No one with any sense can look back and say President Bush's administration was a complete success, but one decision he made that I have always proudly stood behind was not to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Check out this link and then read Probe International article you can link to from there.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/01/28/how-kyoto-credit-scams-work.aspx
Kyoto
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Government regulation is always a double-edged sword. On one hand, regulation serves to protect the public interest (w/ good regulation on Wall Street, we wouldn't be going through a financial meltdown right now). On the other hand, the law of unintended consequences ensures that whatever regulation is put in place will have some unpredicted adverse effect. This effect is clearly illustrated in this article (indigenous peoples being removed from their homeland to make way for hydroelectric dams).
That's why I'm only in favor of regulation in the most critical of industries (Wall Street, healthcare, air travel, etc.). Elsewhere, I prefer the free-market approach w/ incentives by the goverenment to do the right thing for the people (e.g. tax breaks for producing plug-in hybrids).
I am a fan of Kyoto, at least the spirit of it. A cap and trade system is one of the most agreed upon methods for reducing carbon output. Mike, how can you say curbing greenhouse gases is not worthy of regulation?
Kyoto was flawed and doomed to fail because of issues like this and the fact that the largest carbon emitter, the US, did not ratify it. There where sound economic reasons for this to be sure.
That said, perhaps its just my liberal bias but what I read in that article were hard core conservatives playing liberal ("oh those poor little Indians.") to criticize Kyoto, which they hate because it hurts their old-school economic model of us (read: U.S.) first, screw the rest. At least have the decency to be honest and stop faining magnanimity.
Why do corporations succeed? Because they harness the effort of a portion of humanity to multiply there effectiveness. Should we not strive to harness and direct the efforts of Humanity for the good of all? Competition is good, but the rules need to be made to keep things fair and to keep things sustainable.
I'm not necessarily against government regulation for carbon emissions. I just didn't cite it as an example of critical areas (alongside Wall Street, healthcare & air travel). I think it goes without saying that I'm in favor of curbing CO2 output in whatever way we can.
That being said, I'd still prefer a non-regulatory approach to battling climate change. I guess I'm a little bit of a cynic, but people tend to start playing numbers games whenever the boss (or government) establishes goals and metrics. There's just too much temptation to manage the numbers instead of solving the problems.
I'm more in favor of government involvement as a market shaper and research funder, and not as a regulator except in the most prudent situations.
Well what's the solution then? Hope that people do the right thing for the environment? I'm just too much of a cynic to believe that is going to happen.
For instance, it's a freaking daily battle to get the folks in my office to conserve paper, use the conveniently placed bright blue recycle bins, and generally try to reduce waste. I'm pretty sure I'm becoming known as the green nazi.
This problem extends to my employer and on up the train. It's still just too easy and relatively cost free to waste and polute. Something has to be done, or not.
I tend to agree more with Mike. People are extremely good at finding ways to manage numbers. Take for instance the standardized testing debacle going on right now in the school system. You have schools whose only goal is to teach a test to manage a number. What happened to schools providing an education? It's gone by the wayside so we can improve FCAT scores. In the same way, government regulation of carbon emissions will inevitably lead to companies manipulating the number or finding loopholes instead of fixing the problem. Just like how car companies (including everyone's baby Toyota) have gotten around gov't regulation on mileage by producing fuel sucking SUVs and Trucks that are exempt from the regulations.
@Buki, it's basic human behavior. If the people in your office have a small blue recycling bin at their desks, and the only non-recycling bin was 100 feet away on the other side of the office, they would probably start recycling more often. Yes, you'd probably have to start making periodic checks to ensure that nobody was throwing their uneaten freedom fries in the recycling bins, but that's easy compared to trying to convince everybody to become treehuggers.
Same thing rings true for government. For people to do what's best in the long-term (use clean energy, drive efficient cars, recycle, etc.), government has to make it good for them in the short-term. Government has to be a bridge. Government has to expedite the adjustment process.
To relate this back to Buki's office, the government (the office manager) should provide little recycling bins for everybody in the office for free, and then work w/ the custodial service to monitor the recycling bins and make sure nobody mis-recycles (is that a word?). At some point, maybe the office manager develops a recycling SOP (like government regulation), but by that time everybody will already have adjusted to the superior recycling system.
That's the sad thing Mike, their already ARE recycling bins at everyone's desk and in strategic locations around the building, but still people trash plastic bottles, paper, etc. Granted the school just started this program in the fall and Mississippi is behind the curve in having an inchoate green culture, so perhaps I should give it some time to stick.
As I've said in earlier posts I agree that people are not going to change unless, as you said, it is in their self interest. Lets hope the green movements sticks and makes this happen.
Now that's the kind of comments I was hoping for. Well done people.
why would you say that any administration was a "complete" success? i think time will tell that W's administration was better than many perceive it now.
I wasn't inferring that there have ever been administrations that were "complete successes". That was more of a figure of speech than a concrete discription of performance and accomplishments. And I hope you're right. I hope history is fair when examining W's time in the White House, because he was dealt a fairly crappy hand pretty much from the getgo. That being said, I don't think it will happen that way. Too many things went wrong while he was in office, even they weren't all his fault.
anonymous here again...just thinking that obama was "dealt a fairly crappy hand from the getgo" as well, but i am going to venture to say that with the obama love fest going on right now, i bet he will be looked upon favorably no matter what.
Post a Comment