Kyoto 2 17

[QCE]

OK the last thread was too long!

This isn't really a question but:

Talk among yourselves about emissions and global warming and Kyoto.

To get started:

Emissions: bad - The world should try to form a world wide treaty that includes the USA.

Global Warming: Noone knows so why argue.

Kyoto: We can guess how it will turn out but won't truely know until 2012.

 

[jmw]

The French President has had a bad month or so (a little sympathy please):
[ul]
[li]his country rejected the EU constitution he so fervently supported[/li]
[li]he was widely quoted for his undiplomatic comments on the British with a sideswipe at Finnish cuisine (made doubly embarrasing as French used to be "the language of diplomacy"),[/li]
[li]he just lost the debate on farm subsidies, his was a lone voice[/li]
[li]he lost the opportunity to offside GWB who stole his thunder by already conceding that he would cut grain subsidies if the EU cut its CAP[/li]
[li]Paris just lost the Olympics to the old enemy London[/li]
[li]Finally, Tony Blair is the last person he wants to see as the next President of the EU (or whatever it is they each take turns at; the exclusive control group that is, I have no idea when Estonia will get a turn in charge)yet that means yet more english cuisine (this weekat G8 will they offer him haggis again?[/li][/ul].

All this after the very PC British renamed the Wellington Chamber at Windsor Castle the "Music Room" recently and at the Navy Review the Navy tactfully referred to a tall ships battle re-enactment as "Red Vs Blue" rather than Traffalgar, which everyone knew it really was. These efforts point up his undiplomatic comments and recent confrontational behaviour even more.

Now, who can tell me that he will be completly objective when they discuss Kyoto? but just how many others will be any similarly less objective for whatever public or private motives?

The point is that there is the "human" element to consider and while engineers may be logical beings (see thread1010-126394), the rest of the human race isn't and we'd better not set our expectations of Kyoto to high.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[corus]

I'm not sure why jmw has decided to go in for yet another bout of french bashing. It's getting a little tiresome to be honest.
Comments about English cuisine were laughed off in the UK as having a certain grain of truth about them although we have no idea what Finnish cuisine is like. His comments are probably in the same league as Prince Phillip's comments about the Hungarians (beer bellies), Chinese (slanty eyed), and various other countries too numerous to mention. Leaders do have a tendency to say quite stupid things, and one stands out in particular. Taking of whom, I believe GW Bush (the lone voice at the G8) has agreed that climate change has to be tackled and that human activity was, to some extent, to blame

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4647383.stm

corus

 

[jmw]

Corus,
unlike comments on the British Royal family in another thread, this is a legitimate concern and presented as such, even if with a "light" tone.

The motives and intentions of the various members of the group discussing Kyoto are certainly relevant to our expectations of the outcome.

Indeed, many may feel that recent history has shown that politicians are increasingly prone to act in anything other than the interests of the people and some have paid the price including Margeret Thatcher, Chancellor Kohl and quite a number of other leaders.

That the french president is having a tough time (and his potential successor) is commented on extensively in the press.

In fact, the press and even the president himself have just now commented on his commitment to the talks.
I note that this concern so evidently does not extend to other (non-French) delegates that their commitment has not been called into question nor have they felt it necessary to make similar declarations.

It is not unknown for politicians under pressure to act in the interests of securing their domestic position even if they must thus act against the international interest. I'm sure we can all identify many such instances.

Thus this is not "French bashing" but "French President bashing"; amongst which practiioners one may find a substantial proportion of the French population. My remarks are directed at the one member with such evident problems that such concerns are justified.

I will go further, the success of the British in winning the 2012 olympics prompted the press to comment that the British Prme Minister may now feel sufficiently secure to adapt his own policy with regard to his potential successor, George Brown to the extent that he may not step down in his favour as early as some might like.

On the IOC decision, the press speculated that it was the attitude of the French President that may have influenced the votes of some of the IOC and they have included in that speculation the two Finnish members of the IOC).

Indeed the French confidence in winning was so great that Tony Blairs assistant, Mr Powers handed the phone to Mr Blair in Scotland to let him hear the IOC decision first hand saying "Here is the bad news" while in France they were so far convinced, and with some justification, that they would win, they had red carpets out and champagne chilling. In other words, a number of delegates may have been influenced not by the facts but by personalities.

If this doesn't exhibit to you that my interpretation is both pertinent and based in the realities of politics then I am not sure how better to respond except to say that I will appologise for the tone of my remarks to all those it has offended but not for the content or the concerns expressed.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[QCE]

Hey JMW,

What leaders attitude was it that made New York not even in the running?

 

[arunmrao]

During a national seminar on "Sustainable Mining Development" recently held in Bangalore Dr U R Rao an eminent scientist says and I quote:

" Fuel consumption of one American is equivalent to that of two Germans,5 Chinese, 30 Indians, 100 Africans and 300 Nepalese. Our major problem is wateful use of minerals in rich countries".

He further states that

" We all saw what happened at the last (2001) Group of 8 Summit. US President George Bush withdrew from Kyoto Protocol, which asks developed countries to curtail their fuel consumption and developing countries to increase their consumption."

 

[VisiGoth]

Slugger926 is correct. We are naturally heading into an ice age.

However, we could pollute ourselves to death or to a miserable state well before then. Global warming may be happening, and I would guess that it is (because of man) far faster than the natural ice cooling we are in. There are some very rich coastal areas in North America that will be harmed by warming and there are some very poor areas that will benefit from warming (but not by pollution). But because any change reduces the optimization we are at, the net affect in the world is negative.
It is deplorable that in the USA a single large vehicle shuttles one person around at a large cost to the world. It is bad to want politics and government to solve everything. However, pollution is one area I believe governments should be the main force.

moltenmetal gave several positive suggestions and is to be applauded. We can all contact our local politicians. Warming may be unimportant, but pollution is. Ask your local politicians to be Statesemen and to support the short term costs of pollution reduction and studies of warming.

 

[epoisses]

VisiGoth,

"It is deplorable that in the USA a single large vehicle
shuttles one person around at a large cost to the world."

Had this been the predominant point of view since the stone age, well, we would still be in the stone age... Come on, doesn't a thrilling expedition to Mars make life on earth worth living? At least for engineers?

I think mankind will never pollute itself to death. We're too intelligent. The reason why nobody's acting yet is because the global warming isn't visible enough (or at all, depending whom you listen to). We've heard too many times that the end is at hand. I don't think it is. Very simplistically, let's keep an eye on that thermometer while we reduce our energy consumption, which is a good thing no matter what, and see what happens.

 

[epoisses]

(at second thoughts... were you talking about cars? when I read shuttle my mind goes Apollo 11, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, comets, stars, milky ways, parallel universes....)

 

[owg]

QCE asked - "Well GWB now says that he believes that global warming exists but he believes that it will be a slow process and it should be handled by investing in technology and not reducing carbon emissions.

I thought the new technologies were meant to reduce carbon emissions? Wow!"

Here is a link to a paper from Nature which describes how we could control the global temperature while emitting all the greenhouse gases we want to.

http://ca.geocities.com/fcurry2000@rogers.com/Paths.pdf

enjoy.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[owg]

Sorry the board seems baffled by this type of url. Just copy the part starting with http and ending with .pdf into your browser address field.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[VisiGoth]

epoisses,
Sorry for the confusion and poor choice of words. I was lookig for a way of avoiding "SUV" in order to avoid raising ire and chose "shuttle" instead. I think highly of the space programs.

 

[QCE]

I think you are trying to talk about sequestering CO2. This is an option. If it works?

Most people are against Kyoto because they think global warming does not exist. Unlike GWB who thinks it exists but can't afford to help out. I guess all the other signature countries have lots of money to throw around.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Most people are against Kyoto because they think global warming does not exist.

I disagree with that statement. I think most people who are against Kyoto are so because the treaty is flawed, ineffective, and expensive. They're not against the problem, they're against Kyoto as part of the solution.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[JTreglio]

"I think most people who are against Kyoto are so because the treaty is flawed, ineffective, and expensive."

I could buy that story if I hadn't heard numerous conservative pundits, such as Tucker Carlson, deny that global warming exists or that it is caused by build-up of carbon dioxide due to man's activities. Republican politicians opposed to Kyoto have done everything possible to promote the view that global warming isn't a problem. Examples: the White House had an ex-oil company executive doctor scientific reports on global warming (he's since left the White House and gone back to work for an oil company); a House committee chairman has subpoeaned all of the records of three leading experts on global warming on the basis that they must be fudging their data since there is a difference between their conclusions and those of oil industry shills.

Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.

 

[BillPSU]

CajunCenturion

Why is it flawed, ineffective and expensive?

 

[JTreglio]

Nice try, CajunCenturion, but the burden of proof is on your shoulders. You claim it is flawed, ineffective, and expensive. You explain why.

Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.

 

[QCE]

The USA said that they would supply a better solution then Kyoto. As of yet no solution has been presented. I highly doubt that one is on it way. The USa as the biggest producer of green house gases just doesn't want to take responsibility for there actions.

Even if Kyoto is flawed it is the USA that could take the lead to improve it and implement it. However the USA is hiding from that option.

 

[ewh]

Didn't the white house state once that it's all of those cow farts causing the problem?

 

[zdas04]

Funny how we keep going in the same circles here. All of the reasons that the treaty is flawed, ineffective, and expensive are detailed in the first part of this thread that got too big to open. Those posts include several from people who were involved in the U.S. analysis that led to rejecting the treaty. Yes, all of you knee-jerk Bush-haters, there was analysis.

The comments above that rejecting Koyto was an Oil Industry conspiricy are simply silly. The "smoke filled rooms" that that statement brings to mind just don't happen. They probably never did to the extent that the muck rakers tried to make everyone believe. Big oil is doing more to reduce CO2 emissions than any other single group in the world. The largest producer of solar panels is BP Solar (look it up, you won't believe my links). Every major oil company has done extensive work on CO2 sequestration (it is in their annual reports, look it up), and when there is sensible government policy on the issue Big Oil will be the ones implementing the policy.

David

 

[CajunCenturion]

To those who feel it's a partisan Republican effort, I'm sure most of you remember the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which passed through the US senate by a vote of 95-0 (including a No vote by Sen Kerry) in 1997. For those who think this is a Republican effort, President Clintin was in the White House at the time, and a unanimous vote is hardly a partisan position. President Clinton refused to even submit the treaty for ratification because he knew that the treaty was not worth the cost. The flaws have been known for years, and by both American political parties.

Yes, we have gone over this before, but for those who are not familiar with other threads, I submit the Kyoto treaty is flawed, ineffective, and expensive.

[li]Trading Quotes - Of the 141 signatorites to the treaty, only 38 (Annex B countries) have actual reduction quotas. The remaining 107 counties have quotes that equal or exceed their current emissions. Those countries can sell their unused quota to another country. This loophole (Flaw) does not reduce emissions (Ineffective), its simply moves money from one country to another (Expensive). Additional reading: Russia’s Kyoto Ratification Spurs CO2 Trade[/li]
[li]Deferred Emissions - A country which does not reach its quota today, can carry over the unused portion of their quota to a later date. This means that any short term emission reduction will be offset by higher emissions over the long term. (Ineffective for the environment)[/li]
[li]Clean Development Method - A country can invest in a clean-energy facility in another country which in can use as a credit against its own emissions, and further, the facility can be used to created additional unused quota that it can buy back. (Again, oves money around, but does little for the enviornment)[/li]
[li]Developing Country Exemptions - The International Energy Agency in Paris estimates that by 2030, China's emissions increase alone will equal that of all of the remaining industrialized nations. China is exempt from Kyoto. That creates a very difficult economic competition platform. In addition to China, the worlds second largest emitter, exemptions have been granted to #5 India, #10 South Korea, and #11 Mexico. Russia, the #3 emitter, does have quotas, but they are set high enough that no reduction is required. In fact, as evidence from the above referenced article, Russia has quota to sell. That's not very effective. Further that leads to a direct economic impact in that for many companies, it will be cheaper to move manufacturing operations to these exempt countries rather than to fix the problems at home. That is compounded by the economic effect of that many lost jobs.[/li]

From Kyoto Mechanisms

The costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol
One important question is: how much will the Kyoto Protocol cost? If Annex-B countries (countries agreeing to take up measures according to the Kyoto Protocol) are to achieve their emission targets entirely at home, global costs are likely to run up to several hundreds of billions of dollars in 2010.

I think the environment is a serious issue, and requires serious consideration and action. I don't think Kyoto is the answer. Rejecting a wrong answer is not an indictment of a valid question.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein