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 ratified it, and will become an annex 1 country (bound by its terms) within the next decade - probably sooner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
No, the only three ways Bush could lose his job are to be impeached and convicted, for him to resign, or for him to be bodily unable to do the job, like if he had been more hurt when he fell of that Segway, among other injuries.
Normally I'd include "mentally unable", but for some reason that hasn't stopped this particular president.
External forces like treaties and trade don't usually directly affect the President to the level that would be needed to call for his impeachment. Bush would have to have a stance so heinous that most other nations would completely cease trading with us in order to really cause enough trouble motivate the people to call for his removal. The problem with this is that our economy has been very important to other countries internationally. This can be seen easily back to 1929 when our economy's tanking took Europe, and a large portion of the rest of the world, straight to the crapper. The Middle East, for example, can't afford to cut off oil sales to the U.S. any more than we can afford to immediately cut them off as a supplier, we consume so much that they would be in as much trouble as we would.
I'm getting tired of how the Government constantly makes short-term changes to deal with long-term problems, somewhat blocking the problem until it rears its' head again. We could set the example for what a country can do for the world, but we don't.
I guess that I'm still just a little peeved by the election results.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Sorry, not quite.
First and foremost, it will reduce our dependence on oil - a huge win for America, considering that 12 presidents havent managed to do so.
Second, it puts the biggest producers first, and the "little guys" who will be hit the hardest financially a close second - the little guys still get moved up to Annex 1 in time, resulting in everyone having the same rules.
Third, as you said, it gives us an easy transition method - we can buy credits from other countries, allowing us to reduce the impact of transition, and ALSO increasing the speed of those smaller countries reaching annex I status.
All in all, its a team-work oriented approach to getting everyone on the same rules, as fast as posisble, while still being reasonable.
All in all, very good for America - less reliance on oil, less pollution, less health problems, new jobs (green technologies), and a better standing in the international community.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
I'm sorry; this is a quote from the Kyoto Treaty? Funny that a google search doesn't bring up the text of the treaty. Sure, you're thinking, that's because google censored them under pressure from the John Kerry campaign, but try this search and plenty comes up. Nothing about paying third world countries for the right to pollute though. Funny, the phrase "third world" doesn't even appear in the treaty.
Now can someone please explain what is insightful about the above?
Your right the treaty doesn't assume everyone is equal, because (oddly enough) they arn't all the same! Some nations - such as those in the EU and in North America - can afford to make greater sacrificies as they are significantly more developed.
I am quite happy to give nations like India greater allowances for some time, to allow them to build their economy and industry up to a greater level. I'm not surprised to hear Americans say they are unwilling to do that though (even though as an EU member citizen I'm happy to make greater sacrifices because I know we can afford it, and I think the vast majority of EU members think the same way).
The rest of the world has a very low opinion of the US now (not because of GWB, but because you were so collectively retarded as to re-elect him, not because he's Republican, just because he's the wost president the US has ever had). You guys can do what you like now, other people have ceased to care what Americans think or do. The sad truth is America no longer has any real friends in the international community.
Note I say that as someone who has been a big fan of the US for along time and is both pro-globalisation, and was in favour of the invasion of Iraq (because it meant disposing Saddam). I'm not a typical 'anti-American/anti-capitalist' left wing loonie. I just think the US has simply burned too many bridges now, the re-election of GWB was seen mind bogglingly stupid (especially given that in the end he was found to have lost the popular vote by 900,000 votes in the first election). The rest of the world looked on last week and thought "WTF?".
I've been to North America many times, as far west as San Fransico, as far east as New York, as far south as Cape Kennedy and as far north as Canada. I will not being going back though. The requirements to be finger printed and iris scanned are the most over the top in the western world. Law enforcement is comparibly officious and oppresive and the people are highly insulated with very limited knowledge of the world in which they live. I think Americans are lovely people, just staggeringly poorly informed.
This is not intended as a flame or troll, it's very tragic, but really I honestly don't think people care if you sign up or not anymore, because as a nation you've made it quite clear you don't give a damn about 'the free world' (or those who are not free), just yourselves.
It's also tragic that in such a close election you never the less have a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican Supreme Court, along with the divisive final term Republican president (politically empowered to do what ever the hell he likes, even though the result was so close). The system is fubard and Americans don't seem to even notice or admit it to themselves, let alone care. *sigh*.
There are several good reasons to sign a treaty even if it won't be ratified. For one thing, the senators become accountable for every treaty they vote against. So, for instance, when Senator Martinez comes up for re-election, his opposition to Kyoto can be made into a campaign issue.
It also clarifies the administrations position on the treaty, and can turn it into a national issue. If there is a large public outcry in favor of the treaty due to a ratification controversy, it might compel some senators to change their votes.
It can also buy "political capital" in the international community. If other countries see that the president supports a treaty, even if it doesn't get ratified, fewer doors will close to the president.
With this president, too, the story is a bit different. Bill Frist doesn't have enough political strength to run the senate as a force separate from the president (unlike, say, LBJ). Bush's policy pretty much sets the agenda for this Senate nowadays.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in the Kyoto treaty or environmentalism in general, but why in the world is "per capita" considered the proper measurement of CO2 emissions rather than something like "per square mile?" It seems to me that given the US's low population density that our country is far better able to absorb what we churn out than other areas of the world. I've read frequent complaints about Kyoto not weighting carbon sinks enough, but all that I've seen from either side is rhetoric.
This is a troll, but I'll bite.
The Kyoto protocol was specifically designed to hamper american economic dominance, is it such a wonder that we didn't sign it? I'm probably more of an environmentalist than most of the environmentalists, but give me a break. A treaty that places tight restrictions on CO2 coming from developed countries, but no restrictions what so ever on developing countries like China is really going to just result in dirty industries moving to china where they can get away from all pollution controls. There's no reason to ask the US taxpayers to actually pay for an outsourcing of thier jobs when the net result will actually be to increase worldwide pollution, now is there.
If the treaty had reasonable constraints on all countries, then the US should sign it, but a treaty that seeks to move dirty industries from the US (and EU, though to a lesser degree) where they at least have to watch their sulfur and NOX emissions to a country like China where it's the wild west, should not be signed by the US or anyone else.
A far more effective policy would be to put a global price tag on CO2 emissions, and then hold EVERY country responsible, using the UN and WTO to fine those that failed to pony up their fraction of the costs. That would actually make sense, but to say it's forbidden here, but if you move over some imaginary line, then you're free to pollute all you want, that's just stupid.
However, in 1997, 94 U.S. senators voted for and signed Senate Resolution 98 which says that the U.S. should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol if: 1) it did not impose restrictions on developing countries, and 2) it would "would result in serious harm to the economy.
John Freakin Kerry was also one of the senators to also sign this resolution.
Surely doing *something* is better than doing nothing at all.
Not if "something" hurts our economy while doing nothing to curb global greenhouse gas emissions.
Globalization and the current incarnation of the Kyoto Protocol should be mutually exclusive. If we don't apply the same pollution-control standards to *all* WTO countries, then the multinationals will just move their manufacturing operations to the countries where the Kyoto standards are weakest so that they can keep producing as much CO2 as they feel like.
I'm all for preventing global warming, but the Kyoto protocal is worthless unless the same standards apply to everyone.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
And the US has only 4.6% of the world's population.
Kyoto or not, its time to buy smaller cars less often, take public transit, and carefully consider the effects of overconsumption. In the past three years, I've traded my SUV in on a Toyota Echo, taken the bus/train to work nearly every day, and started to buy gently used stuff on eBay.
It was actually pretty easy - And I was able to pack an extra $18,000 into the bank. I suppose I'm my own little "Mini Kyoto."
Of course, my behaviour is bad news for corporations like GM and many manufacturers - but its better for me.
Unfortunately, the radical greens have shot down the only really viable means for radically reducing CO2 output, nuclear power.
Actually there are (at least) two others. But I'm sure the eco-fascists (not to be confused with actual environmental scientists) would be opposed to them as well.
One is space solar power: Orbital solar collectors and milimeter-wave downlink to rectennas. It's actually price-competitive with fossil fuel plants (despite a flawed NASA study) and will get moreso with the development of private orbital capacity. (Bullshit about birds cooked in flight has already been issued.)
The other is to seed the South Pacific with a bit of iron compounds so the algae bloom will suck down megatons of CO2 and sequester it in the deep ocean for time measured in kiloyears, and continue with fossil fuel until, say, the necessary fusion breakthroughs occur or the eventual price rises make other alternatives attractive.
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.
Hear hear!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Now, lets see that again. If Kyoto will be accepted there will be a GLOBAL framework. Good or bad is another matter. The important part is global.
People may be bitching about China, India and Russia, but if all the factories GM, Ford, GE and so on are building there will be completed China will definitely hit its pollution limits before the end of this decade and they know it. Even so, they have signed it. I have my own hypothesis on why - to twist the hands of the same GE, GM, Ford, VW, etc to move there modern technology, not to become the scrapyard of the world. There are many things you can say about Chinese "communists" (quotes intended), but one thing you can't say is that they are stupid.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I can barely conceive of the energy required to raise the average temperature of a *planet* by a degree C.
The atmosphere's mass is 5 × 10^18 kg. Assuming it takes 1000 joules to raise the temperature of one kilogram of air by one kelvin, the the energy is 5 × 10^21 joules.
Energy released by Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated: 2 × 10^17 joules.
So, 25,000 Tsar Bombas, enough to fight a global nuclear war several times over.
My heat capacity calculations are probably off a bit. Feel free to correct me.
Step 1. Have economy collapse.
Step 2. Sign Kyoto.
Step 3. Profit
Interesting isn't it. When it came to terrorism, the US government more more than happy to take the lead and do (what it thought) would fix the problem. However on an issue that could cause far greater long term suffering and conflict, it refuses to do so.
I wish I could speak from higher moral ground here, but my own country just re-elected John Howard. Still, from over here it looks like you guys have a democracy in name only, and the big interests (corporate america) are the only ones with any real say anymore.
I know most US Slahdoter's are good people who recycle, plant trees and drive efficient cars (maybe even walk, cycle or ride a mototbike). I feel somewhat sorry for you. We seem to be in the similar boat over here.
I was listening to JJJ (Australia) the other day about the US elections. They were interviewing an American who had voted. She said, "I am apposed to the war in Iraq, but I voted for Bush because I am better off financially".
The same attitude is in Australia as well. People will vote for what will benefit themselves, not what benefits everyone.
Civilization is uncivilized.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
It always amazes me to see people jump on the Kyoto bandwagon.
The US SHOULD NOT sign the Kyoto protocol. Not only does it not hold most of the worst pollution producing countries in the world to ANY standard what-so-ever, but it also puts the US at a significant disadvantage compared to not only China but the EU.
To top it off, the Kyoto protocol is estimated to have negligable impact on global warming, even with Perfect compliance by all nations ratifying it.