Bush to this year's Heat Wave victims: Drop Dead

[alaricthegoth]

"LONDON After a weekend of free rock concerts and celebrity appeals to end Africa's poverty, politicians and protesters prepared on Monday for the Group of 8 summit meeting this week, with President George W. Bush holding out scant hope of unscripted reversals from the United States.

The leaders of the world's most industrialized nations are to meet Wednesday through Friday at the luxurious Gleneagles golf estate north of Edinburgh, preoccupied by two main subjects - climate change and relieving Africa's impoverishment through changes in policies on trade, aid and debt.

In an interview broadcast Monday on British television, Bush seemed to dampen any expectation that he might reward Prime Minister Tony Blair, the conference host, for the British support in the American effort to prevent terrorism.

"I really don't view our relationship as one of quid pro quo," Bush said. "Tony Blair made decisions on what he thought was best for keeping the peace and winning the war on terror, as I did. So I go to the G-8 not really trying to make him look bad or good but with an agenda that I think is best for our country."

Bush is generally seen to be at odds with Britain and most other members of the group on accepting the scientific evidence relating to the causes of global warming and thus the need for immediate steps to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

The United States is held by other Group of 8 members to be the world's biggest polluter."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/04/news/summit.php

Yes, I know that even if we implemented Kyoto it wouldn't help the folks who died last year or this year, but I do wonder how the graveside chatter will go.
I doubt it will be friendly to the US

That said, isn't George fucking Tony raw? Not even a dab of vaseline....

[Blake]

Alaric, there's an interetsing thing about heatwaves. A heatwave in Oslo might be30oC and it will cause an increase in deaths of about 1%. A normal summer in Melbourne is well above 30oC and a heatwave might be 45oC. Yet the Melbourne heatwave will cause an increase in deaths of about 1%. And yet the life expectancy in Oslo isn't higher than in Melbourne. Nor is the population genetically any different.

That should tell you osmething. Humans are adaptable creatures. It's not an increase in temperatures that kills people. It's simply 'abnormal' temperatures. And there's no evidence that climate change will lead to more abnormal temperatures. If Oslo experiences and average temperature rise of even 10oC, worse than the worst case secario for cclimate change, then it still won't be as warm as Melbourne. So you won't get any more or less deaths from heat waves. People will simply learn to adapt. It's that simple.

I won't even get into the fact that far more people die from cold than from heat, and that isn't something that the population learns to cope with.


There are lots of good reasons to be concerned about anthropogenic climate change but deaths from heat waves isn't one of them.

[alaricthegoth]

Alaric, there's an interetsing thing about heatwaves. A heatwave in Oslo might be30oC and it will cause an increase in deaths of about 1%. A normal summer in Melbourne is well above 30oC and a heatwave might be 45oC. Yet the Melbourne heatwave will cause an increase in deaths of about 1%. And yet the life expectancy in Oslo isn't higher than in Melbourne. Nor is the population genetically any different.

That should tell you osmething. Humans are adaptable creatures. It's not an increase in temperatures that kills people. It's simply 'abnormal' temperatures. And there's no evidence that climate change will lead to more abnormal temperatures. If Oslo experiences and average temperature rise of even 10oC, worse than the worst case secario for cclimate change, then it still won't be as warm as Melbourne. So you won't get any more or less deaths from heat waves. People will simply learn to adapt. It's that simple.

I won't even get into the fact that far more people die from cold than from heat, and that isn't something that the population learns to cope with.


There are lots of good reasons to be concerned about anthropogenic climate change but deaths from heat waves isn't one of them.

all quite true.

I was inviting analysis of the geo-political fallout from the perceived indifference at the "highest levels" of our government to anectodal suffering which, although NOT the proximate result of our behavior, will doubless serve to "concentrate the mind" as it were, of those sufferers upon our feckless attitude.

Simply put, when it hits 45 Celcius in Paris, it may not be W's fault, but I bet they curse him nonetheless. All the industrial powers, save one, seek to address and remediate global warming.

Adding insult to injury, this poltroon (for clarity, GWB) blithely tosses off "kyoto would have wrecked our economy"

Well, surely that ought to silence critics who see our goverment systematically favor coal over renewables, drilling subsidies and SUV's over higher gas economy standards and $2/gallon gas over intelligent tax policies that would nudge the market, internalize (only partly_) some of the hidden costs of the petroleum based economy, and bring us into line with other industrialized nations who do not seem to have "wrecked their economy"

(God, what a moron Bush is to deliver these lines abroad where he doesn't have the juice with a supine press that he enjoys here. The schmuck can't even stick his nose out the door in Denmark for fear of hearing, in detail, what an asshole he is....)

Do we need yet another reason to be universally despised? I offer the caveat that sooner or later, the world will be truly and righteously fed up with us.

Next time we invite the choosing up of sides (with us or against...) it may be even lonelier.

That said, for Bush to rub Blair's nose in shit

(and may I say, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy)

just so he can posture and strut like he still had on the flight suit with the codpiece installed, is remarkably self-centered and short-sighted.

[Blake]

Let me deconstruct that post.


I was inviting analysis of the geo-political fallout from the perceived indifference at the "highest levels" of our government to anectodal suffering which, although NOT the proximate result of our behavior, will doubless serve to "concentrate the mind" as it were, of those sufferers upon our feckless attitude.

Umm, how and why could something totally unrelated concentrate the mind on a topic? You might just as well say that the deaths of people from an earthquake in Bolivia last week will serve to "concentrate the mind" of the sufferers upon our feckless attitude.

I can’t for the life of me see why it would, They are totally unrelated.

Simply put, when it hits 45 Celcius in Paris, it may not be W's fault, but I bet they curse him nonetheless.

Maybe they will. They may curse him for the Bolivian earthquake as well.

What you are saying is that the French will curse the Americans even when the Americans aren’t in any way connected to the events. That may be true but it’s also an incredibly childish and ignorant tactic to adopt.


All the industrial powers, save one, seek to address and remediate global warming.

Which one would that be then? I certainly hope you don’t mean the US because the Bush administration has indisputably sought to address and remediate global warming. I can provide endless references to prove that point.


Adding insult to injury, this poltroon (for clarity, GWB) blithely tosses off "kyoto would have wrecked our economy"

Are you implying he is a poltroon for making that comment? Because many highly respected economists agree with him. Or is he a poltroon for making the comment blithely, on which case I’m going to ask for a reference for where he did so.

Well, surely that ought to silence critics … and bring us into line with other industrialized nations who do not seem to have "wrecked their economy"

What ought to do that? The fact that the French curse Bush even though it’s not his fault? Why would that silence critics? Why would any critic in their right mind even agree with that?

And you seem to be implying that some industrialised countries have complied with Kyoto and haven’t wrecked their economies. Can you name them please?

(God, what a moron Bush is to deliver these lines abroad where he doesn't have the juice with a supine press that he enjoys here. The schmuck can't even stick his nose out the door in Denmark for fear of hearing, in detail, what an asshole he is....)

Not exactly intelligent or thoughtful debate.

The biggest problem is that you’ve already conceded that the French and presumably therefore the Danes are cursing bush even though he is probably not at fault. That hardly makes there POV worth listening to now does it?

Do we need yet another reason to be universally despised?

Another? Can you name me one reason that the US has ever been universally despised? In fact I;m going to ask you for a reference to support you assertion that the US is in fat universally despised or ever has been.


I offer the caveat that sooner or later, the world will be truly and righteously fed up with us.

Reference?

Next time we invite the choosing up of sides (with us or against...) it may be even lonelier.

Or it may not.

I tend to believe that it will be. But then again only a handful of nations joined the “coalition of the willing” anyway and most of the leaders have had elections since and won convincingly. Based on that it appears the citizens of those nations supported the US wholeheartedly and the decision to sign up was an asset to the leaders involved. So there’s a good argument that there will be even more on our side next time.

[tomndebb]

Alaric, I would really like to see an actual discussion point set out for debate. This will probably keep me from sending this rant over to the Pit.

[Squink]

I would really like to see an actual discussion point set out for debate. Well doesn't some leader have to take up the dirty job of fiddling while the world burns? Else our children, 2000 years removed, will have no one upon which to afix the tale of blame.

[Blake]

Well doesn't some leader have to take up the dirty job of fiddling while the world burns? Else our children, 2000 years removed, will have no one upon which to afix the tale of blame.

No. Alaric has already adressed that issue. To quote: "it may not be W's fault, but I bet they curse him nonetheless."

See, it's all so neat. They get to fix the blame on Bush even when he's not responsible.

[alaricthegoth]

Let me deconstruct that post.




Umm, how and why could something totally unrelated concentrate the mind on a topic? You might just as well say that the deaths of people from an earthquake in Bolivia last week will serve to "concentrate the mind" of the sufferers upon our feckless attitude.

I can’t for the life of me see why it would, They are totally unrelated.



Maybe they will. They may curse him for the Bolivian earthquake as well.

What you are saying is that the French will curse the Americans even when the Americans aren’t in any way connected to the events. That may be true but it’s also an incredibly childish and ignorant tactic to adopt.




Which one would that be then? I certainly hope you don’t mean the US because the Bush administration has indisputably sought to address and remediate global warming. I can provide endless references to prove that point.




Are you implying he is a poltroon for making that comment? Because many highly respected economists agree with him. Or is he a poltroon for making the comment blithely, on which case I’m going to ask for a reference for where he did so.



What ought to do that? The fact that the French curse Bush even though it’s not his fault? Why would that silence critics? Why would any critic in their right mind even agree with that?

And you seem to be implying that some industrialised countries have complied with Kyoto and haven’t wrecked their economies. Can you name them please?



Not exactly intelligent or thoughtful debate.

The biggest problem is that you’ve already conceded that the French and presumably therefore the Danes are cursing bush even though he is probably not at fault. That hardly makes there POV worth listening to now does it?



Another? Can you name me one reason that the US has ever been universally despised? In fact I;m going to ask you for a reference to support you assertion that the US is in fat universally despised or ever has been.




Reference?



Or it may not.

I tend to believe that it will be. But then again only a handful of nations joined the “coalition of the willing” anyway and most of the leaders have had elections since and won convincingly. Based on that it appears the citizens of those nations supported the US wholeheartedly and the decision to sign up was an asset to the leaders involved. So there’s a good argument that there will be even more on our side next time.

I meant to cast a somewhat wider net than merely our periodic adventures in lynch justice.

Let me just take off this hat....

there, (damn foil can get hot).

I am trying (apparently with less than indifferent success) to direct attention to two issues:

1. Ought we not expect/fear that Bush's publicly declared indifference to climate change will become an increasingly sore point as the world experiences increasing climate change "events"

eg, heat waves, sea rise, more and bigger hurricanes, etc.

In this vein, recognizing (as we all do) that it will be a rank oversimplification for Jacques and Gilles to revile America while they sit suffering on rapidly melting blocks of ice distributed by the Paris City Government in the (vain) hope of substituting for widespread lack of air conditioning, must we not apprehend that their annoyance and discomfort (not to say their occasional demise) will bring into sharper relief our increasing scientific, technological, and diplomatic isolation on this issue.

That said, will it not spill over into other arenas of international discourse.

(I submit to you that there is nothing like a heat wave to make people cranky...)

Second, since I am here framing the problem as one of Public Relations, (not focusing on the rightness or wrongness of the positions themselves) I was moved to raise the somewhat collateral question as between George and Tony, man to man, (so to speak):

If determined to chart his own course unfettered by any sort of communitarian concern for the airconditionless French (a Carrier Corp Airlift would have been rather a nice touch, even if it might have raised the fear that, OH GOD, we are admitting some responsibility), could Bush not have bespoke himself more elegantly than to say :

"Tony and I have no quid pro quo relationship..."

That statement shows a monumental failure to contemplate the price Blair has paid for being Bush's friend (and from W's perspective, if not mine, america's friend) .

It surely invites future interlocutors to get America "on paper" as it were, inasmuch as Blair has gone out on a limb within his party by frequently implying that there WOULD be some kind of reciprocity from Bush.

Quid pro quo, after all, is part of how friends treat each other. W gives the lie to his vaunted personal loyalty in trying to pretend that Britain's strategic interests alone (without the "special relationship') would have dictated they saddle up and join the posse, notwithstanding the substantial trepidations attendant thereto as are now be manifested through the successive Downing Street documents.

To be brief

(ed not:too late....)

From the point of view of what is called "public diplomacy", do we not take an unnecessary hit when Bush's arrogance is highlighted by ongoing discomfort, not to say catastrophe, flowing from weather events--be those events our "fault" (in whole or part) or not.

The title of the thread, for those who have forgotten, echoes the Daily News headline in 1975, that has become a classic example of clumsy public relations management in the white house, credited by some with helping elect Jimmy Carter.

Ford to NY:Drop Dead.

Perhaps I should have included this link:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:M1YgnUxgccQJ:www.sohoblues.com/SoHoBlues/previewpages/previewpage54.htm+Ford+to+NY:drop+dead&hl=en


For those who need some suggestions for debate topics within the thread, try these:

Science rules, why should W kiss anyone's ass if he is sure he is right?

Or,

Science rules, why doesn't W get with the program and stop pretending there is no problem

or,

We may produce 25% of greenhouse gasses with 5% of the world's population, but so the fuck what--we'll drive what we like; let'em all sweat; we don't need no stinkin' friends

or

We may produce 25% etc, and we're not going to change, but we're smart enough to give lip service to scaling back; that should keep them off our back for a while. (this would be opposed to the rousing"up yours" that Bush trotted out this week.....)

or

Britain stood by us-we will stand by them. I:m less convinced than my good friend Tony, but I'm cutting him the benefit of the doubt, and since even STARTING
greenhouse reduction now will leave decades of risk ahead, I'm calling the close ones in his favor, and we will do such and such....)

Further tips available if needed


mind you:I am not here asking for a debate about climate change.

I am asking for a debate about polite (if possibly hypocritical, but that never bothered Bush before) behaviour in view of last year's multitude of French deaths from the heat wave.

(God, I hope that gets the fuckin' mods of my back for a change...)

[XT]

Since this is probably pit bound anyway, my question is...if Kyoto is so great, the last great hope of mankind and all that, why didn't Clinton impliment it? Or was he blocked from doing so by the Republicans? If memory serves he also didn't support the protocol...why? And why does GW take all the, er, heat on this if Clinton also didn't impliment it?

Just a couple of questions tossed out. Could be that Clinton DID support Kyoto and I'm mis-remembering things. If so I'll gladly withdraw the question and let this thing decend pitward...where it belongs (it IS an alaric thread after all :)).

-XT

[alaricthegoth]

No. Alaric has already adressed that issue. To quote: "it may not be W's fault, but I bet they curse him nonetheless."

See, it's all so neat. They get to fix the blame on Bush even when he's not responsible.

You may not like, admire, or agree with these benighted Europeans, but you must acknowledge that they and their governments have all decided to put shoulder to wheel, so to speak, in the common fight against Global Warming.

Conspicuously absent, and without peradventure the largest player, we invite them to despise us as selfish and shortsighted.

I repeat my somewhat macabre fantasy:

Grandmaman has perished from the heat whilst her family vacationed blithely at the shore. She had no air conditioning, and failed to hie herself to the Paris heat wave emergency shelter where the same was available.

You and I may think that her 10 and 8 year old grandchildren should be fairminded enough to blame their parents for not taking care of granny, but I will bet 100 euros that the talk around the casket will focus on US, and that the groundswell of Anti American feeling can only be exacerbated, the more so as weather is something that happens every day, giving daily opportunity for resentment.

I believe this increases the stakes, as I said in the OP, riding on adroit public framing of the issue and our attitude towards it.

That said, is there anyone out there who would like to call Bush adroit so far?

Anyone? Buehler...? Anyone?

[Frank]

Since this is probably pit bound anyway, my question is...if Kyoto is so great, the last great hope of mankind and all that, why didn't Clinton impliment it? Or was he blocked from doing so by the Republicans? If memory serves he also didn't support the protocol...why? And why does GW take all the, er, heat on this if Clinton also didn't impliment it?
For what it's worth, from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty#Position_of_the_United_States):
On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

This is one of the subjects I think I would be mildly dubious of wiki. Maybe someone else can come up with something more authoritative.

[alaricthegoth]

For what it's worth, from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty#Position_of_the_United_States):


This is one of the subjects I think I would be mildly dubious of wiki. Maybe someone else can come up with something more authoritative.

Kyoto was negotiated under Clinton's instructions; And, (as per above) signed during his tenure

It has now gone into effect via Russia's ratification; We have not ratified and are widely viewed as wrongheaded for that.

PLEASE LET'S NOT DEBATE KYOTO; whether right or wrong, it is a worldwide consensus from which we depart.

My point is that this departure occurs in an area of life where people have constant irritation.

LET'S DISCUSS PERCEPTION AND THE MANAGEMENT THEREOF, INDEPENDENT OF THE UNDERLYING REALITY.

In this vein, as I suggested, we could debate the premise that how other perceive us merits concern;

or the best way to manage those perceptions without actually doing anything that might limit our freedom of action;

or what sorts of ameliorative gestures)we might make (I'm loving the airconditioner airlift....) albeit token.

(I would submit that when it comes to weather events, token concern is better than none at all.)

[XT]

PLEASE LET'S NOT DEBATE KYOTO; whether right or wrong, it is a worldwide consensus from which we depart.

Well, it seems that Kyoto IS the crux of the debate from where I'm sitting. Whether the US is right or wrong headed about it, it seems that at least two administrations have felt that it wasn't in the US's best interest to sign the thing. So...if the US government doesn't feel its in our best interest, exactly why SHOULD GW cave in and sign? Because the rest of the world thinks its best?

The US obviously doesn't agree with the rest of The World(tm) on this issue (as well as myriad others). Perhaps its that the protocols really will hurt our short term economy (I note that reading a few months ago that even some of the countries in the EU are saying they are behind on some of the provisions), maybe they feel that the science isn't there yet to justify the sacrifice (i.e. doing all the things in Kyoto may or may not actually have an effect)...or maybe we just are stuborn and stupid and don't want to acknowledge what is plain to everyone else in the world. Whatever the cause, its pretty plain that the US has staked out its position on this...so I'm unsure exactly why you expect the US to cave on said position just because the rest of the world wants us too.

Let me ask you a question though alaric...if the US did cave in and decided to impliment the protocols, what benifit would the US receive from world wide opinion, in your opinion? What benifit would Bush receive from, say, the left and/or the Democrats in our own country? Any? And what is the list of repurcussions that would effect the US economy from implimenting these protocols exactly? Do you know? Are there any realistic estimates? If it WOULD have an impact, and a negative impact at that...why exactly should GW even consider changing his position on it (assuming for a moment that you answer the above questions along the lines I'm thinking...i.e. there will be minimal realistic benifit to the US relations wise with the rest of The World(tm), little or no benifit politically for Bush or the Republicans from either the left or the Dems, and a lot of negatives from the impact to our laboring economy).

-XT

[alaricthegoth]

*. Or is he a poltroon for making the comment blithely, on which case I’m going to ask for a reference for where he did so.




**And you seem to be implying that some industrialised countries have complied with Kyoto and haven’t wrecked their economies. Can you name them please?





*** only a handful of nations joined the “coalition of the willing” anyway and most of the leaders have had elections since and won convincingly. .



*see link

**Kyoto only went into effect a few months ago. It is not, and will not, wreck anyone' economy. In fact, those countries that in anticipation of Kyoto introduced carbon emission sparing technologies have seen economic BENEFIT, not detriment
(but let's not go there, because I don't want to hijack my own thread...)

***I beg your pardon???!!! Yes,John Howard survives; Blair lost two thirds of his majority. We know how things went in Spain. Japan is leaving . I think there is general disinclination to face an electorate without at least (see Poland, eg) a firm withdrawal date on the table.

who was it who won "handily
Are you really saying that it is good electoral strategy to run for office with George Bush draped over your shoulder?

(you are seducing me into hijacking my own thread again...)

[alaricthegoth]

*Well, it seems that Kyoto IS the crux of the debate from where I'm sitting. Whether the US is right or wrong headed about it, it seems that at least two administrations have felt that it wasn't in the US's best interest to sign the thing..

** If it WOULD have an impact, and a negative impact at that...why exactly should GW even consider changing his position on it (assuming for a moment that you answer the above questions along the lines I'm thinking...i.e. there will be minimal realistic benifit to the US relations wise with the rest of The World(tm), little or no benifit politically for Bush or the Republicans from either the left or the Dems, and a lot of negatives from the impact to our laboring economy).

-XT

*What part of :Kyoto was negotiated and signed during the Clinton Adminstration was obscure? It was NOT the opinion of the Clinton administration that Kyoto was against our best interests.

**Let's see what the world says about this, shall we?



With his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 2001, President George W. Bush inadvertently caused an upheaval in international relations. Environmental issues had been long regarded as the poor stepchild of the foreign policy arena. But as recent remarks by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and the United Nations arms inspector Hans Blix made clear, the global warming issue, and particularly America's handling of it, has become a central geopolitical concern.

Speaking at a delicate moment in the Iraq crisis, Blair contrasted the current situation with "issues that affect us over time. They are just as devastating in their potential impact" as weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, "some more so, but they require reflection and strategy geared to the long-term, often straddling many years and many governments. Within this category are the issues of global poverty, relations between the Muslim world and the West, environmental degradation, most particularly climate change."

Challenging U.S. claims that the Kyoto Protocol is too costly, Blair declared that "it is clear Kyoto is not radical enough" and committed Britain to cutting its emissions of global warming gases by 60 percent by 2050. This goes far beyond the Kyoto Protocol's 5 percent reduction mandated for developed countries by 2012. Recently, Blix chimed in by commenting, "I'm more worried about global warming than I am about any major military conflict."http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:G5u6KdtfqfAJ:www.world-nuclear.org/opinion/iht080403.htm+europe+opinion+bush+global+warming&hl=en

golden oldies,:

"US State Department round up of international press stories on the US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol"

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:2ThZuKJlzAkJ:www.climnet.org/news/bushroundup.html+european+opinion+us+kyoto+refusal&hl=en




BBC News | SCI/TECH | Anger at US climate retreat
Anger at US climate retreat. Hurricane Georges in Florida ... George Bush is
attempting to tear up the Kyoto protocol in the face of world opinion ...
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/ sci/tech/newsid_1248000/1248278.stm - 36k

[XT]

*What part of :Kyoto was negotiated and signed during the Clinton Adminstration was obscure? It was NOT the opinion of the Clinton administration that Kyoto was against our best interests.

Well, the part that "the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification" springs to mind off the top of my head. If Clinton thought the protocol was that important, why didn't he even attempt to push it through?

**Let's see what the world says about this, shall we?

Popularity contest? You didn't answer any of my questions btw. What exactly would Bush et al be buying by going along? Good will with the world? Would they throw roses at Bush/America's feet if we caved in on this? Would the Dems suddenly see the light and hail Bush as a great president? If the answer to those questions is 'no', and if Bush et al REALLY doesn't believe the protocols are worth the cost, then exactly why SHOULD they cave in and go along with the rest of The World(tm). This IS politics after all.

**Kyoto only went into effect a few months ago. It is not, and will not, wreck anyone' economy. In fact, those countries that in anticipation of Kyoto introduced carbon emission sparing technologies have seen economic BENEFIT, not detriment

Sez U. You have any proof stuff to back that up? IIRC, as I said earlier, I remember reading a few months ago that several EU countries were saying they were not going to make some of the goals...and the reasons given, again IIRC, were economic impacts. Reguardless, you are saying there would be a BENIFIT...if so, why exactly has the US been more than reluctant to sign? After all, if its a benifit (economic I assume), seems the 'Pubs would be all over it...more profit and all that.

I don't think its a hijack btw...I think that its the crux of the debate. Why exactly IS the US reluctant? Why does The World(tm) think its such a great idea? What actual political benifit would implemention give the current administration? What would the economic impacts be (realistically)? Unless you answer those, this is merely a rant directed at the administration, using popular world opinion as a club to beat them over the head with. Sometimes whats popular is wrong...sometimes its right. Nation states though have to do what THEY think is best sometimes, reguardless of a popularity contest.

-XT

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

GWB is quoted as saying that he opposes any Kyoto-like agreement that sets binding targets for emissions reduction, suggesting instead that technological solutions are the correct path to minimizing environmental impact.

This leads me to wonder: without law imposed targets, what precisely will be the motivating factor that drives the development and implementation of such technologies?

[John Mace]

Kyoto Protocal: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty)

The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified.

On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

[alaricthegoth]

Well, the part that "the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification" springs to mind off the top of my head. If Clinton thought the protocol was that important, why didn't he even attempt to push it through?
-XT


Let me get this straight?

You wish to adduce as evidence that Kyoto was flawed, the fact that Bill Clinton didn't "push it through" a republican congress that almost impeached his fat ass back to Arkansas?

He could barely push his cigar through Monicas tight little a..

ed note:(.oops. Let's not go there. Not without Wonkette along)
Anyway, that strikes me as pretty lame.

As for the proposition that any policy rejected by Republicans must ipso facto be one that you could never make money on, I invite you to try and trade in a Hummer on a Prius, and let me know how the transaction goes. I also would like to sell you some GM deferred debentures at your earliest convenience. I will accept a substantial discount on the face value. You will want them because the company, I believe, is run by Republicans.

[alaricthegoth]

Let me ask you a question though alaric..

*.if the US did cave in and decided to impliment the protocols, what benifit would the US receive from world wide opinion, in your opinion?

** What benifit would Bush receive from, say, the left and/or the Democrats in our own country?es?

*** If it WOULD have an impact, and a negative impact at that...why exactly should GW even consider changing his position on it (assuming for a moment that you answer the above questions along the lines I'm thinking..

****.i.e. there will be minimal realistic benifit to the US relations wise with the rest of The World(tm), little or no benifit politically for Bush or the Republicans from either the left or the Dems, and a lot of negatives from the impact to our laboring economy).

-XT

alas, you are wrong on every prediction.
*what do you mean "cave in" we negotiated the treaty and we agreed at the negotiations. What do you think happens when a treaty is negotiated, the representatives go off on some freelance jaunt, Like Homer Simpson and then come home saying, "guess what I did with Lisa's saxaphone honey,; I sold it and I bought a timeshare from that Eric Estrada guy"


the economic downside of global warming is to be found in the actuarial ouput of the folks whose job it is to monetize risk.

You seem to think that the alternatives are "fuck the world, we keep our money"
or "save the world, we spend our money" There is no:we keep our money, viz:

As a proponent of the free market, you are no doubt outraged that market rate insurance transactions are subjecgt to the substantial dislocation of Federal Flood Insurance,, the primary need for which is the inability of our economic system to geerate returns on investment in flood plain real estate sufficient to render its occupation profitable if forced to bear market rate insurance premiums which reflect the acturial reduction to present value of the discounted risk of weather related catastrophe.

For another useful exercise, call a broker in Tampa and ask about wind coverage for your mobile home....

per contra, the technologies that counter carbon emission are those that counter waste (ie, the co 2 that escapes represents wasted carbon) . Just as the prius is economically AND ecologically beneficial, so you would learn to love your solar roof.

You need a roof, don't you? Why not make it out of photovoltaic panels. After ten years you will have a net cash flow from your roof, as opposed to a maintenance drain as you would with asphalt.

If every roof in the country were photovoltaic, coal would be over.
This is economically bad?
I could go on, but I will resist the Hijack and turn to your points about bush's standing with dems.

**HE'S NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING ANYMORE, WHO CARES?

Isn't it supposed to be about the legacy, now?

He seems to have forgetten the 22 amendment

Like," watch me now, I'm playin' to m'base"

base for what? You have an electoral base. But that's for elections, which he has no more of.

***vis-a-vis the world, any indication of sanity would doulbless be a welcome relief.

[Liberal]

I don't understand how "changes in policies on trade, aid and debt" are going to end poverty or alter the climate in Africa. Wouldn't it work better if Africans changed their own policies? Like ending despotism, starting capitalism, opening a free market for agriculture, that sort of thing?

[alaricthegoth]

Crude Oil Climbs to Record as Hurricane Threatens U.S. Output

July 7 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose to a record, nearing $62 a barrel in New York, as Hurricane Dennis strengthened and crossed the Caribbean, threatening to become the second storm this week to disrupt U.S. production in the Gulf of Mexico.

Dennis may intensify to Category 2, out of a maximum of five, when it reaches Jamaica today, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center in Miami. The storm may enter the Gulf of Mexico in two days and may make landfall anywhere from Louisiana to Florida in four days. Last year, oil rose by at least $10 in the month after Hurricane Ivan disrupted supplies in the Gulf.

a timely story in light of our earlier economic discussions.

You DO understand that Global Waming =mongo hurricano

[Liberal]

Do you understand how to paraphrase rather than plagiarize, and how to argue in your own words?

[alaricthegoth]

Do you understand how to paraphrase rather than plagiarize, and how to argue in your own words?

I beg your pardon, my posting was inappositely placed, and was directed to mr or ms. exstacysm who had engaged me about the economic ups and downs of global warming.

in hat vein I was struck by the pronounced impact that this particular storm seems likely to have, and was adding it to the examples previously adduced.

that said, I do perhaps include too many paragrphs from the original cite. I do so, however, never with the expectation that the words will be taken for my own, and thus steal from the author.

I confess that I did not think there was ever any difficulty distinguishing my "voice" and that of a more civilized commentator.

I mean, come on, people, I'm a BARBARIAN, what the hell do you expect?

[Liberal]

Well, if you want me to debate Bloomberg and CNN, you need to get their asses in here.

[Frank]

that said, I do perhaps include too many paragrphs from the original cite. I do so, however, never with the expectation that the words will be taken for my own, and thus steal from the author.
It would be helpful to the rest of us if you would use the quote function for that.

[alaricthegoth]

It would be helpful to the rest of us if you would use the quote function for that.

now that's what I call constructive criticism...

[alaricthegoth]

[QUOTE=Liberal]

If I cite a link or quote (with diacriticals) a passage to bring it to your attention in response to your post, I will hope to juxtapose the texts so as to make the issue raised apparent, or, I will adduce commentary.

I repeat my apology for confusing you in the instant case, but I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU.

[alaricthegoth]

in your own words?

One last thing does seem somewhat outre here.

I have been called many things, but taciturn, never. I think I can safely say that I am a wordy motherfucker. In fact I often go on far to liberally (here meaning quantity not quality)

[Clothahump]

all quite true.

I was inviting analysis of the geo-political fallout from the perceived indifference at the "highest levels" of our government to anectodal suffering which, although NOT the proximate result of our behavior, will doubless serve to "concentrate the mind" as it were, of those sufferers upon our feckless attitude.

Simply put, when it hits 45 Celcius in Paris, it may not be W's fault, but I bet they curse him nonetheless. All the industrial powers, save one, seek to address and remediate global warming.


All of which is a tempest in a teapot. We have had warming/cooling trends throughout the history of this planet. It's part of the weather system. And IMNSHO, anyone who thinks we can do anything about it is foolish.

[XT]

You wish to adduce as evidence that Kyoto was flawed, the fact that Bill Clinton didn't "push it through" a republican congress that almost impeached his fat ass back to Arkansas?

He didn't even try. Seems to me that if he was gung ho about it he would have at least given it a shot, tried to make some deals, do some of the Bubba magic, talk to the folks about how great it was. Seems to me he took the easy way out...a wink and a nod with a ceremonial signing (by Gore) and then on to other stuff, safe in the knowledge that the thing wouldn't be implemented on his watch, so he wouldn't take any of the political heat for any of the negatives, while he reaps the positives of his 'support' for the thing...and a quick bitch slap on the 'Pubs for blocking it (without actually bothering to attempt to see if they would have or not...though I'm sure they would have). Genius. Its Bubba at his weasling best IMO.



As to your next post (Rant? Screed? Babble? Perhaps it was in code?)...gods alone know what the hell you are talking about. I can't follow your broken prose and your (to you anyway) witty asides. If you want to actually debate you need to learn to write...or at least make an attempt to be clear in what the hell you are trying to say. To me its so much gibberish.

-XT

[UncleBeer]

I don't understand how "changes in policies on trade, aid and debt" are going to end poverty or alter the climate in Africa.

With tongue in cheek (only partially) I would say . . . if the monies from aid and debt relief are used to industrialize the continent, that whould surely affect the climate - just not for the better - in Africa and the rest of the world. No?

Anyway. Subsidizing agricultural economies isn't gonna do a damn thing to help the African nations. The problem is persistent poverty, and the only solution for poverty is generation of wealth. Wealth, however, judging by 15,000 years of human history, can't be generated in an agricultural economy. This leaves us with industrialization as an option. But industrialization is to be avoided as it, apparently, destroys the environment. (Not that the agricultural practices now taking place in Africa aren't already doing that quite admirably.) Since industrialization is now ruled out, we can only hope to help Africa make the leap from an agricultural economy to a service economy. But nobody seems to be in favor of "exporting" those jobs.

What a pickle, eh?

The United States is held by other Group of 8 members to be the world's biggest polluter
By what measure? Because I've posted links in another thread showing that by some measures, the world's largest polluter can quite conclusively be demonstrated to be either Australia and/or Bulgaria.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6003936&postcount=50

[alaricthegoth]

By what measure? Because I've posted links in another thread showing that by some measures, the world's largest polluter can quite conclusively be demonstrated to be either Australia and/or Bulgaria.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6003936&postcount=50

while the quote speaks for itself, and I suppose reflects the journalist's distillation of perhaps the very discussions had at the G8 in real time.

That said, I will venture that the reference embrace each conuntries pro rata contribution to what are called greenhouse gasses.

Co2 mostly, methane (burping cows a menace, who knew?)The US is responsible for 25 percent of the world's total green house gasses. This is not a controversial fibure, because the processes are not obscure, and since the chemistry is routine, it is possibole to calculate the greenhouse impact of a dollar of gdp with pretty good accuracy, once you know what grade of industrial processes are at play.

As for Bulgatria and Australia, that is just plain silly.

They may have some idiosyncratic contaminant that vaults them to the top of an anecdotal list, but as far as global warming total contribution, they ain't big players.

[alaricthegoth]

All of which is a tempest in a teapot. We have had warming/cooling trends throughout the history of this planet. It's part of the weather system. And IMNSHO, anyone who thinks we can do anything about it is foolish.


Well that is quite compelling, hump old thing.

I think in light of your reassuring manner, confident and soigne carriage, and manifest acquaintance with the relevant data, you are just the fellow to handle our public relations on this issue in France.

You will recall that in last summer's heat wave, upwartds of 10,000 French died of heat related pathologies.

As I mentioned in my OP, I am concerned lest another heat wave coupled with notorious French refusal to upgrade their swamp coolers to air conditioners, may wreak similar havoc.

In which case, we will need someone to address the odd resentment, purely unreasonable though it may be, which may crop up as a result of the bad press we are getting simply for refusing to , as was put else where "cave in"

I can think of no higher or more patriotic calling for a man combining, as you do, scientific acumen and forensic artistry, than to stand ready to counter the petty jealosies from old europe that would seek to scapegoat us for these natural variations in climate that just happen to have killed a rather larger number this year, and they will doubless kill a smaller number in some future year, to balance what is, after all, merely random oscillation...

[alaricthegoth]

Let's review the bidding, shall we?

From Extism, the well reasoned, Clinton failed to get Kyoto ratified, so why should anyone care that Bush is not using his considerable political capital to do so. Because if a crippled Democratic president in 1992 could't get ratification who needs it in 2005

From Clothahump;,(out of Houston) tut tut. Temps go up. Temps go down. Nothing to be alarmed about, I say.

Have we stumbled on someone's coll uh, High School Junior Republicans talking points project.?

Because the arguments are so inapposite as to make one fear that young republicans are aping George Bush's press conference style.

[alaricthegoth]

Let's review the bidding, shall we?

From Extism, the well reasoned, Clinton failed to get Kyoto ratified, so why should anyone care that Bush is not using his considerable political capital to do so. Because if a crippled Democratic president in 1992 could't get ratification who needs it in 2005

From Clothahump;,(out of Houston) tut tut. Temps go up. Temps go down. Nothing to be alarmed about, I say.

Have we stumbled on someone's coll uh, High School Junior Republicans talking points project.?

Because the arguments are so inapposite as to make one fear that young republicans are aping George Bush's press conference style.


Buckner, put me out of my misery, In the name of humanity, as it were, I beg you.

Shut this down.

[UncleBeer]

As for Bulgatria and Australia, that is just plain silly.
Why? And my citations for Australia and Bulgaria are measuring exactly what you argue the numbers for United States represent. The Australia numbers are measuring greenhouse emissions per capita. And although the link to the Bulgaria information appears to be outdated now, but as I recall, the measure there placed Bulgaria as the highest emitter worldwide of greenhouse gasses per dollar of GDP

Australians can be seen as the largest per capita emitters of greenhouse gas emissions in the world (Australia Institute 1999). Australia emits 26.7 tonnes per capita, which is 25% above the USA and double the average for developed countries.
http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2001/settlements/settlements05-4a.html

The US is responsible for 25 percent of the world's total green house gasses.
I've seen other citations claiming only 20% of the greenhouse gasses emitted are attributable to the United States, but I won't agrue over a few percentage points. Problem with this figure is that it doesn't mean anything all by itself. It needs calibrated against something: such as GDP, population, or dollar value of industrial output, etc. to be a useful datum. I mean even if output worldwide approached zero, somebody would still have to be number one offender. So the U.S. contributes 25% of the total, but while they're doing that they're also contributing 25% of the world's total GDP.

These figures are from the 2004 CIA World Fact Book:

U.S. GDP (2003) = $10.99 trillion
World GDP (2003) = $51.48 trillion
Do the math.