Kyoto is a waste of money... (2 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

I'm paraphrasing... full article page 49 of The Bulletin - "False Prophets, Bad Economics"

Basically the kyoto protocol would demand the biggest international financial commitment in history. However it compares the total costs of potential damage with the marginal costs of slightly ameliorating the problem.

Even if every industrial country met the kyoto goals of reducing carbon emissions 30 percent by 2010, the impact would be tiny. By 2100 that would have postponed global warming by a mere six years.

It makes no sense. The best estimates of the cost of implementing Kyoto run between $150 billion and $350 billion a year. The best estimates of the damage from global warming reach about $500 billion anually in 2100.
And it's not paying $150 billion to avoid $500 billion.. we still have to pay the $500 billion only six years later. The Protocol is a deal of we pay $150 billion a year for 100 years to postpone payment of $500 billion anually starting in 2100.

 

[Cape]

Sure its gonna cost a lot and sure not all the countries are going to agree with it and sure its gonna take a lot of work ... but don't you think that every little thing we can do to save the world would help.

Even if it is delaying global warming by 6 years - 6 years is a long time and scientists could possibly do something to save some of the worlds most endangered species from becoming extinct and creating a microclimate for them.

I personally think that we should all be working towards a future which has the survival of the planet in mind.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

delaying it by 6 years at that sorta cost is pointless.... you might as well spend that money fixing up a problem such as aids in africa or another such epidemic...

 

[Cape]

If we wanted to fix the problems in Africa, don't you think that we would have done something by now???

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't want to delay global warming by 6 years by this sort of cost... if this sorta money is going to be thrown at anything i'd throw it at giving third world nations some infrastructure.

 

[Cape]

Whats the point if the whole world is going to be destroyed?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Global warming isn't the whole world being destroyed.... it will cost the worlds economy around 500 billion annually from the year 2100, life might get a little harder, seas will rise... but it will basically be the same.

 

[Cape]

I know what global warming is.

I know that its not going to destroy the world ... but the way that the world uses the natural resources - especially industrialised countries - is causing the world to be slowly destroyed.

Also a temperature rise of about half a degree will cause the extinction of many ecosystems especially coral reefs.

And if the sea level rises - you obviously don't care about all the low lying islands found most in the Pacific ... where are all these people going to go. Die or go and live in an industrialised country???

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It's a bad thing yes but it IS going to happen.... delaying it by 6 years will do nothing, instead of some guy having to move from the galapagos islands in 2100 he'll have to move in 2106....

 

[Cape]

Atleast someone is trying to come up with a solution to solve the world's environmental problems.

 

[Scanorama]

What a very selfish thought. Maybe by not agree the Kyoto protocol is great for the countries in short term. But do we want to see our next generations to live in a fuck up world? Humans are not the only user of this planet, there are lots of other species sharing this planet with us. Global can protentially destory other species and eventually it will effect human beings, like a chain. 6 years may seem nothing but a lot can be done during the time.

 

[Li0n]

by the ammount resources that we have absorbed from the earth i think we owe it alittle time and money.

 

[Xayma]

Kyoto isn't the end point of the global warming efforts. It is a merely the best solution possible at this time.

In 30 years we might enact something that postpones it another 10 years.

So that by 2106 it hasn't occured.

 

[budj]

Yeah exactly. Global warming is a big problem, and as Cape rightly said, it will cause the instinction of several fragile and not so fragile ecosystems. I think ts a resonable cost, even if it is going to delay it for about 6 years. Like Cape already stated, it will igve scientists a geter chance of rememdying this fucked up situation ew got ourselves into. And by the way, eachcountry has contributied to fucking up the world, so each country should contribute (with an obvious note of exception).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What a very selfish thought. Maybe by not agree the Kyoto protocol is great for the countries in short term. But do we want to see our next generations to live in a fuck up world? Humans are not the only user of this planet, there are lots of other species sharing this planet with us. Global can protentially destory other species and eventually it will effect human beings, like a chain. 6 years may seem nothing but a lot can be done during the time.

If the kyoto protocol is followed in full all it will do is delay it by another 6 years... there are much worse problems for the people of the 3rd world at the moment, and in 2100...

6 years IS nothing considering we have around 100 to wait....

There are many better ways to help the poor than by fighting global warming. Directly addressing the most pressing issues of disease, hunger and poluted water will not only save lives currently it will make the poor less vulnerable to climate change.
Poverty is a huge problem NOW.

The United Nations projects that the average person in the developing world will be at least as rich as we are today, and more likely two to four times richer.
When Bangladesh faces those rising seas in 2100 , it will be a rich neverlands. The Real question is wether we spend money to do a little good in a rich neverlands far into the future, or alot of good in a poor Bangladesh now.

The World can't (or won't) pay for everything. So we have a moral obligation to set priorities. This was the starting point of the Copenhaged Consensus project, which found that problems like AIDS, hunger and malaria could be fought very cost-efficiently, but climate change could not.

We can prevent HIV by handing out condoms and improving health education. We can prevent millions from dying of malnutrition with simple vitamin supplements. This does not mean we should ignore climate change. We should, for example, look at the right mix of incentives and regulations to encourage investment in renewable energy. But it does mean that there are far better ways to spend $150 billion a year. World leaders would be well advised to let go of their obsession with the distant and exaggerated threat of climate change in order to start doing some real good for the world, now.

 

[joujou_84]

whats the difference between the kyoto protocol and the montreal protocol........or is the latter one to phase put the use of chlororflourocarbons......anyway thats a heap of money.....as NTB said they should be using that money to assist the present world instead of focusing 100 yrs down the track.......and its obvious that humans will bring abt their own destruction anyway.....ok there needs to be research into this problem.....however thats too much money which could be put 2 betta use....

edit: however if water levels due rise due to global warming......australia will be first to go down....

 

[Cape]

kyoto is to reduce greenhouse gasses and montrael is to reduce cfcs.

Just cause something is 100 years away ... 100 years time it might be too late to do anything about the problem ... we are in the time now to fix the problem and save the environment for future generations.

Australia won't be one of the first countries to go first - many islands in the south pacific will be ... they are lower than australia and much of australia won't be underwater ... only the coastal regions.

 

[joujou_84]

kyoto is to reduce greenhouse gasses and montrael is to reduce cfcs.

Just cause something is 100 years away ... 100 years time it might be too late to do anything about the problem ... we are in the time now to fix the problem and save the environment for future generations.

Australia won't be one of the first countries to go first - many islands in the south pacific will be ... they are lower than australia and much of australia won't be underwater ... only the coastal regions.

but we have things to solve NOW.......i dont think the family starving to death out there gives a shit abt greenhouse emisions.......there so much war and famine and disease present today which needs to be solved.........im not saying that the problem should be ignored........but thats too much money and attention given to the wrong issue...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The coastal regions where 80% of our population lives?
Not to mention longer drought?

Australia will be one of the countries hardest hit by global warming.....

There is NO cheap or easy fix to global warming... basically it's going to happen and eventually we'll have to be forking out extra money every year to pay for it (approx. 500 billion of the worlds economy).

It's really sad that people can be so focused on this problem while there are people dying because they don't have anything to eat NOW.. and I got called selfish.

 

[Cape]

People in famine are usually in third world countries and these third world countries have a greater respect for ecological sustainable development. Its not alot of money when you consider all the countries in the world. Its just that countries are putting their money in the wrong places.

Plus Australia is very high above sea level.