Slashdot Mirror
Russia to Ratify Kyoto Treaty
Repran writes "The Guardian reports that politicians, industry leaders and environment groups across the world welcomed the news last night that Russia had rejuvenated international efforts to combat climate change by ratifying the Kyoto protocol."
Think about it. Kyoto has 1990 emissions for a baseline. Russia's heavy industry was still going ahead mostly full steam from the Soviet days. Since then, their economy has contracted quite a bit and a lot of industry sits idle. I'd wager they've already met their Kyoto requirements and the hard part will be keeping emissions down, rather than cutting more.
Britain is somewhat similar in their Kyoto targets. The government was converting coal fired plants to natural gas en-masse already, so cutting emissions by 10% was a trivial exercise.
Too bad 98 senators sent a letter to Pres. Clinton saying they'd vote against ratifying it.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
I had a hard time believing that 98 senators would send such a letter, so Looked it up. I learned something today:
"Although the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. In July 1999, the United States Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.), which stated the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification."
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
So we start with Kyoto. Then we demonstrate improvements without destroying economies. Then we make a new treaty, with new baselines, ratcheting up progress and dragging industry into a sustainable millennium. The alternative is no treaty, no baseline, more pollution, and destruction of the environment and the economies, not to mention people, that depend on it.
--
make install -not war
98 Senators voted not to ratify the treaty, and 2 did not vote at all. Thats right boys and girls not one US senator (Democrat or Republican) Voted for Kyoto, so how is this bushes fault?
Kyoto is seriously flawed, China (one of the worlds most industrial nations) and India (very quickly growing) are exempt for emissions requirements, its a joke aimed at the west..
Granted they had to throw in the requisite George Bush jab, who by the way wasn't President when the Senate rejected the Kyoto treaty 98-0. No President is going to get past that majority.
.7 of an inch? Glaciers? Ignoring the issue that some of them were bigger in times where the planet was hotter?
The key here is money. Russia has something they can sell. They need money and what better way to obtain it?
Which brings up the point, whats the use of a treaty if you can just buy yourself a pass? What use is a treaty that excepts certain countries from the requirements?
Also, sea level rise is how much in the last half century?
When the science behind Kyoto gets real proof then come back with the treaty. what we have is an anti-industrialist agenda which convienent opts out some of the upcoming bigger polluters.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
right, because developing countries produce a whole lot of greenhouse gas.. compared to the US that produces 25% of ALL greenhouse gases destroying our world... I'm not saying Bush went against support.. I'm just saying that it's a good treaty and he should be willing to support it... unless of course he wants greenhouse gases to destroy our environment.
Best FPS gaming site on the net... ok, well maybe not the best
So we get them into the regime when it's most attractive to them, then up the antes to eliminate their contributions to the problems. That's how the nuclear arms treaties worked, and most other successful international efforts. It's a process of diplomatic inclusion and education, as well as negotiated consensus, that replaces the policy vacuum of that lets people destroy everyone downwind.
--
make install -not war
Now all we need is the biggest polluter in the world, with 5% of the population generating 25% of the pollution to finally grow up and ratify it as well...
Meanwhile, China and India are still exempt and have absolutly no restrictions and can emit all the greenhouse gas they damn well please. Looks like your policy vacuum is alive and well.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
This is bad for the welfare of humanity. The Copenhagen Consensus has ranked climate measures, especially Kyoto, as "bad", dead last behind AIDS, Malaria, malnutrition, free trade, clean water, economic freedom, and migration measures in ratio of social benefit to cost. The more climate research that is done the more evidence we find against human caused global warming. But once an environmental movement is started, no amount or reason can stop it.
Kyoto will help the environment by at most 0.02 Celsius by 2050. It will also be bad for the environment as more people worry more about CO2 and less about real air pollution that causes acid rain and other environmental damage, and less about more significant greenhouse gases like dihydrogen-monoxide and methane. Many Americans have already been completely ignoring the reductions in pollutants like NO2, O3, SO2, CO, and PM in the U.S. before and during the Bush administration when attacking him for not supporting CO2 reductions. Also Kyoto will increase energy prices in clean energy-efficient countries shifting more manufacturing to dirty inefficient energy-consuming developing countries like China, causing more global pollution.
Umm china is one of the most coal (thats burning the plants dinosaurs ate) burning nations on the planet. And china is quickly! becoming an industrial powerhouse. Heck as it is they use coal for 75% of their power! I guess because its not in an SUV youre ok with ignoring that eh?
As for India, Kyoto focuses more on power generation than fuel from personal conveynances (because more pollution comes from the former), guess who else gets more than 75% of their fuel from coal, ta daaa, India.
But lets make the case that your right and China and India dont really pollute *why exempt them*? or any other developing nation. If your point is that because we drive SUV's and they dont they dont matter why specifically make them exempt?
But your right to stick your head up your ass and squeal 'no fair' while having enough food on your table is yours to have and to hold.
Thank you, you have just in a nutshell pointed out what Kyoto is all about. Its not about the environment (otherwise not signee would be exempt) its about 'global justice' and the fact I am fed and fat... Thats the problem with Kyoto it was never a serious attempt to decrease pollution, it was an attempt to balance the global socio-economic scales by imposing restrictions on the growth of first world nations while letting developing nations pollute as much as they want..
Vetoing the administration report that showed that climate change had a human component for a start.
Link? I was not aware one could veto a report... I thought one had to veto a law..
Actually, China uses quite large amounts of coal and oil for its burgeoning industry and its surging automobile market. Their emission standards are very poor, and combined with their tremendous population, it has caused a significant air pollution problem, especially along the coast. China is the second biggest energy consumer in the world (behind the US), but spends 30000 Btu per dollar of GDP versus the US's 9000 Btu per dollar.
I d=1129363
Oh, and here are some references.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html
http://app.quotemedia.com/data/newsItem.htm?story
China is currently using different methods of getting energy than burning dinosaurs,
Since when? Next to the United States, Europe and Japan, they're the Saudi's fourth biggest customer.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.