Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus Well energy consumption overlaps with both the economy and foriegn policy so to come up with solutions to climate change while ignoring the problems that it will create is in my opinion totally negligent. |
The primary reason for moving away from fossil fuels is the environment. If our environment becomes inhospitable to us we have bigger problems than the economy and foreign policy. Sure economic and foreign policy are factors to be taken into consideration. I am not saying that they should be ignored. They just aren't the primary reasons for moving away from fossil fuels. They take a back seat to the climate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus The scientific community has only been able to present findings that shows a correlation between the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere and global warming they have failed to provide evidence of causation. I don't understand how you can say that we should prevent global warming when you can not even say with certainty that we are causing it.? |
We don't have enough data to say what the cause is. How many times do I have to say that causation doesn't matter. It is like a dog chasing his tail to debate the cause. Regardless of how we got to this point, what are we going to do about it now?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus Even if we are partially responsible for climate change then how are we supposed to stop the causes which are totally out of our control? |
Fossil fuel consumption is in our control. I have been contending that we must do something about the additional effects that we are having on the environment. Today we may not have the cause isolated. By eliminating fossil fuel consumption we can buy ourselves some time to figure out what can be done to help control our environmental change.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus I do not concede any point I only bring up Kyoto based on the presupposition that if human activities are in fact causing global warming than Kyoto can not possibly be the answer because it does not require the 2nd and 3rd largest oil consumers to oblige by its stipulations. |
So, if a treaty doesn't solve all the problems it isn't worth doing at all? Yes, Kyoto is flawed. Does that mean that we should do nothing? Of course not! That would be truly negligent. India and China are developing nations under Kyoto. This is the economic/foreign policy issue you don't want to ignore. You don't have a solution to deal with these delicate issues. If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus Kyoto has everything to do with the economy: |
Yes, everything has an effect on the economy. My point is that it wasn't the primary cause for the Kyoto Treaty. It was something to be considered. Kyoto was put on the table as a way to counter the effects of polution and global warming. To say that Kyoto is an economic policy is like saying NAFTA is an environmental policy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus Well I feel that we can do away with nearly all of our fossil fuel consumption if we expand our nuclear infrastructure while simultaneosly promoting renewable energy sources, such as, wind, thermal, solar, and tidal current. Of course these solutions will not come over night and for this problem there are no quick solutions and these quick solutions which have been presented; such as, Kyoto are not really solutions at all but rather they are the catalyst for even more problems in the future. |
So should we sit idly by while we wait for the "magic bullet" solution? I have to wonder if there was ever a policy that didn't cause future problems. If given the choice between future problems and no future, I will take problems. It is easy to criticize Kyoto and not have a plan of your own. Doing nothing is negligent. In this particular case, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.