"Ian St. John" wrote in message ...
SwimJim wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote in message
...
SwimJim wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote in message
m...
SwimJim wrote:
Mike1 wrote in

[deletions]

[deletions]

I never said that I thought something better could be negotiated
today.

Your words were. "I think something more useful and palatable could have
been achieved." Ergo you DID think that 'something better could have been
negotiated'. And you are shown wrong by the fact that something better was
NOT negotiatied.

Ian, thanks for your comments. I appreciate your position. Note that
I said "today". I'm of the mind that believes a poor treaty is not
better than none at all. I think they should have stayed at the
table, or perhaps waited until there was more international political
will for a better treaty, with more teeth, with better approaches to
the problem.

I said that I didn't support the Kyoto Protocol.

Yes. You have said that. You claim that something better could have been
negotiated despite the evidence of reality. Refusal to recognise reality is
known as 'delusion'.

See my comments above. Perhaps it would have been better for me to
have said a better treaty _should_ have been negotiated, rather than a
better treaty (protocol) _could_ have been negotiated. Maybe the
Kyoto Protocol is the best that could have been achieved at this point
in time. If so, then I think they could have saved a lot of money and
time and breath and ink not bothering with it.

My position
is that the Kyoto Protocol is the wrong way to accomplish anything
meaningful or significant regarding climate change caused by
anthropogenic GHG emissions

Quite probably. Myself, I would go for a universal carbon tax, but the point
is that you said something better could have been *negotitated* not that
something better could be found. The fact is that nothing better can or
could have been negotiated. Most of the people doing the negotiations were
more concerned with loopholes and exclusions rather than effectiveness.
However, the deficiencies of politics is not the issue. Kyoto. Love it or
leave it, you ain't going to replace it. And it is slightly better than
nothing with a hope that a more intelligent treaty can be negotiated in
2012.

Our main point of disagreement is whether or not it is better than
nothing. I don't think it's better than nothing. I think if the IPCC
2008 report is strong enough, then we can start talking about a better
treaty. (Long time to wait, though.)


-- and you know that I think this is a
significant concern. The reason I don't support Kyoto is that I
don't think it really addresses the problem it ostensibly addresses!

And yet it does, no matter if it is perfect or not. The MAIN point of Kyoto
is to show that you are SERIOUS about climate change and willing to make
policies based on it. This will change the 'why bother' mentality to a 'let

Europe hasn't shown that's serious yet. Wake me up when something
happens.

us get in on the action' one. THAT is the most important reason for Kyoto.

Ignoring Kyoto for a moment, a bright spot in this is that businesses
are realizing it's probably in their best interest to be ahead of the
curve on climate change issues. I don't think that Kyoto is the main
reason for this, but if you want to argue that it's part of the reason
for this, I wouldn't take issue with that.

[deletions]

I think all of Europe is chuckling about the Kyoto shell game -- they
can miss their minimal targets and they probably expect to, while at
the same time piously bashing the U.S. for being realistic about how
the public would choke on it, and not ratifying it.

No. They are legitimately trying to do their part, although with a certain
lack of energy due to the fact that others are slacking about.

I'll keep watching the news.

[deletions]

Most of the time newer technology is adopted only when shown to be
significantly better (by some measure) than older technology. The
main "better" is usually cost-effectiveness.

Most of the time new technology is adopted because it can drop the price,
not because it is better. Beta was demonstrably 'better' than VHS and still

Isn't that what I said? ;-) Sure a BMW coupe is better than my
minivan, but I'd need three coupes -- and two more drivers -- to get
my kids to preschool!

is despite the advances. VHS still won. It was cheaper to produce and thus
the 'entry cost' was lower. The 'race to the bottom' is driven by sales
volume and market share. Cost is ALL of the equation, not just the 'main'
part of it. The quality can go to **** ( or a long way towards that end) as
long as the price is cheaper.

Disagreements are healthy. And occasionally enlightening. Thanks.

Jim Acker

------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)


The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------