quote: MONTREAL - Former President Clinton told a global audience of diplomats, environmentalists and others Friday that the Bush administration is “flat wrong” in claiming that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to fight global warming would damage the U.S. economy.
With a “serious disciplined effort” to develop energy-saving technology, he said, “we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets in a way that would strengthen and not weaken our economies.”
It's nice to see a major political player finally taking a serious swing at trying to debunk the myth that being smart about energy production will harm the economy, when in reality the exact opposite is true.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clinton signed Kyoto just for political points, knowing that the Senate would never pass it. (And they didn't, so if you're for making America a Third World country, er, the Kyoto treaty, blame the Senate) I think that it's disingenous that he's attacking Bush for being about as effective as he was.
Despite Clinton's contentions that "Kyoto wouldn't harm the economy", it's not just Bush who feels this way about it, and it's wishful thinking at best to say otherwise.
Perhaps if Kyoto affected some of the other big polluters, such as China, I might be somewhat more sympathetic to it, but as it is, it's pretty much aimed to hurt the United States.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The USA uses a greatly disproportionate amount of the world's energy for its population size, as well as putting out similar levels of pollution. As such, Kyoto would require greater changes of the USA than it would of, say, the UK or Germany. Because we are flagrantly wasteful in some things, by international standards. Fossil fuels being one of them.
However, there are other nations which also pollute a great deal, but not USA levels. The People's Republic of China being an example. However, they are currently undergoing industrialization and modernization which historically has required quite a lot of pollution and resources to achieve.
Since the PRC is modernizing (there are other nations granted similar protections, but the PRC is the best example), and presumably Kyoto does not want to hurt that effort, waivers are made, permitted the PRC to make less changes for the time being than other nations, most particularly the USA, to facilitate their modernization.
I don't think it was targeted at the USA first, I think it was targeted at the world's biggest energy spender and polluter, which happens to be us.
The Senate thought so, too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a shame the drafters decided to give developing nations exemptions and lesser targets under Kyoto.
I think it is a far greater shame that developed countries (mine among them) who could afford to meet their targets used that as an excuse not to.
And I believe that if we see the effects of global warming on a large scale, the economic impact on our countries had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol will seem like a very small price to pay. And I think that if is a big enough risk that we're better off playing it safe than sorry.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it a greater shame, imogen? Much less far greater? If we're serious about this problem, then should we not all be fighting it?
Or are we merely feeling more guilty about our consumption and want to be self-righteous (publicly)?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, imogen, it's been argued rather well by some economists that a relatively small increase in the world temp. from global warming will bring about a net gain economically for the world.
Think about what Canada could do if 3/4 of it wasn't freezing tundra.
This doesn't mean that global warming must be a good thing, of course, but it's something to think about.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should be working with countries like China and help them in developing cleaner ways to develop their industries instead of giving them waivers. We could give them the technology at cost or at least show them how to make their industries much cleaner.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can do better than that, and that's part of how it would help our economy.
Right now, when America wants to buy solar panels, or wind mills, or any of the major renewable energy sources, where do we buy them? Not domestically, that's for sure. The great majority of them are all produced in Europe, mostly Germany.
Creating a renewable energy infrastructure and economy in America will mean thousands of new jobs, which might come in handy as analysts predict the collapse of the housing industry will cost as many as 800,000 jobs. Makes Ford cutting a couple tens of thousands look like a drop in the bucket.
Further, it lets us start to assert pressure on China, a trade rival, into making their economy more renewable friendly. They don't have an excuse, their economy is flush with cash right now, and if America becomes the best place to buy renewable energy machinery from, then we can even the trade gap. This is about bringing jobs, money and even manufacturing jobs back to America.
Beyond that, nuclear power is more viable, and much safer now than it has ever been before, there's no reason why we can't start construction on new plants, and start working on exporting this technology to third world nations that need clear reliable energy. Further, we could use these plants, from what I'm told, to deplete the amount of nuclear waste that has piled up over the years.
The government was willing to invest several billions of dollars to get so many American industries off the ground, but when it comes to renewables, they throw money and research and then claim their hands are tied. It's a smokescreen, and it only works because the Republicans have been so good at convincing people over the years that Pro-Environment means Anti-Business.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lryhawn, I agreed with what you were saying up until the end when you said
quote: It's a smokescreen, and it only works because the Republicans have been so good at convincing people over the years that Pro-Environment means Anti-Business.
I could also argue that Democrats have been so good at convincing people over the years that Pro-Business means Anti-Enviornment
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could also argue that Democrats have been so good at convincing people over the years that Pro-Business means Anti-Enviornment
Both parties do use those stances - and it's not clear to me which came first, and which is the response to the other.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was at school one time, and ran into some Green Party activiperson who was trying to push solar energy (not a bad idea, per se, but disproportionately more expensive than other leading brands) and I brought up the idea of nuclear energy. Wow. You would have thought I'd hauled out a porn magazine at church. But I really agree with you, Lyrhawn, about how it's become much safer. We've never been partial to Chernobylesque reactors. Unfortunately, there haven't been any new nuclear power plants built in the last twenty or so years.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem here, or a big part of it, is that anti-business in this sense means anti-businesses as they are now. When the polluting businesses are in power what motivation is there for them to change when they can use legislation to destroy alternate fuel sources before they become commercially viable on a mass market? I think most of the new energy-efficient technology will either come from overseas, or at least be a response to imported technology.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, on both sides, business and environmentalists see each other as enemies, and it doesn't make either more willing to make concessions to the other. Hence, those really goofy hybrid cars that just scream out "I'm a environmentalist zealot! Look at me!" Someone told a funny about how they got lost going to a Ariana Huffington party, so they decided to follow a hybrid car that was driving by on the general prinicple that the only people who would drive one would be going to the party as well. They were right.
Perhaps if environmentalists were willing to acknowledge that businesses aren't the devil (that's Carrot Top), and work with businesses, they might have more success. And they might convince those like myself who believe that modern environmentalism is more about socialism than the environment, that we are wrong.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I agree that more needs to be done in the way of preserving the environment, I don't agree with the specific targeting of the U.S. out of all this. Yeah, we use up about a fourth of the total energy used on the planet, and so we produce more pollution. What it seems like no one pays attention to is that we also produce about a fourth of the world's goods, too; we're not using up any more than the rest of the world, proportional to what is produced. If something is going to be done towards saving the environment, everyone has to participate instead of pointing to the U.S. and saying the ever-so-popular, 'It's your fault.'
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I'm trying to figure out what you are saying about hybrid, and by extension eletric, cars, and about the people that drive them . . .
I'm saying that they're the mirror image of people who drive Hummers. With a little sanctimonious piety added in.
Now, they are coming out with hybrid cars that don't look any different than real cars, and so my comments are not reflective on them. Honda has a nice Civic Hybrid that I would be willing to buy.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I really like the idea of Nuclear Power, I never understood why no one seems to think of it as a viable option. Given a choice between Nuclear Power and Solar or Wind Power, I'd choose Nuclear any day. Why is it that no one seems to think of Nuclear Power as a viable option.
I really want a hybrid car. My friend has one, and she let me drive it once. I could just feel the efficiency every time I braked, it was great. I do not, however, know who or what Ariana Huffington is.
The problem is that a lot of businesses aren't willing to work with environmentalists either. Most businesses seem to be out for the bottom line, and the bottom line is very rarely any good for society or for the environment. I know that opinion makes me a crazy liberal or something in your eyes, tern. But I don't think I am. Look at Ben and Jerry's for example, they manage to make quite a bit of money while maintaining business practices that benefit society. You seem like you want environmentalists to make all of the concessions, when in reality both sides need to make concessions.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't consider you a crazy liberal, blacwolve. And I think that concessions need to happen on both sides. My feeling about the relationship between the two is that environmentalists are just inconveniences for businesses - because they are concerned with the bottom line, it's not personal - but conversely, environmentalists have much more negative feelings towards businesses. Certainly, businesses need to show concern for the environment. Likewise, environmentalists need to show concern for businesses. Acting like businesses are an evil aberration of a corrupt capitalist system which will be washed away by sweet, sweet socialism (hyperbole alert) is not a good attitude to have when trying to get businesses to be more responsible.
Arianna Huffington is an interesting character, you can see her attitudes (and a lot of her liberal friends) on www.huffingtonpost.com. Great resource for liberal news and attitudes.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, tern. I'm not sure if I should respect the fact that you make no bones about prejudging people like that.
We own a fully electric car. We also own a traditional internal combustion car. We use the regular car for driving any substantial distance, because the electric car can go neither very far nor very fast. But my wife and I both work within a couple of miles of where we live--and our two daughters go to school within a mile of home, too. So we use the electric car for our day-to-day driving. We use it because it's economical. It never needs gasoline (and the price-per-mile to drive it is about a third of that of a traditional car). It never needs an oil change. It never has any kind of a breakdown, because it doesn't get stressed the same way as an internal combustion car does. (In four years we have owned it, we have never needed service of any sort.) The only maintenance it requires is to add distilled water to the batteries every month or so--honestly, I'm pretty lucky if I get around to it every two months.
You know what else? It's a lot of fun to drive.
We bought the car because it made sense for us. It's economical, and yeah, we like thinking that we're doing something good for the environment. Does that make us sanctimonious? I have never given anyone attitude about what they drive.
Am I a kooky liberal? I don't think so. Half of the candidates I voted for in the last election were republicans. I voted libertarian for president in 2000, and republican in 1992. I'm also pro-life and pro-vouchers, and live in a rather affluent (read "republican") community.
I haven't judged you, but you have judged me, and without knowing anything about me. And I'm the sanctimonious one?
One of the things I used to think was really cool about Hatrack was it's diversity, not in terms of race or whatever, but in terms of lifestyle. The people here are much less homogenous than those in my daily life. I have loved learning about Orthodox Judaism from rivka, about living in a "commune" from plaid, about Mormonism from dozens of posters, about fundemantalist Christianity from a handful of fundamentalist members, about law school from Dagonee, France from Anna, Sri Lanka fromn quidscribis, and about lots of places I've never visited from the many other international Hatrackers, and from the American Hatrackers who live in other parts of the country. I've gotten to interact, in a friendly way, with people different from me in dozens of ways. People ten years older than me. People twenty years younger than me. People who are gay. People who are disabled. Atheists, agnostics, and pagans.
When it really works, you start to realize that even though you may think someone's opinions or decisions are wrong, in many cases the people you meet are still good people trying to do right as they see it.
One of the things that has frustrated me so much with Hatrack lately is the perception that this has changed, that it's okay now to judge people you don't know.
Hearing myself judged by you when you don't know the first thing about me really disappoints me.
quote: Arianna Huffington is an interesting character, you can see her attitudes (and a lot of her liberal friends) on www.huffingtonpost.com. Great resource for liberal news and attitudes.
Um. Well. It's a great resource for certain SORTS of "liberal" news and attitudes. I wouldn't exactly call it authoritative.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there is any site that is the authoritative source for liberal news and attitudes. If there is, I'd like to know what it is, as it would save having to make the occasional foray into Daily Kos and Democratic Underground.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention that I said earlier that I'd be willing to buy one now. Perhaps that would indicate that my attitudes are not as all-inclusive and judgmental as you seem to think.
Having said that, everyone prejudges. I get prejudged as well. That's the hazard of being one of the more conservative posters on a somewhat liberal website. Instead of getting offended, why not enlighten me? Perhaps I might change my opinion that many people who own hybrid/electric cars don't do it to make a statement (that I consider to be often sanctimonious) about their views on the environment. You won't get me to change my opinion that the older style ones are desperately ugly, but then again, I don't like Ford as well. Personal preference.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, Icky, if someone posts a hateful statement about the owners of electric cars, of course it doesn't apply to you, the owner of an electric car. Duh.
Tern, maybe you shouldn't make a hateful generalization about owners of electric cars if you don't mean it to apply to all the owners of electric cars. Just a thought.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I looked at your website and saw pictures of your car. If you aren't driving it to make a statement, and you said you weren't, so I will accept that at face value, then in my experience you are a rarity.
Where do I get this negative impression of electric car drivers from? My undergraduate university. Our Associated Students bought several of those, specifically to make a statement about environmentalism. They even announced it that way in the school newspaper. These are the same guys who every semester pass a resolution demanding that the university spend a lot of money it doesn't have converting the whole campus over to solar power, and spend about seven million dollars every year on a recycling program which brings in one million dollars. They truly are sanctimonious environmentalists. That's my experience. I'll gladly add you to another group of those who indicate otherwise, but so far you are the only one.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the majority of people today are buying hybrids because of fuel savings, not to make a statement.
What I think would be interesting, is if all the environmental groups who spend millions every year trying to stop polluters actually spent that money challenging them on the market. Challenge them by starting a new renewable energy infrastructure in America, and if anyone tries to squelch it, label THEM Anti-Business AND Anti-Environment. That's a one-two punch it'll be hard to sneak out from under.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My undergraduate university. Our Associated Students bought several of those, specifically to make a statement about environmentalism. They even announced it that way in the school newspaper. These are the same guys who every semester pass a resolution demanding that the university spend a lot of money it doesn't have converting the whole campus over to solar power, and spend about seven million dollars every year on a recycling program which brings in one million dollars.
Perhaps you here more about people who are making a statement with their cars because they are making a statement with their cars.
Some guy buys a hybrid because he needs a new car and wants to spend his own money to help out the environment a little, you're not going to hear about it.
Also, and I mean this in the kindest way possible, extrapolating anything about college-level student government to the real world is a miss-or-really-miss proposition.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What I think would be interesting, is if all the environmental groups who spend millions every year trying to stop polluters actually spent that money challenging them on the market. Challenge them by starting a new renewable energy infrastructure in America, and if anyone tries to squelch it, label THEM Anti-Business AND Anti-Environment. That's a one-two punch it'll be hard to sneak out from under.
I would be completely up for that, and would be willing to support something like that. If you can give a business a cost-effective way to save the environment, then they can justify it by the bottom line. Everybody wins.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, and I mean this in the kindest way possible, extrapolating anything about college-level student government to the real world is a miss-or-really-miss proposition.
I agree completely. But one has to work with the evidence one has.
You know the sad thing about Starbucks, is that there are people on the Left who are starting to attack them as well. As well as Reverend Billy, whatever side he represents. They can't win.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But one has to work with the evidence one has.
But when one knows ones evidence is skewed, by the nature of college and the fact that people making statements will be counted in ones sample more than people who aren't, it might be a good idea to not make the snap judgments about the hundreds of thousands of people you have no evidence about yet.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not exactly. In this case, I took it as evidence that people who are as little in touch with the real world put such importance on it, that people who are little in touch with the world would tend to buy them. If I recall correctly, the particular brand that my school bought stopped production soon after because very few people bought them. Hardly hundreds of thousands of people.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know the sad thing about Starbucks, is that there are people on the Left who are starting to attack them as well. As well as Reverend Billy, whatever side he represents. They can't win.
When has the left ever NOT attacked Starbucks? When has the left ever spared ANY major national corporation?
Reason #4137 why I'm not a democrat.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Estimates are 280,000 in hybrid sales in 2004 and 2005 alone. Throw prior hybrid sales and electric, and hundreds of thousand ain't a stretch.
quote:In this case, I took it as evidence that people who are as little in touch with the real world put such importance on it, that people who are little in touch with the world would tend to buy them.
You're extrapolating from incomplete data. "the people I have observed who do X have attribute Y, therefore most people who do X have attribute Y."
The reason it's a big deal is beacause it's leading you to inadvertently misclassify people who I happen to have a lot of respect for.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also used Dennis Quaid's character from the Day After Tommorrow in forming my opinion - yes, I'm aware that Hollywood has as much in touch with reality as a Dali painting - and the only time that I actually saw one outside of the University, it had Green Party stickers on it. Three pieces of evidence for, non against until Icarus. I still remain unconvinced that Icarus is anything other than an exception.
However, adam makes a good point that hybrids are becoming more popular because of rising gas prices.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, one always extrapolates from incomplete data. One can always go around refusing to make conclusions until one has all the information, but I don't think that is a good idea. After one makes an extrapolation from incomplete data, one then revises it for new information. I have now revised my extrapolation from allowing for the possibility of an exception to exist, to determining that an exception does exist. Perhaps, with more data, my extrapolation might change. Or perhaps, it will strengthen my original point. You've provided possibilites that my extrapolation might be incorrect, but you've not provided any specific examples.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I live near Disney World. The intellectuals (and this word is often used synonymously with "liberals") attack them for various reasons including that their entertainment is too populist, and their standards for personal grooming and attire are too conservative. Fundamentalist Christians (often equated with "conservatives") bash Disney because of their gay-friendly employment practices and all kinds of kooky sexual messages they claim to see in Disney films.
*shrug*
Sometimes you can't win.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, everybody forms extrapolations from incomplete data. It's a necessary part of life. Most people take the relative strength of the data into account when deciding how to apply those conclusions, especially when it comes to unnecessary conclusions.
Some people recognize that their conclusions are therefore likely to be wrong refrain from making conclusions such as "people who drive hybrids are zealots." Some people, however, leap full ahead with their unfounded conclusions without regard for their shaky foundation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter if it's wrong - it's unfounded.
In northern virginia, hybrids got to use the HOV lanes for a number of years, which could save a half hour or more each way on some commutes.
Your sample as you've described it is so small that no reliable conclusion can be drawn from it about the population of hybrid drivers. And yet you rely on it to carelessly make fairly insulting judgments about people you interact with socially.
Frankly, you make us other conservatives look bad.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Oh, I know. The reason I pointed out one of an unending list of reasons I'm not a democrat is because people see and talk to me and assume I am one, because my social views are mostly extremely liberal (except for a few random ones, like my unending support of the death penalty). You would never confuse me for a conservative.
But I hate, hate, hate liberal economic thinking. Hate it.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, a lot of people around here have them, as do a lot of people in Key West and other towns arranged (on purpose as in my case or by happenstance as in KW) on New Urbanist principles. This arrangement of a town with everything in extremely close proximity makes neighborhood electric vehicles a great fit, because they're easier to find parking for, cheaper to insure, and less likely to take damage from short-distance driving. (What I mean by this is that the most damage to your engine occurs at startup, because the oil is not being circulated in your engine. Short distance stop and go traffic is more damaging to your car than driving on the interstate is.)
Actually, come to think of it, New Urbanism may be exactly the sort of thing Lyrhawn is hoping to see. New Urbanist towns have proven extremely popular in the last decade or so, and our home values have risen even faster than the rest of the market has--which would please developers and investors. And yet the very architecture of our town encourages (but in no way mandates) many environmentally friendly actions. We have less wasted land. More people walk places, or ride bicycles as transportation. We have more shade which hopefully has a positive effect on our cooling bills. etc.
Anyway, not only do I own an electric car, I also know a lot of other people who do. And, FWIW, I don't no anybody who does it "sanctimoniously." (To be honest, I'm not entirely positive how the term can be applied to car ownership. Or rather, I understand what tern means, but I don't see how you can distinguish between someone who is genuinely sanctimonious in his or her choice of car, and someone who is "an exception.") The people I know include my local state representative (a republican). They include a secretary at my school, who is staunchly liberal and, I imagine, pro-environment as well--but does this necessarily make her ownership of the car sanctimonious? They include my former next door neighbor, an airline pilot who bought one for his daughter's first car, because this way he knew she could not get far from home, or drive too insanely. Actually, I've heard that one many times. They include my department head, a decorated combat veteran (he was in the air force in Vietnam). They include my school's drama teacher. (I don't know her politics. I do know that she's a big Michigan Wolverines fan, though, because she painted her car blue and gold, with a big M and "Go Big Blue!" on it. )
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When every encounter that I've had indicates a certain conclusion, when the rhetoric that I read (I read liberal websites occasionally) indicates the same conclusion, when the entire environmentalist left agitates against SUVs, vehicular pollution, and oil drilling and agitates for hybrid cars, then I don't think that my conclusion is hardly unfounded. It it still wrong? Possibly, but you've yet to give me anything to indicate otherwise, just that stated that the student government is filled with unrealistic people. Yet, part of my point is that many people who buy hybrid vehicles are unrealistic.
Now that I know that there are exceptions, such as Icarus, I know that it would have been better to clarify my generalization with "most of".
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
