Hi Wim
Thank you for the interesting reply.
WIM:
I agree. My impression until now (but I may be misinformed) is that the
Kyoto agreement is an essential part of this: it tried to include as many
nations as possible in this initiative. In the end it wasn't much more than
agreement to put in the needed effort to reach certain goals at a certain
time and agreement over the way to measure the results of that effort and to
compare them with the goals. The agreement over the concrete form of these
efforts was very limited and left ample scope to do it our way. In my
opinion stimulating development of sustainable energy sources is the most
obvious way to reach the Kyoto goals.
My main criticism of the Kyoto agreement is, that its goals are not
ambitious enough and are projected to far into the future.
ROG:
If we want to invest in R&D into clean, affordable, renewable sources of
energy, I suggest we do so directly.
WIM:
I consider global warming resulting from human activity to be highly
probable.
ROG:
Me too. I am not sure that the effects will be all that catastrophic, but I
think they will be noticeable.
WIM:
You both seem to fear that taxation of unrenewable resources and
energy-inefficient wealth production would undermine the ability of the
economy to develop alternatives. Don't forget however that taxes are spent
again (supposing strong enough democracy to prevent private hoarding by
government officials). They can be spent on subsidizing alternatives. They
can also be used to decrease taxation on renewable resources and sustainable
wealth production.
ROG:
Taxation -- if excessive -- can also discourage productivity and growth. I
am all for tax reductions in support of clean, renewable energy.
WIM:
Doesn't the Kyoto agreement leave enough room to
democratically and experimentally find the best way?
ROG:
I don't believe so. But I could be wrong here.
WIM:
The amount of (redistribution of) taxation needed is far less than taxation
for military purposes. Unlike spending on the military, spending on
(subsidies for, tax-decrease for or direct investments in) development of
renewable energy and sustainable production pays a return in terms of a
better functioning economy. Military spending only reaps destruction, sooner
or later. (Europe found -internally- an alternative for military 'solutions'
to age-old international conflicts in European integration. That should be
possible on a global scale also.)
ROG:
We could use this money for other things too -- improved health in developing
nations, literacy campaigns, improved sanitation in developing countries,
better safety nets, or it could be money left in the hands of those that
earned it. The question isn't whether it is better than one alternative, it
is whether it is the best use of money considering all the alternatives.
Europe has the luxury of abdicating most defense/peace-keeping to the US
(with the exception of Great Britain). It is quite a treat too.... They get
to depend upon the US as an ally and as the muscle when problems or threats
flare up, but the rest of the time they can scorn the US for its barbaric
militarism. On top of it all, they can also assume the superior airs of
advocating peace and appeasement (after all, they would have trouble
enforcing any other position). What does Platt call this? Cost-free morals?
I too am all for opportunity, economically sound conversion to renewable
resources, smaller population and reasonable market controls for resource
overuse. I think, if done right, that this could both improve wealth, health
and the environment. The devil is in the details though, and that is where
you and I usually disagree.
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:21 BST