Christoph,
At 22:12 07/04/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Keith Hudson replied:
>> You say that 30 countries have ratified the Kyoto protocol. I'm afraid that
>> they have not.
(CR)
>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).
I don't normally make false claims. It depends on what you mean by
"ratification". I'm using it in the sense that it is normally understood --
that is, that governments have signed on for it with the backing of their
electorates. They haven't. They have little backing. Once again, this is
something that is being attempted to be brought in by the backdoor --
outside what is normally to be considered democratic debate.
Let me put the record straight as regards my attitude to the Kyoto
Protocol. I happen to believe that its main aim is highly important (if its
assumptions are true) and that its mechanism (free trading of emission
rights) is imaginative (and probably workable).
(KH)
>> 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.
(CR)
>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.
You're not being logical here. I have never said that climatic change, even
mild changes, wouldn't produce more consequences to day compared with times
past. I am merely saying that we cannot yet differentiate between man-made
changes and what would have happened anyway from larger natural causes.
(KH)
>> 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.
(CR)
>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.
True.
(KH)
>> 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.
(CR)
>With CO2 reductions, it isn't so easy -- they require *major* changes.
Yes, "major" in an economic sense. You're quite right. I was meaning the
word in a technical sense.
(KH)
>> 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.
(CR)
>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.
Well, I don't know what Bush's real motivation is. I wouldn't deny that he
has close connections with oil producers, but everybody who knows the
polticial scene in Washington agrees that Bush could not have obtained the
agreement of the Senate at the present time.
(KH)
>> 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.
(CR)
>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!).
You're misinterpreting me here. I am far from saying that politicians have
a better understanding. (There is scarcely 1% politicans in any developed
country with scientific training beyond their schooldays.) Yes, politicians
depend upon scientists (or upon lobbyists) but, usually, only some of them
because of limited time and attention span. Politicians can't "supervise"
or "validate" any sort of thorough-going debate of those who really
understand the subject.
A very good example of this is happening right now in the UK with a raging
epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease. Because the Minister of Agriculture was
persuaded by top Ministry officials (in turn beholden to very large
landowner farmers), without any scientific training, who were acting on
premises of out-dated scientific data, he instituted a policy of
slaughtering and burning cattle (2 million so far) which is not only going
to precipitately destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small farmers,
denying countryside walks to millions of ramblers all through this summer,
and has set back the tourist industry (far larger than farming as a
proportion of GDP) for several years. If he had initiated debate among
eminent epidemiologists at the sign of the first outbreak then a quite
different policy of vaccination would have been adopted, and the epidemic
would have been stopped in its tracks within two or three weeks. As it is,
trhe disease continues to rampage.
(CR)
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 !
Yes, I agree. Except that the public must be able to understand what it's
all about. This is why in FW in recent years I've been advocating the
development of a policy-forum type democracy whereby all who have bothered
to study a particular matter can take part.
(KH)
>> 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.
(CR)
>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 !
Once again, I agree that this could be a serious matter.
(KH)
>> 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.
(CR)
>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...
You're distorting what I'm saying. I don't know why you keep on
misrepresenting my case.
I'm not saying:
"The voters are too dumb to make smart decisions, so let's abolish democracy."
I am saying:
"On some subjects the voters are too uninformed to make sensible decisions."
It's precisely because "politicians are *closer* to the vested interests
than the electorate is" that I advocate more democratic procedures -- but
only among those who bother to make themselves informed.
(KH)
>> and we must remind
>> ourselves that some highly-informed climatologists still disagree with the
>> received wisdom of Kyoto.
(CR)
>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).
You are assuming that large companies will always automatically resist
desirable changes no matter what harm their technologies or products may be
doing. This is not so. I've already instanced the rapid adoption of
replacements for CFCs by large companies (far quicker than governments,
many of which have still not legislated on the matter). In the case of
global warming at least two big oil companies (BP and Royal Dutch/Shell)
are now swinging round to supporting the Kyoto Protocol. (And they,
incidentally, are spending significant amounts of money on alternative
technologies such as solar.)
(KH)
>> 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!
(CR)
>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.
Once again, we don't yet know enough. There is still a significant minority
of sceptics among the experts. This is not a "Flat Earth" debate. We can't
simply ignore those who disagree. We need more information yet --
particularly on the take-up of CO2 by the oceans. When this is known more
accurately, then you can be pretty certain that all the experts will come
to 99.99% agreement pretty quickly.
I am just as concerned as you, Christoph, but let's get all the facts in
first before we decide that man can do anything. Whatever we do,
catastrophic climatic change due to deeper effects may be as unavoidable as
the certainty of a super volcano (such as the one that is building up in
Yosemite National Park) that will one day wipe out vast tracts of life on
the surface of the planet. Until we know more about all the CO2 equilibria
and become totally convinced, the Kyoto Protocol has no chance of being
universally acceptable.
Keith Hudson
___________________________________________________________________
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]
________________________________________________________________________
