A dose of realism to carbon emission discussion.

[miko2d]

1. US business depends on US customers - they produce what we buy.
 2. US Government is controlled by US population. The Big Business does have a great influence here but it it depends in turn on the same population.
 Everything US does is determined by the wishes of the majority of the population.
 In fact the militant political minorities like environmentalists or feminists, etc. have much greater influence on the politics then average joe because of their activsm.

 US can do something drastic like cutting pollutions through business or through government only if the population wants it. It is actually much easier to do it through business - by not buying all that gas and products produced using energy.
 Since we are not doing that voluntarily, why expect we will elect a government that would force us to do that?

 So in a democratic country like US government could not make us cut pollution.

 In an authoritatian country like China or Russia government can force cut in pollutions against their population wishes but why would they care?

 Then we have democratic countries like Europe, etc. who's governments and businesses are willing to cut pollution if US cuts pollution because it will hurt US much worse then them. As good reason as any.

 Also whe have developing countries that are all for US and Europe cutting pollution while they stay exampt and grab a lot of US and european business.

 Here is the situation:
 US population is consuming some very energy-consuming product. With better pollution control production of that product will cost much more in US. So the dirtiest production will move to other countries - like China and India.
 US will lose some jobs but not that many because we have a lot of high-tech production that is not very polluting.
 We will still buy the same amount of the same product - possibly even more and cheaper because it is much cheaper produced. After all factories in those countries do not have to spend money on pollution control even up to US standards, and the wages are lower.
 Since the processes in China and India are much dirtier then in US and standards much worse, production of the same product will cause much more pollution!!

 As a result US signing Kyoto agreement will hurt US economy and increase global pollution. It will help the developing economies but that is not the goal of the agreement.

 That is why it does not make any sense for US to sign that agreement until the pollution standards are not equalised and enforced in all countries. As simple as that.

 miko

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

[Thrawn]

Black is white, gotcha.

[leonid]

So, you're saying the USA is so unique among the nations of the world that Bush's present stance on the Kyoto protocol is justified?  Okee dokee.

[john9001]

a month or so ago i saw a new satilite image that showed carbon emmissions in the atmospher.....
the points of high emmissions were mexico. central africa( grass fires) and china, the USA was green.....
that was the last time i saw that image, it must have been non-PC

by the way ...only rumania has signed the kyoto treaty

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: john9001 ]

[miko2d]

Originally posted by leonid:
So, you're saying the USA is so unique among the nations of the world that Bush's present stance on the Kyoto protocol is justified?  Okee dokee.

 It is unique in the sence that it is the country that mr. Bush is the president of, which interests and population wishes his policies aught to reflect.
 Secondly, it is also unique in the sence that US is required to do the most and stands to lose the most for no net gain for the world pollution control cause.
 Thirdly, it is the country who's decision we are discussing at the moment. Similar situation applies to many other countries. What would the cause of world pollution gain if realatively clean production was moved from France or England to Mexico or India with much higher pollution per unit of output?

 Mr. Bush's allegiance to his country is beside the point here.
 I was trying to illustrate that the Kyoto protocol is completely unjustified because it will increase pollution and move make it much less controllable (by moving production to countries with less strict control, worse law enforcements and lower interest in controlling it) at huge economic cost to some countries and benefit for other countries.

 I am sure that mr. Bush and most of the US population would join a reasonably priced plan that had a chance of working. This one does not.
 It is not justified to spend any time on that plan, much less wreck US and world economy because of it.

 There is no way for it to work if production can be shifted to a country with less-restrictive pollution laws.
 Notice that I have not even touched the topic of pollution danger (global warming) being real.
 Even if I assume that the world is going to hell, I can only see how Kyoto can accelerate the process, not prevent it.

 miko

 P.S. I may be wrong here. Do I miss something in the mechanism that would make it work?

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

[mietla]

Originally posted by miko2d:

I can only see how Kyoto can accelerate the process, not prevent it.

Just like those idiotic carpool lanes. They are instituted to lower the pollution, whereas in fact they increase it.

[Boroda]

Miko is simply so proud to be a Neo-American Superhuman that he can justify any imbecilic attempt to spit at the face of the rest of the world performed by American administration.

Yakiy ty k chotru litsar', koli... Dal'she prodolzhat'?  

Just curious if our Ukrainian communist-fighter can remember the first paragraph of Ukrainian first national poetry piece, Kotlyarevsky's "Eneide". "Энеида" Котляревского.

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Boroda:
Miko is simply so proud to be a Neo-American Superhuman that he can justify any imbecilic attempt to spit at the face of the rest of the world...

Yakiy ty k chotru litsar', koli... Dal'she prodolzhat'?  

Just curious if our Ukrainian communist-fighter can remember the first paragraph of Ukrainian first national poetry piece, Kotlyarevsky's "Eneide". "??????" ?????????????.

 I listed quite specific points in two posts of that thread why I think the Kyoto accord would not work.
 Why don't you try to refute any of them now that you are done revealing me as a traitor again...

 Here are the main points:
 1. Pollutting production will move to countries with worse controls and technology causing more pollution total.
 2. Countries that want US to reduce pollution (like Russia) will gladly sell US their allotments for reasonabe sum of money.

 It wouldn't be the first time that the majority (of countries or people) was wrong about something.
 Refusing to sign a treaty may be imbecilic but could hardly qualify as spit in the face. Last time I checked, treaties were voluntary.
 The fact that US would not sign it does not preclude many americans (including myself) from conservation. US has pretty strict polution laws without any treaties. Look at it this way - if people want to concerve, they will do it, if not, they will cheat.

 Speaking of literature, I was taught in school that the first Ukrainian poetry piece was "Slovo o polku Igoreve" which russians also consider their first literary masterpiece.
 While I have "Eneyida" in my collection and even studied it in school, I am not the one to ask for verses. I am a techie, not an art person, so logic is my strong point, not memory.
 Though let me try... "Enei buv parubok motorniy, i hlopets' hot' kudi kosak". I wouldn't bet it to be beginning though...

mietla: Just like those idiotic carpool lanes. They are instituted to lower the pollution, whereas in fact they increase it.
 That is news to me. How do they increase pollution? Let me guess... By creating congestion and traffic jam for the rest of the cars that have to use fewer lanes! Am I right?

 miko

[mietla]

bingo. 7% of the traffic is using 33% of the freeway capacity, and only an insignificant percent (if any) of those 7% are people who decided to carpool only to take advantage of those lanes. Most people who carpool...

1. ... really don't. They hust happen to have a passenger (driving kids to school for example)

2. .. would carpool anyway, carpool lane or not (to save money, car tear and wear etc)

All you have to do is observe the traffic. 3:00 PM sharp, #2 and #3 lanes become a parking lot, 7:00 PM sharp everything clears.

I actually moved my working hours to never leave home before 9:00 AM and never leave work before 7:00 PM. If I leave work at 7:00 PM, I'm home 7:35 PM, If I leave work at 6:00 PM, you guessed it, I'm home 7:35 PM. The bottom line is that instead of 35 minutes, my car is polluting for an hour and a half.

Carpooling is just too damn inconvenient. Two friends of mine are neighbours, their houses are next to each other, and so are they offices at work. They work for the same company and in the same group, and still they carpool no more that twice a week, sometimes not even that.

I just can imagine that two people working at different companies can actually sync their home and work schedules to the point that they can actually share a ride.

Not to even mention an increase danger on the road, when a car with two people driving 5 miles/hour in a #2 lane is trying to merge into #1 lane between cars zipping at 70 miles/hour, or vice versa.

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]

[miko2d]

I used to carpool with my wife. It was a great excuse not to stay late:

 - I have to go pick up my wife.

 - I have to leave, my husband is waiting for me in the car...

 
miko

[mietla]

Was the existence of a carpool lane a factor in deciding whether you drive one car or two?

[miko2d]

No, there was not one available.
 The choice of job my wife took was influenced by my ability to drop her on the way.