"Ian St. John" wrote in message m...
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.)

Then you support Kyoto, because Kyoto is the 'best agreement' they could
come up with to implement the UNFCCC.

No, I think something more useful and palatable could have been
achieved. See the other posts I put up on this today.

I don't know China's status regarding the Kyoto Protocol, since they
were specifically exempted, along with India. I would have expected
that they'd ratify it for that reason.

No. They ratified it to be 'onboard' and then turned around and did more to
reduce their emissions than any other country, purely in the name of saving
money by increasing energy efficiency. They are a prime market for processes

Exactly my point, Ian, right there. Saving money -- making money --
economic incentives must be part of it.

and technologies from the west that the west just won't adopt, such as high
efficiency turbines. Just as with the Montreal Protocol, the developing
nations are adopting the technology that the west is developing to solve
problems faster than the west is. Partly this is because they do not have a
saturated market, but also it is from a positive and responsible attitude
which the west lacks.
http://www.isr.gov.au/assets/documen...nalAug2000.pdf

[deletions]

* a play on rustbelt american and for the same reasons. Lack of initiiative
and the 'let it ride' culture.

Don't forget "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[deletions]

Repeat as often as necessary: "Weather is not climate. Climate is
average weather."

More correctly it is a statistical analysis of weather. A '100 year storm'
speaks of the statistical probability, not the average.

Mine is easier to say. Plus, you'll catch a lot of informed people
mistakenly saying "We'd get a storm like that, on average, every 100
years."

Intersperse with: "If it's cold here, it's probably warm somewhere
else."

Yup.

(This was inspired by the Alan Jackson/Jimmy Buffett collaboration,
"It's Five O'Clock Somewhere".)

[remainder deleted]

Jim Acker

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


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

(SwimJim) wrote in
m:
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.

All your suggestions are going to cost. Who is going to pay? I don't see
how USA can come out a winner in the kind of economic terms you consider.

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

Then you support Kyoto, because Kyoto is the 'best agreement' they
could
come up with to implement the UNFCCC.

No, I think something more useful and palatable could have been
achieved. See the other posts I put up on this today.

But they didn't so you are proven wrong by history. And if you claim that
something better could be negotiated today with the shape that the U.S.
international image is in, I would say that you are seriously delusional.


I don't know China's status regarding the Kyoto Protocol, since they
were specifically exempted, along with India. I would have expected
that they'd ratify it for that reason.

No. They ratified it to be 'onboard' and then turned around and did
more to reduce their emissions than any other country, purely in the
name of saving money by increasing energy efficiency. They are a
prime market for processes

Exactly my point, Ian, right there. Saving money -- making money --
economic incentives must be part of it.

Then you should back an international agreement putting a 'carbon tax' on
all carbon based fuels. The tax can be offset by reducing other taxes is
exact balance to prevent high energy prices from leading to a recession, and
all participating trading partners would have to be included. It is the only
suggestion that I have ever seen that really puts the market system to work
at the problem. The others are artificial games that are easily turned into
non-functional exercises in legal manipulation.


and technologies from the west that the west just won't adopt, such
as high efficiency turbines. Just as with the Montreal Protocol,
the developing nations are adopting the technology that the west is
developing to solve problems faster than the west is. Partly this
is because they do not have a saturated market, but also it is from
a positive and responsible attitude which the west lacks.

http://www.isr.gov.au/assets/documen...nalAug2000.pdf

[deletions]

* a play on rustbelt american and for the same reasons. Lack of
initiiative and the 'let it ride' culture.

Don't forget "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

So you drive you great great great grandfathers chariot?After all, it isn't
'broken' yet. Of course, this rule is what stops all progress which was, I
think, my point. Sometimes you have to adopt new technology even when the
old technology hasn't failed. Most *other* countries know this and that is
why most other countries adopt modern technology much faster.


[deletions]

Repeat as often as necessary: "Weather is not climate. Climate is
average weather."

More correctly it is a statistical analysis of weather. A '100 year
storm' speaks of the statistical probability, not the average.

Mine is easier to say. Plus, you'll catch a lot of informed people
mistakenly saying "We'd get a storm like that, on average, every 100
years."

That is not a mistake as long as they do not say that the storms will be 100
years apart. The statistics of a 100 year storm is that they should occur
"on average" once for every 100 years. You could get two a few days apart
and then nothing for 200 years..


Intersperse with: "If it's cold here, it's probably warm somewhere
else."

Yup.

(This was inspired by the Alan Jackson/Jimmy Buffett collaboration,
"It's Five O'Clock Somewhere".)

[remainder deleted]

Jim Acker

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


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

In article , says...

(SwimJim) wrote in
om:
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.

All your suggestions are going to cost. Who is going to pay? I don't see
how USA can come out a winner in the kind of economic terms you consider.

The terms "cost" and "economic gain" both depend upon the accounting system
used. Traditional economics does not include ecological impacts and long
term effects are lost in discounting. Besides, the long term costs will
be paid by future generations, not today's Baby Boomers, who have most of
the wealth in the U.S. and who are nearing retirement age.

I think it's clear that traditional economics is not going to provide a
solution, as the accounting is skewed towards today's costs and towards
extraction of fossil fuels. For example, many of the alternative energy
choices require a storage system, which adds to the cost of that choice,
while fossil carbon fuels are already stored.

I'm afraid that the economics won't change until the peak in production
in oil is reached. Then, there will be a scramble for other sources, but
we will probably find that coal is the fuel selected, given that it's
cheap and already stored. Worse yet, we may just wait until the climate
really changes and simply adapt as best we can, while we continue to dump
more CO2 into the air.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

SwimJim wrote:

Josh Halpern


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.)



Let me respectfully disagree. Kyoto is about setting up a framework,
just as the Montreal Protocols were originally.



I don't think the Kyoto Protocol's framework is workable. I'm going
to say this in a couple of posts, but there isn't a reward system that
does something for countries that hit their reduction targets. They
just promise to try, and current results indicate that isn't doing
much. Give them incentives and they might try a lot harder.


I think you could say the same for the original Montreal Protocols.
The first step does not have to be a giant one.

josh halpern


Jim Acker

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


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

On 24 Aug 2004 08:59:26 -0700, (SwimJim)
wrote:

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.

I kind of view this as dieting. You eat more than you should,
you don't exercise, and pretty soon, you're 20 pounds overweight. You
need to get it off. It is not going to be fun. It's going to take as
long to get it off as it took you to put it on. Do you start off
running a marathon? Cut your caloric intake to 500/day? No, you start
slowly. You go for a walk. Maybe cut out those desserts. You drop a
couple of pounds. So you start walking a little farther. Maybe you jog
part of the way....
The bottom line is, you have to be disciplined and you have to
keep your eye on the goal. You got into this mess by overindulging,
now you've got to get out of it by cutting back. It won't be easy and
there are no quick fixes. You can go on all the fad diets in the
world, but it's going to be the common sense one that works. No-one
can tell you how to do it. It's a decision you have to make. You need
to find the method that works for you.
See the parallels? There simply aren't any quick fixes out
there. It's going to take time to accomplish, it isn't going to be
easy, and there is absolutely no way for me to decide how you should
do it. That has to be left up to each nation to decide.


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.

That is slowly but surely happening, but I'm not sure that we
can afford to wait for a decade until the studies are done.

Josh Halpern wrote in message news:DfRWc.2370$2F.1723@trnddc05...
SwimJim wrote:

Josh Halpern

[deletions]

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.)


Let me respectfully disagree. Kyoto is about setting up a framework,
just as the Montreal Protocols were originally.



I don't think the Kyoto Protocol's framework is workable. I'm going
to say this in a couple of posts, but there isn't a reward system that
does something for countries that hit their reduction targets. They
just promise to try, and current results indicate that isn't doing
much. Give them incentives and they might try a lot harder.


I think you could say the same for the original Montreal Protocols.
The first step does not have to be a giant one.

I think that there are two differences of note between the Kyoto Protocol
and the Montreal Protocol. One, the ozone data was darn near irrefutable and
the consequences of stratospheric ozone loss were too obviously dire to be
conveniently ignored. GHG-climate change is a more complex issue, as we
all know. Two, the economic consequences of giving up CFCs, though there
were some, were not seriously detrimental -- there were alternatives in
the pipeline that allowed a reasonably quick switch. Not so with energy
(though the Australian report on TiO water cracking looks promising).

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


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

Thomas Palm wrote in message .229...
(SwimJim) wrote in
m:
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.

All your suggestions are going to cost. Who is going to pay? I don't see
how USA can come out a winner in the kind of economic terms you consider.

I liked Eric's reply; I assume that you read it. Two factors have to
come
into play. One, the costs of environmental degradation/destruction
somehow have to enter the accounting ledger. I attribute that idea to
Gore in "Earth in the Balance", but it probably predates the book.
Though the Nature Conservancy can be faulted for some specific things
they've done, their general approach trades economic value for
conservation. Two, there are things that the U.S. would be willing
to pay for -- such as trade incentives. I.e., if we cut back X on
emissions, our company will get exclusive rights to sell its new
hybrid vehicle in a given country (instead of Toyota or Honda).

This would require creative thinking. But self-sacrifice is not in
the vocabulary of most Americans (particularly those on the right side
of the aisle). Unfortunately, I think that to really change things,
a shock will be required -- the heat wave that hit Europe last year
certainly changed some minds, but Europe was way ahead of us. I don't
know what kind of environmental shock would have an effect, but I
think that rising gas prices will change some minds.

Jim Acker

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


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

(Eric Swanson) wrote in message ...
In article , says...

(SwimJim) wrote in
om:
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.

All your suggestions are going to cost. Who is going to pay? I don't see
how USA can come out a winner in the kind of economic terms you consider.

The terms "cost" and "economic gain" both depend upon the accounting system
used. Traditional economics does not include ecological impacts and long
term effects are lost in discounting. Besides, the long term costs will
be paid by future generations, not today's Baby Boomers, who have most of
the wealth in the U.S. and who are nearing retirement age.

I think it's clear that traditional economics is not going to provide a
solution, as the accounting is skewed towards today's costs and towards
extraction of fossil fuels. For example, many of the alternative energy
choices require a storage system, which adds to the cost of that choice,
while fossil carbon fuels are already stored.

I'm afraid that the economics won't change until the peak in production
in oil is reached. Then, there will be a scramble for other sources, but
we will probably find that coal is the fuel selected, given that it's
cheap and already stored. Worse yet, we may just wait until the climate
really changes and simply adapt as best we can, while we continue to dump
more CO2 into the air.

Excellent points, Eric. Your first paragraph supports what I said, in
reference to "Earth in the Balance" -- traditional economics does not
address the costs o resource exploitation and the associated damage to
the environment. If businesses were charged for the economic
"overhead", then there would be a lot of changes, real fast.

Regarding the third paragraph: the economics in the U.S. might
change somewhat if gas prices doubled. It's not out of the question,
given current events.

Jim Acker

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


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

David Ball wrote in message . ..
On 24 Aug 2004 08:59:26 -0700, (SwimJim)
wrote:

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.

I kind of view this as dieting. You eat more than you should,
you don't exercise, and pretty soon, you're 20 pounds overweight. You
need to get it off. It is not going to be fun. It's going to take as
long to get it off as it took you to put it on. Do you start off
running a marathon? Cut your caloric intake to 500/day? No, you start
slowly. You go for a walk. Maybe cut out those desserts. You drop a
couple of pounds. So you start walking a little farther. Maybe you jog
part of the way....
The bottom line is, you have to be disciplined and you have to
keep your eye on the goal. You got into this mess by overindulging,
now you've got to get out of it by cutting back. It won't be easy and
there are no quick fixes. You can go on all the fad diets in the
world, but it's going to be the common sense one that works. No-one
can tell you how to do it. It's a decision you have to make. You need
to find the method that works for you.

This is a pretty good analogy, but you left something out. You say
"you have to keep your eye on the goal". What goal? Psychologists
and diet counselors will point out that diets work best if there is a
realizable incentive, not just a goal of X number of pounds lost.
Stuff like: a woman can wear a fancy dress she bought for her 15th
anniversary party, which is two sizes smaller than what she's
currently wearing. A wife will let her husband buy that new outdoor
grill he wants if he gets under 200 pounds. Etc. AND --
organizations like Weight Watchers work because everybody encourages
each other, and celebrates success. How that could be fostered in the
international diplomatic arena, where economics are a
winner-take-as-much-as-possible game, I don't know.

See the parallels? There simply aren't any quick fixes out
there. It's going to take time to accomplish, it isn't going to be
easy, and there is absolutely no way for me to decide how you should
do it. That has to be left up to each nation to decide.

Yes, the parallel is good. The other factor that you didn't mention
was the doctor telling the patient the consequences of staying
overweight -- stroke, heart attack, diabetes, early death, won't see
your kids graduate from college. In the Earth system, those are the
costs to the environment. (But eating and smoking are addictive --
if the patient prefers the enjoyment of the unhealthy habit, no
laundry list of future consequences will change their mind.)

As I said in another post, I think that there will need to be a
serious environmental shock that will jolt U.S. citizens from
complacency. (In the diet analogy, that would be a significant health
crisis.) I don't know what form that shock or jolt might take.
Though I wouldn't wish it on anybody, if Hurricane Charley hadn't
turned into Charlotte Harbor, and had instead blasted straight into
Tampa Bay, we'd be talking about serious economic consequences right
now. Insurance companies going broke, federal bailouts, questions
about why so much development was allowed in hurricane-prone zones,
etc. A massive natural disaster might be what's necessary. (Other
possibilities are a London-fog-like event in LA or Houston or Denver,
where thousands die from acute respiratory problems, or a severe heat
wave in a major city that kills thousands. Chicago came close a few
years ago.)

The first problem is convincing people there's a problem. The second
problem is convincing people to take action before the problem
worsens.

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.

That is slowly but surely happening, but I'm not sure that we
can afford to wait for a decade until the studies are done.

Creative thinking is necessary! Understand that when I said I don't
support Kyoto, it's not a matter of not supporting its aims. It's a
matter of coming up with something that really would work.

Jim Acker

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


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