David Ball wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 09:04:05 -0700, (SwimJim)
wrote:
Mike1 wrote in message ...
(SwimJim) wrote:
He should have said "only the current Presidential Administration in
the United States is out of touch with reality" to be a little more
accurate.
Yeah, like *China* is breakin' is hind-end to sign Kyoto.
Where did I mention Kyoto? I don't support it. Being out of touch
with reality means recognizing that global warming is going to be a
problem requiring real action with solutions that work. Because I
don't think that the Kyoto Protocol is a solution that would work, I
don't support it. (However, I do support the UN Framework Treaty on
Climate Change.)
Playing Devil's Advocate for a minute, if we can't get
something relatively minor like Kyoto agreed on how do you propose we
arrive at a solution that will work that everyone is happy with? We're
getting to the point where we need to start running, but we haven't
even figured out how to walk yet.
Well Dave, you ask an excellent question. Not being an international
diplomat, I don't think that I can offer you a superb answer. My
basic point is this: whether or not Kyoto is agreed to, it probably
won't work. And even if it was implemented to its fullest extent, it
wouldn't have much of an impact on the problem. Therefore, I think
that too much time and effort and money has been expended in trying to
achieve an idealistic "agreement" that will be paid nothing more than
lip service. Meanwhile, coral reefs are disappearing.
In order for something like this to work, there have to be economic
incentives. Countries would sign in a minute (even the U.S.) if there
was a perceivable and achievable economic gain. Al Gore, bless his
misguided heart, wrote in "Earth in the Balance" that if costs to the
environment could be quantified, very quickly the "balance sheet" of
current economic development and growth would be drastically altered.
So, what I would propose, speaking in generalities because specifics
are always hard to come by, is this: a treaty that quantifies the
environment economically.
For example, how much is the fresh water from melting glaciers worth?
How much will a given economy suffer if that fresh water supply
diminishes by 25% over the next 50 years? If a country takes steps to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, can you reward them with fresh water
"credits" -- perhaps some tugs will pull an Antarctic iceberg up to
Oman and provide fresh water to the Arab states.
Another example is soot control. Both India and China still release
tremendous amounts of soot, which causes health problems and is also
an element of climate change. So REWARD them for steps they take to
reduce soot -- let the WHO give them increased child health care
services in return for hitting soot reduction targets. (And I full
admit I borrowed this particular idea.)
Technological "first world" nations should be rewarded for developing
new energy technologies and exporting them cheaply to developing
nations that need them. This would reduce emissions and improve the
enviroment in those countries.
Anybody reading this newsgroup who's familiar with me may find it
surprising that I don't support the Kyoto Protocol. Well, let me put
it in simple terms: while I admire the beauty and grandeur of Mt.
Rushmore, I don't support it. It besmirched the natural environment,
cost a lot, and it makes a grandiose statement of United States
nationalism. In essence, it's a useless symbol. And that's what I
think of the Kyoto Protocol. I admire the effort and the aims, but
not the result. Until we get realistic about what works -- what
SELLS in the international marketplace -- nothing useful will be
achieved.
Jim Acker
------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)
The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------