alvin e. toda

In last weeks Honolulu Weekly. Don't know how long this
link will last....

http://www.honoluluweekly.com/diary_main.php

Looks like they are becoming aware of the limitations
of our island environments. Maybe it's time to relax
state checks against local govt stupidity in
over-development of the island.

--alvin

martinez

Im all for alternative energy source but a bit cynical about the Kyoto
Treaty. I think its more window dressing than anything else. There
were questions about other types of pollution not covered by Kyoto
that might have a drastic effect on climate and manipulation by
members making it a hollow goal. Mainly the exclusion based on carbon
sinks -- I think it went , you argued that you could pollute more
because you had *** forests or whatever that converted C02 to oxygen.
I bet there would have been a lot of backroom haggling there.

Also china and India I think were exempt. And the cutback though too
little people said to actually prevent any global warming at best the
Treaty was a first step only ---- also with current technology meant
it would really hamper econ gorwth in the developed countres so it
probably would mean just faster and more drastic outsourcing to India
and china since they are exempt which just means they benefit
economically and can still use up oil and coal to their hearts desire
and cause global warming anyway. Its like just moving the cause from
the first world to china and india. Thats been happening --- a lot of
the energy and pollution reductions is obviously due to improvements
in technology but Im sure a fair amount of it was just moving it to
China and Mexico Maquiladoras in the 80s where they said the pollution
near the Rio Grande was horrible --- since they have lax pollution
regs.

Now I maybe wrong here and I hope I am but when I was reading up on it
, it seemed way less impressive than the hype surrounding it. Of
course SOME attempt to curb global warming is better than nothing of
course. But I think we should do it anyway. Sure the Kyoto treaty or
any global framework helps to co-ordinate and focus global efforts so
in that sense its good but I think everyone should do it anyway and I
hope Germany does succeed --- all we need is someone to go balls out
and show us if it works or not then others will follow. I know having
a global framework also gives the firstworld leverage later on when
they want to force China and India to reduce emissions its more of a
poltical tool . And theres the other thing oil.

Whether we run out of oil soon or a little later itll force us to go
nuclear or renewable so mkt forces will force everyone to change.

Now people like one of the Kennedys was writing recently going off
probably taking his cue from Michael Linds neo con diatribles about
evil corps bankrolling right wing thinktanks to spew erroneous papers
and studies etc ---- that the papers cited sowing doubts about global
warming were based on these fake papers , a virtual conspiracy but I
think everyone has admitted that Kyoto by itself really doesnt do
anything , its merely the beginning. At the same BBC site I mention
below they list China as the no 3 biggest single CO2 polluter though
far behind the US still but its only the beginning stage of their
development, ironically China and India are exempt and a lot of the
manufacturing from Europe and the US etc is being outsourced there so
its a little like shifting the source and it provides even more
incentive to outsource. However they make the argument most of the
poor countries exempted will suffer the greatest effects from global
warming flooding so they have that incentive to change. Im actually
for going far beyond the Kyoto Treaty and trying to reduce pollution
drastically low and possible hopefully its a good entrrepreneurial
field thats good for business and the enviroment. I just hope Germany
shows the way and that sets off a whole sector of products that
replace fossil fuel usage.

BBC

How much difference will Kyoto make?

Most climate scientists say that the targets set in the Kyoto Protocol
are merely scratching the surface of the problem.

The agreement aims to reduce emissions from industrialised nations
only by around 5%, whereas the consensus among many climate scientists
is that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global warming,
emissions cuts in the order of 60% across the board are needed.

kimo

hmmmm...
"And why is "overdevelopment" so feared?"


your powers of perception and cognitive abilities are seriously in
question, making much that you respond with, very suspect.
Apparently you don't want to "learn for a better future".

Read the original post that started this thread. Here; I will hand it
to you:

"Oahu is NOT the mainland and we don't want to be the mainland.
It already has too much congestion, development and too many people
swarming in. The sewage system and infrastructure is overtaxed. Water
shortage problem worsens by the day. Ecosystem and reefs are being
destroyed. Big city crime is now all too commonplace. Gridlock at
critical mass all day. Hope (pro-development proponents) or one of
their relatives is the one that
get make, die, dead, as they lie in an ambulance trying to get to a
hospital, stuck on the city hiways.
Economic development at all costs is killing the future of Hawaii."

jerry okamura

The way I look at this global warming theory is two fold. One, I do no
understand all the hype about an event that "may" happen, because it
"may
not" happen at all. I also do not understand why we should act on a
theory
that may not happen at all. Finally, I do not understand all of this
"eggs
in one basket" idea we have. Global Warming "may" happen. A large
object
from outer space "will" happen. A super volcano blowing its top "will"
happen. Yet we seem to be only talking about an event that "may"
happen,
and little talk about events that "will" happen.

The other part of this discussion is, If we believe that global warming
"may" happen, isn't it possible that it is already too late, and it
"will"
happen regardless of what we do to prevent it from happening. Another
"eggs
in one basket" thought process? There seems to be no talk about what
we are
going to do, if the event "does" happen.

alvin e. toda

You really meant to say the you, Kimo, "don't want..."?


And the latter is my point. Where's the aloha?

--alvin

alvin e. toda

That's it: "backroom haggling". IIRC there are carrots
and sticks which nations can trade to mitigate the
effects of this policy of curbing emissions has on
their economies. It's not the best solution, but it
brings world-wide consensus on a method of cooperation
towards this goal. Both the huge emitters like the US
and the small emitters like China can be accomodated.


The upheaval isn't worth it. Recall during the last oil
crises of Jimmy Carter's years. Sometimes I wasn't sure
whether I could find a station with some gas to go to
work the next day. Upcoming developments may be even
worse. If it comes too soon, then we need to be ready
with sustainable food policies and mass transit
policies now-- so we will not go through the suffering later.

Hey a 5% cut is better than increases. We have already
wasted too much time in accomodating the wealthy energy
interests in this country. We should all be driving
hybrid cars right now, than SUVs. Competition, like an
equitable tax policy, only works if govt levels the
playing field and doesn't play favorites. But people
like their SUVs too much.

--alvin

martinez

Well the people arguing that it will happen - the more intelligent
ones make the same argument that the poster made about nuclear power.
You know it may not be certain , the odds may even be against it but
if it does the extreme claims are that it will first make large areas
desert-like that were once green and melt the ice caps flooding
coastal areas creating major shifts in climate that will cause massive
shifts in populations to adjust - disaster. Then they claim these
changes ironically will trigger just the opposite climate change
eventually --- an ice age. So since the outcomes are extreme disasters
--- better not to take the chance even if you think its remote.


The other question is how likely is it? There are lots of people who
argue pointing to the evidence that the evidence isnt that good.
Others say it is very good. Who is right? The well known novelist
Michael Crichton who likes to wrap his plots around some hot topic (
Jurassic Park bio-engineering ) - he claims hes read the claims of the
pro-global warming camp and was totally unconvinced so he wrote the
novel State of Fear supposedly depicting a sort of conspiracy where
people are led to believe in this global warming scenario for the
benefit of several groups. Obviously this has annoyed people who
believe in it and you can see cyber-squatters at his website who post
messages calling him a dupe of the evil capitalists etc.

The pro-camp claims though the scientists who claim there is a problem
are more independant and that the papers sowing doubt have been paid
for by the evil capitalist industrialists etc covertly - kind of the
opposite scenario of what Crichton paints.

Hard to say. But the main thing is even in its present form

A) many claim it will cause a huge drag on the economy at a time when
there is the soc sec deficit problem. Many in the business community
arent nearly as enthusiastic as the governments which have signed on
like in Canada and Germany and France etc Ive read some business
leaders who say they think its nuts to sign on and that it will cause
a big hardship on the country. Thats why I think behind the scenes
there might have been a lot of haggling making even the 5% figure
merely window dressing.

B) Even if we get the 5% reduction -- it doesnt do anything as people
say. You need to get WAYYYYY down like a 60% reduction which even the
most optomistic pro-Kyoto people I dont think , claim we can do
without a big drag on the developed nations with any certainty.


However ---- since oil is going up it may force us to change anyway ,
the market is the ultimate power to force change. So who knows we may
do it whether we like it or not if oil does shoot up in price like
some are hyping and who knows maybe Germany will show us that we CAN
actually have major reductions in C02 , really major cuts without huge
disruptions in industrial output and services.

kimo

duuuuh.


No aloha.
nowhere.
When there is wanton destruction of the aina...
and decimation of the culture.

as312

Threat Risk ****ysis is the standard process to determine
rational contingency plans for the various possibilities.
The options could be made available for expert and
popular discussion and decision-making.
The associated expenditure is minimal relative to the
security and the benefits that should accrue in the
public interest.
THe motto is Always Be Prepared.
--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q

as312

[Moderator's note: please keep this on topic for Hawaii. Mahalo. --Susan]

The fuel shortage in the 1970's and 1980's was
manipulated by the Seven Sisters.. a consortium of
oil companies to increase the price of petroleum
products.
Huge fleets of oil tankers were moored offshore
the East and West coasts of North America.. in effect
slowing down the delivery of the products to consumers..
creating the artificial shortage of supply..
therefore increasing demand.
A similar managed petroleum shortage occurred in
Western Canada.. the westerners were quoted as saying..
"Let the bastards freeze."
--
Longing to be closer to to the sun, the wind and the sea!
Spiritually at: Latitude 21 degrees 19' 9" North. _!_
Longtitude 157 degrees 56' 31" West. Aloha! ___o_(_)_o___
q