Kyoto
- Thread starter Jeslek
- Start date
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
well, great for you. bravo.
good to hear you got a descent discussion over there. but clearly people don't see your so called "unbiased" form of discussion at least a little bit far fetched. if they agree on making a vote after your amazing rhetoric, which was totally one-sided, fine. but don't expect other people to take thing for granted that easily.
like i said before in the other thread, if you REALLY want an opinion of other people, based on the information YOU give to them, at least make the slightest attempt to look at things from multiple angles. NOT just from YOUR sole point of view, and making that point of view look like the only possibility, and the only truth, like you did here.
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
pardon? i don't know if you realize it, or will ever admit? but you're using propaganda as well here. you're looking at a certain issue from just one side, granting information from ONE side as well, and THEN asking people for their opinion.
and then you're taking OTHER people's opinion, because you 'just so happen to agree with them'.
i hardly call that personal thought as well. i call that personal taste.
and i would have expected more from a great minded person as you than just settling things with "unlike here where all the socialists/commies just went ape ".
you know damned well i don't fit any 'commie' profile. but i DO have an own mind, and i DO look at things from different angles. unbiased, at least that's what i try to.
i look at ALL possibilities, and THEN form an opinion. i didn't went 'ape' nor do i wish to be called a 'commie' if i just so happen to disagree with your reasoning.
if you want me to agree with you, you'd have to come up with more than just one sided information, and you will have to look at things from different angles. otherwise it's impossible to form a valid opinion.
and yes, that works BOTH ways...if you would have just stated only positive things, i'd have serious doubts about the information you'd have given me as well. think about that for a moment please.
it's not that i like attacking your opinion, not at all. every person is entitled to have his or hers own opinion. but what is important is how that opinion is formed, especially when that person is asking for MY opinion based on information he gives me.
Shadowfax
<b>mod cow</b>
Jerrek said:
this is the last point i'm going to discuss here, since i'm off for now.
but you clearly didn't get what i meant.
i only gave that as an example of the one sided information you're giving us here. you're stating that the kyoto treaty is going to cost the tax payer money, and put it down as a fact. true.
it is going to cost the tax payer money. but you're 'forgetting' to mention that other ways are going to cost the tax payer money as well.
so the fact that it's going to cost money isn't a valid arguement in this case, because other solutions would cost money as well.
it would be different if you'd have stated that other ways would have cost less money than the kyoto treaty, given the same results. THAT would have been a valid arguement. but since i don't see any other solutions, and the amount of money they will cost, i'm still not convinced.
for all i know OTHER ways could cost twice the amount of money to achieve the same goals as stated in the kyoto treaty. i don't know, but it could be...see what i mean?
you're comparing two seperate things here, with not enough information to make a valid judgement.
Actually, even taking out the cost to tax payers Kyoto still ends up sounding bad. Developed countries use much much cleaner production processes than the developing world, and probably always will (it costs a hell of a lot more, to assume otherwise would be to assume that firms don't maximize profits, and that is exactly what they do in absence of laws forcing them to account for externalities). Our laws at least to some degree force firms to account for externalities in their choices of what and how much to produce. Kyoto exempts LDCs (low developed countries) from accounting for such externalities. Instead, Kyoto seeks to lower pollution in the developed world while dramatically increasing it in the developing world. The net effect would be to INCREASE global pollution while reducing pollution in developed countries. Sure, its good for us (assuming you are ok with the taxes) but it destroys the developing world (at least the environment there).
Don't you guys remember the 'brown cloud' over china in the summer? I think you can make a case for arguing that even accounting for higher taxes, once you take into consideration lower production costs, companies, and even consumers benefit from Kyoto economically (at least in a global sense). However, pollution clearly increases globally. I can tell you, I'm quite thrilled about the persistent drop in prices since everything started to be 'made in China.' However, their production processes are a hell of a lot 'less clean' than our own. It will be even worse in the rest of the developing world. Aggregate pollution will rise, prices will fall, and the increase in tax levels will be nothing compared to cost savings for consumers and firms, THAT is why people are pushing Kyoto!!! It does nothing for the enironment in the short-run, and in truth, maybe not even in the long-run. As we see, LDCs aren't thrilled about following treaties!!! Look at North Korea!!! Why would they comply later and use clean production processes once there entire infrastructure is invested in dirty production processes? Why? Can we really force them to comply with the treaty? In the mean time, as was mentioned, employment falls at home, and it becomes prohibitive for domestic firms in developed countries to reenter markets after they have been absent for a long time, especially as limitations and restictions on pollution levels rise all the while!!!
Nope, Kyoto is bad, we need a better approach!!! What it is, I don't not know, but its not Kyoto. Tradeable pollution permits seem to be the best and most efficent method of lowering pollution, but this needs to be implemented on a global scale, not just a domestic one! Ulimately, rules and regulations need to be consistent across all nations. However, LDCs will never agree. This is why we have Kyoto, to kiss up to LDCs!!!
Don't you guys remember the 'brown cloud' over china in the summer? I think you can make a case for arguing that even accounting for higher taxes, once you take into consideration lower production costs, companies, and even consumers benefit from Kyoto economically (at least in a global sense). However, pollution clearly increases globally. I can tell you, I'm quite thrilled about the persistent drop in prices since everything started to be 'made in China.' However, their production processes are a hell of a lot 'less clean' than our own. It will be even worse in the rest of the developing world. Aggregate pollution will rise, prices will fall, and the increase in tax levels will be nothing compared to cost savings for consumers and firms, THAT is why people are pushing Kyoto!!! It does nothing for the enironment in the short-run, and in truth, maybe not even in the long-run. As we see, LDCs aren't thrilled about following treaties!!! Look at North Korea!!! Why would they comply later and use clean production processes once there entire infrastructure is invested in dirty production processes? Why? Can we really force them to comply with the treaty? In the mean time, as was mentioned, employment falls at home, and it becomes prohibitive for domestic firms in developed countries to reenter markets after they have been absent for a long time, especially as limitations and restictions on pollution levels rise all the while!!!
Nope, Kyoto is bad, we need a better approach!!! What it is, I don't not know, but its not Kyoto. Tradeable pollution permits seem to be the best and most efficent method of lowering pollution, but this needs to be implemented on a global scale, not just a domestic one! Ulimately, rules and regulations need to be consistent across all nations. However, LDCs will never agree. This is why we have Kyoto, to kiss up to LDCs!!!