Kyoto Treaty

[Beestie]

The contribution of the US to the world GNP is pretty much the exact same as its oil consumption: around 25%.

Japan signed it and their production of greenhouse gasses actually increased. But at least they signed it and I guess that's all that matters.

[Irie]

So, to immediately put my foot in my mouth: China: Kingdom of bicycles no more

Be worried. If you have given even a moment's thought to climate warming and its potential impact on our planet, be very worried. China, a nation of 1.3 billion people, has abandoned the bicycle as a principal mode of transportation and is now moving at a frightening pace to a car-based economy.

[piercehawkeye45]

Do you blame them?

When we start riding bicycles to work then we can complain about them not using bikes to get to work.

[wolf]

We can complain anyway. That's one of the benefits of that Bill of Rights thingy that we have and everybody else doesn't.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by wolf

We can complain anyway. That's one of the benefits of that Bill of Rights thingy that we have and everybody else doesn't.

why doesnt it get used? what can it achieve if it were to be used?

[Irie]

It wasn't a complaint, it was just the exact opposite of what I said before. I was using China as an example of a country that doesn't have too bad of a dependency on oil, but it looks like times are a changing.

[glatt]

I don't really get it. Why would China do this? In the US, we were settled after the invention of the car, so we built everything far apart because we could. Now we need cars because nothing is close to anything else.

In China, they have been doing just fine with bicycles. I assume things are close together if bikes work OK. Why switch to cars if it ain't broke?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by glatt

I don't really get it. Why would China do this? In the US, we were settled after the invention of the car, so we built everything far apart because we could. Now we need cars because nothing is close to anything else.

In China, they have been doing just fine with bicycles. I assume things are close together if bikes work OK. Why switch to cars if it ain't broke?

Because America gets special treatment over the rest of the world? Grow up and learn that other nations will do anything to get to half the standard of living we have now and we have no right to hold them back.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

I don't really get it. Why would China do this? In the US, we were settled after the invention of the car, so we built everything far apart because we could. Now we need cars because nothing is close to anything else.

Settled after the invention of the car? The population increased but most of the states and major cities were in place. Most of the land was spoken for and at least sparsely settled.
Sure levittown and commuting came along after the car but that was a chicken/egg deal.

In China, they have been doing just fine with bicycles. I assume things are close together if bikes work OK. Why switch to cars if it ain't broke?

They used bicycles because it beat walking or a Water Buffalo. Being dirt poor, and not much they could do about it under Mao, it was the best they could do. It's hard to move a refrigerator or console TV on a bike, but they didn't have either, for the most part.
Most of China has extremes in weather, from bitter snowy winter to monsoons and tropical downpours. How much fun is that on a bike?
They didn't travel far because there was nothing to travel to, no malls, no Disney World, no resorts for the peasants.
Roads are shit, too. They just started their road overhaul to connect every town and city with decent roads for the first time in history.
You may see their lifestyle as quaint and bucolic, but I'm sure they're damn sick of it.
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm....?

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Settled after the invention of the car? The population increased but most of the states and major cities were in place.

True but what really exploded the cities and urban centers was the National Defense Act of 1954 which funded the construction of the freeway system as a means to rapidly evacuate the city centers in the event of a nuclear attack.

Those freeways unintentionally led to the creation and growth of suburbia and the massive sprawl we see today.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, but if we hadn't spread out, where would we put 300 million people?

[JerryM]

Originally Posted by glatt

In the US, we were settled after the invention of the car, so we built everything far apart because we could. Now we need cars because nothing is close to anything else.

One group of my ancestors came to Texas in 1834, and another group in 1852. The entire country was settled LONG before the invention of the automobile. My Grandfather (who lived until I was 29 years old), never saw an automobile until he was a grown man.

This is a "chicken or egg" argument. The reason we took to the automobile as we did was the already existing open space in the country

Jerry Murdock

Yes, China and India are very naughty... does not matter, we need to do what we need to do, period.
Doing what is right has nothing to do with what others are doing.
In fact, it gives one a stronger platform from which to argue your point.

[Beestie]

It has everything to do with what others are doing. If our costs increase (as a result of stricter enforcement/higher standards) and their's don't then demand for our goods and services decline and jobs disappear, wages drop, etc.

I'm glad we aren't signing that stupid treaty - it hamstrings the US and lets China and India do whatever the hell they want. How many jobs are you willing to sacrifice over this?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

It has everything to do with what others are doing. If our costs increase (as a result of stricter enforcement/higher standards) and their's don't then demand for our goods and services decline and jobs disappear, wages drop, etc.

You have posted classic MBA reasoning. Why do you not ride in a Pinto? Because with innovation, costs decrease. Why did car prices decrease? People who just assume - who said increased pollution control means increased costs. They lied the exact same way as Beestie does now. Things that reduce pollution also meant higher gas mileage. That means less cost. But those who only know using a political ideology automatically know innovations will only increase costs.

Where does the designer reside on a spread sheet? Not in the column called assets. He resides in the column called expenses. That is the attitude of those who just know - don't first learn facts. Beestie automatically knows solution to global warming will only increase costs. So why does the basic car not cost $40,000 as predicted by those who opposed air pollution reduction?

Beestie automatically knows innovation will only increase costs - cause job losses. That was the same mentality at Xerox when technology such as SDS was stifled - because it increased costs by complicating technology. Today that concept in SDS is in all computers - as Xerox destroyed jobs because it feared innovation. Beestie - you are posting exactly like those who fear rather than innovate. You post with the philosophy taught in business schools where the advancement of mankind is irrelevant.

Beestie – learn from history. Don’t post anti-American rhetoric. As environmental problems were addressed, then costs decreased and jobs increased. Where Americans denied the damagers of pollution, then costs increased You are posting the lies of those who use poltics rather than logic and the lessons of history. You are making blanket assumptions and declaring your speculations as fact. Reality is that much of the solutions to global warming also mean better lifestyles and more jobs. You don’t believe this. Then post technical details rather than wacko extremist speculations. Where are your numbers that costs would increase?