Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Continues Opposition to Kyoto Environmental Treaty
fenris_23 writes "The AP is reporting
that President Bush has reiterated his opposition to the Kyoto Treaty despite President Putin's acceptance of the treaty and recent scientific evidence directly linking greenhouse emissions to arctic warming. 'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality."
This entire US/Kyoto debacle started in 1998 when Al Gore decided to sign the treaty even after the entire US Senate voted in 1997 (well, okay, it passed 95 to 0) to say they wouldn't sign any climate protocol without certain details changed. Knowing this, the Clinton administration didn't even submit the treaty for ratification.
Knowing all this, it is unreasonable to expect any administration to again resubmit the treaty for ratification, especially when US green gas emissions have gone up a bit since 1998. For what it's worth, John Kerry not only voted in favor of the 1997 resolution, but also made it clear he would not push for Kyoto ratification were he to be elected. (His campaign did criticize the Bush administration's decision to not resubmit the treaty for ratification in 2001-2004, however)
China has ratified it, and *will* be held to the same standards (Annex 1 country) within the decade - probably sooner.
India has also ratified it, but is not yet an annex 1 country. As more countries join in, more countries will commit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Nope. The sole purpose of Kyoto is to attempt to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses. These gasses are are likely to cause the type of severe environmental degradation which will cause real problems for your children and my children.
The problem is where to set the 'proper per-capita' output for carbon dioxide. As you may know, the U.S produces by far the most CO2 per citizen.
Some background from the UK environmental agency may help illustrate some of the curbs that Europe put in place, at the same time that the U.S kept belching the stuff out. It is left as an exercise for the reader to find out how much C02 China and India put out per capita.
"By 1992, the world's governments had signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In the treaty, industrialised nations aspired to stabilising their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.
Most failed. By 2000, US emissions were 13 percent higher, though the European Union had made a small reduction, mainly through cuts in Britain and Germany.
In 1997, in a bid to strengthen their commitments, most nations signed the Kyoto Protocol. This time industrialised nations agreed to an average cut in emissions of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But, individual targets ranged from an 8 percent cut in the EU, a 7 percent reduction in the US and an 8 percent increase allowed in Australia.
After the deal was signed, the EU agreed to reallocate its entitlements so countries like Ireland and Spain could increase their emissions, while Britain and Germany compensated by making higher cuts. The UK has promised to reduce emissions by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012."
The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions.
...
Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle.
Funny that you said this. Check your facts -- Brazil has REDUCED green house gas emissions BECAUSE of the Kyoto protocol.
Actually, much much less. More water from melting ice caps will dilute the total oceanic salinity. Some species will tolerate this change to brackish, but most will die. The entire food chain can be disrupted vitally by the absence of only one or two key species.
Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
About 10 years ago, China was the 5th largest consumer of oil. Today they are #2. China is burting at the seams with economic growth and they're pollution control standards are weaker than they are in both the US and the EU. That is but one of the many reasons that many US companies are moving factories over there.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
> The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions
Sorry, yes it does. It deeply encourages countries to commit to reducing their outputs - and it has already worked. In the UK, in Brazil, and in other countries, since signing on, they've made substantial reductions specifically to increase their position with the treaty.
> What is says is "if you're a third world country you can produce as much green house gasses as you want
Actually, no it doesnt. It sets levels for all countries at the time the treaty was written. The lower-tier countries still have a limit on their production - its just not as tight as the largest producers.
The net result is that if those third-world countries sell their credits, they too will quickly become annex 1 countries - putting them under the same rules we would be under. The net result? They get money to modernize, we get to slow our reduction rates, and eventually everyone is under the same rules! A net win for all sides.
>Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle
Brazil has reduced their emissions - not increased them.
It has nothing to do with Bush - and everything to do with bad assumptions due to a short-sighted focus on "jobs".
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Well if that's true, then I would argue that that's all the more reason for them to be included in the protocol.
China and India?
If they're not producing the same amount of greenhouse gases than the USA or the EU, then adopting the Protocol should not be too big a deal for them, and they should be able to handle it.
What the hell are you talking about?
India has ratified Kyoto.
China has ratified Kyoto
Are you going to say now that you think the US should too? Or was all that talk about India and China a smokescreen?
Meanwhile, we have 39.5 million people living in poverty (same url). Since it is "easy" to get over $200,000 with two wage earners, why do we have so many people in poverty? Can't they accomplish this "easy" task?"some workers"? Who gets to decide who doesn't have to pay into Social Security? What is the criteria?
And who is going to pay MORE Social Security tax to make up for the lost revenue?Who needs "greater incentive to work"? Practically everyone I know works 40+ hours a week with the current incentives of food, shelter and clothing.
Now I may not have a Nobel prize, but I can understand the numbers.
Unfortunately, the radical greens have shot down the only really viable means for radically reducing CO2 output, nuclear power. It seems odd to see them whine on one hand about too much CO2, and then whine on the other hand that people would *gasp* actually consider using a CO2 free source of electricity.
If you want to reduce CO2, ban coal. Simple as that. Coal is responsible for more than half of our CO2 (correct me if my numbers are wrong), and banning it would do more than anything else. Just get rid of coal and leave people with the choice of either paying ludicrous prices for gas power, or using nuclear. The NIMBYism would end real quick as soon as people couldn't choose to just pollute the whole world evenly and cheaply with coal burning.
Nothing else would matter much other than that. Natural Gas and Oil produce far less CO2 per unit of energy than coal, and they'll run out anyway within a couple of decades, so it's a really bounded problem. Coal however has sufficient supply, and produces so much CO2 per unit of energy, that it's the only one that could truly decimate the planet. It's also responsible for all the fish you eat being loaded with mercury and lead, and it releases more radioactive gunk into the atmosphere than all the world's nuclear powerplants (including cherenoble) ever did.
The text protocol can be found here
And you're right, the quote is nonsense.
The main thing to understand behind the Kyoto agreement is the fact that it institutes a system of Tradeable Emissions Rights (TERs). TERs are already being used in the U.S. among coal-fired power plants with great success in curbing emissions. Basically, a TER is a publicly traded permit that allows 1 ton of pollution emission per permit purchased. Each power plant is granted a certain number of emissions permits up to the amount that needs to be abated (by statute), and the company must then purchase additional rights to pollute above that amount.
;)
This is a great market because it makes the industry self-policing. Those powerplants that can economically abate emissions are free to sell excess TERs to companies that are unable to do so, making it a win-win situation for all parties. Every year the amount of pollution abated increases, which encourages companies to invest in cleanup technology, or decommission powerplants that simply can't meet the requirements economically (which are replaced with new plants with better technology).
Now apply this on a global scale, and you have Kyoto. The reason Russia is so gung-ho about signing onto this treaty is because they stand to make billions of dollars on the deal. "Why" may you ask? Because the baseline was set at 10% below 1990 pollution levels (IIRC). Anybody that knows anything about Russia's economy since the collapse of the Soviet Union knows that they're running at about 30-40% of their industrial output as they were during the Communist heyday... in other words, they have a shitload of permits to sell... and guess who their #1 customer will be? The U.S., of course.
This is why the U.S. is so apprehensive about the treaty... we're already doing what we can within our country's own TER system to combat pollution, so there's not much room left for maneuvering on a global scale (we've already hit the point of economical abatement). So, that's the primary reason why the U.S. won't sign on, and why it's been a bipartisan issue.
We stand to lose quite a bit of GDP if we have to implement the Kyoto agreement, though with the price of oil forever-escalating this could finally spur development in the Hydrogen/Solar area.
Also, to those protesting the unfairness of Kyoto, keep in mind that in every country's industrial development, there's a point in time where they emit huge amounts of pollution... attempting to deny those developing countries economical fossil-fuel sources is a bit hypocritical, even though on a global scale it make sense. That is why Kyoto makes exception for these countries... they're allowed to pollute at their current levels for 10-20 years, upon which time they will also be subject to the provisions outlined in the Kyoto treaty. The hope is that by that time technology will have evolved enough that it will be economically feasible for these developing countries to afford, which will lead to implementation.
Any questions?
This lies at the core of the problem with Kyoto: it attempts to create a socialist "one person, one unit" system regardless of comparative advantage. The other problem is the international trading scheme for emissions; dictators in impovershed nations (with little carbon emission) would have one more way to collect fees from rest of the world and continue oppressing their people. The appropriate fix would be a mandated world-wide carbon emissions tax which is collected by each government, the level to be set by treaty. Anything else leaves perverse incentives which will be abused, no matter how much the socialists (aka "progressives") believe otherwise ("reality-based", my ass).
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
The fact is, if Bush wanted the treaty, I think he could get it through the Senate. He has the political capital, and says he wants to reach out to Democrats. But the fact is, he doesn't want it, but it sounds like you're blaming Congress for the treaty's lack of viability.
Again, according to Wikipedia, George Bush is said to have said:
So which is it? Is this a critical issue where America needs to take responsibility? Or something about which we can be petty? If the environment is going to suffer irreparable harm because of our inaction, then we should stop griping about fairness and dig in, doing whatever needs to be done to avert that damage.
Since Bush says he wants the U.S. to be a leader on this issue, tell us what he's done to reduce the CO2 emissions of the U.S.?
One final point: On a per-capita basis, the U.S. puts out ten times the greenhouse gas that China does, and China has reduced its emissions by 17% over the last five years (same Wikipedia article). Now, I think it's perfectly fair to allow looser standards for a developing country that is trying to build up an economy that can provide a decent standard of living for a billion people. China is doing more than the Kyoto Protocol demands, while the U.S. claims to want to be a global leader on this issue yet does nothing.
If Bush said, "I won't sign the treaty because I have a plan for reducing emissions that will be less harmful to my country," and then vigorously pursued that strategy, I would fully respect his effort. As it is, it sounds like he's just using China as an excuse to avoid our very real obligation to do more about global warming.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
We have essentially bulletproof evidence that accumulating CO2 is caused by human activity. We understand the thermodynamic of atmospheres well enough to know that this is a significant perturbation. Paleonotological evidence indicates that this perturbation is occurring much more rapidly than any comparably large climate forcing event has occurred over at least the last fifty million years.
The first order prediction is that this will cause significant warming. Significant warming has been the consensus expectation of the scientific community starting in the early 80's, after a few years of debate as to whether human activity would cause cooling (through dust) or warming (through greenhouse gases). This prediction predates the observation of warming.
Since about 1990, computational models of sufficient fidelity to capture contemporary climate variations have been run with extrapolated greenhouse forcing.
Earliest and subsequent model results consistently predicted patterns of warming concentrated in the northern reaches of the continents. This is exactly the warming pattern that has emerged since then. These predictions show that the disruptions are expected to accelerate based on plausible emissions scenarios in the absence of policy constraints.
I encourage you to study the matter seriously rather than assert your hunches. The best place to start is the IPCC scientific working group report.
Michael Tobis
mt
Sorry that isn't correct. Recent research has suggested that after iron, growth of the bloom is limited by silicates. For evey ton of iron added you need to add 5000 tons of silicate if you want the bloom to have any effect on CO2 levels.
See here:e ss_release.html for more details.
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2004/19-03-04_pr
Jesus...
Kyoto doesn't apply to developing nations like India and China.
Maybe you could start learning about the subject before you form an opinion?
All's true that is mistrusted
>It might be bad business for America, but every year,
>every GOD DAMNED YEAR, a new member of my family is
>stricken with cancer because of American pollution that
>wanders north.
>Heavy metals are found everywhere in Greenland now,
>and there's no way of avoiding ingestion of it.
Canadian, are you? Rest assured you are getting your revenge from the Cominco smelter in Trail, BC that has been dumping lead waste into the Columbia River 5 miles north of the border, and has by now laid down a layer of said toxic sludge all the way down to Grand Coulee Dam.
And if you check the wind patterns, you will see much of that Greenland metal dust comes from Sudbury, Ontario.
You talk a good line, but Canada has no "holier than thou" buttons to push.
And you're not at all concerned that algal blooms destroy the marine ecosystem? Great idea - destroy the food chain so we can drive SUV's for longer. Only an American would think like that.
Consider where they'll be in the next 50 years, not where they are now. According the the CIA World Factbook, China's current electricity consumption is 1.3 trillion kWh, oil consumption is 4.57 million bbl/day, and natural gas consumption is a paltry 27.4 billion m^3. By comparison, the US is consuming 3.6 trillion kWh of electricity, 19.65 million bbl/day of oil, and a whopping 640.9 billion m^3 of natural gas (although I will guess that this figure is necessitated due to the majority of the US population living the northeast to upper midwestern parts of the country, thus increasing the need for gas heat in the winter, while China's population base is mainly coastal and temperate and therefore winter heat needs are much less).
The difference is the growth rate of the industrial sectors of the two countries. The US is just barely expanding at a 0.3% growth rate, while China is massively expanding at a 30.4% yearly clip. IOW, China's energy needs for just the industrial sector are doubling just over every 3 years. Now couple this growth in industry with the subsequent growth in quality of life, and you'll have a similar growth in energy demands for the residential sector as well, meaning that there will be a massively increasing need for energy in China over the next 10-20 years.
Now unless they plan to tap some huge clean power source in the very near future, the Chinese are going to have to start doing the same things that the US currently must do in order to feed the energy needs of the country, and probably moreso in their case. But given the Kyoto accords, they will not be held accountable for the ensuing black cloud that will result from this huge and necessary increase of energy production if the industrial machine they are creating is to continue to progress.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Rush Limbaugh started this particular meme a few years ago. It's a bizarre meme to begin with, it doesn't make any sense and it's not exactly an argument for or against anything, but it actually refers to a procedural vote six months before the Kyoto summit. The Senate has never actually been given the chance to say whether the eventual set of compromises agreed upon are acceptable to it.
I suggest to anyone, not just you, who feels like repeating this little "fact" to steer clear of it. It's sophistry and ultimately it just makes the person making the claim look stupid.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
95-0 was the vote against any framework.
source
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.