freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 9:28am:


its ultimately better than your idea which is to penalise small polluters and leave big ones unimpeded. Whatr exactly is the point of that?

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:


do not be so arrogant as to think we 'dont get it'. quite simply, 'we dont agree with it'! Is that so hard to work out?

now as to your first objection... well it isnt as if everyone is signing up anyhow. every country is still doing AS THEY SEE FIT and not according to any global formula at all. they arent agreeing with kyoto and they arent agreeing with per capita etc. every country is doing what they feel is okay to do at greatly varying amounts. How surprising...

Quote:


Longy, you would have to understand it first in order to genuinely disagree with it. You clearly do not understand, which is why both you and gizmo post rubbish like this:

Quote:


Perhaps we are too far ahead of you in this debate. You should start by trying to explain what you think 'per capita' means. Use google if you are having trouble.

Quote:


Actually Longy most first world countries already signed up to a scheme that placed no obligations at all on poorer countries, which is even more extreme. It is workable because it is common sense, unlike your suggestion which is ludicrous.

Quote:


You should start by attempting to figure out what my proposal actually is before getting yourself even more confused.

Yes. It was a reference to Kyoto.

Gizmo and Longy, do you both now concede that a per capita comparison is not "to penalise small polluters and leave big ones unimpeded"?

Also, neither of you have responded directly to this criticism:

Anyway, in case you have forgotten, the problem with that is that it would mean that poor countries have to give money to rich countries for the right to pollute at the same levels. Would you agree that such a position is totally unworkable in international negotiations?

Do you realise now that this makes your position totally untenable?

Are you just pretending to be stupid?

I can see that line of questioning is going to be way too complicated for you, so let's go right back to the beginning. Do you agree with this?

Quote:


You appeared to say earlier that splitting China into two countries is absurd, but only because you would have to break it up into much smaller countries to make them equal to Australia. I thought you were joking at the time, but now I am starting to suspect you are serious. Could you please elaborate on this?

Oh that. Yes I do remember someone posting that. I also responded at the time by pointing out how ridiculous that would get and got ignored. Gizmo then started going on about shame and I assumed it was something to do with holding such a silly position. It seems strange that such a strong critic of Kyoto would cling so strongly to one of it's mechanisms.

Anyway, in case you have forgotten, the problem with that is that it would mean that poor countries have to give money to rich countries for the right to pollute at the same levels. Would you agree that such a position is totally unworkable in international negotiations?

Yes the very key to the conundrum.

FD?  Longy Gizmoid et al.. clearly do not understand....  that they can arrive at all sorts of ideas.... but these ideas are unworkable, in real life.

I'd say ..let 'm dream on in their fanatasies...  no amount of reason will convince them..

Quote:


I did not suggest it was your comment. I did suggest you appeared to agree with it, for example with this particularly 'enlightening' response:

Quote:




Combine this with your inability to even comprehend what per capita means and you have some serious questions to answer.

For example, suppose China was broken up into many smaller countries with similar total GHG emissions to Australia. How exactly would you phrase your argument then? Would this render you incapable of criticising Chinese emissions?