Un Climate Summit 2014

[tosacco]

Here is a thread to discuss the UN Climate Summit next week.

I know the vast majority of outcomes will be symbolic, but I am glad it is being discussed. It's a step in the right direction. Anyone attending the march in NYC Sunday?

 

[tosacco]

Also I haven't read all of this yet but its a pretty straightforward, on the nose argument.

The New Climate Economy Report 2014

 

[Mr. H.]

I think the U.S. is doing fine re: emissions, considering the industrial output and transportation miles driven.

I've posted this graphic before, and I imagine it will get panned again. But it is telling in some respects...

It's time for the rest of the planet to step up to the plate. India, China, you name it. Their emissions are obscene.

 

[tosacco]

The US is doing well in terms of making efforts to reduce its emissions. The biggest problem is that all the developed nations got to where they are through what are now considered unsustainable and environmentally harmful practices. By regulating what can and can't be done, developing countries are at a disadvantage (beyond the other disadvantages they face). This may spur innovation, but most likely will perpetuate poverty and harmful practices being done in secret.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Here is a thread to discuss the UN Climate Summit next week.

I know the vast majority of outcomes will be symbolic, but I am glad it is being discussed. It's a step in the right direction. Anyone attending the march in NYC Sunday?

How can a teleconferenced summit be located in one city? That's a nonsensical formulation.

Oh wait, you mean people are flying into NYC rather than teleconferencing?

When these climate warriors start acting like there is a problem then they can earn some legitimacy for their positions.

 

[Rambunctious]

I know what we all can do...lets send the UN all of our extra cash. Maybe we should pay a tax to the UN so they can save the planet along with Nancy Pelosi. Maybe we should just toss out our outdated constitution and turn over all authority over the environment to the wonderful folks at the UN.
What a silly silly person you are.

 

[tosacco]

Here is a thread to discuss the UN Climate Summit next week.

I know the vast majority of outcomes will be symbolic, but I am glad it is being discussed. It's a step in the right direction. Anyone attending the march in NYC Sunday?

How can a teleconferenced summit be located in one city? That's a nonsensical formulation.

Oh wait, you mean people are flying into NYC rather than teleconferencing?

When these climate warriors start acting like there is a problem then they can earn some legitimacy for their positions.

Fair point, planes produce more carbon than cars. However, lets be rational; there is a larger need for people to take planes in travelling than, say, driving their car to work every day if they live in a major metropolitan area. Also, as somebody working on a project with another researcher on the other side of the country, I will say teleconferences are convenient, but certainly less effective than meeting face to face. While theoretically it should be the same, the digital/electronic medium influences how people interact. I personally do not feel it is conducive to "serious business." I know other people feel differently, and it is certainly not effective to meet all the time in person. However, where you are getting so many people together to hammer out a treaty they will all sign, face-to-face is better.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Here is a thread to discuss the UN Climate Summit next week.

I know the vast majority of outcomes will be symbolic, but I am glad it is being discussed. It's a step in the right direction. Anyone attending the march in NYC Sunday?

How can a teleconferenced summit be located in one city? That's a nonsensical formulation.

Oh wait, you mean people are flying into NYC rather than teleconferencing?

When these climate warriors start acting like there is a problem then they can earn some legitimacy for their positions.

Fair point, planes produce more carbon than cars. However, lets be rational; there is a larger need for people to take planes in travelling than, say, driving their car to work every day if they live in a major metropolitan area. Also, as somebody working on a project with another researcher on the other side of the country, I will say teleconferences are convenient, but certainly less effective than meeting face to face. While theoretically it should be the same, the digital/electronic medium influences how people interact. I personally do not feel it is conducive to "serious business." I know other people feel differently, and it is certainly not effective to meet all the time in person. However, where you are getting so many people together to hammer out a treaty they will all sign, face-to-face is better.

This is the problem with the socialist mindset, the belief that they know what is better for people than do the people themselves. Here it's important for the climate doomsayers to gather and hob knob together and so the damage they do to the environment is justified but the mother who drives an SUV because she wants to improve the safety odds for her children is doing something bad, she should be driving a tiny electrically powered cricket-car because socialists have deemed this to be in her best interest.

You see the problem? Her SUV will over the course of 1 year of typical driving release less greenhouse gases than one transcontinental flight for one passenger.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Fair point, planes produce more carbon than cars. However, lets be rational; there is a larger need for people to take planes in travelling than, say, driving their car to work every day if they live in a major metropolitan area. Also, as somebody working on a project with another researcher on the other side of the country, I will say teleconferences are convenient, but certainly less effective than meeting face to face. While theoretically it should be the same, the digital/electronic medium influences how people interact. I personally do not feel it is conducive to "serious business." I know other people feel differently, and it is certainly not effective to meet all the time in person. However, where you are getting so many people together to hammer out a treaty they will all sign, face-to-face is better.

So back to my original point.

1.) Why does your rationality trump the rationality of people who do things you disagree with?
2.) With respect to the climate doom-sayers, why does the EFFECTIVENESS of their meeting trump environmental considerations? Isn't the ENTIRE point of the meeting to warn people of the coming danger? It sure doesn't seem that they place a high priority on reducing climate damage. They indicate that they value EFFECTIVENESS and smoozing and hob knobbing more highly than they value climate protection.
3.) So face-to-face is better and so is valued more highly than protecting the climate.

If climate doomsayers don't believe their own message then why should anyone else believe the message?

 

[Bush92]

Also I haven't read all of this yet but its a pretty straightforward, on the nose argument.

The New Climate Economy Report 2014

Well Herr Max, I know you want a one world government, but unless the whole world, including Third World (developing nations or underdeveloped is PC bullshit) go along with the show then the USA is under no obligation to lead the way on this issue. I would rather see UN do something about terrorism.

 

[tosacco]

Fair point, planes produce more carbon than cars. However, lets be rational; there is a larger need for people to take planes in travelling than, say, driving their car to work every day if they live in a major metropolitan area. Also, as somebody working on a project with another researcher on the other side of the country, I will say teleconferences are convenient, but certainly less effective than meeting face to face. While theoretically it should be the same, the digital/electronic medium influences how people interact. I personally do not feel it is conducive to "serious business." I know other people feel differently, and it is certainly not effective to meet all the time in person. However, where you are getting so many people together to hammer out a treaty they will all sign, face-to-face is better.

So back to my original point.

1.) Why does your rationality trump the rationality of people who do things you disagree with?
2.) With respect to the climate doom-sayers, why does the EFFECTIVENESS of their meeting trump environmental considerations? Isn't the ENTIRE point of the meeting to warn people of the coming danger? It sure doesn't seem that they place a high priority on reducing climate damage. They indicate that they value EFFECTIVENESS and smoozing and hob knobbing more highly than they value climate protection.
3.) So face-to-face is better and so is valued more highly than protecting the climate.

If climate doomsayers don't believe their own message then why should anyone else believe the message?

I am not ignoring you, but I am trying to meet a midnight deadline for a paper, I will try to respond to these tomorrow.

Also I haven't read all of this yet but its a pretty straightforward, on the nose argument.

The New Climate Economy Report 2014

Well Herr Max, I know you want a one world government, but unless the whole world, including Third World (developing nations or underdeveloped is PC bullshit) go along with the show then the USA is under no obligation to lead the way on this issue. I would rather see UN do something about terrorism.

Why would the UN do something about terrorism? It seems like Team America has that covered.

 

[Rambunctious]

Basically, we're all screwed by the stupid majority, and the power mongers used over-complexity and nice words to do it.