Subject:
|
Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:08:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
339 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> >
> > I am not sure I agree. Kyoto provided a framework for the worlds biggest
> > polluters to reduce their polluting output. If you think it is not as good
> > as it could be as it focuses on 40 or so industrialised economies - but
> > ignores the developing economies - I'd agree to a certain extent.{1} Despite
> > that, I can't see how it is "bad".
> >
> > I suppose a good question here is how should we view “the environment”; as
> > luxury or a necessity?
>
> That's the wrong question, because it begs the answer.
I disagree. I've asked a similar question in the course that I teach
(non-majors intro to biology). My question was along the lines of 'What
does the environment do for us?' I've had students give answers that
range from 'nothing' to 'intrinsically supports all life on the
planet'. The 'nothing' answer could be attributed to being wise or
maybe our educational system. From this, Scott's question is
acceptable- People may view the environment one way or the other, but
they are still subject to the laws of it.
> I would suggest that a different line of questioning may be more fruitful.
>
> - Is the specific problem that Kyoto purports to solve really a problem? If
> so, how bad? If we're not sure, what level of risk can we tolerate?
Personally I don't believe Kyoto will solve the immediate problems
because of lag times, changes that have already taken place, etc. I'm
not saying that a reduction in greenhouse gas emission is not a good
thing. What causes the need for an absolute solution before anything is
done?
> - Is the pallative suggested really a fix? If so how, if not, why not?
> - Is the Kyoto protocol the most effective way to apply the pallative?
I won't get into these specifically since Dave has covered them so well
already, but I've been reading through this paper recently called 'Using
Envisioning to Design a Sustainable and Desirable World in the Presence
of Irreducible Uncertainty' that is related to Dave's ideas.
A draft is available at this site:
http://iee.umces.edu/miiee/ESDA_paper.html
Results within the paper seem to show that the majority of people
surveyed want a clean and healthy environment. I'm unsure if there is a
significant bias in the sample. I'm very interested in discussing this
paper with people outside my 'political' circle.
-chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto
|
| (...) That's the wrong question, because it begs the answer. I would suggest that a different line of questioning may be more fruitful. - Is the specific problem that Kyoto purports to solve really a problem? If so, how bad? If we're not sure, what (...) (24 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
