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."
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
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?
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?
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
>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.
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.