Kyoto Treaty to Enter Into Force

geek42 writes "Looks like Russia has picked up where the U.S. failed: they've ratified Kyoto, and now it's going to be law (on Feb 16). The BBC has coverage. 'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.'"

Comments

Consequences?

[October_30th]

Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions

Or what?

Re:Consequences?

[RancidBeef]

The UN is going to be angrier than they already are at us. Kofi will be angrier than he already is for killing off his oil-for-food scam money. The UN will be angrier at the US even though the US pays for the lion's share of its operation.

Screw the UN.

Re:Consequences?

[letxa2000]

The U.S. failed to ratify Kyoto? Do I see a little bias shining through?

Kyoto is a sham and the U.S. didn't fail to do anything. We succeeded at recognizing an unfair treaty that would not be in our interest to ratify. I salute the Senate that in 1998 (I believe) voted 98-0 to dump it like last week's garbage and also salute President Bush for sticking a dagger in its heart, twisting it, and making sure it was dead.

Re:Consequences?

[Anonymous Coward]

We succeeded at recognizing an unfair treaty that would not be in our interest to ratify.

It was unfair because it was not in your interest? You need to look up the definition of fair.

Re:Consequences?

[david.gilbert]

For example - nations who fail their Kyoto obligations will find their exports subjected to higher taxation in the rest of the countries which have signed up to the son-of-kyoto.

Why wait for your government to act for you? Why not avoid buying products from countries that prefer to disregard Kyoto - sort of like "freedom fries" in reverse.

Re:Consequences?

[pe1rxq]

So basicly the big bully (US) is complaining that it is unfair that they get punished (for being a bully) while some of the other kids are being allowed to be a little bit more assertive (but not even near the behaviour of the bully)?

Jeroen

Re:Consequences?

[El Cabri]

Well apparently it's not dead since it's about to start being applied. Yet another domain where the supposedly hegemonic US failed to twist the arm of other nations.

Re:Consequences?

[salvorHardin]

Why wait for your government to act for you? Why not avoid buying products from countries that prefer to disregard Kyoto..

Because such gestures are meaningless unless they have the weight of numbers behind them. If, for example.. I dislike Elbonia, because they're refusing to give up nukes/hunting whales/stealing our jobs/polluting lots/(possibly)funding terrorism/speaking with annoying accents/etc/et cetera.. and I decide I'm not going to buy anything they export, it probably means nothing to them. The same goes if 1,000 people do the same. If, however, Elbonian products were suddenly taxed 25% more than another foreign rival's products across a population of hundreds of millions, then their revenues are going to fall very short.

Re:Consequences?

[commodoresloat]

First, it's not dead, that's the whole point of this story. Second, what is unfair about the treaty? It's only "not in our interest" because we are the world's biggest polluter. When another country out-pollutes us, then it will not be in *their* interest to ratify it. It's also not in a theif's interest to have laws against stealing -- that doesn't make the laws "unfair."

It's amazing you can get +5 insightful for empty posturing about the treaty without even giving a reason to back it up.

Re:Consequences?

[Pentagram]

OK fine, we'll apply a uniform standard to all: we'll give everyone the same maximum CO2 emission levels. Who do you think gets hit hardest?

Re:Consequences?

[fitten]

Well... if history serves, they can write 16 nasty/angry letters over 12 years and have the violator laugh at them because they can do nothing.

Re:Consequences?

[Yokaze]

"The law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and steal bread." - Anatole France

Re:Consequences?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are these the same people who voted in a similar way about WMD's in Iraq?

I love how the sheep fall into line "Well there billy-bob-joe-gus, I recon sien as how an edumacated 90 odd amuricuns voted again' such a treaty, that the treaty mustn bin bad"

Had nothing to do with being a bad treaty, had a lot more to do with being shit assed affraid of having to force your biggest campaign contributors to stop poisoning the earth.

One day you will get it. And I hope I am there to sell you drinking water by the tanker full. Well, after letting half your country die from thirst and starvation first. That should concentrate the wealth, and justify the 7$ a cup I plan on charging to keep your sorry asses alive. Oh, I changed my mind, I'll make that 7 Euros, they spend better, hold their value better, and are more widely accepted these days. Better save your pennies!

Re:Consequences?

[letxa2000]

First, it's not dead, that's the whole point of this story.

It is dead as far as the United States is concerned.

Just because Kyoto is "taking effect" that doesn't mean that non-signers are bound by it. They are not. This is not like an amendment to the U.S. Constitution where a cetain % of support from the Congress and state governments forces the amendment on the entire country. Those that signed Kyoto will be bound by Kyoto. Those that didn't aren't bound by it.

The U.S. didn't ratify Kyoto. Other countries are free to go ahead if they want but at least it won't harm us.

Second, what is unfair about the treaty? It's only "not in our interest" because we are the world's biggest polluter.

No, it's unfair because it applies different terms to different countries. Some of the upcoming largest polluters (China, India, etc.) are exempt. Why in the world should the U.S. (or any other country) willingly give up competitivity to other countries?

I think Kyoto is a bad idea regardless but if the same rules applied to all countries I would at least be willing to consider it (as would the U.S. Senate). But as long as certain countries are given a "free pass" there is absolutely no way this treaty will ever be passed by the U.S. And it shouldn't.

Re:Consequences?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you need a threat to work in a team?
How lame

Re:Consequences?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did the parent score a 5 insightful on the post when it's obviously a troll? How is cutting down on pollution unfair? Would someone please explain this to me? Corporations are going to have to spend some of their billions to impliment new, less damaging equipment... UNFIARR!!

Re:Consequences?

[KarmaMB84]

They would never write a letter about Kyoto to the US since the US never ratified it.

Re:Consequences?

[letxa2000]

Some will, yes. The smarter companies will develop alternative energy resources and clean-burning fuel solutions, knowing that they will outlast the companies that jump from country to country making a quick buck on a dying business model.

Again, that's pie in the sky thinking. If a company--who is not in the business of developing alternative energy resources--has the option of spending 20 billion to update their U.S. factory and spending 5 billion/year on labor when they can spend 1 billion to build a new factory in India and subsequently spend 500 million/year on labor, why do you think that company would stay? Why not move to India and save $19 billion now and 4.5 billion/year in labor until the price of new clean technology comes down. By the time it is required in India perhaps it will only cost $5 billion (instead of $20 billion). So you'll have spent $6 billion in a couple of decades instead of $20 billion now and, the whole time, your labor costs are 90% less.

Tell me again why the "smarter" company is going to stay in the U.S.? Transitions take time, and they will be painful for some. But if we want to survive as a species on this planet for longer, we will have to deal with this transition sooner or later.

Technology moves fast and the last 100 years has shown us that we can't possibly know where technology will be 100, 50, 20, or even 10 years from now. I would rather wait for clean technologies to become mature at which time they will be adopted because it makes economic sense. And don't worry, the day will come when it does make economic sense and companies and individuals will move to clean technology all by themselves.

Re:Consequences?

[letxa2000]

I'm not sure but I suspect that a majority of the EU nations have ratified it, to such an extent that it might be expected that the EU will enforce it through sanctions and other economic incentives.

That would be against the rules of the WTO. Just like Europe used the WTO when it came to the steel tarrifs Bush imposed, the U.S. would use the WTO to get those tarrifs axed.

You have to realize that last year when Bush changed to laws on Steel production and export/import it wasn't because he wanted to, it was because the EU forced him to change the laws of the US. And they knew and that is exactly what they intended on doing.

It wasn't Europe. It was the WTO. And Bush didn't really want to impose the tarrifs and he knew it was wrong going in. He knew they would be opposed in the WTO and he knew we would lose. It was a purely political move to try to gain political support in the steel industry. The tarrifs were overturned by the WTO, the tarrifs were removed, but Bush was able to tell the steel industry, "Well, I tried."

The consolidation of the EU has resulted in their becoming the new Super Power. While they do not have the military forces to claim the title, they have greater economic and representative influences on the World economies, organizations, and the UN.

Nope. The EU is not a super power. Everything it accomplishes is via the WTO and the UN. Like I said, Bush knew he would lose the tarrifs on steel. It was purely political. And just like the WTO declared those tarrifs illegal, so would the WTO declare any EU tarrifs on the U.S. based on Kyoto acceptance illegal.

The consequences, if we refuse to do anything because it might harm our economy, could be much more damaging to our economy if the rest of the world decides to exercise Trade Sanctions against us. After all, we import just about everything.

Like I said, such sanctions would be illegal and declared invalid by the WTO. And, if anything, the fact that we import just about everything gives us leverage, not the exporter. If Europe wants to try to put sanctions on us, fine, we'd just reciprocate and put sanctions on them. Who gets hurt more? The U.S. that doesn't export that much anyway or the rest of the world that exports so much to the U.S.? It would harm the rest of the world.

Don't worry, the U.S. is still the economic superpower and even though we are often criticized for it, we are the #1 consumer. And he who is buying has the power. And that'd be us.

Re:Consequences?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ofcourse, since that's what the rest of the world uses.

Re:Consequences?

[Roger W Moore]

Ummm...the people that emit the most CO2....isn't that the whole point?

Re:Consequences?

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

Yeah right. It's much better to ignore problems completely - instead of getting started somewhere.

The Kyoto treaty was negotiated. The US was represented. Guess what? If you had a problem with the treaty you should have said so in Kyoto.

But you decided it hurts your precious industry, so you backstabbed it instead - so that you won't have to do anything at all. Nice job.

Now, in all fairness. The treaty does tax industrial countries higher (not just the US - but all industrial countries). This was not a question of fairness, but a question of what is possible. In developing countries, there is a larger need to put food on the table, get health care working, build infrastructures etc. The industrial countries have resources to spare, then why the fuck should we not take that responsibility?

If you want to speak in terms of fairness, these countries are way behind our industrialized countries in pollution. They have a lot to catch up on. (Moral: There will always be a kid who's shouting "unfair". The only reason to listen to you is the amount of guns you have.)

Re:Consequences?

[letxa2000]

i don't understand. this does nothing other than allow the rich to remain rich. clearly not fair, good luck getting the rest of the world to agree to that obviously.

No. It allows the efficient to continue producing efficiently while pushing the inefficient to produce more value for the amount of pollution they create.

Let me put this in perspective. The U.S. has an $11 trillion economy and produces 1,446,777 kilotons of CO2. China has a $6.449 trillion economy and produces 917,997 kilotons of CO2. So the U.S. produces 1.58 times as much CO2 but our economy is 1.71 times larger. From a pollution perspective we're doing more economic activity with relatively less pollution.

So who needs to adjust their habits? The U.S.? Buzzzz. Wrong answer. Currently China and the U.S. together produce 2,364,774 kilotons of CO2 per year with total economic activity of $17.449 trillion. Let's say you arbitrarily say that we need to reduce our emissions by 10% from 1,446,777 to 1,302,099. Let's just say that means our economy will drop 10% to $9.9 trillion. Let's say that that lost $1.1 trillion goes to China so their economy increases by 17% to $7.549 trillion and that that means a 17% increase in their economy means a 17% increase in their emissions to 1,074,056 kilotons per year.

The result? The total economic activity of China and the U.S. hasn't changed but now CO2 output has increased from 2,364,774 kilotons to 2,376,155 kilotons and jobs have been lost in the United States as economic activity moved to China. And that's not even realistic--in reality there would also be a loss of economic activity because the movement to China wouldn't be 100% efficient. So you will have lower worldwide economic activity and higher pollution.

No, punishing the United States isn't the answer. There are two possible solutions that will help the environment: 1) Move more production to the United States where we are better at producing goods at a lower rate of CO2 production. This would generate more employment in the U.S. and lower employment in China but it would lower total CO2 production. 2) Improve the efficiency of China's economy so it can produce more goods with the same or lower CO2 production. If China were as efficienct as the U.S. they would be able to generate the same amount of economic activity and produce less CO2.

I personally think the solution is making inefficient countries more efficient so they pollute less. But any way you analyze it it makes no sense to have a treaty like Kyoto that actually discourages activity in the countries that produce the least pollution for a unit of economic activity and encourage it in those countries that pollute more per unit of economic activity.

Re:Consequences?

[TWX]

"What's insufferable, and what I wager is the root cause for much of the world's contempt towards the nation, is combining that complete disregard for others with such high moral arrogance and platitudes, which you believe! It's astounding and history will judge you rightly as you continue in your slide."

There are some of us who feel otherwise. Take the day that planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, for example. I do not dispute that the events were horrible, especially ones against civilians, but this should be a wakeup call to the US to re-evaluate its policies. People do not just kill themselves to do something like that for no reason, and people do not convince others to do that without either having real points or else very well presented fallacy that fits the perceptions of the listener. That attack required months, if not years of planning by the people who perpetuated the attacks, which could easily have led to people backing out if they saw any glimmer of wrongness in the idea of attacking or in the logic presented to convince them to do it.

The US is required to go after the organization that came up with and implemented the attack, that's a given. You threaten someone with real injury and they will fight back, especially when they're used to being the baddest one on the block. However, a smart 'victim' will consider why such an attack happened, and if there is anything that they can do within reason to keep it from happening again. This is what the US has failed to do, since we've invaded a country not involved under pretense of securing America from terror. We haven't tried to make nice with nations that have had mixed relations with us, we haven't considered relationships that bring our companies into third world nations to exploit labor, and we haven't stepped back to remove the Crusade/Jihad appearance of the situation, which plays right into the hands of those who would do us ill. It probably wouldn't be hard for the US to change some policies to make less of an impact on other nations without really making a severe impact on ourselves. It definitely would be in our best interests to take the moral high-ground in all our World affairs, which would help our position with legitimacy that we currently lack. Instead out government does what it does, further deepening the hole that we're already in.

Re:Consequences?

[jpowers]

Well, you need to consider that the UN can't really pass anything without the US getting a chance to veto it. The Security Council members can block anything, not just military stuff.

Kyoto, right or wrong, is the kind of thing the UN was made for, to oversee the interaction between nations when it affects third parties. These days even conversations between companies require teams of lawyers on both sides, negotiations on the part of 100+ countries is requires armies of lawyers and an organized language translation system that borders on miraculous.

All the people there do is talk out these accords which are used to set a precedent for actual treaties and handshake agreements between leaders to create similar laws so international organizations can't skirt them, and so the behavior of countries is kept in the open where the 1930s and 1940s in Europe can hopefully be avoided. It seems to have worked for the larger countries involved, though clearly the power gap between first and third world nations is still pretty broad.

Re:Consequences?

[timeOday]

Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions

Or what?

Or global warming will be worse than if they had.

Participating nations signed the agreement voluntarily. Why should there be a threat to noncompliance when there was no threat to not signing in the first place? Can't you grasp the concept of doing something for a good reason, even if nobody puts a gun to your head?

Irony

[daveschroeder]

Heh. "Looks like Russia has picked up where the U.S. failed".

Yeah. Because the US just loves pollution.

Anyone find it extremely ironic that groups of people who really hate Bush chastise Bush about the US losing manufacturing and blue collar jobs - and in fact whole companies - overseas, and that other groups of people who really hate Bush (sometimes the same groups, in fact) chastise Bush for not signing onto Kyoto, when those two positions in this context are essentially diametrically opposed?

We're not signing onto Kyoto because it exempts nations termed as "developing". Nations like China . That doesn't exactly level the playing field when we're losing manufacturing jobs to places like China like it's going out of style as it is. Further, the EPA, and the whole of the US government, is committed to the principles of Kyoto, but we will not ratify such an unbalanced agreement.

This isn't a bid to line pockets of corporate officers. This doesn't mean Republicans hate clean air and throw caution about potential global warming concerns to the wind. This means the US is trying to stay competitive in a global economy, where we're losing jobs where someone who got paid US$22/hour for turning a bolt on an assembly line for 17 years is losing his job to someone who gets paid US$22/month to do the same job. This is a hope to at least keep *some* of these jobs during a long period of economic transition.

Note to the US Kyoto activists: you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either we lose jobs and US companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto. Yes, there's a lot of nuance, but I'm afraid that it's that simple.

(Hopefully, as economies equalize, a new industrialized West will manage to emerge from it, instead of being decimated by it in the meantime.)

Re:Irony

[soundguy900000]

It IS fact. They Kyoto treaty places HIGH standards on the U.S. (higher than any other country), but NO standards on some others like China. Those are the facts, please sir get YOUR facts straight.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that not all US Kyoto activists are crying about the lost jobs. You started your argument out saying "sometimes the same groups" but then at the end lump all the Kyoto activists in with the people crying about lost jobs.

How about this? How about the groups are really separate (sure there is some overlap, but let's just say they're separate). Who are you to say that the cause for keeping jobs in America is any more important than the cause for signing onto Kyoto?

Note to those wanting to keep jobs in the US no matter what the stakes: you can't fuck up the environment and think everything will be hunky-dory down the line.

Re:Irony

[zx75]

I'm Canadian, we ratified the Kyoto Accord and guess what? We're very happy with who we are and do our best to serve as a good example for the rest of the world as much as the US tries to do.

Re:Irony

[maniac/dev/null]

Out of curousity, what exactly has the Republican executive branch done in regards to global warming (or as they refer to it "climate change") in the past 4 years and what are they proposing to do in the next 4 years?

about as much as the Democrats have done.

Re:Irony

[Zondar]

Climate change is real, and if we don't do something about it, we're all going to be screwed.

Climate change *is* real. And it was going on waaaay before we got here, and it'll be going on waaaay after we're gone.

Even one of the latest issues of Scientific American had an article talking about how they've discovered periods in geologic history when the climate changed by 5-7 deg C in a decade (remembering roughly).

It's like any other data problem. Our dataset is just too small to provide an accurate picture. Hell, we're just now discovering that the solar cycle might have something to do with climate (duh).

This is what gets me the most, though. Who actually believes that you can make statements about small (0.5%) variations in a system when your dataset only covers 0.0000001% (number not actually calculated) of the lifetime of the system? (300 years of weather data vs 4.5 billion years that the earth has existed)

Given those raw numbers, no scientist would say they could give you any rational data about the "system". Now replace system with weather and they think they know exactly how it works.

Re:Irony

[Aardpig]

How many 'other countries' are giving aid to countries abroad?

As a percentage of GDP, the USA gives less in aid than almost all other developed nations.

How many other countries rush in to defend their allies to the death?

Rush in? Tell that to the victims of the Blitz. Where was the USA when Poland was invaded? When the tanks swept into Paris? The USA only got involved in WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed.

How many other countries liberate people from dictators?

The USA helped install General Pinochet, a dictator with a fondness for torture, in the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile. Ironically, the date of the coup was September 11.

How many other countries lead by innovating?

The USA has used the Echelon global surveillance system for the purposes of industrial espionage, to give its failing corporations an unfair advantage over more-competitive foreign operations.

How many other countries allow their people to own property?

Most of them, in fact, Russia included.

Re:Irony

[stinerman]

Either we lose jobs and US companies to places like China, or we sign on to Kyoto.

Why is it that simple? Probably because China has MFN trade status. The WTO and similar organizations put us between a rock and a hard place.

So long as there are people willing to do the work we do for 1/100 the price, there are going to be problems. Whenever any business can make an extra buck, you can bet they'll do whatever it takes to make it happen. The key is to make it more expensive to outsource jobs. Of course, the best way to do that is to use protective tariffs or require all those companies who import goods into the US comply with our national labor laws. In this respect, I can have my cake and eat it, too.

Yes, I know tariffs are the worst thing ever. It eliminates choice from the almighty consumer. Here's a wake-up call to those of you with your heads in the ground:

The American lifestyle is not sustainable.

Wish all you want. We live on a planet with finite resources. Unless we develop energy-to-matter conversion devices (replicators) we will have to fall in line and ratchet back our standards of living. Sooner or later, you're going to have to scale back all the luxuries you enjoy now.

As far as China and totalitarian states go, there is a certain corollary about free trade with them. You can't. When one side sets prices and the other doesn't, the other is at a disadvantage.

Re:Irony

[mikkom]

The USA helped install General Pinochet, a dictator with a fondness for torture, in the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile. Ironically, the date of the coup was September 11.

Not to mention that US did back up both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Re:Irony

[Monkelectric]

This doesn't mean Republicans hate clean air and throw

They don't hate it, they just don't care. The Republicans are controlled by fundie philosophy right now, because Bush himself is a fundie. If you're a fundie, you believe THE END TIMES ARE COMING (bush has publically stated he thinks the end times will occur within his lifetime) -- so why bother not polluting? They believe they're leaving the earth to be with god, so they don't care if they fuck it up.

Re:Irony

[Taladar]

That happens if you spend your tax money on warfare around the globe (like the U.S.) instead of social security. In most other countries you have at least enough money for food and a place to live even if you are unemployed.

Re:Irony

[letxa2000]

I have taken macro/micro econ as well as environmental science and policy as an undergrad. I am pretty sure I could follow your argument so make it.

So have I. But that doesn't make either one of us experts. I already provided an approximate description of why it is so and that doesn't even take into account the "Kyoto Effect" where many industries would just move to Kyoto-exempt developing countries rather than trying to make their processes cleaner.

The problem with it is that you completely disregard factors such as improved efficiency. When a company is forced to reinvest into cleaner technologies, they do not go out willy-nilly and purchase more expensive versions of the same technologies they are using. They usually purchase more efficient technologies. This creates a demand for such technologies and markets open up to satiate that demand.

I'm sorry, that sounds like more "pie in the sky" wishful thinking. Cleaner technologies are solar power, wind, etc. But you're not going to invest in clear technologies and expect to save money because the new process is more efficient. If that were the case the companies would make those investments anyway on a purely economic basis.

No, the reason why you "need" things like Kyoto is because certain people are trying to force businesses to do things that wouldn't otherwise make economic sense.

Consider what has happened in the "Bubble Policy" where the government made it profitable for business to clean themselves up. It has generated new industries to help businesses become more profitable by becoming cleaner.

Anything the government does comes out of our pockets. Just because government makes it "profitable" with tax incentives doesn't mean there was no cost. The companies see it as a profit because instead of charging the customer the price of the "profit" on the sale of products, the additional profit comes out of the taxes collected by all taxpayers (not just their customers).

You can't get something for nothing. Environmental regulations require investment and workforce dedicated to those regulations. That is money and manpower that is not producing anything productive to the economy. Like I said, you can try to make the argument that it's worth it to "save" our environment. But don't pretend it isn't a cost. It most definitely is a cost that will be a drag on our economy just like any other cost--be it taxes, the cost of petroleum, or the cost of manpower.

Re:Irony

[Spy der Mann]

We're not signing onto Kyoto because it exempts nations termed as "developing".

Great, so who's giving the developing nations the means to clean their pollution? It's DEVELOPED nations' technology that they're using after all.

Who invented the steam machine powered by coal?
Who invented the internal combustion engine?
Who invented the CFC's which destroy the ozone layer?
Who invented the non-biodegradable plastic wrap which created gigantic garbage dumps?
Who began to anihilate species on masse just to get economical advantage?
Who invented the dangerous chemicals that are poured onto rivers and oceans?

Well the developed nations, of course. DOH!
So if a nation can reduce its levels of pollution, it's the developed nations alright. If you put the obligation on ALL countries, the developed nations will OBVIOUSLY have an economical advantage, because they'll be the first to comply with the standards. Why? Because they got the MONEY in the first place.

The developed nations started this whole pollution mess.

So this is my message to the developed nations (specially the US) on behalf of the Kyoto protocol.

You broke it?
YOU fix it.

Re:Irony

[Doctor O]

And not to forget that Prescott Bush was tried and convicted after WW2 for massively funding Adolf Hitler. I found it's not popular or even widely known among Americans, but interesing nevertheless. It's quite probable that Hitler wouldn't have been as successful at getting absolute power without Bush. I like to tell to Americans when they accuse me of being a Nazi just because I'm German. (And yes, I realize those people are dumb and not representative.)

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why most other industrialized nations (Sweden and France come to mind) are even -MORE- in debt than the US.
Social Security == ponzi scheme
And it's damned time for it to be deleted from our collective memories. Forcing those of us that have jobs to support those that don't because they're either too incompetent, or too lazy, to start their own businesses is complete and utter tripe.
Smoke it, Commie.

Re:Irony

[Ohreally_factor]

The Clear Skies Initiative? HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW! Mod this up +5 funny! Next, tell us about the Safe Forests intitative and the clean water thing. Or if you don't mod it up as funny, at least mod it +5, Orwellian for it's doubleplus ungoodness.

Re:Irony

[corbettw]

In fact the US military expenditure exceeds the next 3 biggest spenders combined.

Actually, we outspend the next 15 biggest spenders combined. One-five. 10 plus 5. More than 14, but less than 16.

The United States is not "defending" Canada out of altruism.

Yeah, it's more like "paternalism." Canada is the big, dumb, drunk, half-brother that we're stuck with. Kinda like Roger Clinton or Billy Carter.

Were you expecting to be attacked by Mexico?

The US-Mexican border has erupted in war at least four times in the last two hundred years (that counts the California-Mexican war and the Texas-Mexican war, since they're both part of the US now). It very likely will again in the near future. Considering how many independent militia members and US Border Patrol agents exchange gunfire across the border with Mexican military and police, especially in Arizona and Texas, it's only a matter of time.

Even leaving that aside, drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and, now, terrorists sneaking across is a huge problem in the US Southwest. Unfortunately, the politicians don't want to do anything about it since they're afraid of losing the Hispanic vote.

Going to be "law".

[stratjakt]

Law of what? Law of wasted time and effort and using popular science as an economic control tool, that's what Kyoto is the law of.

'Failed' Is a Relative Term

[geoffrobinson]

A bipartisan concensus that handicaping our economy relative to other countries was a bad idea may not constitute a failure.

who says we failed?

[AxemRed]

I hear the treaty was too strict and costly to implement. I would rather work on pollution gradually and by ourselves then sign a world treaty that would hurt our economy.

Re:who says we failed?

[zx75]

Economy isn't everything. Most of the rest of the world has figured that out by now.

Re:who says we failed?

[g-to-the-o-to-the-g]

How is this going to hurt the economy? There will be a ton of new jobs, because it's going to create an entire new industry based on finding ways to use energy more efficiently. Do you seriously believe that there aren't BILLIONS of dollars in something as big as this? Why do you think car manufacturers are all over this hybrid shit? It's because more effecient energy sources IS the industry of the future. Forget technology, forget whatever else, energy is where it's at.

Re:who says we failed?

[fireduck]

So the guy who has been working at a steel plant for the last 15 years who is now losing his job because the plant puts out too much in emissions... he just suddenly becomes an expert at energy sources? He's able to just stop work at the factory on Friday and pick up in a consulting gig on Monday?

and what happened to all the auto workers 10-20 years ago when robots began doing a significant portion of the work? what happened to all the people who's jobs were supplanted or eliminated because of computers? What about the pony express riders when the telegraph was invented?

change happens, we adapt. stifling change for job security is stupid.

Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?

[jayveekay]

Why don't they have a 2005 target? Why did they set the implementation date so far into the future? If reducing CO2 emissions is important, shouldn't those concerned start reducing today?

The answer, of course, is that many of the politicians who have signed on to Kyoto have done so for short term political gain. It makes everyone feel good that something is being done, while they don't actually have to do anything painful.

If push comes to shove and people are actually forced to curtail their lifestyle in 2012 in order to comply with the protocol, then you will see those people dropping out of it. After all, there are no penalties for dropping out. So, if you have to choose between spending billions of dollars to reduce C02 production, or buy CO2 credits from Russia for billions of dollars, or drop out and keep your money, which one will the voters choose?

The only way that Kyoto will be complied with is if technology improves (e.g. more fuel efficient vehicles and energy production) to the point where painful choices are not required. And that improvement will happen regardless of Kyoto.

Re:Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?

[tacocat]

Why don't they have a 2005 target? Why did they set the implementation date so far into the future? If reducing CO2 emissions is important, shouldn't those concerned start reducing today?

Because the amount of effort involved is amazing. While I believe it's vitally important that we do what we can and now, you simply can't tell industries to discard the technology they use today that are still economically viable for minor gain.

The problem is two fold:

• No industry will willingly replace anything without a cost benefit to it. It simply won't happen. The only possible method to get them to change is to either offer a cost saving alternative or a very expensive price to not migrate.
• The other problem is that for a lot of sectors of industry and consumer patterns, there are no alternatives that are truely viable.

Take myself. I live in a house. There may be things I can do to lower my costs. But industry takes up a huge majority of the green house gas generation.

How is it that the US failed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the denouncing of the Kyoto treaty as a SUCCESS for the US and failure for all of those nations that were stupid enough to ratify it.

Re:So what

[roman_mir]

A Flamebait? Wow, where do these moderators live, on Mars? USA went into Iraq in a unilateral action dismissing the UN, treated prisoners in a way that defies the Geneva Convention and it is still not clear that the USA is not playing by the rules and breaks the laws where it sees fit?

No. No, what it means is that quite a few people cannot accept the reality for what it is.

Science! Think of the science, children!

[mumblestheclown]

First, the USA (and I say this as a semi-estranged USA-ian), are a bunch of asshats for not ratifying this. Sure, there are excuses and apologetics, but, at the end of the day, they (we) could have done it.

However, those of you who think that the whole Kyoto debate is about the USA should not lose sight of the more important fact:

Global Temperatures Will Continue To Rise as a result of CO2 emissions even if 100% of the world wholeheartedly adopted Kyoto TODAY.

All Kyoto does (and it is a big step, but nevertheless) is slow the RATE of growth. Politicians and other know-nothings will be patting themselves on the back saying "well, that fixed it!" It did no such thing--at most, it bought us a little time.. and a little is the operative word. Kyoto's significance is not so much that it has somehow lessened the problem - for all practical purposes, it has not. It's significance is that it works to effectively keep the problem from getting much, much worse.

Re:Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do

[einstein]

ah, but the key is, the total ammount of carbon tons available on the market will gradually be reduced. this treaty isn't about immediate change, it's about slowing down damage, and then gradually undoing the damage.

Re:Got it wrong again

[DeadVulcan]

To the best of my knowledge, neither one of these things has happened in the US. Therefore, I submit that it will not, in fact, become law.

Well, the signatory countries have laws too, you know.

Actually, I think the poster merely misused the word "law" slightly; he just meant that, as the article says, the treaty is to become legally binding. Of course, it only applies to the countries that have ratified it.

Re:I Disagree

[WindBourne]

Would you join a treaty if it meant your job?

Well, in a way, we have. We are watching exports drop as countries find alternatives to dealing with us. APEC is now working quite abit closer with Asia rather than with USA due to not trusting our politicians.

Now as to your arguments about production costs, well, you need to look at America vs. the far east/Central-South America/India/etc. We are losing

Yeah, gotta maintain the balance of power

[melted]

Russia has tons of oil, and the only thing preventing the US from going there in search of "WMD" is that Russia has WMD. If US designs a system to protect itself from these WMD, Russia will design a system to protect itself from the USA.

So who's signed it?

[payndz]

Among many others...

Britain
Canada
China
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
South Korea
Spain
And now Russia.

Wow. So seven of the eight G8 nations have signed up to something that the US maintains would cripple them? Either the rest of the world is hopelessly naive, or the current US administration is obsessed only with making themselves and their corporate backers grotesquely large short-term profits, and fuck everybody else.

Which could it be?

Re:So who's signed it?

[John Murdoch]

...or the current US administration is obsessed only with making themselves and their corporate backers grotesquely large short-term profits, and fuck everybody else.

The Kyoto Protocol was initially presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification by the Clinton Administration. The Senate, which must ratify all treaties, voted it down 98-0. That's Democrats and Republicans.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. A lot of the debate about Kyoto--echoed by a lot of the posts you see here on SlashDot--is that "we must do something about global warming!" At least some of those senators have significant relationships with environmental organizations, who are steadfast in their concern about global warming. Why, I wonder, did every single senator, regardless of political stripe, vote against Kyoto? I suggest that the senators are aware that the devil is in the details, and they got a good look at the details. The entire world might be concerned about global warming--but that doesn't mean that an international treaty focused on global warming is automatically a good idea. It could be chock full of "we all agree that you will pay us money" provisions--it would not be the first time that has occurred.

Re:So who's signed it?

[That's Unpossible!]

Either the rest of the world is hopelessly naive, or the current US administration is obsessed only with making themselves and their corporate backers grotesquely large short-term profits, and fuck everybody else.

Which could it be?

C. None of the above. Let's rush into this Kyoto treaty, which will do NOTHING to stop global warming, though it will guarantee even more American companies start putting factories overseas.

I love people like you who see the world in black and white. Corporations - evil. (Forget that they supply you with jobs, not the government, unless you work for the government.)

Re:So who's signed it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest that the senators are aware that the devil is in the details, and they got a good look at the details.

Are these the same senators that passed PATRIOT and the DMCA?

Re:So who's signed it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong on the land mine treaty.

You haven't said anything that proves the grandparent post wrong, you've just listed some excuses for not signing. But in the end, the fact is that USA hasn't signed the land mine ban treaty while almost everybody else has.

Re:So who's signed it?

[tpgp]

I have a Korean friend who realizes that Seoul would fall within the hour should ol' crazy Kim get a wild hair up his ass. Under those situations, anything that would slow him down or make it cost him too much is worth it. [emphasis mine]

Slow him down huh? Do you really think Kim is personally going to invade South Korea?

Anyway - what you're saying is that *anything* is justified to stop North Korea attacking the south?

Why stop at landmines in that case? How about proximity nukes? Why not just nuke the DMZ and turn it into a radioactive wasteland? After all that would slow him down wouldn't it?

Idiot.

Landmines always end up killing more civilians then combatents. I am sure you're Korean friend does not like the thought of them close to Seoul

Re:Both

[Kenja]

"Bush and Kerry refused to support this, I believe on the grounds there would be absolutely no feasible way to move the US towards the requirements listed. The cost would also be untenable."

Yet we'll spend 5.8 billion a month on a war in Iraq so we can get oil to pollute with. Go figure.

Re:Horray for Science!

[Anonymous Coward]

2. The release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
3. They are the main ones causing global warming. While there are other greenhouse gases, countries have no reason to emit them anyway. I belive the two biggest gases are CO2(causing 62% of warming) and methane (17%)
4. Compleatly arbitrary, but you have to start somewhere
5. see 4

I would not recomend reading legal documents to find out what something means, get a summary such as the one from wikipedia.

"developing countries" my ass

[commodoresloat]

Please show me where in the Kyoto protocol the words "China" or "developing countries" appear. Oh, I see, they don't appear in the treaty at all. Because the categories of countries are based on how much pollution those countries emit, not based on whether they are "developing" or whether their human rights record is bad enough to exempt them. When China pollutes as much as the US does, they will move to the same category as the US.

I'm an American too

[2nd Post!]

And I think the attitude, "Nobody else matters," is suicidal and self defeating.

That statement fundamentally reduces to "Nobody matters," when you aggregate it over an entire population unless you take the stance, "Everybody matters,". Everyone can't just exclude themselves from the population, so either nobody matters or everybody matters or some matter more than others; then who do you choose who matters?

I believe everybody matters, and because of that, *I* matter. And because *I* matter, then we have to look out for ourself. A cleaner, safer, world is in my best interests, and it's got a nice side effect that it is also beneficial for everyone else.

Yes, failed is the correct word.

[Ryan C.]

We failed to recognized that this treaty is in our best interest. No matter how many jobs we lose in the short term, the cost (in dollars) of coping with a damaged ecosystem will be higher.

Furthermore, this will put us technologically behind in energy generation and resource management. We're going to miss out on a big part of the next industrial revolution. Similar to what happened when US automakers fail to keep up with Japanese automakers.

Sometimes conservatism hurts business, and this is one of those times.

Re:Science! Think of the science, children!

[Capitalist1]

What happens if the Earth warms up and it has absolutely nothing to do with human activity? What then? Because if the Earth is warming, that is the most logical first conclusion. Instead, what we get is that any measurable change in the Earth's climate MUST be the fault of those evil, evil humans who are destroying God's Eden paradise, where the deer and the bunnies are best friends and speak English to each other when those evil defiler Humans aren't there to shoot their mothers. (That's for the hippies and Michael Moore fans who might believe that "Bambi" was a documentary).

Re:Who's the rogue state now?

[bluGill]

Err, no, there would be a capitol boom in scrubber spending and the like. Paid for by raising electric rates (and other energy?). In turn there will be a corresponding loss in spending in other areas, areas that I'd prefer to see spending.

Now I realize the economy is not a zero sum game, so the correlation will not be one to one. It will be there.

Kyoto is ineffective and potentially harmfull

[logicnazi]

As much as I hate to credit Bush with good judgement, especially in respect to the enviornment I think he may be correct about the Kyoto treaty. I realize that most enviornmentalist and liberals strongly support the Kyoto treaty but often they seem not to look past the fact that it is a pro-enviornment international agreement. Good policy deciscions, enviornmental or not, need to be based on a detailed estimation of the effects not simply warm feelings about the intended goal. It is not uncommon for economic and societal regulation to have paradoxical effects and actually encourage the opposite of their intended consequence and I fear Kyoto may be such an example.

In particular the danger with Kyoto is that it places legal caps on emissions from developed countries while enforcing no such requirements on third world countries. There are non-binding targets but realistically few third world countries are going to sacrifice economic development for a non-binding CO2 emissions target. I can't really say I blame them, certainly if I was living in poor squalid conditions I would not take kindly to my government sacrificing my chance to earn a better wage because the industrialized countries dumped too much CO2 into the air when they were trying to modernize.

The economic consequences now seem fairly obvious. A plant built in a first world country, party to the Kyoto treaty, is likely to require a more expensive emission control system or the purchase of emissions credits in addition to the already high price of labor. Therefore Kyoto is likely to simply encourage the building of CO2 emitting plants in third world countries on whom the treaty is not binding. Even if some provision of the treaty or national law prevents the company in question from building such a plant themselves it will only be a short time before investors in china or elsewhere realize they can produce widgets much cheaper and construct a factory to supply them.

Now if the effect of the treaty was simply to move jobs and plants overseas I would have no problem with it. I think the idea that americans (or your favorite first world nation) should keep jobs rather than giving them to desperatly poor third world nations is downright selfish. The claptrap that these jobs, who the people in the third world seem to overwhelmingly prefer to their former employment, are somehow actually bad for the residents of the third world is just a flimsy cover story so liberals don't feel squeamish about supporting organized labour. Admitedly there are cases where companies have moved in and abused the local population, and we need to be carefull about totalitarian regimes like china joining forces with multinational corporations to exploit their citizens. However, it is arrogant and insulting to suggest that the citizens of a democracy like india are not perfectly capable of deciding if a corporate factory or plant is to their national detriment or benefit.

Loss of jobs, though probably the concern of the Bush administration, is not the real danger. More disturbing is the prospect that by further encouraging factory relocation to the third world we actually increase CO2 emissions. Already most first world countries have some emission control requirements but by increasing the cost of emissions significantly we will push many plants and operations over the line where relocation guarantees a significant increase in profit. However, once in a third world country they will have even less incentive to curtail CO2 emissions thus potentially increasing global CO2 production.

Admitedly this is probably much more of an issue for the US, because of it's more liquid markets and production, than it is for europe. Also europe may already be affected by this problem with factories moving the the USA. So while european nations signing the Kyoto treaty may result in a reduction of CO2 emissions it is quite possible that the long term effect of a US signature would be to *increase* emissions by encouraging factories to locate in areas wi

Re:Wow, how is it that so few people realize...

[ElBorba]

Wait, WHAT?

You mean to tell me that Russia adopted the treaty for essentially the same reason the US didn't; Because the treaty has no enforcable impact on a nation violating the treaty, and because the endorsement is a non-binding political ploy?

Now THAT'S crazy talk.

Why Russia Accepted

[Prien715]

Russia didn't accept because of good foreign policy. Maybe only partially. They accepted because they pollute less now than their target and they can sell the rest of their pollution quota and make money.

I Like the Chicago Climate Exchange Better

[bayers]

Chicago Climate Exchange. Now, we just have to get more companies to sign on.

'Chicago Climate Exchange,® Inc. (CCX®) is a self-regulatory exchange that administers the world's first multi-national and multi-sector marketplace for reducing and trading greenhouse gas emissions.'

Re:Both

[aWalrus]

Even more interestingly, the USA has 5% of the world's population, but emits 25% of the world's pollution.

You're right. It's all in how you look at things...

Re:FAIR?

[The Or's]

Russia and China are generating way too much CO2 considering their relatively small contribution to worldwide economic activity. They are the countries that need to be made more efficient, not the United States.

Yes and they have agreed to try to be more efficient, but the USA refuses to.

bloody nose

[olman]

The reason I like kyoto is that it spells out for the layman to see: Nuclear power is a good thing. Get those goddamn coal/oil plants shut *down* and replaced by clean and efficient nuke plants already.

Re:bloody nose

[olman]

And even with the current rate of blowage vs megawattage, it's a shitload cleaner than fossil fuels.

US failed? hardly

[nursedave]

I would hardly say we 'failed.' We simply didn't agree with this stupid treaty, which is designed only as a wealth transfer device. And, Russia did not sign it because of an abiding desire to do right by the environment; it was blackmail, pure and simple, by the EU. As of 9 months ago, when I was living there, Putin was saying no-way, no-how, because he (rightly) figured it would cost Russia too much money. Guess the balance sheet of what they'll gain in their new EU deal will more than make up for their Kyoto losses.

Re:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)

[Roger W Moore]

Ummmm.... and it's an improvement to have a gunfight in the street rather than a shouting match?

Re:Science! Think of the science, children!

[KarmaMB84]

Or maybe we know that the US Federal Government is not the country itself? hmmmm, radical notion indeed.

Dude, you can't think this way!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Who do you think gets hit hardest?

Who do you think can contribute more?

Seriously, dude. This is not about your country.

Your country does not count now: it's about the entire Earth ship.

Don't sink the entire ship just to have one more glass of champagne.

Re:Fairness, hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not destroying the environment is in EVERYONE's best interest.

The fact that the US is complaining about the costs of being responsible instead of leading the way towards cleaner air and cooler breezes is a sad indication of the current state of affairs in this country.

Kyoto is a framework

[sborgeso]

One of the most important characteristics of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets up a framework for countries to work together on global warming issues. The point is less what it proposes to do today (the cuts it asks for are a drop in the bucket compared to what is actually known to be necessary in the long run) than that it bring all parties to the table with a framework to work within. The protocol wasn't set in stone when the US refused to sign it. There was plenty of room for negotiation. As the largest CO2 emitter in the world (and the world's only superpower), the US had a great deal of sway over exactly what the Kyoto rules were. What we walked away from was the global discussion on how to address a massive global problem.

When you look at the probable damages predicted from more extreme weather events, and rising sea levels and then consider that renewable energy is the only viable long term energy solution for the entire world of consumers, it becomes clear that the economic arguments against moving to renewables is noting more than FUD.

Finally, any new industry that requires substantial infrastructure will inevitably create massive numbers of jobs. Investment in renewable energy will easily produce more jobs than comparable investments in oil, coal, or natural gas. See for example this PDF for an analysis of the jobs that renewables would create.

Arctic's warmed before

[RogL]

Interesting article about conflicting / confusing global temperature data, mainly related to the poles. Things aren't as clear as you may think:

"If you look at the long term records, the Arctic has been as warm or warmer than it is today," says Christy. He cites temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the UK showing that from 70 degrees north latitude to the pole, the warmest years on record in the Arctic were 1937 and 1938.

Odd warming and cooling trends, since 1917, warm in 1938, cooling down after 1940, warming back up again (maybe just returning to normal?) One pole's temperature moving the opposite of the other.

Re:some thoughts on this

[Pentagram]

While it's pretty clear that human activity has boosted CO2 levels to record levels, and there's strong evidence that global warming is occuring, the two aren't properly linked.

They show a strong correlation, and while it's difficult to show conclusively that the latter is a result of the former, there's a clear scientific understanding of how increasing CO2 levels can lead to warming (the greenhouse effect). There's also no other good candidate, so Occam's Razor comes into play.

Another possibility is that increasing solar output is responsible for global warming not human activity.

It's a possibility but no real evidence has been found for it, so it is really speculation.

Second, only reduction in CO2 production is considered for the Kyoto treaty. Some work has been done on carbon sequestration. While these methods may prove infeasible, it seems absurd to ignore them in the treaty.

Since none of them are practical at the moment this isn't really surprising.

Further, developed countries have to cut back, but underdeveloped ones do not.

Developing countries do have restrictions on how much they can increase their emissions by. This "disparity" is because industrialised countries are already far greater polluters.

Re:cute breakdown

[NetNifty]

EU + FSU population is ~450 million, and US population is ~300 million.

So what if your side is wrong?

[fmaxwell]

Honestly now, can we quite fucking the Kyoto Treaty as if it's some sacared cow and the environmental apocolypse will rain down upon us if everybody doesn't climb aboard and give it a blow job? I didn't list that stuff to prove you wrong. I listed it to illustrate the point that there are other factors that probably have far more influence than man ever could short of nuclear wepondry. You know, like nature itself?

You ignore the fact that there are far more reputable, peer-reviewed studies attributing global warming to man-made greenhouse gases.

But let's hypothesize that you are right. What happens if we enter into the Kyoto Treaty and it doesn't solve the problem? Well, we'll have reduced air pollution. Fewer people will have asthma and other respiratory problems. Many of the dirty fossil fuel powerplants will probably have been replaced by nuclear, cutting demand for fossil fuels. That hardly sounds like a bad thing.

Now I know that the big businesses that bought Bush scream that reducing air pollution will put thousands of people out of work. They said the same thing when tighter pollution regulations were put on cars in the early '70s. They claimed that there would never again be high performance cars. They said that no one would be able to afford cars. They said that fuel economy would suffer horribly. But look at the situation today. You can get a Corvette with 400hp (at the rear wheels) that gets over 22mpg. Or you can get a 300hp Subaru WRX that also gets 22mpg. There's less air pollution in urban areas (e.g., Los Angeles). And there are far more cars on the road today than there were in 1970.

Now let's turn it around and suppose that we do nothing and that global warming does turn out to be caused by greenhouse gases. In that case, we may see temperatures spiral out of control, species be killed in mass extinctions, and devastating severe weather that kills thousands and leaves even more homeless. In the worst-case scenario, much of humanity could be killed off.

I'd rather err on the side of caution, reduce pollution, improve the environment, and hope that it solves, or reduces, global warming.

What'd they leave out? CO2!

[apsmith]

It's politics. It's what's left unsaid that's the real killer. The so-called "clear skies" bill does little for real pollution control, and does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about global warming. They're making do-nothingism sound good. Looks like they fooled at least one person.

Nuclear waste

[olman]

Unlike lead and other fun stuff the fossil fuel plants (such as internal combustion engine!) spew around, uranium will eventually turn harmless.

And never forget there's about 1:1000000 difference between amount of uranium vs coal/oil needed to produce same amount of energy.

Such relatively minor amounts can be dealt with. In fact are being dealt with. Get them into glass or ceramic compound and they'll stay put for quite reasonable geological time.