we have tides because of the much weaker gravitation of the moon. My guess is that if you generate a 1000 g gravitational field anywhere on earth, the earth probably will collapse or is torn apart.
[remember 'the left wing is NOT on fire] Relax, there's no danger of a collision. Repeat is you look at the system of Hercules you will see an asteroid that is NOT going to hit the earth.
Norton Ghost will do. the image of my 'vergin' Win98 {yeah, yeah, I know, butI don't need fancy, keep 98 'clean' and it will work nicely) , with some software will fit nicely on one cd.
The only problem is I installed several 'important' applications and some crap, but I forgot to make a new image.
So when I reinstall the image I have to figure out the changes, reinstall the security updates, hope I find an old realplayer without banners and ask around for that cute small game.
Ofcource with the proper maintenance working with images is DEVINE. A clean installation in 15 minutes.
Let your karma be the sum of the moderations. This way you can be a troll, funny or interesting. Or with some gramatical mathematics an overrated flaimbait.
I hope this still is read, but dies anybody know if it's possible to tweak the right-mouse-button-menu? I noticed that the options 'open in new tab' and 'open in new window' are switched, but I liked the 1.0 order (tab first) and I really want to undo the newer order.
No, no, no, I don't want to downgrade to the 1.0 version;)
one year ago there was a big diamond theft in amsterdam. No guns were used. the diamonds wee carried out thtough the front door in a microwavebox!
[http://www.preciousgemstones.com/gffall01.html# th iev] $8 Million in Diamonds Stolen in Microwave In the Netherlands, a 25-year-old man calmly walked out of the offices of Amsterdam's Gassan Diamonds carrying a box stuffed with uninsured diamonds. He had arrived at the office with the box at the start of the working day, saying it contained a microwave oven. Benno Leeser, director of the 56-year-old family-run firm said, "He came with a microwave in the box, but he left with the diamonds." The suspect, said to be a former army cook who had worked for the firm since April, has vanished without a trace.
Nowadays, in the post 911 days it seems, as fas as computers are conserned, you are either a hacker or a terrorist, but what has happened to the straight forward criminal doing computerfraud?
Maybe a hacker hacks computers, a criminal steals computers, and a terrorist blows up computers.
Not knowing one way or the other, can you cite any examples of this?
This is a long story. It started more or less with the worldbank. Countries could get funding, but there was always a 'but'. One thing lead to the other, resulting in huge debts. This again often leaves with a worse situation than before. Argentina is a nice result of this politics. I would say a country is a crisis like that hardly has a way nor the means to recover from a crisis without external help. That is why they can't refuse to cut their forests. Knowing this i'd say it's quite unethical to ask that from them (without for example replanting trees).
I know of the standard trade wars--and I can see "accept this or we will levy 50% importation on your $PRODUCT". But completely stopping trade with a country based on a trade dispute?
trade / financial support. It's not like the tradewars (steel?) the US and the EU have.
That said, I've already mentioned that I'm 100% in favor of 0% tarrifs on everything between every country, period. So whether or not the above is true, I'd be opposed to it and the practice would be moot if there were no tarrifs anywhere.
... You missed my point [SNIP]
I think we agree;) But it's important or wome countries to wait for the right moment.
Equal competition. Sounds good. Together with the 0% tarrifs the government should stop to subsidize goods. This could result in lower taxes too.
IN THE END this should apply for the poorer countries too, but I can wait 20 - 30 years (You wrote 10 - 20 years, I think, looking at Taiwan, it takes a little longer.) Probably not all the countries will develop as quick as Taiwan, but eventually they will and THEN the tarrifs should go to 0% for them too. I think. I don't know that much about the long term effects of 0% tarrifs. I guess you want to have SOME protection and regulation of your own economy.
I disagree with that completely and stand by my original comment. Being poor does not absolve one of responsibility or give them the right to "pass the buck." I will concede that perhaps responsibility is harder for those with fewer options, but that doesn't make them any less responsible.
Well, knowing the consequences, I'd say it's rather unethical to 'ask' them for their resources.
I'd rather see them say to the rich company, "Hey, you want to exploit our labor? Fine. Here are the minimum labor standards and pay."
Sorry, for some countries being able to say 'no' or demand standards is just as realistis as the ideal economy without employment.
But what if a certain technology reduces the pollution but to implement it would bankrupt the company or make the product no longer viable? How much CO2 is permissible to avoid X number of people being thrown out of work?
To start with the last: research in making better filters, solar panels and stuff and producing the things is work too, so there is also an increase in employment here. And is the implementation is certain measures would bankrupt a company I seriously have doubts about the viability of that company.
No-one has a responsibility to listen to a babbling idiot. I'm not suggesting that you are one, but I am suggesting that if the United States, in its own informed opinion, thinks that what everyone else is saying is hogwash we have absolutely NO responsibility to listen to them just because they outnumber us. In fact, our government has a responsibility to its citizens to protect us from such nonsense by not going along with the crowd.
I see it as a bigger picture. Economy, environment, politics, peace, 'everything' has ist's effects on a global scale. Cooperation plays a very important role in this. The more countries play by the same rules the stronger the effect is.
No. Ignorant is when you frame your argument around the possibility of having to find two additional planets to support the population in 2050. As someone else said in this thread, they framed two options 1) Reduce our consumption now. 2) Find two more planets. Since the second one is impossible, the conclusion is that we must reduce consumption now.
Indeed. I don't think the point of the argument was to find those two planets, but to make insightful that our consumption is rising very rapidly and that we should at least realise THAT. But that is something different than saying the story is ****.
That's an inaccurate conclusion, certainly not scientific. It doesn't contemplate the possible--dare I say PROBABLE--improvements in technology in the next 50 years that will reduce pollution without reducing consumption. THAT'S the third choice and it's not one they significantly addressed.
The reason they didn't talk to the third option is because they aren't making a real effort to present the possible options to the public. They are trying to scare the public into accepting their politics. That's why their story was written off by most as bullshit...
I have to agree that the story doesn't address all the solutions. The goal of the story is not to find a solution, I think, but mainly to make a point about the upcoming problem. Either address the need for more and moreresources or accept that we'll eventually (50, 100, 200 jears. whatever) run out of wood, fuel, food etcetera.
The fact is, in most cases 3rd world countries end up developing because richer nations invest in them. If RICH nations are investing in them anyway they should be required to use the latest in pollution-controlling technology, should they not?
I'd love to see that, yes. That would be responsible behaviour to me.
You seem to have a lot of faith in companies' "responsible behavior." History shows that your faith is misplaced. If you set up the scenario described by Kyoto (expensive labor and environmental restrictions in 1st world, cheap labor and no environmental restrictions in 3rd world) then I can assure you that the companies WILL move there, they WILL pollute there, and they WILL take their jobs there.
A public awareness of the problemshould help. Is it turns out a company uses childlabour it's quite bad for public relations. It's is very likely that companies will have to deal with such a public opinion. You see the same thing with oilcompanies making cleaner fuels or like eco-products which are more expensive, but people are willing to pay for it.
Ofcourse the effect would be stronger if a government would demand "responsible behavior". (see previous comment on global economy: governments working together can demand such a thing)
[...] And that's why the U.S. didn't sign on to Kyoto. I invite you review the U.S. stand. Unfortunately, the U.S. didn't even dispute the goals and reductions required by Kyoto--the U.S. disputed it being implemented in some countries and not in others.
I read Time to Rethink Kyoto and I agree they make a point, but that is still no reason to do nothing. It should be a stilumus to get on one line. Somebody told me there are limits for the 3rd world countries, but they'll are not applied until their economy has grown to a certain vciable level.
Me: Second, it doesn't take a climate science degree to understand that since the above is true you really haven't reduced pollution on a global scale--you've just moved the pollution to developing countries where we can't see it.
[SNIP] As you said before. Companies will have to build factories in those countries and they'll use newer less polluting techniques, so it will decrease pollution for the production, which is a certain step in the right direction.
You: 1) redistribute wealth to developing countries by moving jobs there at the expense of developed countries. 2) redistribute pollution so that we can feel squeaky clean in the developed world while the developing world becomes even dirtier. Me: Well, the 1) isn't bad. It will pay off. The 2) is a problem that requires a lot of attention. You: And therein lies the real problem. You've agreed that Kyoto will do little more than redistribute pollution and requires "a lot of attention" but also agree that "it isn't bad, it will pay off" that we redistribute wealth from the 1st world to the 3rd world.
I don't want to enter the whole socialism debate, but this is my exact point: If you want to redistribute world wealth then propose it. See if the world accepts it. DON'T camaflouge it as environmental regulations that don't help the environment but do achieve worldwide socialism/wealth distribution.
Well, I disagree that CO2 is harmful pollution. But even if it is, let me re-ask the question you didn't answer: Why does anyone think that Kyoto will actually help the environment? As you essentially conceded above, pollution will be redistributed to exempt countries, not eliminated. So why does anyone think Kyoto will help the environment? Unless you refer to the environment of developed countries at the expense of the environment of developing countries?
Let me turn the question around. What will happen is nothing is done? Don't forget that eventually Kyoto also will apply to the developing countries. Applying Kyoto to them now will have very negative effects on their weak economies. we'll have to 'live' with that.
Kyoto isn't the alpha and omega for the environment. It's a step in the right direction. Take that step and work on the imperfections (enforcements etcetera). All the steps together will help.
I believe the above [0% tarifs] would in the short-term help the developing countries and hurt the developed countries, but in the long-term (10+ years) it would help everybody.
In the end, when the developing economy has developed to a strong economy maybe, but since we're more efficient and our products are cheaper, it will push local less efficiently made products out off their local markets, and thereby increase unemployment, and import in those countries and destroy their economy. It takes years of carefull development to mature an economy (and society!) so it function on the global market. Look at the former USSR. The worldbank tried / telped them to reform their economy it to a marketsystem. The results are known.
But, unlike Kyoto, it has to be UNIVERSAL. No exceptions. Not for me, not for you, not for Bill Gates, and not for poor Ethiopians.
Only when the situations are the same, you can apply the same rules and regulations.
Let me summarize:
1. Most development in the 3rd world happens because the 1st world invests in it. Since the 1st world has the money, it should invest in doing it cleanly.
2. If it doesn't apply to everyone, including developing countries, pollution will just be relocated, not eliminated.
3. The end-result of Kyoto is not pollution reduction but wealth and pollution redistribution. Kyoto should be debated as a wealth redistribution treaty, not an environmental one.
Nice, but:
1. Kyoto will reduce pollution in the first world.
2. Some companies will go to the 3rd world countries with less strict regulations. They will build factories there which are mose likely more efficient and cleaner than the ones there at the moment.
3. This will stimulate the local economy there so they have more possibilities to invest in cleaner technologies too.
Probably the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I'm sorry, if the futileness of the Kyoto treaty--except for wealth redistribution--isn't clear to you by now I'm not sure that re-explaining it to you again will help.
You've made your point. I admitted it is a problem that requires a lot of attention. I'm not saying the answer is easy, but doing nothing is just like ignoring the problem. Search for solutions against against pollution redistribution. Subsidize cleaner technologies in our own countries to avoid companies to move to other countries, build new clean factories in other countries. And again, in Europe there are stronger pollution reductions standards, but I haven't seen a massive exodus of the industry.
Kyoto redistributes some pollution to other countries, which in the longer run also will have to comply with Kyoto, as side effect, but it will also reduce pollution in our countries. It's not only wealth redistribution. Kyoto is a step in the direction of pollution reduction.
Yes, that's probably true. Our companies would overrun them to take advantage of cheap labor. That would happen at the cost of laborers in the rich countries. But, within 10-20 years, the poor countries would increase in wealth and those incentives would disappear. Eventually, there'd be no reason for the U.S. to be any richer than Afghanistan. But, in the long run, the U.S. wouldn't LOSE--we'd gain because there'd now be 6 BILLION potential consumers with disposable income rather than, what, about 1.5 billion or so now?
1.5 billion? That much?
I'd say it will probably take longer. There are some 'religious', ideological and political barriers that have to be overcome, but I think in the end there can be a healthy global marketsystem with a better wealth distribution than the one there is now.
Since our conversation has gone all over the board, from environment to socialism to health care to corporate responsibility, let me try to summarize my viewpoint:
1. Kyoto is about worldwide wealth redistribution, not the environment. As written and with the exemptions that it has, Kyoto will not reduce worldwide pollution. What it WILL do is redistribute jobs and wealth. It should be debated as a jobs and wealth redistribution treaty, not an environmental one.
2. The original article doesn't contemplate technological advances that will allow us to reduce pollution without reducing consumption. They gave us the choice of finding two more planets or reducing consumption. Those aren't the only two options and that's why the article was dismissed as alarmist bullshit.
3. The buck stops locally which means that blaming the developed world for all of the problems in the developing world is just about as reasonable as blaming the nuclear arms race on the first multi-cell organism that inhabited the earth.
4. Responsibility doesn't decrease with wealth. As poor as I may be and as tempting as it may be to kill someone for a million bucks, I can't ignore my responsibility to reject that offer. The same goes for Brasil cutting down its trees or whatever. I'm sure the situation for Brasil is as desperate as the poor man considering killing someone to make a buck...
I don't mind the broad discussion. I like new points of view.
Basicly my point of view are these:
1. I do see your point on the short term imperfections in the Kyoto treaty. I just don't agree it's a reason to completely ignore the treaty. Developing countries eventually also have to comply with Kyoto. There are ways of making Kyoto work. Doing nothing in the mean time, using any excuse, as I see it is only a way to make the American companies happy and preventing them to do investments which reduces profit. Nothing is black and white. Wealth redistribution probably will happen, but pollution will reduce too.
2. The original article makes a point, but in a very extreme way. Judging the dismissing reactions it was the wring way. That doesn't take away the fact that our consumption is rising very fast and we might run into trouble. It's very easy to make fun about the story and completely put the point of the story aside.
3. I think the discussion never came to that point. I don't get it.
4. True, but on the other hand, offering a bad deal, knowing a person / country can't refuse is highly objectionable and compairable to exploitation. I'd say the 1st world has grown past the point and 'need' for exploitation and slavery.
5. We came to a point where our standard of life is that high that we're in a position to think about the consequenses of our way of living and let morale, ethics and responsability play a bigger role in our lifes.
And help others to learn from their mistakes. Usually I'm just glad if people help me to improove. But "DON'T USE IT" doesn't really contribute to his / her learningprocess.
Ok. In the case of the 'what does this button do' mistakes you're right;)
Jou're very right. And where do we make electricity from? Quite often by burning fossil fuels or neclear power. Hmm. So much for the less polution story, I'm affraid...
It's hard where I would draw the line but it is good to take away the IP in certain cases. I remember the price for the anthrax medicine. I think everyboby agrees that in that case economy shouldn't do it's work. The medicine should be widely available. In this case i would agree to take away the IP to make production widely possible.
But now for the case of OpenGL and probably other 'inventions' aswell. Perhaps if a certain product is available for free for a certain time it should be forbidden to claim the patent rights. This way it would be clear from the beginning that it's not an 'embrace and extend' trick.
The point is NOT that I would deny a company his patents, but I would like what i'm up to and not have the rules changed halfway while there's nothing I can do about it.
Imagine the chaos when somebody claims the IP of the keybeard... and gets it!
I'd say we have the right to set terms for our business deals just as they have the right to take their business elsewhere. There are few products that can only be obtained from a single country.
Often it's a take it or leave it deal. Allow this product on your market or we stop all trade with your country. And being a poor country, this hardly leaves an alternative.
Whether the above is ethical or even good long-term for the rich country is another story. I'm personally in favor of 0% tarrifs on everything worldwide. "Customs" should exist only to make sure nothing illegal or dangerous is coming in, not to levy taxes.
Again this is a measure that will benefit our economy, but hardly benefits theirs. We require them to open up their markets for our products, while we still have all kinds of measures to protect our market and effectively keep it closed for their products.
An other effect by opening their markets for our products is that their money will flow to the 1st world while it should be invested in their own countries. Effectively this makes them poorer.
It's not our RIGHT to cut rainforests, but it is our right to look around the world for the resources we want. It is the right of the country that owns the rainforest to decide whether they want to satisfy existing demand.
I agree they are in a hard place. I'm sure it is very tempting for them to go ahead and chop down rainforests to earn a few bucks. But to say they have no choice isn't correct. As you said, everyone has rights and corresponding responsibilities. That applies to everyone, not just the rich.
Personally for wood I would prefere a model where the wood prodecers spend a part of their income to plant new trees. The 'no alternatives' argument applies to the trees too. Do those countries really have an alternative or is it a theoretical one? Knowing they hardly have an alternative it would be extortion to 'ask' them for their trees. We HAVE the freedom to ask them for their wood, but knowing they have no alternatives, that makes us the responsible ones. Planting new trees would be our responsability.
Believe me, I'm not in favor of sweatshops nor exploiting child labor. That's bad and regardless of what company I happened to own I would never do it--that's a question of ethics.
A poor country is just as defenseless against our economy as a child in a sweatshop.
But those practices are all tacitly "approved" by their local government. The local government should look out for their own--in fact, that is there RESPONSIBILITY. If they lived up to their responsibility, the problem of child exploitation and sweatshops would go away. Sure, the company might leave for another country--until that country also lived up to its responsibility to its citizens.
OTHO our companies could tahe their responsability and refuse to buy the products if child labour is involved. Luckily this is happening more and more. An other thing that companies can do is invest in their welfare. Build schools and educate their children to give them opportunities in the future. A higher level of education will also pay back.
But at the same time I can't help but thinking if Japan were to start a sweatshop in Los Angeles and Americans willingly went to work there--even if those Americans were penniless homeless people--should the world complain about Japan looking for the best deal or about the U.S. that isn't enforcing labor laws within its territory?
The effect of last option is to say to your poor people "sorry, we know you desperately need the money, but you can't work in that Japanese sweatshop". I'd rather see that the foreign company in this example would see it as a moral duty to offer a working environment that stands up to their own standards with working and safety conditions in which they would let their own employees work too.
I'd say that depends on the issue. Something bad locally may or may not have bad effects regionally or globally.
But how about a continuous production of exhaust? Remember the effects on health of the population during the beginning of the industrial revolution.
At the same time, I don't think a model has to be 100% right. I would be willing to accept a model that was 90% right 90% of the time. But so far we have don't have anything remotely close to that--and therein lies the problem. We don't have a second earth to do experiments, and the models haven't been able to successfully reproduce todays environment based on past scenarios. That puts the environmentalists in a tough place selling their case to the public.
A few weeks ago I read an article in a newspaper regarding the growth of the world population. They discussed four different models on energy consumption. A model by one group or fesearchers was based on continuation of the present situation. An other group made a model assuming energy reducing measures would be used. The outcome of the four models were quite different and it's likely that neither of the models would fit the future outcome of energy use for 90% in 90% of the time, but they all agreed on an increase of energy use (roughtly between 2.5 and 3.5 the amount we use now if I remember well). We don't know exactly how much more energy there will be used. There are just too many scenarios. Tha same applies to pollution. The amount of pollution and the effects that they will have are uncertain, but my impression is that we generally agree that pollution WILL have a bad effect in the long term.
That's a tough one. I admit I haven't read about the Swiss Tree/German flood scenario but unless they are downing an ungodly number of trees I would truly have to think that the floods are caused by varying precipitation levels--not solely by the lack of trees. That is, I can accept that the trees are an aggravating factor, but I find it hard to believe that the downed trees are the only cause of the floods.
You're right. It's is very likely that there are more factors involved. But it's hard to say cuttimg down trees contributes for xx% of the flooding problem and global warming for yy% etc.
And I'm 99% sure (I'm participating in multiple threads) that that's what I said at the beginning. The pollution per dollar analysis is useful in determining what countries need to have their efficiency improved.
How would you improve that efficiency? If you decrease the pollution your ratio ALSO goes up. That ratio doesn't say anything about the total amount of pollution. If the total amount of pollution is high, you need to reduce THAT and thereby, as a mathematical result, your ratio will go up.
If that's all it was, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the demands of many environmentalists are so extreme that we're not talking about installing filters--we're talking about building entirely new plants, or perhaps terminating production completely.
In many cases plants don't have an eternal life and improvements have to be made anyway. In certain cases a new production method prooves to be cheaper (more efficient, but says nothing about the amount of pollution;) and the plant is improved. Those are perfect moments to think about less polluting methods and measures, but a company must be willing to do so or nothing happens. In other cases, Tjernobyl, it is quite clear that plants are not safe enough or pollute too much. Safety if a reason to shut doen a plant. Let pollution be an other one.
... I don't, however, believe that CO2 production is "dangerous pollution." That's far from proved. Regardless of how much we pump into the air, it won't kill us. The worst possible scenario is the indirect effects from global warming--but that hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt yet....
Well, what can I say. I'm happy that there are many counties think that there are enough clues pointing to the effects of CO2 that they willing to address the CO2 production, even if the effect isn't 90% prooved. Having with 'only' 250.000.000 inhabitants and being that influencial also carries responsabilities to listen to others. I just don't like to see the U.S. to go their own way in this matter.
Most everyone discounts the report because its absurd. But believe me, my Karma has taken a hit for my "I don't believe the whole environmental crisis story."/. might not agree with the report (because it IS absurd) but believe me, the majority would side with you, not with me.
Haha. Ane of my posts' score yoyo-ed with interesting and flaimbait mods;)
I've been tought that there are always more sides to a story and to ask questions. I the 'crisis story' will a piece of truth in it. The figures are dramatic. I actually can't tell if they are really true, but to put the story aside saying it's bullshit is ignorant.
The story reminded me on a simulation of a population of foxes and rabbits I had on my ZX-Spectrum, 15 years ago. But this time the simulation is called 'humans and resources'...
First, it assumes that we have concluded that not only is global warming happening but that humans are the major cause of it. That is far from proven.
Ok.
Second, it assumes that even if there is global warming that it must be bad. That is also far from proven. In fact, I read an article yesterday that stated that a slightly warmer winter last year saved the U.S. economy over $21 billion and saved lives from severe winter storms (sorry, I'm not going to hunt it down right now--feel free to google it).
Interesting (+1)
Third--and I think this is the biggest--it makes no sense to apply Kyoto restrictions/reductions to the developed world and not apply them to developing countries--especially when two of the exempted countries (India and China) account for nearly 50% of the world population and one of them is even less efficient than the U.S. on a GDP/Pollution basis.
AAARGH!;) Quoting http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ us.html: "Environment - current issues: air pollution resulting in acid rain in both the US and Canada; the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels;..."
Ok. You're not sure about CO2. Enough others are. But please tell me why it so important to look at other countries instead of looking at our own? I believe we agreed that developing the economy of a 3rd world country is important for them to achieve wealth and money and in the ling term for us for trade. Imposing all kings of regulations on their industry will withhold them more than it will us. Sure eventually they have to live to the restrictions, but they need to develop first and with our help they can do that in a 'good' way. In the mean time we need to look at ourselves and do what we can. At least that's what I think.
First, it doesn't take an economics degree to understand that if labor is cheaper in India and China *AND* they aren't facing Kyoto restrictions, that polluting companies will simply moved to those countries. That will cause more employment in India and China but it will also cause more pollution there AND cost jobs in the developed countries.
The same thing as my sweatshop example. Responsible behaviour from the companies would restrict that from happening.
Second, it doesn't take a climate science degree to understand that since the above is true you really haven't reduced pollution on a global scale--you've just moved the pollution to developing countries where we can't see it.
More responsible behaviour...
My conclusions (and I speak for myself, not the U.S. as a whole or the U.S. Senate, etc.) are that Kyoto will NOT reduce global pollution, period. What it will do is 1) redistribute wealth to developing countries by moving jobs there at the expense of developed countries. 2) redistribute pollution so that we can feel squeaky clean in the developed world while the developing world becomes even dirtier. (and with that in the end the whole world...)
Well, the 1) isn't bad. It will pay off. The 2) is a problem that requires a lot of attention.
Let me ask you an other question. With freedom came responsability. But would you agree that responsability also comes with power and wealth?
A better question is: Why does anyone think that Kyoto will actually help the environment?
I think CO2 IS accepted as problem by many countries, and it's assumed (to play it safe) a reduction of CO2 WOULD help the environment. The influence of european governments on the market and companies is bigger than America's government. Blackmail by companies is occuring here, but there is a climate here that consumers demand more and more responsability from companies. Consumer behavior and governmental regulations have effects on companies. My impression is that the US government is run/bought by industry or lobby groups. Therefore they are very influencial on the american politics. Perhaps in Europe it's easyer to enforce Kyoto and force responsable behaviour on companies.
I would like to think because they spent 40 billion dollars (made up number) on research and only by selling the drugs at these prices can they recoup their investment to (hopefully) research and deploy even better drugs in the future.
It's very safe to assume that. But how much money would they make in a poor country where prople have less that $1,00? They will make their biggest income in the 1st world. It would suit them right to make it possible for the 3rd world to procude cheap medicine. BUT the 1st world's market would have to be protected against the cheap 3rd world medicine.
That said, I personally think there should be some limits to what companies can charge for medical goods. They definitely need to recoup their investment, they definitely need to make a reasonable return on their investment... but milking the market once they've recouped their investment is unethical.
If you milk a society that can afford it I'd say that's economy. But with medicine it's a little more complicated. I think people deserve to be healthy. Health souldn't be a priviledge for the rich.
It's a tough question. You don't want to put so many restrictions on profits from medicine that no-one researches it. At the same time, I have a hard time swallowing (literally) my asthma-control medication that costs $1 per pill. At some point they've recouped their investment and the price ought to come down.
Or they develop a new medicine which can be sold at a higher price and take the old one off the market...
Therefore I say we have to invest in the developing countries.
We do. Unfortunately, it is often painted as "exploiting third world countries" but the fact remains that we do invest in developing countries paying the local prevailinng labor rates.
There are things we can do to prevent exploitation. It's a very bad idea to pay people a salary that would be very much higher (but probably still nothing compared to our salaries) than the average salary. The difference in wealth would instabilize the country. I'd rather see a fair salary, and invest in things like education, healthcare, infrastructure. That too will benefit the economy, will help to build up the country and increase wealth. While on the other hand, it can't be accumulated (like money) by just a few.
I agree. Hopefully some day my asthma medication will cost $0.02 per pill instead of a dollar.
Would be nice. Also it would do me pleasure if others also have the chanse to live in wealth.
Helping eachother getting to higher standards will in long term benefit us all.
That's capitalism. With zero tarrifs, companies will go in and exploit (i.e. invest) other countries. Over time, developing countries will develop and their wealth should become on par with the "rich countries."
That will happen all by itself without us making an "effort" to invest in developing countries. It requires no action on behalf of governments. The problem is that all governments that I know of currently impose tarrifs and THAT is what causes developing countries to not advance.
I thought it was socialism;) But it's true what you say. I would even go as far as saying that the 1st world should be opened for the 3rd worlds' products. You should have _some_ protection for your local products, but it would be good if there was some (more) money to flow to the 3rd world and not the other way around. This also means the 3rd world has to be protected from our products. At least until the 3rd world has become more like the 1st world and they truely can play their past in the global trade game.
We were the ones buiding the factories in Taiwan, we will build factories in the developing countries. But with our possibilities we can build cleaner factories there.
Exactly. Which is why Kyoto should apply to everyone, not just the developed countries.
The thing is that WE can afford the live up to Kyoto. Developing countries, at the moment, hardly can.
Back in the 90's, the U.S. Senate voted 99-0 that they would not sign on to any Kyoto treaty that applied to us but not to developing countries. That's reasonable. And that's the main (official) reason the U.S. would not participate in Kyoto.
Do what you can. That's responsible.
Whatever. I think they are hoodlums myself. The way globalization should take place is like this: Today we have tarrifs, tomorrow we don't. Done.
But then the poor countries would be overrun by our companies?
The other day I got a spam with a ICQ-number in it. Well, what the heck, I thought and requested authorisation. To my surprise I got it. I even got the chance to talk with Mr. Spammer. It didn't get very technical. He had 400.000.000 addresses and 30% were outdated blah blah. it took 7 5 hour days to spam all the addresses. Well. all in all it was funny to talk the spammer, but it took him some time. He's wasting my time, i'll wase his. I also love to call a spammer if possible. Ask where he got the addresses, ask what kind of product it is and after a while tell you're not interested:)
I hope you find this discussion as interesting as I do because I really took some time to write a reply.
Perhaps to the Chinese a reduction in freedom is a small price to pay. They don't have a very large tradition of "freedom." Overpopulation also isn't a problem in most of the developed world, so imposing those kinds of reductions in freedoms would be unnecessesary.
I think this particular reduction of freedom is not yet necessesary in most countries, but it "solves" the problems for China. Most countries don't have a huge population like China, with all the problems coming with it. But these kind of situations (hunger, overpopulation, desease) also have effect on the rest of the world. Just like the economy in the US has effect on the economy in the EU. I'll come back this subject later on.
I'm sorry, my freedoms are not negotiable. As the saying goes, "Those that give up freedom to ensure security deserve neither."
Can you specify 'freedom' for me. To me absolute freedom doesn't exist. I have the freedom to drive a car, but not to speed. In a very direct way that is a limitation of my freedom to use a car the way I could want, but we all agreed to accept that limitation. To me responsability is a duty that comes with freedom. We can apply that to nature too. We have the freedom to do with it whatever we want, but we have to do it in a responsable way.
The concept of freedom and responsability is interesting. I'd say freedom a universal right. Or is freedom a privilege for the ones who can afford it? And what gives one the right to take advantage from another person or country? We already spoke earlyer about investing in poor countries. Do we have the right to force poor farmers to buy our seeds for a high price by refusing to buy their regular product if they don't? Is it right to cut rainforests in other countries because they hardly have any other resources? Even if it supports OUR economy? No. Those countries can't do anything about it. They're with their backs against the wall. They have no other options that to do what we want them to do. That is no freedom for them. They're working for us. In the case of sweatshops even in circumstances that we wouldn't accept here. Compared to what their work is worth we pay hardly them. That is slavery. The only difference is that it's not happening in our oun countries, but far far away so that we don't have to think about it. (This is no attack on America's history. The Dutch also have a slave history.)
If environmentalists ever present a convincing case based on science and logic...
Isn't it safe to assume that something that has bad effects locally, also has bad effects globally??
... rather than politics and fear, I think you will see that a vast majority of Americans will take action without someone forcing it on us.
The problem with these things is that it is so damn hard to proove. And worse, scientific proof is based on measurements and facts, but in this case it's impossible to conduct a scientific experiment. Firstly because it would require two testsets to compare with eachother and we only have one earth. And secondly because to proove beyond any doubt that the way we live and use the earth will cause a disaster is TO CAUSE that desaster. If you're using a mathematical model there will ALWAYS be someone saying that the model is flawed.
Example. The Marlboro man. All the tabacco companies for years denied smoking is bad for your health. How many people have died of cancer before FINALLY they admit it is bad? You see, if companies don't have any short term interest in ecological measures, they'll deny the facts, but sadly, we don't have thousands of worlds to proove the way we live is wrong. We have assumptions and theories.
On the other hand, there are enough signs that indicate that the way we use the earth isn't the right way. For example cutting down trees to make skiing possible. In the Swiss Alps there's a lot of skiing going on. Lot's of trees are cut down to make place for the ski pistes. As a result the rain washes the soil away because there is no vegetation left to keep the soil in place. Without the soil an inportant buffer for the rain is gone and the rain will flow directly in the Rhine. Down the Rhine in Germany the same thing is happening. The result is that with heavy rain and in the spring (melting snow) the amount of water in the Rhine has increased and causes floods in Germany like in Kohln (Colonge) and the Netherlands. [Background info on the Rhine is found here]
Now what's the point of this water story? There are three points. 1. Just cutting down some trees CAN have big (unforseen) ecological effects. 2. Assume Swiss has the right / freedom to cut down their trees. Does this give them the right to cause floodings and damage in Germany and the Netherlands? 3. The economical profit the Swiss makes with tourism is good for them, but has a counterside in enormous (economical) damage in other countries. Do they have the right / freedom to cause (economical) damage in other countries?
I don't know about the cause of the floods in Texas, but the economical damage is enormous and I'm not even talking about personal tragedy. The way we treath the earth IS backfiering on us. I tried to point out that small actions (cutting down trees) can have big unforseen effects many miles away. This is a PROOVEN fact, and there are big discussions going on about CO2 and NO. Is it a good idea to dispute the assumptions until they ARE prooven, and take the risk in the mean time that we do irreversable damage to the environment (quitting smiking can be too late to and cancer still is hard to cure), destroying human life and therefore destroying economy? Or is it better to play it safe and take measures?
Ofcourse it's about how efficient we pollute--or, more clearly put, it's about how efficiently we can generate wealth with the least amount of pollution.
Actually there is a very big difference between the two statements. The first statement implies polution is a goal, but it isn't. In the end it's a TOTAL amount of polution that will kill a man or damage the environent. Something like "If you have to pollute, make sure to maximize profit, but if you have to make profit, make sure to minimize pollution."
Thinking about your and my arguments, I see that it contradicts what I said earlier about pollution/habitant (new insights are always nice). What it comes down to is the TOTAL global amount of polution that counts. Not the amount of pollution relative to something. That left me with the question why pollution/habitant is used. What does it measure? It measures how polluting one's lifestyle is, I guess.
You can do some good for society without polluting, but for you to be able to do those things you--and the economy around you--have to be in sufficiently good shape to support those activities. If you don't have food, medicine, shelter, etc. you won't be spending much time helping society, I can assure you. And for you to have your food, medicine, and shelter certain activities much take place--and those activities create pollution.
Completely true, and I wouldn't want to do without those activities, but there are many ways to reduce the amount of pollution in the proces of conducting those activities. There are ways for example to produce energy with less pollution like wind- and solarenergy. But it takes research, investments, money to make things like solar panels profitable. It CAN be done, but one has to want it.
So what we can do is try to increase the efficiency of inefficient countries. We can try to increase our own efficiency as long as doing so provides a net gain in efficiency. If, by implementing a given policy, our GDP/pollution efficiency is reduced we've actually moved in the wrong direction.
Increasing the efficiency suggests an inproovement, but it also implies that if you find a very very profitable way to make a product which produces more pollution than a profitable way to make a product the GDP/pollution is increasing, but also the total amount of pollution is increasing. Again, what's the use of a very high GDP/pollution if the high amount of pollution will kill you. In the end it is about enjoying a good life in an economy and not about a good economy and no life at all.
"Investing" (spending) on these products needs to reduce the amount of pollution per dollar. The problem is, many times the policies actually would INCREASE the amount of pollution per dollar--although overall pollution may be reduced.
Again, the "per dollar" is not the issue. Pollution per dollar is only interesting to point out (in)efficient industries. The GDP/pollution of the US probably is higher then the GDP/pollution of Russia. This only says there is room for improovement in the Russian industry. It says nothing about the total amount of pollution produced. Investing money in anti-pollution measures will indeed reduce the profit, but I think that is a small price to pay. In fact there are many ways of MAKING money with those investments. Underground heat storage will decrease the amount of gas used for heating and cooling a building. So therefore will safe money. At the moment such an investment already pays back in 4 to 5 years. Also solarpanels is getting more efficient by the year.
What that means is that, yes, you may have less pollution but you've also created less wealth in the world. Those that look at ONLY the environmental side of the equation without looking at the economic side are as shortsighted and out-of-touch with reality as those businesses that dump their toxic waste into rivers.
But what's the use wealth if that would cause floodings, desease and hunger? As I see it, all your agruments are ONLY based at wealth, money and economy. There are many ways that you still can make a profit, of course it's smaller profit WITH environmental investments. But take a look at your own life. Is it that bad that you need to get (much) more wealthy?
It's about both. But if we can improve our efficiency, the total amount of pollution will tend to decrease for a given amount of "social good" (wealth).
I'll stop repeating that it's a TOTAL amount that will kill you, not a relative amount. Pff. Okay, one more really silly example. What would you prefere. To die from getting wealth in 5 years, to die from getting wealthy in 10 years or get wealthy and stay alive? The second ratio is way better than the first one, but I prefere the third one. Ok, it is a silly example, but I hope you understand what I mean.
People don't like seeing the word "wealth" or "money." But these people simply don't understand that in the real world there is a very real relation between "wealth/money" and "standard of living" and "societal good." Sure, we can clean up our environment 100%--and all live like Ethiopians. But despite the fact that we'll have a cleaner environment, few would argue we've served the good of society.
Hmm. Yes and no. I think nobody with a piece of common sense will argue that money and wealth are bad. Au contraire. I would say everybody should have enough money and wealth, not too much. A big difference in wealth and money is a problem. Especially is one has way less than a certain minimum. In fact above a cartain amount of money the amount isn't imporant anymore. What does Bill Gates do with his money? Buying an even bigger villa perhaps, but I don't think he would be very unhappy about having 30,000,000 less than he does now. He'd probably even wouldn't notice it. would you miss, say $100.= a year? Same thing for a company. Many companies can perfectly function with a smaller profit and invest that in exhaust filters or other measures. Cleaning the environment for 100% is unrealistic, but refusing to do anything is rediculous.
Those few that WOULD suggest we live like Ethiopians, if that's what it takes to clean the environment, are just as extremists and without merit as those businesses that think that dumping toxic waste in rivers is ok. Neither extreme is acceptable.
I totally agree. Fortunately we're not talking about a total reduction of exhaust, but the whole concept of CO2 reduction seems out of the question. And the general reaction on/. is total denyal of the article we were reacting to. I've seen reactions like "We have a damn near infinite supply of oil..." (this person forgot the 70's oil crisis) and others talking about "treehugging extremists", not even willing to think about the possibility and the implications if even part of the story turns out to be true. The question that interests me is why the US is completely refusing to participate in Kyoto. Perhaps you can help me out?
What you and many forget is that our health AND our quality live are very tightly linked to "hard bucks." I know it's an unpopular view, but it's the truth.
They are linked, but having $10,000 or $100,000 doesn't make me 10 times healthier, while at the same time there are many who have to do with less than $1.00 a day. We ARE wealthy, we even have time to worry or discuss the environment while others have to worry about food. No, making just a little less profit shouldn't make us unwealthe and poor. Most of us (1st world) can do with a little less.
Without the hard bucks, we will not have the money to support medical research to produce new medicines that save millions of lives per year. Or reduce the pain and suffering of those that are sick. Or distribute food to those that are starving.
I could have said the same:) But why are big industrials asking $60.= for an AIDS medicine in Africa. The people there can't afford it, while prople here can. There it is. Health. Only for the ones who can afford it. I would say something like health is a right, not a privilegde. Remember the Bayer(?) medicine against Anthrax? Suddenly the government ordered that the price should be, I can't remember how much, but much lower than the official price. But if in Africa they BEG for cheaper medicine suddenly the same medicin companies are protected and not forced do reduce the prices. Health. From the ones that can spare it.
These are ALL aspects of health and quality of life that cannot be addressed without a thriving economy ("hard bucks") to support it. If certain policies that "save our environment" but destroy our economy are implemented, any potential gains in quality of life and health due to a cleaner environment very easily will be overshadowed by the decreases in our ability to address other issues of quality of life.
Without hard bucks, we're nowhere, but I seriously doubt that environmental friendly policies will destroy the economy. Without a doubt here will be less profit, but healthy companies are resourcefull and a bad company will go bankrupt one way or another. In Europe the environment gets quite some attention, but is our economy destroyed by it? Economy ALWAYS will find it's way. That's economy.
So it's ok to let developing countries pollute the world for money, but developed countries cannot? I don't see the consistency in that argument based on the rest of your post that seems to imply that the environment is more important than "hard bucks."
Good point. First of all, I would say that you're almost right about the base of my argument. They're both important. But I would say in the end "hard bucks" are less important than a healthy environment. I want to be healthy, wealthy, have food and have a roof over my head. I have those. I don't want more food, more wealth and a bigger roof over my head if that is for account of the smell of a forest after a summers rainfall. A strong economy results in more wealth, but wealth is more than a strong economy. A healthy environment also contributes to more wealth.
But the argument goes like this. Stimulating economy will pay back. I think you'll agree. Stimulating the economy in the developint countries will eventually benefit us. Just think about Taiwan. The last time I saw a 'made in Taiwan' watch is long time ago. Now they produce high tech products. It takes 20, 30 years, but it will pay off. Therefore I say we have to invest in the developing countries. They need to grow to a point where they can compete with our industry. Helping eachother getting to higher standards will in long term benefit us all. Look at Taiwan. Our economies won't be destroyed by implementing cleaner techniques and filters. We have the money for it. In the developing countries they don't. Then need to grow, with our help, first. We were the ones buiding the factories in Taiwan, we will build factories in the developing countries. But with our possibilities we can build cleaner factories there. We can spare more money on environmental measures than they can so that's why we should start implementing those techniques first.
Pledge of Allegiance: One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...
I think I get the idea. But maybe you can tell me a little more about it. About the history of it and the deeper meaning for America.
Let me try to make a globalized version of it: One world, respecting race, religion and each other, because we're all in it together, striving for equality and equal opportunities for all in a healthy world.
Which brings me to an other subject: Anti-globalisation. The short short version. The movement got the international interest with the riots in Seattle and other riots gave them a really bad name, but their intentions are clouded by the term 'anti-globalists' which doesn't cover their ideas the right way. Mainly they're against THE WAY the globalisation process takes place.
The first link wasn't new to me. it's a result indeed. call it bad, call it wrong, but the results of overpopulation and lack of food are worse i think.
http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=2783 is also an interesting link. the article is short, but gives more input for discussion.
I'm goint to read the 2nd article later on. it looks interesting. (Waterworld??) Water will not increase exponentially by the way. there are also limits to that, but it gives more options.
m'kayisee. But don't let a bit pile of FUD withhold you from thinking about it. For ecample there are more arguments for using less energy. One could be the environment. Another could be money and an other again could be recucing the load on the powergrid (in California???)
Obviously, the Chinese plan will actually REDUCE population over time. It also reduces freedom, but that's often an afterthought to many envrionmnetal radicals.
Nope, it's not. I heared Chinese people about this subject. Their position is indeed that it is a reduction of freedom, but to them it's a small price to pay since the other option is hunger and overpopulation. What kine freedom do you have when there is no food or no one will take care of you when you need it?
If I drive 1000 miles [snip] as a result of that pollution.
Interesting point of view, but there is something wrong. I agree that making 1500 instead of 5000 per unit of pollution is inefficient, but that's only one side of the story. The point is NOT how efficient we pollute. You state 'it's about how much good that person can due for society', but you can do good for society without polluting.
By investing in pollution reducing products or processes you decrease the pollution per $. But yes, that would require investments.
By increasing efficiency, total pollution will be reduced.
Still, it's not about how efficient we pollute, it's about how much we pollute. It's like smoking light sigarettes in stead of regular sigarettes, but smoke a whole package a day in stead of 4 or 5 sigarettes. The total amount of pollution / tar, cyanide (jup, that's in sigarettes too) and nicotine is what counts in the end and if you smoke too much you get cancer. Even with light cigatettes. Same thing with pollution.
So, in other words, the "rich" countries should subsidize the "poor" countries because we are rich? [JUMP] Give freebies to certain countries while we throw our own out of work, prepare yourselves to get a good look at our backs as we walk away...
Yes indeed. It's an investment that will pay off in the future. Not in hard bucks, but in health and quality of life. To me that is more important than having a booming (and crashing) economy.
The whole story comes down to making lots'o'$$ versus ethics it seems. In the U.S. making $$$ is the only thing that counts and put nothing im the way of making $$$ or else, while in Europe, through gouvernment regulation, subjects like environment, cheap healtcare, helping developing countries, sustainable energy etc etc is more important.
But again, that is my impression and I really would like to know how you would compare the two.
The next part is getting interesting. In a way it reflects the different philosophies...
The main reason the U.S. rejected is because not everyone was "playing together." It placed certain restrictions on the developed world, such as the U.S., Europe, and Japan, while exempting large parts of the developing world, such as India and China which, together, amount to nearly HALF of the world population.
This is true. Compared to the size of the population, China and India are good for population of 2.200.000.000, but compared to health, income, economy, education, infrastructure and so on they're totally nothing compared to the U.S. _OR_ Europe. It's a really cheap excuse. They're FAR from the point where we are. We ARE developed countries. They're not. And placing restrictions on the developing countries will dramatically slow their development.
Time to sleep. There is work to do tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
I just love to see you generate 1000 g with your car.
g-force isn't equal to 9.8 Newton
1g pulls with 9.8 newtons on 1 kg of mass.
even is you can generate 9800N with your car, you'll never be able to generate 1000g with it.
let's assume graviry is mass, so shooting 'gravity' is shooting mass, you still need a counterforce to stop the gun from leaving earths orbit.
;)
Probably this is solved if you fire an equally strong shot in the opposite direction (most likely not in the direction of earth). You might hit the moon or some other plantes on the way, but what the heck
I was thinking about the samg thing, but probably there are theoretical ways to do something like that.
Think about radiating cancer. If you would use one beam, all the tissue 'in the line of fire' gets fried, so they use several beams that focus on one point. I can imagine the same thing for 'gravitational guns'.
That solves one problem. Now for an other.
1000 g. That is 1000 times the power of earth's gravitation. So how far stretches this gravitational field? The moon is influenced by the earths one g gravitation. And vice versa, we have tides because of the much weaker gravitation of the moon.
My guess is that if you generate a 1000 g gravitational field anywhere on earth, the earth probably will collapse or is torn apart.
Has anyone other or more theories on this?
[remember 'the left wing is NOT on fire] Relax, there's no danger of a collision. Repeat is you look at the system of Hercules you will see an asteroid that is NOT going to hit the earth.
Norton Ghost will do.
the image of my 'vergin' Win98 {yeah, yeah, I know, butI don't need fancy, keep 98 'clean' and it will work nicely) , with some software will fit nicely on one cd.
The only problem is I installed several 'important' applications and some crap, but I forgot to make a new image.
So when I reinstall the image I have to figure out the changes, reinstall the security updates, hope I find an old realplayer without banners and ask around for that cute small game.
Ofcource with the proper maintenance working with images is DEVINE. A clean installation in 15 minutes.
Let your karma be the sum of the moderations. This way you can be a troll, funny or interesting.
Or with some gramatical mathematics an overrated flaimbait.
Change your ratingsystem to
...] ...] ...] ...
animals [pig | dog | cat |
religions [...]
moviestars [Ford | Connery |
architects [...]
computers [ZX80 | PS/2 |
babes [...]
food
Works like a.. baby. no. like a.. piece of cake. no. well IT WORKS!!!
Thanks, Joost.
I hope this still is read, but dies anybody know if it's possible to tweak the right-mouse-button-menu?
;)
I noticed that the options 'open in new tab' and 'open in new window' are switched, but I liked the 1.0 order (tab first) and I really want to undo the newer order.
No, no, no, I don't want to downgrade to the 1.0 version
one year ago there was a big diamond theft in amsterdam. No guns were used.
# th iev]
the diamonds wee carried out thtough the front door in a microwavebox!
[http://www.preciousgemstones.com/gffall01.html
$8 Million in Diamonds Stolen in Microwave
In the Netherlands, a 25-year-old man calmly walked out of the offices of Amsterdam's Gassan Diamonds carrying a box stuffed with uninsured diamonds. He had arrived at the office with the box at the start of the working day, saying it contained a microwave oven. Benno Leeser, director of the 56-year-old family-run firm said, "He came with a microwave in the box, but he left with the diamonds." The suspect, said to be a former army cook who had worked for the firm since April, has vanished without a trace.
Two years ago there was an item on the television here in the Netherlands adout the last man that knew and used morse for radio contact.
This could me a good initiative for a whole new generation to learn morse.
What a way to keep the history alive!
Nowadays, in the post 911 days it seems, as fas as computers are conserned, you are either a hacker or a terrorist, but what has happened to the straight forward criminal doing computerfraud?
Maybe a hacker hacks computers,
a criminal steals computers,
and a terrorist blows up computers.
These are such confusing days...
Not knowing one way or the other, can you cite any examples of this?
... You missed my point [SNIP]
;) But it's important or wome countries to wait for the right moment.
This is a long story. It started more or less with the worldbank. Countries could get funding, but there was always a 'but'. One thing lead to the other, resulting in huge debts. This again often leaves with a worse situation than before. Argentina is a nice result of this politics. I would say a country is a crisis like that hardly has a way nor the means to recover from a crisis without external help. That is why they can't refuse to cut their forests. Knowing this i'd say it's quite unethical to ask that from them (without for example replanting trees).
I know of the standard trade wars--and I can see "accept this or we will levy 50% importation on your $PRODUCT". But completely stopping trade with a country based on a trade dispute?
trade / financial support. It's not like the tradewars (steel?) the US and the EU have.
That said, I've already mentioned that I'm 100% in favor of 0% tarrifs on everything between every country, period. So whether or not the above is true, I'd be opposed to it and the practice would be moot if there were no tarrifs anywhere.
I think we agree
Equal competition. Sounds good. Together with the 0% tarrifs the government should stop to subsidize goods. This could result in lower taxes too.
IN THE END this should apply for the poorer countries too, but I can wait 20 - 30 years (You wrote 10 - 20 years, I think, looking at Taiwan, it takes a little longer.) Probably not all the countries will develop as quick as Taiwan, but eventually they will and THEN the tarrifs should go to 0% for them too. I think. I don't know that much about the long term effects of 0% tarrifs. I guess you want to have SOME protection and regulation of your own economy.
I disagree with that completely and stand by my original comment. Being poor does not absolve one of responsibility or give them the right to "pass the buck." I will concede that perhaps responsibility is harder for those with fewer options, but that doesn't make them any less responsible.
Well, knowing the consequences, I'd say it's rather unethical to 'ask' them for their resources.
I'd rather see them say to the rich company, "Hey, you want to exploit our labor? Fine. Here are the minimum labor standards and pay."
Sorry, for some countries being able to say 'no' or demand standards is just as realistis as the ideal economy without employment.
But what if a certain technology reduces the pollution but to implement it would bankrupt the company or make the product no longer viable? How much CO2 is permissible to avoid X number of people being thrown out of work?
To start with the last: research in making better filters, solar panels and stuff and producing the things is work too, so there is also an increase in employment here. And is the implementation is certain measures would bankrupt a company I seriously have doubts about the viability of that company.
No-one has a responsibility to listen to a babbling idiot. I'm not suggesting that you are one, but I am suggesting that if the United States, in its own informed opinion, thinks that what everyone else is saying is hogwash we have absolutely NO responsibility to listen to them just because they outnumber us. In fact, our government has a responsibility to its citizens to protect us from such nonsense by not going along with the crowd.
I see it as a bigger picture. Economy, environment, politics, peace, 'everything' has ist's effects on a global scale. Cooperation plays a very important role in this. The more countries play by the same rules the stronger the effect is.
No. Ignorant is when you frame your argument around the possibility of having to find two additional planets to support the population in 2050. As someone else said in this thread, they framed two options 1) Reduce our consumption now. 2) Find two more planets. Since the second one is impossible, the conclusion is that we must reduce consumption now.
Indeed. I don't think the point of the argument was to find those two planets, but to make insightful that our consumption is rising very rapidly and that we should at least realise THAT. But that is something different than saying the story is ****.
That's an inaccurate conclusion, certainly not scientific. It doesn't contemplate the possible--dare I say PROBABLE--improvements in technology in the next 50 years that will reduce pollution without reducing consumption. THAT'S the third choice and it's not one they significantly addressed.
The reason they didn't talk to the third option is because they aren't making a real effort to present the possible options to the public. They are trying to scare the public into accepting their politics. That's why their story was written off by most as bullshit...
I have to agree that the story doesn't address all the solutions. The goal of the story is not to find a solution, I think, but mainly to make a point about the upcoming problem. Either address the need for more and moreresources or accept that we'll eventually (50, 100, 200 jears. whatever) run out of wood, fuel, food etcetera.
The fact is, in most cases 3rd world countries end up developing because richer nations invest in them. If RICH nations are investing in them anyway they should be required to use the latest in pollution-controlling technology, should they not?
I'd love to see that, yes. That would be responsible behaviour to me.
You seem to have a lot of faith in companies' "responsible behavior." History shows that your faith is misplaced. If you set up the scenario described by Kyoto (expensive labor and environmental restrictions in 1st world, cheap labor and no environmental restrictions in 3rd world) then I can assure you that the companies WILL move there, they WILL pollute there, and they WILL take their jobs there.
A public awareness of the problemshould help. Is it turns out a company uses childlabour it's quite bad for public relations. It's is very likely that companies will have to deal with such a public opinion. You see the same thing with oilcompanies making cleaner fuels or like eco-products which are more expensive, but people are willing to pay for it.
Ofcourse the effect would be stronger if a government would demand "responsible behavior". (see previous comment on global economy: governments working together can demand such a thing)
[...] And that's why the U.S. didn't sign on to Kyoto. I invite you review the U.S. stand. Unfortunately, the U.S. didn't even dispute the goals and reductions required by Kyoto--the U.S. disputed it being implemented in some countries and not in others.
I read Time to Rethink Kyoto and I agree they make a point, but that is still no reason to do nothing. It should be a stilumus to get on one line. Somebody told me there are limits for the 3rd world countries, but they'll are not applied until their economy has grown to a certain vciable level.
Me: Second, it doesn't take a climate science degree to understand that since the above is true you really haven't reduced pollution on a global scale--you've just moved the pollution to developing countries where we can't see it.
[SNIP] As you said before. Companies will have to build factories in those countries and they'll use newer less polluting techniques, so it will decrease pollution for the production, which is a certain step in the right direction.
You: 1) redistribute wealth to developing countries by moving jobs there at the expense of developed countries. 2) redistribute pollution so that we can feel squeaky clean in the developed world while the developing world becomes even dirtier.
Me: Well, the 1) isn't bad. It will pay off. The 2) is a problem that requires a lot of attention.
You: And therein lies the real problem. You've agreed that Kyoto will do little more than redistribute pollution and requires "a lot of attention" but also agree that "it isn't bad, it will pay off" that we redistribute wealth from the 1st world to the 3rd world.
I don't want to enter the whole socialism debate, but this is my exact point: If you want to redistribute world wealth then propose it. See if the world accepts it. DON'T camaflouge it as environmental regulations that don't help the environment but do achieve worldwide socialism/wealth distribution.
Well, I disagree that CO2 is harmful pollution. But even if it is, let me re-ask the question you didn't answer: Why does anyone think that Kyoto will actually help the environment? As you essentially conceded above, pollution will be redistributed to exempt countries, not eliminated. So why does anyone think Kyoto will help the environment? Unless you refer to the environment of developed countries at the expense of the environment of developing countries?
Let me turn the question around. What will happen is nothing is done? Don't forget that eventually Kyoto also will apply to the developing countries. Applying Kyoto to them now will have very negative effects on their weak economies. we'll have to 'live' with that.
Kyoto isn't the alpha and omega for the environment. It's a step in the right direction. Take that step and work on the imperfections (enforcements etcetera). All the steps together will help.
I believe the above [0% tarifs] would in the short-term help the developing countries and hurt the developed countries, but in the long-term (10+ years) it would help everybody.
In the end, when the developing economy has developed to a strong economy maybe, but since we're more efficient and our products are cheaper, it will push local less efficiently made products out off their local markets, and thereby increase unemployment, and import in those countries and destroy their economy. It takes years of carefull development to mature an economy (and society!) so it function on the global market. Look at the former USSR. The worldbank tried / telped them to reform their economy it to a marketsystem. The results are known.
But, unlike Kyoto, it has to be UNIVERSAL. No exceptions. Not for me, not for you, not for Bill Gates, and not for poor Ethiopians.
Only when the situations are the same, you can apply the same rules and regulations.
Let me summarize:
1. Most development in the 3rd world happens because the 1st world invests in it. Since the 1st world has the money, it should invest in doing it cleanly.
2. If it doesn't apply to everyone, including developing countries, pollution will just be relocated, not eliminated.
3. The end-result of Kyoto is not pollution reduction but wealth and pollution redistribution. Kyoto should be debated as a wealth redistribution treaty, not an environmental one.
Nice, but:
1. Kyoto will reduce pollution in the first world.
2. Some companies will go to the 3rd world countries with less strict regulations. They will build factories there which are mose likely more efficient and cleaner than the ones there at the moment.
3. This will stimulate the local economy there so they have more possibilities to invest in cleaner technologies too.
Probably the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I'm sorry, if the futileness of the Kyoto treaty--except for wealth redistribution--isn't clear to you by now I'm not sure that re-explaining it to you again will help.
You've made your point. I admitted it is a problem that requires a lot of attention. I'm not saying the answer is easy, but doing nothing is just like ignoring the problem. Search for solutions against against pollution redistribution. Subsidize cleaner technologies in our own countries to avoid companies to move to other countries, build new clean factories in other countries. And again, in Europe there are stronger pollution reductions standards, but I haven't seen a massive exodus of the industry.
Kyoto redistributes some pollution to other countries, which in the longer run also will have to comply with Kyoto, as side effect, but it will also reduce pollution in our countries. It's not only wealth redistribution. Kyoto is a step in the direction of pollution reduction.
Yes, that's probably true. Our companies would overrun them to take advantage of cheap labor. That would happen at the cost of laborers in the rich countries. But, within 10-20 years, the poor countries would increase in wealth and those incentives would disappear. Eventually, there'd be no reason for the U.S. to be any richer than Afghanistan. But, in the long run, the U.S. wouldn't LOSE--we'd gain because there'd now be 6 BILLION potential consumers with disposable income rather than, what, about 1.5 billion or so now?
1.5 billion? That much?
I'd say it will probably take longer. There are some 'religious', ideological and political barriers that have to be overcome, but I think in the end there can be a healthy global marketsystem with a better wealth distribution than the one there is now.
Since our conversation has gone all over the board, from environment to socialism to health care to corporate responsibility, let me try to summarize my viewpoint:
1. Kyoto is about worldwide wealth redistribution, not the environment. As written and with the exemptions that it has, Kyoto will not reduce worldwide pollution. What it WILL do is redistribute jobs and wealth. It should be debated as a jobs and wealth redistribution treaty, not an environmental one.
2. The original article doesn't contemplate technological advances that will allow us to reduce pollution without reducing consumption. They gave us the choice of finding two more planets or reducing consumption. Those aren't the only two options and that's why the article was dismissed as alarmist bullshit.
3. The buck stops locally which means that blaming the developed world for all of the problems in the developing world is just about as reasonable as blaming the nuclear arms race on the first multi-cell organism that inhabited the earth.
4. Responsibility doesn't decrease with wealth. As poor as I may be and as tempting as it may be to kill someone for a million bucks, I can't ignore my responsibility to reject that offer. The same goes for Brasil cutting down its trees or whatever. I'm sure the situation for Brasil is as desperate as the poor man considering killing someone to make a buck...
I don't mind the broad discussion. I like new points of view.
Basicly my point of view are these:
1. I do see your point on the short term imperfections in the Kyoto treaty. I just don't agree it's a reason to completely ignore the treaty. Developing countries eventually also have to comply with Kyoto. There are ways of making Kyoto work. Doing nothing in the mean time, using any excuse, as I see it is only a way to make the American companies happy and preventing them to do investments which reduces profit. Nothing is black and white. Wealth redistribution probably will happen, but pollution will reduce too.
2. The original article makes a point, but in a very extreme way. Judging the dismissing reactions it was the wring way. That doesn't take away the fact that our consumption is rising very fast and we might run into trouble. It's very easy to make fun about the story and completely put the point of the story aside.
3. I think the discussion never came to that point. I don't get it.
4. True, but on the other hand, offering a bad deal, knowing a person / country can't refuse is highly objectionable and compairable to exploitation. I'd say the 1st world has grown past the point and 'need' for exploitation and slavery.
5. We came to a point where our standard of life is that high that we're in a position to think about the consequenses of our way of living and let morale, ethics and responsability play a bigger role in our lifes.
Probably after 50.000 Km.
And help others to learn from their mistakes. Usually I'm just glad if people help me to improove. But "DON'T USE IT" doesn't really contribute to his / her learningprocess.
;)
;)
Ok. In the case of the 'what does this button do' mistakes you're right
I make mistakes. Why? Because I can
Jou're very right. And where do we make electricity from? Quite often by burning fossil fuels or neclear power.
Hmm. So much for the less polution story, I'm affraid...
It's hard where I would draw the line but it is good to take away the IP in certain cases. I remember the price for the anthrax medicine. I think everyboby agrees that in that case economy shouldn't do it's work. The medicine should be widely available. In this case i would agree to take away the IP to make production widely possible.
But now for the case of OpenGL and probably other 'inventions' aswell. Perhaps if a certain product is available for free for a certain time it should be forbidden to claim the patent rights. This way it would be clear from the beginning that it's not an 'embrace and extend' trick.
The point is NOT that I would deny a company his patents, but I would like what i'm up to and not have the rules changed halfway while there's nothing I can do about it.
Imagine the chaos when somebody claims the IP of the keybeard... and gets it!
I'd say we have the right to set terms for our business deals just as they have the right to take their business elsewhere. There are few products that can only be obtained from a single country.
;) and the plant is improved. Those are perfect moments to think about less polluting methods and measures, but a company must be willing to do so or nothing happens.
... I don't, however, believe that CO2 production is "dangerous pollution." That's far from proved. Regardless of how much we pump into the air, it won't kill us. The worst possible scenario is the indirect effects from global warming--but that hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt yet. ...
/. might not agree with the report (because it IS absurd) but believe me, the majority would side with you, not with me.
;)
;) Quoting http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ us.html: "Environment - current issues: air pollution resulting in acid rain in both the US and Canada; the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels; ..."
;) But it's true what you say. I would even go as far as saying that the 1st world should be opened for the 3rd worlds' products. You should have _some_ protection for your local products, but it would be good if there was some (more) money to flow to the 3rd world and not the other way around. This also means the 3rd world has to be protected from our products. At least until the 3rd world has become more like the 1st world and they truely can play their past in the global trade game.
Often it's a take it or leave it deal. Allow this product on your market or we stop all trade with your country. And being a poor country, this hardly leaves an alternative.
Whether the above is ethical or even good long-term for the rich country is another story. I'm personally in favor of 0% tarrifs on everything worldwide. "Customs" should exist only to make sure nothing illegal or dangerous is coming in, not to levy taxes.
Again this is a measure that will benefit our economy, but hardly benefits theirs. We require them to open up their markets for our products, while we still have all kinds of measures to protect our market and effectively keep it closed for their products. An other effect by opening their markets for our products is that their money will flow to the 1st world while it should be invested in their own countries. Effectively this makes them poorer.
It's not our RIGHT to cut rainforests, but it is our right to look around the world for the resources we want. It is the right of the country that owns the rainforest to decide whether they want to satisfy existing demand.
I agree they are in a hard place. I'm sure it is very tempting for them to go ahead and chop down rainforests to earn a few bucks. But to say they have no choice isn't correct. As you said, everyone has rights and corresponding responsibilities. That applies to everyone, not just the rich.
Personally for wood I would prefere a model where the wood prodecers spend a part of their income to plant new trees. The 'no alternatives' argument applies to the trees too. Do those countries really have an alternative or is it a theoretical one? Knowing they hardly have an alternative it would be extortion to 'ask' them for their trees.
We HAVE the freedom to ask them for their wood, but knowing they have no alternatives, that makes us the responsible ones. Planting new trees would be our responsability.
Believe me, I'm not in favor of sweatshops nor exploiting child labor. That's bad and regardless of what company I happened to own I would never do it--that's a question of ethics.
A poor country is just as defenseless against our economy as a child in a sweatshop.
But those practices are all tacitly "approved" by their local government. The local government should look out for their own--in fact, that is there RESPONSIBILITY. If they lived up to their responsibility, the problem of child exploitation and sweatshops would go away. Sure, the company might leave for another country--until that country also lived up to its responsibility to its citizens.
OTHO our companies could tahe their responsability and refuse to buy the products if child labour is involved. Luckily this is happening more and more.
An other thing that companies can do is invest in their welfare. Build schools and educate their children to give them opportunities in the future. A higher level of education will also pay back.
But at the same time I can't help but thinking if Japan were to start a sweatshop in Los Angeles and Americans willingly went to work there--even if those Americans were penniless homeless people--should the world complain about Japan looking for the best deal or about the U.S. that isn't enforcing labor laws within its territory?
The effect of last option is to say to your poor people "sorry, we know you desperately need the money, but you can't work in that Japanese sweatshop". I'd rather see that the foreign company in this example would see it as a moral duty to offer a working environment that stands up to their own standards with working and safety conditions in which they would let their own employees work too.
I'd say that depends on the issue. Something bad locally may or may not have bad effects regionally or globally.
But how about a continuous production of exhaust? Remember the effects on health of the population during the beginning of the industrial revolution.
At the same time, I don't think a model has to be 100% right. I would be willing to accept a model that was 90% right 90% of the time. But so far we have don't have anything remotely close to that--and therein lies the problem. We don't have a second earth to do experiments, and the models haven't been able to successfully reproduce todays environment based on past scenarios. That puts the environmentalists in a tough place selling their case to the public.
A few weeks ago I read an article in a newspaper regarding the growth of the world population. They discussed four different models on energy consumption. A model by one group or fesearchers was based on continuation of the present situation. An other group made a model assuming energy reducing measures would be used. The outcome of the four models were quite different and it's likely that neither of the models would fit the future outcome of energy use for 90% in 90% of the time, but they all agreed on an increase of energy use (roughtly between 2.5 and 3.5 the amount we use now if I remember well).
We don't know exactly how much more energy there will be used. There are just too many scenarios. Tha same applies to pollution. The amount of pollution and the effects that they will have are uncertain, but my impression is that we generally agree that pollution WILL have a bad effect in the long term.
That's a tough one. I admit I haven't read about the Swiss Tree/German flood scenario but unless they are downing an ungodly number of trees I would truly have to think that the floods are caused by varying precipitation levels--not solely by the lack of trees. That is, I can accept that the trees are an aggravating factor, but I find it hard to believe that the downed trees are the only cause of the floods.
You're right. It's is very likely that there are more factors involved. But it's hard to say cuttimg down trees contributes for xx% of the flooding problem and global warming for yy% etc.
And I'm 99% sure (I'm participating in multiple threads) that that's what I said at the beginning. The pollution per dollar analysis is useful in determining what countries need to have their efficiency improved.
How would you improve that efficiency? If you decrease the pollution your ratio ALSO goes up. That ratio doesn't say anything about the total amount of pollution. If the total amount of pollution is high, you need to reduce THAT and thereby, as a mathematical result, your ratio will go up.
If that's all it was, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the demands of many environmentalists are so extreme that we're not talking about installing filters--we're talking about building entirely new plants, or perhaps terminating production completely.
In many cases plants don't have an eternal life and improvements have to be made anyway. In certain cases a new production method prooves to be cheaper (more efficient, but says nothing about the amount of pollution
In other cases, Tjernobyl, it is quite clear that plants are not safe enough or pollute too much. Safety if a reason to shut doen a plant. Let pollution be an other one.
Well, what can I say. I'm happy that there are many counties think that there are enough clues pointing to the effects of CO2 that they willing to address the CO2 production, even if the effect isn't 90% prooved.
Having with 'only' 250.000.000 inhabitants and being that influencial also carries responsabilities to listen to others. I just don't like to see the U.S. to go their own way in this matter.
Most everyone discounts the report because its absurd. But believe me, my Karma has taken a hit for my "I don't believe the whole environmental crisis story."
Haha. Ane of my posts' score yoyo-ed with interesting and flaimbait mods
I've been tought that there are always more sides to a story and to ask questions. I the 'crisis story' will a piece of truth in it. The figures are dramatic. I actually can't tell if they are really true, but to put the story aside saying it's bullshit is ignorant.
The story reminded me on a simulation of a population of foxes and rabbits I had on my ZX-Spectrum, 15 years ago. But this time the simulation is called 'humans and resources'...
First, it assumes that we have concluded that not only is global warming happening but that humans are the major cause of it. That is far from proven.
Ok.
Second, it assumes that even if there is global warming that it must be bad. That is also far from proven. In fact, I read an article yesterday that stated that a slightly warmer winter last year saved the U.S. economy over $21 billion and saved lives from severe winter storms (sorry, I'm not going to hunt it down right now--feel free to google it).
Interesting (+1)
Third--and I think this is the biggest--it makes no sense to apply Kyoto restrictions/reductions to the developed world and not apply them to developing countries--especially when two of the exempted countries (India and China) account for nearly 50% of the world population and one of them is even less efficient than the U.S. on a GDP/Pollution basis.
AAARGH!
Ok. You're not sure about CO2. Enough others are. But please tell me why it so important to look at other countries instead of looking at our own? I believe we agreed that developing the economy of a 3rd world country is important for them to achieve wealth and money and in the ling term for us for trade. Imposing all kings of regulations on their industry will withhold them more than it will us. Sure eventually they have to live to the restrictions, but they need to develop first and with our help they can do that in a 'good' way. In the mean time we need to look at ourselves and do what we can. At least that's what I think.
First, it doesn't take an economics degree to understand that if labor is cheaper in India and China *AND* they aren't facing Kyoto restrictions, that polluting companies will simply moved to those countries. That will cause more employment in India and China but it will also cause more pollution there AND cost jobs in the developed countries.
The same thing as my sweatshop example. Responsible behaviour from the companies would restrict that from happening.
Second, it doesn't take a climate science degree to understand that since the above is true you really haven't reduced pollution on a global scale--you've just moved the pollution to developing countries where we can't see it.
More responsible behaviour...
My conclusions (and I speak for myself, not the U.S. as a whole or the U.S. Senate, etc.) are that Kyoto will NOT reduce global pollution, period. What it will do is 1) redistribute wealth to developing countries by moving jobs there at the expense of developed countries. 2) redistribute pollution so that we can feel squeaky clean in the developed world while the developing world becomes even dirtier. (and with that in the end the whole world...)
Well, the 1) isn't bad. It will pay off. The 2) is a problem that requires a lot of attention.
Let me ask you an other question. With freedom came responsability. But would you agree that responsability also comes with power and wealth?
A better question is: Why does anyone think that Kyoto will actually help the environment?
I think CO2 IS accepted as problem by many countries, and it's assumed (to play it safe) a reduction of CO2 WOULD help the environment.
The influence of european governments on the market and companies is bigger than America's government. Blackmail by companies is occuring here, but there is a climate here that consumers demand more and more responsability from companies. Consumer behavior and governmental regulations have effects on companies. My impression is that the US government is run/bought by industry or lobby groups. Therefore they are very influencial on the american politics. Perhaps in Europe it's easyer to enforce Kyoto and force responsable behaviour on companies.
I would like to think because they spent 40 billion dollars (made up number) on research and only by selling the drugs at these prices can they recoup their investment to (hopefully) research and deploy even better drugs in the future.
It's very safe to assume that. But how much money would they make in a poor country where prople have less that $1,00? They will make their biggest income in the 1st world. It would suit them right to make it possible for the 3rd world to procude cheap medicine. BUT the 1st world's market would have to be protected against the cheap 3rd world medicine.
That said, I personally think there should be some limits to what companies can charge for medical goods. They definitely need to recoup their investment, they definitely need to make a reasonable return on their investment... but milking the market once they've recouped their investment is unethical.
If you milk a society that can afford it I'd say that's economy. But with medicine it's a little more complicated. I think people deserve to be healthy. Health souldn't be a priviledge for the rich.
It's a tough question. You don't want to put so many restrictions on profits from medicine that no-one researches it. At the same time, I have a hard time swallowing (literally) my asthma-control medication that costs $1 per pill. At some point they've recouped their investment and the price ought to come down.
Or they develop a new medicine which can be sold at a higher price and take the old one off the market...
Therefore I say we have to invest in the developing countries.
We do. Unfortunately, it is often painted as "exploiting third world countries" but the fact remains that we do invest in developing countries paying the local prevailinng labor rates.
There are things we can do to prevent exploitation. It's a very bad idea to pay people a salary that would be very much higher (but probably still nothing compared to our salaries) than the average salary. The difference in wealth would instabilize the country. I'd rather see a fair salary, and invest in things like education, healthcare, infrastructure. That too will benefit the economy, will help to build up the country and increase wealth. While on the other hand, it can't be accumulated (like money) by just a few.
I agree. Hopefully some day my asthma medication will cost $0.02 per pill instead of a dollar.
Would be nice. Also it would do me pleasure if others also have the chanse to live in wealth.
Helping eachother getting to higher standards will in long term benefit us all.
That's capitalism. With zero tarrifs, companies will go in and exploit (i.e. invest) other countries. Over time, developing countries will develop and their wealth should become on par with the "rich countries."
That will happen all by itself without us making an "effort" to invest in developing countries. It requires no action on behalf of governments. The problem is that all governments that I know of currently impose tarrifs and THAT is what causes developing countries to not advance.
I thought it was socialism
We were the ones buiding the factories in Taiwan, we will build factories in the developing countries. But with our possibilities we can build cleaner factories there.
Exactly. Which is why Kyoto should apply to everyone, not just the developed countries.
The thing is that WE can afford the live up to Kyoto. Developing countries, at the moment, hardly can.
Back in the 90's, the U.S. Senate voted 99-0 that they would not sign on to any Kyoto treaty that applied to us but not to developing countries. That's reasonable. And that's the main (official) reason the U.S. would not participate in Kyoto.
Do what you can. That's responsible.
Whatever. I think they are hoodlums myself. The way globalization should take place is like this: Today we have tarrifs, tomorrow we don't. Done.
But then the poor countries would be overrun by our companies?
Sorry that it takes so long. work, friends etc. and a bit of RSI :(
But a new reply will come soon.
The other day I got a spam with a ICQ-number in it. Well, what the heck, I thought and requested authorisation. To my surprise I got it. I even got the chance to talk with Mr. Spammer. It didn't get very technical. :)
He had 400.000.000 addresses and 30% were outdated blah blah. it took 7 5 hour days to spam all the addresses.
Well. all in all it was funny to talk the spammer, but it took him some time. He's wasting my time, i'll wase his.
I also love to call a spammer if possible. Ask where he got the addresses, ask what kind of product it is and after a while tell you're not interested
I hope you find this discussion as interesting as I do because I really took some time to write a reply.
... rather than politics and fear, I think you will see that a vast majority of Americans will take action without someone forcing it on us.
/. is total denyal of the article we were reacting to. I've seen reactions like "We have a damn near infinite supply of oil..." (this person forgot the 70's oil crisis) and others talking about "treehugging extremists", not even willing to think about the possibility and the implications if even part of the story turns out to be true. The question that interests me is why the US is completely refusing to participate in Kyoto. Perhaps you can help me out?
:) But why are big industrials asking $60.= for an AIDS medicine in Africa. The people there can't afford it, while prople here can. There it is. Health. Only for the ones who can afford it. I would say something like health is a right, not a privilegde. Remember the Bayer(?) medicine against Anthrax? Suddenly the government ordered that the price should be, I can't remember how much, but much lower than the official price. But if in Africa they BEG for cheaper medicine suddenly the same medicin companies are protected and not forced do reduce the prices. Health. From the ones that can spare it.
Perhaps to the Chinese a reduction in freedom is a small price to pay. They don't have a very large tradition of "freedom." Overpopulation also isn't a problem in most of the developed world, so imposing those kinds of reductions in freedoms would be unnecessesary.
I think this particular reduction of freedom is not yet necessesary in most countries, but it "solves" the problems for China. Most countries don't have a huge population like China, with all the problems coming with it. But these kind of situations (hunger, overpopulation, desease) also have effect on the rest of the world. Just like the economy in the US has effect on the economy in the EU. I'll come back this subject later on.
I'm sorry, my freedoms are not negotiable. As the saying goes, "Those that give up freedom to ensure security deserve neither."
Can you specify 'freedom' for me. To me absolute freedom doesn't exist. I have the freedom to drive a car, but not to speed. In a very direct way that is a limitation of my freedom to use a car the way I could want, but we all agreed to accept that limitation. To me responsability is a duty that comes with freedom. We can apply that to nature too. We have the freedom to do with it whatever we want, but we have to do it in a responsable way.
The concept of freedom and responsability is interesting. I'd say freedom a universal right. Or is freedom a privilege for the ones who can afford it? And what gives one the right to take advantage from another person or country? We already spoke earlyer about investing in poor countries. Do we have the right to force poor farmers to buy our seeds for a high price by refusing to buy their regular product if they don't? Is it right to cut rainforests in other countries because they hardly have any other resources? Even if it supports OUR economy?
No. Those countries can't do anything about it. They're with their backs against the wall. They have no other options that to do what we want them to do. That is no freedom for them. They're working for us. In the case of sweatshops even in circumstances that we wouldn't accept here. Compared to what their work is worth we pay hardly them. That is slavery. The only difference is that it's not happening in our oun countries, but far far away so that we don't have to think about it. (This is no attack on America's history. The Dutch also have a slave history.)
If environmentalists ever present a convincing case based on science and logic...
Isn't it safe to assume that something that has bad effects locally, also has bad effects globally??
The problem with these things is that it is so damn hard to proove. And worse, scientific proof is based on measurements and facts, but in this case it's impossible to conduct a scientific experiment. Firstly because it would require two testsets to compare with eachother and we only have one earth. And secondly because to proove beyond any doubt that the way we live and use the earth will cause a disaster is TO CAUSE that desaster. If you're using a mathematical model there will ALWAYS be someone saying that the model is flawed.
Example. The Marlboro man. All the tabacco companies for years denied smoking is bad for your health. How many people have died of cancer before FINALLY they admit it is bad? You see, if companies don't have any short term interest in ecological measures, they'll deny the facts, but sadly, we don't have thousands of worlds to proove the way we live is wrong. We have assumptions and theories.
On the other hand, there are enough signs that indicate that the way we use the earth isn't the right way. For example cutting down trees to make skiing possible. In the Swiss Alps there's a lot of skiing going on. Lot's of trees are cut down to make place for the ski pistes. As a result the rain washes the soil away because there is no vegetation left to keep the soil in place. Without the soil an inportant buffer for the rain is gone and the rain will flow directly in the Rhine.
Down the Rhine in Germany the same thing is happening. The result is that with heavy rain and in the spring (melting snow) the amount of water in the Rhine has increased and causes floods in Germany like in Kohln (Colonge) and the Netherlands.
[Background info on the Rhine is found here]
Now what's the point of this water story? There are three points. 1. Just cutting down some trees CAN have big (unforseen) ecological effects. 2. Assume Swiss has the right / freedom to cut down their trees. Does this give them the right to cause floodings and damage in Germany and the Netherlands? 3. The economical profit the Swiss makes with tourism is good for them, but has a counterside in enormous (economical) damage in other countries. Do they have the right / freedom to cause (economical) damage in other countries?
I don't know about the cause of the floods in Texas, but the economical damage is enormous and I'm not even talking about personal tragedy. The way we treath the earth IS backfiering on us.
I tried to point out that small actions (cutting down trees) can have big unforseen effects many miles away. This is a PROOVEN fact, and there are big discussions going on about CO2 and NO.
Is it a good idea to dispute the assumptions until they ARE prooven, and take the risk in the mean time that we do irreversable damage to the environment (quitting smiking can be too late to and cancer still is hard to cure), destroying human life and therefore destroying economy? Or is it better to play it safe and take measures?
Ofcourse it's about how efficient we pollute--or, more clearly put, it's about how efficiently we can generate wealth with the least amount of pollution.
Actually there is a very big difference between the two statements. The first statement implies polution is a goal, but it isn't. In the end it's a TOTAL amount of polution that will kill a man or damage the environent.
Something like "If you have to pollute, make sure to maximize profit, but if you have to make profit, make sure to minimize pollution."
Thinking about your and my arguments, I see that it contradicts what I said earlier about pollution/habitant (new insights are always nice). What it comes down to is the TOTAL global amount of polution that counts. Not the amount of pollution relative to something.
That left me with the question why pollution/habitant is used. What does it measure? It measures how polluting one's lifestyle is, I guess.
You can do some good for society without polluting, but for you to be able to do those things you--and the economy around you--have to be in sufficiently good shape to support those activities. If you don't have food, medicine, shelter, etc. you won't be spending much time helping society, I can assure you. And for you to have your food, medicine, and shelter certain activities much take place--and those activities create pollution.
Completely true, and I wouldn't want to do without those activities, but there are many ways to reduce the amount of pollution in the proces of conducting those activities. There are ways for example to produce energy with less pollution like wind- and solarenergy. But it takes research, investments, money to make things like solar panels profitable. It CAN be done, but one has to want it.
So what we can do is try to increase the efficiency of inefficient countries. We can try to increase our own efficiency as long as doing so provides a net gain in efficiency. If, by implementing a given policy, our GDP/pollution efficiency is reduced we've actually moved in the wrong direction.
Increasing the efficiency suggests an inproovement, but it also implies that if you find a very very profitable way to make a product which produces more pollution than a profitable way to make a product the GDP/pollution is increasing, but also the total amount of pollution is increasing. Again, what's the use of a very high GDP/pollution if the high amount of pollution will kill you. In the end it is about enjoying a good life in an economy and not about a good economy and no life at all.
"Investing" (spending) on these products needs to reduce the amount of pollution per dollar. The problem is, many times the policies actually would INCREASE the amount of pollution per dollar--although overall pollution may be reduced.
Again, the "per dollar" is not the issue. Pollution per dollar is only interesting to point out (in)efficient industries. The GDP/pollution of the US probably is higher then the GDP/pollution of Russia. This only says there is room for improovement in the Russian industry. It says nothing about the total amount of pollution produced.
Investing money in anti-pollution measures will indeed reduce the profit, but I think that is a small price to pay. In fact there are many ways of MAKING money with those investments. Underground heat storage will decrease the amount of gas used for heating and cooling a building. So therefore will safe money. At the moment such an investment already pays back in 4 to 5 years. Also solarpanels is getting more efficient by the year.
What that means is that, yes, you may have less pollution but you've also created less wealth in the world. Those that look at ONLY the environmental side of the equation without looking at the economic side are as shortsighted and out-of-touch with reality as those businesses that dump their toxic waste into rivers.
But what's the use wealth if that would cause floodings, desease and hunger? As I see it, all your agruments are ONLY based at wealth, money and economy. There are many ways that you still can make a profit, of course it's smaller profit WITH environmental investments. But take a look at your own life. Is it that bad that you need to get (much) more wealthy?
It's about both. But if we can improve our efficiency, the total amount of pollution will tend to decrease for a given amount of "social good" (wealth).
I'll stop repeating that it's a TOTAL amount that will kill you, not a relative amount. Pff. Okay, one more really silly example. What would you prefere. To die from getting wealth in 5 years, to die from getting wealthy in 10 years or get wealthy and stay alive? The second ratio is way better than the first one, but I prefere the third one. Ok, it is a silly example, but I hope you understand what I mean.
People don't like seeing the word "wealth" or "money." But these people simply don't understand that in the real world there is a very real relation between "wealth/money" and "standard of living" and "societal good." Sure, we can clean up our environment 100%--and all live like Ethiopians. But despite the fact that we'll have a cleaner environment, few would argue we've served the good of society.
Hmm. Yes and no. I think nobody with a piece of common sense will argue that money and wealth are bad. Au contraire. I would say everybody should have enough money and wealth, not too much. A big difference in wealth and money is a problem. Especially is one has way less than a certain minimum. In fact above a cartain amount of money the amount isn't imporant anymore. What does Bill Gates do with his money? Buying an even bigger villa perhaps, but I don't think he would be very unhappy about having 30,000,000 less than he does now. He'd probably even wouldn't notice it. would you miss, say $100.= a year? Same thing for a company. Many companies can perfectly function with a smaller profit and invest that in exhaust filters or other measures. Cleaning the environment for 100% is unrealistic, but refusing to do anything is rediculous.
Those few that WOULD suggest we live like Ethiopians, if that's what it takes to clean the environment, are just as extremists and without merit as those businesses that think that dumping toxic waste in rivers is ok. Neither extreme is acceptable.
I totally agree. Fortunately we're not talking about a total reduction of exhaust, but the whole concept of CO2 reduction seems out of the question. And the general reaction on
What you and many forget is that our health AND our quality live are very tightly linked to "hard bucks." I know it's an unpopular view, but it's the truth.
They are linked, but having $10,000 or $100,000 doesn't make me 10 times healthier, while at the same time there are many who have to do with less than $1.00 a day. We ARE wealthy, we even have time to worry or discuss the environment while others have to worry about food. No, making just a little less profit shouldn't make us unwealthe and poor. Most of us (1st world) can do with a little less.
Without the hard bucks, we will not have the money to support medical research to produce new medicines that save millions of lives per year. Or reduce the pain and suffering of those that are sick. Or distribute food to those that are starving.
I could have said the same
These are ALL aspects of health and quality of life that cannot be addressed without a thriving economy ("hard bucks") to support it. If certain policies that "save our environment" but destroy our economy are implemented, any potential gains in quality of life and health due to a cleaner environment very easily will be overshadowed by the decreases in our ability to address other issues of quality of life.
Without hard bucks, we're nowhere, but I seriously doubt that environmental friendly policies will destroy the economy. Without a doubt here will be less profit, but healthy companies are resourcefull and a bad company will go bankrupt one way or another. In Europe the environment gets quite some attention, but is our economy destroyed by it? Economy ALWAYS will find it's way. That's economy.
So it's ok to let developing countries pollute the world for money, but developed countries cannot? I don't see the consistency in that argument based on the rest of your post that seems to imply that the environment is more important than "hard bucks."
Good point. First of all, I would say that you're almost right about the base of my argument. They're both important. But I would say in the end "hard bucks" are less important than a healthy environment. I want to be healthy, wealthy, have food and have a roof over my head. I have those. I don't want more food, more wealth and a bigger roof over my head if that is for account of the smell of a forest after a summers rainfall. A strong economy results in more wealth, but wealth is more than a strong economy. A healthy environment also contributes to more wealth.
But the argument goes like this. Stimulating economy will pay back. I think you'll agree. Stimulating the economy in the developint countries will eventually benefit us. Just think about Taiwan. The last time I saw a 'made in Taiwan' watch is long time ago. Now they produce high tech products. It takes 20, 30 years, but it will pay off. Therefore I say we have to invest in the developing countries. They need to grow to a point where they can compete with our industry. Helping eachother getting to higher standards will in long term benefit us all. Look at Taiwan.
Our economies won't be destroyed by implementing cleaner techniques and filters. We have the money for it. In the developing countries they don't. Then need to grow, with our help, first. We were the ones buiding the factories in Taiwan, we will build factories in the developing countries. But with our possibilities we can build cleaner factories there. We can spare more money on environmental measures than they can so that's why we should start implementing those techniques first.
Pledge of Allegiance: One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...
I think I get the idea. But maybe you can tell me a little more about it. About the history of it and the deeper meaning for America.
Let me try to make a globalized version of it: One world, respecting race, religion and each other, because we're all in it together, striving for equality and equal opportunities for all in a healthy world.
Which brings me to an other subject: Anti-globalisation. The short short version. The movement got the international interest with the riots in Seattle and other riots gave them a really bad name, but their intentions are clouded by the term 'anti-globalists' which doesn't cover their ideas the right way. Mainly they're against THE WAY the globalisation process takes place.
Soon that passport has "HACK ME" stamps all over it.
The first link wasn't new to me. it's a result indeed. call it bad, call it wrong, but the results of overpopulation and lack of food are worse i think.
http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=2783 is also an interesting link. the article is short, but gives more input for discussion.
I'm goint to read the 2nd article later on. it looks interesting. (Waterworld??) Water will not increase exponentially by the way. there are also limits to that, but it gives more options.
m'kayisee. But don't let a bit pile of FUD withhold you from thinking about it. For ecample there are more arguments for using less energy. One could be the environment. Another could be money and an other again could be recucing the load on the powergrid (in California???)
Hmm. it's getting more and more interesting :)
Obviously, the Chinese plan will actually REDUCE population over time. It also reduces freedom, but that's often an afterthought to many envrionmnetal radicals.
Nope, it's not. I heared Chinese people about this subject. Their position is indeed that it is a reduction of freedom, but to them it's a small price to pay since the other option is hunger and overpopulation. What kine freedom do you have when there is no food or no one will take care of you when you need it?
If I drive 1000 miles [snip] as a result of that pollution.
Interesting point of view, but there is something wrong. I agree that making 1500 instead of 5000 per unit of pollution is inefficient, but that's only one side of the story. The point is NOT how efficient we pollute. You state 'it's about how much good that person can due for society', but you can do good for society without polluting.
By investing in pollution reducing products or processes you decrease the pollution per $. But yes, that would require investments.
By increasing efficiency, total pollution will be reduced.
Still, it's not about how efficient we pollute, it's about how much we pollute. It's like smoking light sigarettes in stead of regular sigarettes, but smoke a whole package a day in stead of 4 or 5 sigarettes. The total amount of pollution / tar, cyanide (jup, that's in sigarettes too) and nicotine is what counts in the end and if you smoke too much you get cancer. Even with light cigatettes. Same thing with pollution.
So, in other words, the "rich" countries should subsidize the "poor" countries because we are rich? [JUMP] Give freebies to certain countries while we throw our own out of work, prepare yourselves to get a good look at our backs as we walk away...
Yes indeed. It's an investment that will pay off in the future. Not in hard bucks, but in health and quality of life. To me that is more important than having a booming (and crashing) economy.
The whole story comes down to making lots'o'$$ versus ethics it seems. In the U.S. making $$$ is the only thing that counts and put nothing im the way of making $$$ or else, while in Europe, through gouvernment regulation, subjects like environment, cheap healtcare, helping developing countries, sustainable energy etc etc is more important.
But again, that is my impression and I really would like to know how you would compare the two.
The next part is getting interesting. In a way it reflects the different philosophies...
The main reason the U.S. rejected is because not everyone was "playing together." It placed certain restrictions on the developed world, such as the U.S., Europe, and Japan, while exempting large parts of the developing world, such as India and China which, together, amount to nearly HALF of the world population.
This is true. Compared to the size of the population, China and India are good for population of 2.200.000.000, but compared to health, income, economy, education, infrastructure and so on they're totally nothing compared to the U.S. _OR_ Europe. It's a really cheap excuse. They're FAR from the point where we are. We ARE developed countries. They're not. And placing restrictions on the developing countries will dramatically slow their development.
Time to sleep. There is work to do tomorrow.