Because it doesn't fit in with the notion that the current administration is responsible for all faults in the nation right now. Now, I think the current administration is truly horrible, but I do remember being disappointed when all the talk of the Kyoto agreement was going around, and we just blew it off. I guess America doesn't breathe the same air and walk the same earth as the rest of the world. /cynical
filmgeek says luck to you; so, good luck to you from me, too.
The thing is that it's only in the last couple of years that this nation (the people, not just the politicians) has taken conservation and alternative energy seriously. That's because we've got the one-two punch of obvious-to-the-layperson climate change and the obvious global political benefits of energy independence.
Until the technology matures, and we get affordable electric cars, affordable solar and more wind turbines that are designed for urban and suburban settings, there's no way we can make the kind of strides that Kyoto calls for. This nation just will not do the kind of severe, long term self deprivation that Kyoto calls for. I consider myself an environmentalist, but I stopped taking public transit when my one-way commute would have gone from 40 minutes to an hour and a half, I’m not willing to move my household to biking distance to work (away from the rest of my family and into a truly crapy school district) and I'm not willing to do without AC in the summer. If I'm not willing to make those kinds of sacrifice, I know that there's no way that the majority of Americans will.
I think that if we had signed the Kyoto protocol, we either would have completely ignored it, or spent an enormous amount of time and energy fighting about how to implement it and still not getting anything done. As things stand now, we've got individual cities and states saying 'if the federal gov't won't do it, we'll do it ourselves' which I think is fantastic and stands a much better chance of actually accomplishing something substantial than if the federal government tried to impose on the nation.
Not having the federal government dictate our energy consumption and emissions also means that a whole lot of different approaches will be tried on a small scale and we can figure out what actually works where. We'll need different solutions in Minnesota than they do in New Mexico and a federal government is just poorly equipped for implementing these kinds of locally customized solutions.
Which doesn't mean that the feds get off without doing anything, they need to put as much pressure on the big polluters as possible in the form of fines and incentives, they need to figure out how to regulate alternative energy so that individuals trying to do the right thing don't get ripped off and they need to pump energy into alternative energy R&D and then expedite getting the resulting discoveries to market. Not a simple job.
I know exactly what you mean. Here in Florida, Governor Crist is taking steps to improve energy usage, and trying new technologies, and implementing existing ones like solar power.
While my work is too far from home for me to bike, I do not have A/C, and have survived just fine without it. Transportation is what seems to be the biggest kink in any plan, because so many people live so far from their jobs. Besides that, I'm sure a lot, if not most of us are unwilling to give up the sense of freedom that our cars give us.
Unfortunately, as it does get hotter in the summers or colder in the winters, energy bills will increase as we adjust to maintain comfort. I've found it ironic that for the first time in twenty years, I considered buying a small A/C unit, because of the summer heat wave.
I think that different people have different comfort ranges, I'm absolutely miserable and can't sleep when it gets hot and humid, but I'm fine with keeping the house in the mid-low 60's in the winter. My youngest son, on the other hand would just as soon live in a sauna and would wear sweatshirts in 90 degree 90% humidity heat if I would let him. Go figure.
I just really don't like it when environmentalists wave Kyoto around like a magic talisman and seem to think that if we'd just sign it everything would be taken care of. They don't seem to realize what would be involved in trying to live up to our commitment.
I just really don't like it when environmentalists wave Kyoto around like a magic talisman and seem to think that if we'd just sign it everything would be taken care of. They don't seem to realize what would be involved in trying to live up to our commitment.
and that was *exactly* my point. Kyoto would destroy industry, which is why the Clinton administration didn't sign it and Congress rebuffed it. the Kyoto signers have failed to meet it.
and yet here in SoCal, this has been the mildest summer that i can recall in several years. we only had the one heatwave last week and the high was only 108, and i don't use the "only" facetiously. what made last week so awful was the humidity from all the hurricanes. whereas last year, just off the top of my head, temps got up to 117.
The thing is that it's only in the last couple of years that this nation (the people, not just the politicians) has taken conservation and alternative energy seriously.
disagreeing again. all this technology didn't come out of nowhere. people, not government, have been working and thinking about this for a very long time. just in housing, for example, there are builders out there making huge sums of money building eco-homes. supply and demand. those techniques and materials didn't come out of nowhere and they didn't get invented last year.
hybrid cars are popular because people want them. that's a few generations of technology that's driving out on the street today.
forests exist today because the lumber industry realized 50 years ago that they would cut themselves out of business and now they farm lumber like they farm corn or wheat.
it's "popular" today, in the media, because it's a way to bash the President. the average public wants clean air, clean water, cheaper and more efficient technology and they've proven it because the technologies are out there right.now. billions of dollars in r&d spread across sectors. it didn't just start.
because worldview is more important than fact for some people? The other thing is that, when you are the current president, you are blamed for all the problems in the known universe... I had an interesting discussion with a person recently about protectionism and trade, and it was interesting how many things were attributed to the current administration, that were actually done by Clinton. Some things take a long time to play out, and after a few years our memories are fuzzy, about who did what. I'm sure there are a lot of Joe's on the street, who have only a vague idea of what Kyoto Protocol actually is about, other than it's "something to do with global warming". I wonder how much the sound bite affect them regardless of truth. The eventual problem is the thing about repeating a lie until everyone takes it as truth. When you tell people that Europe has been unable to comply with Kyoto, and has now moved the target so they can try again, and you get "Well, at least they are trying..." as if the US isn't. Our rate of carbon increase has fallen, even if all the Carbon numbers from any source seem like voodoo economics [bueller, bueller]...
dunno, I'se a big believer that you can only do so much to legislate conservation, but if you get people to buy into it individually, the numbers turn exponential. Kyoto proto is a one trick pony, where trying to conserve and not pollute is a way of thinking. Certainly you need to regulate some aspects of anything, becaus it's cheaper to dump toxic waste than to do anything else to it. A one size fits all global rule on everything is the compromise everyone hates. It's onerous, doesn't work well, and doesn't actually do as intended. But then I've never understood why people want everyone to be equally miserable, instead of figuring out how to make at least some people happy...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2007-09-09 02:45 am (UTC)/cynical
no subject
Date: 2007-09-09 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-09 07:14 am (UTC)thanks for the luck, though. can't have too much.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-09 04:42 pm (UTC)Until the technology matures, and we get affordable electric cars, affordable solar and more wind turbines that are designed for urban and suburban settings, there's no way we can make the kind of strides that Kyoto calls for. This nation just will not do the kind of severe, long term self deprivation that Kyoto calls for. I consider myself an environmentalist, but I stopped taking public transit when my one-way commute would have gone from 40 minutes to an hour and a half, I’m not willing to move my household to biking distance to work (away from the rest of my family and into a truly crapy school district) and I'm not willing to do without AC in the summer. If I'm not willing to make those kinds of sacrifice, I know that there's no way that the majority of Americans will.
I think that if we had signed the Kyoto protocol, we either would have completely ignored it, or spent an enormous amount of time and energy fighting about how to implement it and still not getting anything done. As things stand now, we've got individual cities and states saying 'if the federal gov't won't do it, we'll do it ourselves' which I think is fantastic and stands a much better chance of actually accomplishing something substantial than if the federal government tried to impose on the nation.
Not having the federal government dictate our energy consumption and emissions also means that a whole lot of different approaches will be tried on a small scale and we can figure out what actually works where. We'll need different solutions in Minnesota than they do in New Mexico and a federal government is just poorly equipped for implementing these kinds of locally customized solutions.
Which doesn't mean that the feds get off without doing anything, they need to put as much pressure on the big polluters as possible in the form of fines and incentives, they need to figure out how to regulate alternative energy so that individuals trying to do the right thing don't get ripped off and they need to pump energy into alternative energy R&D and then expedite getting the resulting discoveries to market. Not a simple job.
(apologies to WG for hijacking her lj)
no subject
Date: 2007-09-09 04:58 pm (UTC)While my work is too far from home for me to bike, I do not have A/C, and have survived just fine without it. Transportation is what seems to be the biggest kink in any plan, because so many people live so far from their jobs. Besides that, I'm sure a lot, if not most of us are unwilling to give up the sense of freedom that our cars give us.
Unfortunately, as it does get hotter in the summers or colder in the winters, energy bills will increase as we adjust to maintain comfort. I've found it ironic that for the first time in twenty years, I considered buying a small A/C unit, because of the summer heat wave.
*waves cheerily at WG*
no subject
Date: 2007-09-09 05:23 pm (UTC)I just really don't like it when environmentalists wave Kyoto around like a magic talisman and seem to think that if we'd just sign it everything would be taken care of. They don't seem to realize what would be involved in trying to live up to our commitment.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-09 08:20 pm (UTC)and that was *exactly* my point. Kyoto would destroy industry, which is why the Clinton administration didn't sign it and Congress rebuffed it. the Kyoto signers have failed to meet it.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-09 08:03 pm (UTC):::leaves kerne chocolates:::
no subject
Date: 2007-09-09 08:13 pm (UTC)hijack away. i love watching a good discussion.;)
The thing is that it's only in the last couple of years that this nation (the people, not just the politicians) has taken conservation and alternative energy seriously.
disagreeing again. all this technology didn't come out of nowhere. people, not government, have been working and thinking about this for a very long time. just in housing, for example, there are builders out there making huge sums of money building eco-homes. supply and demand. those techniques and materials didn't come out of nowhere and they didn't get invented last year.
hybrid cars are popular because people want them. that's a few generations of technology that's driving out on the street today.
forests exist today because the lumber industry realized 50 years ago that they would cut themselves out of business and now they farm lumber like they farm corn or wheat.
it's "popular" today, in the media, because it's a way to bash the President. the average public wants clean air, clean water, cheaper and more efficient technology and they've proven it because the technologies are out there
right.now. billions of dollars in r&d spread across sectors. it didn't just start.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-10 03:12 pm (UTC)dunno, I'se a big believer that you can only do so much to legislate conservation, but if you get people to buy into it individually, the numbers turn exponential. Kyoto proto is a one trick pony, where trying to conserve and not pollute is a way of thinking. Certainly you need to regulate some aspects of anything, becaus it's cheaper to dump toxic waste than to do anything else to it. A one size fits all global rule on everything is the compromise everyone hates. It's onerous, doesn't work well, and doesn't actually do as intended. But then I've never understood why people want everyone to be equally miserable, instead of figuring out how to make at least some people happy...
no subject
Date: 2007-09-11 02:03 am (UTC)