Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

They sure did!

There's no free lunch. Universal Health Care means we pay for it in our taxes and enjoy the benefits of customer service and efficiency (not to mention rationing) for which government is so famous. Health care isn't the only issue - whole factory staffs must be kept on even if the plant is operating at only 50%. This is also an area in which European social welfare systems aid the manufacturers somewhat. (Perhaps the U.S. should make these subsidies an issue with the WTO.)

The fact is that the great majority of vehicles sold in the United States, by the Big Three and Toyota, Honda, Volvo etc. are assembled in the United States. Moreover, apart from Ford, GM & Chrysler, they are all made in non union plants and involve much lower labor costs and much less restrictive work rules..

I agree the U.S. producers were well behind their competitors for a few years, particularly in terms of innovation. However, in many areas they have closed that gap.

We disussed that"buitl-in-boost" some time ago as well as you might remember that I still think, the so-called Kyoto-treaty is NOT an European treaty but ...

You don't change your mind, and I go along the written lines :wink:

Might well be, in some years, when we all are dead, people will say, "Why did they ... not hear to George." Or the other way around.

As a Christian, I truely believe, we have responsibility, especially for our environment and what we give our children and grandchildren to live with.
And not the responsibilty to let economy run smoothly headmost, diregarding everything else, hoping, all will get adjusted by itself, or in the course of time, or by George II.


But I know, others don't bother and/or have different opinions.

Et pacem in terram :wink:

geoerge, That's the reason why I ended my previous post with "In the final analysis, it's car efficiency, quality, and cost. American car-makers lost that edge many years ago."

mortcat wrote :
"The US Senate decisively voted against acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol in July 1997 with a DECISIVE vote of 95-0. One of the major sticking points was that the C02 emissions of China and India were not to be cut back because they were both classified as "developing countries "

i think that's like saying : "since my neighbour hasn't stopped smoking , i won't stop smoking either . we might as well both die together ."

from what i've read in automotive magazines , hybrid engines may not be the best and most cost-effective way to go . there are plenty of improvements available to squeeze more power out of engines and at less cost than using hybrid engines . two liter four cylinder engines producing the same power as a regular V6(200 hp +) are already on the market . european manufacturers are producing diesel engines with lower emissions than gasoline engines . i am sure that within the next 3-5 years there will be plenty of automobiles on the market at competitive prices that make today's gasguzzlers obsolete .
btw i have noted that companies such as BP and ENCANA (canada's largest gas and oil-producer) are talking about "energy conservation" - surely they are realizing that we can't continue on the road of "unlimited supply and consumption" . hbg

I agree with your outlook here Walter. However, unlike you, I am much more suspicious of government mandated and operated solutions, preferring free market ones in any case in which they offer some promise. I am also very suspicious of the various self-appointed elites who, throughout history, have risen up to tell others how to regulate their lives and seek to use political power to enforce their proscriptions. The historical track record of such Platonists is quite poor - they almost always fail to consider the side effects of their doctrines and generally end up using force to deal with the "irreconcilables" who will not conform. Worse, their policy choices usually become calcified doctrine, enforced with mindless rigidity. I have much more faith in human inventiveness and adaptability in less restrictive, freer environments.

I would prefer to give my children freedom and responsibility than a cocoon made for them by others.

unfortunately the "free market" is quite often anything but a free market . i think there are plenty of examples out there showing that the free market has not always had the best results for mankind.
all we need to do is look at the list of rogues having been sent to prison for "white collar" crimes within the last two years or so to learn that al capone could have been taking lessons from them . hbg

True enough, but it was the free market that brought Enron and Workdcom down, not the government (they merely are eating tha carcass).

I agree that either policy pursued without exception will yield bad results. However where there are options the free market has a far better track record than those who would presume to manage economies, and, inevitably, peoples lives.

There is another factor that nobody has mentioned, and that is the high cost of liability exposure, especially in the United States. In my small business we receive industry guidelines from an insurance liability standpoint. Apparently, insurance on hybrid cars is likely to be much escalated due to some pretty serious risk factors when these cars are serviced or repaired by people who don't know what they're doing.

The cost of the initial purchase, cost to operate (gas/oil etc.), convenience--if there are not plentiful fuel sources for the hybrids, the people won't want to risk getting stranded--the resale value, cost of maintenance and repairs, and now the possibly very much higher cost of insurance both for liability and work comp, and the hybrid cars are not likely to gain a significant market share for some time to come.

Well Foxfyre,

Then you are left to buy a gas guzzler if you want to buy American! I do think they should lift the restraints on the hybrids and let the market flow!! Good old supply and demand in an unrestrained free market. Isn't that the Republican Nirvana??

Anon

There really aren't any "restraints" on the production of hybrids. there is a lot of infrastructure out there for the support and repait of conventional automobiles and some time will be required to change it. The hybrid cars will be produced and the infrastructure created as the demand grows. Right now the demand is small.

"Demand" presupposes free-market conditions.

Free-market has been shown to fail, in ecological matters. It could hardly be otherwise imo. People will not vote for constraints, nor pay for them without compulsion through legislation.

The people of many countries are deforesting by unmanaged harvesting to earn money. People do not vote for constraints or care what is left of the ecology when that's their only source of income. Most people live by present needs, and do not worry much about the future conseqences.

If we were put into the same enviornment and situation, we'll probably do the same thing.

I think you guys misunderstood what I said. I believe there are import limits on hybrids right now as we speak, and that's why they're not available. Along of course with the sudden demand and willingness of the Americans to buy them with the gas prices high.

I'm starting to hope for more natural disasters to rip up gas production just so the prices of gas can skyrocket!

Anon

Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
By Jack Kelly

It isn't absolutely necessary to be a hypocrite in order to be a liberal, but it sure helps.

During the first week in December, ten thousand people gathered in Montreal for a UN-sponsored conference on global warming.

Rex Murphy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. thought the size of the gathering inappropriate:

"Just think of the Montreal summit's ecological footprint," he said. "Is there really a need to fly ten thousand people from 189 countries to a cold city to exchange ideas? Is there no email? Are the phone lines down?"

Then Mr. Murphy answered his own question: "I suppose...ecology is not really different from politics. High on sermons, low on example."

The principal topic of the conference was the future of the treaty drafted in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, which obligates signatories in the developed world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

In his address, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin took a poke at the United States for refusing to sign on to the Kyoto Accord.

Toronto Star columnist Richard Gwyn agreed with what Mr. Martin had to say about the evil Bush administration, but speaking of Canada in general and Mr. Martin's Liberal government in particular, Mr. Gwyn noted:

"We've done nothing about climate change and about global warming except talk. For us to now preach at others is pure hypocrisy."

Since 1990, the base year for Kyoto calculations, Canadian emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases" have increased 24.2 percent, while those of the United States have increased by only 13.3 percent, Mr. Gwyn noted.

Another popular speaker was former President Bill Clinton, who declared President Bush was "flat wrong" that the Kyoto targets would damage the U.S. economy.

Mr. Clinton failed to mention to his audience in Montreal that, as president, he had described the Kyoto accord as a "work in progress," and refused to submit it to the senate for ratification. This was chiefly because in July of 1997, the senate had voted, 95-0, for a resolution saying the U.S. should not sign the treaty if it would damage our economy, or if it excluded developing nations from emissions restrictions.

A 1998 study by the Energy Information Administration estimated trying to meet the Kyoto standards would cost the U.S. economy about $400 billion a year, mostly by hugely increasing the cost to consumers of electricity, home heating oil, and gasoline.

China and India, expected to be the world's largest producers of greenhouse gases by 2020, are exempt from Kyoto's restraints, as are South Korea and other emitters in the developing world.

"(Clinton) can't have it both ways," said Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Either the lack of meaningful participation by key developing countries justified his no ratification policy or not. If it did, then Bush's identical policy of not seeking ratification is equally justified. If it did not, then he should apologize today to his fellow Kyoto supporters for not submitting the treaty when it was in his power to do so."

This week the Institute for Public Policy Research, a left-leaning British think tank, released a study which indicates that 13 of 15 European nations which signed the Kyoto treaty will not meet the "mandatory" emissions reductions to which they agreed.

The worst offenders, the IPPR said, are Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, all falling about 20 percent short of their targets.

"The poorly performing nations are among the many who have criticized the U.S. and President George Bush," noted Alison Hardie, a reporter for the Scotsman newspaper.

Britain and Sweden are the only two European countries close to meeting their Kyoto targets, the IPPR said. But at a news conference in September, British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- heretofore considered a strong Kyoto supporter -- said ordering countries to cut greenhouse gases won't work.

But though no signatory has met its Kyoto goals, and only a few are likely to come close, the talk at Montreal was about a new, more restrictive treaty to follow Kyoto when it expires in 2012. For liberals, it is talk that matters, not action. Appearances trump reality.

"Perhaps Kyoto is Japanese for hypocrisy," the CBC's Mr. Murphy said.

Interestingly, Americans did have a place at the table in Montreal, because they are participants in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - the broader agreement which gave rise to the legally binding protocol.


(From McG's article

It wasn't a "UN sponsored" but THE "UN Climate Change Conference" ... in conjunction with the eleventh session of the "Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention" (with the USA taking part as well, as said above.


It was indead the largest intergovernmental climate conference since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997, with some 10,000 participants attending.

I'm glad, realclearpolitics.com noticed that, three weeks after it ended. :wink:

Does the rotation of the earth (slowing) have anything to do with global warming?

I imagine that the fraction of a second more warming time on the sunny side is cancelled out by the same extra cooling time on the shady side.

I am unaware of any government imposed limits on hybrid cars. Do you have any data to back that up? The automobile dealerships are not going to intentionally stock cars they can't sell. Hybrid cars in New Mexico, for instance, find fueling facilities extremely scarce and what exists is in the Albuquerque metro area. Most New Mexicans will not have fueling facilities accessible to them and will regularly outdrive the fueling sources that exist. The City of Albuquerque is running some city busses on Natural Gas but have their own fueling facility that is not accessible to private citizens.

Now, couple that with the increased risk of servicing and repairing the hybrids, and you have a situation that discourages sale and use of hybrid cars for some time into the future. No private business can afford to operate a large money losing proposition out of altruistic spirit, and it is even cost prohibitive for the Federal government of a nation as large as the USA and for most state governments. The entire New Mexico population, for instance, is smaller than large American cities while our land area is fifth largest in the union. That's a lot of miles to furnish fueling facilities to a quite small number of customers.

You might want to see what many scientists and engineers are also saying about producing nitrogen for some hybrids. The hydrogen itself burns clean. The methods we have for producing the fuel however is far worse environmentally than is producing gasoline.

All these things must be factored into environmental policy.

An illuminating excerpt on the denial of global warming:

[B]".....In their rootless, cosmopolitan way, these vagabonds have battened onto the United States in the same manner that foreign communists once made their hajj to Moscow. They may even be the same people as those moldering communists, or their offspring. Where an American's eye might glimpse the Adirondacks, or Sioux Falls, or Oshkosh, or the Father of Waters flowing unvexed to the sea, the neoconservative sees only the shimmering mirage of Imperial Rome.[.........]

Who would have thought the party of Charles Francis Adams and Thomas Alva Edison would declare war on science? Yet from stem cell research to evolution, from climate change to sociology, the Grand Old Party shows a cast of mind more appropriate to sour Wahhabite fanatics of the Arabian Peninsula than enlightened adults."[/B]

http://www.counterpunch.org/werther12172005.html