Slashdot Mirror
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%.)"
IIRC, its not 7%, only 5% but below of the level of 1990. The final goal is 30%. Germany allready lowerd the emissions by about 10%.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Really why is it the US, as the biggest polluter in the world can't they make a significant effort to ratify the treaty like the rest of the world. Why should the US be treated to a special treatment when they set the worst example ?
:)
Sometimes life just isn't fair
I live in Canada, and we are being asked to reduce our emissions by stupid amounts in 8 years. I think its on the order of 10% (i'm probably way off, but correct me if i'm wrong). Now Canada has about 30M people in it. China has over 1 Billion. China is NOT bound by the Kyoto treaty in any way. If each member of their population increases their CO2 usage by a few percent, it will totally wipe out any benefits that Canada, the US, and many other countries could make happen.
If this is a global question, why isn't their anything approaching global participation? Shouldn't the largest country on earth be bound by it as well?
And for a 2nd perspective, there is a lot of controversy in my Province over a proposed Alternative strategy to CO2 reduction being developed in Alberta. Most people supporting Kyoto say "NO! Do Kyoto NOW! It's the only way!" Well Mr and Mrs Environmentalist, if other plans don't reduce enough, fast enough, then you must be in favor of mass genocide of all polluters! In fact, wipe out 99% of the world's population! That'll put a big dent in CO2 production! Or if not mass deaths right away, how about banning the use of all types of fuels that produce CO2! "Sorry Mr Freezing person. Your wood campfire doesn't follow Zero Emmissions Guidelines. You'll need to freeze in winter. Sorry." Anybody can see both of these are unreasonable (well i HOPE everybody thinks these are unreasonable...), but we have to realize that Kyoto is not necessarily the best way of doing things.
There ARE better ways that reduce CO2 emmissions, perhaps not as fast, but not as devastating to economies traditionally dependant on "dirty" fuels. And ignoring other countries that aren't developed yet, just makes them more dependant on CO2, and doesn't help long-term. Get solutions for them implemented right away, because it is easier to change an infrastructure that isn't there yet, rather than try and make a dramatic shift.
Erioll
Termites and other similar insects are probably the most prolific producers of greenhouse gasses on the planet, easily outstripping cattle, and motorvehicles.
Perhaps we could call all of their colonic (heh) Queens into some room somewhere, and demand that they chill for a while?
No? Didn't think so.
Duh.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
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.
Cato has the credibility of the Flat Earth Society, at this point. And the paper you linked to has no references to back it up, either.
Nope, Clinton and Gore put us exactly where we are today by killing any program related to nuclear power, including but not limited to:
- Killing the Integral Fast Reactor program at Argonne Nat'l Lab. This reactor design would recycle fuel, reducing the amount of waste produced.
- Killing transmutation experiments which might have been used to treat existing waste.
- Stalling waste disposal programs e.g. Yucca Mountain.
Why do moderators mod up blatantly false posts? For the benefit of those in the audience, like the poster, who did not pass third grade civics, IT'S NOT THE PRESIDENT'S JOB TO RATIFY TREATIES. Presidents sign them (which Clinton did), and they go to the Senate, which must pass them by a 2/3 margin. The Senate voted 95-0 to not ratify the treaty.
So, one more time for our slower readers: Unless George W. Bush cloned himself 67 times and got those clones elected to the Senate, there is no possible way for him to ratify the treaty even if he wants to.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Are you for real? I love the bit about the road deaths, and the vision of oppressive governments forcing people into tiny cars.
I'm glad to say that there's currently a long US waiting list for the BMW Mini, which is a truly fun car to drive (hint: it doesn't roll over when you go around corners).
To return to matters vaguely relevant to Kyoto, the nihilist "it's hopeless so why bother" argument IS dealt with by the treaty - Kyoto is part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, not a single set of regulations but a mechanism to establish fair rules as required. The hard part is establishing the level playing field, not playing the game.
The USA is the world's biggest polluter, both in total and, by a huge margin, per capita - it has a responsibility to lead. Do you really think that the US, Europe and Japan would be unable to bring remaining countries into line when necessary?
Kyoto is nothing more than another European inspired attempt at hobbling the United States and improving European competitive position. Europe, because of its much greater population density, needs less fuel than the US.
This is such a bullshit, that I can't resist. Europe isn't pushing the Kyoto protocol, because they want to "hobble" the US. Come on guys, it's not always about you... Europe is pushing Kyoto, because they actually care about the environment! What many Americans don't get is that environmental concerns are far more common and usual in Europe than in the US. And I'm not talking about environmental extremist. People DO care about pollution and the environment in general here. BY FAR more than in the US. (Yes, and I've been and worked in both places...)
Furthermore, its citizens already drive in tiny cars (due to extortionate fuel taxes and other laws)
Bullshit Nr. 2. Yes, people drive smaller cars. (I do, for sure.) But it's not only because of the fuel taxes and "other laws", but more because most Europeans don't feel the need to have two meters of steel around you. I (and no European I know) never understood the American affection for SUVs (especially in Texas. Why do you need all that trucks??). And people look for cars with high mileage not only because of the costs, but mainly because it's perceived as bad for the environment, if the car uses to much gas.
There's actually a lot of research going in this field. VW just presented the first one-liter-car (translates to about 230 miles per gallon) as a prototype.
and already suffer a much higher traffic death rate per mile.
Would you care to back this claim with some official numbers?
"The science behind climactic change is beyond any serious dispute."
Nothing in science is beyond serious dispute; as that is the nature of science. Good science, anyway. Even someting as simple, elegant, and obviously correct as Sir Newton's theory of gravity was improved upon, and will likely be further refined in the future. I certainly think the science behind climate change is in its infancy, and if our present models of it are correct enough to make predictions centuries into the future then it is so only by some bizzare coincidence. We do not have nearly the amount of data we need to have refined our models that well through deliberate efforts.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should reveal that I am not a computer scientist. I worked for 5 years as an environmental enginneer doing research on air pollution from stationary sources. I now work for the "evil" oil industry (the one that builds the giant Gaia destroying, oil spraying robots that Capt. Planet fights in the cartoons... you may be surprised to discover that besides fighting the forces of Mother Nature, we also have a small side business providing the fuel that powers almost all the transporation in the modern world).
It's funny to see that everybody here is so concerned about this issue but a recent slashdot poll had the car as the top form of transportation chosen by /.ers.
If you want to do something you need to change yourself and the sytem will bend to accomodate your need.
To start with stop buying V8s till there will be more enviromental friendly and powerfull vehicles on the market. On the other hand stop purchasing products that involve high polution in their creation.
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:
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:
The only good weather is bad weather.
Having used European mass transit extensively, I think I am in a position to argue that it would not work well for Americans. The biggest reasons are our very low population density, and our highly concentrated (and efficient) retail distribution, which means that people need to be able to bring back a significant amount of goods per trip when they shop, because they have to go a significant distance to do so. In Europe, one is much more likely to have a short distance to go to a store, because they are not efficiently concentrated.
As far as reducing reliance on oil, the best way to do that is nuclear power, which is consistently blocked by environmentalists. We have not had a new nuclear plant started since 1979!
Many americans drive mid-sized cars. Hybrids are microscopic, they are kludges (extra parts). Many American drive small cars. However, unlike Europe, we seem to have more of a belief that freedom is a virtue, not a sin.
The only good weather is bad weather.
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).
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:
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!
My objection to Kyoto is that it can only be one of two things:
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.
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:
My objection to Kyoto is that it can only be one of two things:
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.
The only good weather is bad weather.