bush visit to europe met with protests..question to bush supporters..

[sirhangover]

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/10/bush.spain/index.html

how can anyone defend this guys environmental policy..?

seriously??!!??

can you look me in the eye with a straight face and tell me that economy is more important then environmental sacrifices???

how can you defend that idea??!!

and just because "other countries dont have to abide by it (environmental policies) why should we?" is an even weaker argument.. that was what bush said recently and I just plain cannot fathom that argument..

i suppose "if jimmy is doing it then why cant i?" is a real great defense...so my question is if jimmy jumps off a bridge then you will too right?

its this kind of backward attitude and short sighted (economical) gain that is slowly killing this earth little by little..

every little bit counts either way and being sluts to the special interest groups for big business energy is sad..really really i stress really sad..lining the pockets of the chemical plant board member directors is plain sad..


please how can you defend the economy over environment?..yeah sure lets not be completely economically stupid but an economic sacrifice is worth ten fold over helping the rich get richer and the environment get worse.. that economic gain bush talks about..do you think he is referring to the joe six pack? do you really think it will hurt your wallet that much?

1500 a family is one figure i heard in the argument against more stringent enviromental policy..$1500? is that it? 1500 to me is nothing if you look at the big picture..we as humans cannot do that i suppose and clowns like this guy are not helping..this is a really sad..we are not gaining any international friends by this either...


i am not a tree hugger just disgusted by this 'economy is more important' take.. that defense is just sick..


sometimes you have to do whats 'right' even if it pains you (economically) or whatever the case may be..

are we that selfish a country? are we not about what is right?

------------------
"no matter how good she looks someone... somewhere..is tired of her *****"

[MadMax]

Maybe partly because there is still a bit of uncertainty about the effect man is really having on the environment and how much the "cleanup efforts" will actually do anyway. Consider the following quotes:

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic and environmental policy." -- Timothy Wirth, US Senator

"Acclerated climate change is the primary risk to the human future...we cannot afford to wait for confirming diagnosis." -- Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of Rio Earth Summit

A poll conducted by American Viewpoin of climatologists found that a majority disagree that "human activites are already disrupting teh global climate." By a 44-17 margin, the climatolgists maintain global warming is a "natural phenomenon" and more believe there is a far better chance of another ice age than there is of global warming. Another poll done by the Univ of Hamburg, Germany, in 1998 targeted 400 climatologists and found only 23% in Canada, 13% in Germany, and a mere 3% in US "strongly agree" that the "global warming process is already underway." Dr. Frederic Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, has publicly taken the UN to task due to the fact that there has never been even one study that has shown conclusive evidence of rising temperatures as a result of industrialization.

The cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol is ridiculously high...while the benefits are extremely marginal. In fact, even the EPA's best estimates say the results of the Kyoto Protocol might mean a difference of a fraction of a degree in the whole global warming parade...and that's the EPA's best guess!!! An economic forecasting firm, WEFA, estimates that the US would lose 2.4% of its GDP, or $227 billion in 2010 alone --- an amount equal to all the money spent right now by federal and local govts on elementary and high schools throughout the nation. They also estimate it would cost about 2 million American jobs. Thanks, but no thanks.

Right off the bat, the Kyoto treaty would necessitate some form of new and costly tax on fossil fuels...this would send energy prices through the roof, which in turn affects our entire economy. Powering your home would increase 30-55% by 2010 and a whopping 40-90% by 2020. I don't think there's many of us out there who can afford that...so ultimately there would be some kind of regressive tax passed to make sure that all have equal access..since we'll certainly create the "right to access to electrical power." (much like the "right to the internet" we hear about today.)



------------------

[Major]

can you look me in the eye with a straight face and tell me that economy is more important then environmental sacrifices???

The argument is pretty simple. If I told you that we could "save the environment" for only $500,000 per person, is that worth it? What about $50,000? What about $5000? Or $100? Or $2?

The simple fact is that there's a cost to it. What the cost is, we really don't know -- primarily because we don't know exactly what kind of damage we're doing and how much we can prevent. If you assume the costs would be relatively high, you're more likely to be against heavy regulations. If you think the cost is lower, you're more likely to be for more regulations.

No one is arguing that the environment is unimportant. Different people just have different views on the costs vs. the benefits. Environmentalists like to say "Bush is being influenced by big oil" -- and he most likely is -- thus creating studies that show doom and gloom for the economy if we add regulations. On the flipside, pro-environment people get their information from environmental groups that show the exact opposite -- that we must save the environment at any cost.

The reality is somewhere in-between, but there's not really many unbiased sources of information because everyone has an agenda.

every little bit counts either way and being sluts to the special interest groups for big business energy is sad..

So is being a slut to the special interest groups for the environment.

yeah sure lets not be completely economically stupid but

Here's the key -- how far is too far? And how much is not enough? And why is your view of too far / not enough any more right than someone else's?

1500 a family is one figure i heard in the argument against more stringent enviromental policy..$1500? is that it? 1500 to me is
nothing

To a family who lives paycheck to paycheck, $1500 might be 2 or 3 month's worth of rent and food.

are we that selfish a country? are we not about what is right?

Good or bad, selfishness is at the heart of capitalism. The reality is we very rarely do "what's right" for the sake of it. We got involved with Kuwait for oil -- selfish reasons. We got involved in Bosnia for our own benefits -- to keep Europe at peace. Similar situation in Rwanda, we convienently stayed out of.


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[heypartner]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Powering your home would increase 30-55% by 2010 and a whopping 40-90% by 2020. I don't think there's many of us out there who can afford that</font>

Let me say, counting on my fingers that looks to be exactly the rate of inflation compounded annually. Thus, the price of bread and milk will rise the same.

MadMax, I've seen you argue soundly, but that numbers argument was weak, unless you can find someone say "above the rate of inflation". That inflation numbers game is always used by politicians and is meant to misinform. Shame on you!

[mrpaige]

Actually, I'm going to make the case that current environmental regulations are why the "basket of goods" used to determine the CPI is 31% higher in 2000 than it was in 1990.

Of course he's talking about increases in real dollars. The context is clear. He talks about the new taxes increasing the cost of energy. If that wasn't above and beyond inflation, then there wouldn't be any new taxes, would there (or is the implication that the taxes will rise, but the price of energy will not rise due to inflation). I don't know that the stats are accurate, but the context seems clear that he's not using trickery related to inflation to get his numbers.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
Film Dallas.com (http://www.filmdallas.com)
AntiBud.com (http://www.antibud.com)

[heypartner]

I'm confused mrpaige. What new taxes? Please show me anywhere in the Kyoto Treaty where they mention the requirement to raise taxes. Again, politicians often use the "it will force more taxes" argument in order to scare, just like environmentalist try to scare us.

guys, I take no sides here, other than the side to stop crappy arguments.

Both sides have old-time common arguments.

Can anyone explain to us the "Coupon/Voucher" method of pollution controls? Can anyone explain to me why they are so successful? Can anyone explain to me how Exxon loses so much money due to pollution controls over the next 20 yrs at the very same time 1/3rd of the globe (China) is just now coming on line, such that my bills increase 3% per yr?

Broaden your arguments guys. Don't just yell at each other about the environment versus economy and try to misinform me with crap about how we know for certain the Ozone layer doesn't expand and retract on its own, or that my power bill is going to grow at the rate of inflation and Exxon is going to be hurt by 3rd world competition.

This world is full of clever individuals. This world can control pollution (simply because it can) without hurting the economy, and can likely increase the economy...as it always does. This does not have to be a regulations argument, if you guys are willing to accept each other's argument and be clever individuals.

Both sides can be right, but both sides can also be wrong for using scare tactics.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 11, 2001).]

[mrpaige]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by heypartner:
I'm confused mrpaige. What new taxes? Please show me anywhere in the Kyoto Treaty where they mention the requirement to raise taxes. Again, politicians often use the "it will force more taxes" argument in order to scare, just like environmentalist try to scare us.</font>

I don't know anything about the Kyoto Treaty or what's in it. I'm just looking at what he's written to decipher what he was saying. I don't vouch for the accuracy of his argument.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
Film Dallas.com (http://www.filmdallas.com)
AntiBud.com (http://www.antibud.com)

[heypartner]

mrpaige,

Here is the line in the Kyoto Protocol that mentions "Progressive Reduction" as one of a dozen principles to ensure.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">(v) Progressive reduction or phasing out of market imperfections, fiscal incentives, tax and duty exemptions and subsidies in all greenhouse gas emitting sectors that run counter to the objective of the Convention and application of market instruments;</font>

Usually protocols like this do not describe or regulate how to implement these things.

There is a very successful way of doing this with little to no economic harm, as long as politicians stop arguing. The Voucher/Coupon system achieves this, by giving out Coupon for emitting gases. Anyone care to explain this further. I don't want to hog this brilliant compromise that thoughful politicians came up with when they stopped their petty arguments.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 11, 2001).]

[Beto_Lluvioso]

Here is an interesting paper about the cost/benefit analysis of implementing the Kyoto Accord.

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s224.html

Here is the conclusion of the paper, which proposes a compromise.

Various facts partially support global warming theory. More evidence is needed to determine whether rising atmospheric levels of CO2 resulting from the use of carbon-based fuels is causing global warming. Nevertheless, most scientists who study the issue think the use of fossil fuels contributes to the global warming that appears to be occurring. Still, considerable uncertainty remains about both the magnitude and the environmental consequences of global warming.

Given the uncertainty, reducing CO2 emissions is like purchasing insurance against global warming and its possible environmental consequences. Under most current proposals, the industrialized nations would buy all or most of the insurance. Developing nations would possibly be asked to contribute only when their income levels rose.

Cost-benefit analysis suggests that reducing U.S. emissions of CO2 to comply with the Kyoto accord or to reach the more modest target proposed by President Clinton represents too much insurance. Analyses for the other industrialized countries yield similar results. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Kyoto accord remains unratified.





------------------
I hate rice and beans!

[haven]

Beto: Isn't the problem, though, that the industrializing countries have been polluting for centuries? They've already developed the economic and industrial infrastructure to "go green" without devastating losses to the economy. The developing world hasn't done that.

We'd basically be saying: Yeah, we know we're re responsible for far more pollution than you, and we built our economy by polluting, but you can't.

That's not really fair. I agree that it might have to be done, but it's not as simple as one may think.

Shanna: I don't think your assumption that going green will hurt the economy is entirley accurate. While it's certain to hurt in the short term, many cost benefit analyses have predicted huge long-term gains... particularly if one converts to a solar PVC-hydrogen economy. No more reliance on foreign oil, and an eventual reduction of at least 2.5 cents kw/h over coal.... and far more from oil.

I know that's long-term, but sitll something to consider.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 11, 2001).]

[heypartner]

The insurance analogy still says nothing about implementation. Saying too much insurance...means what??? That cost-benefit analysis assumes too much economic status quo, in order to measure one changing variable, which by holding a set of variables still and moving only one it HAS to move total costs up. It has to. That conclusion is simply draw by their method of economic analysis.

Bevo, I am a stockholder of several evil gas emitters. I read their financial reports, along with their competitors, along with anything the leading analysts of these sectors right. That is a simplistic cost-benefit analysis, to be kind.

Clever individuals can balance more than one variable at a time so that the status quo is not the sector variables, but the bottom line of US companies.

One thing is for damn sure, this insurance analogy says nothing about how the Voucher system produced a commodity-driven market to reduce emissions with no harm to economies. It changed ALL the normal calculations of financial variables, by allowing companies to completely control their own variables. All companies are given Vouchers to spend on being allowed to emit gases. The amt of vouchers you are given is your limit. Some companies need more, while others need less, while others still willl choose to spend now to make their infrastructure upgrades to produce longterm efficiencies, thus are given more vouchers. The ones with less vouchers or who spend to improve can sell their unused vouchers on the open market. The ones who don't upgrade to better efficiencies, can choose exactly how many vouchers they need to buy.

That is a market-driven tax/incentive system controlled by the gas emitting sectors, not government. Thus, they regulate themselves once the limits are set. And note, it also produces incentives to make your efficiency upgrades which, in turn, fuels an energy service sector; so overall produces more economy, just like NASA spending does.

Bevo, don't believe that simplistic cost-benefit analysis, when there are proven market analysis that one can site.


...next

[Jeff]

For a moment, let's ignore the science we aren't sure of - namely global warming - and focus on the science we DO understand.

First, we know that encroachment by man is destroying several thousand species each year. Species are becoming extinct because we are destroying their habitat. We have NO way of knowing how that will effect our long-term development.

Second, we know through science the harmful effect of carcinogenic chemicals on the body yet PCB's are still dumped into waterways and chemical waste is buried in the ground and left to enter the water table at some later date.

Third, we know that nuclear waste will live on long after we are dead polluting whatever land it is left on, yet we persist in the idea of producing more waste through nuclear power plants as a way to create more energy.

I won't dispute the effects of air pollution on the global scale. The earth will always survive whether we do or not so that isn't that important to me at the moment.

However, we know that carbon monoxide is hazardous. We know that many chemical compounds we use every day are toxic. We know, through testing, that most of us have an average of 50+ chemical compounds existing in our body that didn't even exist 50 years ago and are only produced by man in refineries.

We know all these things and, yet, we continue to repeat the behavior at the expense of our own health and, very likely, the health of all mankind. Nevermind Earth. The planet will be fine.

But, no one can tell me it is healthy to walk outside and breathe in smog and that it is no worse than breathing in clean, fresh air. You can't argue that we pollute our lakes and streams, we engage in dangerous and toxic waste production and we endanger ourselves by using the very products that could kill us.

Assuming all that disappeared, could we still survive and thrive as a world? Could we still function and have happy, fulfilling lives?

------------------
The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama

[haven]

Jeff:



Third, we know that nuclear waste will live on long after we are dead polluting whatever land it is left on, yet we persist in the idea of producing more waste through nuclear power plants as a way to create more energy.


How much does it matter if nuclear wastes persist after we die if they're properly stored? Don't they expect the containment vessels to far exceed the significant life of the waste? Not quite sure, but I think so.

I actually like nuclear power compared to fossil fuels. Yes, I know it's more expensive... and that solar/hydrogen is probably more promising. But I do think that nuclear power became unfairly demonized by some environmentalists. Wouldn't it have been a better idea to concentrate on making it safer, rather than banning it altogether? Nuclear power, with proper precautions, is pretty close to safe, whereas fossil fuels are not.

France, Japan, etc all use a great deal of nuclear power, and have done well with it. I'd be just as happy with renewable energy... I just never understood the big fuss.



------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[heypartner]

Jeff,

That is a long about way to say you want to broaden the topic away from the economy vs the Kyoto Treaty by saying this isn't about the Ozone Layer, it is about our health (not the Earth).

That's pretty off topic, because smog and water-table pollution is a relatively localized problem and never really requires a global Kyoto Treaty. We are talking about a global agreement, and that agreement has most definitely been brought to the UN negotiation tables because of global fear of CO2 emission causing a Greenhouse Effect. This is only about CO2 emissions. Not 50+ things in our body or nuclear waste.

-----------------------------------

I continue to see no one talk about how politicians that are in platform disagreement can come to agree. They seem pretty close, and there are plenty of examples where they have agreed on this stuff before, especially in Europe.

Can we find these examples and talk about them? Do you guys even want too? Or is the debate and our stance on issues what is at issue, rather than enlightening each other on what other states or countries are doing to lower emissions right now....you know, the local experiments that have led to the Kyoto Treaty?

Someone want to find out which large scale energy efficiency technologies are out there. How much do they cost to implement? How much economy do they produce via fueling a stronger Energy Service Sector? What has Europe been doing differently? Japan? What is the true cost-benefit for other economies in the past?

Clever individuals who want solutions can do better research than I've seen in the last two Kyoto Treaty threads. But let's debate the opposing platforms instead, yeah they we can be lazy and just drop in some platform links and joust about arguing who has a better source.

hmmmmm.....

Oeilpere says Doc Rocket is wrong about Shane Battier.

[mc mark]

Dr. Pangloss, I Presume?

By GAIL COLLINS -- New York Times


Explaining the Bush administration's enthusiasm for nuclear power plants, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill
recently said: "If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear is really
very good."

Mr. O'Neill has an ear for the Bushian dialectic, having recently spent a great deal of time beating the drum for the tax-cut package, which was a great idea if you set aside the fact that it wouldn't stimulate the economy and we couldn't afford it.

His boss is off on his first trip to Europe, where this administration is very popular, if you forget about questions of defense, foreign policy, capital punishment and the environment. The president is going to have to sell our allies on his plan for a missile shield, which is an exciting new vision for arms control except for the fact that we don't know how to build it.

We are hoping that Europe works out well for Mr. Bush even though he is said to be planning to use the same diplomatic strategy there that he employed in California, possibly the least successful good-will trip since Dad dined in Japan. The president left Washington on a conciliatory note, acknowledging that the greenhouse effect is not a figment of deranged environmentalists' imagination and promising more money for research. The administration must have given up hope of finding a scientific panel that felt global warming was no big deal if you set aside the fact that the planet is getting hotter. Still, who knows what might turn up? Extensive, painstaking studies should always precede action, missile shields of course excepted.

At home, the Senate will be operating under its new Democratic leadership. To everyone's relief, Senator Strom Thurmond, the 98-year-old senior Republican, is no longer president pro tem and thus third in the line of succession to the presidency. The new president pro tem is Robert Byrd of West Virginia. This is a great improvement if you skip over the fact that Mr. Byrd is an 83-year-old former Ku Klux Klan member who recently used the n-word repeatedly during a bizarre television interview in which he claimed to be demonstrating how much progress the country has made in race relations.

Congress, meanwhile, is turning its attention to the patients' bill of rights, which is to health care reform what a gnat is to aviation. The president and Congress are very close on this issue, except that Mr. Bush is
threatening to veto it. Still, the president has to do what he thinks best. He's the guy with the mandate, if you set aside the irregularities in Florida and the fact that he lost the popular vote.

Mr. O'Neill is onto something. This is a linguistic construct for our time:

o If you set aside the divorce, the "Love Nest" headlines, the cancer and the term limits, New York's Mayor Rudy Giuliani is in clover.

o If you set aside April and May, Jenna's been having a great freshman year.

o Maxwell Taylor Kennedy, a son of Robert Kennedy, dropped out of the Congressional race in Massachusetts yesterday. He had enormous political potential if you set aside an inability to read a prepared script, a tendency to giggle at inappropriate moments and an arrest record for an assault committed in the company of his cousin Michael Skakel, the current murder defendant.

o Aside from the script and the actors, "Pearl Harbor" was one heck of a movie.

o A friend who had been watching the all-execution-all-the-time coverage on cable TV yesterday reported that someone had put in a good word for Timothy McVeigh by saying it was sad that a person's entire life would be judged by the worst thing he did. If you set aside . . .

Last month I wrote a column about Acting Gov. Jane Swift of Massachusetts, who was preparing to deliver twins and had to commute from the other side of the state because Massachusetts is the only state that does
not provide its governor with subsidized housing.

This was entirely accurate, except for the fact that Rhode Island, Arizona and Vermont don't either.

Personally, I can see Rhode Island's point, but everybody else should think this through again. Really, you could just rent them a condo.


http://www2.uclick.com/feature/01/06/12/db010612.gif


------------------
Everything you do, effects everything that is.

[mc mark]

Bush defends death penalty saying that "It is the will of the American people"

Okay, now this freak is putting words in my mouth!

Oh let the circus continue!


http://wire.ap.org/APnews/?SITE=OHCPO&FRONTID=HOME

------------------
Everything you do, effects everything that is.

[bobrek]

You neglected to include the full quote:

"``Democracies debate issues,'' Bush declared. ``Democracies represent the will of the people. The death penalty is the will of the people in the United States. There are some people who don't agree in the United States.''"


------------------

[mc mark]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bobrek:
There are some people who don't agree in the United States.''"

</font>

Yeah like the 500,000 more or so that didn't vote for him.



------------------
Everything you do, effects everything that is.

[haven]

Uhh... Mr. Bush... you're President of a Republic... which seeks to protect MINORITY rights. Majority tyranny is the single-worst form of government. Of course, this is coming from the guy who also doesn't understand how the 3 branches of government operate...

...I love the way that people always mention public opinion when it's on their side, but never otherwise. For instance, public opinion favored a smaller tax cut, supports some abortion rights, and is in favor of medicinal marijuana.

Don't hear Bush mention that, do you?

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 12, 2001).]

[tacoma park legend]

Haven, you're right. The problem is that Clinton made it damn near impossible to build nuclear power plants in the US.

------------------

[haven]

Clever individuals who want solutions can do better research than I've seen in the last
two Kyoto Treaty threads. But let's debate the opposing platforms instead, yeah they we
can be lazy and just drop in some platform links and joust about arguing who has a better
source.

Man, that's pretty harsh. I agree that most of us (including me) do pretty shoddy research on this bbs. But it's not because we're not interesting in the truth. It's just that most of us would rather not do more than a casual search for something that's really a leisure activity. If I've studied an issue for other purposes... that's different. I suspect that's true with most people here.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[mrpaige]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by haven:
...I love the way that people always mention public opinion when it's on their side, but never otherwise. For instance, public opinion favored a smaller tax cut, supports some abortion rights, and is in favor of medicinal marijuana.

Don't hear Bush mention that, do you?
</font>

I don't think public opinion should be mentioned at all because there are many times when the public is wrong, conflicted or says things they don't mean.

For an example: I've seen polls that show Americans would like to infringe Freedom of Speech in some cases. Should Congress and the Supreme Court bend to the will of the people? Of course not. A majority of people believe that nuclear power plants are unsafe. That is really not the case (even France uses them. They can even reuse the waste somehow. It's really kind of cool). And I might maintain that even though a majority of Americans support the death penalty, it's still wrong and we shouldn't have it. (And I heard Bianca Jagger say last night that when France got rid of the death penalty, about 60% of French people supported the death penalty still).

A poll I saw yesterday noted that 56% of Americans think it is okay for the government to read the email of criminals or suspected criminals. In the same poll, 62% of Americans said there should be more privacy laws to protect email from surveillance. (So they want both more and less privacy).

We also have people who answer poll questions with what they think the interviewer wants to hear or what they think should be the "right" answer. For example, if a pollster calls me up and asks how often I eat green vegetables, I (and many others) are going to answer with a number that is higher than what we actually do eat. By the same token, people answer poll questions saying they want conservation to be the focal point of a national energy policy, yet these same people continue to buy SUVs and often shun public transportation. They don't personally want to conserve, but answering the question any other way would make some people feel like they're selfish, etc.

So, I suppose I agree with the point (and would add to it). It is silly when people only use polls to point out where people agree with them (and ignore polls that say opposite). I would say that it's important to shun all polls. Leaders are supposed to lead. Sometimes they have to do things that aren't popular but are for the good of the country (I'm not speaking about any specific politician here. I'm talking about leadership in general). We elect them to do the job and to make the decisions. We don't elect them to follow our every whim. If the government did everything polls told them to do, we'd often end up doing more damage to the country. It's the job of our leaders to lead the way, not to follow behind where the rest of us are going.

But that's just what I think.

------------------
Houston Sports Board (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)
Film Dallas.com (http://www.filmdallas.com)
AntiBud.com (http://www.antibud.com)

[4chuckie]

Wasn't it Willy who said "It's the ENVIROMENT stupid"

no, even Willy said:

"It's the economy stupid"

The enviroment is important but alot more people care about the economy on a daily basis than the enviroment on a daily basis. Long term the evviroemnt is more important but most of us focuses most on the short term.

[heypartner]

Haven, harsh is not the right word.

There is no truth with the Kyoto Treaty, unless you consider agreement to be a truth. You can read the Protocol and try to understand the economy. Maybe those are truths. There are no true right or wrongs, necessarily...only that it is right to find a solution...because both sides agree that action is required.

All I meant to say is it is easy to talk about how you disagree rather than try to agree. It is a different debate to try to agree. I like it better.

-------------------------

Here is another idea to agree on. So, Bush for whatever reason wants to delay acting on CO2 emissions. I can think of a few reasons why he would take that position, but they are not moral positions, so he should be able to negotiate.

Why not negotiate something outside of the Kyoto Protocol, rather than trying to change the Protocol. Can he say to Europe and Japan, guys this is going to hurt me back home, help me win on another front then.

quid pro quo

I don't think this Kyoto issue is incredibly important to Bush. Looking good in other International arenas could give him bigger political capital points back home and abroad. This can be a win-win situation for a clever President.

I really don't think the big energy industry takes a beating. Business likes no change, but the successful businesses win bigger market when their is change. The aggressive businesses can buy into energy service sector companies who are the big winners in upgrading plant to better efficiencies. So the gas emitters still win by owning the Energy Service companies that are outfitting plants with efficiencies.

Maybe they further win by Bush negotiating with Europe to pave the way for Enron and El Paso Energy to rule the commodity-driven fiber-optic highway they are building.

Maybe Bush is playing hardball to win on another arena

or maybe he is a puppet. who cares...let's talk the solutions for a change. no?

*sigh*

[haven]

Heypartner:

Yeah, I read about Bush's planned initiative on CNN.com today.

What I think needs to be understood is that the sort of treaty that he's hinting at will never, ever be ratified. Why? Because Bush is specifically turning this into a dispute between China and the United States. The US is not going to sign unless China submits to be bound by the same regulations.

China, right now, is extremely interested in economic growth, and very uninterested in the environment. Bush is sounding noble, by saying he *wants* a climate accord... but he's just making a pretty darn safe bet that China will never agree to one. It's a lot like a father copping out, and telling their child "sure, I'll take you to Disneyworld tomorrow, if only you can get your mother to buy the plane tickets now."

It's disingenuous in the extreme. I don't think Bush has any intention of using the situation as bargaining leverage with the Democrats; he just doesn't want to sign the treaty, but doesn't want to look like a bad guy.

Bush, alas, is an extremely savvy politician http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/frown.gif. I think he's even better than Clinton, tactically, if not as personally charismatic.

I don't have a problem with striving for agreement. I do wonder if that's possible on this BBS. It seems easier to agree when 1. you actually are face-to-face with the other guy, and 2. you're working to make a concrete proposal. We don't do either one, here http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[heypartner]

haven,

I'm not talking about Bush having "any intention of using the situation as bargaining leverage with the Democrats"...I'm talking about Bush using this as Global leverage. One thing that comes to mind is leverage on negotiating fibre-optic private networks to trade as a commodity. This is what Enron and El Paso Energy are building. They will definitely lobby for gas emission upgrades if Bush can land them an agreement with France/England et al to give them better position in international private networks. Who knows?? I'm just tossing that out.

The China things sounds like Bush offering something that purposely won't be agreed upon as a simple manuever to achieve something else. Those types of offers are meant to find middle ground.

If we assume the Kyoto Treaty is non-negotiatiable, what might Bush be looking for....just a delay. Or is there something outside the Kyoto Treaty he wants from Europe or Japan.

uh' this is a matter of how many we can name, not whether they exist or not.

[haven]

heypartner:

The China rhetoric is too dangerous to play with lightly, so I doubt it would be a bargaining chip. He's going to find a very large support base on the China thing. Do you know what Americans consistently poll as their #1 foreign policy concern? Losing jobs to foreigners. Playing the China-productivity-emissions card just plays right into this fear.

If he *is* using this as a bargaining chip with Europe... what happens when he cuses the leverage? China suddenly becomes no obstacle? Who is he going to look for support, then? Environment-minded people will see him as the guy who held global warming protocols hostage. The Protectionists will see him as the guy who sold them out.

It's possible that a conservative Democrat could swing that sort of deal. I can't think of anyone else who could. Bush would undermine too much of his political support in doing so, and would surrender his great trump card on the environment.

Add to that the rhetoric previously coming from the Bush camp, particularly his intimate advisor C. Rice on global warming, and there isn't a rosy picture of possible compromise.

He's doing one of two things: if you're right, he's taking the economic conservatives completely for granted, which would be a mistake given his own uncertain position in the next election. Or if I'm right, he's shoring up his base, and further distancing China from the US.

I'm guessing Bush is playing international realpolitik here. China has publicly stated that they wish to strengthen ties with Russia and Western Europe in order to lessen US influence. Bush is attempting to distance China and Europe, while saving himself the trouble of having to fight global warming studies on the merits. Let China battle it out with Western Europe, and Bush can stay high and dry. The US is even more essential to efforts to curb global warming than is China, hence, the Chinese could really have their hands full if they're percieved as the stumbling block.

I think it's a pretty good ploy, personally. I think he's mistaken, but as I said, he's a damned fine politician. Of course, this all could come back to bite him in the behind. It's going to sour relations with China further (if that's possible)... and there's always the off-chance that China will agree. Then he'd be forced to bite an agreement he doesn't want, or lose credibility internationally.
------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...


[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 12, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 12, 2001).]

[heypartner]

I had to stop reading your post when you said "bargaining chip".

It may not be a chip at all. It could be a political maneuver to deny signing the treaty in public. He meerly says in public, "China should be included", to sound plausible. Maybe he just needs to say something in public, if he has other concessions he is looking for outside the Treaty.

Can I say it one more time:

I don't think the Kyoto Protocol is negotiable without throwing it away

But, you can still negotiate for things outside the treaty.

Now I could be totally wrong here. China could be the major deadlock issue. The reason for that is because they are drilling like mad right now, and they are claiming all big oil fields in their vacinity. They have screwed at least one US company who funded exploration and stole the field from them claiming it as their natural resource.

We must understand, China is RIPE for being the biggest CO2 emitter on the globe rather quickly.

If Bush can negotiate China being covered by the Kyoto Treaty, at least sometime in 5 yrs, then I'm behind our President on this one. However, I seriously doubt China can be limited to any use of their resources....yeah right.

So, my suspicion is that Bush has no dilusions of changing the Treaty to include China.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 12, 2001).]

[haven]

Heypartner:

I know what you're saying. I understand that you think he wants non-Kyoto concessions. However, I think you're ignoring the political dimension of the issue. If Bush's sole consideration really was interaction with otherheads-of-state, then yes... what you say would make perfect sense.

But by using the rhetoric he's advancing with China, the logic follows as contained in my above post. You can't use rhetoric without paying for it later, if it's just a ploy. I'm saying that such a path would be extremely hazardous politically, for the reasons mentioned previously.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 12, 2001).]

[heypartner]

Haven,

He loses nothing if Europe and Japan can get China to say in public that they will not sign the Treaty under similar rules to the US. Then Bush can freely sign it and say, "If nothing else, we are going to make China look bad while getting other concessions."

So Haven, can we agree that China will not sign that. Let's assume that is true. If Bush knows that, then this becomes a public political maneuver to make him look good while getting the outside concession that I assume are there.

btw: I'm not really following how this has anything to do with Congress. It appears to be more a backdoor effort in lobbying the administration effort. If he signs it sometime, I don't see how he or any other congressmen are hurt by it, as long as Europe and Japan gave them something backdoor to save face. Public opinion will like it if he can make China look like they are the big evil gas emitter that won't cooperate.

[haven]

Heypartner:

He loses nothing if Europe and Japan can get China to say in public that they will not sign
the Treaty under similar rules to the US. Then Bush can freely sign it and say, "If nothing
else, we are going to make China look bad while getting other concessions."

BUT Bush has publicly stated that he *will not* sign *any* protocol that does not fairly bind China concerning emissions. If he signs it after saying this, he alienates the Protectionist base that he's accumulating.

So Haven, can we agree that China will not sign that. Let's assume that is true. If Bush
knows that, then this becomes a public political maneuver to make him look good while
getting the outside concession that I assume are there.

But the domestic political ramifications still occur - he's still going to lose support from the people who oppose any accord that doesn't impose the same economic limitations upon large 3rd world counties, like China and India. He gave an ultimatum - if he's willing to sacrifice this for other concessions, then he betrays the support that he rallies by issuing the ultimatum.

btw: I'm not really following how this has anything to do with Congress. It appears to be
more a backdoor effort in lobbying the administration effort. If he signs it sometime, I
don't see how he or any other congressmen are hurt by it, as long as Europe and Japan
gave them something backdoor to save face. Public opinion will like it if he can make
China look like they are the big evil gas emitter that won't cooperate.

It has to deal with domestic politics, not specifically congress. Of course everyone will think China's a big evil polluter... but they'll also regard Bush as the guy who was soft on the big, evil polluter and sacrificed productivity by signing an unfair treaty.

Environmentalists will view him as a guy who holds int'l emissions standard hostage, and his own camp will view him as the guy who signed a treaty, against his own pledge, that didn't bind China.

He can't win, there. I think the only logical answer is to assume that he has no intention of ever signing, and is placing his trust in the fact that China never will.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 12, 2001).]

[heypartner]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">He can't win, there. I think the only logical answer is to assume that he has no intention of ever signing, and is placing his trust in the fact that China never will.</font>

You can certainly be correct about this. My stance is this makes no political sense. I view every Treaty that is negotiated in good faith to be an opportunity for the US President to gain things. I don't see him winning anything if he plans to walk away from this.

That is the one weakness in your argument: You don't say anything about what Bush gains if he walks away. I assume all he gets is nationalist political and corporate favors. If he indeed gets global favors on the side, what the hell are they. Arab riches! Conspiracy theories about alien taking over the globe. Not meaning to be facetious here, just that I am a negotiator at heart, and I must see what he gains as a US President if he walks away. National favors is not enough in my mind. A clever president can negotiate more for his lobbiers on a global scale, but he has to convince them to play ball.

[haven]

Heypartner



You can certainly be correct about this. My stance is this makes no political sense. I view
every Treaty that is negotiated in good faith to be an opportunity for the US President to
gain things. I don't see him winning anything if he plans to walk away from this.

That is the one weakness in your argument: You don't say anything about what Bush
gains if he walks away. I assume all he gets is nationalist political and corporate favors. If
he indeed gets global favors on the side, what the hell are they. Arab riches! Conspiracy
theories about alien taking over the globe. Not meaning to be facetious here, just that I
am a negotiator at heart, and I must see what he gains as a US President if he walks
away. National favors is not enough in my mind. A clever president can negotiate more
for his lobbiers on a global scale, but he has to convince them to play ball.

I don't think Bush is much of a foreign policy expert. Remember the time the Globe journalist ambushed him by asking the names of 5 leaders in trouble spots, and that Bush didn't know a single one? Yes, he has good people advising him. But Americans really care about domestic politics first. Every year, Gallup issues a pole concerning priorities for Americans. Foreign policy has been steadily declining since the end of the Cold War. My guess is that Bush is approaching this from a domestic standpoint. Heck, look at the way he treats our European allies on the issue of NMD.

What does he gain if he walks away from the negotiating table? Why, he gets his primary objective... which is nothing. Bush opposes action on the grounds that it would be economically harmful. Any, action, therefore, can be perceived as bad action.

But that's a very hard-line to take, especially on the heels of the latest report from the scientific community. At the very least, moderate voters are going to be troubled by a President so eager to forget about the environment. I believe the President is more interested in his susceptibility to attacks on the issues of environmentalism than true worries about Chinese non-compliance.

By taking a hard-line stance on China, Bush is going to appease the moderates, rally conservative Protectionist support, and look like "at least he tried."

The key difference in our opinions is that you believe that Bush is operating in good faith. Given his past record, and the unlikliehood of China complying with his ultimatum, I can't believe that at this time.

You also have a more rational, economic focus... I'm focusing on the nightmare that is US domestic politics. I HOPE you're right. That would be best for everyone...

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[MadMax]

Again...the cost of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol simply does not justify its benefits, even with the optimistic EPA projections of what would occur if the treaty were signed and all the nations performed as expected. We are responsible for 20% of the world's pollution...that means there is another 80% to deal with. China is the second worst polluter in the world...signing any treaty that puts us at a disadvantage (or puts China at an advantage) in the global marketplace is not in our best interests. Again...I'm not all convinced global warming is the monster you guys think it is. But I'm certainly willing to spend the money to find out. I'm just not ready to sacrifice our economy (and people's livelihoods) at the altar of an indefinite science.

------------------

[heypartner]

MadMax,

The way you lower emission is to upgrade facilites.

That creates a new econonmy which the US is likely to dominate. Exxon will like buy major shares in the energy service companies that hase the largest market share, right now. They will get over a double or triple on the stock market when those service companies start getting awarded contract to make gas emitters more efficient.

The economy has way more variables to consider than any "think tank" paper on cost-benefit analysis out there.

This is like spending money on NASA. It WILL produce new economies. We will not be at a disadvantage to China. Especially if Bush is trying to get major concessions.

His objection to China is right on. But, there is NO WAY China will abide by that Treaty. That is a given, in my mind. So Bush could just be bluffing. He could negotiate with Europe and Japan to force them to upgrade facilities using US service companies. He could get exclusives.

Bush is in the driver's seat, and he could get a major win out of signing this treaty.

He could be negotiating outside deals to line everyone's pockets (US Companies) via the stock market.

I am willing to bet anyone here, that if this Treaty is signed by Bush, you will see about 10 US companies SOAR on the stock market. In fact, you all should start analyzing the Energy Service companies who are best prepared to win contract for upgrading gas emitters. I suggest looking for the service companies that currently have heavy stakes in them from the Exxons and Houston Industries, etc.

MadMax, broaden your variables, and you can see how the US can get a major economic win here. Go BUSH!!!!

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

[MadMax]

I wish I shared your optimism about that...but I don't. It seems highly speculative to me...with the risks being huge. And it still doesn't address the fact that the impact of the treaty on reducing global warming is negligible.

------------------

[heypartner]

rimmy,

#2 You misunderstand this. I am talking about the Energy Service companies...not he gas emitters. They damn sure want to win contracts for upgrading facilities, and they definitely have largest market share. This is key to my point that Bush and Cheney probably want to sign this Treaty. #2 here is about the US companies who are position to win contracts to refit the plants with better efficiencies.

#4 Does OPEC really operate that way? If demand goes down, prices go up?? Sounds like how they sell Rocket's Season Tickets. I could be wrong on this, as I don't really understand how OPEC works. I was just spouting out the Economic law of Price Elasticity.

I can strike #4 if you want. Can you find some OPEC history that breaks the rules of Price Elasticity? We still should be able to move forward without dwelling on #4.

Now remember rimmy, these weren't arguments. These were points that I hoped we can base some agreements on, in order to move forward on the discussion. The idea is to find agreements, like politicians would in negotiations.

My contention is that Bush can actually create a Win-Win by signing the Treaty. It just doesn't make sense not to approach this as a global economic opportunity where he's holding the Treaty hostage, but has plenty of Energy Service sector lobbyist who want him to sign it. I think it is too narrow-minded to consider that his lobbyist are just the Exxons, which is the purpose of my #2.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

[heypartner]

also rimmy, I agree that the gas emitters don't want to upgrade, but they can make money on it. It has been done via the Voucher system and the stockmarket.

Gas Emitter A invest $200m every year in the stock market. They lobby Bush to sign the Treaty only if he can make it more likely that Plant Service Company B stands to win most the contracts. Thus, they invest $200m in Plant Service Company B, upgrade their facilities and reap a double or triple in their investment.

It happens ALL the time.

[Major]

#4 Does OPEC really operate that way? If demand goes down, prices go up?? Sounds like how they sell Rocket's Season Tickets. I could be wrong on this, as I don't really understand how OPEC works. I was just spouting out the Economic law of Price Elasticity.

Oftentimes, yes, that's how they work. If demand drops, they cut production even more, so that prices rise. This allows them to make similar profits on less oil sales. Neat, huh? http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif


------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[heypartner]

Shanna, yeah psuedo monopolies, like the Rockets, have a way of cheating Price Elasticity.

Question, if they cheat their supply/demand variables to maintain the same profits, isn't that going to be in proportion to the savings achieved by the plants for using less oil?

So, I think it is safe to say that the "think tank" analysis shown by Beto in this thread is a scare tactic. Prices may go up, but the point I made in an early post was, the bottom-line costs vs revenues are what are botton-line to US companies, not prices.

Can someone go pull some info on the Voucher systems?

[rimbaud]

Here is a snippet I found:


OPEC may reduce oil production to counter falling gas prices
The average price of gasoline fell about 1.75 cents a gallon nationwide in the past three weeks to $1.49, continuing the downward trend of the last three months. The survey of 10,000 gas stations by the Lundberg industry newsletter credits the drop to lower prices in crude oil and lower demand for gasoline during the winter months. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is set to meet Jan. 17 in Vienna, and is expected to decrease oil production in order to raise crude oil prices. One OPEC official put the likely cut at 1.7 million barrels a day. OPEC increased production last year to ease oil prices, but according to Kuwait's oil minister, there is now a consensus among members to reverse that decision.

So, yes, they do care about profit and will manipulate things to keep it high.


I did misunderstand # 2, as well.

In regards to the Emitter upgrade cost, I garee that they can make money, even without vouchers, etc. The initial cost will be higher, but over time, they can easily even that out and continue their high profits (even with the initial cost, they would still keep a profti, just not as high as they like).

I'll look for more OPEC stuff, just out of curiosity.

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

[rimbaud]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by heypartner:

Prices may go up, but the point I made in an early post was, the bottom-line costs vs revenues are what are botton-line to US companies, not prices.
</font>

Oh, most definitely!

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

[MadMax]

It seems...and correct me if I'm wrong...that your optimism centers entirely around the possible positive effects of signing the treaty for one sector of our economy..namely, the energy sector. What about manufacturers who are forced to comply with these new regulations for emissions, assuming new costs...while Chinese manufacturers (for example) do not have these impediments to making a profit. Did I miss something??? It wouldn't be the first time!

------------------

[heypartner]

MadMax,

BINGO...this is really the only part of the discussion that requires creative politicians figuring out how to soften the blow of upgrading facilities.

This is where the Voucher system comes into play. The industries can control their own destinies. I am not saying they all make a profit, but it is proven to not be as bad as the numbers indicate. Plus when the Energy Service sector sells more upgrades on a global scale, their prices should come down more, and their products (emission efficiency products) should become even better.

MadMax, it is an upfront cost. I am saying the upgrades eventually lower costs, and the voucher system rewards you for upgrading early, and you then sell your unused vouchers on the open market to the companies who choose not to upgrade early.

I am also saying that we won't lose market to China. We'll just move manufacturing plants there.... http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

[MadMax]

heypartner -- I don't remember going back and forth with you like this before...but I appreciate the fact that you don't take a "look down your nose/ I'm smarter than you" approach. Some other folks could stand to learn from that.

I hope you're right, is all I can say. I'm ultimately not convinced that global warming is what it is billed to be. It seems to me to be a new way to package "socialism" in a way that doesn't sound like a bad word. I would hate to see us take a risk like that because some scientists think something is happening that others don't think is happening. That concerns me.

------------------

[heypartner]

well, you debated me once on Jew Don Boney in a fair manner, and I've always wanted to return the favor.

damn, how do I remember these things? That's what I love about cc.net. Remembering the past and sharing it again. If Clutch ever has to delete the archives, I'll be sad.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

[rimbaud]

I'm ultimately not convinced that global warming is what it is billed to be. It seems to me to be a new way to package "socialism" in a way that doesn't sound like a bad word.

I must say I do not understand this, could you clrify? Are you speaking of Kyoto or in general?

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

[sirhangover]

back again..i must admit you guys impress me with your knowledge but maybe its just all the time you have to debate such issues..

unfortunately i can only take things at face value with less time for investigation...

My face value opinions in bullet points:
*shanna makes some good arguments in favor of mister bush...i can begin to maybe see the other side.. still not convinced...

*heypartner does not have a job (amount of time spent here) and is not willing to be wrong about anything..i met you and you seem nice enough and you are very knowledgeable but you are sometimes too harsh...dont beat a dead horse people know when they are wrong..and yes sometimes you are wrong too..

* 3rd- i am in paris and all i can say is these people here HATE bush...i get that feeling everywhere in the world I have been since last NOV ...

*4--he is really not helping global relations with his cocky attitude.. and that annoying 'i am better than you' smirk he puts on his face...

*he could have handled this kyoto deal better...he didnt have to be so *****ing stand offish about it...he is really making the US look like a bunch of real SOBS when it comes to the environment..in short maybe he could have met half way he doesnt seem to be doing that at all and is not making ANY friends anywhere..that attitude stinks..

* people know US is a superpower and they say the best bosses ( in the business world) are those that manage quietly, by example and are dont use the '***** you i am the boss' attitude. Bush represents that and I am really getting a lot of ***** about this guy and I dont even like him ..people in europe (very important to the US as much as bush thinks we are fine without I am not convinced) are important and you can never have too many friends..

*his international policy stinks, his attitude and handling of the european and chinese egos to me represents one of his initial knock downs: lack of intelligence..I think the guy is just not that bright...refer to earlier points..

*the environment is important and I will argue that even if it is 20% of the worlds pollution it is still 20%..we cant keep looking at what jimmy or sarah are doing...just like my first initial post said...

*again what is so wrong with doing whats right?

*i still hate to see us handling this gov't like we work for big business..it scares me..look at the recent FCC monopoly (verizon) in mass. sitaution.. I think bush people and agenda is too big business monopoly encourgaging...that makes it fishy to me and looks like the bush gov't is in bed with the directors of these big companies.. that means corruption and under the table dealings..that makes me sick...it shows its not about money for the economy or for the great country but for Bush the allies in big business and his people within...

*i think all politicians are slimy pieces of *****

good night its 230 am i should be in bed not debating this crap..thanks for the good dialogue..

------------------
"no matter how good she looks someone... somewhere..is tired of her *****"

[heypartner]

shut the ***** up sirhangover, and get yourself a hangover in Europe. geez. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Have you ever heard of internet stock windfall??? You should be glad I currently have time to bash your bashers while you are galley vanting around searching for computers back me up? http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Now it is time for me to go take a sh!t.

[heypartner]

MadMax,

My counter-point is the effect on the economy is neglible if Bush doesn't sign it. Why would you walk away from a Treaty like this in a global economy when you could negotiate exclusives for US companies, like Cheney's Halliburton.

Here are some facts to help eliminate my economic speculation:
<ol>
The Kyoto Protocol can only be successful if gas emitters get more efficient. It is a losing proposition to expect to force consumers to consume less energy. The plants are going to have to use less at the some production capacity in whatever industry they are it. That is a FACT. Read the Protocol and the UN Conference for their suggestions on how to implement this.

US Companies currently have the largest global market share in the Energy Service sector. They are positioned to benefit the greatest from #1.

China is not really an economic competitor of Exxon in your terms, because Exxon and others just want to sell oil to China. But China has all the oil fields they need, on their on turf. They just found one of the largest fields in the world. Yet, it is highly speculative to think China is going to compete globally with Opec and Exxon. And if they did, it would flood the market with more oil production thus decrease oil prices!!!! making any cost-benefit analysis or consumer scares mentioned in this thread, moot.

Making gas emitters more efficient lowers demand, so how does that increase the price of oil, only via the supply chain, and only in the shortterm.

NASA spending has negligible scientific value, but tremendous economic value in supporting peripheral economies.[/list=a]

I could go on, but do you see my point. Bush has NOTHING to gain in a global economy by refusing to sign the treaty. I believe he and Cheney (the freaking ex-head of Halliburton, a company likely to be a major winner on signing that treaty) are stalling in order to position themselves the best they can in a global economy.

MadMax, why are you afraid of this Treaty from an economic standpoint?

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

[haven]

Heypartner:



1.The Kyoto Protocol can only be successful if gas emitters get more efficient. It is a
losing proposition to expect to force consumers to consume less energy. The plants
are going to have to use less at the some production capacity in whatever industry
they are it. That is a FACT. Read the Protocol and the UN Conference for their
suggestions on how to implement this.

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. What about alternative energy sources, like nuclear and solar PVC's? As I've said before, solar PVC's are projected to eventually cost less than half per kw/h than coal currently does.

And about conservation... California has successfully cut down energy consumption by 11% this year. I know they've had particular incentive... just saying it's possible to substantially conserve.

I do agree, though, that making gas emmiters more efficient is the best short term solution.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[heypartner]

California reduced use via efficiencies, within a Voucher system. Read the UN Conference before you assume they disagree with my #1 above.

Why do you assume #1 is an exaggeration?
Why does MadMax think my economic forecast is risky speculation?

Seems suspiciously like you are trying to win an argument here. Can we not agree on #1, or new economies? That's crazy. I'm out of this thread if you guys can't agree on those things.

There is no proof that new energy sources can come on-line fast enought to abide by the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto protocol is based on proven efficiency upgrades, not on speculation about new energies.

Do you really think Japan is going to rely on a nuclear reactor?? ontop of those earthquake faults!!

And solar energy is a long long way from running major plants that release the most CO2.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

[haven]

California reduced use via efficiencies, within a Voucher system. Read the UN Conference
before you assume they disagree with my #1 above.

Why do you assume #1 is an exaggeration?
Why does MadMax think my economic forecast is risky speculation?

Seems suspiciously like you are trying to win an argument here. Can we not agree on #1,
or new economies? That's crazy. I'm out of this thread if you guys can't agree on those
things.

There is no proof that new energy sources can come on-line fast enought to abide by the
Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto protocol is based on proven efficiency upgrades, not on
speculation about new energies.

Do you really think Japan is going to rely on a nuclear reactor?? ontop of those
earthquake faults!!

And solar energy is a long long way from running major plants that release the most CO2.


Heypartner, I disagreed with you on a minor point. I'm not required to accept what you say 100%. I concede the fact that PVC's aren't currently viable for global, mass use. But they probably aren't as far away as you think, either.

I really think that the solar/hydrogen based energy economy is the way of the future. Yes, it's not ready now... but eventually it has the prospect of providing energy cheaper than coal with ZERO emissions.

I think that PVC's and the like get neglected too much, when discussing energy policy. If we invest more money in R&D, and use them on a limited basis to create economies of scale, then they'll come into mass use more quickly.

You're right about nuclear power in Japan, if there are earth quake faults. Solutions are going to be regional. Hydro-power works very well in France... not so well elsewhere in places without rivers. I just sort of threw it out there as a viable option in some circumstances. It's also significantly more expensive than fossil fuels http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/frown.gif.

What do we disagree about?


------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 13, 2001).]

[rimbaud]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by heypartner:

Here are some facts to help eliminate my economic speculation:
<ol> The Kyoto Protocol can only be successful if gas emitters get more efficient. It is a losing proposition to expect to force consumers to consume less energy. The plants are going to have to use less at the some production capacity in whatever industry they are it. That is a FACT. Read the Protocol and the UN Conference for their suggestions on how to implement this.
US Companies currently have the largest global market share in the Energy Service sector. They are positioned to benefit the greatest from #1.
China is not really an economic competitor of Exxon in your terms, because Exxon and others just want to sell oil to China. But China has all the oil fields they need, on their on turf. They just found one of the largest fields in the world. Yet, it is highly speculative to think China is going to compete globally with Opec and Exxon. And if they did, it would flood the market with more oil production thus decrease oil prices!!!! making any cost-benefit analysis or consumer scares mentioned in this thread, moot.
Making gas emitters more efficient lowers demand, so how does that increase the price of oil, only via the supply chain, and only in the shortterm.
NASA spending has negligible scientific value, but tremendous economic value in supporting peripheral economies.[/list=a]
</font>


Oooh, ooh, let me play to prove my intelligence!

#1 is definitley true.

#2 Is not true (to companies) because of initial upgrades. The big guys don't really want to do that...short term vs. long term.

#3 is sound except for my point about...

#4 more efficiency means lower amounts of gas being purchsed. In order to keep profits at a maximum, gas prices have to go up. That is why efficiency is fought...lower profits. Same with tire industry. Why make tires that will last 30 years (possible) when it would mean fewer tires sold?

#5 not sure, I profess ignorance.


------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

[MadMax]

Europe's opinion of the US has always been poor. I read a funny quote in an op-ed piece the other day in the Chronicle...I don't remember it exactly but it went something like this...

while the US is at the height of its power as a world superpower, the nations that ravaged and sacked the rest of the world when they were at their height of power want the US to bow down to third-world nations.

just kind of ironic and funny.


------------------

[rimbaud]

Ahem....

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

[heypartner]

that is funny MadMax.

Was the title Hegemonic Hypocrasy? http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

[PinetreeFM60]

Fossil fuel consumption increases exponentially. For that reason, increased production can only lengthen its utilization by a few years at best.

A five percent reduction in consumption through conservation steps, or through the use of alternative sources, will double the amount of time fossil fuels can remain a viable energy source.

Inasmuch as Bush cannot pronounce, spell, or define "exponential," much less understand it, there is little hope that any progress will be made in his first and only term. He is an oil and gas lap dog.

Before he is finished, he will make the old man look like a genius by comparison.

Other nations see him for the simpleton that he is.

------------------

[MadMax]

blah blah blah...bush is stupid

blah blah blah...the rest of the world hates us and him

blah blah blah...we're all gonna die of heat exposure due to global warming

meanwhile, I read in today's paper that even Clinton's old advisors are now saying signing the Kyoto Protocol would be a huge mistake that would put the US at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.

the "he's stupid so nothing he can do can possibly be right or good" is tired already. come up with real alternatives or facts to back up what you say instead of name-calling.

------------------

[rimbaud]

I'm a broken record:

I'm ultimately not convinced that global warming is what it is billed to be. It seems to me to be a new way to package "socialism" in a way that doesn't sound like a bad word.

I must say I do not understand this, could you clarify? Are you speaking of Kyoto or in general?


------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

[Major]

the "he's stupid so nothing he can do can possibly be right or good" is tired already.

He's not bright, but he can do things that are right or good. I just don't think he's done many/any yet. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

the Kyoto Protocol would be a huge mistake that would put the US at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.

Of course it would. So does the Minimum Wage. So does health care requirements of US Employers. So do many of the trade agreements we have with Japan and China. The catch is that all of these (and Kyoto presumably) improve the quality of life in America in various other ways -- it's a simple tradeoff.

By the way -- I know none of the details of Kyoto and am making no judgement as to whether we should sign it or not. I can't comment on that because I don't know enough about it. Bush may or may not be right on this one, in my opinion -- I have no idea.



------------------
http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.

[heypartner]

rimbaud,

Lay off that comment. MadMax was just talking to me after he knew that I wouldn't take that line as seriously as you.

I read it as him just saying, "Sometimes I feel this way." It is no different than me saying, "Damn, those republicans make me think they want imperialistic rule of the world." It is just talk after MadMax and I got comfortable with each other.

Don't broadside him for loosening up while achieving agreement.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 14, 2001).]

[haven]

Heypartner: But I don't think Rimbaud or I even understand how socialism is remotely relevant to the discussion? If it was just a "classic conservative truism" that was relevant to the issue, that's ok... but how do global environmental agreements have anything at all to do with socialism?

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 14, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 14, 2001).]

[rimbaud]

heypartner,

You misunderstand. I was genuinely confused. This was not an attack or anything, just curious. I honestly did not even plan on responding to his response. I just wanted insight.

Isn't it possible to just ask a question without some kind of devious motive?

Of course, I knew he wouldn't respond easily because he doesn't like me. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

[haven]

Rimmy: who would, you libocrat http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[MadMax]

rimbaud -- didn't mean to dodge a question. I do remember reading it..but i guess i forgot to respond to it because i was in the midst of a conversation with others. sorry. and i certainly don't dislike you...i just don't always agree with you. i don't always agree with anyone, but i like pretty much everybody! see...even conservatives can be nice guys!

as for socialism. there is the thought out there that ultimately environmentalism leads us closer to socialism. here's a rough idea of how it works. you get enough NIMBY's (not in my backyard) to say, "you can't build new power plants!" (see calif)...so ultimately supply problems cause prices to soar. they soar so high that eventually low income families can no longer power their homes. so, of course, the govt steps in to solve this problem. and in any number of ways, they ultimately provide some robin hood power plan whereby we're all responsible to pay for the power of the less fortunate.

the other concern is that environmentalism may ultimately lead to state control of industry. right now, the faa is concerned with customer satisfaction of airline patrons. So they're talking about deeper regulation to insure that the industry is more sensitive to its customers. How much more concerned would a govt agency be with the threat of global warming? How much more would they be willing to assume greater regulation, on par with what they do in Europe? I'm not saying this is something happening anytime soon...but it seems to be the logical progression. That concerns me for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the uncertainty of the science and what we might give up in the face of that.

shanna -- i recognize we make economic sacrifices for the betterment of our quality of life. but here we're talking about extraordinary costs that run way above the programs you're talking about. we're talking about fundamental changes in major sectors of our economy...many economic forecasters (including some of clinton's old advisors) are saying this treaty would kill our economy and about 2 million jobs as the cost of doing business in this country would rise dramatically, while remaining unchanged in non-complying nations. That's a little more than the costs of OSHA regs.

------------------

[rimbaud]

Max,

You hating me was mostly a joke.

In regards to your response, interesting. Is there any literature from which you are getting this, or is an amalgomation of your own? just curious if you could point me to someting to read.

Next, in your NIMBY scenario, are you speaking of nuclear plants, or any kind? I, personally, can see that with nuclear, but not with any of the "clean" technology (solar, hydro, etc).

Also, NIMBY has existed for some time, not just in regards to plants, but in regards to dumping. That is why the 3rd world has been the industrialized world's dumping ground. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

Do you see this socialism connection with all environmental movements?

Let us disregard the global warming aspect and look at pollution in general (things such as smog, polluting groundwater, etc)? Do you see any cause for concern in these areas?

If so (and this is the main point of this) do you see environmental solutions that would not lead to that which you fear most?

Just curious in all of these respects. Don't be like heypartner and think I am looking for an argument. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif I won't even give my opinion.

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

[haven]

rimbaud: but we already *know* your opinion http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[rimbaud]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by haven:
rimbaud: but we already *know* your opinion http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

</font>

You know nothing of my opinion you Democrat.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Really, how could you be a Democrat? Haha http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/tongue.gif

(once again, I would like to point out that I, unlike most on this board, can make the right tongue-sticking-out face!)

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

[haven]

Really, how could you be a Democrat? Haha

Errrp? Didn't get that one...

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[rimbaud]

Don't you vote Democrat and supported Clinton, etc? I may be mistaken...

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

[haven]

I voted for Nader. I supported Clinton to an extent, but thought he was too moderate http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif. Didn't like it when he co-opted so many Republican issues. I wanted Bill Bradley to win the Democratic Primary. *really* disliked Gore.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[rimbaud]

Sorry, thought you were more mainline Democrat, in which case I was making fun of you for buying into that crap. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

I was also curious how that could be, though, with your scandanavian socialist dreams. Now it makes more sense, though.

Sometimes I have to be intellectually coddled...I am a little slow. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

[MadMax]

Believe it or not...I actually voted for Clinton in 92...suffice it to say, I think I made a huge mistake. In 94, I voted a straight republican ticket...apparently I wasn't the only one!

I don't know where I first read or heard this idea...wish I could claim it as my own, but it's not. I think it all kinda stems from the notion that FDR bought a contituency for the democratic party forever by pushing through the New Deal. Paint the other party as mean and uncaring and then promise the moon. Politics is ultimately the struggle for power...votes equal power in our country.

I think what scares me the most is how much these guys are willing to sacrifice for something so uncertain. My original post on this thread contains some quotes that scare the hell out of me. Despite their acknowledgment that this phenomenon may or may not exist, they're willing to put the economy and the people who live within it, through hell. And the plans they have come up with seem to have only negligible effects, according to the EPA. We talk so much about quality of life issues...and many times we talk about them in terms of being juxtaposed to economic interests. I don't see it that way. If you cost a man his job due to radical government imposed jolts through major sectors of our economy, you've hurt his quality of life. We've seen how divorce rates, crime rates, suicide rates, etc run higher when the economy takes sharp downward turns. Ultimately, being able to provide for your family, is a big part of quality of life. Being able to pay your bills feels ok...not being able to pay them feels like you're drowning. Sharp rises in energy prices are felt directly in your energy bills and felt indirectly through the passed along costs you'll see in the rise of prices of consumer products. I can't separate losing one's job and not being able to pay drastically rising prices from quality of life...despite the fact i would agree with the assertion that money can't buy happiness.

Of course I'm ultimately concerned with additional govt regulation. But chasing a costly cure to a disease we're not sure exists scares me. That kind of "sky is falling" mentality leads us to rash decisions which leads us down paths we wish we would not have taken.



------------------