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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or what?

Or the skiing season will never be the same.

PS: The weather here sucks. It's been 15 degrees on average lately, which really sucks for playing outdoor hockey.

Re:Consequences?

[Ashen]

The UN is going to be angry. And they are going to write them a letter telling them just how angry they are!

Re:Consequences?

[bagboy]

>> Or what?

UN: Or we'll sanction you for the next 20 years and then you can kick your own @ss when we don't enforce it.

Re:Consequences?

[salvorHardin]

Perhaps one day there will be significant consequences. 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.

Until then...

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Age old response of what the UN says:

If you do not halt We shall be forced to ask you to halt a second time.

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?

[dreamchaser]

The US is complaining about it? I think not, we just aren't participating. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the vote against it was 98-0 in our Senate, so it wasn't even a partisan political matter.

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?

[mike260]

Actually, you guys hadn't paid your dues in years; you stumped up the ~$1bn you owed just after 9/11, if memory serves.

Re:Consequences?

[Rei]

How does making fun of the UN count as "Score:5, Informative"? The person didn't actually discuss the Kyoto Protocol. So, let me.

Consequences are under Article 18. Due to general agreement during the founding of the protocol, Article 18 merely a framework, for which specific consequences are to be established at the first COP/MOP meeting, held after the Kyoto Protocol is ratified (which it just was).

The protocol will not enter into force until 3/4 of the parties submit their notices of acceptance and ratification, and will only bind parties which ratify the amendment. I.e., not the US. However, US companies with overseas branches will be affected.

Japan, Australia, and Russia were insistant that consequences not be legally binding; the US used to be the party insisting the strongest that they be binding (how ironic...). However, COP/MOP was given the "perogative to decide on the legal form of the procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance."

Another interesting thing about the Kyoto Protocol is that it tracks your emissions like a national debt. I.e., if you miss your targets for one year, it cuts into your allotance for the next year. So, if a member blows off the protocol, their emissions rack up; if an environmentally friendly leader ever takes over, it offers all the more incentive to try and catch up to the rest of the world, even ignoring any Article 18 consequences that may be added in at a later date.

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?

[CrowScape]

Actually you forgot that first they will warn the offending country about the UN's desire to look into the possibility of writing a letter. Next, they will send a notice of intent to send a letter. Finally, if, and only if, diplomacy completely and catestrophically breaks down, will the letter be sent. In extreme cases it will be followed up by a "Hrumpf" from Kofi Anan.

At the end of the day French politicians and UN beuraucrats will get some sweet sweet graft out of the deal, and really, isn't that what diplomacy is all about?

Re:Consequences?

[tepples]

Why in the world should the U.S. (or any other country) willingly give up competitivity to other countries?

Trade sanctions. Watch some country with a big market impose import tariffs on products from non-Kyoto countries.

Re:Consequences?

[Sentry21]

The US historically has not 'paid for the lion's share of its operation'. They are supposed to, but they rarely did and never on time.

In fact, the UN Accounting department in 1998 held that the UN was suffering in terms of what it is able to do, in large part because a large number of members, most notably the US, do not pay their dues on time and in full. Since 1983, the US only paid in October, even though dues are due January 1st, and since 1986, it withheld part of those dues until certain conditions were met.

The report issued by Accounting 'also notes that of the countries in considerable arrears to the U.N., "according to a State Department official, only the United States has not paid its arrears because of policy reasons."'

What it comes down to is that the UN has been incapable of doing 'the lion's share of its operation' because of the US's inability or unwillingness to pay its dues when it is supposed to. In 1998, it was in danger of losing its vote in the General Assembly because of its arrears. As of 1998, the US owed $1.8 billion in back dues.

Now, bear in mind the US has actually started to pay its dues, perhaps because of the possibility of losing its influence (though it is obvious now that they don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks anyway), but I don't see that lasting. Abandon the world and the way the world works and see how pleasant it is to live without any friends. Unless things change with the way the US does buisiness, it's going to find itself alone when bad things start to happen.

Re:Consequences?

[KarmaMB84]

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

Re:Consequences?

[sparlitup]

Its so ironic to hear people, usualy Americans, ranting about how crap the UN is. The whole purpose of the UN is to act as a forum to represent the collective concerns of its member nations. Its is not an enforcer, unless mandated to do so by its members, nor is it a law-maker, unless again in the case of a consensus of members to implement in their local laws the collective will of the member states

The power of the UN derives from the degree to which nations (and the most powerful ones at that) participate in its institutions. If the UN is weak it is precisely because the more powerful members, such as the US have chosen to make it so. In this case, the US is in no position to criticise the power, or lack there of, of the UN.

Re:Consequences?

[farble1670]

what % of the world must disagree with the US before we start doing some self examination to see if we've gone wrong somewhere?

this reminds of a person that goes around claiming everyone is an asshole. what's more likely? everyone he meets is an asshole, or that he's the asshole?

there are real, concrete reasons americans are hated thoughout the world. most of them stem from our unfair use of power, and our unfair consumption of the world's (no, not just those on american soil) resources.

even if none of this appeals to your sense of fairness, it should appeal to your sense of self-preservation. being the most despised nation in the world does not bode well for our longevity. sure we can womp on iraq. but what if we had to deal with korea at the same time? and maybe throw in iran?

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?

[RancidBeef]

Not true. Look at the wikipedia link someone posted above. The US has been paying its "debt", but not all of the 22% to 25% the UN wants.

'Course, I wish we'd get the hell out of the UN. It could move its headquarters to France.

Ignoring all the corruption and other current problems in the UN, I have a real problem with an organization that is ostensibly for human rights, freedom, etc., yet gives equal voice to dictatorships and authoritarian governments with horrible human rights records.

In a wonderful statement of hypocrisy, the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" spells out many things that are human rights (and several things it says are but are not), but then sneaks this little nugget into Article 29: "(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, you don't have any rights to oppose the UN. Sweet.

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?

[Roger W Moore]

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

Re:Consequences?

[sageman]

Its unfair because it hurts our economy more than any other countries. I believe there is even a part in the Kyoto treaty to basically ignore the pollution of "developing" countries to give them enough time to develop, while bigger countries (especially the US) are forced to cut emissions.

Additionally, it is a silly treaty, because, as far as global warming, it doesn't accomplish anything. If emissions were cut, and kept that low for the next 100 years, computer simulations show that it would have a miniscule effect, slowing down global warming by 6 years out of the 100. Of course, to do that much it has to seriously hurt the economies of a lot of countries, especially the US.

Yes, we need to change, we need to look at the pollution problems and we need to do it now, but the Kyoto treaty just doesn't address them in an adequete way. Too bad, because we really need a change.

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?

[RancidBeef]

(I think you got that "former" and "latter" thing reversed. I assume you mean "screw the rest of the world" is childish.)

I don't know why Kofi is the SG. We (the US) used to like Osama bin Laden at one time too, so it's a fact we sometimes don't seem to know who to back. Does the US meddle in others' affairs too much? Yes, and it's come back to haunt us. Much of that was because of the global chess game we unfortunately had to play with the Soviet Union where the rest of the nations of the world were (unfortunately) just pawns in the game.

I said "screw the UN" and that's what I mean. I say screw a system where some irrelevant country like France can veto removing a sadistic and dangerous dictator from power because they are getting paid off by the very same dictator. Screw a system that then slams the US for acting "unilaterally" because it didn't want to remove that dictator. ("Unilateral" must mean having 30'ish countries with you or less, now.)

I think it's benificial for the US and the rest of the world to work together to make the world a free and prosperous place. The US and a few other places in the world realize that civilization itself is under threat from a bunch of fanatics that want to drag the world back 1000+ years.

The US is a sovereign nation with the right to protect itself from threats just as any other nation does. Screw anyone who thinks it does not have that right.

This is a very unique war we're in right now. With others you could point to an area of the map and say "here is the enemy". You can't do that this time. However, for that enemy to be dangerous it must have money and other resources. Those are supplied mostly by various countries and dictators like Saddam. Even if Saddam didn't *currently* have large stockpiles of WMD's (although some *have* been found -- and he could have ramped up production again as soon as UN sanctions were lifted, which would have happened soon because of those payoffs), I think Saddam was *himself* a weapon of mass destruction.

Re:Consequences?

[SilentOne]

How about backing up some of this with links to news articles that aren't from Foxnews?

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

[jasoncc]

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

Given those 2 choices, I say we sign on. :)

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

"China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). China has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade."

From that article you linked to.

China, a developing nation (and don't say it isn't, the average wage three years ago was $300 a year) HAS signed onto the treaty, even though it's likely to hurt China much more than the States. Especially considering China's economic growth is at 8% a year... Climate change is real, and if we don't do something about it, we're all going to be screwed.

50% of all species on the planet will be extinct in the next 50 years - all because of human impact. How the hell can we let that happen? The "mass extinction" of the dinosaurs was ONLY 19% of all species on the planet at that time.

When will people wake up and smell the carbon dioxide?

Re:Irony

[fireduck]

This doesn't mean Republicans hate clean air and throw caution about potential global warming concerns to the wind.

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?

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 Kyoto, we have a healthy economy. We have a social safety net, and a large federal surplus. We have universal health care. Our unemployment rate is a little higher than the US but we are doing extremely well, thank you for asking.

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

[Metasquares]

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

Look at those choices carefully.

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

[MachineShedFred]

Maybe I've had my head up an orifice for all my life, but could you cite a credible source for your "50% in 50 years" claim?

That just sounds like extreme hyperbole to me, but if it's true, it's a real eye-opener.

K thx bye

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

[Lord Kano]

When will people wake up and smell the carbon dioxide?

Never. CO2 is an odorless gas.

LK

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

[WhiteWolf666]

You misread it. He was being funny.

Common misconstruction of a sentence:

Either we loose jobs to places like China, OR we sign on to Kyoto.

Implying if we sign on to Kyoto, that will save jobs.

He was merely pointing out a grammatical misconstruction

Re:Irony

[letxa2000]

It is easy to say "Kyoto treaty will cause lost jobs" but much tougher to prove it.

It's only tough for those that don't understand economics and blindly follow the liberal/environmentalist party line.

If anything, initiatives like the Kyoto treaty will create demand for cleaner technologies and upgrades.

This is the old theory that if we demand cleaner technologies it will not hurt the economy because we'll be spending money to invent and deploy those technologies. That's a short-sighted interpretation.

Let's say you have an energy plant that employs 10,000 people and generates power for 100,000 consumers at a cost of $100B (all made up numbers). Now let's say they are subject to certain environmental restrictions to become "cleaner." They are forced to raise the price of their product to, say, $120B and $20B is being spent on cleaner technology which employs, say, 2,000 people.

So how has the economy been improved? Instead of 10,000 people being employed by $100B of electric bills, 12,000 people and $120B are now required. More people and more money is required to produce the same amount of electricity. And the 2,000 people that were added are not doing something else that could have a useful contribution to the economy. The industry and ecomomy have become less efficient and the 2000 additional people to pull it off may have been able to do something that would have materially helped the economy.

Feel free to say "It's worth it to save the environment" but please don't pretend that implementing environmental regulations will help the economy because that is B.S.

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

[dbasken]

Oh yeah, oh yeah, well "I" say that 98% of all species in the GALAXY will be extinct in the next 5.3 years, all because of, uhm, lessee, that-guy-down-the-street's impact! Yeah, that's the ticket! I can make up cool numbers too!

I just know I'm going to get moderated -23 Lugubrious for this informative post!

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

[wavedeform]

I don't know about the 50%/50 years stat, but this should be eye-opening enough:
http://www.iucn.org/redlist/redbook/

Re:Irony

[DunbarTheInept]

The argument goes (and I'm not saying I agree with it, in fact I don't) like this: If you upgrade a plant to new technology, it will become more efficient than it was. So along with the pollution controls, which are a waste from an economy point of view, you also get better efficiency to offset this. So the new plant would NOT cost $120B per 100,000 consumers served (100 as before, plus 20 in wasted overhead) to serve 100,000 consumers. It would cost about $100 still (80 or so for improved efficiency, plus 20 in wasted overhead). (Again, just like yours, these numbers of mine are made up.)

If you are going to criticize a point, you really should criticize the actual point being made, not an invented strawman of it. In this case the right way to critisize it would be to shoot down the premise that the newer plants would be efficient enough to have that effect.

My problem with Kyoto is that it measures pollution produced but doesn't compare it to products produced. When a Canadian buys an automobile made in Detroit, he is contributing just as much to the US industrial pollution figures by doing so as a US citizen buying an automobile made in Detroit is.

I do think an environmental treaty was needed, but Kyoto wasn't it. By being punative toward countries with large pollution, it is simultaneously punative toward countries with large economies. What would be better would be if the punative measures were based on the RATIO of pollution to economic benefit produced. If one small factory only outputs $100,000 into the economy, and yet it pollutes just as much as a factory that outputs $5,000,000 into the economy, then its pollution is less justifiable. We should be looking at pollution as being like a cash payment - how much benefit will this pollution buy us? If it is a large enough benefit, it becomes more justifiable.

Re:Irony

[crlorentzen]

I love how no one has read any of the plans from the Bush Administration to curtail emissions in the USA. Just read a little bit on http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/.
As well as this page http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/cl earskies.html "The Clear Skies Initiative will cut air pollution 70 percent...save American consumers millions of dollars.
* Cut sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 73 percent, from current emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018.

* Cut emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 67 percent, from current emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.

* Cutting mercury emissions by 69 percent, - the first-ever national cap on mercury emissions. Emissions will be cut from current emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.

The US does have policies in effect to perform the same function as the Kyoto Accord, but they are more in line with our Economic needs and actualities. So there are 3 different emissions that we are curtailing...instead of 7, but it is a start without putting undue strain on our economy, and whether or not you like it the fact that corporations make money also means that most people in the country are making money, if the corporation doesn't make money people lose jobs and or make less.

Well that's my two cents.

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

[uncadonna]

Paleoclimatology is a well-developed field. We have essentially direct measurements of atmospheric composition and total ice volume going back 800,000 years and proxy evidence of various kinds for about the last half billion.

Also we have some pretty solid physics that indicates that rapid greenhouse gas accumulation is a problem.

Climate is not weather. Weather is the part of atmospheric conditions that is not predictable beyond a few weeks. Climate is the rest of it.

Will it snow on Christmas? Nobody can say. It's a weather question. WIll Christmas be colder than the Fourth of July? Well, yeah, at least here in Chicago. That's a climate question.

Re:Irony

[DM9290]

"you also do not spend on national defense because the US protects you."

Canada has never requested the United States to "protect" it. Canada simply has no designs on world domination or interfering with global markets with threats of violence. The USA has military might which far exceeds the needs of defense alone. The US military is offensive. In fact the US military expenditure exceeds the next 3 biggest spenders combined.

The US would not need to spend so much money on military if it wasn't so determined to artificially depress the cost of OIL and interfere with world economies.

The United States is not "defending" Canada out of altruism. The USA is defending Canada in the same way it defends Saudi Arabia and Iraq. To defend the oil. Which Americans buys from canadian based (corporations) in order to fuel the huge SUV's you have been tricked into believing you must all drive.

Fortunately the "people" of Canada had enough sense to put some taxation on oil rather than simply allow corporations to steal it for free. This is probably more to the Crown's credit rather than the people of Canada, as traditionally the "Crown" reserves all mineral rights.

If military expenditure is a great way to transfer public weath into private corporate hands.... well that serves american corporate interests as well.

"America" is doing very well. It is only the american people who are feeling the pinch.

"you dont have any borders to patrol."

Were you expecting to be attacked by Mexico?
You already mentioned that Canada has no military.

"you have a relatively small population and most of your country in uninhabited or frozen over..."

You make being frozen over and uninhabited sound like an advantage.

Re:Irony

[jrumney]

Don't forget that Socialist paradise formerly known as the Soviet Block. You want to see some environmental carnage, go take a look at any industrial site in the old Soviet controled nations.

Which is why those countries have managed to reduce their CO2 emissions since 1990 by a staggering 40%, so the world as a whole is currently on target for the Kyoto reductions despite the US having increased output by 13%.

Re:Irony

[DM9290]

In the event that a foreign country invades Canada, I now support allowing them to proceed and fire bombing the entire U.S./Canadian border (from the line to 50km north) and mining the whole damned thing.

Your government only answers to its corporate overlords and not the people. Hence, no one cares what you support.

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

[uncadonna]

Care to show some evidence on that one?

Most century scale carbon cycle analyses I've seen don't even mention the volcanic component.

Here's a link which doesn't agree with your claim http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html . In fact it has it the other way around - 150 years of volcanic emissions are roughly equal to one year of human emissions.

Also, if you're right, exactly where is the huge spike in atmospheric carbon coming from, anyway? See http://www.climate.unibe.ch/clim_recon/co2.html. See that orange spike on the right? That look natural to you?

Note that this data is directly measured from well-dated bubbles trapped in ice cores. This is not a speculative reconstruction. It's observational data.

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.

Re:Irony

[rsborg]

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.

Ah, but which party has had almost complete congressional, executive and judicial control for the past four years? Now your smart-ass remark just sounds juvenile.

'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.

Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term

[NardofDoom]

On the contrary, a lot of people think the US will suffer because they won't be in the newly formed 'carbon market.'

And, besides, this will force European nations to develop methods and technologies that produce clean power and/or use less fossil fuels. Then, when the oil really starts to run dry they'll have the upper hand, and China, India, and the US will be buying technology from them.

It's already happening in the emerging wind generation technology, where Denmark is the leader.

Think of it this way: Imagine all the coffee in the world was going to run out eventually, maybe soon. Wouldn't you be better off inventing a better way to make tea instead of a better way to make coffee?

Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term

[metlin]

Imagine all the coffee in the world was going to run out eventually, maybe soon.

That's a really *really* mean thing to say x-(

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?

[Wyatt Earp]

Even some of the Russians are against it

"The Kyoto protocol requires a supranational bureaucratic monster in charge of rationing emissions and, therefore, economic activities. The Kyotoist system of quota allocation, mandatory restrictions and harsh penalties will be a sort of international Gosplan, a system to rival the former Soviet Union's. The majority of humankind does not accept this system, despite claims of worldwide support. Even with Russia's ratification, 75 per cent of the world's CO2 is emitted by, 68 per cent of the world's GDP is produced in, and 89 per cent of the world's population live in countries that are not handcuffed by Kyoto's restrictions. Like fascism and communism, Kyotoism is an attack on basic human freedoms behind a smokescreen of propaganda. Like those ideologies of human hatred, it will be exposed and defeated."

http://www.envirotruth.org/news/20041115.cfm

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.

Both

[zifty]

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.

Re:Both

[downward dog]

That's because the US is by far the worst polluter of any country in the world, so would have to cut more to be at a sustainable level.

Wow, I didn't think this would be true -- I supposed that China at least would pollute more than we do. So I did some research, and based on a 2001 EIA study, here are the world's energy-related carbon emissions:

24%: United States
16%: Western Europe
13%: China
12%: Eastern Europe and FSU
5%: Japan
29%: Rest of world

Details:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china env.html

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: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:Both

[jrumney]

It looks even worse if you look at how emissions have changed since 1990. While Western and Eastern Europe and China have reduced their levels of emissions, the US and Japan increased theirs by 13% and 12% respectively between 1990 and 2002.

Re:Both

[djmurdoch]

It's more interesting if you add CO2 emissions (taken from nationmaster.com):

Popn GWP CO2 emissions
China 20.0% 12.5% 15.2%
Russia 2.3% 2.5% 6.7%
Japan 2.0% 7.0% 5.3%
France 0.9% 3.2% 1.6%
Germany 1.3% 4.4% 3.7%
UK 0.9% 3.2% 2.5%
USA 4.6% 21.0% 25.2%

So the USA is high both per capita and per GWP, but not as high as Russia or China in the latter.

Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they don't have to lower greenhouse emission. In the case of Russia, for example, hey can actually riase their current levels of emission since they had more meissions in 1990.

Also, most of the meat of this deal are based on carbdon ton credits. If the UK can't make their target they can "buy" a carbon ton of rainforest (defined as the amount of trees it would take to scrub 1 carbon ton from the air) and keep them from being destroyted to "even out" the carbon levels. Costa Rica is "selling" their national parks (which were not going to be cut down anyways) for this purpose.

This treaty is functionaly a joke if you are concerned about lowering greenhouse emissions.

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

[saigon_from_europe]

Well they don't have to lower greenhouse emission. In the case of Russia, for example, hey can actually riase their current levels of emission since they had more meissions in 1990.

Why they should not be allowed to rise their CO2 generation? Because God gave some right to Americans to generate most CO2 per capita in world? American CO2 production per capita is far largest in the world. Christians should believe that all people are equial, or maybe born-again Christians in USA believe that they are better than others?

Lots of ranting...

[Thunderstruck]

Lots of ranting about how the US is just going to scoff at this "international law." But perhaps one point of clarification should be presented.

Treaties do constitute international law, but they are only binding on those nations which sign (and in the case of the US ratify) it. As such non-signatory nations who do not adhere to the terms of the Kyoto treaty are not in violation of any law.

90's levels

[fenodyree]

Yo! Now we can usher in the global warming with the classic 90's style. Does this mean we can bring back Parachute pants as well?

Re:90's levels

[nightsweat]

I believe that violates the Geneva Convention.

So yes. Yes, you can.

Earth-friendly Russians!

[meabolex]

Hey, not only are Russians nice enough to ratify the Kyoto treaty, they're also nice enough to develop a nuclear weapon program that could avoid any possible defense (in the rare event that missile defense could actually work).

Not only are they friends of the environment, but they could also destroy it better than anyone else!

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

[benhocking]

As Robin Williams said, "In England, if you commit a crime, the police don't have a gun and you don't have a gun. If you commit a crime, the police will say 'Stop, or I'll say stop again.'"

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

[wa5ter]

A commonly held misapprehension.

In the UK, you don't have a gun, the police call out an armed response unit and shoot you in the back of the head for carrying a table leg in a plastic bag.

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

[salvorHardin]

That was clearly his own fault for having a mate tell the police he was Irish before he set out with the table leg.

The fact that neither police nor criminal generally has a gun, does not mean they never do. It simply means that less lead per capita is flying around Greater London than in The District of Columbia. Slowly, guns are being found more frequenty amongst both sides.

Kyoto, and its successors will also one day have 'teeth'. This will likely be once damage to the environment has become noticeable in everyday life. Either that or it'll all come to nothing.... maybe.
You pays your money and you takes your chances...

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?

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.

Horray for Science!

[JBMcB]

'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.'

Fantastic! Just a couple questions:
1. What constitutes an "Industrialized" country?
2. What constitutes an "Emission" ?
3. Why those six particular greenhouse gasses?
4. Why 5.2%? Why not 10.2? Or 2.7?
5. Why 1990 levels? Why not 1980? 1994?

I tried to glean the answers from the protocol itself:
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/ky oto_proto col/items/1678.php

And, well, it's unreadable legaleese. It's like an obfuscated code contest, half the articles point to other articles and those point to other paragraphs. It looks like there's about two paragraphs of substance in it's 20 pages.

Re:Horray for Science!

[An Onerous Coward]

1) Check here to see if your country is "industrialized" or "transitioning".

2) "Emissions" means the release of greenhouse gases and/or their precursors into the atmosphere over a specified area and period of time. [source]

3) The six gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride) were presumably chosen because they make up the bulk of human-produced greenhouse gases.

4,5) Because having a quantifiable goal is nice. The choice of the year 1990 makes sense because the further back you go, the less the numbers bear any resemblance to the situation of the country today. If you go back too far, there aren't even useful numbers to work with. 1990 says, in effect, "You were performing at this level fairly recently. Try to shoot for that."

Why that particular percentage was chosen is a mystery, except that every country that signed Kyoto believed it was attainable. Will it be enough? Doubtful. But we have to start somewhere.

Re:Global warming is a myth in 3... 2... 1...

[Ignignot]

The LIBERAL media has been slowly forcing us to accept GAYS in the BIG GOVERNMENT and the UN because they want US to ALL become GAY, and then we'll all have to BECOME ATHEISTS and KILL UNBORN CHILDREN for the good of some THIRD WORLD TERRORIST!

How was that? I tried to get all the crazy conspiracy elements into teh smallest space possible... what did I leave out?

Carbon for Cash

[WayneConrad]

Russia wants in not because Mother Earth will weep if they don't sign, but because the treaty allows countries to sell their carbon credits for cash, and they stand to make a bundle.

Russia being Russia, my bet is that they will both sell their carbon credits and use them.

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.

Sweet sweet bolt turning

[nizo]

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...

Turning a bolt for 17 years? How big is this bolt anyway? And wouldn't that tend to slow down the rest of the assembly line?

Re:Who's the rogue state now?

[foniksonik]

Do you know how the Kyoto treaty works? Each nation gets a certain number of vouchers for pollution that they can trade amongst each other or sell off at a market value... the number of vouchers is based on old data regarding pollution wherein some of the nations will instantly have more vouchers than they need currently and stand to make a huge windfall selling them off to nations who have continued to progress or haven't been able to slow down pollution levels for any number of reasons... basically Russia specifically will stand to make several billion dollars selling their vouchers to nations like India, US, and other nations that have continued to grow their industries while Russia's has languished for the last decade.

This 'system' of vouchers is what the US will not buy into... as it leaves us at an automatic pollution deficit with nery little hope of ever catching up.

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

Rant

[JollyTX]

Luckily the most powerful nation in the world realizes that a few flooded countries matter little when compared to the prospect of losing a Few American Jobs.

Shortsightedness like this makes me think twice about having children (and the US is by no means the only offender).

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?

[Idarubicin]

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

Quite. The vote on the USA PATRIOT Act was 98-1 (the lone dissenter was Feinstein, D-CA), and the DMCA passed unanimously (99 senators voted for it).

Since the Senate has shown such excellent judgement on these other issues, we can no doubt trust that their rejection of the Kyoto Protocol was equally well-reasoned and based entirely on rational scientific investigation.

Does anyone seriously believe that Senators read (or even look at) most of the bills and treaties on which they vote?

Re:So who's signed it?

[cozziewozzie]

Sadly, that's not the only treaty the US is conspicuously absent from:

- Convention on the Rights of the Child. Here the US is in the respectable company of Somalia and nobody else.
- The Landmine Ban Treaty (would hurt the weapons industry).
- Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
- Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty
- Basel Convention on hazardous waste
- Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention
- International Criminal Court

You can try to justify not signing Kyoto through bunk science claiming that greenhouse gasses are good for you and make your children more clever, but the fact of the matter is that whenever the world at large signs some treaty that would make the world a better place (even if it is only symbolic), the US, more often than not, chooses not to give a fuck. Not the first or the last time.

Now mod me into oblivion.

Re:So who's signed it?

[Quila]

Wrong on the land mine treaty. Here are a few reasons we didn't sign it:

• The right to use mines in the Korean DMZ, which is a very special case. The mines pose no dangers of the types the treaty is trying to prevent, as all are in a closed, guarded area and mapped.
  
• Better verification and compliance provisions. Yes, we actually wanted to be able to make sure everybody complies -- not just us (this was rejected of course).
  
• The right to make self-destructing anti-tank and anti-personnel mines (again, not part of the long-term danger the treaty is about).
  

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:Who's the rogue state now?

[g_adams27]

> I just don't get the US's non-participation in this treaty. Cutting pollution is good for the economy.

Then I'll be happy to help explain it. The short version: Kyoto would have required the US to cut its carbon-dioxide emissions by 30-40% over the next 10 years. Cutting CO2 emissions = cutting back on the use of carbon-based fuels like oil, gas, and coal. Those fuels produce over 2/3 of the energy used in the United States. Witness the downturn that the economy took just over the last few months as oil got a bit more expensive and energy production dropped. Now picture another 30-40% drop on top of that. Do you see begin to see how "cutting pollution is good for the economy" is a bit simplistic?

And what would be the end result of the US crippling its economy in this way? Estimates indicate that Kyoto would reduce global temperatures by 0.25 degrees F by the year 2100, and a rise in ocean temperatures of 0.11 degrees C over 40 years (see the journal Science, 4/13/01)

The Kyoto treaty is not the warm-and-fuzzy "save the environment!" treaty you think it is. It's rigid and onerous and gives the UN significant regulatory power over the industries (and economies) of nations that sign it. There's a reason that the Senate decided in a completely bipartisan fashion (95-0) to reject the treaty. It's bad for the US, and it still doesn't solve any global environmental problems.

Re:Plantlife...?

[Mathiasdm]

(From the article you mention) The controversy occurs almost entirely within the press and political arenas. In the scientific press and amongst climate researchers, there is little "controversy" about global warming, only a desire to investigate a scientific problem and determine its consequences. As Kevin E. Trenberth writes: In 1995 the IPCC assessment concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate". Since then the evidence has become much stronger ... Thus the headline in IPCC (2001) is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"... While some changes arising from global warming are benign or even beneficial, the economic effects of the weather extremes are substantial and clearly warrant attention in policy debates... Consequently, there is a strong case for slowing down the projected rates of climate change from human influences. ----- And even if global warming might not be that bad... We can't know for sure right now. If you're allowed to go for a space trip, and 50% of the people (many of them scientists) tell you you'll die for sure, while the other half (also including scientists) tells you there's no danger... Will you take the risk? Will you let your children and grand-children take the risk?

Re:So what

[tjic]

USA went into Iraq in a unilateral action dismissing the UN

Actually, the US actions were legal under UN resolution 1441.

treated prisoners in a way that defies the Geneva Convention

Again, incorrect. Prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan are not subject to the Geneva convention because

1. they are not members of signatory forces
2. even if they were, the Geneva Convention explicitly says that troops lose certain protections when they fight in certain ways (like fighting out of uniform, pretending to be civilians, etc.) The Geneva Convention is not just a restriction on nations; it is a quid pro quo: you fight like civilized folks, and you get treated like civilized folks.

Re:Who's the rogue state now?

[nightsweat]

We arent' required to stop using those fuels, only to cut back on emission of carbon into the atmosphere. Scrubbers, filters, whatever you want can be used to meet those goals.

In fact, if the treaty's ratification were expected instead of resisted, there would be a capital spending boom as companies geared up for the treaty. Those that didn't want to convert would end up subsidizing the industries that did.

A recent clean burning coal generation plant in Clark County Kentucky produced the following benefits, according to the Kentucky Association of Electric Cooperatives:

Up to 700 construction jobs at an average of $60,000 a year.
$11 million in state property taxes in its first 20 years of operation.
$1 million in revenue for Clark County from payroll taxes during construction.
New market for up to 1.2 million tons of coal each year.
Sharply reduced emissions through the latest, proven clean-coal technology called "circulating fluidized bed."
98 percent less sulfur dioxide and 5 times less nitrogen oxide than a conventional pulverized coal power plant.
Enough electricity to supply 19 cities the size of Winchester - 278 megawatts - that's dedicated to serve the cooperative member-owners in Kentucky.

Kyoto isn't the business busting treaty you think it is. We'll see the effects over the next ten years as signatories lap American industries.

Force Grandfathered Coal Fired Plants to Modernize

[Black-Man]

Clinton waited until the last month of his 8 year administration for the EPA to draft changes to the grandfathering of coal fired plants and the Clean Air Act. Bush cancelled that directive and has since instituted a new directive. And the utilities with these plants have moved forward with plans to add scrubbers.

You just don't submit legislation or directives without a plan by the utilities to implement. And I think that is where the greenhouse gas issue has to be treated with "credits". Utilities can buy tracts of forestland and keep it as such - i.e. no logging. There is no magic bullet technology to convert coal-fired plants to non-greenhouse gas. It just doesn't exist!!

The only reasonable thing that can be done along with the "credits", is to raise minimum requirements for MPG in automobiles and trucks. I see that happening during this administration.

The carbon market

[siskbc]

On the contrary, a lot of people think the US will suffer because they won't be in the newly formed 'carbon market.'

Those people are math-challenged, or those who are trying to spin. The US would have, for the forseeable future, been a buyer on the carbon market. So yes, we'll be out of the carbon market, in the sense that we won't be paying other countries for the privelege of doing what we're doing now.

As for Russia, they did not sign out of altruistic purposes. They did because their current carbon emissions are over 30% below that of 1990, the benchmark for establishing the carbon market. This is the case not because they have developed clean fuel, or learned to reduce consumption, but because their economy completely imploded. So basically, Europe won't change much, nor will Russia, but the rest of Europe will end up paying Russia money.

That's why Russia ratified. It's free money. Why wouldn't they do it?

some thoughts on this

[khallow]

I have opposed the Kyoto protocol for several reasons.

The Kyoto protocol was based on some dubious science. 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. For example, it hasn't been shown that reducing CO2 levels will reverse global warming. Another possibility is that increasing solar output is responsible for global warming not human activity. There's some evidence that the IPCC study (I am unable to find the "first assessment" report on the web) that the Kyoto treaty is based on was presented in a misleading light (eg, the summary of the report doesn't agree with the body of the report).

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.

Further, developed countries have to cut back, but underdeveloped ones do not. I wonder how long this disparity can continue before we see countries withdraw from the treaty. In particular, I suspect that Russia will withdraw once it has entered the WTO (apparently the carrot used to lure them into the treaty by the EU).

No cost/benefit analysis has been performed. Is it really better to restrain economic activity rather than to deal with the costs of global warming due to greenhouse gases? The apparent reduction in economic activity that would be experienced by the EU (the most likely ones to comply with the treaty) might mean a significant drop in global standards of living.

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.

"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.

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

[Tickenest]

that Russia ratified Kyoto pretty just solely to get support from several EU nations in their attempt to join the EU? They didn't do it out of some desire to help the environment. It was politics. (Even NPR's story about Russia's ratification said that this was the reason.)

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.

China's per capita rating is misleading..

[Shivetya]

Considering that the bulk of China's population has no real income let alone any ability to paticipate in air pollution.

One thing this treaty is not doing is preventing the widespread pollution of the ground and water by other means, of which China and many of the former Soviet states excelled at.

The "50%" item is just an estimate, worst case scenario, in no way is it provable. Hell one of the hurricanes hitting Florida this year was thought to have pushed an endangered species of Turtle to near extinction... Nothing works better to build up excitement than to use extremist examples.

Re:China's per capita rating is misleading..

[waynelorentz]

Considering that the bulk of China's population has no real income let alone any ability to paticipate in air pollution

I think that's underestimating things. They have plenty of opportunity to create pollution, and do every day. Things like burning out the fields every year. Cooking with wood. Heating with low-quality coal. Diverting water from rivers for irrigation, lowering water levels.

Just because they don't have a factory doesn't mean they don't pollute. Remember, Los Angeles was already covered in smog when the Spanished first arrived in the area. It had to do with burning, wind, sun, and mountains. I don't think the Chinese are any less talented at mucking up the air.

Sites like "envirotruth"

[Decimal]

I don't doubt that many of the people in Russia are against it. Russia hasn't exactly been the world's beacon for representative democracy lately. But just for the record, although it isn't really known who the people who are financially backing Envirotruth.org are, we do know that ExxonMobil was one of the contributors. Keep a few large grains of salt on hand while reading the site.

Re:IF Global Warming were not due to man made caus

[Teancum]

Who knows? Perhaps the Viking probes, the Mars Rovers, and all of the other dozen or so spacecraft that have crashed on Mars have released all of that pollution and nuclear waste to start damaging the environment on Mars as well.

There are a number of things that could be causing substantial changes in the Earth's global climate picture, and man-made pollution is only one of them.

I conceed that there are local environments that have changed substantially from 10,000 years ago, or even 200 years ago, and that local environment is different directly due to human influence. Witness Los Angeles, where the first settlement in that location died off to the last person due to a lack of water, and now there is a city of over 10 million people living there (with suburbs, etc.) It is a city that wouldn't exist except for modern (20th century+) technology. Cities like Ur and Basra have also changed their local environment, and in those cases the changes are positively ancient in nature, because the original changes happened several thousand years ago.

There are also some very notable situations where the local environment has not only improved, but improved so substantially that criticisms are totally unwarrented. Most notable in this regard is Pittsburg, PA, where in 1880 the smoke was so thick that you couldn't see more than 1/2 a city block anywhere within city limits. And the Ohio river was so polluted that every fish in it was dead, with oil slicks a very common sight, and almost no plant life at all along the banks of the river. If you go to that same city today, with many more people living there than in 1880, the skies are almost always clear except when it rains, and the rivers are clean enough to fish in (I'm not sure I'd try to eat them, but at least the fish are living there now). I could give similar stories about Minneapolis, NYC, Liverpool, and other 19th Century industrial centers where the environment is in much better shape on a local basis now than in the late 19th Century. And this is stuff we have data on, unlike the 19th Centry satellite telemetry monitoring the ozone hole in Antartica.

Russia and the EU

[The Ape With No Name]

Huh? Russia will never join the EU. Why would they? Economic protection? No. The EU is competition. Military cooperation? No. See previous. They only joined the Council of Europe (a de facto prereq for EU membership) in 1996. Most likely they ratified Kyoto to line up with treaty memberships as part of the COE. Serbia will join the EU before Russia and that isn't even projected as a possiblility until 2030 according to Serbia itself.

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.

So who's signed it?

[jrumney]

...and Poland, don't forget Poland!

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

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.'

I read that article too

[levl289]

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).

Wow, talk about selective reading. In that same article, they mention that it is known that human activities have been shown to make a difference in the climate.

Who actually believes that you can make statements about small (0.5%) variations in a system...

If I understand you, you're trivializing the temperature variations that have been mentioned, and equating them to an insignificant change just because they don't seem large numerically? Those small changes, if doubled or tripled (or contrary-wise, halved or divided by three), would have gigantic ramifications on our lives, both in the way we live, and the way the things around us live, upon which we depend; and that's ignoring their current effects as-is.

I suppose it highlights the difference in opinion, and the the subsequent dif
ference in interpretation.

Re:Who's the rogue state now?

[flossie]

This 'system' of vouchers is what the US will not buy into... as it leaves us at an automatic pollution deficit with nery little hope of ever catching up.

It was the bloody USA that demanded that emissions trading be included in the protocol!!! All European nations were completely opposed to the idea but finally gave in to American demands so that a meaningful treaty could come in to effect.

Re:FAIR?

[Yokaze]

So, the US is producing and consuming more than every other country (World export 11%), and that entitles it to produce more CO2?

If you are crashing your car every year you are raising the GDP. If you produce weaponry and dispose it one way or another, you are raising the GDP. It is no measure of benefit to humankind.

> Even calculating it on a per capita basis is unfair

Is it? After an initial industrialisation phase with a corresponding growth of both, no statistical correspondance can be found.

To quote:

all the evidence suggests that emissions are to an important degree a function of policy and choice that determines the energy efficiency of economies

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.

Environmental FAILURE

[Mulletproof]

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

It's amazing what ones choice of words can tell you about the person who wrote this story. Failure? Failure assumes one wanted to be involved in the first place. No, don't be so self-centered, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about national policy in general. The US didn't want to be involved in Kyoto period. There was no failure. There was no effort, policy or want to join Kyoto. And as long as we're being unbiased, maybe it was because of studies such as this:

The Sun is Getting Hotter
G lobal warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtm l?xml=/ne ws/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/i xnewstop.html

Or this:

Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high

T he Sun, Stanford University Sunspots are plentiful nowadays A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

This trend is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue.

Sunspots have been monitored on the Sun since 1610, shortly after the invention of the telescope. They provide the longest-running direct measurement of our star's activity. The variation in sunspot numbers has revealed the Sun's 11-year cycle of activity as well as other, longer-term changes. In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface.

This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. Ice core disc, Epica Ice cores record climate trends back beyond human measurements It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/386975 3. stm

Or possibly even (and slightly more combative):

Global Warming Activists Studiously Ignore History's Cycles of Warming and Cooling
The latest pseudo-scientific parlor game is pretending that the Little Ice Age didn't happen. We're supposed to ignore the historic reality that the world's mean temperatures dropped sharply by 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit from about 1300 AD until at least 1850 AD and fell perhaps a freaky 9 degrees below today's average temperatures in the 13th century.

Let's pretend this well-documented spasm of freezing cold, advancing glaciers, and terrible storms did not freeze the Viking settlers on Greenland to death or create Europe's "year without a summer" in 1315, when crops failed and created massive famine. The silly game of "hide the Little Ice Age" is being played to support the g

Re:Japan has more CO2 credits than the US...

[Maltheus]

Yeah, I just got back from Kyoto and Tokyo. I could hardly breath in Tokyo because of the air pollution. I actually ducked into some smokey bars just so that I could breath freely at times. The sky was nothing but haze all throughout the country. They shouldn't have spare credits. The US has much cleaner air. Although, I haven't been to California in quite some time, I can't imagine it being as bad as Tokyo. NYC is much better in any case. Nice country though, aside from that.

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.

Kyoto blows

[cartzworth]

It would have ravaged companies and our economy would be worse off if it was ratified. I'm glad it wasn't.

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.

not odorless

[js7a]

Carbon dioxide is not odorless. It literally smells like pure pain, at high enough concentrations. The same olfactory nerve cells responsible for the sense of smell will send "a sharp sense of pain" to the brain if, for example, you take a big whiff of dry ice. Lung tissue will react the exact same way.

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.

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.

You know what we should do...

[Dewrf]

We should just build big domes around the countries that don't sign up for global enviremental isuess, why should the rest of the world have to put up with your poluction and give you the oxygen that the plants in the rest of the world makes. Create your own oxygen and suck on your own polution if you don't want to play ball -Jay

Bush is the WORST President at enviro. policies

[katharsis83]

Check out the website of the NRDC, the Natural Resource Defense Center; it has a chronological ordering of Bush's actions against the environment:

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/

This series of events is from just ONE MONTH in December of 2002; on the website, there's hundreds of documented cases of environmental abuse by Bush:

"December 2002
EPA exempts oil and gas industry from stormwater pollution rules (12/30/02)
Bush administration backtracking on policy of 'no net loss" of wetlands (12/26/02)
Judge deals setback to Bush oil drilling plans in Utah (12/23/02)
Bush administration weakens federal program for cleaning up dirty waters (12/21/02)
Judge slaps restraining order on plan to dredge Snake River (12/20/02)
BLM denies drilling access in Colorado wildlife range (12/20/02)
Judge gives Department of Interior extension on manatee plan (12/19/02)
White House begins process of relaxing government regulations for industry (12/19/02)"

Once again, just a list of cases from one MONTH of his presidency; similar events occur every month.

Don't try to refute this by just saying the NRDC is full of hippies; if you have objections to their claims, please give counter-evidence.

Here's another interesting article I found from Rolling Stone online:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/stor y/_/rnd/1 100911430857/has-player/true/id/5939345/version/6. 0.12.1040
Perhaps the most damning accusation against the Bush administration from above article:

"Under the White House's guidance, the very agencies entrusted to protect Americans from polluters are laboring to destroy environmental laws. Or they've simply stopped enforcing them. Penalties imposed for environmental violations have plummeted under Bush. The EPA has proposed eliminating 270 enforcement staffers, which would drop staff levels to the lowest level ever. Inspections of polluting businesses have dipped fifteen percent. Criminal cases referred for federal prosecution have dropped forty percent. The EPA measures its success by the amount of pollution reduced or prevented as a result of its own actions. Last year, the EPA's two most senior career enforcement officials resigned after decades of service. They cited the administration's refusal to carry out environmental laws."

This still not enough evidence? Just do a quick google search on "bush environmental policy." You'll literally see hundreds of websites crticizing his policies. This is one of the most hostile administrations to a clean America.

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:cute breakdown

[NetNifty]

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

Here's an idea

[dacarr]

They want to cut down on CO2 emissions?

How about planting a whole lot of trees?

Yes, I'm being facetious, but I'm also being a bit serious.

Here's another idea - find industrial sources of wasted CO2 and plant trees around them - or harvest the CO2. The Miller brewing company in Irwindale, CA comes to mind immediately - there's nothing surrounding the brewery but a quarry, interstates 605 and 210, and old US 66. And they brew shitloads of beer per month - that's a shitload of CO2.

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.