Why I think Kyoto is Bullshit. (1 Viewer)

[erawamai]

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.

Im trying to be rational NTB. Making inferences that I think you are a baby eater when I called you a economic rationalist is not helpful. I'll say it again. I pointed it out as an aside because it is consistent with your stance on Kyoto. That being tradtitionally economic liberals just don't like multilateralism. They prefer realism and its bi lateralism.

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?

No I do not know the ins and outs of the kyoto protocol. However I can bring a bit of IR theory and Aussie foreign policy to the table. I imagine that there are convincing arguments for both POVs.

There are two ways to solve global problems. Either Multilaterally or bi laterally. By rejecting the kyoto protocol you reject multilateralism and its ability to do anything. I say multilateralism never works when the super power doesn't sign up....ie realism and power politics.

The only other option, if you actually feel anything can be done to stop global warming, is bi lateralism. I think bi lateralism is a poor way of solving global problems.

So what are we left with? Multilateralism. It doesn't have to the Kyoto protocol. But a global multilateral protocol would be the best way to adress global problems.

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.

You may want to read that again. Slowly.

- Impossible to slow global warming.

- Must limit its impact on people

- Slowing it down at cost is fruitless

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You may want to read that again. Slowly.

- Impossible to slow global warming.

- Must limit its impact on people

- Slowing it down at cost is fruitless

I think you might want to read it slowly... it was;

- It is impossible to stop global warming.

- Therefor the best response is to limit its impact on people (through increasing their infrastructure).

- All that Kyoto does is slow down the inevitable, which is fruitless as it still ends in the same result (just a little later).

Either Multilaterally or bi laterally. By rejecting the kyoto protocol you reject multilateralism and its ability to do anything.

What so Kyoto is the only multilateral option? My proposed idea is to get the same countries which would be forced to lose money through the Kyoto protocol, to use that money to invest in the infrastructure of nations who need infrastructure to survive.

edit: by the way, nothing can be done to stop global warming at all.

The problem I have, is that you want to spend this much money... to have a bit more time for people. Where as you could set them up to deal with the crisis, let alone that most reports i've seen show that it's not going to be something TOO hard for most of the developed world to deal with. There are much bigger crisis in the world that get much less attention...

 

[supercharged]

Kyoto protocol on its OWN is useless, but it was NEVER designed to end there, it is merely a first step. Once it has been put into effect, tougher agreements would follow in the years ahead. You can't exactly pass very tough emissions standards straight away as no country would adopt it.

What other choice is there without international agreements such as Kyoto? Why would countries bother to cut their emissions if their neighbours happily pump away next to them at the same time? The only way is with multilateral agreements such as Kyoto.

The only realistic way to reduce CO2 emissions with current technology is with nuclear reactors. The nuclear waste issues is just a load of hot air blown out by neo-hippies. You can easily store it deep underground in uninhabitable desert areas with no big trouble.

However the real long term solution will have to be with clean alternative fuels and perhaps 'cold fusion' if scientists can make it viable in the next 30 years or so.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Once it has been put into effect, tougher agreements would follow in the years ahead.

Like what? What sort of agreement?
Some further cuts to emissions? Do you know how much money this is going to cost?

You can't exactly pass very tough emissions standards straight away as no country would adopt it.

But even tougher emissions standards will only delay it for a bit longer, the idea of stopping global warming is a pratical impossibility.

What other choice is there without international agreements such as Kyoto? Why would countries bother to cut their emissions if their neighbours happily pump away next to them at the same time? The only way is with multilateral agreements such as Kyoto.

I explained, an international agreement to give money to poorer nations who will have the most difficulty dealing with the added pressure of global warming.

 

[pLuvia]

we should change to hydro, wind, sun
nuclear will have devasting effects later on or now

 

[fleepbasding]

So which countries are going to be hardest hit by the effects of global warming then?

 

[supercharged]

we should change to hydro, wind, sun
nuclear will have devasting effects later on or now

Yes we 'should' but atm the technology doesn't exist to produce enough power for the world's needs at a viable cost. You can't use want doesn't exist yet. Nuclear is the only way atm.

@NTB Yes emissions cuts will cost alot of money, BUT doing nothing will cost even MORE as a result of increased temperatures leading to crop failures, less water supply due to evapouration and more disasters such as hurricanes (Katrina left a $200 billion bill). As I said before there is NO current technology to solve the world's environmental/power problems. Only when we have renewable clean energy and cold fusion will that be possible.

However it would be smart to avoid stuffing up the atmosphere anymore than necessary so that when the technology finally does become availble it won't be too late. And yeah developing countries should get help to improve their infrastructure to reduce inefficient energy resource usage, but all developing countries actually produce very little pollution per capita compared to developed countries. They only pollute alot in relative terms due to their large populations.

Government policies in Australia such as taxing people who buy fuel guzzling cars such as 4WDs could easily cut urban pollution levels, but the government is too lame (and doesn't give a shit) to even do this.

 

[loquasagacious]

As mentioned Kyoto is the first step on a long road.

As I have said before; Billions of dollars is a drop in the ocean when compared to the world economy.

Mathmite: re alternative power sources.

Hydro: extremely un cost-effective eg massive initial investment and slow to make a profit. Environmentally bad as obstructs river flow and causes cold-water pollution.

Solar: Takes huge areas. Photovolataics are as yet quite inefficient and expensive. This is probably among the better long term solutions. Though not as is fondly imagined through some kind of solar-farm in the desert (see problems for hydro). Look to see photovolatics integrated into new buildings. In this way the grid becomes decentralised. Unfortunately to have power at night or in storms power must be stored in batteries (unsafe) or drawn from the grid.

Methane: Inefficient and expensive.

Wind farms: Ludicrously inefficient and expensive.

Crazy victorian 1km heat tower thingy: Insanely stupidly irrationally expensive and produces very little power.

Geothermal: The cracks in the Australian bedrock run vertically (not horizontally like in new zealand and iceland) so this doesn't work.

Coal is very cheap, very cost-effective and not that polluting. (That said victorian coal is worse than nsw - brown v black for anyone interested). In the long term I would expect to see large scale fuel cells being inserted into the grid in much the same way power plants currently are. This utilises existing infrastructure, allows economics of scale to be realised in electricity manufacture, and enables safer handling of the volatile hydrogen.

Source: 40 years experience at high levels in the supply of electricity in australia.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

On a long road to what? It's incredibly expensive and delays global warming by a small ammount?

Why does my idea hold no merit but a program which will cost billions (that could be spent in much more efficent ways) does? Because it's the first step in a long road of pointlessness?

 

[loquasagacious]

The idea is that first kyoto and then kyoto II and so on and so forth. In that way over time restrictions can be placed and interventions made that push the market in a more sustainable direction. In this way kyoto is not about meeting the targets it is about there being targets, it is about rainsing the profile of global warming and by doing so encourage people to do something. There is no world government so no companies are not going to be really compelled to meet the targets in a conventional sense. However through raising the profile/spectre the market will start to demand greater environmental sustainability.

And in doing so global warming will be slowed, and its affects minimised. To the point where it could be manageable as opposed to catastrophic.

 

[dimzi]

We should all go to nuclear.

But what happens when we run out of nuclear fuel?

Uranium is not an infinite resource you know.

At current consumptionm levels, they will last about 50 years, but if every country suddenly started going nuclear the that would be much shorter.

Sure, the spent fuel could be reprocessed, but it still would result in a declining resource which we would eventually run out of, then we are back to square one.

 

[supercharged]

But what happens when we run out of nuclear fuel?

Uranium is not an infinite resource you know.

At current consumptionm levels, they will last about 50 years, but if every country suddenly started going nuclear the that would be much shorter.

Sure, the spent fuel could be reprocessed, but it still would result in a declining resource which we would eventually run out of, then we are back to square one.

Nuclear energy is not meant as the long term solution but rather an instant fix to buy a few decades of time so that renewables can be developed.

 

[Iron]

I assume technology will bail us out again. If we slow it down long enough, we can naturally evolve gills and the like to beat the heat - or maybe genetically modify ourselves - with dolphins or camels. Even so, there are so many other excellent options, like aqua-cities or moon colonies. Worst case scenario is 100yrs+ at the bottom of some of our deeper mine shafts (the iron-ey) until the climate sorts itself out- and who the hell would object to that?! The future has never been brighter -literally.

 

[withoutaface]

But what happens when we run out of nuclear fuel?

Uranium is not an infinite resource you know.

At current consumptionm levels, they will last about 50 years, but if every country suddenly started going nuclear the that would be much shorter.

Sure, the spent fuel could be reprocessed, but it still would result in a declining resource which we would eventually run out of, then we are back to square one.

Since uranium is ubiquitous and plentiful in the earth's crust, its availability is determined almost entirely by the willingness to find it. Thus, while today's low uranium cost equates to about 50 years of assured resources (3.1 Mt) using conventional reactors at the current usage rate, a doubling of the market price increases this time roughly ten-fold. In all, conventional estimated resources account for about 250 years' supply (16.2 Mt) at the current consumption rate. This does not include advanced uranium-extraction scenarios (phosphate deposits accounting for 22 Mt, seawater accounting for up to 4000 Mt) that require 10-15 times the current market price.

Finally, the ultimate in efficient resource usage is the Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR), a technology that creates more fissile fuel than it consumes. Uranium resources can be extended by a factor of 60 - 100 with the widespread use of breeder technology, although the economics will probably first lead to a hybrid arrangement where FBRs synergistically feed high-converter thermal reactors like CANDU.

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionG.htm

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The idea is that first kyoto and then kyoto II and so on and so forth. In that way over time restrictions can be placed and interventions made that push the market in a more sustainable direction. In this way kyoto is not about meeting the targets it is about there being targets, it is about rainsing the profile of global warming and by doing so encourage people to do something.

And in doing so global warming will be slowed, and its affects minimised. To the point where it could be manageable as opposed to catastrophic.

What you're not realising is that even if kyoto is ratified, we only slow it down by an estimated 6+ years. And the damage which occurs because of global warming will not be catastrophic... a much better allocation of resources would be to assist the countries which are already struggling under current conditions.

 

[Iron]

Antarctica isnt a country

 

[loquasagacious]

It will be once we get rid of all that ice.... Finally australia can realise our imperial ambitions and colonise our antactic territory.

...................

So we see two contrary viewpoints which both just wish the problem away. Historically communists and their ilk have simply forseen technological improvements as using resources more efficiently whilst capitalists have fortold that the market will spur searches for more resources.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The idea is that first kyoto and then kyoto II and so on and so forth. In that way over time restrictions can be placed and interventions made that push the market in a more sustainable direction.

See that's the part where your idea falls imo, no one (as far as I know) is claiming that at this point global warming can be stopped, only slowed down in its advances by a decade or so. I can see how restrictions could force the market to look for better solutions (which it may), but I feel even if we do (due to innovation etc) come up with a slightly more sustainable system, we are still going to feel the effects eventually.

Isn't it better to help countries now (countries that already have water shortage problems, etc) where people are dying now, and who will feel the largest brunt of global warming, than undertaking a costly program that delays global warming by a few years?

 

[supercharged]

It will be once we get rid of all that ice.... Finally australia can realise our imperial ambitions and colonise our antactic territory.

Does that mean penguins and polar bears will become our slaves?

 

[Serius]

yeah lets go nuclear, it will save the environment a shitload... besides renewable energy doesnt look to good to me, its too expensive and i am sure a heap of those expensive parts will need to be remade when they breakdown.. Nuclear power is cheap, clean, efficient... its good in everyway. Only the uninformed, ignorant and stupid are against nuclear power