Slashdot Log In
A Stark Warning On Climate Change
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Apr 14, 2006 08:12 AM
from the that's-not-good dept.
from the that's-not-good dept.
cliffski writes "In a report based on computer predictions, UK government advisor Professor David King said that an increase of even three degrees Celsius would cause drought and famine and threaten millions of lives
The US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising. A government report based on computer modeling projects a 3C rise would cause a drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops, about 400 million more people at risk of hunger and between 1.2bn and 3bn more people at risk of water stress."
Related Stories
[+]
Climate Changes Shift Springtime in Europe 259 comments
gollum123 writes to mention a BBC article on a study of Europe's changing climate. The study collated information from 17 nations and 125,000 studies involving 561 species. The results indicate that, at least in Europe, 'Spring' is coming earlier and earlier every year. From the article: "Spring was beginning on average six to eight days earlier than it did 30 years ago, the researchers said. In regions such as Spain, which saw the greatest increases in temperatures, the season began up to two weeks earlier. The findings were based on what was described as the world's largest study of changes in recurring natural events, such as when plants flowered. The team of researchers also found that the onset of autumn has been delayed by an average of three days over the same period."
[+]
An Inconvenient Truth 1033 comments
There's a movie teaser line that you may have seen recently, that goes like this: "What if you had to tell someone the most important thing in the world, but you knew they'd never believe you?" The answer is "I'd try." The teaser's actually for another movie, but that's the story that's told in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth": it starts with a man who, after talking with scientists and senators, can't get anyone to listen to what he thinks is the most important thing in the world. It comes out on DVD today.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Recommended reading (Score:5, Informative)
I leave it up to another karma whore to provide affiliate links to Amazon.
More recommended reading (Score:4, Interesting)
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
Re:More recommended reading (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a factoid to get you started [sourcewatch.org]:
"In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout."
Re:More recommended reading (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists admit the Earth's mechanisms are so complicated their calculations are uncertain.
So we start with an uncertain model stating a potential 3 degree C increase in temperature with no data given on the reliability of that number -that's not science. For a model to be scientifically valid it not only needs to be tested and found reliable, one also needs to do the extra step in determining variablity in outcome. AFAIK that hasn't been done to a sufficient degree.
Then, based on the results from this model, we use a second untested model with unknown reliability/variability and make another prediction on how this 3 degree change will alter crops on a global level and further how this extrapolates to starving people. What are the assumptions being made? Are we assuming farming techniques are unchanged?
Then we take the results of that model and create policy. Anyone who works with computer modeling should be squirming uncomfortably in their chairs at this point.
I'm not saying its all bad. We do need to act on what our best data tells us, but we really need to know how much stock to put in the analysis. So far that has been sadly lacking. IMO it has a great deal to do with the current political climate where any uncertainty shown is enough to get some people to completely ignore the results. OTOH I think its misleading to be presenting these things as "given" without more information.
Re:More recommended reading (Score:5, Insightful)
And the stakes riding on that disagreement are human civilization, and survival of the species as we know it - as well as many other species.
So I encourage everyone to take as broad a look as we can. The proportions and facts are there to be found. I'm not as optimistic about the ability of billions of industrialized people to make wise decisions about uncertainty, but that's all we've got.
Re:More recommended reading (Score:4, Interesting)
- AJ
Re:More recommended reading (Score:5, Informative)
Lindzen is a professor at MIT.
-jcr
Re:More recommended reading (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does it sound to me like you're trying to lump him in with holocaust deniers?
His credentials, which you are dismissing, are directly relevant to climatology. He's come to a different conclusion than you have; why should I dismiss his opinion just because you consider him a heretic?
-jcr
Can we get past this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is getting warmer. The world is very big, so a small change (e.g., 1 degree Celsius) is a big deal. About this fact, there is little to no dissent.
Mankind is contributing to this change. There is disagreement about how much, but don't be fooled - we are having an impact, and why shouldn't we? There are six billion of us, and rapidly growing. We think that our legacy of burning wood, coal, and now petroleum products, is going to have no impact, and that the exotic chemicals we have used (e.g., CFCs) have no role in this? Come on. Don't make me Google it for you, do the work.
This change IS going to make a difference. Did it cause Katrina? I don't know. Could it cause floods, rise of global sea levels, famine, thirst, and the loss of thousands of species? Probably. Is it already killing polar bears, bleaching coral, and melting permafrost? Yep. Already.
I want to move on to "how much _really_ is a result of our actions" and "what can we do now".
Despite the misinformation campaign from a particular political agenda, this is NOT a political issue, and it IS something to be concerned about. Our lives are on the line, and people are still engaging in lobbyist games and misleading science, just to, what? Get some more power and money for a generation, so the next one can perish? Do we have no conscience at all?
So, please, certain fellow folks in the US, bring the arguments. Tell me how it's OK for a country with 4 percent of the world's population to produce the most emissions, because we don't want to "slow" our economy. Tell me why we should ignore the problem because, of course, there's a big "scientific conspiracy". Tell me how it's OK, because India and China are doing it too, right? I mean, if other people are doing it, it's not "fair" if we can't. Tell me that the permafrost would have "melted anyhow". Tell me about the volcanoes, and that they put out more emissions than we do, which, of course, makes ours "OK".
And, please send all these arguments to /dev/null. Because it's time for the rest of us to talk seriously about what is going on.
I am not an alarmist. I am not part of a left-wing conspiracy. There are people who know 1,000,000 times more than I do (and more than you do...) about climate change and our role in it. And many, many of them believe there is a real issue, one that could get deadly serious in the not too distant future. Maybe they have a point? Have you checked it out - I mean, really, with an open mind, and not through the filter of the talking points you heard on AM radio this morning?
Re:Can we get past this? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's about 4 layers here:
1) Convince me that global warming is happening
2) Convince me that it's due to human activity
3) Convince me that it *can* be 'solved' or at least reduced
4) Convince me that working to 'solve' it won't make things worse like it has in the past.
Right now I'm somewhere between number 1 and 2 there.
Re:As I posted before... (Score:5, Insightful)
The state of the economy shouldn't just be based on the GDP. The GDP is just a proxy for all economic activity, which basically means how well we're doing at getting the stuff people want to the people who want it. If carbon emissions weren't a problem, and we still spent trillions of dollars working on making sure that carbon wasn't put into the atmosphere, that would be trillions of dollars spent on something that people didn't really want, and those resources could therefore have been spent more wisely.
There would be some benefits, of course. More fuel efficient cars, more renewable energy capacity, more efficient appliances. Those are going to offset part of the money we put into it, even if we don't reap the benefits of a saner climate (which I think we will).
Good News & Bad News (Score:4, Funny)
Re:no overpopulation problem; only underwealth (Score:5, Insightful)
Overpopulation is about the Earth as a whole, not any particular high density area. Although high density does lend itself to problems with pollution and disease.
The population density in Japan is greater than just about anywhere, and yet they have none of the problems attributed to overpopulation.
As long as you don't mind being packed in with your neighbors like sardines.
Note that the population density of Japan is not supported by Japan's own land. They import almost all of their natural resources as well as much labor. The world simply could not support too many "Japans."
-matthew
China (Score:5, Informative)
Re:All the more reason to install clean stuff (Score:4, Funny)
I'm Sino-Hebrew, you insensitive clod!!
Wait just a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, we are lucky to be in a country where being green is good for business. I can think of some companies [ge.com] that are making a pretty penny off cutting emissions and helping others to do so.
The sky is falling! (Score:5, Funny)
A guess, even an educated one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A guess, even an educated one... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad you are so confident. I am not. The models (the so-called 'guesses') have been developed and refined over decades, and based on data that goes back for millenia. Almost all scientific work is based on this sort of 'guess'.
Even if you still label it a 'guess', surely you should be concerned that so many guesses from so many who have studied this matter are pointing in the same direction.
What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Climate change was occurring long before our species arrived here, has been occurring ever since, and will continue to occur long after we're gone. Are we contributing to it? Yes. Does it really matter in the end? No. There are forces at work here that are a lot bigger and lot more powerful than we are.
From BBC News: The scientists making the predictions admit that the Earth's mechanisms are so complicated that their calculations are necessarily uncertain.
This uncertainty has led critics to accuse them of either exaggerating the threats to the planet, or under-playing them.
In the end, as I've said many times, we know how bits and pieces of things work, but we don't know how the system functions as a whole. This is very true in medicine, but especially true when it comes to climatology or any planetary science. Listen, you can take the base principles of physics, chemistry, etc. and create any kind of picture you want as to how a mechanism works, as long as it doesn't violate those principles. It doesn't mean you understand how the actual system works -- you only have a theory which happens to explain it in gross detail.
Look at Venus: we know the CO2 level there is extremely high, that the planet is scorchingly hot and devoid of large amounts of water. We can extrapolate from that and from experiments here that the Greenhouse Effect may have caused current conditions there. We can further theorize that a similar catastrophe awaits us here if we don't do anything. The problem is, we don't know how Venus got that way, or really how long it has been like that. We haven't studied it in detail geologically, so we can't be certain that Venus hasn't always been like this.
Yes, CO2 causes the Greenhouse Effect to trap more heat and raise global temperature. According to current theories, the Earth's biosphere has a mechanism for dealing with this, but of course that mechanism is affected by the things we do to it. It's folly to think we're having no effect on the climate, but it's also folly to say we're pushing it to the brink of catastrophe. The truth, as always, probably lies somewhere in the middle. I for one don't see the harm in reducing our CO2 emmissions; it seems like a sensible thing to do, given the fact that we have technologies available that could eliminate our need to use fossil fuels. We really don't need a debate over climate change to see that this is a good idea on general principles.
And something I never hear discussed..... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that most of the people spreading fear of global warming trends are acting as if, without new legislation and drastic changes, we'll keep on creating this pollution indefinitely.
In reality, it seems to me that once gas prices rise to only another $2-3 per gallon (due to demand outstripping supply), the motivation will be there for some serious change anyway. The most likely alternatives for power generation are things like nuclear plants, and for cars, maybe hydrogen - which would nullify most of these concerns.
Re:And something I never hear discussed..... (Score:5, Interesting)
In a similar vein, as prices go up, more expensive options open up. Do a Google on oil sands or shale oil. More expensive options than Saudi oil, but lots of fossil fuel remains.
My point in all of this is that your hypothesis that we are on the verge of depleting fossil fuels is probably incorrect.
Now watch me get hammered with strawman arguments that I am a Bushie with his head in the sand. Or that I don't believe in global warming. All which is untrue, but watch... :-)
Numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
A little more accuracy might help their cause. Those numbers are laughable.
What about Canada? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple question is why wasn't Canada mentioned?
I am all for the US reducing Green house emissions. I think that we should start building a lot more nuclear power plants, use as much bio diesel as is practical, use solar where practical, and wind in the few areas where that makes sense.
Re:What about Canada? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know that it will work - there are a lot of cultural and socioeconomic factors that haven't been addressed. Also, right now the legislation governing corporate pollution is ludicrous. But, Canada doesn't get mentioned in these things because we look like the "good guys" because we signed Kyoto.
Re:What about Canada? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.
Would the US also get a pass if we ratified this treaty and then completely ignored it?
On the bright side... (Score:5, Funny)
The other side of the (gold) coin (Score:5, Funny)
And you know what? You don't even have to bother dealing with the pesky Chicago Board of Trade. While bread goes bad pretty quickly, saltines last for a long time, as does flour. But why go the boring route?
Common breakfast cereals last for a year at least; also, if you buy now, they come with adorable Ice Age: The Meltdown(TM) toy which, down the road, will really make the irony sting. For example, once the famine sets in, you'll be amassing great wealth from selling $45 boxes of Corn Pops to the stupid starving masses who lacked your foresight. Then, as they finish eating their precious sugared grain pellets they will find an Ice Age toy at the bottom of the box. This mere bauble will become a caustic and bitter reminder of the witless folly that created the famine (and your fortune) in the first place.
So it's win/win!
Freeman Dyson's take on Kyoto (Score:4, Insightful)
selection of quotes - dire (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are some of the best quotes:
1) Dozens of posts about how unfair it is to let China and India polute so much. Funny that one, since we are talking about a cumulative effect, anyone care to calculate the total polution per capita since the industrial revolution? Hint: China has only just started and has more inhabitants than Europe and the USA put together. Their (mostly poor) citizens are the most likely to suffer from our (western-made) polution.
But any excuse to blame it on others when you do/don't want to make a difficult decision works for some leaders.
2) "...absurd Kyoto Protocol..."
"..America would have to shrink it's economy.."
"..you cannot maintain economic growth and at the same time reduce your carbon.."
"..Countries in Europe are also failing to meet their targets.."
"..the Kyoto Accords are a socialist mandate.."
We have some Fox-news specialists at hand here, great!
FYI: this story was not about America or capitalism. Oh, and some other economies have done quite well at reducing emissions whilst maintaining growth. Never mind.
We haven't found a perfect solution to an imperfect world, so let's do nothing and keep burning it. That makes sense.
Keep putting your head in the sand until you can't get out - no-one will hear you when the water rushes in!
3) "3C isn't that bad". Right, this is the most clueless one. As if we can just ride this or hope that we develop the technology to correct it in time. 3C average on the scale of the earth is gigantic. This is just a question of scale: how big is the Earth compared to your living room? How much energy does it take to warm (or cool) 1 cubic meter of water (1 ton)? How many tons are we talking about? Google around.
4) "The models are wrong" or "There are forces at work here that are a lot bigger and lot more powerful than we are" (...): implying that either the problem is not real or that the Earth ecosystem has been adapting for billions of years and will continue to do so. Maybe so, but the fact is that the last time on record there was a dramatic climate shift was when the dinosaurs went extinct. Dinosaurs are so 'last extinction event', we are so much more clever.
I won't try to pretend that we know for sure that the situation is just as serious, but all the signs are there.
5) Random:
(warming) "...more favorable to the growing of fruits and vegetables. Good for everyone"
"..would open up vast un(der)farmed plains in the northern Mid-West and Canada"
Silly me! Let's launch a 'freedom to polute' site.
"..African nations where slaughter of their own population is commonplace..." (as an excuse for not doing it here either)
"...it is simply just a natural phenomenon like the Northern Lights."
(someone who needs to do a bit more reading)
"This data is being supressed by hysterical, global-warming cultists, like those found frequenting Slashdot"
The good old conspriacy theories. There aren't any good slashdot stories without one of them.
"So essentially the 'models' 'predicting' global warming actually only predict climate CHANGE"
We are screwing with the climate but it could go either way. Well, here is the news: either way is bad. Any drastic change is bad, and that is what the data suggests.
Summary: lots of posts not making any sense and most of them using some off-topic reason for not doing anything.
Re:How could that be ? (Score:5, Insightful)
you're living in a dreamland (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy". In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure, it would improve efficiency, it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs. Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.
the absurd Kyoto Protocol would put no such restrictions on developing nations such as China and India. They could grow and boom, consume all the energy the like and spew unlimited amounts of who-know-what into the atmosphere, but America would have to shrink it's economy to comply.
The US economy is already in deep trouble; it's living on borrowed money, provided by China and other nations, while China, India, and other nations are already booming.
Furthermore, those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon. But the solution is simple: everybody should pay for the carbon they have already emitted into the atmosphere; when such payments are set up, then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.
Re:you're living in a dreamland (Score:4, Insightful)
Good point. The problem is that those things cost money which you later admit US doesn't have much of anymore. Modernization of transportation is greatly needed, and the US is starting to move in that direction with more fuel efficient cars, hybrids, etc... What's really needed though is good mass transportation. The problem is that in the US there is a lot of ground to cover unlike many places in Europe. Something like high speed rail between cities would be great, but the costs are huge.
The US economy is already in deep trouble; it's living on borrowed money, provided by China and other nations
I agree totally. After 9/11 the gov. should've just let the US economy go through a recession and rebalance itself. Instead they lowered rates and China stepped in and started buying bonds so we ended up with a huge housing bubble and then the housing ATM. Eventually the recession that should've happened then will eventually come due.
I used to really worry about China owning so much of the US debt, and how they had us by the balls until I realized we have them in nearly the same situation. If China were to dump all it's US debt and force our interest rates to sky rocket, basically crushing the US economy, it hurts them just as much. They are killing one of their biggest customers at that point. I guess they could just say screw it and do something like that anyways and play the odds that they come out ahead at the end of the day.
Re:you're living in a dreamland (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy".
Cool! Let's look at your logic, and play "follow the money"
In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure,
Yes, there would be vast capital expenditures to update many existing systems. But remember, "Follow the Money!" Where does updated transportation come from? Taxes, in some cases, and restrictions on vehicle emissions in others. Making vehicles or other equipment emit fewer emissions costs money in R&D, and manufacturing changes. Billions of dollars of overhead to attain the same performance, but with reduced carbon use.
it would improve efficiency,
Efficiency is not directly correlated to emissions. Though they're both ideals pushed for by environmentalists and conservationists, they often oppose each other.
it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses),
This is assuming the plan of action involves alternative fuel sources. Nuclear is an example of this, despite being controversial in itself, and possibly causing immense damage itself in the event of an unlikely accident.
and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs.
True, new activity would be present. However, most of it would be because of higher overhead costs for companies. They then raise their prices to account for it, and inflation ensues. Also, higher energy costs hurt the little guy, even if he has kept his job this far.
Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.
I disagree. Everyone suffers finacial losses when the government requires massive changes in the infrastructure of the country. BTW, how does the military lose? What the hell are you talking about.
then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.
How naive. You're betting on the good will of a crackpot communist country, and a country that refuses to sign the nuke proliferation treaty. They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to be able to force us to give them jobs.
I agree that it would be nice to cut carbon emissions. But the argument remains China/India/etc may be able to spend a minimal amount of money to reduce CO2 emissions, whereas the US may have to spend a substantial amount more to reduce emissions the same amount. But, the US would be required to, and the developing nations would not.
Overall this would create an incentive for companies to move to developing nations. If you think your jobs are being outsourced now, you'd have another thing coming. And don't argue that it hasn't affected Europe; France is just showing an example of protectionist labor laws that exist in Europe.
Re:you're living in a dreamland (Score:5, Insightful)
Why hasn't the US already switched away from oil? Because it's cheap compared to competitive technologies. Even adding in the war subsidy (a hundred or two billion dollars a year), I think you'd only add a dollar or so to the price of gas in the US (ignoring whether demand drops as a result). Also, despite all the talk of "modernizing" transportation, I have to side somewhat with the "peak oil" people here. I think a oil-based transportation infrastructure is more capable at current oil prices than the alternatives.
The US economy is already in deep trouble; it's living on borrowed money, provided by China and other nations, while China, India, and other nations are already booming.
Given that Japan and Europe which are far greener also suffer from the same problem, this indicates that the issue of national debt isn't related to oil consumption, but rather how governments borrow to fund regular spending.
Furthermore, those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon. But the solution is simple: everybody should pay for the carbon they have already emitted into the atmosphere; when such payments are set up, then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.
Then India and China should have chosen to be the advanced countries rather than be the ones catching up. China probably should get some slack since they are aggressively working on reducing their population.
Re:you're living in a dreamland (Score:4, Insightful)
Does that include all of the coal and wood that Europe burned for thousand+ years before they colonized North America? And, are you going to take into account the net increase in trees we plant in the US, as opposed the complete clear-cutting that's going on across all of Asia and Central/South America? How about countries that profit from exporting carbon to other places (say, Venezuela to China)? They're never going to burn as much as China, but their economy completely depends on it. I'd like to see the ledger sheet you've got in mind to take all of that, and the past emissions you refer to, into account. Oh... and "pay" to whom? At what rate? Do we pay (to whom, the UN?) for emissions 200 years ago at some rate equal to the per capita value of those emissions back then? Adjusted how, to current dollars? Do you adjust for changing life expectancy during those years? Please expand on that.
Re:you're living in a dreamland (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, let me get this straight - public and private expenditure to meet environmental regulations is good for the economy, but public expenditure to maintain the military is bad for the economy? Military spending has historically been a big positive for the economy, as long as debt is properly managed. (Admittedly, the debt is certainly not being properly managed at the moment, but the drop in taxable income and the increase in public expenditure to meet new environmental regs wouldn't help that situation out any.)
those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon.
If the intent of Kyoto is to help the environment, then fairness shouldn't enter into it. The reason why China and India support Kyoto now is that it gives them a huge comparative advantage over the US, by letting them continue to emit high levels of CO2 at the expense of the environment. The US gets demonized for opposing such an arrangement, while China and India (which are already heavy polluters, and which release far more CO2 per dollar GDP than the US or EU) are defended for supporting an agreement that not only benefits them economically, but also allows them to continue harming the environment.
That's not fair. That's screwed up.
broken window fallacy (Score:4, Insightful)
You *do* realize that you're pushing the broken window fallacy, right? I wouldn't want someone to attempt propaganda innocently.
Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
At first, I was just a little tipsy.
Now, I am quite drunk.
In fact, even though most of the other people at this party are also drunk, I am by far the drunkest (although the guys who just showed up are doing their best to catch up by sucking it down hard).
If we all keep drinking, we will all get even more drunk, and we will eventually get into a fight when the keg runs low, fall down the stairs or otherwise hurt each other and probably trash this apartment.
If we all agree to stop drinking right now, we will all still be quite drunk for quite some time.
Even if we all agree to moderate our drinking to just maintain the buzz at its current level, I don't believe those guys when they say that they'll stop drinking if I do. They'll probably wait for me to stop, then keep hitting the keg when I'm not looking.
There's only so much beer in the keg, so even if we all slow down our consumption, it will eventually run out.
If somebody's going to get the beer, I want it to be me. I want mine while it lasts.
Therefore...
Where's my mug?