Article

2005-06-19 Home Front: Economy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by phil_b 2005-06-19 05:12|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It bears repeating: Kyoto if all nations including US and Australia both signed and complied, would ONLY REDUCE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES BY 2/10ths of a DEGREE CELCIUS OVER 50 YEARS

Thus slowing global warming by a couple of months.

The earth is warming and cutting carbon emissions is NOT repeat NOT going to make it stop.

meanwhile there is no reason to believe that global warming is a bad thing. In past centuries it is the mini ice-ages that impacted civilisations and biodiversity hardest and the warming periods that had an explosion of life.

It is a myth that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is a benign gas necessary for plant growth. We all exhale it.

It is a myth that eating red meat is bad for the environment (hence McDonalds is terrible) due to the methane produced by the cows. There is no evidence to suggest the total amount of large herbivores is any greater now than in centuries past: cows simply replaced bison/buffalo etc that used to graze the plains.

In fact atmospheric levels of methane are actually falling: scientists don't know why.

It is FUTILE to try to cut carbon dioxide and there is no real reason to try. It is not a dangerous pollutant in fact it leads to better plant growth.

Kyoto is just a stick to beat "rich" countries to hold back their development so the "poor" third world countries who don't have to sign can catch up. Marxism wearing a green coat.

Which really annoys me because I really am an environmentalist. I love nature and want to minimise species destruction probably more than the idiots from Greenpeace who piss member's donations up the Kyoto/global warming flagpole.

Posted by anon1 2005-06-19 07:48|| 2005-06-19 07:48|| Front Page Top

#2 the article mentions the methane emission reduction steps the US is taking

Methane is, molecule for molecule, several dozens times as effective as a greenhouse gas.

IMO, Bush should use this fact over and over in promoting the US alternative to Kyoto.

Posted by mhw 2005-06-19 09:02|| 2005-06-19 09:02|| Front Page Top

#3 Anon1

I think you haven't understood: Kyoto was NEVER designed to transfer funds between rich and poor countries (the idea didn't came from Cameroon). It was designed to transfer funds from countries with buoyant economies and growing populations to other rich countries whose economies are stagnating whose working hours are well below 40 hours (1) a week and whose people have been unwilling to spend their money in raising children (all things being equal or near equal the stagnat will pollute less than the buoyant) so now they face BIG problems for financing retirements.

There are some cosmetic measures in order to get the votes of poor countries but who will have little effect (specially after the local tyrant has taken his share and deposited it in his account in Europe)

(1) Please no easy jokes about the French: if my memory is any good the average number of worked hours in Germany is still lower than in France.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-06-19 12:14|| 2005-06-19 12:14|| Front Page Top

#4 Phil_b writes: The way to reduce carbon emissions is to reduce oil dependence. A position even I a long time Kyoto critic would support.

Actually, I think we'd go a lot farther replacing coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants. The problem being the proliferation problem for third world countries building nuclear plants that would use the civilian programs as covers for bomb programs.

Thanks to Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, we now know a lot more about how that would be done.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-19 13:25|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-19 13:25|| Front Page Top

#5 Proliferation can be countered by technology. For instance by developping reactors working with thorium instead of uranium. Uranium nuclear reactions produce plutonium, a fissile (ie who can be made unto a bomb) material who can be separated by purely chemical (ie relatively easy and cheap). But thorium reactions don't produce plutonium or other fissile isotopes so no bomb, at least no affordable bomb (enrichichment costs gazillions)

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-06-19 13:57|| 2005-06-19 13:57|| Front Page Top

#6 phil_b
I love the title.

Posted by jules 2 2005-06-19 14:39|| 2005-06-19 14:39|| Front Page Top

#7 phil_b
I love the title.

Posted by jules 2 2005-06-19 14:39|| 2005-06-19 14:39|| Front Page Top

#8 phil_b
I love the title.

Posted by jules 2 2005-06-19 14:39|| 2005-06-19 14:39|| Front Page Top

#9 phil_b
I love the title.

Posted by jules 2 2005-06-19 14:40|| 2005-06-19 14:40|| Front Page Top

#10 Sorry, Fred! I didn't keep hitting submit-somehow it happened by using the "back" arrow. I'll sign off and try later.

Posted by jules 2 2005-06-19 14:46|| 2005-06-19 14:46|| Front Page Top

#11 Phil F, while I don't under-estimate the proliferation problem. In large part it stems from (France excepted) there has been no technological advancement in reactor design and build for at least 40 years, because almost none have been built in the developed world. What is needed is safe off-the-shelf designs or kits for nuclear power stations. Not only does this make nuclear power affordable, it takes away the rational for developing your own and hence the opportunity to use it to develop nuclear weapons. Any country like Iran that doesn't buy the kits and spends vastly more to develop their own design would come under immediate suspicion.

Posted by phil_b 2005-06-19 16:52|| 2005-06-19 16:52|| Front Page Top

00:48 OldSpook
23:55 OldSpook
23:52 OldSpook
23:30 BH
23:28 Bobby
23:15 Thotch Glesing2372
22:54 Shaper Closh5653
22:45 Phil Fraering
22:28 Captain America
22:25 Phil Fraering
22:19 Bomb-a-rama
22:00 Jackal
21:55 Thotch Glesing2372
21:46 Jackal
21:45 Zhang Fei
21:25 JosephMendiola
21:24 Phil Fraering
21:12 trailing wife
21:12 john
21:07 badanov
20:59 phil_b
20:55 trailing wife
20:47 RWV
20:45 trailing wife