Global Warming? are humans to blame?

From http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/100.pdf:
On 11 December 1997, delegates to the third conference of the Parties to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change agreed upon the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol sets binding
emission targets for developed nations (Annex B countries). 1 The Protocol states that Annex
B countries may participate in emission trading. The rules for emission trading are to be
discussed at the fourth Conference of the Parties in November 1998.
The aim of the report is to discuss the potential gains from emission trading and to raise some
crucial questions. The advantages in the form of reduced abatement costs are a basic features
of emission trading. The numerical example presented shows that the total costs of the Kyoto
Protocol could be reduced by approximately 95% through emission trading. From the Nordic
perspective it is important to note that Denmark and Norway and to some extent also Sweden
are probably among the Annex B countries benefiting most from this trading.....

And from http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext.asp?id=3563&lang=en
Figure 1 shows the emissions quotas allocated on the basis of 1990 CO2 emissions relative to emissions in a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario in 2010 (DOE 2004). Note that the sum of the initial allocation is approximately equal to the BAU emissions of the participating countries (see the far right of the figure). The countries that fall short of meeting their targets will thus be able to buy the quotas they need at a reasonable price from Russia and Ukraine. In the short term (i.e., the first commitment period 2008–2012), there is thus no reason to expect that implementing the Kyoto Protocol will lead to significant global emissions reductions.

 

So we're all going to die! whats new?

 

Nothing new. Living IS dangerous, you will die from it!

 

Why indeed. With this many humans on earth, it is going to be a collosal problem no matter what, when the earth's systems change or collapse. Maybe I missed it, but what do people claiming it is man made have to gain over people claiming it is natural? Why keep adding to the problem? Why does free trade and capitolism and profit seem to rule over caution and common sense and moderation? Sam

 

There is nothing wrong with caution, common sense and moderation, but in this discussion we have to keep in mind what parts of the world should moderate itself. For example, it's a common misunderstanding that Africa is overpopulated while the fact is that Europe is much denser populated. Another example; If you are worried about the number of humans on earth, shouldn't you look at what they consume?

 

All the Kyoto Protocol is, is welfare by another name.

 

It's the tragedy of the commons. Basically, nobody wants to do anything because they gain a benefit whether they do something or not.


A simple example. There is an apartment complex with 10 residents. They all have access to a swimming pool. There is no pool service to clean it. When it is nice, everybody enjoys the pool. When it gets dirty, everybody says, "Why should *I* be the one to clean it?" And deep down, each and every person thinks to himself, "If I refuse to clean it, I can keep using the pool once one of the other suckers finally breaks down and cleans it... I just have to hold out longer than they do..." The end result is that nobody ever cleans the pool.



Here's an economics example...
Let's say everybody here has a business. We all depend on oil and we all need to produce widgets as cheaply as possible to remain competitive. Right now, we're each producing widgets at a cost of $10 each.

Now, my government says to me, "Toot, we need to cut greenhouse gases, so you need to spend money to make a cleaner widget plant. You won't gain any benefit from it, but we need it to save the environment." If I agree, my widgets will cost $11 each and I will be put out of business. So I say to my government, "There's no way in heck I can do that. I will be out of business within 5 years if I do. This will hurt the American economy, it will ship more wealth overseas. Do you really want that?" And the American government says no, they don't.

Who says "yes"? Countries at the bottom of the food chain. Countries who want the cost of goods to rise. Especially countries who are exempted from the more stringent requirements- because they will then be able to sell their widgets for less and will become a net-exporter of widgets.

The bottom line is, there can be no hold outs and there can be no exemptions for "developing countries". If there are exceptions, then you are putting the stronger countries at an economic disadvantage, there will be no level playing field, and, regardless of whether or not the strongest countries are competitive, it will still be a race to the bottom as each weaker country tries to cut corners. It won't stop widgets from being produced, it will just ensure that they aren't produced in America.

Either everybody has to be required to ante up a few bucks to hire a cleaning service, or else everybody has to show up at a specified time to pitch in to clean the pool. The moment one person is exempted from that "duty", another person will inevitably say, "Well if they don't have to, then neither do I!"


Either we have to all agree to abide by the same rules and do it together regardless of position, or else, like someone else said, it's just a form of international welfare.

 

Toot, while your thinking may be right, the problem with CO2 quotas is that they are based on each country emissions up to now, or 1990 or so. That means that USA and Europe have large quotas per capita while poor countries have smaller, Is that fair. Russia and the former Soviet republics have lower emissions now because of lower production ("smaller" economy?) after the communist break down, think,. That's why they can sell quotas to us. It's a very strange system!

 

In the short term, it's perfectly fair. In the long term, it may not be fair to smaller up-and-coming countries. However, if the quotas are kept low enough and continually reduced in order to keep the price artificially high, then it could indeed serve its purpose of reducing emissions with a minimal effect on the free-market economy.

As I see it...up-and-coming countries, or old countries, will invest in new technology to avoid using high-priced quotas... which will then improve the environment and drive down the cost of the quotas.... at which time some of the quotas ought to be taken away in order to inflate the price again, thereby driving more R&D into the reduction of CO2... until eventually everything is clean.

The "prize", the lowest cost provider of widgets, will be the people who are the first to reduce the cost of reducing their CO2 output.

I can't say that's a fair system as America has a LOT of scientists and stuff while smaller countries have relatively few... but at least the system encourages innovation and creativity as the path to making money. That's at least a free market approach... and far better than raping the environment, IMO.

 

You could just buy smaller cars

 

I can remember people worrying about the coming ice age.ive seen programs on tv about the earth going thru cycles of ice ages and warm periods.so a big part of it seems natural,but to be a good steward towards the earth,well i see many people around me feeding their need for some kind of macho power thing,driving big fwd pickups,i also think the mpg of many vehicles is way to low.better fuel milage means less crap pumped into the air.By the way i see no change weather wise here in Phoenix AZ.its nice in the winter and hot as hell in the summer.

 

As far as moderation, I don't know the figures and I'm not going to google them right now, but don't America and other developed countries with x population use XXXX amount of the earths resources compared to x amount used by developing countries with a population of XXXX? Don't you think the earths systems are not overloaded allready, and will only become XXXX overloaded when the rest of the humans try and claim their share of profit through global free trade and the political (or maybe for some, it's a God Given Right) system of capitolism? Can't the first world moderate itself and modify the environmental effects of the third world grabbing their own piece of the pie?

Maybe Europe has a much denser population than Africa, but I don't remember seeing many Europeans with distended bellies, skeletal arms, flies crawling in and out of their mouths and across their 1000 yard stare eyeballs. I AM worried about what all the excess humans consume. When the climate changes and shifts, when Midwest and European breadbaskets become ...something else, what happens then? Do you think making a bigger grocery store might work? When billions of people are displaced by rising oceans, which also wipes out cropland, are you going to share the stuff you're growing in your backyard (Norwegian Wood?) to the hordes?

Actually, though, "consume" applies to more than food. It applies to oil. It applies to water. It applies to every resource on the planet and I am definitely worried about what "they" consume. And the opposite of consume would be something like "discard" and I am also worried about what and where and how "they" discard "their" stuff. Their **** is my **** on this planet now. Sam

 

There. Fixed that for ya.

 

You got that right , but it's about the only thing. "The best argument against Democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

 

Sure. The first world could pollute less so that poorer nations won't be hurting the environment when they start having the ability to pollute more. It's the tragedy of the commons problem again though. It's like having a hot chick in your bed and you deciding to wait till she's married. It may never happen, her marriage might not be to you... but sure, you can wait if you want. I won't say it's the wrong choice...

But now, exactly how many dollars a year should each American contribute to reducing pollution? I think a catalytic converter and emissions-compliant engine add about $1,500 to the price of a car (actually, it's probably a bit more than that). That right there is quite a big chunk of change, wouldn't you say? What else do you want? Name a percentage of income, and make sure it doesn't change our standard of living relative to other nations, otherwise that will cause riots... Like the 80% tax rate.

That's truly a noble concern. I suppose we should take the precautions as we take in the case of alien invasion as well though- both have the ability to wipe out the planet and both are possible events. I resent you as much for not supporting a nuclear space shield as you resent me for not supporting CO2 reduction. Don't forget, the odds of another earthquake and tsunami in San Francisco is HUGE, and the Midwest is overdue for a 9.0 earthquake- anytime now in the next 20,000 years or so. And every place has some major boogeyman that's just ripe to happen. NO PLACE IS SAFE!!!! And that's not even mentioning asteroids. You might think I'm an idiot, or laugh, thinking I'm kidding around. And a few years ago, you would have laughed if I told you about a hurricane destroying New Orleans or a Tsunami in Tailand. It's always funny and not worth a thought... until it happens. You want to change Global Warming? Well I don't think there's enough willpower in the universe to change every natural disaster that's waiting to happen.

Life is uncertain. THOUSANDS of ENORMOUS natural disasters are waiting in the wings. And I personally don't think global warming is #1 on that list. So should we sink a lot of money into global warming, or should we keep our money in a bank account where it can be quickly deployed to combat any one of a number of potential disasters which may befall us?

People are going to die tomorrow. and the day after. And they will be for causes that could have been prevented. You create a doomsday scenario about Global Warming, I'll talk about a Japanese Tsunami. You have your boogeyman, I'll have mine.

It's much like the babies floating down a river... the first day there is one. Then another. Then another. Then another. You realize it's an ongoing problem and doesn't appear to be stopping. So do you travel up the river in order to stop this from happening and thereby let a baby die the next day when you aren't there? Or do you stay where you are and catch more babies?

Do you solve the problems you know you can solve? Or do you solve the problems that you are unsure of? It's a moral question. And it's not an easy one.

Tragedy of the commons, again. If you know how to solve that dilemma in a way that doesn't involve private ownership and capitalism, I'm all ears.... As far as I know, capitalism is the best way to achieve that. But, again, I'm all ears...