fred smith wrote:Are you saying that Wigley represents the pro-Kyoto forces in some substantial way? Like officially, or he is someone with stature in the community that has been accepted as a leader by a wide constituency of pro-Kyoto governments and organizations?
You have my source. You have Tigerman´s source. Both show that Kyoto will have a minimal effect on climate change. And here you have more from the National Public Radio (NPR) which is known to all far and wide for its conservative global warming denial.
Fine, that's great thanks. And very interesting, actually. All I wanted was some good links to back up the statement, which we now have.
fred smith wrote:As diplomats from around the world gather in Durban, South Africa, for talks about climate change, a big question looms: What will become of the Kyoto climate treaty, which was negotiated with much fanfare in 1997. The treaty was supposed to be a first step toward much more ambitious actions on climate change, but it is now on the brink of fading into irrelevance. That could have major implications for the future of United Nations climate talks.
Even under the best of circumstances, the Kyoto protocol would have made a barely measurable dent in the amount of greenhouse gases flowing into the Earth's atmosphere.
We have very little space left in our atmosphere to be continuing to pollute before we cross certain thresholds where impacts will be inevitable.
- Jennifer Morgan, director, Climate and Energy Program, World Resources Institute
First, the United States decided not to ratify the treaty, so our emissions aren't covered by the pact. Then China leapfrogged the U.S. to become the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. But China is treated like a developing country under the Kyoto treaty, which means it has no obligations. Even so, Europe and a few other nations have been soldiering on.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/29/142907053 ... ate-future
And more on the subject:Gupta et al. (2007) assessed the literature on climate change policy. They found that no authoritative assessments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that these agreements had, or will, succeed in solving the climate problem. In these assessments, it was assumed that the UNFCCC or its Protocol would not be changed. The Framework Convention and its Protocol include provisions for future policy actions to be taken.
World Bank (2010, p. 233) commented on how the Kyoto Protocol had only had a slight effect on curbing global emissions growth. The treaty was negotiated in 1997, but by 2005, energy-related emissions had grown 24%. World Bank (2010) also stated that the treaty had provided only limited financial support to developing countries to assist them in reducing their emissions and adapting to climate change.
Some of the criticism of the Protocol has been based on the idea of climate justice (Liverman, 2008, p. 14). This has particularly centred on the balance between the low emissions and high vulnerability of the developing world to climate change, compared to high emissions in the developed world.
Some environmentalists have supported the Kyoto Protocol because it is "the only game in town," and possibly because they expect that future emission reduction commitments may demand more stringent emission reductions (Aldy et al.., 2003, p. 9). In 2001, sixteen national science academies stated that ratification of the Protocol represented a "small but essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases." Some environmentalists and scientists have criticized the existing commitments for being too weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5).
In May 2010 the Hartwell Paper was published by the London School of Economics. The authors argued that after what they regard as the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Kyoto Protocol "has failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years" and that this failure opened an opportunity for a re-orientation towards a climate policy based on human dignity instead of human sinfulness.
Good stuff, all of it.
fred smith wrote:The cost issue is very relevant, of course. I certainly don't have a plan, not being an international statesman or economics expert. I feel that it is a valid topic of debate, and welcome learning more.
So why don´t you get busy for a change and go find something that supports any plan of any kind at all and show how this plan in your view would be feasible. You want to learn more do you? Well, when those you instinctively disagree with provide evidence to support their positions you keep rejecting them out of hand and stating that they are not credible BUT you never provide any links of any kind to show why they are not credible NOR do you provide anything to buttress your case. Am I mischaracterizing your approach to posting and discussion in this forum? Or would you like to correct me by pointing to all the links and evidence that you have provided? Up to you... I will be waiting... as I have since the very beginning of this discussion.
Oh, you are asking me for my program to deal with Global Warming? Well, actually I don't have one, do you? Does anyone here have "the solution"? I am sure it has a lot to do with encouraging the development of energy sources that do not produce GHG. Obviously that means renewable energy investment incentives, R'n'D funding, etc. And reducing unnecessary use of fossil fuels. But if you want a white paper on the subject, you'll have to wait a bit. I don't have one in my back pocket.
But that does not necessarily mean that a solution cannot or will not be found. But it will never be found if people deny AGW is happening, despite the consensus of the top climate scientists, without actually having demonstrably better science than them. Am you mischaracterizing your approach to posting and discussion in this forum? Yes you are. We have gotten into a few disagreement, and in each case I pointed out some flaws in your basic reasoning - at least in the basic reasoning of certain posts. In retaliation, you asked me some kind of red herring question, and then pointed out that I never answered it, while also ignoring many of my links and points. That's my perception, at any rate. But I will not revisit past arguments. Instead, we can look forward to more civilized discourse in the future, hopefully.
Again, I have never claimed to be an expert on the subject, but have merely asked you to back up what you are saying. Being an amateur expert of some sort on the subject does not grant you the right to make sweeping statements without backing them up, nor accusing another person of being evasive.
Have I made any clear thesis statements about my attitudes towards global warming that require proof?