Dear DB,
I liked your response. Partly, I suppose, because it accords with
my own thoughts. There is no doubt at this point that global
warming is occurring even among some republicans.
There's no doubt even among some republicans or it's occurring even
among some republicans? The first, cause to rejoice (though that's
been the case for awhile I think), if the second, depending who they
are, if they're becoming prone to spontaneous combustion should we
shed tears or consider them as an alternative energy source? (Sorry!)
What drives it it the question. There are no shortage of non man
made effects that could raise the global temperature. Methane
produced by termite colonies world wide is more abundant than any
man made green house gas.
And it plays an important and complex role in the climate andd the
upper atmosphere.
The main problem with this sort of argument though, apart from the
now-massive body of science that debunks it, is that the termites
have not been working more and more overtime for the last 200 years
to account for the rising temperatures. The lead contender for that,
by a whole bunch of lengths, is CO2 produced by us.
It seems apparent to me that what ever the cause the effect is not
stoppable at this point. There is just no time left to turn the
battleship before it hits the pier.
How do you know that? A very premature conclusion, with little to
support it that I know of. Again, at the Kyoto Protocol celebrations
in Kyoto on Wednesday the speakers were talking of the need for
60-80% CO2 cuts, and these people were mostly being placatory, not
provocative. Such figures have been making it into print more and
more in the last couple of years. It was common parlance at the
Climate Change conference in Nairobi in 1992, among those people I'd
guess that 60-80% would now be seen as very conservative.
So we (or some of us at least) blew it on precaution in favour of
sheer greed, so now let's just accept that and give up trying to curb
the damage we've done when we've hardly even begun? Is that what
you're saying? Sod that. (Pardon me.) We're able to expend much
greater efforts, resources and expertise on mitigation than anything
that's been done so far. Mitigation is a major plank of the Kyoto
Protocol which now comes into force. I really don't mean to be
insulting, but I have to say that you sound a bit like former
Commissioner of the US Patent Office Charles H. Duell, who said in
1899 that "Everything that can be invented has been invented." This
is perhaps the greatest challenge humanity has faced, we're ingenious
little monkeys, I don't think you should gong us out before we're
even in the ring.
Would we not be better off at this point figuring out how to live in
a warmer world than trying to stop a flood with a tea cup?
Say you were already there so there wasn't a transport problem, how
would you go about living on Venus? You and six billion others, plus
the whole biosphere? Do you think that would less of a technological
challenge than mitigating global warming at this stage on Earth?
The Kyoto protocol has considerable economic consequences.
Global warming has even more considerable economic consequences. The
insurance industry calculated that global warming cost US$60 billion
in 2003, going up fast.
Is this the best use of the worlds resources to solve the problem?
Do you know of a better one? Nobody closely involved with the Kyoto
Protocol sees it as a final document, nor as perfect, just as a first
step - it enables further steps. That's absolutely true - things are
possible this week that were not possible last week. You'd need to
assess all this very closely, and for some time to come, before you
could safely draw conclusions as to whether or not it's the best use
of the world's resources to solve the problem. The point is that it's
the ONLY such use of the world's resources, it has international
acceptance and force and it is happening now. What would you prefer?
Another 13 years of talking about it? As it is, if better uses of
resources emerge than are now envisaged, as no doubt they will, it's
within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol that they'll be
implemented.
Would it not be better to determine the likely consequences of
warming and figure out how best to deal with them?
That's included in the Kyoto Protocol. Maybe you should go and study it.
http://i-newswire.com/pr6144.html
i-Newswire.com - Press Release And News Distribution - WORLDWIDE
CELEBRATIONS TO MARK KYOTO PROTOCOL'S ENTRY INTO FORCE 16 FEBRUARY
"The Kyoto Protocol's entry into force means that from 16 February
2005... the Protocol's Adaptation Fund, established in 2001, can
become operational to assist developing countries to cope with the
negative effects of climate change."
[more]
The industrialised nations are expected to "take the lead" in these
efforts (rather than leaving the 3rd World countries to it). No
country will be immune, but it's already apparent that the 3rd World
countries, who've contributed to it the least, will be the hardest
hit and the least equipped to cope with it.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
Kyoto Protocol
KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Best wishes
Keith
Rick
DB wrote:
Just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth on this subject. After
careful study of the evidence, any non-Republican would conclude
that global warming is real. It matters not whether it is man made
or a natural occurence. Just as when the house is burning down you
must first put out the fire. Then you can figure out what caused
the fire. The Kyoto protocol is people who care trying to do what
they can. If the planet is warming on it's own then it certainly
would be stupid to hasten the problem.........Don't you
think?.............................DB
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:10 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] Kyoto- nothing but a buch of crap
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
