The myth of Kyoto
Kyoto is one of the greatest myths of all our time. With ancent temples, shrines and pagodas, a philosopher’s path and vivid night life, it’s not strange that the Kyoto protocol was written in one of the mythical places of Japan. Since the protocol is a myth.
The Kyoto protocol has effected the world economy, and the goals that were set up were too high for many countries to even follow. George W Bush is the only guy who got that. Just by not signing a protocol doesn’t mean that countries won’t take their responsibilities.
The danger about the Kyoto protocol is that the countries that contribute to pollute most are the developing countries. By strict regulations, people will risk to loose their jobs, and not being able to support their families and stop the economical development.
By letting the technical and economical development occur, you simply develop better technique and methods to keep the environment clean. Because honestly, most countries can’t live up to the goals that were set, and even if they’d do so, research show that the carbon dioxide pollutions will reduce just marginally. That’s why Kyoto is a myth.
I posted some photos, the first one of the mythical Kinkaku-ji Golden Pavillon (it's pure gold) in Kyoto, the second photo is the mythical Kyoto Tower and the third photo is a mythical japanese style toilet (from Tokyo actually), and in the japanese style toilet is where the Kyoto protocol belongs...
posted by Diana Chavlah at 6:20 p.m.
4 Comments:
The Kyoto protocol is crap, but the point was to get the biggest and wealthiest polluters to take the lead in cutting emissions and developing new technologies to combat warming. After this initial phase of getting used to cutting back, then developing countries and a fairer, more market based system would take effect. It was never meant to be the final solution to the Global Warming question.
If the US had defended the protocol or the real environment with the same vigor that it invaded two nations for imaginary or irrelevant reasons, there might be a real chance of slowing the 6th great extinction which is today befalling our lonely planet.
Of course there needs to be a new agreement, but the fact is government regulation will be the only thing that can get us out of this mess because with regards to the environment, negative externalities exist and markets are imperfect. Governments do not work well by themselves, but getting them to coordinate and agree is often impossible. That is why rejecting the Kyoto protocol and doing nothing in its place is a morally bankrupt srategy.
Future generations who lack todays biodiversity will not care about the historical GDP of ancient nation-states or political posturing of some long dead fools. They will lament that their world is clearly just a sour taste of what once was and will feel ashamed that their species was the cause.
That having been said, Sweden is getting with the programme for what it is worth.
Pace,
First of all, the effect of the global warming is not clearly understood. That doesn't mean that I think that we should pollute more and more, but just not exaggerate the whole effect. I don't know if I agree with you, I mean, why write a protocol that you won't follow anyway? what if countries would have signed the declaration of human rights and then just ignored it totally? it's hypocrisy I think to just sign and not be honest with what you do.
The best thing would be to teach people common sense because the people are the ones who are doing the every day choices instead of having big countries signing contracts they won't follow.
I agree countries should follow whatever they sign. What I meant was that Kyoto was supposed to set minimum standards for wealthy countries from now on. That is not to say things should not later be made stricter nor that developing countries should never be included. Quite the opposite.
From a capitalistic, homo economus perspective, all people should be selfish and maximise their own happiness/welfare. This works really well for properly functioning free markets. However for public goods or shared common resources in which use pollutes or infringes on the welfare of others and cannot be captured in a market, ie the atmosphere or the ocean, then if each person maximises their individual happiness you have a problem of "Tragedy of the Commons." In that case everyone is worse off than in the case where people collaborate and agree to common rules and limits on each person's consumption.
I do not have a Hybrid car because gasoline is not priced at 1 Euro per litre in the USA yet, and so financially I can maximise my personal happiness by driving a gas-guzzling automobile. I am not paying the full cost of the damage I am doing. Everybody else is. I think I am using Common Sense given what my choices are.
Therefore when you say 'Common Sense' I think - maximise individual happiness without cooperating. Real Common Sense though is using political or authoritative structure to enforce some basic rules for the good of everyone even if international agreements and consensus is difficult to get perfect right away.
Does this make sense?
Pace wrote;
Does this make sense?
You're right in so many ways. At the same time, the gas will soon run out and if we'd really have a free market, I bet that we'd have cheaper hybrid cars or ethanol cars. For instance, in Sweden, instead of importing ethanol from Brazil, which is the major ethanol producing country, the politician invested in a new factory so that we will produce our own.
Other political discussions made have eliminated technical solutions, don't forget that gas provides a lot of tax revenues.
There are many bright heads out there, and some of them who managed to invent a car that is environmental friendly, cheap to run and easy to mass produce has been offered a lot of money to get burn their ideas with the global warming.
Out of a capitalistic point of view, I would never drive an ethanol car, since it's not as environmental friendly as people may think. And, yes, I'd take the cheap alternative. That's why it would be cheaper for producers to pack things in ONE plastic bag instead of five, because in the end, I’m the one who'll have to take the cost.
But you have many good points as I can see it.
Post a Comment
<< Home