Kyoto Protocol Renewal Efforts Struggling

Hugh Pickens writes "Economics trumps the environment. The emission targets set by the Kyoto Protocol will expire next year, and negotiators are fighting to keep UN climate talks on track while efforts to save the Euro push the struggle to save the planet down the priority list. In the United States, seen as the biggest single obstacle to a new global climate deal, academic opinion says an 'iron law' means economics trumps the environment in times of crisis. Meanwhile, some leading voices on climate science have suggested the Kyoto Protocol be put to pasture, since clinging to hopes of a renewal of that agreement does more harm than good in achieving meaningful dialogue on how to fight climate change. When the agreement was negotiated in the 1990s, the world was more clearly divided into 'rich and poor' countries. However, China and India have seen unexpectedly strong economic growth since then, and currently make up 58 per cent of global emissions. 'Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that countries such as Japan, Canada and Russia adamantly refuse to assume new binding targets unless the other major economies at present outside Kyoto's reach — most notably, the United States and China — do so as well,' writes Elliot Diringer, executive vice-president of the U.S.-based Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 'And for now, the odds of that happening are nil.'"

Comments

The struggle to save the planet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a lot easier to believe that Climate Change was about saving the world if their policy agenda didn't match up 100% with that of the old socialist bloc.

Good riddance?

[bonch]

The Kyoto Protocol has been criticized for years, so much so that it has its own Wikipedia page. It's not so much that "economics trumps the environment" as it is that economics and climate legislation are actually intricately tied, as well as the fact that there is still new data coming out on climate change that proves we don't know as much as we think we do (global temperature hasn't risen since 1998, a fact that has led to a lot of sideways explanations and justifications). Emissions trading is an obviously ineffective system. Government regulatory agencies tend to have a poor track record in solving anything like this, and the apparent lack of visible evidence of a problem in the first place means societies don't consider it an urgent problem to solve.

Re:Yes, we're boned

[rtp]

Climate change is simply a variable that we'll adapt with through technology. Getting pushed out of our comfort zone is a good thing. Without winter and droughts the human race would still be frolicking in jungles with spears and arrows wearing loin cloths. Winter and lack of water has made us stronger, and resulted in technology development.

Peak oil will come and go, just as peak wood did before coal and oil were discovered.

A global government, shared economy, is like California trying to manage forest fires. The more humans tinker with the system to remove the highs and lows, the bigger the inevitable crash that will come, just as California experienced the largest fires in history after years spent tweaking the system, resulting in keeping too much undergrowth, instead of allowing nature to take its course. Wars are no different than forest fires. It's OK to compete. Every species does this, humans are no different.

The much bigger issue is population growth. Through increased population resources are depleted at an increasing rate, potentially faster than technology advances will accommodate. Where technology is unable to solve the challenges presented through population growth, we're likely to experience huge losses through famine, disease, and war.

The best thing for earth is more war. Culling the herd isn't evil. With cheap energy our population will continue to sky rocket, while resources are finite. There's no sense to everybody holding hands singing Kumbaya; somebody has to win, and somebody has to lose. We see that now in Europe. The ants should not be forced to carry the grasshoppers. The UN and EU are delaying the inevitable. The intellectuals from the early 20th century got it wrong. We need fierce competition among nations. The tribes must remain at war to keep the population under control. There are winners and losers, there is no middle ground. Economics is just another approach to war, and the current method of pulling down the strong so the weak can rise up is foolish - we're not all safer as equals, we're better off with highs and lows, rich exploiting poor. America should dominate, our system has proven to be a winner. When we clash with competing interests, war is the natural flow of things. Peace is impossible so long as different tribes are squabbling over the same dirt. Why allow the poor nations to rise up as equals...just so we can compete with stronger opponents? Why wait until the poor attain nuclear, nano, bio, and space technologies that could enable their dominance over America? We're on top of the mountain. It's our right to beat down any who try to climb to the peak. If we don't, we'll simply get thrown off and somebody else will beat down others. We're at least trying to do the beating in a humane fashion...aren't we?

Re:Priorities

[Shatrat]

Are you with Fox News?