Should Ireland Withdraw from the Kyoto Agreement?

jady88

I was once a massive supporter of the Kyoto accord but now as I watch the world progress I'm beging to believe that this agreement may not be the way forward. I care about the enviroment but should we really retard our economic development to achieve what at best minimal improvements? And if we are to stay in the accord how can begin to achieve the targets and yet further our economic development.

Transcendant

I get that its like a bit of failed idea but i still wonder if there is any alternative? We have to do something about the enviroment and to be honest I would be much more in favour of some huge investment in new technology which would create jobs rather than restrictive meassures:)

jady88

Yeah technology is the only way I mean its fine and good for us in the agreement to cut back but if the wrest of the world does nothing then its a waist. I believe its time for us to ditch this waist of time and concentrate more on more radical ways of eliminating high polution.

saibhne

What other radical way would you suggest to solve a global problem other than a global agreement?

jady88

saibhne wrote:

What other radical way would you suggest to solve a global problem other than a global agreement?

Firstly i don't think that a world agreement is that radical and secondly its not that i think a world wide approach isn't needed i just feel the terms of this agreement are frankly ****. Were suppoosed to stop pollution by cutting down emmisions etc. which will lead to job losses etc.

And what about developing countries they need cheap quick energy sources like coal etc. are they supposed to spend millions now on new enviromently friendly power stations while there people starve? Because thats kind off unenviromentally friendly aswell.

I would propose that since this is a global issue the UN be given command of our initiatives with the power to punish any nation not doing ist fair share. We need to ditch oil now so nuclear power is unfortunatly our main alternative at the moment. Secondly i ditch any cost inhibitions to cleaner car fuel etc. by subsidisng it using massive new taxes on petrol and other oil based products.:D

Transcendant

Definitly!

I think it should be this nations aim to be the first nation in the world to be completley oil independent in the world. I know this might seem like a long shot for the most heavily oil dependent nation in europe but we could do it if we made a concerted effort. Certainly this outdated and weak accord is not the solution it promises an economic tail spinn that would ultimatly lead to more oil consumption:mad:

saibhne

jady88 wrote:

Firstly i don't think that a world agreement is that radical and secondly its not that i think a world wide approach isn't needed i just feel the terms of this agreement are frankly ****. Were suppoosed to stop pollution by cutting down emmisions etc. which will lead to job losses etc.

And what about developing countries they need cheap quick energy sources like coal etc. are they supposed to spend millions now on new enviromently friendly power stations while there people starve? Because thats kind off unenviromentally friendly aswell.

I would propose that since this is a global issue the UN be given command of our initiatives with the power to punish any nation not doing ist fair share. We need to ditch oil now so nuclear power is unfortunatly our main alternative at the moment. Secondly i ditch any cost inhibitions to cleaner car fuel etc. by subsidisng it using massive new taxes on petrol and other oil based products.:D

If the terms of the agreement are **** as you put it then work towards changing them, don't run away from them.. what good will that do? Will the third world countries you mention benefit from our withdrawl? Will we benefit in the long term?

We are a small country and our actions have more symbolic currency than real effect in terms of climate change. Even if we became oil independent tomorrow the world would continue to warm, the dangers asssociated with that would still be present and we and the rest of the world would still be in the firing line. What we need to do is promote a global solution and Kyoto is an important vehicle to that end.
Cutting back on emmissions is going to be hard but it was always going to be that way it's the bed we have made for ourselves. The positive to focus on from this difficult cut back is that as fossil fuel energy becomes more and more expensive to produce newer and cleaner technologies and lifestyles will replace them - they have to and they are achievable.
Giving power to the UN to police the issue is unworkable, two of the biggest polluters (the US and China) sit on the security council, they will never advocate sanctions against themselves.
As for the third world - there isn't a risk of starvation because of a need to burn fossil fuels! They are starving because their crops are failing - they are agrarian societies and there is nothing to eat because due to a shift in climate the rains they need to fall are not falling.

jady88

saibhne wrote:

If the terms of the agreement are **** as you put it then work towards changing them, don't run away from them.. what good will that do? Will the third world countries you mention benefit from our withdrawl? Will we benefit in the long term?

We are a small country and our actions have more symbolic currency than real effect in terms of climate change. Even if we became oil independent tomorrow the world would continue to warm, the dangers asssociated with that would still be present and we and the rest of the world would still be in the firing line. What we need to do is promote a global solution and Kyoto is an important vehicle to that end.
Cutting back on emmissions is going to be hard but it was always going to be that way it's the bed we have made for ourselves. The positive to focus on from this difficult cut back is that as fossil fuel energy becomes more and more expensive to produce newer and cleaner technologies and lifestyles will replace them - they have to and they are achievable.
Giving power to the UN to police the issue is unworkable, two of the biggest polluters (the US and China) sit on the security council, they will never advocate sanctions against themselves.
As for the third world - there isn't a risk of starvation because of a need to burn fossil fuels! They are starving because their crops are failing - they are agrarian societies and there is nothing to eat because due to a shift in climate the rains they need to fall are not falling.

I understand fully the dangers of pollution but its hard for countries like ethiopia to think in the long term while thousands upon millions starve around them. Ofcourse it is benifical to everyone to cut back on pollution but i believe firmly that the present method and idea of simply unworkable, especially in third world countries already so intrenched in crisis' that what is needed is quick and relatively cheap sources of energy like coal. Its all fine and good for all us developed countries who have used our coal oil etc. to now look down on India etc. but in reality they are only taking the next natural step in economic and human development.

I also recognise that Ireland is only a small world but at the same point as "tescos" say every little helps and why stop in Ireland why not go across the entire EU or world. Ambition = success. And as point of information the united states is not inherently apposed to helping the enviroment they just think the best way to do it is through human inovation not limitations.:D

Akrasia

countries like ethiopia, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of not thinking about Climate change, they're in a much more precarious position than we are in. If Global warming continues, they're going to experience even more Droughts and famine and pestilence than they already have.

Limiting greenhouse gas production is essential. Kyoto might not go far enough (in fact it definitely doesn't go far enough) But to object to Kyoto because it costs too much? that's completely the wrong approach. The economic cost of not reducing our emmissions will be far far higher than the short term economic impact of a transition to a sustainable world.

We need countries taking individual initiatives, but we also need international agreement and pressure on all countries to play their part. Kyoto has Fines attached for those who do not comply (Ireland are set for huge fines because of the incompetence of our government). I don't know who gets the money from those fines, it's probably the U.N. But i certainly hope that the Fine Money is ringfenced and used to pay for necessary environmental initiatives that states and corporations refuse to pay for.

jady88

Akrasia wrote:

countries like ethiopia, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of not thinking about Climate change, they're in a much more precarious position than we are in. If Global warming continues, they're going to experience even more Droughts and famine and pestilence than they already have.

Limiting greenhouse gas production is essential. Kyoto might not go far enough (in fact it definitely doesn't go far enough) But to object to Kyoto because it costs too much? that's completely the wrong approach. The economic cost of not reducing our emmissions will be far far higher than the short term economic impact of a transition to a sustainable world.

I get that in the long run we can only benifit from improving the enviroment and our relationship with it but the reality is that Kyoto is a narrow and weak agreement which is being largely ignored not because of government incompetence but rather because the manor in which it sought to reach its goal was flawed. Any limitations on human development are doomed to failure, the reason because we are inherently greedy. We will refuse to listen to talk of global and longterm benefits if in the short term it means a lower standard of living. This accord should be scraped now and replaced by a stricter and more proactive one that uses human greed, ambition and innovation to its advantage. As we see in the USA today.

saibhne

jady88 wrote:

We will refuse to listen to talk of global and longterm benefits if in the short term it means a lower standard of living.

Please explain how by adhering to the ideals of Kyoto we will experience a lower standard of living?
I don't think this is true, Small changes will have big benefits; by changing the way we live, the way we produce and consume, where we live and work, the houses we build and live in, the products we buy, the people we vote in to government, by taking the bus, by turning off the lights, by using our heads we can make the transition necessary to get us out of trouble. This is an opportunity as well as a risk and if we manage to get through then the result will be a higher standard of living - less commuting, more leisure time, better health to name a few.

Please expand on how you think the way the USA operates would be beneficial in solving climate change? Kyoto was introduced primarily because voluntary measures had failed to make any impact on halting the emmission of greenhouse gasses and liberal economics still favoured the cheapest energy option which remained fossil fuel.

Also I'm still not sure about what kind of prohibitive/stricter accord you are advocating. Surely the fines that we face from the EU are going to be tough enough? These fines are based on compliance with the Kyoto agreement. What else would you like to see?

bonkey

jady88 wrote:

I get that in the long run we can only benifit from improving the enviroment and our relationship with it

But do you get that there is mounting evidence that in the medium-to-long term, we can only lose from allowing the environment to continue to deteriorate?
Its a subtly different point, which is why I ask.

but the reality is that Kyoto is a narrow and weak agreement which is being largely ignored not because of government incompetence but rather because the manor in which it sought to reach its goal was flawed.

Kyoto is narrow and weak because there was no chance of getting agreement on anything more substantial. It was known from day1 that the impact of Kyoto being successful would effectively be nothing, other than that it would make us more capable and willing when it came to making the meaningful changes. Learn to walk before you run, and all that.

Criticising Kyoto would be a bit like saying that it was pointless for Ewan McGregor to learn skills on a 125cc bike when he was going to be using a 1500cc jobby to go the Long Way Round. Without learning the skills on the no-use-for-travelling bike was he was never going to be able to travel.

Any limitations on human development are doomed to failure, the reason because we are inherently greedy.

So the US didn't abolish slavery? The British still have kids working in workhouses? Glib, I know, but the truth is that there is no shortage of limitations on human development which have not been doomed to failure.

Our oceans melting and looding most coastal land (where 60% of the world lives) is also a limitation on human development. It is arguably a greater limitation on human development than the cut-backs that all of our efforts to try and mitigate some of said effects would be. So is it too doomed to failure?

We will refuse to listen to talk of global and longterm benefits if in the short term it means a lower standard of living.

Who's we? People in general? People in the developed world? Americans?

You're basically arguing that we (whoever this "we" is) live "George Best style" - increasingly aware that our/their lifestyle will be our/their downfall, but unwilling to make the sacrifices in order to try and avoid / forestall said downfall. Thats not greed. Thats either addiction or stupidity. The former we can sometimes cure. The latter is terminal.

This accord should be scraped now and replaced by a stricter and more proactive one

No-one will agree to a stricter one. Thats why they didn't agree to one first time round. Kyoto ended up as the lowest common denominator, it didn't start that way.

that uses human greed, ambition and innovation to its advantage. As we see in the USA today.

The USA today is not using greed to drive ecological friendliness. It is using greed to drive its economy, whilst offering the empty argument that these greedy people will somehow automagically become more environmentally friendly as technology improves. Indeed, the Bush Administration has shown itself to be a big fan of what it calls "self-regulation", which is a euphemism for "non-regulation". And - as you succinctly point out - envuironmentalism costs and these people are greedy.

If thats "stricter" than Kyoto, I'd love to hear what your definition of more relaxed is.

If you see that as a model more likely to succeed, then I ask why you want a replacement for Kyoto, when what we see in the USA today is no Kyoto, no strictness, and a move towards less rather than more regulation. So it would seem that the "USA today" replacement for Kyoto is....to have nothing to replace it.

jc

jady88

Regulising will not achieve anything but retard any economic development.
Lessing the regulations will give people more freedom to develop new technology and for your information the US has not abandoned enviromentalism it simply feels that by giving the private sector more room to move they will see the benefiits of enviromentally productive methods and thus be far more effective than any government legislation.

Akrasia

jady88 wrote:

Regulising will not achieve anything but retard any economic development.
Lessing the regulations will give people more freedom to develop new technology and for your information the US has not abandoned enviromentalism it simply feels that by giving the private sector more room to move they will see the benefiits of enviromentally productive methods and thus be far more effective than any government legislation.

that is complete and utter nonsense.

Businesses will 'Externalise' all the costs that they are not forced to account for. If it's 50% cheaper for a corporation to pollute than it is for them to not pollute, then the corporation will pollute. The only ways to stop them from polluting are to either make it illegal for them to pollute (and enforce it) or to force them to pay the cost of their pollution. Businesses won't do this volountarily, why would they? in a competitive environment, they would be at a disadvantage if they took on more costs than their competitors.

The total cost of pollution is far far higher than the cost of moving to a sustainable economy, the only reason we aren't becoming more sustainable, is because the costs are being passed on to wider society.

bonkey

jady88 wrote:

Regulising will not achieve anything but retard any economic development.

As I said - the banning of slavery and child labour both retarded economic development at the time.

I don't see your point.

Economic development is not a God to whom we must sacrifice mindlessly. We, as a society, define what are and are not acceptable means by which economic development can be achieved. That definition is formalised, firstly in general accepted practice, and secondly in legal form when realised practice does not meet our requirements.

In other words...so what if it retards economic development, if it is deemed on balance to be the preferable option. Yes, its a cost, and no, people should not ignore it or remove it from consideration...but that still does not in and of itself mean that regulation is inherently wrong.

Lessing the regulations will give people more freedom to develop new technology

I'm all for giving tax-breaks to research which is targetted at environmentally improving our situation, or other forms of encouraging innovation in this regard. If people want to innovatate, I'm all for it.

However, the question is when will they develop enough to offset the lack of restraint you are encouraging? And what will be the cost of this time-gap? Neither you nor anyone else can answer those questions meaningfully, so you'll forgive me if I don't put much faith in the gamble that assuming it'll all be alright soon enough entails.

and for your information the US has not abandoned enviromentalism

Not entirely. Only so much can be achieved per term.

it simply feels that by giving the private sector more room to move they will see the benefiits of enviromentally productive methods and thus be far more effective than any government legislation.

And the results to date? Can you point to any area which has been deregulated which has seen a significant environmental improvement?

jc