Posted by
michael
on from the take-a-deep-breath dept.
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.'"
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
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
"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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
-- Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
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.
"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.
-- No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
geoffrobinson
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
A bipartisan concensus that handicaping our economy relative to other countries was a bad idea may not constitute a failure.
-- Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
NardofDoom
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
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?
-- You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Re:'Failed' Is a Relative Term
by
metlin
·
· Score: 5, Funny
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-(
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
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.
Treaty Doesn't Even do what It Claims to do
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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
by
einstein
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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.
Lots of ranting...
by
Thunderstruck
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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.
-- Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Re:who says we failed?
by
Wyatt+Earp
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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."
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.
Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto?
by
jayveekay
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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.
Horray for Science!
by
JBMcB
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
'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.
-- My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Re:Global warming is a myth in 3... 2... 1...
by
Ignignot
·
· Score: 4, Funny
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?
-- I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Science! Think of the science, children!
by
mumblestheclown
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
First, the USA (and I say this as a semi-estranged USA-ian), are a bunch of asshats for not ratifying this. Sure, there are excuses and apologetics, but, at the end of the day, they (we) could have done it.
However, those of you who think that the whole Kyoto debate is about the USA should not lose sight of the more important fact:
Global Temperatures Will Continue To Rise as a result of CO2 emissions even if 100% of the world wholeheartedly adopted Kyoto TODAY.
All Kyoto does (and it is a big step, but nevertheless) is slow the RATE of growth. Politicians and other know-nothings will be patting themselves on the back saying "well, that fixed it!" It did no such thing--at most, it bought us a little time.. and a little is the operative word. Kyoto's significance is not so much that it has somehow lessened the problem - for all practical purposes, it has not. It's significance is that it works to effectively keep the problem from getting much, much worse.
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
foniksonik
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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.
-- A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
wa5ter
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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:who says we failed?
by
fireduck
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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.
Re:Consequences?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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.
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
So who's signed it?
by
payndz
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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?
-- You must think in Russian.
Re:So who's signed it?
by
cozziewozzie
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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.
"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.
--
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Who's the rogue state now?
by
g_adams27
·
· Score: 5, Informative
> 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:Who's the rogue state now?
by
nightsweat
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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.
--
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
The carbon market
by
siskbc
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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?
Re:Consequences?
by
commodoresloat
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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.
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.
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?
-- common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Yes, failed is the correct word.
by
Ryan+C.
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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.
-- -Ryan C.
So who's signed it?
by
jrumney
·
· Score: 4, Funny
...and Poland, don't forget Poland!
Re:Consequences?
by
Sentry21
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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.
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:Or they'll have until only 2022... (etc.)
by
Roger+W+Moore
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Ummmm.... and it's an improvement to have a gunfight in the street rather than a shouting match?
You know what we should do...
by
Dewrf
·
· Score: 4, Funny
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
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.)
-- Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
So what if your side is wrong?
by
fmaxwell
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.)
A bipartisan concensus that handicaping our economy relative to other countries was a bad idea may not constitute a failure.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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.
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.
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.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
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
The UN is going to be angry. And they are going to write them a letter telling them just how angry they are!
Economy isn't everything. Most of the rest of the world has figured that out by now.
This is not a sig.
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.
Hi there
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.
'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.'
y oto_proto col/items/1678.php
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/k
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.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
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?
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
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.
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.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
a env.html
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/chin
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?
You must think in Russian.
Yet we'll spend 5.8 billion a month on a war in Iraq so we can get oil to pollute with. Go figure.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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.
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.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
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?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
It's amazing you can get +5 insightful for empty posturing about the treaty without even giving a reason to back it up.
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.
The *special* hell.
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?
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
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.
-Ryan C.
...and Poland, don't forget Poland!
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.
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...
Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
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.
Ummmm.... and it's an improvement to have a gunfight in the street rather than a shouting match?
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
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.)
Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
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.