Why I think Kyoto is Bullshit. (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

Why I think Kyoto is Bullshit.

- Even if it was ratified today, and every country abided by its regulations, it would make VERY little difference (perhaps slow global warming down by a few years).

- It would be AMAZINGLY expensive to impliment, and I honestly don't believe most countries will.

- For the cost of delaying Global Warming through ratifying Kyoto, we could set up the nations which will be the worst affected by global warming and save them before it inevitably hits.

- It does not seem to lead to any better solutions.

In the end it is just one big expensive 'commitment' that only delays the inevitable by a few years. Where as we could spend money building up the infrastructure of the nations which will be hardest hit, as to make sure they endure when it eventually does occur.

 

[withoutaface]

We should all go to nuclear.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

That would certainly cut down emissions by quite a bit.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What do you mean 'at least it's a start' ? to ratify kyoto costs BILLIONS of dollars and its only benefit is shaving a few years off the global warming process. How is this a better idea than setting up the countries whom currently don't have the infrastructure to deal with it, to be able to deal with it? Also I dunno what sort of 'drastic' plan you're thinking would work, because it's already happening..

 

[erawamai]

Global issue needs global solutions. Multilaterialism is the best way when it comes to global interests.

Perhaps Koyoto needs redrafting? But how you adress a global issue bi laterally?

 

[erawamai]

Just by using your computer now and having a light on above you, you are contributing to global warming. If they want to stop the global threat, you need to totally abolish cars and uproot the society we live in, which is fine with the greens and other parties like that, because they don't care about our society anyway.

It's not all or nothing

 

[erawamai]

Why I think Kyoto is Bullshit.

- Even if it was ratified today, and every country abided by its regulations, it would make VERY little difference (perhaps slow global warming down by a few years).

- It would be AMAZINGLY expensive to impliment, and I honestly don't believe most countries will.

- For the cost of delaying Global Warming through ratifying Kyoto, we could set up the nations which will be the worst affected by global warming and save them before it inevitably hits.

- It does not seem to lead to any better solutions.

In the end it is just one big expensive 'commitment' that only delays the inevitable by a few years. Where as we could spend money building up the infrastructure of the nations which will be hardest hit, as to make sure they endure when it eventually does occur.

It's probably in line with your economic rationalist bent. Traditionally the conservatives have been in favour of bi lateralism.

 

[Iron]

If China buried its cloud of Shit, they could bring the world to its knees by threatening to unleash it, thereby setting off the doomsday device.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Global issue needs global solutions. Multilaterialism is the best way when it comes to global interests.

Perhaps Koyoto needs redrafting? But how you adress a global issue bi laterally?

What I'm saying is that Kyoto, and any sort of "make less emitions" agreements do very little even if they are ratified (which most aren't). I agree that it is a global issue, however I feel the solution is in assisting the countries/people who will not be able to survive in the future world to be able to survive, instead of delaying the inevitable and watching them die later.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It's probably in line with your economic rationalist bent. Traditionally the conservatives have been in favour of bi lateralism.

Ok? What exactly is your solution?
Kyoto is your solution? I say you have just spent billions of dollars just to watch people die a few years later.

 

[Iron]

You're pretty defeatist about this NTB. It's reversable, I tell you. Reversable!

 

[erawamai]

Ok? What exactly is your solution?
Kyoto is your solution? I say you have just spent billions of dollars just to watch people die a few years later.

Well it is whether you think bi lateralism is can solve global problems. OR somehow bind nations to all create bi lateral agreements. Developing nations will not agree unless the big player (the US china etc) sign up.

Multilateralism is at its strongest when the superpowers endorsed multilateralism. It's at its weakest when the superpower treats it with contempt. Ie its all about power...realist theory of IR...blah blah.

Multilateralism is best we have for climate change. It's a matter of making it work. Global issues like global warming require global solutions and for that to work the super powers have to take the initiative. At the moment the balance of power is with the conservatives. Conservatives have never favoured the environment or multilateralism.

Kyoto is currently the only global tool we have.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Kyoto is a weak plan tho.
Why not make up the same sort of international document... however with this one, it makes developed nations put money into developing enough infrastructure in poorer nations in order to deal with the inevitable global warming crisis?

 

[erawamai]

No

Realism says that small states will only sign up to treaties if it benefits them. Developing countries are not going to gain from being forced to introduce expensive and safe practises. Cheap and nasty puts food on their people's table.

Unless, the superpowers forced them into doing it by threatening consequences such as import tarriffs or invasion.

So you are wrong.

I actually don't see how that has anything to do with what I said or that you miraculously distinguished a point of my post.

But you can have two stars for applying realism.

 

[withoutaface]

If we create a nuclear waste dump in the desert somewhere, where noone ever goes, what's it going to do?

 

[erawamai]

If we create a nuclear waste dump in the desert somewhere, where noone ever goes, what's it going to do?

I think I remember someone in the 1950s saying that.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What was the answer? Anyway can we stick to kyoto? At the beginning you were going nuts on me calling me an economic-rationalist, conservative baby-eater... Now you're not saying anything about it?

Do you think my idea is a good one or not? I mean... look at the copenhagen report, I don't believe Kyoto takes their findings into account.

 

[gerhard]

If we create a nuclear waste dump in the desert somewhere, where noone ever goes, what's it going to do?

become evil mutant sand.

havent you seen the mummy??

 

[erawamai]

What was the answer? Anyway can we stick to kyoto? At the beginning you were going nuts on me calling me an economic-rationalist, conservative baby-eater... Now you're not saying anything about it?

Calm down NTB.

I called you can economic rationalist. Which you are. Whether that is good or not is not the point of this debate. Rather I pointed out that economic rationalism and conservatism often go with bi lateralism. Going for power politics and realism rather than international liberalism. I mentioned nothing about baby eating.

Do you think my idea is a good one or not? I mean... look at the copenhagen report, I don't believe Kyoto takes their findings into account.

Kyoto most probably needs some work. It would be made to work if the super powers of the world wanted to make it work. It is not in the economic interest of the powerful nations to protect the environment through the measures contained within the protocol.

Nation states of the neo con variety do not work on a triple bottom line. Whether it is good for the environment or not is not the issue. It is whether it is in the economic interest of national states. Clearly it is not. That is why the US has not signed up. As aformentioned when the superpower of the time doesn't agree multilateralism dies in the water.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Calm down NTB.

I called you can economic rationalist. Which you are. Whether that is good or not is not the point of this debate. Rather I pointed out that economic rationalism and conservatism often go with bi lateralism. Going for power politics and realism rather than international liberalism. I mentioned nothing about baby eating.

Yes but I saw this as not contributing to the idea of whether my idea has merit or not. You seem to still support kyoto even after hearing what I have to say, and I want to know why. You seem to think it will 'work' (I'd like to know what you believe the outcome of Kyoto will be) if all the superpowers get involved.

It would be made to work if the super powers of the world wanted to make it work. It is not in the economic interest of the powerful nations to protect of environment through the measures contained within the protocol.

No... If every major super power ratified kyoto right now we would slow down global warming by less than a decade. Have you looked into this or have you just assumed that following kyoto = end of global warming?

It is basically impossible to stop global warming (copenhagen report), the best we can do is to try to limit the effects it has on people. Slowing it down at such a great cost seems a fairly fruitless excercise, especially if nothing is done in the way of infrastructure.

It leaks.. It moves.. People might dig there in many hundreds of years time.. It still doesn't solve the problem; you are replacing one limited fuel with another limited fuel. Methane, solar and Hydro are infinitely replenished.

It is a problem, however having a 'nuclear' powered world would probably lead to rapid accelleration in research into nuclear technologies which could end up giving us nuclear fusion which we could use for everything.

Your other fuel sources all have problems with their implimentation, nuclear power is a ready to go source of energy in most parts of the world and its waste (while hazardous) shouldn't be too much of a problem, I dunno how much nuclear waste a country like Australia would make over 500 years but I imagine it's not that bad.

Nation states of the neo con variety do not work on a triple bottom line. Whether it is good for the environment or not is not the issue. It is whether it is in the economic interest of national states. Clearly it is not. That is why the US has not signed up. As aformentioned when the superpower of the time doesn't agree multilateralism dies in the water.

You don't believe 'neo-cons' care about society?
As I have pointed out time and time again, I feel Kyoto is stupid for X reason, whether or not the US ratifies it is a null-issue, I'm saying even if they did it would still be stupid.