Keith Hudson replied:
> You say that 30 countries have ratified the Kyoto protocol. I'm afraid that
> they have not.
After you have been caught in making a false claim (that no country has
ratified it), now there's no use in doubting my correction. If you don't
believe me, read it up e.g. at
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/nov2000/2000L-11-13-10.html
(and it you don't believe the ENS, look at BBC which copied from them).
> 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.
Even if that's true (experts say otherwise), today's population density and
its extensive infrastructures cannot tolerate nearly the same amount of
"chaotic changes" as the cavemen's caves could. In the Alps, communities
already have to reduce the inhabitable zones, because landslides, avalanches
and rockfalls are expanding due to melting permafrost zones and more rain.
> 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.
An increase in *global average* temperature doesn't mean that the local
temperatures in all places have increased. Precipitations also tend to
increase, which i.a. can lead to a slight local cooling.
> 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.
With CO2 reductions, it isn't so easy -- they require *major* changes.
> 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.
That there's a lack of consensus is a cheap excuse by Dubya &Co. -- they
don't want to "act swiftly" because it would reduce their short-term profits.
> 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.
You seem to assume that politicians/legislators have a better understanding
than the "average citizens". But actually, the former depend on experts
just like the latter (or even stronger, given the disproportionately high
percentage of lawyers in the former category!). Even worse: Fossil-fuel
lobbyists are more active in lobbying politicians/legislators, and unlike
public lobbying, this happens behind closed doors (no transparency), so
it's really better to let the public decide !
> 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.
At both levels, this varies from country to country (depending i.a. on the
amount of pollution). America happens to be the top polluter, with much
higher per-capita CO2 emissions than other industrialized countries (e.g.
3.5 times higher than Switzerland).
Perhaps the international community should introduce sanctions against
CO2 rogue states...
Btw, from 1990 to 1999, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trucks
and buses increased by 21%, while total highway miles traveled climbed 13%.
I.e. the vehicles' fuel-efficiency DEcreased !
> 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.
Basically, your point is: "The voters are too dumb to make smart decisions,
so let's abolish democracy." This is dangerous and not really smart, because
politicians are *closer* to the vested interests than the electorate is !
The new U.S. administration is a 'nice' illustration of this...
> and we must remind
> ourselves that some highly-informed climatologists still disagree with the
> received wisdom of Kyoto.
Tobacco companies have paid some "highly informed experts" for decades
so they could claim that "there's NO consensus that smoking causes cancer"
-- after all, these "experts" manufactured studies and claims to the contrary.
And the oil&automotive industry is much more powerful than the tobacco
industry (even here in Switzerland which produces neither cars nor petrol,
but cigarettes).
> 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!
This is very dangerous nonsense. The main effect of increased CO2 is
atmospheric destabilisation and extremes to both sides (hot and cold,
droughts and floods, windspeeds), so increased CO2 can ONLY MAKE IT WORSE,
no matter what will happen with solar spots etc.
Chris
_________________________________________________________________________
"The restriction of knowledge to an elite group destroys the spirit of
society and leads to its intellectual impoverishment." --Albert Einstein
