SwimJim wrote:
"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".

And I will point out that I mentioned the low status of the U.S. in
international negotiations where they have a current record of ripping up
treaties as soon as everyone ELSE does what is necessary or ignoring their
responsibilities without even justification. I doubt if you could get an
international treaty to regulate dog food today, much less something that
would take real work like Kyoto.

I'm of the mind that believes a poor treaty is not
better than none at all.

A reasoned position but hardly supportable by my lights. I have found that
the first stage to getting public support is showing that you are SERIOUS
and thus making them start to think about it. A poor treaty would set the
stage for something better in the future and a steady clamor for a better
idea. A non-treaty just means that you consider it an issue of little
importance and sets the stage for it to be ignored totally.

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.

But staying at the table would have done NOTHING. They already HAD what they
came for. A treaty with so many loopholes and free passes that it was almost
meaningless except for it's use to define the problem as worthy of effort
and form a basis for measuring the progress.


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,

Maybe but that is the scientist talking. The art of politics is in
compromise, not absolute answers. You have to 'evolve' the answers, and it
is more important to get the issue ON THE AGENDA rather than try for
perfection. An 'elegant solution' sitting forever on your desk is not much
use.

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.

So ignoring the issue is better? By the way, sneering is not a particularly
reasoned response. Personally I think it could have been better. I even
outlined how I think it could be highly effective at using the market forces
to make real cost effective solutions. To some degree the problem was that
it defined goals, not methods so everyone was free to find the worst
possible implementation to criticise it on. But regardless, it is more
important to START.


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.)

O.K. So you feel that it is better to wait for a 'wakeup call' crisis and
then you will have too little too late in a vacuum of solutions? Sure. But
that is independent of the fact that you could have SOMETHING before that.
The wakeup call will come and they may *renegotiate* rather than negotiate,
but doing something will start the ball rolling and make for a better
'viewpoint' on just how much needs to be done in the later effort.


-- 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.

I *could* say something nasty at this point..


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.

IPCC, NSA, etc and the state, municipal levels are not controlled by the
executive so they have not been 'stopped' in progressing. However, without
the whole team together under real leadership, the efforts are fragmentary
and conflicting. The end effect is much noise and no output. Kyoto does
nothing but make a rallying point for those who take responsibilty and shows
that *the world* is also involved, so it is not a 'solo act'. The
'legitimacy' of an international agreement is really necessary to stiffle
the petty infighting and dismissals by those who do not want to recognise
the issue as important.


[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!

Comparing a sports car to an SUV for passenger volume is rather facetious.
The issue was a cheap SUV vs a much better, safer and more fuel efficient
SUV at a slightly higher price. Guess which one has the bigger sales volume?

The point is that the cheaper price is almost the only 'factor' that is
considered in expensive due to the fact that people prefer a lower 'price of
entry'. This become more important as the price of the article goes up.
Quality on cars and homes is almost not a factor. Quality in food,
cleansers, etc is more of an issue. You do NOT want to scrub for hours or to
gain weight. The lack of quality in 'expensive toys' is not much of an issue
since they get used so rarely. Mostly it is the 'keeping up with the Jones'
that drives such things.

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.

Thanks. I think we have illustrated the two opposing opinions. I do not
expect to change your mind, but the readers now have a choice to make as to
which argument they consider to have 'won' the debate.