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

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.)



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

 

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.

 

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!

 

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
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

 

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).]

 

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
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

 

mrpaige,

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

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).]

 

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!

 

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).]

 

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

 

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

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.





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

 

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.

 

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.''"


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

 

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



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

 

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 mar1juana.

Don't hear Bush mention that, do you?

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

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

 

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

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