|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...the rest of us haven't been particularly impressed with the United States' diplomacy and foreign policy either - Iraq, anyone? |
Impasse again. Nowhere to go from here except to say "this is why we are not so enthusiastic to sit at the table and talk with 'the rest of you.'" You harbor hard and fast and extremely harsh opinions about us, for one. |
Actually, not about 'you' as Americans, just about your walking disaster of an administration. You're happy to bring the completely irrelevant Iranian hostage situation into this conversation as an example of why you think the US shouldn't have to cooperate with the rest of the world, then when I point out that the US has also done a lot to undermine the developing systems of international cooperation, you get upset? I think the impasse is not so much between Americans and the rest of the world, but between you and those who don't always insist on giving the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt, regardless of nationality.
As for 'sneering', 'light of the free world' was perhaps said with some ironic undertones, but was not meant to be mocking. Like I said, I think that the best thing that the US can do, along with the rest of the developed world, is to set a good example. Certainly, without the efforts and guidance of those countries best equipped to do something about global warming, there is no hope that any of the others will be able to do anything. Adopting a position of paranoid resentment will just make everyone losers. That's the prisoner's dilemma for you.
So is this your final position on the matter of international environmental agreements? That the rest of the world is out to get the US, so screw any hopes for international co-operation and screw the countries that will be most affected? You know, Gopher, this isn't a zero-sum game.
Oh yeah, and SHAME ON CANADA for not sticking to Kyoto. [spit] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
^^ SHAME ON THE UNITED KINGDOM
More on the Politics vs. Science front regarding Friday's report:
Scientists, governments clash over warming report
By Jeff Mason Fri Apr 6, 11:43 AM ET
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Scientists clashed with government officials at a U.N. panel on climate change on Friday over how strongly global warming is affecting plants and animals and the degree to which humans are causing temperatures to rise.
More than 100 nations in the U.N. group agreed a final text after all-night talks that were punctuated by protests from researchers, who accused delegates of ignoring science and watering down a summary version of the report for policymakers.
Environmentalists say governments tried to weaken the report in order to avoid taking strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia were the main culprits at the meeting, delegates said.
"It looks like very blatant vested interests are trying to stop particular messages getting out," said Neil Adger from Britain's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
"We give our best to provide the best scientific assessment, but when the wording of that is then changed ... we get very upset. It's three years' work."
He said delegates had also tried to weaken the link between greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans and the impacts of global warming worldwide.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) groups 2,500 scientists and is the top authority on climate change. ... (article continues)
From here.
Did politics trump science in global warming report?
Patricia Romero Lankao, a sociologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., confirmed that delegates from the United States, China and Saudi Arabia forced the writers of the report summary to "downplay" the level of certainly about the damage to the environment and species by human-caused warming.
�That was a really hard discussion,� Romero Lankao told O'Driscoll in a telephone conference call from Brussels.
Stanford University biologist Terry Root, whose own chapter in the report was the one in dispute, told O'Driscoll: �It is really of concern if governments are allowed to rewrite some of the science, changing some of what we know at a very high confidence level. I�m concerned. We�re jeopardizing the power that the IPCC report carries.�
Some scientists were so upset by that action that they have vowed not to participate in the conference any more, the AP reported. The conference is scheduled to release two more reports this year.
From USA Today
Power-politics are indeed a serious concern when it comes to getting accurate scientific information, it seems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| After all, why should the US do something if India and China... |
Suppose for argument's sake America ratifies and implements Kyoto in good faith. Further suppose America scales back its economy (and loses global hegemony) |
Irrelevant bullshit. Merging to an economy that reduces global warming will in no way damage US economic power. This is fear politics, nothing more.
To wit:
China already has higher vehicle emissions standards than the US. Gee, how'd they do that without destroying their economy?
Vast new economies will be created.
Getting off oil and coal before they deplete will avoid massive economic disruption. (Oil's MAXIMUM period to full depletion is 132 years IF every known and suspected drop were actually economically useful AND demand remained at 84 bb a day.)
Reducing global warming will PREVENT the spending of trillions on saving people, cities, countries.
As usual, gopher, irrelevant. Try reading where a group of multi-national's CEO's begged the president to get his shit together on the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:59 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| If it's a problem, then it's a problem. To suggest that the US not do more because other countries may not follow suit or other countries are "sneering at us" seems reactionary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ...delegates from the United States, China and Saudi Arabia forced the writers of the report summary to "downplay" the level of certainly about the damage to the environment and species by human-caused warming. |
Of course, we have not begun to get into their interests in this yet, either. I imagine a switch from fossil fuels to something more ecologically-friendly would utterly destroy their political economies as well.
Gang ah jee: how about a specific, workable proposal, then? What exactly would you have the American govt do? And how would you bring other international actors like Britain, Canada, China, and Saudi Arabia (all containing complex interests underneath the surface) in line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Of course, we have not begun to get into their interests in this yet, either. I imagine a switch from fossil fuels to something more ecologically-friendly would utterly destroy their political economies as well. |
Well, I won't be shedding any tears at the fall of the house of Saud. You?
| Gopher wrote: |
| how about a specific, workable proposal, then? What exactly would you have the American govt do? And how would you bring other international actors like Britain, Canada, China, and Saudi Arabia (all containing complex interests underneath the surface) in line? |
Heh, I don't presume to know much about policy, but I if you like I'll share some of my thoughts. Firstly, involvement in a treaty like Kyoto isn't the only means by which solutions will be reached, but it does provide a mechanism by which countries can exert international pressure on defectors. Thus, while the US could do enormous amounts towards developing solutions without being part of such a treaty, participation within the treaty increases credibility and influence if they wish to bring others in line. But overall, I think the hope for countries like China and India is that they will voluntarily adopt more neutral technologies in the future based on market principles. Remember also, that for many reasons it is actually in China and India's interests to adopt cleaner technologies right now. If the technologies are any good, we may actually get to use more energy for cheaper prices than we do now, which means more production and consumption for everyone in the world. Hooray!
Other than that, generally, I agree with Weart:
| Spencer Weart wrote: |
Many things can be done right now that are not only cheap and effective, but will actually pay for themselves through benefits entirely aside from acting against global warming. Americans in particular � the world's most promiscuous emitters of greenhouse gases and the ones best placed to do something about it � can set an example. A good start would be to remove the government subsidies for fossil fuels, which are huge, mostly hidden, and economically unsound. Another sensible step would be to gradually raise the tax on gasoline by a few dollars (comparable to what nearly all other industrial nations pay, and compensated by lowering other taxes) to cover the actual costs of roads, traffic congestion, accident injuries and illness due to smog. Other economically beneficial policies could improve fuel efficiency in many areas, protect forests, and so forth. Looking beyond carbon dioxide, we can save money while reducing the greenhouse effect by fixing leakage of methane from pipelines, attacking unhealthy smoke emissions, and carrying out various other changes. Such steps can be taken, and in fact are being taken, not only by national governments but by local governments, and by most businesses and individual citizens.
Most important of all, regulation and "price signals" will stimulate development of technologies and practices that can advance human welfare with far lower greenhouse gas emission. A good bit of that development is already underway, but technologies do not magically grow by themselves. According to economic demands, technology may remain stagnant or dash forward to solve problems with remarkable speed. The control of CFCs, for example, turned out to be far easier and cheaper than the regulated industries feared.
To say that such steps are socially or politically "impossible" is to forget that people have made far greater changes once they set their minds to it (think how Americans' patterns of living and working, even of eating, have changed over the past 50 years!). Citizens can reconsider their personal practices, and put pressure on businesses and governments. This is not a job for someone else, sometime down the road: we have already run out of time. Without delay, nations should join � as nearly all but the United States have done � in working out systems for applying standards on the international scale, which is where climate operates. The first practical steps, the really cheap and easy ones, will not have a big impact on future global warming. But starting off will give the world experience in developing and negotiating the right technologies and policies. We will need this experience if, as is likely, climate change becomes so harmful that it compels us to make greater efforts.
Like many threats, global warming calls for greater government activity, and that rightly worries people. But in the 21st century the alternative to government action is not individual liberty: it is corporate power. And the role of large corporations in this story has been mostly negative, a tale of self-interested obfuscation and short-sighted delay. The atmosphere is a classic case of a "commons" � like the old shared English meadows, where any given individual could only gain by adding more of his own cows, although everyone lost from the overgrazing. In such cases only public rules can protect the public interest. |
Overall, I'd say that Kyoto is not necessary to a solution, but it will help things in the long run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| If it's a problem, then it's a problem. To suggest that the US not do more because other countries may not follow suit or other countries are "sneering at us" seems reactionary. |
And childish. If you don't, I won't. That's moral and ethical reasoning at the very base levels. I.e., of young children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
