View Single Post
Unread 27 Jun 2008, 09:15   #24
Tactitus
Klaatu barada nikto
 
Tactitus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 3,237
Tactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Exclamation Re: Latest Kyoto Report for EU

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue
1. Well are you saying if one gives estimates than that is completely unacceptable to you?
When costs and uncertainties are high, yes. But feel free to gamble with your own money.
Quote:
That public policy must only be made with exact calculations and numbers before action is taken? Furthermore you discount potential benefits out of hand as mere speculation, whilst any risks are given full prominence - all the time ignoring the very real risk of dangerous climaet change. Your logic is beyond me.
I don't buy into the global warming alarmism (having lived through the global cooling alarmism), but nonetheless there are lots of good reasons not to burn carbon (dependence on foreign supplies, pollution, etc) when viable alternatives (such as nuclear) are available. It's just a question of cost (and if you can't tell me the cost then excuse my lack of enthusiasm).
Quote:
2. Well I am not sure which capital flight has occurred because of the Kyoto treaty, very little I suspect since the treaty is so pathetically weak. My point was a retort to your mysterious assertion that you want to see soem sort of pilot country before you wish to see measures in climate change. No doubt when such a country emerges, you can then so "well that country is a special case." All the while the issue gets worse and worse.
Well I think there is considerable capital flight, but if you're now claiming otherwise than there's even less reason to discount the costs of meeting the Kyoto targets. And you misunderstand my argument: My argument is not that we should use Kyoto as a pilot program to measure it's effectiveness in stopping climate change because everyone knows the Kyoto targets are too small to matter regardless. Rather, my argument is that we should use Kyoto as a pilot program to measure the cost of reducing emissions. That is, for the countries that are required to reduce their CO2 emissions we can see how much it costs for them to do that (assuming they actually reduce their emissions, of course). X% reduction cost Y$. Why wouldn't that be useful information? Then we wouldn't have to rely completely on estimates; we'd have some actual data.
Quote:
3. Its unfair to characterise it as an obsession. Its simply an example of US public expenditure which many believe is excessive, and yet if that money was spent elsewhere, such as on climate change, it would cause no sacrifce by ordinary members of the public and in fact be a benefit to the world. I don't think its to controversial to say that the US does not NEED a Missile defense programme, its does not NEED to have bases in practically every region in the world, it does NOT need a massive nuclear arsenal, it does not NEED to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. However it does NEED to take action to reduce carbon emissions because it is the largest global contributor of CO2, because it is over reliant on dwindling and insecure fossil fuels, because it is highly susceptible to the direct environmental impacts climate change.
Actually China has surpassed the US in CO2 emissions and is increasing at ~12% a year. US CO2 emissions are barely growing (<1%) since 2000 (and thanks to the recent oil price increases, I'm confident that US CO2 emissions won't be going up anytime soon). If you're really serious about reducing global CO2 emissions, then you really need to get China on board (probably India and Brazil too).
Quote:
Now by encouraging energy efficiency measures businesses and individuals will save money.
This we do.
Quote:
Having a strong public transport infrastructure is progressive and good for the economy.
No it isn't. It's mostly an expensive boondoggle.
Quote:
Recycling more waste will help fight against the massive resource crisis which is about to hit.
I don't believe there's any massive resource crisis looming, but we already do recycling--more than is economically sensible in fact.
Quote:
So no one is saying, shut down America, turn out all the lights and go and live in caves, I am saying that the US can reduce its emissions in the short term and make money doing in it.
To the extent that increasing energy efficiency (and thereby reducing emissions) saves money then people are, for the most part, already doing it. I know I've replaced most of my incandescent lightbulbs with compact fluorescents.
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.
Tactitus is offline   Reply With Quote