Christoph,
I can understand your irritation with my apparently reactionary attitude to
Kyoto. As I hope to have explained, I agree that something should be done
-- in my opinion, more research before it is entirely clear what the
situation is. The biggest factor by far in the whole matter of atmospheric
CO2 is what is the take-up equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and the
organisms of the oceans (from which the food chain then takes it down
successively before final deposition as insoluble carbonates on the ocean
floor) and this is still far from clear yet.
The climatic changes which have taken place in the last few decades are
well within the range of the sort of chaotic changes which have taken place
in the last few thousand years. For example, to choose one minor example,
the hillside on which my house stands used to be a Roman vineyard in 200AD,
when the temperatures were 1-2 degrees higher than now for a couple of
centuries.
Some man-made atmospheric changes have been proved beyond a doubt -- for
example, the effects of CFCs on the protective ozone layer. This involved
relatively minor changes in industrial production methods and most
countries and industries involved acted swiftly.
I have also no doubt that countries and industries will also act swiftly
once climatic change has been laid clearly at the door of fossil-burning.
You say that 30 countries have ratified the Kyoto protocol. I'm afraid that
they have not. They have "agreed" with it, but only three countries have
actually legislated so that their own industries will be penalised unless
they reduce emissions. The UK, for example, has accepted the Kyoto protocol
and, by persuasion, are actually further along the road to decreasing CO2
discharges than all the other 30 countries, except one, but we are still
far from meeting the timetable laid down by Kyoto.
The Kyoto protocol is another example of the sort of complex changes that
mankind must make if we are to survive in the future. These changes depend
upon scientific matters which the average citizen cannot understand. So
far, our political systems can only legislate on these by what is called
"back door" legislation -- that is by ignoring democratic debate and
quietly passing laws which only gradually emerge into public consciousness
over many years. In the case of Kyoto, it did not even reach the stage of
"back door" legislation because American Senators knew that they could not
get the backing of their electors.
The communication era means that more people are aware of complex problems,
but are still unable unable to take informed decisions. So they react by
voting for the policy that will least affect their wallet. So we come back
to the previous discussion on FW List that a new democratic system needs to
evolve. There are some matters on which the electorate can be fully
informed, but there is an increasing number of matters on which only
specialists can take sensible decisions. At the present time, the climate
change debate lies fully within the latter category and we must remind
ourselves that some highly-informed climatologists still disagree with the
received wisdom of Kyoto. It is very far from clear that what is happening
now is fully man-made. Our industrial methods are undoubtedly contributing
to increased CO2 -- no-one quarrels about that -- but it may be a
relatively small dimple on a larger climatic change. And, at any time about
now, the next Ice Age may be starting. We've had 19 of these already and
the chances are pretty high that another will happen in the next few
decades/centuries. If it does start to happen, then many will be clamouring
to increase CO2 production to try and neutralise the cold and the
accelerating take-up of CO2 by plankton in the sea!
The jury is still out on this one.
Keith Hudson
At 00:45 05/04/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Keith Hudson wrote:
>> [EW:]
>> > As one example, despite the
>> >fact that the Kyoto Agreement has been around for some ten years, the
world'
>> >s largest producer of greenhouse gases, the US, has not ratified it.
>>
>> Well, no other country has ratified it either!
>
>Untrue. At least 30 countries have ratified it.
>
>
>> Australia, Singapore (and
>> one other I believe) have said that they "intend to". But when?
>
>When the biggest polluter has done it ?
>
>
>> IMHO, the
>> Americans (that is, the Bush camp) are being less hypocritical than others.
>
>Worse, they are actively taking anti-environmental steps (rollback of
>enviro regulations from the previous administration), and even internet
>censorship (Ian Thomas case).
>
>
>> Before anybody says I'm bneiong reactionary, of course something should be
>> done. But what?
>
>Reducing GHGs. (hint: that's what Kyoto is about)
>
>
>> Our greatest Prime
>> Minister-who-never-was of the past century, Rab Butler said, "politics is
>> the art of the possible".
>
>This quote is from Bismarck. (Ok, some also attribute it to Butler, but
>Bismarck lived a century before Butler, so I guess Bismarck had the idea
>first.)
>
>
>> The Kyoto Agreement was as much hot air as the
>> hot air that it was meant to solve.
>
>Kyoto is a beginning. But Bush is not even willing to begin.
>
>
>> A much more comprehensive agreement
>> must be framed that would also undertake specific responsibilities for the
>> likely events that will occur if the atmosphere continues to heat up due to
>> our fossil-burning.
>
>The responsibility is mainly with the biggest polluter -- the USA.
>
>
>> But this is taking me away from the main point of this discussion. I
>> disagree with Ed. I still think that the rioting youngsters are just using
>> Kyoto, WTO, TNCs, GM crops, etc, as pretexts. They just happen to be useful
>> alibis. Worthy though those causes may be (or may not be), it's clear that
>> the youngsters have no intellectual arguments to bear. So they have a riot
>> instead. Their main purpose is still that of wanting to draw attention to
>> themselves, to be noticed, to be let into the adult world.
>
>Reactionary indeed. You're reading the wrong newspapers, Keith.
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
