Japan, home of the Kyoto Treaty, says it can't meet the treaty's goals.

[Muzzle Tough]

The Kyoto treaty was created in Kyoto, Japan. So it's kind of interesting that the very country that is home to the treaty is saying that it can't meet the treaty's goals.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1220/p08s01-comv.html

Even before it officially takes effect on Feb. 16, the Kyoto agreement to curb greenhouse gases is leaking air.

Fixing it won't be easy.

Last week, most of the world's nations met in Argentina to assess what the treaty might be able to achieve by its expiration in 2012. Many nations are faltering in their commitment to rein in industrial carbon-dioxide pollution since it's possible such steps will limit economic growth.

Some, such as Italy and Canada, are raising doubts about the sacrifices required. Britain admits it may not reach its target, while Japan flat-out says it can't reduce emissions by the expected amount, which is 6 percent below the 1990 levels.

<snip>

[justinsb]

1. It's going to be a bumpy ride

with the increases in emitions as poorer countries become less poor the needed decreases are going to have to be closer to 50% than 6%

[NNadir]

2. There is one, and exactly one, immediately accessible means

that is a rapidly scalable proven technology for reducing greenhouse gases. It's the giant elephant on the table that only those who are seriously committed to the amelioration of this problem can see:

It's called nuclear energy.

Without this well understood technology, there is actually very, very, very, very little hope. Conservation can only do so much in a vastly over populated world.

[Muzzle Tough]

3. I agree with you about nuclear power.

But I disagree with you that the world currently has too many people.

Human population cannot grow forever. There are limits there. But even these limits are subject to technology. With zero technology, the earth may be able to support a few hundred million people. But with clean, safe nuclear power, which can be used to desalinize water, create fertilizer, mine building materials, and provide electricity for homes and businesses, and with adopting modern agriculture in places that don't currently use it, like Africa and Bangladesh, I think the earth could support 20 billion people at a first world standard of living. But human population will likely peak at 9 billion around the year 2050, so I don't see a population problem.

Poor countries are not "overpopulated." Instead, they are "underdeveloped." For example, people say that China is "overpopulated." But this is not true. Instead, China is "underdeveloped." England, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland are all more densely populated than China, but no one ever says those countries are "overpopulated."

[blindpig]

4. so, what about the rest of the Earth's inhabitants?

I guess they don't count. 20 billion at a first world standard of living? Thats laughable. Hell, we'd need 4 Earths to do that with our current population.

Yes, those European countries you mentioned are overpopulated, it is only by the wealth that they transfer from the 3rd world that they are able to mitigate the effects. Same with us.

Perhaps you think I am "sick"(as I was labeled in another thread) because I value the surviving biodiversity of this planet over the prospect of additional billions of humans. You might check out: www.deepecology/deepplatform.html

Not that I think it will change your mind.

[Muzzle Tough]

5. My answers to your questions.

"so, what about the rest of the Earth's inhabitants?"

They should all adopt modern technology so they can have a first world standard of living.

For example, 100 years ago, Japan was a third world country. But since then, they have adopted modern technology and become rich. So now everyone in Japan has a first world standard of living.

10,000 years ago, EVERY country was a third world country.

"20 billion at a first world standard of living? Thats laughable. Hell, we'd need 4 Earths to do that with our current population."

That is not true at all. Technology increases the carrying capacity of the earth. Modern farming. Nuclear energy. Desalination. Computer technology. Turning worthless rocks into valuable building materials. The more technology, the higher the earth's carrying capacity.

Since the 1960s, world population has doubled, going from 3 billion to 6 billion. But because of technology, food production has more than doubled. Per capita access to housing, education, health care, life expectancy, energy, etc., have also gotten better. In other words, better technology has increased the carrying capacity of the earth.

We do not need "4 Earths" for any of that.

1 Earth is plenty, if we use enough technology.

Information is the most important resource. And this is a resource that can only become more abundant. Once a technology has been invented, it can never be un-invented.

"Yes, those European countries you mentioned are overpopulated, it is only by the wealth that they transfer from the 3rd world that they are able to mitigate the effects. Same with us."

That is not true. 10,000 years ago, there was no wealth at all. Wealth is something that is created.

The world is a much richer place today than it was 10,000 years ago because we have created so much wealth during the past 10,000 years.

Bill Gates in the richest person in the world. He did not "transfer wealth from the 3th world" as you claim. Instead, he started a company and created wealth and became rich.

Likewise, rich countries did not "transfer" their houses, factories, office buildings, automobiles, computers, washing machines, refrigerators, etc., from the third world. We did not "transfer" our wealth from the third world.

Wealth is something that is created. The amount of wealth that exists is not fixed.

There was no wealth 10,000 years ago. Today, there is lots of wealth.

Your link states:

"newer and better technologies is the best bet to improve the quality of our air and water, and to lessen environmental harm from global warming."

I agree with that 100%.

[blindpig]

6. the inhabitants I am referring to are non-human

Perhaps I was not clear or perhaps that concept is alien to you.

The 4 Earths statement I copped from EO Wilson. I defer to his scientific acumen.

Of course rich countries don't get finished products from the 3rd world. They get raw materials and labor real cheap. Often with the aid of political corruption and gunboat diplomacy.

Where did you get that "newer, better" quote? It was not in the platform.

It seem clear from your reply that maintaining biodiversity is not even on your radar. Maybe you're ignoring the inconvenient?

To divorce ourselves from the environment that we've evolved in lessens our humanity. Maybe that's the problem now.

[Muzzle Tough]

7. The quote.......

......... is from the 5th paragraph in the link.

Of course we import some raw materials from other countries. And when we do, we export money. It's a win-win situation.

Our using cheap labor from poor countries is one of the things that's helping those countries to become rich. Once a poor country starts selling lots of stuff to rich countries, the poor country becomes richer. For example, look at how Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore have all made themselves richer by selling their goods to the U.S. It's a win-win situation. Once every country has become rich, and there's no cheap labor left in any country, those jobs will be replaced with machines.

It's the rich countries that do the best job of protecting biodiversity. In the rich U.S., we do a great job of protecting wolves and grizzly bears. But in poor African and Asian countries, the rhinocerous and the tiger are on the verge of extinction. Rich countries are much better at protecting biodiversity.

[blindpig]

9. Ho Ho Ho

Win-win? Indeed. Western companies often corrupt local political processes(or engage in on-going corruption), disrupt local societies and mangle the environment for relatively small amounts of money which all but the elites never see.

The countries you list have no resources to export other than the labor of their people. If the outside resources that they depend upon for manufacturing fail so do they. The Earth's resources are finite, think oil.

Rich countries are doing something towards species recovery, increasingly grudgingly. And these programs only cover the charismatic megafauna, ignoring the lbj's(little brown jobs) which often perform important environmental functions but are worthy in their own right in any case. Recovery is not the same thing as maintaining a species. We have driven these species to the brink of extinction , not such a good job, IMHO. Even as we speak Alaska is shooting wolves from airplanes at the behest of the big game industry. And stockmen in the lower 48 clamor for the blood of the recovering wolves and bears in some sort of atavistic reprise of their ancestor's jingoistic frontier mentality.

Of course population plays a great hand in this and we can see how much the bu$h maladministration is helping this with it's faith-based family planning!

Concerning that quote from link, don't think we're looking at the same page. Paragraph 5 of the Deep Platform states:
5) The flourishing of human life and culture is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease.
Some might choose to read all kinds of evil shit into that statement which isn't there nor implied. It is simply fact. How you get there separates humans from monsters.

[rfkrfk]

8. Japan's poor, are undertaxed

I don't understand why, Japan {and the other Kyoto-faithless]
simply refuses to increase indirect {energy}taxes, on
politically helpless people.