The failure of Kyoto

From the Wall Street Journal last week:

For the second straight year, Europe's emissions of six greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, have risen. Most of the 15 nations are falling farther behind in their efforts to cut emissions and meet their combined Kyoto commitment to reduce emissions 8% below 1990 levels by the end of the decade. Based on current trends, the European Environment Agency predicts emissions will come down only by 4.7% by the time the targets become binding from 2008 to 2012.

I guess Bush was right. The Kyoto agreement goals are unrealistic, provide no environmental benefits, and are economically destructive to industrial nations.

I think you''re ignoring the possibility that Bush''s decision to quit is also partially responsible for this. With the biggest industry nation of the world (25% of the global CO2 production) not agreeing on the deal, many other nations don''t see why it should be them to do the necessary (pricy) steps to effectively reduce the emission.

many other nations don''t see why it should be them to do the necessary (pricy) steps to effectively reduce the emission.

Then they shouldn''t have signed a treaty. But the entire Kyoto treaty was flawed to begin with, which is why we didn''t sign.

Mind explaining these flaws with cited references?

Well, you can find a copy of the text of the treaty online, so I won''t go looking for it, but here is the gist of why it is flawed.

1. In essence, it tries to give a consortium of foreigners the power to regulate the American standard of living. The treaty would commit the United States and three dozen industrial countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2012 to at least 8 percent below their 1990 levels. This would require a tremendous reduction in our use of energy.

2. Each country is given a number of pollution ''credits'' that they can spend. These credits are based, in large part, on the land mass of the country, which is just plain silly.

3. Developing countries, including China, India and Mexico, and oil exporters, including Saudi Arabia, seek enforceable global rules from which they are exempt. China and India, both producers of huge amounts of pollution, were so adamant about refusing to initiate climate-protection programs that this wasn''t even on the agenda.

4. The poor nations are demanding that the United States build projects in their countries for climate protection, pollution cutting, ""clean coal,"" and forest protection, but are even unwilling to allow us any extra ""credits"" for these handouts in meeting our emissions goals.

5. Some countries, such as the United States, can meet emission-reduction goals because their large forests function as a ""sink"" to naturally absorb the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide coming from our tailpipes and smokestacks. America''s vast forests absorb up to 300 million tons a year of carbon dioxide and could get us halfway toward the treaty''s goals, but other countries reject this as a ""free ride.""

6. Kyoto proposed a plan to allow rich nations to ""buy"" emissions credits from poor nations, presumably the small countries that usually gang up against U.S. interests. However, the biggest poor country is Russia, whose economy is so devastated that it can''t afford industrial production to produce emissions anyway. The collapse of the Russian economy has produced a windfall of possible pollution ""credits"" that Russia can sell to countries unwilling to reduce emissions.

Translated, that means the U.S. taxpayers would pay tribute to Russia and Africa in order to be allowed to maintain our current standard of living.

7. Nuclear power, which produces energy without greenhouse emissions, is another sticking point with US environmentalists. They have prevented the construction of modern nuclear plants in the United States, but want us to sign the treaty.

8. Supported of the Kyoto Treaty used a report by the National Academy of Science as support for why we should sign. However, as usual, the report was misrepresented by the environmentalists. The full report makes clear that there is no scientific consensus about long-term climate trends or what causes them. Yes, climate is constantly changing and the earth is warmer than it used to be, 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than a century ago.

But scientists do not agree that past climate change was caused by CO2 and they cannot forecast what the climate will be in the future. They don''t agree on how much change can be attributed to greenhouse gases and how much to water vapor, clouds and storms.

Some 17,000 American scientists signed a petition that read as follows:

""We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.""

""There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth''s atmosphere and disruption of the earth''s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.""

9. The United States has spent $18 billion on climate research since 1990, more than Japan and all 15 nations of the European Union combined.

"JD" wrote:

I think you''re ignoring the possibility that Bush''s decision to quit is also partially responsible for this. With the biggest industry nation of the world (25% of the global CO2 production) not agreeing on the deal, many other nations don''t see why it should be them to do the necessary (pricy) steps to effectively reduce the emission.

FARCE FARCE FARCE! We are the worlds largest economy. You cannot compare % of production and not include the size of our economy. We are 34.7% of the worlds economy (from economy.com)

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

1. In essence, it tries to give a consortium of foreigners the power to regulate the American standard of living.

Proof? I''d like to see exactly how that would happen rather than a glibe, xenophobic statement.

The treaty would commit the United States and three dozen industrial countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2012 to at least 8 percent below their 1990 levels. This would require a tremendous reduction in our use of energy.

Or changes in what energy we use. Think about it.

2. Each country is given a number of pollution ''credits'' that they can spend. These credits are based, in large part, on the land mass of the country, which is just plain silly.

Explain.

3. Developing countries, including China, India and Mexico, and oil exporters, including Saudi Arabia, seek enforceable global rules from which they are exempt. China and India, both producers of huge amounts of pollution, were so adamant about refusing to initiate climate-protection programs that this wasn''t even on the agenda.

There''s about the only part I agree on. But, if they had problems with it, why didn''t they back out like the US?

4. The poor nations are demanding that the United States build projects in their countries for climate protection, pollution cutting, ""clean coal,"" and forest protection, but are even unwilling to allow us any extra ""credits"" for these handouts in meeting our emissions goals.

Demanding? Again, let''s see the wording rather than your interpretation.

5. Some countries, such as the United States, can meet emission-reduction goals because their large forests function as a ""sink"" to naturally absorb the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide coming from our tailpipes and smokestacks. America''s vast forests absorb up to 300 million tons a year of carbon dioxide and could get us halfway toward the treaty''s goals, but other countries reject this as a ""free ride.""

It''s an excuse to pollute more. Then there''s the logging industry cutting down these pollution buffers, but I''ll leave it alone.

6. Kyoto proposed a plan to allow rich nations to ""buy"" emissions credits from poor nations, presumably the small countries that usually gang up against U.S. interests. However, the biggest poor country is Russia, whose economy is so devastated that it can''t afford industrial production to produce emissions anyway. The collapse of the Russian economy has produced a windfall of possible pollution ""credits"" that Russia can sell to countries unwilling to reduce emissions.

Translated, that means the U.S. taxpayers would pay tribute to Russia and Africa in order to be allowed to maintain our current standard of living.

Again, your interpretation.

7. Nuclear power, which produces energy without greenhouse emissions, is another sticking point with US environmentalists. They have prevented the construction of modern nuclear plants in the United States, but want us to sign the treaty.

That isn''t a problem with the Kyoto Treaty or its signators. I don''t recall Japan or France telling the US it can''t build nuke plants.

8. Supported of the Kyoto Treaty used a report by the National Academy of Science as support for why we should sign. However, as usual, the report was misrepresented by the environmentalists. The full report makes clear that there is no scientific consensus about long-term climate trends or what causes them. Yes, climate is constantly changing and the earth is warmer than it used to be, 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than a century ago.

But scientists do not agree that past climate change was caused by CO2 and they cannot forecast what the climate will be in the future. They don''t agree on how much change can be attributed to greenhouse gases and how much to water vapor, clouds and storms.

Some 17,000 American scientists signed a petition that read as follows:

""We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.""

""There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth''s atmosphere and disruption of the earth''s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.""

I see no mention of the depletion of the ozone layer, which has been attributed to pollution. Granted, I don''t entirely buy the global warming arguments from either side (not enough information), but this ozone thing...that''s not natural.

9. The United States has spent $18 billion on climate research since 1990, more than Japan and all 15 nations of the European Union combined.

How much has the US spent in the last 2 years...and how much has those findings differed between the findings between 1990-2000?

I''m off to find the original wording of the treaty. But, bottom line is that it was a treaty signed in good-faith by the US that the Administration backed out of, establishing a prescendent of selectively choosing treaties to observe and ignore.

I like pie.

I eat monkies.

Now that''s some funny shinizzle.

I see no mention of the depletion of the ozone layer, which has been attributed to pollution. Granted, I don''t entirely buy the global warming arguments from either side (not enough information), but this ozone thing...that''s not natural.

In your opinion. I don''t disagree that it is odd, or that if it were actually caused by man, that is bad. But there have been thousands of scientists who have come out saying that there isn''t enough evidence for attribution in regards to ozone depletion. There have been studies done where they analyze the rings in very old trees to measure ozone hundreds of years ago, and they find that the levels of ozone rise and fall naturally with a cycle lasting centuries.

There just isn''t any proof that the changes in global temperature or ozone fluctuations are anything but a natural occurance. Many of the same scientists that cry global warming were crying that pollution had driven us to the brink of a new ice age in the late 70''s.

But, bottom line is that it was a treaty signed in good-faith by the US that the Administration backed out of, establishing a prescendent of selectively choosing treaties to observe and ignore.

It should have never been signed at all. The US should never sign any treaty that doesn''t offer some benefit to the American people, and Kyoto doesn''t meet that criteria.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

In your opinion. I don''t disagree that it is odd, or that if it were actually caused by man, that is bad. But there have been thousands of scientists who have come out saying that there isn''t enough evidence for attribution in regards to ozone depletion. There have been studies done where they analyze the rings in very old trees to measure ozone hundreds of years ago, and they find that the levels of ozone rise and fall naturally with a cycle lasting centuries.

How about holes? Are holes in the ozone layer natural? Are there any tree rings that show overdoses of UV radiation?

Yes, the evidence showed that UV activity was higher.

As to holes, we don''t know. No one does. We have no idea if they have ever occurred before because there has been no way to measure or track it in the past. There is just no evidence that the impact to global ozone levels are caused by man. There is circumstantial evidence, but one of the first rules of science is that correlation doesn''t equal causation.

bottom line is that it was a treaty signed in good-faith by the US that the Administration backed out of, establishing a prescendent of selectively choosing treaties to observe and ignore.

Just an FYI - the Kyoto treaty was never ratified by the US Senate, and never binding on the US.

Please. Back then if Clinton signed a treaty banning abortions the Republicans wouldn''t have gone along with it because Clinton did it.

I like pie...

Just kidding, but way to avoid the facts... Just because Bill Clinton wants something doesn''t mean he gets to ignore the Constitution. The Senate can ratify Kyoto today if it wants. Clinton''s support of Kyoto was an unneeded rim-job to the environmentalists and Bush rejected it as an unnecessary burden to the economy during a recesion.

I have a side question, since we are on the environment.

Is anyone here opposed to the chopping down of the rain forests, and why?

Yes. What are the possible economic benefits of chopping down an entire rain forest? You yourself have said that American forests cut back on pollution. It stands to reason that the destruction of these forests would lead to increased pollution levels. Not to mention the wholesale destruction of ecosystems, but that''s secondary at best to your goals. Are there any sort of protections set up to protect foreign rain forests like American forests? Nope, and so down they come.

Is anyone here opposed to the chopping down of the rain forests, and why?

Yes, and on a very fundamental level, because I believe in the necessity of beauty, aesthetics, and nature. You''ve probably got some fantastic statistic that proves cutting down the rain forests is good for our skin and their bark can be used to make money and perhaps a new type of fossil fuel, but I''ll be honest with you ... I don''t care. I like having a green planet, and I like that there is wilderness, and I don''t like that creatures that make their homes in said forest are slaughtered and displaced, and I don''t want another giant f*ing Brazil-o-mart where the rain forests used to be.

I''ve gotten to the point where I''m happy to embrace my tree-hugginess. It''s not like we don''t already have plenty of cleared out space. You know, it''s not like the Grand Canyon is doing a lot productivity wise, but I still think it''s a good idea to keep it around, same with Yosemite or the Great Barrier Reef. There''s more to life than statistics, business, and money for me.

Honestly, I couldn''t care less if there was enough resources in the Rain Forest to power our televisions, blenders, and SUVs for a thousand years. I''d just rather have the rain forests.

No, I am not in favor of chopping down the rain forests. I don''t think anyone other than the Brazilians that are doing it are in favor of it. I didn''t mean to go down a rathole. I was going to make a point about the difference between a localized environmental issue and a global issue, to show that localized problems exist and can be remedied. But global issues are too big, and too complex for us to even begin to be able to apply causation.

There is a very big difference between saying ''I like rainforests'' or ''This ground water is being polluted'' as opposed to ''Global warming is going to kill us all''. In localized cases, causation can be found and remedies applied. Global problems are not so neat. And Kyoto was a proverbial case of having political ''eyes bigger than their stomachs.''

Kyoto is a bad treaty. It has no benefit to the US, no provable benefit to the environment, and is both unattainable and economically punishing to modernized countries.

It should have never been signed at all. The US should never sign any treaty that doesn''t offer some benefit to the American people, and Kyoto doesn''t meet that criteria.

If the problems with the current treaty that you stated earlier were to be fixed would you still oppose signing a pollution-reduction treaty? I think we can all agree that on a fundamental level environment protection is a good thing right? The question that rises time and time again is at what cost this protection should be enforced. Maybe the price to pay is too high with Kyoto but I find it very unsettling that you are willing to dismiss the relative successes of Kyoto* just because they won''t reach their initial goals.

* ~4.7% decline of emissions in 2008-12 compared to 1990 and the ecnomy has grown what, 100*1.02^18-22 in those years (conservative guess) that makes a whopping 42.8%-54.6% of growth of the economy while lowering emissions by 4.7%. Maybe they set their goals to high.

Problem with that statement Koesj is that there have been no successes with Kyoto. European participants have failed to lower emissions for the second year in a row.

You can''t use your ''economy has grown while emissions have been reduced'' statement until it actually happens.

And sure, I think environmental protection is good. But it has to be applied locally. It is impossible to account for all of the variables that affect global ecology...by anyone, under any circumstances. But I can pass local restrictions that say you can''t poison the ground water.

There is no such thing as a solution. Period. There are only trade-offs. It always comes down to which of these two painful things are you most willing to live with.

I think everyone but the hard-line tree huggers would agree on that. Vote for the party who represents your personal views best but keep politics away from your social life, good night people