EU Ratifies Kyoto Treaty

An anonymous submitter sends: "Yahoo! News is reporting that all 15 member states of the European Union have just ratified the Kyoto treaty to cut greenhouse emissions by 8% over the next ten years (the US agreed to 7%.)"

Comments

Bush: the facts

[sql*kitten]

The keyword here is "would." The US isn't ratifying squat, but who's surprised? Financing election campaigns is a costly business, and you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Bush is just behaving like the good boy he promised to be.

Bush couldn't ratify Kyoto even if he wanted to, since the Senate voted against it 95-0 in 1997 (admittedly it was non-binding, but it needed 67 votes to pass). Clinton signed the treaty, but during his term, he did nothing to try to implement it.

better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe all the skeptism here against kyoto in certain posts. here's an analogy:

you are in a sinking vessel, do you refuse to bail out the water just because the deck is not below water? do you refuse to bail out the water because other people is not bailing out the water? do you refuse bailout the water just because you can't realistically save the ship? do you refuse to throw out the bagage on the ground that you don't want to reduce your comfort of living?

The truly important things in this world are never profitable economically, but without them we wouldn't be here.

Re:Shame on the US !

[UncleFluffy]

You are free to sit in your wind powered house and enjoy your enviroment friendly life. I will enjoy mine and if you try to come accros forcing me to abide by your view of how things should be I will kill your ass.
Fair enough ?

Yup.

As the saying goes "your right to wave your fist stops at the place where my nose starts."

As long as the pollution from your lifestyle stays on your property, then that's fine by me.

If you send poison across the fence to my house, forcing me to abide by your view of how things should be, do I have the right to "kill your ass" to stop you messing with my lifestyle ?

A more rational response to global warming

[mesocyclone]

As has been pointed out on /., Kyoto by itself is an irrational response to global warming. The simple fact that it only delays warming by 6 years in 100 years shows that.

While science is far from proving that the current warming is caused by mankind, let us assume that in fact the hypothesis is correct. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, especially compared to the greenhouse gas called water vapor, but the actions of man have indeed caused CO2 to increase by over 30% in the last 150 years. So... assuming this increase will cause further warming, what should we do about it?

Kyoto attempts to simply reduce the warming. Environmental advocates also advocate a simple (if terribly expensive) strategy of stopping the warming and maintaining the status quo.

However, actually stopping the increase in CO2 is impossible without a massive reduction in population (i.e. a massive human catastrophe or global war). It won't happen for a number of reasons, the most important of which is the resistance of people, especally in developing countries, to the measures necessary to do so.

A more rational approach follows the following principles and facts:

1. We cannot stop the increase in CO2.
2. Any significant change in major systems such as transportation will be very expensive.
3. People who are economically well off can and do protect the environment better than poor people are able to. At the extremes, worldwide economic downturns cause massive deaths among the poorest in the world. Also, and not coincidentally, birth rate is high until a certain minimum economic threshold is reached.
4. In historic times, the earth and mankind have gone through significant periods of global warming and cooling.
5. The abilities of governments and treaties to limit human activity is limited, and the ability to extend that control into the future in a predictable manner is even more limited.

The most rational approach is to accept that global warming is inevitable (if we believe any predictions at all from the imperfect science). We should:

1. Use whatever means we can to improve the standard of living of the third world. The most important factors in this are democracy, lack of corruption, transparency of government, and an enforceable system of property rights. Without these, economic progress inevitably stalls (as the Chinese will soon find out). We should use our best efforts to further these minimum requirements for significant economic growth. We should also recognize that these factors also provide the basis for a stable system that will be able to deal with environmental issues.
2. Remove illogical impediments to energy efficiency. In the US this means removing obstacles to the development of nuclear power generation. In spite of the arguments of such provably wrong fools as Amory Lovins, centralized nuclear power is the most efficient way known to produce energy. Other methods such as photovoltaic, wind energy, biomass, cogeneration, etc have absorbed huge amounts of research dollars and yet are only marginal in contributing to the problem.
3. Continue to fund climatological research.
4. Try to determine the real costs or benefits of predicted global warming as a basis for decision making. These should be economic costs only.
5. Don't act hastily. Global warming is a long term trend. Unforseen changes in technology are likely to defeat most predictions. Likewise, global political, economic and health changes are very hard to predict. Imagine that it is 1902 and we are trying to predict the future. Could we predict fasicm, the world wars, the rise of the communist block, telecommunications and computers, nuclear power, the rapid rise of life expectancy, the rapid drop of population growth in developed countries, etc? Why do we think that we won't see similar upheavals in the next century? This perspective should show how foolish it is to attempt to make century long global plans!
6. Resist the pressures to take drastic governmental action (such as Kyoto). Recognize that governmental actions are governed by the Law of Unintended Consequences and Laws of Bureaucracy. A simple example is how the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law has caused over half of all new cars sold in the US to be SUV's and other light trucks!
7. Investigate relatively no-coercive measures whereby governments can help in the creation of long term financial derivative markets that can be used to both hedge against global warming and to properly allocate the externalities costs of CO2 emission. It is important to realize that the latter is extremely difficult, can be extremely coercive,m and is subject to strong pressures from special interest groups, and thus may not be worth doing.

Re:Wow - We are saved...

[Gerein]

Because of CAFE, the auto manufacturers do not make many large cars, and they charge a lot for them, because of the poor mileage of CAFE. But SUV's are exempt from CAFE, which is why Americans buy them.

Ok, got it. Surprises me nevertheless, because I've seen quite some cars in the US, which I would consider "big" (I never said, everybody is driving a SUV). So why are SUVs excluded? Sounds pretty stupid...

The National Academy of Sciences, not exactly a biased group, has estimated that somewhere between 2 and 3 thousand Americans die every year due to CAFE.

At this point, it would be really interesting to see some reliable figures of traffic deaths per capita or per car in the US vs. Europe. Unfortunately, at least my quick google search didn't turn up anything official... Anybody?

When I lived in Paris, I could buy all of my daily needs within a block. I didn't need to make a shopping trip. Americans, OTOH, need to go miles typically just to buy groceries.

When I lived in San Francisco, I could buy all of my daily needs within a block (ok, actually two). I didn't need to make a shopping trip. You're comparing the wrong places. If you live in rural areas in Europe you have to drive to a shopping center too... However, as I said before, I agree that this is more often the case in America than in Europe. But still I don't see, why you would need a SUV for that...

What Europeans tend to be is "superior" in that Americans are constantly getting lectured by you guys (at least in the media).

Right. But it's not like Americans never feel like they know how we Europeans should proceed... :-)

I would argue that Europeans have the luxury of worrying about such things because it doesn't cost them much personally to do so.

You said that before, and I still don't get it. Why would it cost you more to care about the environment? The Kyoto protocol want relative reducement! Nobody says, the US should have the same level of car emissions as Europe. And honestly: The height of the emission per captia figure of the US (2.5 times as high as Europe or Japan) can't really be explained with more transportation usage... So there should be a big area of possible improvement.

I also would argue that the Europeans are much more likely to approve of government regulating their lives and in general interfering more in their economy.

True. On of the fundamental differences in European and American culture. Not a bad thing in my opinion. I never understood this "don't trust your government"-attitude some Americans have.

pollution problems cannot be solved without the intervention of government, because the costs are not felt by the polluter and thus market mechanisms are not sufficient. The difference is that I have far less faith in governments to make correct interventions than Europeans seem to have.

I agree with both points. As I said, I don't know where this gerenal government distrust of many Americans comes from... (And before somebody flaims: There's a big difference between trusting your government in certain area and not questioning anything it does...).

And in the case of global warming, a good argument can be made that no action other than research is appropriate at this time. The uncertainties are too high as I have mentioned in previous posts.

No. First off, there's already disagreement about if there are any uncertainties about global warming. But let's say there are. Let's assume, we don't know for sure if global warming is happening. Then it's still not worth the risk! Reducing emissions now is the only way to assure we're not destroying the environment (well, not more than we already do, anyway).

US vs India

[Mad Quacker]

For everyone who has never been to a country like India, but just compares per capita pollution, let me tell you how wrong you are. The pollution in India will make your headspin, literally. I was caught in a bigger than usual traffic jam once, Literally _Gasping_ for air, wanting to leave the car right there and run for some breathable atmosphere, a reaction not unlike being held underwater. For the rest of the day I had numerous symptoms of CO poisoning, among other unpleasant things.

Vehicles there have no (enforced) emmissions controls, some barely have exhaust systems at all, on top of which almost everything is diesel, which means black smoke out the exhaust of everything. Vehicles, and the landscape around them in Calcutta literally have a black tinge to them, which is so consistant you don't even notice until you look up close and you can scrape it off with your fingernails.

Not that it should be an excuse for the US not to do everything it can.

Re:Wow - We are saved...

[mesocyclone]

First... a meta-comment. Thanks for the tone of your post. I just responded to one that was quite disrespectful (of course I responded in kind). Yours is a breath of fresh air.

... to the issues...

Ok, got it. Surprises me nevertheless, because I've seen quite some cars in the US, which I would consider "big" (I never said, everybody is driving a SUV). So why are SUVs excluded? Sounds pretty stupid...

It is, but government often does stupid things. This is one of the reasons for American distrust of government (which you asked about elsewhere). It was, of course, a political compromise, which is what democracies do.

At this point, it would be really interesting to see some reliable figures of traffic deaths per capita or per car in the US vs. Europe. Unfortunately, at least my quick google search didn't turn up anything official... Anybody?

I agree. I have read the statistics in the past. I don't have anything current. As of the time I read it, the European rate was quite high. Actually a death rate per mile/km would be more meaningful than per capita.

However, as I said before, I agree that this is more often the case in America than in Europe. But still I don't see, why you would need a SUV for that...

Yes, it is much more the case because so much of our country was developed more recently, and because we have so much land. The reason for the SUV is simply size and safety. And again, I think there would be a lot fewer of them if we didn't have the silly CAFE rules.

Oddly enough, SUV's are also a status symbol. Why, I don't know. I guess for the same reason that many urban Americans who have never been close to a live bovine wear cowboy boots and dress. Sort of odd. I own SUV's strictly for safety and comfort, and also at because I sometimes go into country where I truly need a powerful vehicle with four wheel drive. I live in Arizona and we have plenty of wilderness left.

Right. But it's not like Americans never feel like they know how we Europeans should proceed... :-)

True enough. The difference is that our own media is mostly Europhile and continuously agrees with you guys.

You said that before, and I still don't get it. Why would it cost you more to care about the environment? The Kyoto protocol want relative reducement! Nobody says, the US should have the same level of car emissions as Europe. And honestly: The height of the emission per captia figure of the US (2.5 times as high as Europe or Japan) can't really be explained with more transportation usage... So there should be a big area of possible improvement.

It is because of our dependence on automobile transport, which is where the majority of the reductions would come. You guys are already paying the high taxes on gas and the high taxes for train systems, etc. We are not, but would have to. So the delta is large for us, but not for you.

True. On of the fundamental differences in European and American culture. Not a bad thing in my opinion. I never understood this "don't trust your government"-attitude some Americans have.

This is hardly the place to get into it in detail, but it is a major difference. I know why I don't trust government, but I don't know why you would trust it. I view government as a necessary evil, which means that prudence to me dictates as little government as necessary. I do not view government as an instrument for moral good, but only as an instrument to prevent harm. I value my freedom from coercion, and I deeply resent the already large amount of interference that the US government has in my life (but I recognize the need for that government, of course).

No. First off, there's already disagreement about if there are any uncertainties about global warming. But let's say there are. Let's assume, we don't know for sure if global warming is happening. Then it's still not worth the risk! Reducing emissions now is the only way to assure we're not destroying the environment (well, not more than we already do, anyway).

Ah, here we get to the heart of the matter. Here are some issues to ponder:

1. You state the problem as absolute: prevent destroying the environment. But rarely are problems that simple, and this one is as complex as they get. Is there a reason to preserve the environment that we have at this moment? It may be that a warmer environment is better! Environmentalism almost always tries to freeze the environment in time, which itself is unnatural! So for a start, one must carefully quetion the goals.
2. Also, once must recognize that all human actions, including the lack of actions, have consequences. And actions on a global scale may have huge consequences. And we cannot accurately predict what those might be. I will give you a not far fetched example: The economic dislocations resulting from enough reductions to actually make a difference (as opposed to Kyoto, which by itself makes no relevant difference) might cause major political shifts. Perhaps India turns into a nuclear dictatorship as its people react to deprivation, and a global war starts. This isn't likely, but it is an example of second order effects that are possible.

   These are effects in the human system, which are even harder to predict than the climate itself! Thus my version of the precuationary principle is to avoid such major changes without a good idea of the harm they may cause!

3. Any forced change will, of course, cost resources - at least in the short term (in spite of arguments against this).The resources spent on emissions reduction might be much better spent on other things. For example, perhaps we could raise some countries from poverty to that critical level of GDP at which the birth rate drops and the populace can afford to consider environmental concerns. Or, we could provide quality water to the billions who don't have it (Lundborg's argument). In other words, one must examine all the alternatives.
4. Long term climatology would indicate that we are in danger of an ice age. Anthropogenic global warming may be necessary to avert this. Far fetched? There is better evidence for this long term trend, by far, than there is that mankind's increase in CO2 has caused any warming so far! I admit that this is still a long shot, but it is an example of possible unintended consequences.

My objection to Kyoto is that it can only be one of two things:

1. A facade (supporters would say "framework") to prepare us for much more onerous reductions in the future, --or--
2. An expensive but ineffective step (a 6 year delay in global warming over 100 years is clearly not worth any significant effort, and is also to close to the noise level).

Overall, I do not object to emissions reductions. I object to doing it in a dumb way. For example, in the US we have not built any nuclear power plants since 1979, due to illogical and hysterical reactions fired by environmental extremists. And yet nuclear power is by far the cleanest large scale power source available - i.e. the only one that can make a major difference. The other "power source" that is significant is conservation, but the US has already taken major steps in this direction, with little effect at all! It seems that the more efficient we make things, the more we use them!

An ideal solution would be a hydrogen powered transportation system. Unfortunately, this would require tens of trillions of dollars of investment, just for the US. Furthermore, hydrogen power is far less energy efficient than gasoline (hence my desire for nuclear plants - to produce the electricity necessary to prepare the hydrogen). It may be that over time, we are able to evolve in this direction.

What I will fight is anything that compromises the safety of myself and others so that the people in 2100 can wait until 2106 to get the same amount of global warming. And I will also object to schemes which are likely to result in vast deaths in the third world due to economic losses resulting form those schemes. I would rather see a few degrees of temperature rise (and related sea level rise) if those people can be brought into the second or first world! And that is one of the possible tradeoffs - in spite of the Kyoto attempts to adjust the balance. First... a meta-comment. Thanks for the tone of your post. I just responded to one that was quite disrespectful (of course I responded in kind). Yours is a breath of fresh air.

... to the issues...

Ok, got it. Surprises me nevertheless, because I've seen quite some cars in the US, which I would consider "big" (I never said, everybody is driving a SUV). So why are SUVs excluded? Sounds pretty stupid...

It is, but government often does stupid things. This is one of the reasons for American distrust of government (which you asked about elsewhere). It was, of course, a political compromise, which is what democracies do.

At this point, it would be really interesting to see some reliable figures of traffic deaths per capita or per car in the US vs. Europe. Unfortunately, at least my quick google search didn't turn up anything official... Anybody?

I agree. I have read the statistics in the past. I don't have anything current. As of the time I read it, the European rate was quite high. Actually a death rate per mile/km would be more meaningful than per capita.

However, as I said before, I agree that this is more often the case in America than in Europe. But still I don't see, why you would need a SUV for that... Yes, it is much more the case because so much of our country was developed more recently, and because we have so much land. The reason for the SUV is simply size and safety. And again, I think there would be a lot fewer of them if we didn't have the silly CAFE rules.

Oddly enough, SUV's are also a status symbol. Why, I don't know. I guess for the same reason that many urban Americans who have never been close to a live bovine wear cowboy boots and dress. Sort of odd. I own SUV's strictly for safety and comfort, and also at because I sometimes go into country where I truly need a powerful vehicle with four wheel drive. I live in Arizona and we have plenty of wilderness left.

Right. But it's not like Americans never feel like they know how we Europeans should proceed... :-)

True enough. The difference is that our own media is mostly Europhile and continuously agrees with you guys.

You said that before, and I still don't get it. Why would it cost you more to care about the environment? The Kyoto protocol want relative reducement! Nobody says, the US should have the same level of car emissions as Europe. And honestly: The height of the emission per captia figure of the US (2.5 times as high as Europe or Japan) can't really be explained with more transportation usage... So there should be a big area of possible improvement.

It is because of our dependence on automobile transport, which is where the majority of the reductions would come. You guys are already paying the high taxes on gas and the high taxes for train systems, etc. We are not, but would have to. So the delta is large for us, but not for you.

True. On of the fundamental differences in European and American culture. Not a bad thing in my opinion. I never understood this "don't trust your government"-attitude some Americans have.

This is hardly the place to get into it in detail, but it is a major difference. I know why I don't trust government, but I don't know why you would trust it. I view government as a necessary evil, which means that prudence to me dictates as little government as necessary. I do not view government as an instrument for moral good, but only as an instrument to prevent harm. I value my freedom from coercion, and I deeply resent the already large amount of interference that the US government has in my life (but I recognize the need for that government, of course).

No. First off, there's already disagreement about if there are any uncertainties about global warming. But let's say there are. Let's assume, we don't know for sure if global warming is happening. Then it's still not worth the risk! Reducing emissions now is the only way to assure we're not destroying the environment (well, not more than we already do, anyway).

Ah, here we get to the heart of the matter. Here are some issues to ponder:

1. You state the problem as absolute: prevent destroying the environment. But rarely are problems that simple, and this one is as complex as they get. Is there a reason to preserve the environment that we have at this moment? It may be that a warmer environment is better! Environmentalism almost always tries to freeze the environment in time, which itself is unnatural! So for a start, one must carefully quetion the goals.
2. Also, once must recognize that all human actions, including the lack of actions, have consequences. And actions on a global scale may have huge consequences. And we cannot accurately predict what those might be. I will give you a not far fetched example: The economic dislocations resulting from enough reductions to actually make a difference (as opposed to Kyoto, which by itself makes no relevant difference) might cause major political shifts. Perhaps India turns into a nuclear dictatorship as its people react to deprivation, and a regional war starts. This isn't likely, but it is an example of second order effects that are possible. These are effects in the human system, which are even harder to predict than the climate itself! Thus my version of the precuationary principle is to avoid such major changes without a good idea of the harm they may cause!
3. Any forced change will, of course, cost resources - at least in the short term (in spite of arguments against this).The resources spent on emissions reduction might be much better spent on other things. For example, perhaps we could raise some countries from poverty to that critical level of GDP at which the birth rate drops and the populace can afford to consider environmental concerns. Or, we could provide quality water to the billions who don't have it (Lundsborg's argument). In other words, one must examine all the alternatives.
4. Long term climatology would indicate that we are in danger of an ice age. Anthropogenic global warming may be necessary to avert this. Far fetched? There is better evidence for this long term trend, by far, than there is that mankind's increase in CO2 has caused any warming so far! I admit that this is still a long shot, but it is an example of possible unintended consequences.

   1. My objection to Kyoto is that it can only be one of two things:

   2. A facade to prepare us for much more onerous reductions in the future, --or--
   3. An expensive but ineffective step (a 6 year delay in global warming over 100 years is clearly not worth any significant effort, and is also to close to the noise level).

   Overall, I do not object to emissions reductions. I object to doing it in a dumb way. For example, in the US we have not built any nuclear power plants since 1979, due to illogical and hysterical reactions fired by environmental extremists. And yet nuclear power is by far the cleanest large scale power source available - i.e. the only one that can make a major difference. The other "power source" that is significant is conservation, but the US has already taken major steps in this direction, with little effect at all! It seems that the more efficient we make things, the more we use them!

   An ideal solution would be a hydrogen powered transportation system. Unfortunately, this would require tens of trillions of dollars of investment, just for the US. Furthermore, hydrogen power is far less energy efficient than gasoline (hence my desire for nuclear plants - to produce the electricity necessary to prepare the hydrogen). It may be that over time, we are able to evolve in this direction.

   What I will fight is anything that compromises the safety of myself and others so that the people in 2100 can wait until 2106 to get the same amount of global warming. And I will also object to schemes which are likely to result in vast deaths in the third world due to economic losses resulting form those schemes. I would rather see a few degrees of temperature rise (and related sea level rise) if those people can be brought into the second or first world! And that is one of the possible tradeoffs - in spite of the Kyoto attempts to adjust the balance.