The Kyoto Protocol/Accords

[KillerMuffin]

Are you for them? Against them? Have any idea what they are? Why or why not?

I am, by the by, against them. I've done a little digging and I think they're based entirely on junk science without thought. They only cover carbon dioxide emissions, not the other, more dangerous nitrates and errata. They only cover 30% of the world, the industrialized nations, and leave off two emerging nations who collectively cover about half the world's population. I also think that the Department of Energy, WEFA, and the Charles River Associates are correct, the cost of implementing Kyoto to the average consumer and tax paying joe is entirely too high for something that doesn't work very well. If we're going to have to bear the brunt so painfully, I want something that's actually going to reduce all emissions pollution, not just co2, which may or may not even be a problem. The scientific community says that it's not a problem and that the global warming that's being bandied about hasn't actually happened aside from normal global temperature shifting. They say that urban areas are heat sinks, and that's why the surface temperature feels hotter than it used to 20 years ago to the majority. Standing in a Wallyhell parking lot, I can see that.

Also, I believe that conservation and pollution begins at the individual level, not just the national. Recycling should be something that's readily available in all communities by mandate. I have to drive 30 miles just to recycle anything but pop cans. I also think that some community methods of transportation should be in effect everywhere that it takes longer than 15 minutes to bicycle acorss town in rain or snow.

I think, globally, that we need to do something. Stop emerging nations from starting up power plants and factories that emit the worst now, rather than have them change those over in a few years. Think the international conglomerates are going to keep factories in industrialized nations when it's cheaper to do it in China? Particularly when they don't have environmental factors to compensate for? Make everything cut their total emissions, not just the co2, and make recycling more mandatory. America has gotten such a throw away culture, it's horrible.

I think Kyoto would hurt more than it helped. Particularly when it came time to do something again for other global pollution problems and people remember when their cost of energy doubled or tripled the last time.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I concurr. Having said that, now no one will agree with out of principle. Plus the model for Global Warming is flawed. So is European and UN dominated thinking. Time to dump them both for a "New World" outlook.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

After 3 years of drought here

We have had fantastic, well-spaced rain and cool weather is dominating. The wheat came in big and fat. The corn is tall and lush. I went out and picked some sweet corn to go with burritos tonight!

PS - Farmers Almanac doesn't mention any special warming. Now who you gonna trust the people who depend on knowing the weather to survive, or the people who make a living comfortably theorizing about global warming in some European-style Ivory Tower?

 

[p_p_man]

Are you for them? Against them? Have any idea what they are? Why or why not?

It's taken a long time to come this little way. Nobody is saying that Koyto is the end game, far from it, it's just the first tiny step into getting our planet back into shape.

At least the rest of us are continuing the struggle and not walking away from it.

I had written a long reply but when I looked at your post more closely it seems that there's some confusion there. So I have scrapped my long reply in favour of this short one.

Just how are you going to stop 'emerging' nations from starting up power plants? Persuasion? Bribery? Threats. Considering most of them haven't come to terms with that other great killer, AIDS, yet I can't see much success in any of those strategies.

It seems a strange thing to say that the whole concept of global warming is based on junk science when the signatories at Koyoto are willing to spend billions and billions of dollars on doing something about it. Or do you think that they have been persuaded by a bunch of Mickey Mouse scientists that the world is heading for disaster but in reality there's nothing really wrong.

Your comment about conservation and reducing pollution should begin at the personal level sounds great until I read that you travel 30 miles in a pollution spreading, gas guzzling car to re-cycle your waste. The net value to the planet from that trip would, I think, be negligible or more probably come down heavily on the debit side.

But then you go on to say that you believe there should be a community transport service put in place to ease traffic congestion. That's being investigated everywhere with, I think, only the Netherlands having some success in Europe. The problem is of course, who's going to be the first to give up their car? Are you?

Of course there are other more toxic emissions being released into the atmosphere than just CO2 but as I said we have to start somewhere.

And that's part of what Kyoto is all about. Starting...

 

[WriterDom]

Kyoto is nothing more than Europe wanting to put restricter plates on the US economy so we can enjoy 12% unemployment like France and Germany. The senate voted against it 96-0 and the only reason it's getting press now is to try to peg Bush as anti-environment. Should we reduce emissions? Of course, but not Kyoto. No thanks.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I don't drive pp. I gave up my car and my truck. It's in my family, I still think of it as mine, and I still drool over it's picture. But we no longer have it. Except for the niggling matter of 6,000 bucks, the next vehicle we purchased would be an electric. We'll be purchasing the Toyota Echo which gets the best gas mileage. We don't recycle because, 1) it costs too much, and 2) no one else in my family gives a fuck. They actually have never heard of the Kyoto accords.

And politicians wanting to throw money on a problem? This is news? Pols always throw money at any cause that gets them looking good to their constituency and makes them appear extremely good. Clinton probably did it to get Gore elected.

I've spent about 15 hours researching Kyoto now. I really didn't have much opinion on it until I began, but I had actually thought that it was better than nothing. The only scientific research that I could find on global warming came from people who were saying that co2 was mostly beneficial to the plants who breathe the stuff and that nitrates were more of a problem. Nitrates are not covered by Kyoto. I have found no scientific research that supports Kyoto. I would vastly interested in finding some, if you know where or how I could obtain it. On the net would be the best, I live in rural kansas you know. Now, I don't think Kyoto would be good for anyone. I think they need to start over and do a better job. It would help if they actually took scientists who know about these things with them, rather than just diplomats.

You're right, nothing is going to stop China from creating gas or coal powered electric plants. However, Chrysler, Daewoo, Nissan, errata can be stopped from building non-enviro treaty conforming plants, then there's a tremendous step in the right direction. Kyoto only applies to 30 nations and only at a national level. Quite simply, if, on a global scale, it were illegal to export merchandise created in a non-conforming manufacturing facility, then they would build conforming manufacturing facilities.

Kyoto is a band-aid on a dike. The dike probably isn't leaking.

 

[miles]

Global warming is one big scam

Or do you think that they have been persuaded by a bunch of Mickey Mouse scientists that the world is heading for disaster but in reality there's nothing really wrong.

Bingo!

I don't know if those scientists are Mickey Mouse, but I do think they are fucking Goofy. (sorry, couldn't resist).

They are the overwhelming minority of scientists who believe it.

Until someone shows me scientific proof (remember the scientific method?) I have to think the whole concept of global warming is pure bullshit.

Look hard for the proof, and when you find it, let me know.

 

[FantasticJones]

Re: Global warming is one big scam

The whole concept of Global Warming is dead on. The earth is getting warmer. The question is what's causing it.

For proof of the Earth heating up check out:
www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html

 

[KillerMuffin]

Thanks FJ.

 

[FantasticJones]

I live to give

 

[miles]

The URL you sent even says there is no proof!!

For proof of the Earth heating up check out:

I checked it out. Please find the scientific "proof" you describe and send the URL to me.

I did find this tidbit from the site:

The record of instrumental temperature measurements, extending back to the 19th century, provides one clear indication: that the mean annual surface air temperatures of the earth have risen approximately 0.5°C (0.9°F) since 1860.

1/2 degree in 140 years. The sky is falling.

...and this:

However, there is uncertainty about some issues. For example, these questions remain to be answered with complete confidence:

How much warming has occurred due to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels?
How much warming will occur in the future?
How fast will this warming take place?
What other kinds of climatic change will be associated with future warming?


WOW!! That's what I call proof - "these questions remain to be answered with complete confidence."

They aren't sure how much warming has occured
They don't know how much more there will be
" " how fast

This is science?

 

[p_p_man]

Here's a site...

which looks interesting enough.

I haven't read it all yet I don't have the time at the moment but it looks as though it could answer some of the myths about global warming and the ozone hole.

I'm putting myself up to be shot down here. For all I know it might show KillerMuffin to be correct in her thoughts about Kyoto in which case I'll have to do a rapid re-think.

But the site looks as though it could teach some of us the background and history to the topic.

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/index.html

 

[FantasticJones]

Re: The URL you sent even says there is no proof!!

For proof of the Earth heating up check out:

I checked it out. Please find the scientific "proof" you describe and send the URL to me.

I did find this tidbit from the site:

The record of instrumental temperature measurements, extending back to the 19th century, provides one clear indication: that the mean annual surface air temperatures of the earth have risen approximately 0.5°C (0.9°F) since 1860.

1/2 degree in 140 years. The sky is falling.

...and this:

However, there is uncertainty about some issues. For example, these questions remain to be answered with complete confidence:

How much warming has occurred due to anthropogenic increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels?
How much warming will occur in the future?
How fast will this warming take place?
What other kinds of climatic change will be associated with future warming?

It must be nice living in a world where you don't have to listen to what other people say. I didn't express an opinion, I don't have one. What I said is that the world is getting warmer, and it is. 1/2 degree in 140 years(Which has weather effects beyond making you take off a sweater) The world is progressively getting warmer. It's all I said. All of the "questions" you raised are about the cause of it and if it will continue. That is a question that I don't have an answer for because I'm not a scientist.

How in the world can someone go through life being such an asshole?

 

[The_old_man]

Yes, there is global warming. It started just after the last glatiation (sp) stoped, it will continue untill the solar constant reaches max. At that time all the short term chicken littles will begin crying about global cooling.

 

[Unclebill]

Another thing that influences global temperature is the shape of the earth's orbit which varies from near circular to more elliptical (orbital eccentricity).

When the orbit is more circular, the temperature rises because the average distance from the sun is less, hence more of the sun's energy arrives at the earth.

As the orbit becomes more elliptical, the temperature drops because the average distance from the sun increases.

This link is to a graph that shows a history of the earth's orbital eccentricity over a bit of history. Be aware that the most recent history is at the left and most distant history is to the right, the converse of a normal time progression on a graph.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/eccentricity_graph.html

Note on this graph, for about the last 10-20 thousand years, the eccentricity is decreasing. So it is entirely possible and perhaps even likely that the current global warming, if it is real, is a normal part of the cosmic cycle.

So log me in the column of VERY SKEPTICAL on the subject of global warming for lack of substantive evidence.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

WARNING: Long exposition ahead. Take it on faith that I DO indeed have a relevant point to the issue at hand. Please bear with me and all shall be revealed...

I think this issue brings up a good question about what standard of scientific "proof" we need to establish in order to guide our actions as a nation and as a human race. Exactly how much data do we need before we consider a theory "proven" enough to act on its conclusion?

One thing to always keep in mind with this question like this is one of science's guiding principles, known as Occam's Razor. Simply put, the idea posits that among all the possible causes for a phenomena, the most likely cause is that which fits the available data most simply.

Consider this example regarding the orbit of the planets. In the middle ages, astronomers believed the earth was at the center of the universe. Under this notion, astronomers had great difficulty trying to predict the motion of the planets in the heavens because instead of the regular, smooth orbits they expected to see, they noticed that planets would often take "detours". If the planets truly circled the earth, shouldn't their orbits be regular? These astronomers were forced to create the notion of "epicycles", figure-eight-shaped orbits with mathematical constants unique for each planet, to account for both the strange "wanderings" of the planets and earth's central location in the universe.

When Galieo offered the revolutionary idea that the sun was actually the center of the orbits of the planets, Kepler was able to come up with his beautifully elegant idea of planets orbiting the sun in simple, smooth elipses became obvious.

The fascinating thing was that with EITHER theory and the data available at the time, one could accurately predict where a planet would be in the sky on any given day out of the year. But how could two necessarily opposed ideas both work?

Obviously only one of them could be literally true. The earth may be at the center of the solar system. So might the sun. But they can't both be at the center. Likewise, planets either move in ellipses or figure-eights, but not both.

So how does one decide which do we believe???

To finally bring this back to the principle of Occam's razor, science tells us to believe the simplest explanation for all the data we have. Rather than believe a formula requiring different constants for each planet, Kepler's theory offered up a single formula allowing us explain the orbit of every known planet as well as every planet that would ever be discovered.

Since then we've gathered a great amount of data supporting Kepler's theory and rejecting the idea of epicycles, but at the time all science had to go on was faith that the simplest answer is probably the correct one.

If you approach the question of global warming with this same idea, some conclusions become inescapable. What we have is a growing pile of data suggesting the earth's climate is heating up. (Virtually no one with any credibility disputes this anymore. Those who reject global warming completely are on their way to sounding like those people who still claim the earth is flat. And as an aside, the person above who scoffed at a .5 degree celsius increase in temperature in 140 years obviously doesn't understand how rapid such a change is relative to the ordinarily slow nature of climate change.)

What's not quite clear is the question of human impact on this climate change. Is our massive burning of fossil fuels causing it? This answer is much less clear than the simple question of "Is earth warming?". The preliminary data from a number of studies shows that the rate of climate change is increasing at the same time as we increase our global fossil fuel consumption.

Are there other explanations for global warming other than fossil fuels? Of course. But the data is starting to point us to fossil fuel as the simplest, most elegant answer to explain all the data: rapid global warming, chemicals shown in the lab to have properties may lead to heat trapping, 9 of the 10 most serious weather events of the last century happened in the last 15 years, etc., etc. The data keeps mounting.

Since I'm not a meteorologist, paleontologist, physicist, or geologist I have to accept the recognized authorities on these matters who are currently using Occam's razor to suggest that all these data point most simply to human excesses causing global warming. One can come up with lots of other ideas to explain all these changes, but it takes a much more complex theory to account for them all (just as the epicycle/earth-centered theory of plantetary motion did).

I imagine we'll have enough science in the future to make Occam unnecessary here, and will show conclusively that the simplest explanation again is the right one.

Hopefully it's not before we've done too much damage.

P.S. PPman: Bush is getting railroaded for his opposition to Kyoto. How can he be the environmental "bad guy" when the US Senate nixed the treaty 96-0?

And they say there's no media bias?

 

[p_p_man]

Oliver

It's part of parcel of being the President, Captain of the ship, Ambassador or any other position that requires ultimate responsiblity for the actions of subordinates.

He's being demonised because he's the President, but I also have my nagging conviction that he personally doesn't believe in global warming, Kyoto or anything else that doesn't immediately have an effect on American internal Affairs.

Anyway thanks for the post. I've e-mailed this page to a friend who is heavily involved in the global warming investigation and who has told me in the past many of the points you raised.

You two would probably hit it off!

 

[miles]

FantasticJones

Must have been someone else with your name who posted the url for the "proof."

...and that's Mr. Asshole to you, Cha-Cha.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

p_p_man, none of us in flyover country believe in Global Warming. It's a bunch of huey, just another attempt for Europe, and that's who is driving it, not Africa, not Russia, not China, not us, that only leaves you.

You had a century or two setting the world agenda. Didn't work. You pissed everyone off. Now get the fuck out da way for others to lead!

The U.S. leads the world by example. We do more to protect what we have than any world treaty could ever come close to matching without driving the rest of the world insolvent. That might strain our welfare system. A little bit.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Global warming aside, AJ, there are other pollution issues in the air. Did you know that the US accounts for 36.1% of global emissions? As a people, we are the largest wasters of energy and resources there are on this planet. The average European refridgerator is half the size of ours and the average European spends a third of what we do on gasoline. Acid rain, deforestation, wasting resources, throw away consumables, underfunded recycling programs, deterioration of river bases, pollution of aquafers and water basins, etcetera. How many people leave lights on in an empty part of their house? How many people have a TV in three rooms so everyone can watch a different program? How many people bought a vehicle that gets 14 miles to the gallon because it's sporty and cool, rather than one that would equally suit that gets 40 miles to the gallon? How many people buy something they'll never use and throw it away rather than resell, consign, or donate it?

Eco-terrorism aside and green party junk science rhetoric aside. The USA consumes an estimated 25% of the global raw materials and we have about 5% of the world's population. We output 36.1% of the emissions pollution and we have 5% of the world's population. We consume about 35% of the global gross daily product and we have 5% of the population.

True, we have been conditioned to instant gratification and the requirements to have only the best and coolest now, however, we are not stupid and we know how to break our habits. We have to learn to do it at a national level, not just individually.

I don't blame the Europeans for being cheesed about our conspicuous consumption of pretty much everything. We are not a frugal society.

I just don't think that Kyoto will do any good. It's going to hurt the average US citizen financially. Siren said it the best when the blackouts in Cali happened. We have to have power and we have to it affordable. Our power infrastructure is a coal burning one. We have nukes, but not enough to power everyone. Our backups are diesel. The energy that is powering your monitor so you can read this comes from a coal burning power plant, unless you're in one of the megalopolises, then it's nuke power. Kyoto would either shut those plants down completely or make the power the put out so expensive through environmental retrofit that you couldn't afford to pay for it if you're in the lower socioeconomic strata.

Then there's the thing with China. They are an entirely coal dependent nation and it's estimated that by 2025 they will have passed the US in emissions. They are not required to do anything to prevent that through Kyoto. It's bad enough that we have us doing it, why not draft something that will help stop others from doing it before they start? We are certainly willing to reduce our emissions, if we can fricking figure out how.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by p_p_man
It's part of parcel of being the President, Captain of the ship, Ambassador or any other position that requires ultimate responsiblity for the actions of subordinates.

An interesting perspective. If this were the case, why didn't the press hold Clinton accountable for his criminal actions and behaviors?

Originally posted by p_p_man
He's being demonised because he's the President, but I also have my nagging conviction that he personally doesn't believe in global warming, Kyoto or anything else that doesn't immediately have an effect on American internal Affairs.

He's being demonized because he's not a Democrat/Liberal. And if he doesn't believe the global warming propaganda, he may be entirely correct. A couple of weeks ago I heard something that makes me VERY SKEPTICAL. I wish I had recorded the source because I haven't been able to relocate it. But it relates to why all the proponents of global warming use the past 140 years as the "window of opportunity" to support their case.

Their reason is quite simple and self-serving according to this report. About 1860 (~140 years ago) was the end of a mini-Ice Age, the onset of which was in the Middle Ages. If this is factual, it certainly makes the theory of global warming far more suspect. And while I have no more reason to believe this than the global warming frenzy (which about 30 years ago was the global cooling frenzy), but having watched the people whose agenda includes global warming, I'm more inclined because of their demonstrated lack of integrity. To get a more reasonable picture, go back 500 years and use the temperature average and let's see if there's still a warming trend.

In addition, within the past few years, it has been found that a good part of the ocean temperature data used to support the global warming position was flawed because the water temperature and the air temperature are not so directly related as previously presumed.

Originally posted by Andra_Jenny
The U.S. leads the world by example. We do more to protect what we have than any world treaty could ever come close to matching without driving the rest of the world insolvent. That might strain our welfare system. A little bit.

Well said, A_J. Reminds me of the old adage, "Lead, follow or get out of the way". They've proved they can't lead, they are afraid to follow and they won't get out of the way.

 

[FantasticJones]

Re: FantasticJones

Must have been someone else with your name who posted the url for the "proof."

...and that's Mr. Asshole to you, Cha-Cha.

Maybe if say this really slow, it'll sink in. The proof, which you quoted(The study on climate change over the last 140 years) shows very conclusively that the earth is getting warmer.

What doesn't connect for you?

I'm not saying CO2 is the cause or that SUV's are killing us all, just that the earth is getting warmer. It may be cyclical, but there are lots of people who say it isn't. I don't have an opinion either way.

But the earth is getting warmer. Progressively so.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Outstanding post, KM!



It's clear that the United States needs to address all the issues you mention. But when I say "The United States", I don't just mean the United States government. Responsible and moderate legislation needs to be continued to be enacted to address environmental issues, but individuals also need to start taking personal responsibility for how their own lifestyles affect the environment. Legislation won't have to be nearly so restrictive if we adopt each adopt some environmental self-discipline.

Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that much of the world that criticizes the US for its largesse would find it any easier to eschew our conveniences and materialistic lifestyles had they an opportunity to get a good taste of them. There's a good bit of hypocrisy there - if American commercialism and extravagance is as repugnant as they claim, why are they importing the hell out of it?

 

[Andra_Jenny]

KM. respect what you say.

I think you answer your own question maybe (please forgive, lubricated by alchohol) with China and the emerging countires. We are going to tend, because we are, really after all, educated, aware, and caring, to reduce that percentage in real terms.

After all, that percentage edge that we own, and you point out, wiil go away dramaticaly as emerging nations take shortcuts to "catch up." They will use whatever methods available. Soon China will pollute so much that ours will be insignificant.

Why?

We have coolectively become a bunch of Chaimberlains again and have proven that we will let the Chinese, and other thugs, literally get by with murder. Asking totalitarian cultures enjoin in and hold to treaty is a laughable exercise at best. Only when it suits thier needs, i.e., it hamstrings you, will they enthusiastically hold to its agreements.