Political Crossfire Forums

[hipeter924]

The Kyoto Protocal does not stand up because:

1. The systems of pollution control works on a carbon credit system which allows the sale and buying of carbon credits, this would mean corporations from the 1st world would buy the credits from the 3rd world and the 2nd world and then the 1st world would outsource to those countries eg. set up factories there therefore decreasing development or even stopping it in the poorer regions of the world as Ist world nations would own the 3rd world and create a new area of imperalist control.

2. It would cripple the world ecodomy and leave a rich elite of dictators or corporations that control the world.

3. Science and Technology cannot keep up with the constant demands of the Kyoto protocal

4. Even if the demands were met global warming would still have a big impact

5. It does not tackle the problem of dwindling resources eg. oil, gas and so on

[Canadian-kid]

hipeter924 wrote: The Kyoto Protocal does not stand up because:

1. The systems of pollution control works on a carbon credit system which allows the sale and buying of carbon credits, this would mean corporations from the 1st world would buy the credits from the 3rd world and the 2nd world and then the 1st world would outsource to those countries eg. set up factories there therefore decreasing development or even stopping it in the poorer regions of the world as Ist world nations would own the 3rd world and create a new area of imperalist control.

2. It would cripple the world ecodomy and leave a rich elite of dictators or corporations that control the world.

3. Science and Technology cannot keep up with the constant demands of the Kyoto protocal

4. Even if the demands were met global warming would still have a big impact

5. It does not tackle the problem of dwindling resources eg. oil, gas and so on

Interesting, can you elaborate those points and post some sources please.

[hipeter924]

This link will give you a picture of why it doesn't work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

[hipeter924]

It states nowhere in the kyoto protocol about resources, what about dwindling oil and gas supplies,etc

Does it tell us what we will travel on, No

Does it say what we should use to power our homes,No

Before these problems are solved you couldn't even think about putting it in place

[hipeter924]

One can come to believe dictators and corporations would come to rule the world as if the ecodomy collapsed governments could hold on to power and Prime Ministers and Presidents become dictators.

Corporations since they own the Carbon Credits of the world would control the industries, we would have to pay them money to literally even turn on the kettle

[hipeter924]

We have no such things as cheap environmentally friendly alternatives to polluting the environment, there are also no environmentally friendly factories.

We have no good forms of transport to replace the polluting planes, non polluting trains do not yet go fast enough or run efficently enough to replace them either. There are rocket engine trains but they pollute.

[hipeter924]

There are also Billions of people in the world, that number is increasing, eventually we will reach the point where the limit of sustained human habitation is at its limit and start chopping down the trees put it place by the kyoto protocal to provide more room for people and factories and so on.

[Kindred]

While I think almost all of your criticisms are flawed, I must ask what do you think is a viable option given your many negativities with regards to Kyoto?

[Kindred]

hipeter924 wrote: It states nowhere in the kyoto protocol about resources, what about dwindling oil and gas supplies,etc

Does it tell us what we will travel on, No

Does it say what we should use to power our homes,No

Before these problems are solved you couldn't even think about putting it in place

It is not supposed to be a step by step way to live in the 21st century. It is broad for reasons of accessibility. However, to say that it does not approach the issue of resource use is a flat-out lie:

Quote: Article 2
1. Each Party included in Annex I, in achieving its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3, in order to promote sustainable development, shall:
(a) Implement and/or further elaborate policies and measures in accordance with its national circumstances, such as:
(i) Enhancement of energy efficiency in relevant sectors of the national economy;
(ii) Protection and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, taking into account its commitments under relevant international environmental agreements; promotion of sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation;
(iii) Promotion of sustainable forms of agriculture in light of climate change considerations;
(iv) Research on, and promotion, development and increased use of, new and renewable forms of energy, of carbon dioxide sequestration technologies and of advanced and innovative environmentally sound technologies;
(v) Progressive reduction or phasing out of market imperfections, fiscal incentives, tax and duty exemptions and subsidies in all greenhouse gas emitting sectors that run counter to the objective of the Convention and application of market instruments;
(vi) Encouragement of appropriate reforms in relevant sectors aimed at promoting policies and measures which limit or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol;
(vii) Measures to limit and/or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol in the transport sector;
(viii) Limitation and/or reduction of methane emissions through recovery and use in waste management, as well as in the production, transport and distribution of energy;

These are essentially, market-instrument based solutions to the problems you highlight. The U.N isn’t responsible for creating new technology, but the Kyoto protocol, through creating a legally binding system of regulation, creates market impetuses to solve those problems.
hipeter924 wrote: One can come to believe dictators and corporations would come to rule the world as if the ecodomy collapsed governments could hold on to power and Prime Ministers and Presidents become dictators.

Corporations since they own the Carbon Credits of the world would control the industries, we would have to pay them money to literally even turn on the kettle
That’s a complete misinterpretation of the system of tradable permits. Tradable permits of for industrial use, not non-commercial, residential use. The entire point of a tradable permits scheme is to confront those issues you referred to above (resource issues) by making it economically rational to limit carbon output, and invest in new, green or renewable technologies i.e. a firm can save a considerable amount by selling their credits top another firm, which they could invest in rewnewables.

hipeter924 wrote: We have no such things as cheap environmentally friendly alternatives to polluting the environment, there are also no environmentally friendly factories.

We have no good forms of transport to replace the polluting planes, non polluting trains do not yet go fast enough or run efficently enough to replace them either. There are rocket engine trains but they pollute.
The Kyoto protocol does not ask for complete removal of carbon based technologies, but rather to keep those technologies at 1990 levels. Air travel could continue as normal, or invest in cleaner, more efficient fuels. It is in other sectors which the greatest reductions will be found.

[Gdawg007]

hipeter924 wrote: The Kyoto Protocal does not stand up because:

1. The systems of pollution control works on a carbon credit system which allows the sale and buying of carbon credits, this would mean corporations from the 1st world would buy the credits from the 3rd world and the 2nd world and then the 1st world would outsource to those countries eg. set up factories there therefore decreasing development or even stopping it in the poorer regions of the world as Ist world nations would own the 3rd world and create a new area of imperalist control.

The corporations would be the ones setting up industry in the 3rd world countries anyway. Does the treaty really allow for Exxon to buy up credits, or gov't's to buy the credits? Sure, we could buy more credits of the 3rd world countries, but it also depends on how much they cost and who determines the value of each credit, doesn't it? Need more info on this.

Quote: 2. It would cripple the world ecodomy and leave a rich elite of dictators or corporations that control the world.

As opposed to the way things are today? Wal-Mart makes more money than some countries. California alone is the 4th largest economy in the world. Some of what you are saying has already happened without Kyoto.

Quote: 3. Science and Technology cannot keep up with the constant demands of the Kyoto protocal

Based on what? Kennedy set a goal to have us on the moon in 8 years. Science and technology caught up and made it happen. It can do the same here.

Quote: 4. Even if the demands were met global warming would still have a big impact

Reducing emission of green house gases would let the earth heat and cool more like it should. Anything that accomplishes this is a good thing. I don't know how effective Kyoto will be, but I can't argue against it either.

Quote: 5. It does not tackle the problem of dwindling resources eg. oil, gas and so on

If your goal is to lower emissions, the first step you can take is to find alternatives to processess that create those emissions.

[hipeter924]

The truth is that it does stand up as a nice idea but it does not solve all the problems and offer a soulution that does not destroy the world ecodomy and does solve global warming. This is why it does not stand up.
I myself have the read the kyoto protocal line from line and it does not say anywhere what we should use as our form of energy. All the clean alternatives have negatives.

Hydrogen power- environmentally friendly but in order to aquire the hydrogen fuel you must pollute eg. process it in factories and also very expensive to aquire

Nuclear Power- Not clean beacause it produces toxic nuclear waste which we cannot dispose of and power stations can have a meltdown eg like chenoval and poison huge areas with radiation, scientists think that lots of europe is now 1-10% radioactive now because of chenoval.

Wind energy- environmentally friendly but it kills birds, destablises the national power grid because of constant power fluctions. Sometimes there is not enough energy produced eg. in low wind and too much wind can damage the turbines so they have to be of in times when lots of energy could be captured. Some countries are trying to remove this alternative as it causes distruptions to the power grid.

Geothermal- environmentally friendly but costly and produces only reasonable amounts of electricity

Microwave energy- possiblity of harnessing but just not enough technology
for it to be possible yet

Hydroelectricity- damages the environment eg. by damaging the habitats of fish and bird species

Solar Power- environmentally friendly but produces too low amounts of energy to be useful

Wave power- environmentally friendly but expensive and produces low amounts of electricity

This is the most vital part of what needs to be thought of as mostly everything needs power in the 21st century world of today.

Then what does it say we should replace oil with- a clean alternative is what it basically means but what clean alternative exists today that produces high amounts of electricity that we consider environmentally friendly, there is no alternative that is completly environmentally friendly that produces high amounts of electricity. No fuel exists that doesn't produce pollution when you want to process it.

Global warming will still have a big impact because it is a natural process and would be happening even if we never polluted.

The United Nations follows the kyoto protocal yet does not think of other stratagies to stop global warming like thinking of a better system than carbon credits.

Besides it does kind off say to the 3rd world its ok to pollute tons until you become 1st world. Does it talk at all about helping the 3rd world to become environmentally friendly too at all by helping them financally.

The kyoto's postives are still completly useless even because we have no way at the moment to make factories environmentally friendly. Until that is done we will never be able to effectively cut carbon emissons.

Since technology and funding does not exist to back up the kyoto protocol unless aliens come to earth with advanced technology and tons of cash to save our environment we have no hope of stopping global warming.

These simple reasons not nessarily the points first made highlight the kyoto protocols problems.

[hipeter924]

I can say alternatives will never be found quick enough simply by looking at the space program, we are already behind because the space shuttle has still not been replaced in nearly 40 years and the technology involved looks like a trip back to 1980.

We are also behind in the most fundamentally important part of space travel- a way to easily create a artifical gravity environment.

Space travel is also important for the kyoto protocol and global warming because new fuels could be found on other planets.

What about alien life forms- it looks like they have given up and we have not even started looking well enough. There are basically infinite amounts of planets to explore if not for life forms then for resources.

People may disagree but space travel holds the key to solving global warming.

Half the people of Earth could live on mars reducing the environmental strain on earth. The kyoto protocol does not seem to think much about this.

[hipeter924]

I did not say the kyoto protocol did not approach resource problems it but it most certainly does not solve it enough in order to be useful that is what the problem is with its methods of solving dwindling resources.

[Kindred]

hipeter924 wrote: I did not say the kyoto protocol did not approach resource problems it but it most certainly does not solve it enough in order to be useful that is what the problem is with its methods of solving dwindling resources.

You obviously do not understand the nature of these types of treaties.

[hipeter924]

I do know that it is a treaty that sets guidelines and the way in which countries should approach the problem of global warming and caring for the environment.

But if someone did not critise the Kyoto Protocol then people would stick to the same ideas and not decide better ways and guidlines in which to approach global warming and caring for the environment.

In ways I do support the Kyoto Protocol but everything has flaws so I cannot no matter how much in other ways it is good support the Kyoto Protocol completly.