It's May 21, 2024, 06:21:55 AM
You wanted a response:
No I think the majority of the world signed the Kyoto treaty realizing that it is pro-environment. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol are concerned with global warming. You are applying stardard conservative thinking, which I tend to agree with, across the board when you say "its not uncommon for regulations to have paradoxical effects." I dislike regulations, but in some cases they are necessary. When individual self-interests will not lead to the optimal solution for all parties, regulation becomes necessary.
John Kerry argued that we need to hold foreign countries to the same standards we hold ourselves to environmentally so that we can level the playing field. I actually disagree with this because currently, 3rd world countries do relatively little to hurt the economy in comparison to large industrialized nations like the U.S. Additionally, 3rd world populations naturally behave in ways that are less environmentally damaging than western countries behave. In the U.S. we buy, buy, buy, buy, and then throw away. This wasted use of energy and resources has a massive impact on our environment. In comparison, I have friends from both nigeria and italy, who are relentless in their desire to waste as little as possible. The average american buys something like 10-15 shirts per year, the average african buys 1 maybe. My nigerian friends eat every part of the animal when they cook, the heart, lungs, liver, and even the cow's tail. In the west, we typically eat only the best parts, and the rest gets thrown away during the production process. I hold westerns to higher standards, because consumerism is the single biggest threat to the environment and become 3rd World countries are relatively minor offenders.
The goal of Kyoto is to reduce CO2 emissions by decreasing activities that create CO2 emissions. The objectives of Kyoto would not be achieved through the implementation of emission control systems, but rather through investment in sustainable sources of energy. Whenever we use energy there are environmental consquences, especially with the use of coal for energy. Investment in sustainable energy represent one time costs that will eventually offer competitive advantages to U.S. businesses. By developing renewable energies, like solar, wind, biomass, and so on we reduce the cost of energy usage, and also reduce costs for American manufacturers. Most of the burden here is placed on the energy industry and the U.S. government who would have had to fund the development of sustainable energies. In some ways we already do this. In NY businesses can recieve state grants for implementing solar systems. We also recieve state money for upgrading our lighting systems and for other projects that reduce energy usage. Many of the programs required to make Kyoto sucessful would simply be extensions of similiar state funded programs. These programs actually make manufacturers more efficient by helping them reduce their energy costs. Anyways, the point is, that Kyoto would not push jobs overseas to less environmentally friendly countries. In fact, improving the energy efficiency of the American economy would make us more competitive by lowering costs for american businesses in the long run.
Call me crazy, but does anybody else find it extremely ironic that groups of people who really hate Bush, chastise him about the United states losing manufacturing and blue collar jobs - and in fact whole companies - overseas, and that the the same groups, chastise Bush for not signing onto Kyoto, when those two positions in this context are essentially diametrically opposed?We're not signing onto Kyoto because it exempts nations termed as "developing". Nations like China. That doesn't exactly level the playing field when we're losing manufacturing jobs to places like China. Further, the EPA, and the whole of the US government, is committed to the principles of Kyoto, but we will not ratify such an unbalanced agreement.This isn't a bid to line pockets of corporate officers. This doesn't mean Republicans hate clean air and throw caution about potential global warming concerns to the wind. This means the United states is trying to stay competitive in a global economy, where we're losing jobs where someone who got paid US$22/hour for turning a bolt on an assembly line for 17 years is losing his job to someone who gets paid US$22/month to do the same job. This is a hope to at least keep some of these jobs during a long period of economic transition.Note to the Kyoto activists: you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either we lose jobs AND companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto. Yes, there's a lot of nuance, but I'm afraid that it's that simple.
Quote from: Don Rizzle on May 10, 2006, 03:16:12 AMiraq would just get annexed by iranThat would be a great solution. If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
iraq would just get annexed by iran
But the truth is Bush did very little during his first term to help the environment, besides lift regulations, and it doesn't seem as if he will do more this time
See now there is a difference between having an opinion that is correct, and supporting your opinion with correct logic. I'll give you the possibilty that Kyoto is flawed and unnecessary, but your logic did little to prove that was so. Your whole post was centered on the fact we will force organizations to implement "emission control systems" what these systems do no one knows, but they cost money, and everyone will need to have them in Engelworld. Because "emission control systems" cost money, and do nothing, manufacturers will all move overseas and continue to pollute. Now in the real world, if we want to reduce CO2 emissions, we implement programs that help reduce energy usage. We develop solar, and wind power systems. We upgrade our lighting systems. We retrofit buildings to make them more energy efficient. We replace outdated HVAC systems, and inefficient motors. None of these things will scare away manufacturers and send them to Africa. Instead they will make America a more attractive place to do business than it currently is.
Now you say these things will happen irregardless of Kyoto and at the same time you say John Kerry's environmental policy was misguided. Kerry's environmental policy was simply to finance the creation of new technology and extend state programs like NYSERDA to the federal level. Maybe that is misguided, but I would have looked forward to better energy systems, and more incentives to reduce energy usage. And while it is true that we will continue to advance, the question is at what pace? Is advancement enough? As long as something new happens in the next decade, we made advancements? I think we need to advance faster because there are economic benefits for doing so. You see in business you want to put your money where it actually gets a return. Now, Iraq which costs 200 billion gets... zero return. While energy efficiency provides a return by decreasing costs. It certainly makes more sense, than John McCain's recent desire to regulate Major League Baseball. Another idea that costs money, and returns nothing.
what does america know about a level playing field your when you use alot protectionism which can be very damageing world industry and can lead to trade wars (like it has in the past) with tarrifs going up everytwhere and your not exactly a poor country. its important we care about the enviroment, you have what 3 % of the worlds population but produce 25% of the worlds pollution and your worried about develeoping nations polluting? gimme a break, they've got fuck all you can afford to tighten your belts.
ppl who pick at other peoples grammer on an informal message board are one of the following:1) an annoying twat2) too stupid to understand the subject3) or just plain ingnorant and unwilling to accept the truthnext time come back with a constructive argument on the subject
Quote from: Don Rizzle on December 07, 2004, 12:32:59 AMppl who pick at other peoples grammer on an informal message board are one of the following:1) an annoying twat2) too stupid to understand the subject3) or just plain ingnorant and unwilling to accept the truthnext time come back with a constructive argument on the subject