13-08-2002 03:33									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by red_jon Gian - yes, even those on the hard-right should be able to admit that there are issues with corporate power.

But apparently you said corporations were the issues themselves? They aren't. And there are problems with corporations taking too much power like in Nigeria.

quote: And India has 900 million people, Japan has FAR less than that. Hence, India has many cheap, exploitable labourers which wouldn't be cheap and exploitable if they had large houses and TV sets. So the status quo of them being poor is beneficial to western business.

Yes and? Did I say differently? However those people should work with cleaner industries and not heavy polluting ones.

quote: And yet you cannot challenge it.

Did I say anything about spending money on robotics? I said spending money on cleaner industry. Those 2 cent/hour workers may still be there but at least hundreds of polluting factories won't.... being replaced by cleaner ways of manufacturing.

	13-08-2002 03:35									#32
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara But it never would have gotten better if you conservatives had your way. It's us ecologists who kept pushing you and kept pushing you. And we have a cleaner environment thanks to our nagging.

Yes it would.

If "ecologists" like you had your way you would make everybody live back in the stone ages.

That is why a mix of policies (that will not harm business significantly - if very minimally at the most) would be best.

	13-08-2002 03:46									#33
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I was thinking along the lines of (improved) nuclear power...

Improved? How? Who's going to improve it? I think that you're playing with fire here, a meltdown would cause far worse devastation than even this cloud.

You didn't say who was going to pay for the replacement of inefficient equipment.

As for modern industrialisation polluting 'much lesser', there may be less acrid clouds, but there will be much more consumer waste, requiring gigantic landfills, and much more demand for increasingly scarce resources such as water and wood.

quote: Really? I have to disagree with that.... I think once these developing countries reach modern status... better ways of manufacturing will be invented (that require lesser amounts of humans to work).

Technology will solve all problems, right? Let's hope you're right, although there is no reason to assume you are.

quote: Quite frankly, my proposal's potentials outweigh the negatives.

Your proposal needs modification. Specifically, the developed nations should curb their own consumption because the world does not have enough resources for everyone to have a Western lifestyle.

	13-08-2002 03:52									#34
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Improved? How? Who's going to improve it? I think that you're playing with fire here, a meltdown would cause far worse devastation than even this cloud.

Improvement in the line of safety. A meltdown can be averted if proper procedures are taken.

quote: You didn't say who was going to pay for the replacement of inefficient equipment.

And that is still the damn question I am wondering... sure my plan might be good on paper but it might not work without FDI.

quote: As for modern industrialisation polluting 'much lesser', there may be less acrid clouds, but there will be much more consumer waste, requiring gigantic landfills, and much more demand for increasingly scarce resources such as water and wood.

Then I suggest instead of landfills garbage-energy incineration. (I am unsure if that would be possible)

And for scarce resources such as water... there is always desalination but that is very expensive. But Saudi Arabia and most rich arab states must do it to supply 95% of their water supply.

quote: Technology will solve all problems, right? Let's hope you're right, although there is no reason to assume you are.

And why shouldn't it? Sure we should be independent from technology (hehe... remember Matrix?) but we can use it to our advantage.

quote: Your proposal needs modification. Specifically, the developed nations should curb their own consumption because the world does not have enough resources for everyone to have a Western lifestyle.

True. But you do not have a right to say what needs modification or not, I will have to do that myself. As I will say now: My proposal is something I have been thinking of for sometime... there are issues involved though and it needs some smoothing out. But it sure the hell is a lot better than other proposals floating around out there.

	13-08-2002 03:52									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I think any call for India, China or SE Asia to call a halt, or at least slow down, their economic development in order to reduce pollution - especially if the reason is that it may harm the world environment and cause global warming - is likely to fall on eternally deaf ears. What this means is that world polution is going to get a lot worse before it gets better - and the primary problem is not the United States.

	13-08-2002 03:54									#36
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Ned that is wrong to say. If they slow down economic development they might be stuck with a cheap inefficient burning energy (such as coal) for much longer.

	13-08-2002 03:58									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned I think any call for India, China or SE Asia to call a halt, or at least slow down, their economic development in order to reduce pollution - especially if the reason is that it may harm the world environment and cause global warming - is likely to fall on eternally deaf ears. What this means is that world polution is going to get a lot worse before it gets better - and the primary problem is not the United States.

Even though the US are the world's largest consumers, are the greatest generators of carbon dioxide and have even been known to export waste to countries like India (and, specifically, India) and refuse to sign international treaties which attempt to reduce pollution?

They're just trying to get out of poverty. And you're asking them to slow down their economic development whilst we get richer?

	13-08-2002 04:03									#38
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by red_jon are the greatest generators of carbon dioxide

And the Bush adminstration is hard at work figuring out a way to come up with a plausible solution to help ease emissions of CO2.

quote: and refuse to sign international treaties which attempt to reduce pollution?

What idiotic international treaties? Oh that one arbitrary, illogical and retroactive one everybody knows as Kyoto? That treaty was trash to begin with. It would of caused massive economic losses. There are dozens of better alternatives that would actually work for both the environment and economy at the same time.

	13-08-2002 04:09									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Fez And the Bush adminstration is hard at work figuring out a way to come up with a plausible solution to help ease emissions of CO2.

Three words- sports utility vehicle. If the millionaire family-appointed oil baron most Americans did not elect actually wanted to reduce emissions he would at least give these vehicles the same requirements as others. But General Motors wouldn't like that.

quote: What idiotic international treaties? Oh that one arbitrary, illogical and retroactive one everybody knows as Kyoto? That treaty was trash to begin with. It would of caused massive economic losses. There are dozens of better alternatives that would actually work for both the environment and economy at the same time.

Oh, you mean the treaties other countries signed? Yeah, it really must have been pathetic if all the other nations agree to implement it.

	13-08-2002 04:13									#40
	Put an end to popups!

What an opiniated uninformed person....

quote: Originally posted by red_jon Three words- sports utility vehicle. If the millionaire family-appointed oil baron most Americans did not elect actually wanted to reduce emissions he would at least give these vehicles the same requirements as others. But General Motors wouldn't like that.

Americans did elect him. And who are you to pass judgement like that? On if he was elected or not? Leftism sucks... and that is all I will say.

He is reducing emissions through more economically secure options.

quote: Oh, you mean the treaties other countries signed? Yeah, it really must have been pathetic if all the other nations agree to implement it.

Oh great comeback. It happens to be that treaty would of cut off about 1.5% - 2% of GDP growth in the US if implemented. GOOD ONE! That would of really made the world go into recession. The Kyoto treaty was a pathetic venture that should of been shot down in the beginning. It solves nothing just creates more problems.

	13-08-2002 04:18									#41
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Improvement in the line of safety. A meltdown can be averted if proper procedures are taken.

You'll not know until it's too late. Accidents are inevitable.

quote: Then I suggest instead of landfills garbage-energy incineration. (I am unsure if that would be possible)

Crazy. You'd get a cloud of monstrous proportions.

quote: And for scarce resources such as water... there is always desalination but that is very expensive. But Saudi Arabia and most rich arab states must do it to supply 95% of their water supply.

Oil prices would go up even more.

quote: And the Bush adminstration is hard at work figuring out a way to come up with a plausible solution to help ease emissions of CO2.

You're too guillible.

quote: What idiotic international treaties? Oh that one arbitrary, illogical and retroactive one everybody knows as Kyoto? That treaty was trash to begin with. It would of caused massive economic losses. There are dozens of better alternatives that would actually work for both the environment and economy at the same time.

Kyoto targetted the developed countries. The developing nations look to the developed for pointers on how to develop their economies. If we can turn the developed countries, the developing countries will follow down the road of efficiency.
Since America has failed to even think about doing anything about overconsumption and pollution, the developing countries will follow them instead, since it is America that is the premier developed country.

	13-08-2002 04:24									#42
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Sandman You'll not know until it's too late. Accidents are inevitable.

Yes and floods are inevitable.... and so are hurricanes... people die... that is inevitable... your point being?

quote: Crazy. You'd get a cloud of monstrous proportions.

And you are any different?

quote: Oil prices would go up even more.

They would?

quote: You're too guillible.

I am?

quote: Kyoto targetted the developed countries.

Yes and could of cost billions to the economy.

quote: The developing nations look to the developed for pointers on how to develop their economies. If we can turn the developed countries, the developing countries will follow down the road of efficiency.

You aren't making any sense. You are just saying the developed world should throw its economy down the gutter to please some tree huggers!

quote: Since America has failed to even think about doing anything about overconsumption and pollution,

It has?

	13-08-2002 04:38									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Yes and floods are inevitable.... and so are hurricanes... people die... that is inevitable... your point being?

Hundreds of nuclear power stations in poor, densely populated countries is not a good idea.

quote: Yes and could of cost billions to the economy.

Hasn't so far, and a few billions here and there is not very much anyway. World GDP is several trillions.

quote: You aren't making any sense. You are just saying the developed world should throw its economy down the gutter to please some tree huggers!

Cutting energy consumption and improving efficiency will clearly boost the economy in the long run by lowering the need for fuel, environmental benefits aside.

	13-08-2002 04:44									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Hundreds of nuclear power stations in poor, densely populated countries is not a good idea.

Okay... so they should build petroleum, coal and gas power plants?

quote: Hasn't so far, and a few billions here and there is not very much anyway. World GDP is several trillions.

That is because the Kyoto is not in effect in the US. If it was there would be very bad effects. And I am talking into the hundreds of billions.

quote: Cutting energy consumption and improving efficiency will clearly boost the economy in the long run by lowering the need for fuel, environmental benefits aside.

Did I say otherwise? Sure I want technological advancements.

For example: Getting steel requires a lot less energy than it did in WWII. Infact a 100 times less. That shows progress is being made and will continued to be made.

	13-08-2002 05:08									#45
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by red_jon Hence, India has many cheap, exploitable labourers which wouldn't be cheap and exploitable if they had large houses and TV sets. So the status quo of them being poor is beneficial to western business.

Actually, it's quite counter productive to business at large. For example, if I were a business man I'd want a product that I can sell to the largest market possible. Keeping India, China, and other third or fourth world countries in poverty doesn't increase my market, it in fact decreases my market and therefore hurts my business.

Sure, your arguement is based on the cost of labor and yes that effects profits, but the rise in the cost of labor would pale in comparisson the the rise in available consumers.

Furthermore, evidence to counter your theory exists in the simple fact that the IMF, World Bank, and the US itself lend money to troubled countries all over the world.

If you theory was even remotely plausable you wouldn't see this type of action from any monetary institution. What you would in fact see is an ever shrinking population of consumers world wide with an ever increasing gap between the "haves" and "have-nots". The situation at hand would be a few nations of the world with extremely high tech goods with no one to sell them to except themselves. Exports would become non-existant.

So, it is in the best interest of Western economies that the rest of the world "keep up" and we loan them money in the order of billions to do so.

	13-08-2002 05:19									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Technology will solve all problems, right? Let's hope you're right, although there is no reason to assume you are.

In truth there is no reason to assume he's wrong. He has the recorded history of mankind to back up his claims. I'm curious what laurels your resting on?

quote: Your proposal needs modification. Specifically, the developed nations should curb their own consumption because the world does not have enough resources for everyone to have a Western lifestyle.

The statement about lacking resources is completely uncalcuable, and therfore completely suspect. You can't predict what resources we will eventually use, so you therefore can not predict whether or not there are enough for everyone.

Imagine telling a farmer 100 years ago that there'd be 6 billion people on the planet. His response would be there just wouldn't be enough food to feed them all, yet with the advent of better farming technology we have more than enough food to feed everyone and there is no indication of world population shrinking in the near future.

	15-08-2002 19:59									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

To furthur White Elephant's arguments about the scarcity of natural resources...

Since 1850 the prices of raw materials (as measured by the Economist's commodity index) has fallen by around 80% relative to the general price level.

However the price of 'people' in the west (i.e. their wages) has risen tenfold relative to prices.

To put this another way, to buy the same amount of raw materials that would have required someone 150 years ago to put in a full 14 hour day will now take the wages of around a quarter of a hour's work.


Also to back up Fez, most pollution in the west has been dealt with (with the noteable exception of CO2), but usually only when public opinon has forced government regulation on hostile industry (which makes perfect sense as pollution is a classic example of market failure).


To tackle CO2 production the best and fairest way would be to set some target for CO2 production per person and tax anything above this.
However such a scheme would hit the US far harder than Kyoto would have done (as the US would be required to make much larger cuts than other countries as it's CO2 output per person is much higher).
The only initiative the US has come up with so far is to cut 'CO2 intensity' (basically the amount of CO2 produced per unit of GDP) by around 1.5% a year - this may sound good but unless the US economy grows by only 1.5% a year CO2 production will still rise.
It isn't even better than what has happened in the past - I recently did a study of CO2 production from primary energy for the G5 economies in the period 1913-1998 and a 1.5% reduction in CO2 intensity was the average for the period.
So basically the US's proposal is really to 'do nothing'.

Last edited by el freako on 15-08-2002 at 20:14

	15-08-2002 20:05									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

"So basically the US's proposal is really to 'do nothing'."

No, it's to keep the status quo and let the market do its work. There is real difference in this distinction, as the change is built into the system.

Edit: Of course the net effect is an increase in C02 for now. But I bet this will only happen for a relatively short period of time.

Last edited by DanS on 15-08-2002 at 20:13

	15-08-2002 20:13									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DanS,

quote: Originally posted by DanS No, it's to keep the status quo and let the market do its work. There is real difference in this distinction, as the change is built into the system.

If the market has only achieved a 1.5% a year reduction in CO2 intensity over the last 90 years what makes you think it will suddenly get better now?

Over the last 10-15 year the EU has seen reductions in CO2 intensity of around 2-2.5% a year thanks to government intervention (mainly taxation on energy).

I fail to see any change being built into the system - could you please enlighten me?

	15-08-2002 20:21									#50
	Put an end to popups!

"I fail to see any change being built into the system - could you please enlighten me?"

The reduction in C02 intensity is the result of individual actions that reduce emissions versus GDP growth. People are acting, even if not quickly enough to reduce overall emissions (both in the EU and US). Just like productivity growth, these deltas don't just materialize out of thin air.

"Over the last 10-15 year the EU has seen reductions in CO2 intensity of around 2-2.5% a year thanks to government intervention (mainly taxation on energy)."

This taxation is highly regressive. Also, for instance, most gasoline taxes bear no resemblance to the costs borne by society. No thanks.

Last edited by DanS on 15-08-2002 at 20:31

	15-08-2002 21:27									#51
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DanS "I fail to see any change being built into the system - could you please enlighten me?" The reduction in C02 intensity is the result of individual actions that reduce emissions versus GDP growth. People are acting, even if not quickly enough to reduce overall emissions (both in the EU and US). Just like productivity growth, these deltas don't just materialize out of thin air.

So what you are saying is that the 1.5% reduction in CO2 intensity is likely to continue - I agree, but surely this supports my view that the current US policy is to effectively 'do nothing'.

quote: Originally posted by DanS "Over the last 10-15 year the EU has seen reductions in CO2 intensity of around 2-2.5% a year thanks to government intervention (mainly taxation on energy)." This taxation is highly regressive. Also, for instance, most gasoline taxes bear no resemblance to the costs borne by society. No thanks.

Agreed that the taxation is regressive and not best suited to CO2 reduction.
However the EU is actually doing something whereas the US's only proposal is to take no action at all.

What would you do DanS?

	15-08-2002 23:02									#52
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Replies for this resurrected thread.

quote: Okay... so they should build petroleum, coal and gas power plants?

A mixture of everything seems the most logical course of action. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, as they say.

quote: That is because the Kyoto is not in effect in the US. If it was there would be very bad effects. And I am talking into the hundreds of billions.

Why hundreds of billions? What evidence do you have that controlling CO2 would gravely damage the US economy?

quote: In truth there is no reason to assume he's wrong. He has the recorded history of mankind to back up his claims. I'm curious what laurels your resting on?

A lack of trees knackered many an ancient civilisation. Whilst not strictly ancient, the demise of Easter Island due to excessive stone head construction is one such example. They used the trees for rollers and scaffolding. No trees=soil erosion. I wonder if they laughed off the critics as well?

quote: The statement about lacking resources is completely uncalcuable, and therfore completely suspect. You can't predict what resources we will eventually use, so you therefore can not predict whether or not there are enough for everyone.

Will people of the future have no need of water?

	16-08-2002 00:15									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

El Freako, if the Euro's want to do something now to help America reduce "world" pollution, they could invest in electric-powered railroads throughout America to reduce car pollution. They could build nuclear powerplants in Canada and Mexico and ship clean power into the US. In other words, the Euro's can excersize quite of bit of self help and make a buck at the same time.

Stop complaining and start acting.

	16-08-2002 00:56									#54
	Increase Your PM Length

"but surely this supports my view that the current US policy is to effectively 'do nothing'"

Well, in the interest of putting semantics aside (), let's just say that the US policy is to do nothing beyond the 1.5% intensity reduction. That is, unless the market surprises the policy makers with something unexpected.

"What would you do DanS?"

I advocate the status quo, in lieu of a more definitive cost and risk profile.

As an aside, in the last 50 years, we have seen at least one threat to carbon-based fuels: nuclear energy. While nuclear energy had its own problems and didn't prove to be a winner, it does demonstrate that carbon-based fuels' continued predominant use is not at all certain.

Last edited by DanS on 16-08-2002 at 01:03

	16-08-2002 01:09									#55
	Full PM-box? Change here!

DanS, Regardless of pollution issues, moving as quickly as possible to electric railroads has got to be in our self interests as a nation. If you have ever been to Japan, you can see just how efficient (and quiet) these railroads can be.

	16-08-2002 01:22									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

"DanS, Regardless of pollution issues, moving as quickly as possible to electric railroads has got to be in our self interests as a nation."

It would not. Where on Earth do you get that idea?

"If you have ever been to Japan, you can see just how efficient (and quiet) these railroads can be."

The U.S. isn't Japan. We had a passenger rail system every bit as extensive as Japan's once upon a time. Why don't we now? Because it doesn't make any sense for us.

Even now the majority of freight in the US is run on rail with diesel engines. The system just ain't broken.

Last edited by DanS on 16-08-2002 at 01:27

	16-08-2002 01:26									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Dan, I wasn't thinking of frieght. I was thinking of commuter trains that could help replace cars. Our older ciites all have them. Can you imagine what those cities would be like without trains?

	16-08-2002 01:29									#58
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

"Dan, I wasn't thinking of frieght. I was thinking of commuter trains that could help replace cars."

As I said, we once had a passenger rail system every bit as extensive as Japan's. We don't now because it doesn't make sense with our population density. Cars are better transportation tools for the vast majority of Americans.

In the areas where it does make sense, we have it and it is successful.

	16-08-2002 04:11									#59
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ned El Freako, if the Euro's want to do something now to help America reduce "world" pollution, they could invest in electric-powered railroads throughout America to reduce car pollution. They could build nuclear powerplants in Canada and Mexico and ship clean power into the US. In other words, the Euro's can excersize quite of bit of self help and make a buck at the same time.

As I am sure you are aware, with the current taxation policies in the US such efforts are likely to be unprofitable (and unlike the recent performance of a lot of their american counterparts european companies believe in making profits).
What we have here is a clear example of market failure.
Sensible government intervention in cases of market failure are one of the things that has made the west so rich and powerfull today (if you disagree with this think how rich we would be if the coercive power of government was not applied to ensure property rights - in a 'market' solution only those with physical power can enforce their property rights).
Electrified rail is probably less suited to the US than Europe or Japan as the great distances will involve much greater loss of power through transmission.


DanS maybe we should wait for more data, but given the long lead-times on action that are needed to avert a global disaster on the worst-case scenarios we cannot afford to wait too long.
How long would you wait for data, and how sure would the scientific community have to be in order for action to be required.
Also remember that by not acting now the US takes the risk that if it needs to cut it's CO2 levels later in the century it will have to cut them further and faster than otherwise, a cut or freeze spread across a longer period would cause far less pain as the economy has more time to adjust.

It's a bit like saving for your retirement when you are in your early 20's - you may die and never see the money and you could enjoy it now, but evey year you save in your early 20's is worth two in your early 40's.

	16-08-2002 05:22									#60
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Taxation policies? What are you talking about.

Build nuclear plants in Mexico and Canada and sell us clean power. Surely nuclear power is price competitive. You can store the nuclear waste anywhere in Europe you like.