Kyoto Protocol Comes Into Force

Cally writes "The controversial Kyoto Treaty regulating CO2 emissions finally comes into force today. The BBC has several stories and backgrounders, and notes that international pressure is now mounting on the USA to take action as well, as the scientific consensus is well established. A key question is whether the US economy will benefit relative the rest of the world, with some arguing that new technologies such as clean power generation and energy efficient appliances will provide an economic boost."

Comments

'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Peeteriz]

Looking at the question of 'will USA gain a relative economical advantage' is missing the point - it IS clear that there are certain economic disadvantages - ensuring that our children have a decent world left will have some costs.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[damian cosmas]

India, China, and Brazil aren't involved in Kyoto. Together, they make up a rather nontrivial fraction of the world's population, with the former two beginning to industrialize heavily. This treaty is, has been, and will continue to be a joke.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[I confirm I'm not a]

Looking at the question of 'will USA gain a relative economical advantage' is missing the point - it IS clear that there are certain economic disadvantages

Agreed, and I feel that the economic disadvantages have been grossly overstated: for example, a pundit on the BBC suggested that with Kyoto compliance it would take the UK until 2056 to achieve the same level of prosperity it would otherwise attain in 2053. I suspect there's grounds for error there, but that it's not far from the truth.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Kokuyo]

Yes, but considering the state of their social system I'd say we cannot expect them to first look out for the environment before feeding their children.

We live in relatively stable countries... it is OUR duty to show them how it should be done by example. Then they will follow this example.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[rsidd]

This treaty is, has been, and will continue to be a joke.

It's a starting point. Much more needs to be done. But the US is not even willing to make a start. As of now, India and China combined emit about 14% of the world's CO2 (it was a lot lower when the treaty was being negotiated and India's share is still low), while the US all by itself emits 25%

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[gilesjuk]

Then set them an example?

Honestly, it's a joke when the worlds biggest polluter stands up and complains about poorer countries who pollute less.

Sure it will have economic costs, but developing technology will create jobs and result in lots of energy saving technology which can be sold.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Tim C]

Ah, the old "they're not doing it, so there's no point me doing it" attitude...

Look, it's perfectly simple. The more countries sign up, the better. Yes, it would be preferable to get every country in the world to sign up and adhere to the treaty, but that's not going to happen right away. Failing that, the more the better. Even if a couple of major polluters don't sign up, those that do can still make a positive difference.

Hey, not everyone obeys inconvenient laws like not killing people, not stealing stuff, not dumping toxic waste into rivers, and so on - that doesn't mean that no-one should bother.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[frankthechicken]

India/China/Brazil are not in Kyoto as per head of population they do not contribute as much towards to Carbon dioxide problem as Western nations. The only so called industrialized nations not signed up to Kyoto are the US and Australia.

Australia is the one that amuses me, their PM's statement

"Until such time as the major polluters of the world including the United States and China are made part of the Kyoto regime, it is next to useless and indeed harmful for a country such as Australia to sign up"

Especially when their leading oppposition party states that

Australia is the world's worst greenhouse gas polluter per capita because of its heavy use of coal-burning power stations.

The arguement that because so and so aren't doing it, why should we, is not only childish, but considering stances against some countries for not commiting to certain agreements, it seems down right hypocritical.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[mordors9]

I'm sorry, but saying that a totalitarian regime like China will follow anyone's example is just silly. The US should either accept or reject the Kyoto protocol based upon its own merits. Not make decisions based upon a fanciful notion that China or India are so full of respect for anything the US does that they will follow along.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Kokuyo]

No. We shouldn't be talking so they wouldn't have to be listening.

We should be a shining example with breathable air and water coming out of the tailpipes of our cars. And they will WANT to follow the example.

I do believe that clean energy will mean lots of cash in the future. If SOMEONE manages to make big bucks with it everyone else will follow. That is in the nature of humans. The problem is someone needs the cojones to INVEST first. And we really can't expect underdevelopped countries to do the investing, right?

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[ajs]

So we have to take a political and scientific debate down to the level of "do it for the children"? How sad.

As for the article itself, let's please stop talking about "consensus".

Seriously, if you want a nice review of the topic of scientific consensus, here's a bit from a speech given by Michael Crichton

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

He goes on to explain that many important scientific discoveries have been in direct conflict with the consensus. So please, let's not use the word "consensus" in this context. Discuss warming trends (there's some hard data you can point to), anthropic influence and other real topics, but science is not a popularity game. If you talk about consensus, you're only talking about politics, not science.

For my part, I have no fundamental problem with the idea behind Kyoto, though a) I think there are better places to spend time and money that would save more lives (e.g. reducing chemical toxic waste dumping) and b) the details of the treaty are almost certainly a mass of political potatoes that are getting lobbed around for individual gain, so one should not be too quick to judge its detractors.

I've still not been sold on anthropic warming, but I'd welcome more debate in the US on emissions. At the very least it's not a bad idea to keep our emissions under control with an eye toward air quality (though keep in mind that air quality isn't necissarily served by a focus on CO2 levels).

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Malc]

And two wrongs make a right? Rather than sinking down to the level of others, how about taking the high ground and leading by example, or aren't you up to the job? The US is the richest country in the world - there's no excuse.

The Kyoto Protocol is not the last word on this. It was never intended to be. It's a step in the right direction. Much like the Rio Summit was (1992???), where incidentally many countries including the US made promises they immediately went about breaking. The next agreement after Kyoto will undoubtedly try to pull in these developing countries whose economies have grown large enough that they can be considered up to the job. The cynics amongst us would say the Americans wanting to apply the protocol to poor countries is a method to try to keep the poor countries poor and under the American thumb. The US doesn't suffer easily - a bit like a petulant child.

It's time to start working in the right direction with the knowledge that others will be brought in to the fold later.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Kokuyo]

As I stated in my answer to another poster above:

This is not about respect or whether they will listen or not. This is about profit. Be it either financial or other means.

No, China gives a damn about what the US wants or says. But they will give a lot of thought about technological and economical advantages the US will gain over them. Make a market for clean energy and they will want to participate.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Lorenzarius]

From this official document (pdf) on the status of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, India, China and Brazil has all ratified/approved Kyoto, am I missing something here?

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[zootm]

Page five of this has a pretty graph, seems reasonably legit (although it's only certain sources of emissions, I think it covers the major ones).

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[MetaPhyzx]

Kyoto isn't as simple as "Let's stop polluting, and redo our entire infrastructure." There's other considerations regarding the treaty as well, that most people don't hear about (There was a good deal on NPR about it this morn).

When people think about the cost of beginning down this road, they look at the economic pain versus the reward. Well, there's a reason they say you have to spend money to make money. With Kyoto, you *could* be making money on top of spending it and coming out. For instance, emissions trading(and this was outlined on NPR this morning, and for the life of me, I dont understand WHY it doesn't get more play).

What is emissions trading?

Emissions trading works by allowing countries to buy and sell their agreed allowances of greenhouse gas emissions.

Highly polluting countries can buy unused "credits" from those which are allowed to emit more than they actually do.

After much difficult negotiation, countries are now also able to gain credits for activities which boost the environment's capacity to absorb carbon.

These include tree planting and soil conservation, and can be carried out in the country itself, or by that country working in a developing country.

By investing in the infrastructure of developing nations (building plants, utilizing other technologies in India, China and the like) and "helping" them along the path of better energy management and minimizing environmental impact, rich nations can take advantage of this in a big way and lessen the economic hit, WHILE improving thier own infrastructure. Eventually we're gonna have to get on board, would you want to get on board once all the good opportunities to take advantage of this are gone?

It's been argued that what we do best here in the US is innovate; the key then becomes ratifying the treaty and investing more in R and D and technologies that will maximize our energy usage and minimize environmental impact. If it means we pay a little more, so be it. It also requires forward leaning leadership to do this; there's going to be more than one energy lobby group screaming about it. That's is the piece we're missing in the US to make this happen.

For those that are "security minded", taking advantage of Kyoto now over the next 15 years will do more for US national and economic security than any projection of force or diplomatic posturing.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[jameszhou2000]

To US, this treaty could only make American people to use less luxury.

To China, this treaty could make people starve.

Now China becomes a good excuse for the states?

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[killbill!]

Being less reliant on oil is a serious economic benefit.

You hit the nail right on the head. In fact, I'd argue that the main reason the US has to go Kyoto is not to save the global environment (because it might already be too late), but to save the US economy. Namely, to force companies that are too focused on their next quarterly results to save themselves.

Instead of complaining about the cost of Kyoto on the US economy, maybe US politicians should ask themselves why EU politicians are in favor of Kyoto. Seriously, do you really believe it's because they care about the environment? Or even their constituencies? Do you really expect them to be less sold out to Big Business than in the US?
Something tells me their backers did the math.

The US *has* to reduce its energy consumption lest it faces utter economic ruin in the coming decades. Right now, the US is burning twice as much energy per capita as the EU or Japan.
If you didn't know already, the EU is a larger economy than the US, and both the EU's and Japan's industrial sector are larger as a share of GDP than the US's. The US must be doing something seriously wrong somewhere.

When Peak Oil comes, the EU and Japan will have decades of technical and organizational expertise in energy efficience behind them. They will be able to bear the burden, as they will be thoroughly prepared.

The US on the other hand will have to reinvent itself completely in only a couple years. Even cities will have to be rebuilt from the ground up (try doing that 100 mile daily commute in a world where gasoline is 10x more expensive than it is today). They will have to build extensive public transportation systems that do not exist right now. And all this right at the time the foreign debt crisis hits.

To put it in a nutshell, it is going to make the 30's look like a walk in the park.
And it's going to suck even more when all the equipment needed to adapt the US has to be imported from China or the EU and paid in overly-expensive yuans or euros because no US company even cared about the looming disaster when it was still time.

On the other hand, it the US does get its act together and starts saving energy in earnest soon, then it might manage to pull it off.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[dave420]

Um, if you look, China is rapidly opening itself up to the rest of the world, which is following the example of the western world. Clearly they DO follow people's examples.

China and every other struggling nation can't afford to make cuts in pollution. America and the rest of the developed world can, and so it's our duty to. We're all in this together, acting like a spoiled primadonna helps no-one.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[rseuhs]

I completely agree.

Sure the US might gain some short-term benefits, but as Oil becomes more and more rare, it will turn out that those nations that prepared for it (by actually *gasp* conserving energy) will be at a huge advantage.

Just look at some random street, the vast majority of minivans, SUVs, pickups, etc. have just one single person in them. Would it really be so terrible if those would drive compacts instead? (Maybe with a trailer on those rare occasions where you really need to take so much stuff with you) Would that really reduce the living standard?

When gas prices become higher and higher, wouldn't you have a higher standard of living with a more economic car? (Or are you living for your car? Is your only purpose in live to keep your car running?)

And I didn't even start to talk about pollution...

Even if you think this whole pollution (global warming, cancer from tiny dust particles, cancer from polluted water, etc. etc.) is just an invention of the liberal media, conserving energy makes sense from a purely 100% economic point of view.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[jameszhou2000]

you may forget that chinese people do not have a high quality of life.

most products they manufacture are not for themselves. in another words, a large portion of chinese people are working FOR America.

when US outsourced manufacturing jobs to China, the pollution is also transferred there.

now, suddenly China becomes an excuse for the richest country - US?

what a good excuse!

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[kubrick]

The other funny thing is that John Howard is claiming that Australia has met all of its targets under the Kyoto treaty. IIRC, that would be because his Minister for the Environment threw a big tantrum during the negotiation and threatened to walk out unless Australia was allowed to increase its emissions by 10% over the time in question...

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because nobody ever starves in America, even when you dampen the economy.

People need to get it through their heads that

economic bad news == dead people

You can talk about the importance of cleaning up the environment, but only if you are willing to look at the cost on both sides of the ledger. If you insist on claiming that reducing oil consumption in the US means nothing worse than a few less rich assholes driving Hummers, I simply can't take anything you say seriously.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[jameszhou2000]

continue to enjoy your luxury goods, but do not forget you could also be left behind of clean energy techologies from other countries since you do not have any motivations.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[smagruder]

It's not "acting like a spoiled primadonna", but rather insisting on fairness, and that means the entire world participating. Otherwise, it's a sham that unfairly targets the U.S. This may be the only issue where I somewhat agree with the Bush administration. Either the whole world is in it, or it's a no-go.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Cally]

I'm sorry Aaron, I stopped reading when you started quoting Michael Crichton. He's an author, and a bad author of trashy airport thrillers at that. He's not a scientist (in fact he studied Anthropology. Bleuchhh) and his conspiracy theories about climate change have been comprehensively debunked here and here, amongst other places.

I guess you didn't find the time to read much on RealClimate.org as you said you'd try to do? or do you disagree with what's said there?

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[ShamusYoung]

It isn't a start. Cutting energy production is always tough on the economy. The US went through this in the late 70's, and most people remember how miserable that was.

The US would need to make some serious sacrifices to obey Kyoto. Keep in mind that most of the US lives much, much more sparsely than Europeans. They are not (for the most part) crowded into dense polluted cities. They are spead out over rual areas with clean air, clean water, and blue skies. Now they hear this:

"We MUST reduce emissions now! Before we destroy the planet!"

We've been hearing this sort of thing for three decades now. Eco distaster is always just around the corner. We are always near the tipping point, close to the point of no return. Horror is coming!

But it hasn't. I don't think people are being unreasonable when they conclude that people are crying wolf. Environmental scientists have been wearing a sign that says "THE END IS NEAR" for thirty years, and people are just used to it. Every single weather event is treated as "proof" that we are near cataclyism. Its a bad winter! Its a mild winter! Tsunami! All blamed on global warming.

Despite the dire claims, we have yet to see any REAL environmental disaster. Nothing truly spectacular has happened (not on the scale the doomsayers have been predicting) and now we get Kyoto.

Here is what the average American can plainly see:

1. The air and water seem pretty good. Weather seems normal.
2. Kyoto WOULD create a nasty economic downturn. Everyone over 30 can remember the last one, and it wasn't pretty. Worse, the Kyoto downturn would be PERMANENT.
3. Europeans dislike us, some HATE us, maybe they don't have our best interests at heart with this thing?

Keep in mind you must pursuade these people to do something that is not in their best interests (in the short term). Kyoto would hurt the US more than anyone else, and its citizens see less need for it than anyone else. It's a tough sell. Arguments of "Americans are selfish and stupid" are not likely to pursuade.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Loco3KGT]

What market for clean energy are you talking about?

Last I checked, it's simply a market for energy.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[uberotto]

India, China and Brazil are involved in Kyoto. They have an exemption until 2012, after that they are required to begin cutting emmisions.

However, I've been reading several news stories lately about China already putting in place several projects to cut current Greenhouse Gas emissions. They've recently cancelled many Government projects due to environmental concerns.

According to Greenpeace China's campaign director Lo Sze Ping, "[the] observation is that, compared with the 1980s, 1990s, the Chinese government's position has changed. They can now see their share of responsibility and they are working very hard."

Last month, the State Environment Protection Administration suspended 30 large construction projects, including the five-billion-dollar Xiloudu hydropower plant, for failing to get environmental impact assessments approved.

It seems that many of the leading Chinese scientist agree that Global Warming is a major concern and the Chinese Government is listening to what they have to say. The government also believes that by cutting their own emissions they will have more "credits" to sell to other countries. In other words, the Chinese government has come to the conclusion that they can improve long term growth and profit by "being green".

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[tgibbs]

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had

Michael Crichton is a pretty decent novelist, but this is a strikingly dumb remark. No, the consensus is not always right. It's easy to think of occasions when the scientific consensus was dramatically wrong--easy because it is unusual enough that it stands out in memory. Most of the time, the consensus is generally pretty much on track. And usually, when the consensus has turned out to be way off, it was because the consensus was not based upon evidence, but upon an unchallenged assumption propounded by some scientific eminence or derived from religious dogma.

If one looks at the history current consensus on global warming, on the other hand, it is not something that scientists were predisposed to believe. Rather, it is a view that scientists were once skeptical of, but to which they have been slowly won over, one by one, by the steady accumulation of more and more convincing observational and historical data, as well as the convergence of theoretical predictions of climatic models based often on quite different assumptions.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[jedidiah]

We can do this without being a part of the treaty.

Infact, if our intent was actually to do this then it would make MORE sense to not be part of the treaty.

However, the fact remains that the treaty as it stands is absurd. China is the world's industrial outsourcer. Allowing them a free ride only encourages more industrial outsourcing that will ultimately lead to MORE pollution rather than less.

The developing nations never should have gotten a forebearance.

A senate vote of 95:0 is nothing to sneeze at.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[DarkSarin]

At the risk of feeding a troll::

Let me put it this way--the GP had a POINT. It will NEVER persuade an American that you are right if you sit around (or walk around--your preference) telling them how ignorant, arrogant, and selfish they are. I recognize that in some countries it is not uncommon to get into rather heated discussions where name calling is acceptable (and even expected), but in the US, such is frowned upon in business (/. doesn't count), and by professionals.

Personally, I think that if you had paid attention, you would have realized that what was being said is important. Most of us living in the US are NOT living in high-population density areas. The weather has not changed significantly in 30+ years (lifespan or more for many of us), and there is little evidence that it will (from a practical, hey it's 20 degrees C below today in Miami FL. type of perspective).

You want to convince mainstream America living in Podunk Iowa that global warming is important AND that the economic downturn resulting from accepting the Kyoto treaty is worthwhile? Then you need to figure out first how to get and maintain, the interest of the Americans who count. Our folks in Congress know political suicide when they see it, and anything that hurts the economy is likely to be political suicide. It takes serious support from voters (who are fickle at best) AND some serious courage for them to go against the grain.

BTW, many Americans view Europeans as arrogant, snobbish types, but we all know that there are arrogant, ignorant pricks on both sides of the pond. Laters.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Decaff]

We've been hearing this sort of thing for three decades now. Eco distaster is always just around the corner. We are always near the tipping point, close to the point of no return. Horror is coming!

You have been hearing it from a few for a long time. Now you are hearing from a majority of respectable scientists.

Despite the dire claims, we have yet to see any REAL environmental disaster. Nothing truly spectacular has happened (not on the scale the doomsayers have been predicting) and now we get Kyoto.

The problem is that by the time the average citizen notices major changes, its too late.

If you want evidence, look at your Glacier National Park. Check the temperature changes and mass changes of the glaciers. The evidence for climate change is there if you bother to look.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[johannesg]

Cutting energy production is always tough on the economy.

On the other hand, building alternative energy production capability, and selling equipment with lower energy usage (or investing in research for the same), might very well pay off handsomely. If the US had chosen to invest the money wasted on the war in Iraq on lowering its energy usage, not by raising prices or forcing people out of their cars, but simply by creating machinery that requires less energy and stimulating its use, and of course by building alternative energy sources, the country would be a lot better off at this point. You would be mostly free from the middle east, and you would be a world leader in new, clean technology. Of course the same is true for Europe, and I hope one day soon we will get leaders who understand this.

So this is not just about getting hurt. It is about new opportunities, for anyone willing to invest. The first major economy to realize this will have a golden future, being able to export its knowledge and equipment world wide while being largely independent from middle eastern oil.

Chances are this woulnd't end well for those currently in power in the middle east, but it could be argued that that power structure is an aberration caused by oil in the first place, and doesn't in fact benefit the majority of people living in the area. In other words, when oil money runs out we may see a few revolutions, followed by a more normal, stable situation.

Kyoto WOULD create a nasty economic downturn. Everyone over 30 can remember the last one, and it wasn't pretty. Worse, the Kyoto downturn would be PERMANENT.

In the economy there is no such thing as a permanent upturn or downturn.

Europeans dislike us, some HATE us, maybe they don't have our best interests at heart with this thing?

In any group that is large enough you will find people who hate just about anything, but on the whole "europeans" don't hate americans. Please do forgive us for being suspicious about your leaderships' goals, though. Arguments of "Americans are selfish and stupid" are not likely to pursuade.

To summarize:

- No more grovelling towards the arab world.

- Significant expenditure in research will tremendously boost the economy.

- Significant expenditure in new, clean power plants (both big, like fusion, and small, like wind farms) also boost the economy. Wind farms are small enough to be owned by individuals.

- Export of new-found knowledge brings in further cash.

It is all a matter of perspective. You say "problem", I say "opportunity".

And if you are wondering how you should pay for all that research and all that new equipment, well somehow the billions for the war in Iraq were also found and this is, quite frankly, much more important.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[shotfeel]

However, the fact remains that the treaty as it stands is absurd.

Not only that, but IMO its pretty much a joke.

From TFA,

"Canada, one of the treaty's first signatories, has no clear plan for reaching its target emission cuts. Far from cutting back, its emissions have increased by 20% since 1990."

"And Japan is also unsure it will be able to meet its legal requirement to slash emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2012."

So when 2012 rolls around and none of the countries has actually reduced emmisions, what's the penalty for not meeting the "legal requirements"?

I know the US has taken a lot of flack for not signing on, but I have to wonder what it means to sign the treaty when you know you can't meet the requirements, much less even have a plan. At least the US was honest enough to admit they couldn't (wouldn't?) do it.

Time will tell.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[ballpoint]

Its a bad winter! Its a mild winter! Tsunami! All blamed on global warming.

Today, on national (government-sponsored) radio news in your typical EU country:

"Not respecting the Kyoto protocol could lead to natural disasters like tsunamis"

I'm not making this up. If you understand dutch, check out this letter by someone else who heard it.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Stephan Schulz]

Better yet - China is a bigger poluter than the US, yet excused from the protocols because it's a developing country (as is India.)

So why should the US participate when llarger poluters than ourselves aren't?

In absolute terms, China emits a little bit more than half the CO2 the US does. Per capita, it is about 10%. What was your argument again? Moreover, China has signed and ratified Kyoto. It is not an Annex 1 country yet, but expected to become one soon if industrialization continues. Yes, China's industries are, on average, more dirty than modern Western industries in other pollutants. But these have mostly local effect (and any climatic effect of those would be short-term and rather cooling than warming).

Yes, it is a lot to ask to buy a smaller SUV as the third family car. Much better for 1000 Chinese peasants to have their rice uncooked on Mondays - they will still be allowed hot food the other 6 days of the week!

Maybe you need to do something about CO2, but shouldn't EVERYONE need to play? The protocol looks like another UN scheme to redistribute wealth is all to me.

...as the UN has done so successfully in the past? Those millions of Eritrean Moguls are surely driving up the prices for bespoke suits!

I have not seen any valid indication that moving to cleaner energy will have a negative medium or long term economic influence. In Germany, wind turbine makers and solar energy companies are some of the most profitable at the moment. Of course, the longer you wait, the more you will fall behind.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[gilesjuk]

Europe isn't a country.

Each country has pledged a given reduction target. Japan doesn't even think they can meet their target but at least they're willing to try.

Kyoto is a joke simply because of your unwillingness to change.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Mac Degger]

I really don't beleive you got a '+5 insightfull' for what you just posted.

The correct response, other than a lot of swearing at your utter stupidity, or maybe locking you up in a few year's time on charges of murder and environmental polution, is maybe this:

You don't get the fucking point, do you? Who cares about China, India, and Brazil , when the US is still the largest polutor in the world?
And even that isn't the point.
The point is that polution is fucking up the climate. It isn't speculation, it isn't hypothesis, and with so much supporting data it isn't even really a theory. Consider it an axiom. Smarter people than you, who have studied chemistry, biology, ecology, meteorology, you know, people who should know, tell you that.

So we've established that the greenhouse effect et all exist: climate change due to human influence is real (to those who still want to debate the point: you really are dumb, go study a relevant field [or any hard science for that matter], have the most cursory glance at the data available and you too will realise there is nothing to debate except details).

Given that climate change is real, and knowing the effects (look at Mars: observing that planet lead to the discovery of the existance of the greenhouse effects in the first place), there is only one conlusion: we have to act or our children (and those who still have 50 years or more ahead of them) will suffer. Not just 'have to spend more on taxes' or 'will witness a draught or flood or two more'. No, we're talking about the effects of that last tsunami, but then all over the world: the water will not drain away and the damage will not be localised. Coastlines worldwide will be hit and the large production/distribution centres found there will be destroyed.

So it's no use playing the blame game. This environmental stuff doesn't give a shit: it doesn't compromise, it doesn't give a shit for politics or geographical boundaries. Chemistry is a bitch like that.

The Kyoto treaty isn't just a first step in the right direction. It is, at the moment, the only step on the table. It has to be taken. It is do that or do nothing. By itself it is a joke, of course, if you're shortsighted enough to think that it by itself is the solution to the problem. It's not: the USA weakened it so much during it's formation (before pulling out entirely) that it's not even a very definitive first step anymore. Even so...it's all there is at the moment, and we just don't have the time to wait another ten years to draft a better treaty and get the support. We need that time to draft the successor to it.

So, damian: you are a fucking git. Your point is just that: a cute little factiod which doesn't have anything to do with the point at hand, which is: we must do this thing now or in 50 years we have an insurmountable problem instead of just a huge fucking large problem. Your indifference is even worse than the 'but we need to gain a relative economical advantage'-crowd (who are dumb enough, because one thing they fail to realise is that, yes, it will cost money, but that money is going into the development of new technologies, which need to be manufactured, which means new jobs created all around...hopw's that for economic advantage? Plus, you get a place to live!) because they at least recognise the problem at hand.

But no matter what happens, there is a bright point: remember that social security problem? In the future it won't be. All the old people who could have done something will, in a couple of decades, be left to rot in the streets by the kids who are born now or are too young to influence the process, because as they grow up, they'll realiser that those old bastards did this to them: they fucked up their own planet and did nothing to stop it...so why the fuck should we pay them anything, or care for them? They didn't for us, even though the evidence was staring them, in the face; all they did was say, like the bum on the street who didn't pay his morgage-payments, 'where is the economic advantage in it?', or 'hey, but in a couple of decades, those other countries will be reaching our level of polution' even though it was our own level of polution has already done all the damage.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Catiline]

Otherwise, it's a sham that unfairly targets the [developed world]. Either the whole world is in it, or it's a no-go.

I decided to make your comment less ... well, self-centered. Now read it again and think about this: only the developed world has any chance of discovering low-polluting technologies.

This isn't some sort of targeted wealth-redistrobution UN program -- but a simple and open way to help push developed nations into working on renewable energy while not punishing developing ones.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Pentagram]

Keep in mind that most of the US lives much, much more sparsely than Europeans.

CO2 emissions:

USA 5,410 million tons (20.1 tons per capita)
EU 3,171 million tons (8.5 tons per capita)

Care to justify your statement?

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[dave420]

Insisting on fairness? Ok... maybe the US should give 0.7% of its GDP to developing nations as it has promised to do, instead of giving the 0.1% it does now. That would be fair. Or, maybe, the US should give MOST of its GDP to poorer countries, as that would be EVEN FAIRER.

Back to the issue at hand - something has to be done now. The US is polluting more than any other nation on Earth, and more than most continents. Expecting to treat some struggling nation gripped by a military coup or millions of people starving the same way as a secured, comfortable, prosperous nation is so selfish it's beyond words. No-one was pestering the US to follow environmental treaties when IT was developing, but now you want to force those on other developing nations? THAT seems grossly unfair to me. Of course, I'm looking at a global picture, not one with myself in the middle looking amorously at a SUV ;)

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think someone at Wal-Mart said the same thing:

"What market for 'Made in America' are you talking about? Last I checked, people just want cheap shit."

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Anonymous Coward]

I claim the complete opposite. This is not something that unfairly targets the US. If you look at the situation as it is now, the US is one of the very few industrialised countries that have not ratified the protocol. At the same time it is the country with the highest carbon dioxide emissions per capita in the world. This is unfair not unfair to the US, it is unfair to the rest of the world!

Stating that every country should be in it is just naive. This will never happend and is just used as an excuse to not share responsibility. Industrialised countries produce more emissions, have better economy, and should therefore take a greater responsibility!

This issue is urgent. We have to start working towards a solution.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[shotfeel]

I think he understands Europe isn't a country, but he does raise an interesting point.

For example, the state of California alone has an area, population and economy comparable to many European countries. If you compare the emmision of California to the various European countries, how do they stack up? I don't know the answer, but it would be interesting to know.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[shotfeel]

Each country has pledged a given reduction target. Japan doesn't even think they can meet their target but at least they're willing to try.

Of course not signing the treaty is not the same as not doing anything.

Let me ask this. Would it be better for the US to sign the treaty, knowing they couldn't meet the requirements, just to make it look like "they're willing to try"? Or is it better to just say, "No thanks, we can't do that", and continue to do what they can?

The treaty looks a lot like a bunch of countries got together to sign a document saying they're going to do something they know they can't do, just to make themselves feel better. And when it doesn't work, we all know who will be blamed -wether they sign or not.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Wyatt Earp]

Glaciers have been going away for the last 14,000 years in North America. Glacier National Park 14,000 would have been all the way down to Missoula Montana and into Wyoming. Glaciers shrink and the grow all over the World, the BBC piece with the photos "illustrating the change" are simply "best of show" pictures.

There are 160,000 glaciers in the world, over 65,000 of them have been inventoried and only a handful of those have been studied. They have tracked the mass increase and decrease for only about 100 of the 160,000 glaciers for five or more years

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_ga ll ery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/html/1.st m

More evidence, Ross Ice Streams in West Antarctica is increasing at 26.8 gigatons per year, according to Science 295: 476-80

Now people like to throw out that there will be more dangerous storms from GCC, someone from a US Congressman's Office on Monday used that as an arguement in my Geology class, well, for example, Hurricanes are not increasing in thier strikes against the US, nor in thier force. We might be inline for a good decade for 2000-2009, but it needs to pick up to match 1940-1949

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[jameszhou2000]

regarding the industrial outsoucing problem, how about re-calcuate the emissions based on the companies and their home country?

say, if Dell moves its manufacturing lines to China, the emissions produced by Dell in China should be counted as US's emissions since Dell's headquarter is in US.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[goon america]

That's too bad because what I quoted above is quite true. Science is not about consensus, it's about fact. Politics is about consensus.

No, sorry, we use a consensus of scientists as informative because we are not scientists ourselves. I, and 99.99% of other people, want and need to know about of issues like climate change, but have no way of analyzing the data and knowing ourselves because we are not climatologists spending their whole lives doing this sort of thing. But we can look at polls of scientists to learn for ourselves. This is imperfect, I agree, but it's the only way to do things short of all us quitting our jobs and becoming climatologists.

Second, you could use this argument to justify absolutely anything. If all you have to do to disprove a scientific finding was to simply say "all these scientists might be wrong" then you could disprove absolutely any scientific finding. So, how can you use it against one particular scientific finding and not (literally) all of the others? Logically, it applies with equal force. If you want to believe this, logically the only thing you can do is live in some world of Cartesian doubt where the only thing you can know is that you exist because you have thought. Everything you see even with your own eyes could, maybe, conceivably be an illusion somehow... so that means, if motivated, you can conclude that everything you see is an illusion, right?

While it is true that it is conceivably possible in some way that the consensus of scientists is totally wrong, how likely is that this is going to happen? Possibility != likelihood. In the past, in modern science, when virtually all of the given scientists studying the same hard science subject believed something, how often were they wrong? (And, by comparison, how often were the people with vested interests opposing them wrong?) It's, you know, possible that there's going to be some great Galilean revolution awaiting this field, but if you find that compelling enough to withhold any conclusions, then you can't conclude anything about anything scientific.

While it is true that "many important scientific discoveries have been in direct conflict with the consensus" what is the relative likelihood that this is true for any given scientific finding? Let's be scientific. You can't conclude anything by looking at only one corner of a 2x2 contingency table. Let's call the consensus of modern scientists on a topic of their expertise A and let's call the opinion of a few motivated non-experts B. If A or B is wrong, we'll call it !A and !B, respectively. All you're saying is that !A & B is possible, or non-zero, which is certainly true. So, what are the relative probabilities of (!A & B), (!B & A), (!B & !A) and (A & B)? Note that every cell is possible. !A and !B is possible -- it's possible that scientists and nonexperts are both wrong. (A & B may equal zero when A and B are contraries.) So, we just might as well conclude them true, right? But these four possibilities cannot be true at the same time, so you have to pick one, and I suggest you do so not by looking at only one cell and deciding whether it's non-zero, but based on the relative likelihood of all four cells comparatively.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[CrimsonAvenger]

You're assuming that European industry won't solve its pollution problems by relocating to India and China, I take it?

Because that may be quite a bit cheaper than actually complying with the Treaty. May not, but we won't know for a couple years.

And the relocation solution for polluting industries pretty much means Kyoto does nothing but enrich China and India at Europe's expense. If that's the way it works out.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Peter La Casse]

Keep in mind that most of the US lives much, much more sparsely than Europeans.

CO2 emissions:

USA 5,410 million tons (20.1 tons per capita)
EU 3,171 million tons (8.5 tons per capita)

Care to justify your statement?

The next two sentences justified the statement:

Keep in mind that most of the US lives much, much more sparsely than Europeans. They are not (for the most part) crowded into dense polluted cities. They are spead out over rural areas with clean air, clean water, and blue skies.

In other words, the parent poster claimed that the U.S. population is more evenly distributed than the European population.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[amightywind]

If you want evidence, look at your Glacier National Park. Check the temperature changes and mass changes of the glaciers. The evidence for climate change is there if you bother to look.

Yes, look at it. Glaciers have been in retreat for 12000 years. That is what happens in interglacial periods. No need to invoke CO2 emissions. No matter how enlightened your global treaty you will not be able to use it to favorably manipulate climate.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[misleb]

The US would need to make some serious sacrifices to obey Kyoto.

Why is it that, on one hand, we hear from Kyoto detractors that Kyoto is a "joke" and then the same people recognize how much of a sacrafice we'd have to make to obey it. Seems to me that it is not, in fact, a joke. Rather, it is something very serious. It is a start.

Keep in mind that most of the US lives much, much more sparsely than Europeans. They are not (for the most part) crowded into dense polluted cities.

WHile it might be true that US citizens are less densley packed than Europeans, the majority of Americans live in metropolitan areas and not in rural areas. Also, European cities, with the exception of Paris, seem much cleaner than most American cities. Maybe there is some major underlying polution that I am just not aware of, but as far as I can tell, they are pretty darn clean compared to New York, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etc.

Despite the dire claims, we have yet to see any REAL environmental disaster.

And we probably won't see a singular disaster. The environment has been, and will continue to be in gradual decline as underground water tables dwindle, atmospheric CO2 rises, rainforests get slashed and burned, etc, etc etc. Just because many people (including you, apparently) have misinterpretted the warnings as pronouncements of imminent doom, doens't mean they are invalid.

The air and water seem pretty good. Weather seems normal.

In post-industrial nations, yes. This is largely true. But guess why it is this way. Because of environmentalists making a fuss about it. Although the air and water could be cleaner. We still have work to do. Why is it that I shouldn't eat fish out of Lake Michigan or the Mississppi River? These are major fresh water ways and we woudln't be wise to eat or drink directly from them. Everyone knows these water ways are full of pollution.

Kyoto WOULD create a nasty economic downturn. Everyone over 30 can remember the last one, and it wasn't pretty. Worse, the Kyoto downturn would be PERMANENT.

Gee, talk about doom and gloom. Economic disaster is right around the corner if we enact stricter environmental standards! Oh no! Permanent Great Depression ahead! Whatever you do, don't act in an environmentally responsible manner! What you don't seem to realize is that the economy survived the major environmental regulations of the 70's. Our cars are MUCH cleaner. It was tough, but we did it. We are all better off for it. But we can't stop now. THere are many more improvements to be made.

I seem to recall a time in history when industry leaders insisted that if we enact child labor laws, the economy would suffer horribly and permanently. BUt here we are today with our children enjoying their childhoods without needing to work for peanuts in sweatshops. Yeah, maybe some industries found it difficult at first to get by without cheap child labor. It was the same way with slavery in the South. Southerners felt that slavery was necessary for economic survival. But eventually it worked out. And we are better off for it. The environment is very much the same, IMO. Environmentalists are the modern day abolitionists even if they do lack some of the moral imperitive.

-matthew

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[qkslvrwolf]

The one thing that can save humanity is technology -- that which the environmentalists seek to restrain ostensibly for the benefit of mankind. Those restraints will IMO prove more deadly to humankind as a race than smog will ever do Actually, most environmentalists I know (we're talking the serious ones, not the fanatic retards) are all about improving technology so that we can have our cake and eat it to. In this case, have our lights and our computers and our cheap transporation, but do it without all the pollution. And you might have noticed that a number of people have mentioned simply improving our general environmental health, because even to the die-hards like myself its pretty clear Kyoto does jack shit. As for "the problem of creating more baskets", thats all well and good. However, I submit to you that there is a certain amount of moral question here...afterall, do you really want to become like that alien race from Independence day? And many of the technologies for cleaner earth and new colonies on other planets would be complementary, so why is it so bad to research both?

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[gnuman99]

"Canada, one of the treaty's first signatories, has no clear plan for reaching its target emission cuts. Far from cutting back, its emissions have increased by 20% since 1990."

Canada is one of the largest CO2 sinks in the world. There are also talks now in Canada to require cars to reduce CO2 emissions by a significant factor (25%? forgot exact number) by 2010.

As to countries like China or India, well, in the future there could be a polution tax imposed on goods imported from those countries. Furthermore, didn't China announce that they are switching to nuclear power?

Anyway, it is about time that polution is finally starting to become part of the cost to the consumer/producer. As soon as you impose the cost of the waste to the producer/consumer, they tend to make environmentally and economically sound decisions.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[izomiac]

No, just the article references one character in the book is so fond of citing. Actually, the point of the book is that people are quick to jump to conclusions based on very little information. He elaborates on the issue in the appendix (that's where that comparison comes from). I don't expect that the book properly defends global warming, but the fact that a such an argument can be made and backed up with numerous scientific articles shows that the theory of global warming isn't nearly as strong as most people think that it is. The point is that people usually do what's in their immediate best interest. You'd have to make one hell of an argument to convince them to take the economic hit that Kyoto would bring, and no disaster theory is strong enough right now to do that. So what do you expect people to do when they hear that they'll have to make several sacrifices just to prevent something that might be an issue a hundred years from now (which is what a lot of these catastrophe theories sound like to average joe). So politicians won't risk making any major changes and the industry is content with what it's currently doing. My opinion is that the government should provide incentives to move fossil-fuel burning engines/facilities to hydrogen (for cars and such) and nuclear.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Spl0it]

Actually Canada has already started a campaign to reduce pollution. It's called the One Tonne Challenge and challenges all members of society to reduce their pollution by 1 Tonne! If you are going to try and signal out Canada and Japan at least be accurate.. maybe you should double check your information on Japan?

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[xenobyte]

You have been hearing it from a few for a long time. Now you are hearing from a majority of respectable scientists.

A theory doesn't get to be more correct/accurate just because more and more people are repeating it... And I have a hard time respecting scientists mindlessly repeating this without actually bothering to look at the facts and keep the basic scientific methods in mind.

Now, let's just take a brief look at things...

• We know very little about natural climate variations. That they happened is about all we know. Why they happened are the bigger and much more interesting question. But even the climate-changing giant meteor that 'killed the dinosaurs' is subject of much dispute on every level. And for some reason almost all these 'respectable scientists' insist on the energy input from the Sun being irrelevant and without significance... Yet without it the Earth would be a very cold place indeed. So the Sun is a very significant element in our climate and we know very little about the periodic instabilities in the nuclear processes up there, so that's another bit of shaky ground.
  
  
• We know very little about the complex balances in the atmosphere and we're far from knowing with any certainty that additional CO2 will increase the apparent greenhouse effect. It may even decrease it!
  
  
• The 'ancient' meteorological data is full of inaccuracies and you cannot 'measure' (calculate) a 0.5 degree change based on data that's only accurate to +/- 2.0 degrees. Yet this is done even by the UN people!
  
  
• There's no viable alternatives to most of the CO2-producing technologies. Solar and Wind power is useless for anything but a nice supplement to a core technology that sustains business and city consumption without fail. Cars that run on anything but gas are still more or less on the prototype stage, and airplanes are not even on the drawing boards. We simply cannot give up our CO2-producing technologies yet!
  

Anyway... Make up your own mind.

IMHO: If it was costless to be on the safe side then by all means do that! - But it isn't costless. Quite the opposite. The CO2 reductions could easily cost many times the combined global GNP plus lower the stage of civilization in many places. And all this based on very uncertain theories... I say it's not worth it. Not yet anyway.

We need more absolute evidence that we are affecting the climate before we even should consider doing anything more than thinking about new ways to build the next generation of cars, airplanes, power plants etc.

That's just my opinion. Your milage may vary.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[misleb]

In other words, the parent poster claimed that the U.S. population is more evenly distributed than the European population.

..which is incorrect. THe majority of the US population lives in urban and suburban areas. Have a look at a US map with population density. You'll notice that most Americans live on the coasts and in the northeast in particular. Population is clustered around large cities.

I think the poster in question is confusing the design of individual cities and towns with overall population distribution. It is true that American cities and towns tend to sprawl more, but they are still clustered.

-matthew

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Anonymous Coward]

There are reasons as to why some of the countries in the Kyoto treaty are finding it difficult to cut emissions: They haven't got much to cut. Here in Finland we have had strict rules on industrial pollution for wuite a while now, and now that they would need to cut emissions, they have little from which to cut. They must resort either to buying emission quotas from other companies, or to very expensive means of reducing pollution. This will undoubtedly hurt them economicly and help other competing businesses.

This has been discussed in the media quite a lot, and pretty much everyone knows about this. Then, why do most of Finns support the treaty? They know it will hurt Finnish businesses and the whole economy of the country as well.

There is the main difference between the American and the European thinking. Yes, it WILL hurt the economies of the countries involved. But the europeans are still willing to do it, since it WILL help the future of everyone, even if they have to be on the payers side of the fence.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Idarubicin]

Cutting energy production is always tough on the economy. The US went through this in the late 70's, and most people remember how miserable that was.

Um, that wasn't a voluntary thing. To grossly oversimplify, fossil fuel prices skyrocketed because the OPEC nations decided to close the taps (in 1973; in 1979 it was the destabilization of Iran during the Iranian Revolution).

Aside from the threat of invasion, there's nothing to prevent the same thing from happening today. It's a question of whether the United States (and other developed nations--don't forget that Canada, the U.K., Australia, and others have also signed on) reduce their dependence on foreign oil voluntarily now, or whether it happens...

a) on the whim of OPEC,

b) when the next war in the Middle East wipes out oil production/refining/transportation infrastructure, or

c) when oil production in the Middle East falls significantly due to depleted supply.

Maybe it makes sense to wean overly dependent nations off their excessive fossil fuel usage. Do it in a measured, controlled, planned manner over the course of several years, rather than having OPEC decide to do it for us in a week. Incidentally, it might be good for the U.S. economy in the long run--right now, it keeps posting record trade deficits.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[mickwd]

"Science is not about consensus, it's about fact. Politics is about consensus."

So what should a large proportion of the world's climatologists do if they seriously believe that mankind is in danger of causing seriously climatic damage ?

Pretend they're in a minority ?

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[psmurf]

I would definitely consider myself to be an environmentalist, but there is some sense in the statement from Australia. Every country has to watch out for their economy, and to lower your economic standards when your competitors will not would hurt australia considerably more than if the economic competition had to follow suit. That's why it's called a "treaty", the same term used for agreements between military adversaries. In this case it's not military, but economic.

Just to clarify where I'm coming from, I live in the US and I think that we clearly afford to enact tougher environmental regulations and that it's our responsbility to do so. I'm not sure if Kyoto is the best solution though.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[bobscealy]

Our PM has a bit of a history of making statements that are not based on fact to advance his political career and win votes. Part of his reluctance to admit any kind of environmental responsibility revolves about maintaining the support of electorates that rely heavily on logging and coal mining.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[susano_otter]

Ah, but the Geneva Convention is completely different.

To paraphrase: "It's best if opponents in a war adhere to some basic ground rules of humanity and decency. However, there's no practical way to enforce such rules. Instead, the Geneva Signatories agree to adhere to such rules. The penalty for breaking the rules is that your opponent is now also allowed to break the rules--against you, the instigator--without fear of censure or retaliation by the other Geneva Signatories. You don't like it? Don't break the rules. Oh, and it should be obvious that non-signatories are entitled to No Geneva Protection At All."

It is, in fact, a core principle of the Geneva Convention that Signatories are entitled to retaliate IN KIND against terrorist attacks, nuclear/chemical/biological attacks, attacks against civilian populations, assassinations, torture of POWS[1], etc.

And at the same time, the Convention places no restrictions on initiating such attacks against non-Signatories (although other treaties and basic human decency may do so).

In fact, the Saddam Regime, not being Signatory to the convention, was a legitimate target for U.S. nuclear attacks, under the Geneva Convention.

The Convention was designed to encourage civilized nations to fight limited wars that both sides could conceivably recover from, once peace had been reestablished. Those who would prefer a "no holds barred" approach to warfare should expect no coverage from the Convention. Likewise, Signatories are not restricted by the Convention when warring with non-Signatories.

In reality, of course, the U.S. has been remarkably restrained, when measured against what both the spirit and the letter of what the Geneva Convention requires.

Personally, I think the Geneva Convention is an excellent treaty. I'm quite glad that the U.S. is signatory to it, and I believe it should be a model for other treaties.

Perhaps a "Kyoto Convention", that promoted good behavior amongst signatories, while promising non-signatories nothing more than a sharp stick in the eye, would make more sense.

On the other hand, maybe not. Nobody wants to be the first person to start playing nice. There's no way the U.S. (or China, or India, or Brazil, or anybody else) is going to seriously cripple their own economy unless they have some reasonable assurance that all the other nations will also scale back their economies, to preserve the relative status quo of geopolitical power.

Since the Kyoto Protocol explicitly promises the exact opposite: certain nations get a free pass, while others must scale back to some degree, the agreement was never going to get full support.

(And what the hell kind of plan is that, anyway? The world will suddenly become a happy place full of flowers and cheerful songs, once China becomes the dominant economic power--and the dominant polluter--in the world? Do you really think the Chinese government will be more sympathetic to the demands of the global environmentalists than the U.S. government is?)

==========
[1] Now, I'm not a big fan of torture, Geneva-sanctioned or not, and I think it's one of those things that shouldn't be indulged in even when permitted by the Geneva Convention. My point is, the Geneva Convention does permit torture against non-signatories. It also permits torture against signatories who first violate the Convention. In fact, it even permits torture against signatories who haven't violated the Convention, with the caveat that they are then free of their Convention commitment to not practice torture against you.

Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[dazz_j]

Just to nit pick: the One Tonne Challenge doesn't quite count as "a plan". _If_ everyone in Canada was successful at this, the total reduction would be about 30 million tonnes, only a fraction of our commitment of more than 240 million tonnes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/timeline.h tml

I want to be optimistic, but we're going to need a lot more than some encouragement from Rick Mercer to get us to make major changes in our lifestyles. Whether it's tax incentives, or transportation system changes, big changes have to happen for long term reductions.

On top of that, there will need to be changes in most types of industry as I'm sure has been mentioned here many times, so let's not let our politicians off the hook that easily.

Never fear! Stephan Dion, Environment Minister, was on CBC radio today promising to come out with a plan soon.

DJ

FE

[Anonymous Coward]

First Emission!

Seems to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the war on terrorism is to continue then decreasing our reliance on oil (which comes from the Middle East) should be a priority.

There is no denying that oil revenue undoubtably finds its way into the hands of those that wish evil against the US. Clean technologies reduce our need to funnel more money into that part of the world.

Re:Seems to me...

[bombadillo]

I agree. The cost of maintaining a stable oil supply should be factored in with the price of oil. There has to be some sort of bell curve at which cheap oil is not so cheap when defense spending, lives etc are factored in to the cost.

Unfortunately, Oil makes a lot of money and so does Military contracting, and Weapons Sales. Take Halliburton for instance. Their subsidaries are in Oil and Military contracting. Which means that Oil rich areas that are unstable are great Money makers. Great for the business's and economies that trade thouse commodities. Bad for the people that live there or get sent there.

Moving to energy independence would be a dramatic shift in our economy. I am sure there are many parties that do not welcome that shift as it would not profit their interests. They will try everything they can to slow the shift to renewable/independent energy.

only scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

as the scientific consensus is well established.

The only people saying so are scientists, and we all know that someone with an MBA would know more about this sort of thing.

Re:only scientists

[MikeB123]

Trusting people who have MBA's? Obviously all those with MBA's who ran or observed Enron got a free pass that day! In fact there is an amazing level of consensus as far as global warming is concerned, and the differences within the mainstream scientific community are about levels of dgree, not whethr humans are causing the warming in the first place. The problem with relying on the judgment of those in the business community is that they are in the business of making a profit, and often this makes them take a short-term view, especially where it may harm profits. However, there are many business leaders who are pushing for change, and many who will support them (such as the Rocky Mountain Institute), who see increased efficency and better ways of doing things as positive for business, as well as the planet. Pollution is waste, the cost of which is largely externalised to the rest of us. The US economy actually has the capacity to not only absorb costs from following Kyoto, but actually make a profit from it. Lomborg and his ilk have been shown to be wrong in their views, so lets look at what should be done, not why it cant .

Re:only scientists

[JimJinkins]

The IPCC report summaries are written by bureaucrats, not by the researchers who did the work. If a 'scientific consensus' can be established only by ignoring those who disagree and condemming them if they dare to speak out, then we need a new term.

The difference between government-supported science in the U.S. today and in the USSR in the 1930s and 1940s is that Lysenko could send a dissenter to the Gulag, while today's grant committees can only destroy his career.

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to step in it - again and again.

Re:only scientists

[Flaming Foobar]

Bjorn Lomborg

...who is laughing all the way to the bank...

Stephen McInthyre

...who is funded by Exxon. He's part of the same gang as Soon, Baliunas, LeGates et al either funded by Bush administration, American Petroleum Institute, the coal industry or whatever...

On the other hand, there are literally hundreds of thousands of real scientists (not just people dubbing themselves 'doctor' or 'climatologist' or whatever), who all seem to agree that yes, the globe is warming at an alarming rate and that it's pretty much too late now. It doesn't mean we shouldn't cut our losses, however.

Re:only scientists

[rcs1000]

So, Bjorn Lomborg made some money.

That doesn't make him wrong. He doesn't pretend to be a scientist (he isn't a scientist). What he does is show that many of the statistics presented by the environmental movement are flawed. And, yes, he is a statistician.

For which he has been criticised beyond belief. The green community has behaved like Bill Gates does towards the open source community, and that's not right.

Just my rant: I'm more green than Mr Lomberg (as a lifelong supporter and donater to Friends of the Earth), but I feel he has been unduly ridiculed for making some very good points.

Enough said.

Oh good a flamewar

[CmdrGravy]

US Good / US Bad ./ will decide

Re:Oh good a flamewar

[MosesJones]

US People => Tend to recycle, some buy hybrids and other good cars (some do buy SUVs though). So overall just people and in some cases pretty damned good.

US Legislature => A bunch of lazy pork riddled morons whose whole aim in life is to reject anything that comes from abroad and do what ever big business wants

US President => Commander in Chief of the "not invented here" syndrome: International Criminal Court (bad), UN (bad), Chemical and biological non-proliferation treaty (bad), Geneva Convention (bad), Kyoto (bad), Steel Tarifs (good) etc.

Smoke Screen

[fishdan]

Part of what is supposed to make Kyoto work is that there will be a big market and alot of money to be made in the buying/trading/selling of carbon emissions. Morning Edition had a great story on the economic backbone of Kyoto but it won't be online till after 10:00am EST. If such a market develops and there are fortunes to be made, you can be sure the Americans will come. If it turns out to be an economic disaster, they won't.

The basic American claim that the treaty is unjust towards wealthier nations, while benefits countries like China and India, is true. There can be no argument that the US would be restricted much more than the #2 consumer of petroleum, China, under Kyoto. The question is, can the will of the world force the US into a position that it views as unjust towards itself? It's a thorny one, but recent history suggest that the United States will not be swayed by foreign legislation. Thus the financial incentive is the best hope of Kyoto ever being ratified by the US.

If Europe wants the US to ratify Kyoto, all they have to do is make the dollars and common sense will follow. One side is right here, and one side isn't. If Europe is right, and this does create a financial windfall, the US will follow. If the US is right, and Europe's economy suffers greatly, they will withdraw from Kyoto.

Re:Smoke Screen

[jrumney]

The basic American claim that the treaty is unjust towards wealthier nations, while benefits countries like China and India, is true.

It is only true if your definition of "just" includes the right of Americans to pollute ten times as much as Chinese and Indians so that they may maintain their already significantly higher standard of living.

Re:Smoke Screen

[jrumney]

So let me get this straight, you want the United States to sign a treaty that would require them to buy "points" from other countries just so they can be in compliance with it?

The only country that looks like it will be required to buy points due to unmeetable targets is Japan, having already dealt with its pollution and emissions problems in the 1970s and '80s.

The US has by far the highest emissions output in absolute terms and per capita and it is growing at an alarming rate exceeded by only Canada and Australia, while the rest of the world is reducing theirs. There is plenty of room for reduction there, just no will to do anything about it.

Re:Smoke Screen

[jb_nizet]

There can be no argument that the US would be restricted much more than the #2 consumer of petroleum, China, under Kyoto

Hmmm. There is a strong argument: if the climate is changing now, it's because of the high CO2 emissions during the whole 20th century. And most of the CO2 emissions of the 20th century came from the US, Europe, and other industrial countries: not from China or India. US has to make more efforts now because it has polluted much more in the past.

Re:Smoke Screen

[fishdan]

Haven't read the treaty eh?

The US objection to the treaty is not that there are restrictions, but that the restrictions are applied unevenly. According to what the Bush administration has said, if China and India et al were held to the SAME standard as the US, France, Germany etc, then the US would have ratified the treaty.

That's my definition of just -- everyone is treated equally

Re:Smoke Screen

[guet]

That's my definition of just -- everyone is treated equally

oh, well since that's your definition of just, perhaps you'd like your country (and the rest of the 1st world) to stop imposing tariffs on incoming agricultural, steel and other products, to stop demanding that drugs which could save millions are sold at exorbitant prices in the 3rd world, and to cancel the loans made after the colonial period which are leaching away the little money third world countries have?

Or perhaps you want to be treated 'equally' when it suits you?

The world is currently structured in a very unfair way; any truly fair system will therefore be skewed towards those nations who are historically disadvantaged. The reason for involving China et al just now is to get them to the point where they can start to cut pollution, and since they'll be within the system, it'll be easier to persuade them to take the next step.

Frankly I think the non-ratification of the treaty has a lot more to do with the unilateral go it alone against the world spirit of the current administration, along with fear of Chinese (and to a lesser extent Indian) domination of the global economy, than with any so-called concept of 'justice'.

Re:Smoke Screen

[fishdan]

Like many people here, I am a libertarian thus I definitely am opposed to ALL tariffs, both American and foreign, because I believe in complete free trade, not state imposed regulations.

Regarding drug costs in the 3rd world, you think the US legislates that? Those are corporations who are making those choices. I personally support India, which does not honor patents on medicine. I believe medical patents are murder, so I think we agree there as well

You wrote...any truly fair system will therefore be skewed ...

We fundamentally disagree here. For me any fair system will NOT be skewed. That is really my definition of fair -- the field is level for everyone, rich and poor, strong and weak. Do the strong win more often than the weak? Yes, if they lost more, they would be the weak.

Environment comes first

[northcat]

A key question is whether the US economy will benefit relative the rest of the world,

It doesn't matter whether a country's economy benifits from this. The safety of our Evironment is more important than the economy of a country.

Re:Environment comes first

[JPelorat]

So then you think China and India shouldn't be exempt? I agree, there shouldn't be any exceptions made, if the stakes are that high.

Re:Environment comes first

[R.Caley]

The safety of our Evironment is more important than the economy of a country.

The environment is perfectly safe. Whatever we do there will always be an environment.

Re:Environment comes first

[REggert]

By that reasoning, we should immediately halt all factory production everywhere, forget about driving anywhere, and, oh yeah, shut down the power plants that power your computer so you can post on ./ The environment is more important, after all.

Re:Environment comes first

[IthnkImParanoid]

False Dichotomy:

The attempt to force your opponent into taking an extreme position by arguing as if there are only two possible positions, e.g. if you believe in lowering emmissions to improve environmental conditions at a certain known economic cost, you must also believe in incurring any arbitrary economic cost, no matter how large, for the same purpose.

Either you are an idiot, or your ability to think rationally has been stunted by cable news "Crossfire" style shows that showcase arguments like the one you just made.

A Nail in the Coffin

[NardofDoom]

This will be just one more nail in the coffin of US dominance. While other countries are out developing new technologies, we'll continue to drive inefficient vehicles and burn coal for electrical power. Eventually, the rest of the industrialized world will have switched to fuel cells and renewable or nuclear energy, and we'll end up buying our cars and power systems from them.

So we better start getting really creative, really fast. Otherwise we'll have nothing to sell anyone.

Re:A Nail in the Coffin

[RobotRunAmok]

and we'll end up buying our cars and power systems from them

"Buying?"

heh.

Re:A Nail in the Coffin

[renderhead]

Nonparticipation in the Kyoto treaty is not synonymous with having no interest in alternative energy technologies. Despite the prevailing PR on the subject, the United States has not vowed to continue business as usual. What they have done is reject a specific agreement which they feel is not in their best interests.

If there is an economic advantage to developing alternative energy sources, and I believe there is, U.S. corporations will be all over it. Power companies aren't oil-lovers. They're money-lovers. And they aren't stupid; they know that the world's oil supply won't last forever, so they're all going to want new business models ready to roll out when oil goes up to a million dollars a barrel. They'll either be developing the new technologies themselves or watching the Europeans very closely.

In summary, Kyoto isn't the end-all of emissions reduction, and it probably won't even be the last international emissions reduction treaty of its kind.

Re:A Nail in the Coffin

[ogma]

It will be "buying", unless the US gets really good at manufacturing wind-up F-16s.

Prediction

[govtcheez]

This is going to be a very very replied-to story, and at the end of the "discussion", no one's mind will be changed.

More news coverage

[Cally]

I left this out of the submission cos it looked like there were enough links in there to keep anyone happy for a while...

There is plenty of other news coverage of this. As I type this (2pm UK time) it's still the lead story on Murdoch's Sky News satellite TV channel. Although this is known to be generally right of center (by UK standards) the tenor of their reporting is much the same as the BBC's, with respect to the whole "pressure mounts on the USA" aspect, and the fact that the science has reached the status of accepted fact in popular discourse. (I know there are still plenty of areas of legitimate debate, disagreement, and continuing research amongst real scientists, but the basic thesis that anthropogenic CO2 can affect, and IS already affecting global climate is about as solidly accepted as anything gets in the public mind - over here at any rate.

Re:US economy?

[REggert]

If I'm not mistaken, the primary US objection to the treaty is that it does not apply to India or China, who are expected to be responsible for most of the world's CO2 emissions in the next couple decades. The reasoning is something like, "Why should we limit our emissions (and suffer the economic consequences), when the biggest polluters get to keep on polluting?"

Wikipedia entry?

[northcat]

Err, Providing a wikipedia entry to support something like this isn't good considering how biased/wrong wikipedia can be. Especially since this topic has so much to do with USA and this is so controversial in USA (although everyone outside knows the truth) and Wikipedia is virtually controlled by US people (editors).

Consenus Only in the Mind of the Beholder

[MSTCrow5429]

"as the scientific consensus is well established."

This is pure FUD. The scientific consensus, if anything, is that the models currently used for global warming don't backdate, that global warming seems to be more natural than man-made, and that it seems odd that the data shows temperature increases dating back to before the Industrial Revolution, when for all intents and purposes human emissions were nil. You can't cite one highly suspect website and make up the claim that there's a "consenus" where none exists in your favor. This isn't science, it's feel-good eco-politics.

Re:Consenus Only in the Mind of the Beholder

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't cite one highly suspect website and make up the claim that there's a "consenus" where none exists in your favor.

then how about a whole bunch of peer reviewed articles

Re:Consenus Only in the Mind of the Beholder

[jcupitt65]

Here's a good article from New Scientist (the UK's equivalent to Scientific American, more or less) on Climate change: Menace or myth?.

There is a scientific consensus, and it doesn't agree with you.

Question for the /,'ers

[Underholdning]

How do you guys think the US would have reacted if the situation was turned around? (I.e. the US was pro-Kyoto).

Re:Question for the /,'ers

[Timesprout]

well obviously the nasty terrorist polluter countries would require regime change.

Re:Question for the /,'ers

[fishdan]

It would be like invading Iraq. The US would do what it thought was right, regardless of the rest of the world. There would be "consequences" or "pressure" brought to bear, other than to say "we think this is right."

A plea

[Ed_Moyse]

Every time we get a story like this, a bunch of people write in about how global warming isn't happening, or if they accept that, then they write about how it's not certain* that it's caused by us.

Please PLEASE can people like this read the links, and read about the consensus. If they have specific points to rebutt with the evidence then this is interesting (especially if they have training in the area).

I'm not a climate scientist myself and so I feel a bit hestitant about posting anything on these topics. It would be nice if the self-appointed 'experts' who take over these threads would behave in the same way, and let those of us who are interested in learning more read comments from people who actually know what they're talking about. This does not mean you have to agree with Kyoto (it's clearly flawed in some areas), nor that you have to believe that global warming is our fault, but you should have some damn good facts and links! ;-)

*of course nothing can ever be proven to be certain in science, only disproven, but you all know what I mean.

Re:A plea

[northcat]

I agree. On a related note, this is one of the main drawbacks of Internet discussion forums, mailing lists etc. Everyone acts like an expert and it's almost impossible to tell who is actually an expert and who is just ignorant or pushing his agenda. It's not disastrous when it happens on ordinary forums, but very bad when it happens on sites like Wikipedia which are supposed to inform people or even slashdot (a lot of undecided readers come to slashdot).

People don't know how to STFU.

Re:A plea

[ajs]

Michael Crichton gave an excellent speech on the topic of global warming (with the amusing title of, "Aliens Cause Global Warming") in which he pointed out the poison in the word "consensus". To quote:

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results."

Discuss the facts all you like. Discuss findings. Discuss measurements that might hold important meaning. But if you are going to discuss consensus, then you're talking politics, not science.

Anthropic warming is a hard topic. It's hard because it's wrapped up in our understanding of climate, and much as people would like to think that our understanding of climate is stable, it's anything but. A spike in temperatures (relative to what seemed to be normal warming previous) between the mid-1900s and today is an anomoly. Human influence is one way to explain that anomoly, and I grant that it's not a too bad as theories go. It is, however, only a theory. Other theories include the idea that warming has various step-functions related to solar influence, and that we may be observing such an event common to this sort of period between ice-ages.

To make warming our number-one hot political topic for the environment distracts us from some HUGELY important topics, so I (and some others like me) would just like to be a bit more certain before we take pulic focus off of the things that kill millions of people every year.

Dragging my feet, fa la lala!

[Epistax]

We're talking about the country which doesn't admit smoking causes cancer until ~ twenty years after it's proved. Then we don't admit second-hand smoking causes cancer until... wait have we admitted it yet? Wait, we're still using land-mines?

Calling the Kyoto treaty unfair is irrelevant. Pointing out other countries engaging in the same ignorance as our own is irrelevant. The US drags its feet when it comes to international and social issues. I don't know which is more depressing.

I hate to have to keep doing this: This not a troll. This post contains only facts (except the ~ twenty is a guess). If you feel a violent reaction to this post I suggest you start thinking before you post.

Re:Dragging my feet, fa la lala!

[nutznboltz]

Energy usage is a personal thing too you know. You can bitch about the US dragging it's collective feet but my feet are moving now. My electrical consumption in 2001 was 13 MEGA Watt/hours. By 2004 I was down to 2/3rds of that (8.7 MW/h) and is still falling. Every year my energy footprint shrinks as I replace old 80's clunker appliances with new Energy Star ones.

How much brains does it take to spend at little more on an appliance when you can see that it will save you over the long haul? The funny thing is the price of that 13 MW/h was $887.00 while the 8.7 MW/h was $815.53. That's not 1/3rd less.

Re:Dragging my feet, fa la lala!

[Idarubicin]

There has yet to be a reputable study that has concluded that second hand smoke causes cancer. You can google for further discussion on this.

I'm not sure if that is true. One of the sibling posts to this one provides a link to a full-on prospective study which confirms environmental tobacco smoke is a risk factor for lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. It's a January 2005 publication, so I don't blame you for not seeing it before.

I would also argue that elements of tobacco smoke are known carcinogens. To take one example, a lot of recent work has demonstrated that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) like benzo[a]pyrene causes specific mutations to the p53 gene which are identical to mutations found in cancers of the lung and other organs (abstract). It's very difficult to tease out all the different factors at work in an epidemiological study, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest:

PAHs are present in tobacco smoke;

p53 is mutated in ~60% of human lung cancers;

p53 mutations mostly occur at a few 'hotspots';

PAHs bind to and disrupt the p53 gene at the same sites as mutations are observed;

PAHs cause cancer in rats;

Therefore it is likely that cigarette smoke can cause oncogenic (cancer-inducing) mutations.

Yes, there are questions about the relative effect of these compounds compared to other environmental carcinogens. Based on the evidence available, it would seem that the burden is on the tobacco industry to demonstrate that these known mutagenic compounds don't cause cancer in this particular case.

I would put global warming due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide in roughly the same category. The reasoning seems sound, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence, and we should probably act on a preemptive strategy of harm reduction.

Kyoto Rules

[grqb]

theWatt has a summary of the important details. Basically 127 countries have signed up (but not the US). Countries that have ratified the protocol must reduce emissions (such as CO2, methane, NOx etc) by 5.2% of 1990 levels by 2010, this is expected to be about a 29% cut if Kyoto was not implemented by 2010. If a country exceeds their target, then they can sell carbon credits (at about $30-40/ton in the US and $70-80/ton in Europe), if they're under, they can buy credits.

The second round of Kyoto starts in 2012 and will try to lure in those emerging countries like China and India. The omission of China and India is the big reason why the US isn't going for Kyoto.

Bush and Kyoto

[poindextrose]

Bush will never force the industry of his country (including power generation) to conform to the Kyoto accord. It's bad business.

In fact, he passes laws that relax the current regulations on pollution. His not-so-aptly-named "Clean Skies" initiative allows coal-fired generating stations to increase the amount of pollution they produce in favour of dumping more wattage on the grid.

This sort of behaviour disgusts me. I live in Toronto, and although we have a busy airport and traffic corridor, we don't produce nearly as much pollution as our neighbours to the south. Nanticoke generating station generates enough power for the city of Toronto without running at full capacity. It produces less emmissions than a plant half its size in Detroit. It does this with not-so-new-but-expensive technology that is invested in in favour of oh, say, being able to breathe.

I went down to D.C. recently, and when I left on the plane, looking east, I couldn't tell where the ground ended and the sky began. It was a disgusting layer of brown that looked like it spanned five hundered meters in the air... probably more.

I hope someone manages to bring sanctions against the Bush administration. His lack of regard for anything not minted or drilled or slipped into his pocket is disgusting.

Re:Bush and Kyoto

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. In July 1999, the United States Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.), which stated the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

But of course it's Bush's fault. Sure. It's only ever been Bush's fault. Now that's Orwellian doublethink.

Re:Bush and Kyoto

[Mr. Arbusto]

I don't know if you're American but their are somethings you should know about the US and Kyoto.

1. The Senate must ratify international treaties and didn't ratify Kyoto. Not by a little, but by an ultra majority.
2. Bush will not be president in 2009

Notes on DC

1. DC isn't a happy looking city, I agree
2. Thank you, for your opinion as to why there was cloud cover. It was really cold this winter, it must be global cooling. I've seen serveral Tornatos. When I'm in the mountians sometimes the clouds cover everything and I can't see the base of the mountian, or even 1 meter infront of me. It is even brown, I think it came there from DC.

Non US and Kyoto

1. Nuclear, please, I want it. It won't blowup, the russians won't kill us with it.
2. Coal Plant + Garbage = /me Happy
3. The Solution to pollution is dillution

You're not worth proof reading.

Re:Bush and Kyoto

[Malc]

Tell me, where were you a couple of weekends ago when we had all those smog warnings? I drove from Toronto to London on the Saturday. The air stank in Toronto and was hazing and foggy with a yellow tinge. It was vile.

For us in Ontario, it's the smog that we can't see or smell that's the bigger problem. I have an in-law who owns a cottage in Rondeau Provincial Park on Lake Erie. I get there and inhale deeply - the air seems so clean and fresh compared with downtown Toronto where I live. In actual fact, it's often more polluted. It's stuff that can't be seen or smelt that has drifted up from the Ohio valley.

Furthermore, as Canadians, or residents of Canada, we have to be very careful about lecturing others, including Americans. Okay, we did ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but we have a lot to do to put our house in order before we can preach to others. You do know that Canadians consume far more energy per capita than Americans, and almost twice as much as other leading industrial countries such as the UK? There's a reason why Canada is lumped in to the "Dirty Three" by the rest of the world (the other two are the US and Australia).

If you believe in what you've written, please get out there and start working on educating others. Evangelise simple things like the use of compact flourescent bulbs. Start campaigning against the crackpot Aliance^WConservatives who are spread lies and FUD and who've been bought by the oil companies in Alberta. Even Ralph Klein as a minister more than 10 years wrote a paper about the benefits to the Alberta economy if they adopted more a environmentally friendly approach - what happened there? BTW, I don't think all of the Conservatives are nutty extremists, although most of them are former PCers.

Re:Bush and Kyoto

[idamaybrown]

No point in confusing things with facts....

Re:US economy?

[CVD1979]

Hm, I thought once the large countries would adopt it, they could 'force' (as in, political force) the rest of the world to comply? I'm not really into politics, though.

Even when your comment is correct, I still think the US could at least set an example, like Europe and Russia will do. It's not about solving the problem of others, but working at our own problems. Even when India and China will not comply to the agreements, having the rest of the world comply will still make a difference, if only by creating a frame of mind.

At least, that's my opinion.

Re:US economy?

[Krisbee]

Problem is:
The economy crowd's horizon is the next quarterly report
The ecology crowd's horizon is the next quarter millennium.

Better in the long run

[moz25]

I think it's better to stick to these agreements in the long run: it is both an intuitive an scientific fact that (oil) supplies will run out sooner or later. If we reach near that point without well-developed alternative technology and infrastructure, that would be a bigger disaster.

It comes at a price perhaps on the short term, but it gives a number of benefits: not only can alternative energy resources potentially come cheaper than conventional ones, it is a given that a worldwide demand for these will grow at some point in the future. Having technology, research and patents ready gives a major economic edge... it is exportable technology after all.

So.. I don't think it will damage the U.S. economy that much within the next 10 years or so, but it will be relatively damaging in the sense that reliance on foreign technology and resources remains.

Re:Better in the long run

[MourningBlade]

it is both an intuitive an scientific fact that (oil) supplies will run out sooner or later. If we reach near that point without well-developed alternative technology and infrastructure, that would be a bigger disaster.

Your argument ignores the information-bearing aspect of price, and the dynamic of the market.

As oil supplies run down, price goes up[1]. If demand is also increasing, price goes up even more quickly. As the price of oil rises, the comparative advantage of oil drops[2].

As the comparative advantage of oil drops, the more attractive other fuels become, leading to research into raising the comparative advantage of oil (through efficiency), or more research into other fuels to increase their comparative advantage[3].

This process goes on continuously. As a result, efficiency will rise when it is needed and alternative fuels will come into play when they are needed. There will be no overnight "ohmygodwe'reoutofoil!"

So the question becomes: should we jink with things? I mean, it would be reasonable to assume that artificially raising the price of oil would cause increased investment in either oil efficiency or alternate fuels - we've said as much above.

If we're just considering decreased usage of oil as the only good in the system, then this would make sense. However, if that were already the case then there would be no need to tweak with the price system: the lower demand for inefficient oil-using cars would provide the exact same investment patterns into oil efficiency and alternate fuels!

So the conclusion would then be that people consider other goals within the fuel-burning realm than just the use of oil to be important. If that is the case then optimizing for reduced oil usage would hurt the other goals people have. So the best way to make people happy is to not mess with the price structure and let oil work its way out of the system naturally[4].

[1] - price is not just current-availability over demand, it also incorporates prospective supply and demand.

[2] - when you have a need (energy), you also have a selection of methods with which to fill that need. You choose the one most advantageous to you, so it doesn't matter what the absolute price of fuel is - only how it compares to other fuels.

[3] - let's say that you have 3 fuels: aberhol, bakernol, and crepetol. All other things being equal, if they are $3/kj, $4/kj, and $15/kj, it would make sense to put most of your research dollars into aberhol, followed by bakernol, and almost none into crepetol.

Re:Better in the long run

[MourningBlade]

Since it doesn't exist, would it be cruel to eat a spherical cow?

Anyways. I was replying to a proposal to modify the price so as to effect change. Since it was within the bounds of a working market, I went with the market argument.

I agree that externalities are not being addressed. I believe that they can be addressed through respect for private property and the use of the tort law system: establish land-use torts and contract provisions for them.

The thing of it is that the market doesn't have to be all that near perfect in order for the effect of reduced oil supplies to be felt and compensated for. Even if the government placed a subsidized price cap on oil when supplies were running low, people would make investment decisions based on the information that supplies were running low.

Most importantly, it needs to be understood that reducing oil consumption is not the only positive end out there, it has to be balanced with the others.

Re:Screw Kyoto

[mindstrm]

Yeah, screw those developing nations without stable economies, just let them rot.

Some nations can't afford the changes requried, they would be *devastating* to their already fragile situations. They need time for their economies to grow and stabilize before they can make such changes.

The US, and the rest of the 1st world nations, on the other hand, CAN afford to make some changes without collapsing their entire economic system.

Like it or not, China is still a developing nation, even if has 5x the population of the US.

Parent is correct

[Alcimedes]

I work with said scientists, and the consensus is about nil. Those who's funding requires that they find emissions to be the root of rising temperatures find just that.

For those who work in academic fields, funding means a lot. It shouldn't be that way but it is.

And when a scientist does a study that your funding source didn't like, no more funding for that scientist. Anyone who thinks that science is immune from politics isn't paying attention.

Re:Parent is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I am one of said scientists. -But I prefer to remain anonymous here. Please mod down the above two trolls! There most certainly is a scientific consensus about the fact that the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is real and will heat up the Earth significantly in the future. True, there is some discussion about how significant the recent global warming is when compared to natural variability (though I will still claim that there is a consensus); but the number of scientists claiming that society will not heat up the Earth in the future is quite small. The claims that I and hundreds of colleagues would spend our entire careers knowingly producing bogus science to keep meagre government salaries (I am European), well, let's say they are wrong. I may of course just be left out of the inner circle... BTW, I can assure you that plenty of funding is available for the people that do not agree with setting limits on economic growth. Of course, this is not an issue that can be decided by referendum; the science behind global warming is well founded. If you want to learn more about this science, please have a look at http://www.ipcc.ch/, e.g. the technical summary of the WG1 report, or follow the more up-to-date discussion at http://realclimate.org/. The latter is run by climate scientists and discusses the science in connection with media talk about climate change.

Re:Parent is correct

[j-turkey]

And when a scientist does a study that your funding source didn't like, no more funding for that scientist. Anyone who thinks that science is immune from politics isn't paying attention.

I have to agree -- the whole global warming topic is very aggrivating to me...not because the world's supposedly gonna end in about 2 weeks, but because of the total lack of objectivity in the general discussion. The environmentalists are just as guilty as the oil companies (maybe even worse, since they're the ones making accusations, sometimes even personal, of anyone who thinks differently than they do). Most people involved in the discussion just want to be right, without any regard for discovering a greater truth.

Environmentalists (as well as geological resource research consultants/oil companies) are more interested in finding data that proves their case than uncovering the truth. It's a very emotional issue, which makes much of the "science" that comes out of the debate questionable in and of itself. It's akin to scientific data coming from a church. For example: How many /. environmentalists would welcome conclusive news that global warming is just a natural trend that has absolutely nothing to do with humankind's Co2 emissions? Maybe 1 in 1000, at best. I don't mention the oil industry, because their agenda is a bit more obvious...but the same goes for them.

Maybe someday, we'll be able to put emotion aside and allow our scientists to be objective again, but with this issue, it's pretty unlikely. A sad state of affairs.

Re:US economy?

[ikkonoishi]

Kyoto if it were fully enforced would only decrease global warming by 1/500th of a degree over the next 50 years. Its a $90 billion bandade on a bursting dam.

Kyoto makes no difference

[zapster]

China is on track to build 562 new coal fired plants in the next 8 years. India is looking at building 213 plants. The US 72...The US does not matter in this equation, talk about China and India. Any gains in CO2 emmissions are buried by 3rd world increases.

Re:Kyoto makes no difference

[Rogue Pat]

Microsoft got bashed early this week for only talking about the NUMBER of security patches, but saying nothing about UNFIXED issues, size or criticality.
You make the very same mistakes and apply VERY poor arguments/logic in doing so.

It's about emissions. Not about plants. Don't narrow down the topic. There are many other sources of emissions, like cars with 5 liter engines.

But even if it WERE only about plants, you keep on making FUDdy statements:
1) you overlook the fact that new plants generally is less polluting than old plants.
2) you say nothing about the SIZE of these new plants.
3) you imply that the number of new plants is related to the total emission. This is of course not true. Suppose the US has 1000 plants and build 10 new ones and India has 100 plants and build 100 new ones. Then where will the greatest pollution come from?

I don't have an opinion either way on this topic to be honest, but such misleading statements as you make don't make "Kyoto is not necessary" feelings any stronger.

Re:Kyoto makes no difference

[t_allardyce]

Currently:
USA: CO2: 24%, Population: 4.6%
China: CO2: 13%, Population: 21%
India: CO2: 4%, Population: 17%

Damn lameness filter

Controversial ? I think not

[MosesJones]

The controversial Kyoto Treaty

This is the same way as Christian Fundamentalists in Kentucky et al describe Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Quick Summary: Everyone in the world thinks that someone has to be done about pollution. Except the biggest polluter.

Basically this is the same as elements like the Chemical and Biological non-proliferation treaty (objected to by the US), the International Criminal Court (objected to by the US) and a host of other good ideas that the US President objects to because he didn't think them up.

The US Approach of "Build Bigger SUVs and let our kids sort out the mess" is a disgrace to the 21st Century on a par with any other act of wilful destruction that can be conceived. The US is deliberately increasing its pollution rates and refusing to do anything about it. This already causes increases in deaths in the US an abroad due to breathing disorders and toxic poisoning.

And if its about the economy, how about trimming that massive debt George ?

Re:Controversial ? I think not

[danharan]

There's one huge problem with that prediction.

As far as they go, predictions of energy use have been completely, utterly atrocious when they have been done for periods of 30 years. I think if the US DOE (and all the industrialized nations' counterparts) were right, we'd be using twice as much energy today.

Most third world countries didn't finish building old-fashioned telephony systems before cell phones took over. Their infrastructure costs are much lower- without an entrenched bureaucracy that wants to have its old investment pay off, there's little incentive to put down copper lines now.

The reason I mention cell phones is that not only did it surprise most analysts, it perfectly illustrates what we could expect to happen as they "leap-frog" our filthy, polluting fossil-fuel addictions. A leap we can't take for the same reasons most of us (well, maybe not here) still use old-fashioned telephone lines.

As far as reducing emissions, technology has more of the solution than politics. Something the /. crowd should take to mean that we have potentially more power than politicians. After all, we know politicians aren't usually clued in about tech :)

Simple solution then ...

[TheViffer]

let the farmer become the "oil" barrens of the 21st century and let them grow hemp for biodiesel production.

I believe estimates state that if 25% of all crop land was hemp, the USA would be self sufficiant. Not to mention, give farmers a "true" cash crop.

Re:Simple solution then ...

[bombadillo]

Mod Parent up. Hemp's possibilities in manufacturing are starting to be re-discovered. I know that Europe, Canada and the UK are starting to embrace hemp into their economies. The US has remained a little in the dark. I think hemp is still illegal to grow in the US. In other countries Hemp is being used for food, paper, clothes , plastics, etc... The best thing is that it grows like a weed. Forgive the pun and don't get Hemp confused with it's sister plant. Hemp needs very little chemicals to allow it to grow and its rate of replenishment is yearly. Compared to trees which take 20 years to rotate. Amazing that the one of the largest cash crops in the US just under 100 years ago is forgotten and illegal today.

Re:Simple solution then ...

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> if 25% of all crop land was hemp, the USA would be self sufficiant

Sure, but we'd all get the munchies from highway exhaust fumes on the way to work, and then there'd be 25% less food. The horror, the horror!

Re:Simple solution then ...

[sheck]

According to Jack Herer, the number is much lower:

Farming only 6% of continential U.S. acreage with biomass crops would provide all of America's gas and oil energy needs, ending dependence upon fossil fuels.

Manahan, Stanley E., Environmental Chemistry, 4th edition.

I haven't checked his citation.

Environmentalist have to take some blame

[Nine Tenths of The W]

Modern nuclear power is cleaner, safer, cheaper and more efficient than it ever was, yet we continue to build toxic, filthy fossil fuel plants. Why?

Because of the relentless, unscientific green PR campaign that's portrayed every nuclear plant as a Chernobyl in waiting. Wind, sun and waves are not always an option, and anti-nuclear campaigning has left no choice but fossil fuels.

Re:Environmentalist have to take some blame

[hachete]

always slightly worried about the waste by-products of nuclear power stations, over and beyond the stuff they use for nuclear bombs. With a half-life of how long? Thousands of years? Millions? Would you like a radioactive waste dump on your door-step?

If the nuclear waste disposal problem was solved, then I'd be all for nuclear energy.

Re:Environmentalist have to take some blame

[Ironsides]

SUV and big all road vehicules with very low mpg everywhere (compare that with the average european car)I know people who use the 4WD on an SUV frequently. On Mud and Snow and off paved roads it generally helps to have it. And they do use this throughout the year. We frequently go camping places where sedans (toruing cars, like those european ones you talk about) can't go. We also cram them with 6 or 7 people plus gear when we do this. On regular days I drive a sedan. So how are we wasting energy? By going camping?

Re:Environmentalist have to take some blame

[cliffski]

Nice. Yet another pro nuclear post that glosses over the waste issue. If nuclear was efficient economically (nope) and safe to proliferate the tech(nope) and not risky(nope) and wasnt a security risk(nope) then you still have radioactive waste to store for thousands of years.
You volunteering your backyard?

Re:Environmentalist have to take some blame

[njh]

"I know people who use the 4WD on an SUV frequently."

So what? I know people who don't even own a car. They go camping.

Your argument appears to be "The USA is not wasteful of energy because there exists a person who drives and SUV to go camping." Pretty weak. Does this person only use their SUV for driving to camping? Could they hire an SUV for the trip?

Maybe you're bringing too much stuff when you go camping? When I go camping I can carry everything I need on my back. Car camping is for wusses.

I'll tell you where the US wastes energy: supporting a superficial consumerist society - spreading everything out so much you have to drive everywhere; having a culture that chooses cheap disposable over well made long life products, and which silently approves of and even promotes profligate consumption.

Re:US economy?

[YrWrstNtmr]

You've got the problem wrong. "Developing' countries are complying, in the manner set down in the treaty. For instance, under the terms of the treaty, China and India do not have to cut any emissions until 2012. It's like running a marathon, but the rules say that the 2nd and 3rd fastest guys are given an automatic 5 mile head start. They're just playing by the rules.

Fair?

Pressure in Australia also

[antic]

FWIW, pressure is also mounting on the Australian Prime Minister to ratify the protocol.

He is arguing that "it would be against the national interest for Australia to sign the Kyoto protocol on climate change". (quote from ABC.net.au)

"Until such time as the major polluters of the world - including the United States and China - are made part of the Kyoto regime, it is next to useless and indeed harmful for a country such as Australia to sign up," he said.

The headline for the article on the ABC site is "Signing Kyoto virtually worthless: PM".

Re:Screw Kyoto

[killbill!]

So called "Developing nations" dont have to conform to it. China the 2nd largest economy and our #1 economic competitor is a "Developing" nation? That just doesn't make sense.

Indeed, it doesn't. Your #1 economic competitor is not China, it's the European Union (actually, the US isn't even the world's #1 economy any more, the EU is).

You should ask yourself why the EU is the main driving force behind Kyoto. Maybe because they found out Kyoto would actually be a boon to their economy?

Re:Greenland

[the_2nd_coming]

umm... no, they called it that because they wanted people to colonize it and not iceland which the ones who discovered it wanted for themselves.

Much like sushi...

[http101]

...its all in the presentation. If the C02 campaign is met with hostility, typical human reaction is to 'follow suit'. However, if its greeted with acceptance and change, I don't think the American economy would suffer. I believe what we're looking for is the "magic pill" to make all our problems go away - in this case, there is no magic pill. We have generations of abuse to clean up and may take just as long as it did to mess this environment up in the first place! Granted, our kids may not have it easy, but if we start soon and work hard at it, we can leave them a world slightly cleaner than what we had.

I've been living in Houston, Texas for quite some time and only recently, have I actually started feeling the effects of the environment. I've noticed it to be warmer than usual, the air has a funny undertone to it, and I've been having various respiratory problems.

Kyoto DOA in America

[folstaff]

For those of you who skipped civics, the Senate would have to ratify the treaty and during the Clinton administration they voted 99-0 in a symbolic vote against it. It is a dead issue and beating it again isn't going to change anything.

Kyoto won't last long

[little1973]

Kyoto will fail sooner than you may think due to Peak Oil. Nations will want to get as much energy as they can get and nobody will care if that energy is harmful to environment or not.

Do not forget that 20% of the world population uses up the 86% of the energy of the world. As people in China and India, the two most populous country in the world, want to live like us the price of energy will rise and Kyoto will be ignored.

The Oil Concerns Will Never Allow It

[FreeUser]

If the war on terrorism is to continue then decreasing our reliance on oil (which comes from the Middle East) should be a priority.

There is no denying that oil revenue undoubtably finds its way into the hands of those that wish evil against the US. Clean technologies reduce our need to funnel more money into that part of the world.

Yes, but the oil companies are not run by fools or idiots, unfortunately. Why do you think they staged a coup d'etat in the United States in 2000, and possibly again in 2004?

Sane public policy would have us moving away from oil (and not cancelling vialbe programs that would have given us tangible results in three to five years, and replacing them with grandios programs that probably won't deliver in ten to fifteen years ... said programs of course to be cancelled and replaced again a couple of years before delivery with something else, rinse, wash, and repeat until the oil reserves have gone completely dry). That is something the oil plutocrats simply cannot abide, and, having seized control of the United States government, will not allow.

So no, we won't be joining Kyoto anytime soon. Sorry, folks.

It may mortify me personally as an American to see what my government is doing, but as the odds of my vote even counting continue to decline I don't see much I can do about it, except gripe here on slashdot and send letters for my representatives to ignore.

economics doesnt matter here

[xshader]

A key question is whether the US economy will benefit relative the rest of the world, with some arguing that new technologies such as clean power generation and energy efficient appliances will provide an economic boost.

bah, it doesnt fucking matter what economic impacts it has. we need to stop tampering with our one and only environment at whatever costs. we only have one planet and if we fuck it up, we have nowhere to run. why are we playing with our own extinction here?

Update:Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..

[Malc]

The US doesn't suffer easily

Err: The US doesn't suffer rivals easily

Well

[hey!]

with some arguing that new technologies such as clean power generation and energy efficient appliances will provide an economic boost

Well, it's pretty clear that it provides an economic boost to the people who are in the business of developing technology. The open question is whether adopting Kyoto (or rather participating in the development of a modified Kyoto). would boost the productivity economy as a whole. A lot depends on the time frame you look at, and assumptions you make.

There's no doubt in my mind that failing to endorse Kyoto means that Europe and Japan will become the technology leaders in emissions reduction, energy efficiency, and possibly even alternative energy technologies. US companies (meaning companies that do most of their business in the US) on the other hand will invest their money in other things, which will presumably pay off in other ways. I think it's fair to say that US companies will lag in these particular areas.

The key question, which nobody can answer for sure, is whether energy efficiency, emissions reduction and alternative energy technologies are going to be more signficant in the long run than the other things that Amercian business are going to be investing in.

I personally think there is a good chance that they will be the most important technogies of the twenty-first century, dwarfing computer technology or even biotechnology. Oil stocks are finite, and our first world life style, upon which all else depends, is very energy intensive. Furthermore companies by their nature look at quarterly or annual results, not the tweny year timeframe this becomes important in. As a person in my mid 40s, I fully expect to live another 40 years, in twenty of which I expect to live on my investments. Therefore I'm very interested in the performance of companies twenty plus years out.

Of course, if you take an even longer viewpoint, it may be that after Europe and Japan invest heavily in first generation technology, the US companies may be able to leapfrog them the way other countries have leapfrogged the US in wireless technology, by investing in a second generation technology without having concern for the existing infrastructure investments. However, (a) I don't expect to be alive long enough to benefit from this and (b) I think it might be doubtful whether this will happen at all.

I don't think the US is poised to maintain its leadership in technology as a whole throughout the twenty-first century. There were circumstances in the twentieth century that made US technolgoical dominance possible, but they are gone now, and there is no serious interest in doing what would be necessary to maintain US leadership.

Some stats

[t_allardyce]

Just to clarify what wasn't quite mentioned in the articles:

Kyoto countries account for 55% of 'Greenhouse Emissions' together, and the USA accounts for 36%.

Population wise, the USA makes up 4.6% of the world. I don't know about the combined populations of Kyoto countries but it includes the 3 greatest populations: China, India and the EU which means Kyoto countries make up at least 45% of the worlds population.

In the worlds economy (don't know how this is calculated) the USA makes up 30% and the EU 23%, Japan 14%, China 3.2%. Which puts Kyoto countries' economies at at least 40% of the world

Source is mostly BBC, not sure of the accuracy.

Re:Smoke Screen+

[rakjr]

Actually, it is worse for America because of legislation passed by the Dems. and Clinton. The short of it is companies that could have been getting the stuff slowly in order with Kyoto were whacked off at the knees. The legislation passed said, "if you change one piece of equipment, you have to bring ALL your equipment up to emissions code X." So power plants that were running on coal did not gradually replace their equipment with more efficient/cleaner turbines and stuff because the cost was not for just the one upgrade, it was for a complete rework.

1. Point gun at foot, 2. Pull trigger

True Doublethink is a reality

[SimianOverlord]

Republicans: Sure, Iraq's elections aren't perfect, but they're the first step on the road towards true democracy....

Republicans: Since the Kyoto treaty isn't perfect, but is a first step on the road towards a solution to global warming, we'll stay out...

Re:True Doublethink is a reality

[DerWulf]

The election actually moved iraq some in the desired direction. The extend of this can be debated, but hold it to be true that some progress has been made.
Now kyoto: A protocol that incurs massive costs (read: your money) and doesn't, even over 50 years, even show a messurable result, as even its advocates don't deny. Kyoto is a massive efford and shows NO result. It's not a step in any direction except towards more poverty in the world.

Re:True Doublethink is a reality

[demachina]

"Kyoto is a massive efford and shows NO result."

Other than potentially making a start at ending global warming, which if it happens, and it is an "if", is going to do far more damage to the world both physically and economicly than Kyoto will.

I think a really good test for Americans would be to offer, or maybe compel them to trade their current homes and real estate for an estate several times more valuable on some low lying coastland or better yet a low lying tropical island and see if they are willing to gamble that global warming is a lie.

All in all its waste of time debating U.S. entry in to Kyoto, or even that the U.S. will make any significant investment in weaning itself from complete dependence on coal because with the current political regime its go a snow balls chance in hell. Even if the U.S. rejects Kyoto which there are valid reasons to reject, it should still solve its addiction to fossil fuels and there is an indisputable case for doing that.

But no, Kyoto is inevitably going to end up one of American's expansive land fills probably outside of Washingtoon D.C. alongside the Geneva conventions, the ABM treaty, U.S. law against torture, the rule of law, the Constitution and it appears very soon the global test ban treaty.

There is irony that as the U.S. tries to dictate to nation after nation that thou shalt not develop nuclear weapons the U.S. is in fact developing new ones, is going to test them in violation of treaty, and in the case of the new nuclear bunker busters is almost inevitably going to start using them to kill people for the first time since World War II. When the U.S. takes the first step off that slippery slope the world is going to become a VERY dangerous place.

"The extend of this can be debated, but hold it to be true that some progress has been made."

It certainly is a subject for debate. Just because an election was held proves next to nothing. There is still a high probability that the Shia majority is just bideing its time until the constitution is written, the next elections are held which the Shia's will win, which the Shia will always win being 60% of the population and being an extremely cohesive voting block. Sistani issued a Fatwah compelling his large block of Shia's to vote which is why they did in such large numbers, the voted because they knew they would win the power they've been denied so long by doing so.

Sunni turnout was in fact dismal, they are shut completely out of power unless the Shia and Kurd's throw them crumbs, and this insures the Sunni insurgency will continue unabated which it has.

Once the Shia have cemented their hold on power, they can then tell the U.S. to get its troops out and the U.S. will either:

- Have to withdraw its troops in deference to Iraq's sovereign will and its Democraticly elected government
- Say no, leave its troops there and the elections the Republican's are so proud of are then proven to be a sham

You see the U.S. really only likes Democracies when they vote the way the White House wants them to. If they don't the U.S. really isn't that big a supporter of the concept.

Assuming the U.S. withdraws the Shia are then free to institute an Islamic theocracy and align themselves with Iran. Women will most probably be oppressed under Islamic law more like they were under the Taliban than the relative freedoms they enjoyed under Saddam's secular state, and in fact already are more oppressed than they were in most areas. Christians and Jews also enjoyed some tolerance for their religion under Saddam and are generally being forced to leave Iraq as it swings hard towards fundementalist Islamic state.

Meanwhile the Kurd's in the north are also voting en masse and trying to secure as much power as they can get at the ballot box and as much territorial control they can of the oil fields around Kirkuk. They are also bidding their time and waiting patiently. When the opport

I don't understand US resistance

[idlake]

The notion of effectively throwing out a lot of existing hardware and replacing it with new, more energy efficient hardware produced by a diverse group of companies should have economists and politicians licking their fingers.

Instead, they are listening to a tiny number of very powerful lobbies: the car companies, the oil companies, and the power producing companies. For them, of course, the move to energy efficient technology means that they have to make investments, investments that they would rather take as profits (or at least not have to borrow in order to make).

But that's just it: if those investments were made, it would provide a huge economic boon that would help the economy greatly, creating just the kinds of jobs we like: manufacturing, high-tech, design, software. It would also be an opportunity to modernize our aging infrastructure in many industries, as well as provide the necessary pressure to de-subsidize automobiles and support a modern and convenient system of public transit (which yields yet more jobs and other benefits).

Stop-gap, flim-flam, and profit?

[fygment]

Don't you wonder about motives? So to whos profit is it to buy in to Kyoto? (Sadly, in this world that is the only real question.)

a) + Public perception - Politicians seen as being environmentally proactive ergo more votes.
b) + Public perception - Big business moves unsightly production plants offshore allowing them to look squeaky clean at home. Ergo profit.
c) + Public perception - Big business has valid excuses to move into 3rd world countries. It is no longer about cheap labour, it is about saving the atmosphere. Ergo profit.

Is there anything beyond Public Perception?

a) Permanent solution - NO. As human population grows so will its effect on the environment. Kyoto is a delaying tactic environmentally BUT a profitable one.
b) Near term solution - NO. Will any nation HAVE to reduce its greenhouse gas production? No. Many have promised but a change in administration can easily bring about a cessation of participation.

Irony - The only really honest players have been the U.S. They are clearly worried about economic impact and see that as having a higher priority than the atmosphere. You may not like it but you know where they stand. As for the others, do you really believe their stated motives? If so, see above para.

Consensus Science

[ari_j]

There was another scientific theory that attained "scientific consensus," and everyone who was anyone believed that life as they knew it would end if something was not done. As a result, massive programs were undertaken to ensure that this would not happen. Connecticut was the first of the United States to enact laws, in 1896. The Carnegie Institution funded research into solutions starting in 1904. In 1910, a centralized research facility was set up, and in 1924 federal law was passed to further curtail the effects of this theoretical phenomenon.

Although we can look back and clearly see that the consensus was wrong, at the time the methods and results were almost universally believed to be entirely legitimate science. Detractors, no matter how credible or scientifically convincing, were either ignored or ridiculed for deviating from the broad scientific consensus.

Of course, the United States was, at the time, only the second most active nation in its attempts to curtail the effects of the disaster impending for all of humanity. Germany was more ambitious and probably more successful in its advances of eugenics, the theory essentially that the gene pool is decaying and needs to be carefully maintained by selective breeding, specifically excluding those "unfit" to carry on the race.

Consensus has exactly as much weight in science as it does on the playground: the only effect is that those who dare disagree (no matter how correct they are) are beaten up and called names. If that's the kind of support you use to justify your beliefs, then you have no place in science. Unfortunately, global warming believers have taken their place regardless of its nonexistence. And they win you over by fear ("Humanity will not survive!") and by false dichotomy ("If you're not with us, you're against the environment!"). (See Wikipedia's list of logical fallacies, quite a few of which apply to arguing that global warming is reality and not just a theory.)

The US didn't join Kyoto because Kyoto is meaningless, not because the US is anti-environment. (And whether the latter is the case or not depends on a lot of factors, but is irrelevant to this discussion nonetheless.)

Re:Consensus Science

[Ed_Moyse]

Firstly, humans aren't special. Clearly it *is* from a *scientific* point of view possible to "improve" the human race by selective breeding. So, you have not proven that the science was bad, merely that when science is applied without recourse to morality, or without carefully consideration of what "improve" really means, then we have a disaster on our hands. The same could be said of atomic bombs, GM etc. It has bugger all to do with whether the science is correct.

Now, I agree that science has inertia, and if you have a different view from the majority of scientists in your field then you may well be ignored/laughed at ... whatever. It's human nature, and it's a reasonable response to the number of cranks who think that THEY and only THEY have seen why Einstein is wrong, and why THEIR wonderful new theory explains everything. I work at CERN. We get this. But if you have PROOF then eventually you will swing the consensus ... scientists in their hearts are interested in the truth. See Einstein and Special Relativity for example - he was a typical crackpot (a patent clerk, with crazy ideas) but in the end his predictions matched reality just too well.

Counters

[oneandoneis2]

Junk Science has a couple of counters up, one detailing Kyoto's costs and one the benefits it's estimated to provide. You may find them interesting. . .

Consensus?

[phlegmofdiscontent]

Funny, I read the Wikipedia article and it doesn't look like there's much of a consensus at all. In fact, it looks like there is so much that we don't know that to definitively state anything about climate change is to speak from one's lowest sphincter.

Re:No treaty is better than a bad treaty

[stupidfoo]

And the treaty is based on levels established in 1992. Russia signed on only because they will make billions selling their polution credits.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the treaty having any sort of merit.

Scientific consensus and other rubbish

[terjeber]

Science deals with theories and their (in)validation. Consensus is an irrelevant, and quite idiotic, term typically used by people who like the current state of affairs and prefer not to deal with things such as methodology. Typically (even) scientists (the consensus) have ridiculed new ideas when they have diverged from the "well known" state of affairs.

The theory that human activities are contributing to the global warming is generally accepted as validated by all scientists (who deal with the matter). How much of the increase is caused by humans and how much i natural variation there is no consensus whatsoever on. Not even close.

The consern among scientists who are skeptical to the Kyoto agreement is not as the most vocal environmentalists claim, that kyoto is trying to solve a non-existing problem, but that the solutions proposed by Kyoto, are not going to slow down global warming by any measurable factor since the part of the warming we see that is caused by GHG is lower than "consensus" claims, and that the Kyoto agreement provisions will have no real effect. With the kost of Kyoto being very high, perhaps (these scientists say) we should look at other, and more cost-efficient alternatives.

Sadly religious fever have gripped the community on this issue, and sane debate is impossible, as can be seen by the insane attacks on, for example, Bjorn Lomborg.

Clinton and Senate rejected Kyoto long before Bush

[bfline]

The American Enterprise has an article on why the Kyoto deserved to die.
Reasons:
1. Kyoto "Would have exempted China and other developing nations entirely (despite the fact that their growing emissions would have swamped the reductions from the developed nations)."
2. "Long before President Bush acted, this approach had been rejected by the U.S. Senate in a vote of 95-0, which is why President Clinton never submitted the treaty for ratification."

Global warming is environmentalism's WMD

[Retired Replicant]

As an American, I think that reducing our dependence on foreign oil, reducing smog in our cities, reducing acid rain, and the likely benefits of spinoff technologies are all far more compelling reasons to pursue a new energy strategy than the unproven theory that the alleged increase in global temperature since the beginning of the indusrial age is due to human activities. Environmentalists have become overly dependent on the global warming argument to advance their cause in the same way that Bush was overly dependent on WMDs to justify going into Iraq. In both cases, there are a lot of other good arguments in favor of the position. Environmentalists ought to be highlighting other benefits of a new energy economy in case global warming turns out to be their equivalent of Iraqi WMDs.

Disaster Mitigation not Kyoto Treaty

[J05H]

Whether global warming is real should not be an issue. The warming already exhibited trends below the low-end of the IPCC's predictions. It is also far less than the climate change we have experienced in the past: Near East devastation in 1200BC, shifts of the Sahara, end of last Ice Age, etc. The real threat, IMHO, is in cataclysmic disasters. Preventing/mitigating them is part of how we can weather out global warming.

Regional disasters devastating populations are inevitable in most places - tsunamis, asteroids and continental supervolcanoes among others. Cities and whole coastlines should be protected with seawalls, especially coastal industrial zones. The economics of building the walls (they are considerable) are beside the point: How much does it cost to replace Manhattan? Or the whole east coast, if that volcano in the Canary Islands breaks apart? Beckerman in "through green colored glasses" makes the calculation for seawalling Bangladesh to prevent and control their seasonal flooding, it would cost about $16 Billion which is comparable to a good monsoon's damage.

Kyoto is mainly for taxing the industrial countries/companies through carbon trading. Obviously, interests here in the US are against that. (This is bipartisan - the Senate refused to vote on it, 99-0) Kyoto speaks nothing of disaster mitigation, a far, far bigger issue than a 1-degree increase in global temps. If this temperature rise is ongoing/accelerating, those in power would have to reach a consensus on some kind of radical action - it is not going to happen with the entrenched interests worldwide. That leaves it to citizens and corporations, so go ride your bicycle.

And please think about seawalls.

Josh

Josh

Stop looking at the numbers

[ehiris]

And if its about the economy, how about trimming that massive debt George ?

What debt? You are looking at the numbers? Don't worry about the numbers. Numbers are for people who don't believe in god, and europeans.

How comes the deficit is so high? The terroirists are playing with our numbers. Don't worry about our numbers, they have no meaning.

How comes Bill Gates is getting a huge paycheck based on company changes he made after we cut the tax on corporate dividends while taxes for the average person who doesn't own millions and billions worth of shares are going higher? You are looking again at the numbers. Why do I need to keep repeating myself? The numbers have no meaning.

How comes I bankrupted a few companies while giving others to eat up my costs? You are looking again at the numbers. Stop doing it.

What do you mean Saddam wanted to sell oil for Euros and not Dollars if we would have lifted an embargo because of price pressure due to oil shortages. He could have been more profitable? It's again because you are looking at the numbers. Stop fucking looking at the numbers!

Boys, go get him! He has weapons of mass destruction.

George W

Re:One more thing...

[slashkitty]

Right now, the world would be worse off if we switched to electric cars. We don't have a clean source of electricity that people support, so they'd have to run on coal electricity. This woould make your assumed global warming thing worse. right?

Re:One more thing...

[Laur]

I believe that one day we _will_ all be driving electrical cars because there simply isn't any oil left to burn.

And where will the electricity come from, all those clean burning coal plants we currently use? Besides, electric cars are crap. They have no range and take forever to recharge. Meanwhile, my current car goes 300 miles on one tank and takes about 5 minutes to refuel. Electric cars won't get any better either unless there is a breakthrough in battery technology, unlikely since there's really only so much you can do, the energy density just isn't there. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (maybe that's what you mean by electric) aren't much better, hydrogen storage is not an easy thing, there is no infrastructure in place, and you still have the problem of producing the hydrogen.

IMHO the best solution is biomass, either bioethanol or biodiesel. These are compatible with existing technologies (all Windows users know how important backwards compatibility is) and they can be used right now (no fantastic technological breakthroughs required). I don't understand why programs like this are not being pursued more aggressively.

Doorstep? No. Backyard? Sure.

[dfenstrate]

always slightly worried about the waste by-products of nuclear power stations, over and beyond the stuff they use for nuclear bombs. With a half-life of how long? Thousands of years? Millions? Would you like a radioactive waste dump on your door-step?

The longer the half life is, the less radioactive it is, and hence, the less dangerous. Think about it. If something's really radioactively 'hot', it'll decay all it's going to decay within minutes to weeks. If you're around it during that time period, you're fucked.

If something decays very slowly, the dose it gives is very low- it just says that way for a long, long time.

And the obvious solution to avoiding radiation dose from waste.... STAY AWAY FROM IT.

I work at a nuke plant. In a couple years we'll be putting 15 year old used fuel in huge casks and storing them outside because our spent fuel pool is getting full.

Considering that, as a nuke worker, I'm well aware of the dose rates given off by heavily shielded used fuel (basically nothing), and the health effects of certain dose thresholds.....

I'd WOULD let them store it in my back yard for the right $$$.

As an interesting example of all the silliness

[Sycraft-fu]

That surrounds the global warming thing, take a look at Bjorn Lomborg, and specificly his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. This book, and Penn Gillette said, pissed off environmentalists more than a Ford Excursion with only one person in it.

Basically Lomborg went and analized all the environmental data that the popular environmental movement had been screaming about to see if it supported their conclusion. He concluded it did not, and wrote a book about it called The Skeptical Environmentalist which taked about all this and accused the environmentalists to cherry picking their data and ignoring results that didn't support their conclusion.

Well as you might imagine, the environmentalists weren't happy about this and attacked him on all sides. Eventually, it got brought up before the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. They investigated Lomborg's work and concluded that he had done just what he was accusing people of: selectivley grabbing data, failing to exercise proper scientific rigor, and basically ignoring things that didn't agree with his conclusion. They called his work "systematically one-sided".

However that's not the end, in 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation found that, indeed, the DCSD was guilty of just what they were on Lomberg's case about. They'd taken a single critique of his work, relied on it as fact without any validation or consideration of rebuttals. In 2004 the case was ended against Lomborg.

Now the point here isn't to try and claim that either side is correct because, honestly, I don't know. The point is to show the amount of politics flying around in this, and the difficulty in getting a straight answer on anything. There is a clear disagreement about how to interpret the data we do have, and lots of name calling and sleight of hand going on.

Anyone who thinks they have the complete, cut and dried view on this situation is wrong. As the parent noted, science isn't free of politics and here you can see it in action.

Internation Aviation isn't included in Kyoto

[dunstan]

Kyoto may be a start, but one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse emissions is aviation. Yet Kyoto specifically excludes international aviation.

This favours small countries (such as GB) with little domestic aviation over large countries (such as the US, Russia, China, etc) where much of the aviation is domestic.

Personally I would have all aviation, domestic or internation, included.

Re:Internation Aviation isn't included in Kyoto

[Dagowolf]

By default a regulation on domestic aviation would extend to most, but not all of course, of the international aviation. Why, well let's look.

Airline A flies only routes within the continental United States and they fly a Boeing 787 due to high demand on that route (this isn't that far fetched since the 787 is a 767 replacement). The 787 is capable of international flight, so the emission limitations that are on the domestic 787 will be on the international 787 as well. Therefore Airline B that flies exclusively international travel will be restricted by Kyoto by default. This same thing is true of Airbus aircraft. There are the two largest commercial aviation producers, and their aircraft that are designed for both domestic and international flights.

Sure, some airlines will move their less efficient aircraft to international routes, but how long will that last before they are replaced due to the high fuel costs of flying these gas guzzlers? I would wager not long.

Re:Greenland

[dunstan]

That's not actually true, but it is true that conditions in the far North weren't as bad 1,000 years ago. Indeed, it's thought that the vikings had colonies across Newfoundland and down into Maine which were lost when the Arctic extended southwards.

But our lack of understanding of how our climate works and of how ocean current affect both local and global climates means that we can all argue about this for years t come.

Canadian Dilemma

[prezninja]

An issue nicely summarized in the article:

"Canada, one of the treaty's first signatories, has no clear plan for reaching its target emission cuts. Far from cutting back, its emissions have increased by 20% since 1990."

So how are we (Canadians) going to get every Canadian person and business to reduce their emissions by 20% in 7 years? And Japan is "unsure" about 6%? I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, I'm all for each individual sucking it up and unselfishly changing their lives.

But really, how will we do it? Strick laws? Penelty/Reward programs? Tax deductions for extremely compliant citizens? And what about the impact of a 20% reduction of emissions on the economy? Likely quite huge!

Lots of questions and doubt in the mind of many Canadians, I'm sure. But no need to worry so much, fellow Canadian, because you can take comfort in the fact that we have "NO CLEAR PLAN"!

Re:Canadian Dilemma

[prezninja]

"So how are we (Canadians) going to get every Canadian person and business to reduce their emissions by 20% in 7 years?"

I figured it out: We'll all take Friday's off!

Cause Well established?

[Jerry]

Hardly. The Globe is warming, but the reasons are not those supported by left wing pundants, whose only solution to anything is Socialism... government control over everyone's lives.

The "scientific" study used 5 years ago to support the the Kyoto conference has been shown to be sham, with cooked and trimed data and faulty conclusions. Using computer models to predict weather 50 years in advance, a task Dr Loranze proved to be impossible for times extending beyond a week into the future, is not science, it's propaganda. This is especially true when one considers that constants in the models are chosen specifically to give the desired results. Even when you use 7 such models and and average them the results are no better. If it were, then Meteorologists could forcast storm locations for the coming summer and give residents advanced warnings. In fact, they can't even accurately predict if the rain front passing through the county next to yours will drop rain on your house.

Volcanoes, cows and the biosphere inject many times more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity does, and water vapor is 7 TIMES the green house gas that CO2 is.

There is better correlation between the current global warming and Solar activity. Historical data indicates this phenomenon is a cyclic event and we just happen to be on the crest of a hot cycle. Three hundred years ago there was a mini ice age and London had no summer. Were the left wing pundants around then they would have been screaming their heads off about "Nuclear Winter", just as they were doing 30 years ago. Notice, their solutions 30 years ago are the same they offer today.... a modern version of East Germany.

Re:Suzuki: US as rogue nation

[wk633]

How about replying to the message, not the messenger.

The point is, the US is increasingly acting in ways contrary to the rest of the world. For a country that touts democracy, that's hardly democratic. I didn't vote for Bush, but I recognize that the majority did. So he's the president. The US takes the attitude that "The majority of the population of the World says X, but we know better".

Maybe all those people who voted for Bush know something I don't. And maybe all those countries who think the US is a rouge nation know something we don't. It's not comfortable being a minority, but the US is becoming one.

Re:US economy?

[MikeB123]

The comments about Kyoto being no more than a band-aid are simply wrong. Kyoto is a first step, and its targets were seriously watered-down in order to get the US (in particular) on board, as well as getting as many countries as possible to sign up. Will China and India somehow unfairly use the Treaty? Possibly, but since global warming will have a massive effect on their economies, they have certain incentives to play by the rules. As far as the US economy is concerned, any country that refuses to do anything about vehicles that burn oil at 12 miles to the gallon, while spending billions on protecting supplies from one of the most volatile (and anti-American)regions on earth can do a lot worse than simply increase the efficency of its energy use. There are major pay-offs to the US, not least because it has a huge amount of scientific resources and technology that it can sell to the rest of the planet. There seems to be a certain divide on these postings, between those who are extremely cynical of the science/politically conservative/and or very protective of the US's stance; and those who wish to see change (no matter how tentative at first)/ and who may not be from the US. Is it just me who is picking up on this?

ad-hominem

[simpl3x]

"Crichton then goes on to make the classic error of confusing 'weather" and "climate.'"

I had read their responses to Crichton several weeks ago, and nothing seemed "ad-hominem." These are detailed rebuttals to fiction. Whereas the non-detailed fiction is not supported by real science. It's sad when biographies matter more than the science, but your response is hollow. Can you site an scientists working with conflicting models of climate?

GW & State of Fear

[harvey the nerd]

I grew up with the worries of global cooling. In the graduate engineering air pollution classes, carbon dioxide's spectral absorption band was reported already near saturation - very low sensitivity to more. Only CO2's higher mass molecule remained a factor. Crichton and others have long pointed out how the 1995 IPCC draft report was altered to convert "uncertainty" into a "consensus" for GW. Another example of intellectual dishonesty is the [http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-MedievalGlobalW arming.html treatment Mann has given his critics].

I think that GW'ers still do not properly address astrophysical and geological processes. Also anyone who has worked with simulators realizes that emprical fudge factors are used liberally, that whole processes may not be treated adequately if at all (unkown or not well understood), and that their predictive value, without repeated validation cycles (xxx yrs?) or starting from a *complete* set of fundamental equations, is bunk.

I am more concerned about coal vs oil & gas, because the US has a lot, coal is relatively cheap and it is loaded with heavy metals, particulates and nucleotides. Coal use is the real policy issue to the US. Timing (a last resort?), adequate clean up and competitive economics are crucial to the US if another competitve energy cycle doesn't emerge. Don't worry about the oil & gas useage, you'll be competing with several billion prosperous Asians for it; it will all get used anyway.

I think Crichton has it [http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeche s_quote05.html
right also in this speech] where he points out that the current version of "environmentalism" is a religion. I think many engineers are bigger and better environmentalists - working something other than their mouths and vacuum tubes. I liked the reviews on Crichton's book "State of Fear" and plan to read it.

Thought: If the 10% (100,000 ppm) decline in magnetic field (atmosphere retention, modulation of the ionospheric reflection) is more important than 100 ppm increase in CO2, if we are going through pole reversal (through/near magnetic zero, -90% more) what then? Before you go blow a few trillion, please make sure you have some hard facts addressing or prioritizing real problems. You might really miss the economic resources later. Lonnnggg term, I vote for aneutronic power sources (e.g. p-B) or space (D-T, D-D fusion or solar).

Re:Didn't US *redrew* ?

[BBird]

The US signed the treaty but never ratified

They even commit to 7% reduction.

Check it out here

You won't want to hear this, but it's true.

[whirred]

I know this may sound like flamebait, but I'll say it:

The only way we'll be able to even come close to Kyoto standards, and the reason that those eco-friendly French are able to do so, is by going nuclear. The coal plants we currently utilize create more pollution and more radiation (yes, radiation) than equivalent nuclear plants would.

So what's it going to be, you technology savvy hippies? Kyoto and nuclear? Or no Kyoto and no nuclear?

A couple of facts:

1) Automobiles account for 5% of the pollution in this country. SUVs make a very small percentage of this number - remember that the next time someone starts harping on SUVs.

2) Airplanes pollute an automobile equivalent of a 30,000 mile trip with each flight. Think about that the next time you book a flight.

3) The cost, energy and materials that currently go into solar panels actually create more pollution than that solar panel will save in it's lifetime. Hopefully further advances in solar technology will help.

4) The truth is - we're running out of oil. For the rest of our lives, oil is going to go down in supply and up in demand. Nuclear is our only choice.

We should look beyond the end of our nose

[SuperBigGulp]

Whenever I hear that it will be "expensive" to meet the targets set forth in the Kyoto accord I wonder if people made the same argument against factories in the late 1800's. Sure, it was a lot of work to shift to an industrial economy, but in the end what we have is (usually) more efficient than the previous model. Likewise, it was expensive to set up lines of communication that basically cover the globe, but this has created whole new economic sectors and enabled dramatic increases in productivity. Who knows what innovations we will see as a result of research and development associated with a "cleaner" economy.
In some ways becoming "cleaner" is much like space exploration...is it expensive? Yes. Is it beneficial? Yes. Can we enumerate all the benefits at the outset? Probably not. Should we do it? Yes.

but the Canadian Gov is too stupid

[denis-The-menace]

Ah but there are loads of things that they could do but won't because politicians in Canada are a bunch of puppets:
-Make Gas with Methanol for Cars madatory (cost $0)
-Or tax Gas with Methanol less than gas without (Cost 0$)
-Make license plates for SUVs and Trucks cost more according to their age. (Cost: Profit center!)
-Make cheap wasteful appliances illigal (Cost $0) -Mandate that all new Gov. fleet cars be hybrids of better (Cost: $0)
-Allow farmers to collect Methane gas from animal waste so that then can burn it and make electricity.(Cost 0$)
-Allow Pig farmers to put animal waste in this machine http://www.changingworldtech.com./what/index.asp to make oil and electricity.(Cost 0$)

Re:ignoring basic economics

[An Onerous Coward]

Are you twice as happy with an SUV as you would be with a car that consumed half as much gas? Are you one quarter as happy if somebody switches all the bulbs in your house with CFLs? No. Limiting energy usage doesn't necessarily require lowering your standard of living. If I build a machine that can do the same job as the old one, but use a quarter the energy to do so, I've *raised* the standard of living by making the overall economy more efficient.

Oh, and it's "ridiculous", not "rediculous". If we'd just taken the money we'd spent on failed attempts to educate you,

Has anybody actually read the Kyoto Protocol?

[ChipChat]

I see lots of strong opinions posted here, but how many of the posters have actually read the Kyoto Protocol? Of those that have read it, how many have studied it to a point of understanding it? Does anybody on this thread actually know what they are talking about? KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Albedo

[Mittermeyer]

Not a single one of you talked about the REAL energy altering systemic change mankind has brought to the table, and that is albedo.

The reflectivity from all of that urbanization is pouring huge amounts of energy right back into the atmosphere that otherwise would have been absorbed.

Anyone who lives in a flyover state in a large metropolitan area knows that storms end up going around the big towns unless they have a lot of energy.

I have a tough time accepting these simulations due to albedo not being a major factor.

Re:I used to think there was a lot of time...

[jlanthripp]

When talking about a planet that's BILLIONS of years old, 3 warm winters doesn't even amount to statistical noise. Talk to an actual climatologist someday; you may learn a thing or two.

And a libertarian is the polar opposite of a "bleeding heart", at least with regards to economics and your right to do whatever you want to do with something you own (like, say, land). ...or have I been trolled?

India/Brazil/china ARE in the Kyoto Protocol

[TriadMage]

All three of the countries named ARE part of the Kyoto Protocol. According to the list of countries in the Status of Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol [Available here [pdf] from the UN's Fram,ework Convention on Climate Change site, the status of these countries (as of 2nd February 2005) is as follows:

• India: Accession
• Brazil: Ratification
• China: Approval

Re:kyoto is just backdoor socialism

[SEAWOLF36]

You seem to have figured it out! The "scientists" who support this farce are mostly hacks who haven't a clue about climate. They think that what they experience today is climate. When we start to talk about millennial-scale ocillations and century-scale variability, it gets awful quiet on their side of the table! The evidence is clear and grows more compelling every day: the Northern Hemisphere some 900 to 1400 years ago, when there was 100 ppm less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently, was as warm as, or warmer than, it has been since that time. In other words, the current temperature isn't a big deal and it is actually cooling down! Kyoto is hype made for bureaucrats who want to levy taxes on the rich folks!