[moki]

Interesting position paper on Kyoto. Many people seem interested in the US's rejection of the Kyoto protocol, so I figured a topic on the subject would be worthwhile.

from: http://courreges.freeservers.com/kyoto.htm

.....

Kyoto: Dead on Arrival

In the past year the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty designed to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, has become downright notorious. _When the Bush Administration announced that the United States would abandon the treaty, there was a massive, albeit expected, uproar. _Bush endured severe criticism from home and abroad, with several domestic environmental groups chastising the Bush Administration for supposedly putting the needs of large corporations above those of the planet.

To some degree, the smear campaign actually worked. _Polls have shown that a majority of Americans disapprove of Bush’s decision to withdraw from the treaty. _Still, that doesn’t say much. _Polls only matter inasmuch as the public understands an issue and deems it salient. _Public opinion in matters such as global warming are largely determined by snap judgments and vague impressions, not facts. _The truth is, there are many myths surrounding the Kyoto Treaty, which has gained mystical appeal among environmental advocates.

One of the most pervasive myths surrounding the Kyoto Treaty is that the Democrats supported it. _The truth is, when the Kyoto Protocol was brought to an informal vote in the Senate, it was rejected 95-0 on the basis that greenhouse emissions from third-world nations were not restrained. _Not a single Democrat supported it. _Even President Clinton, who signed the treaty in 1997, could not complete negotiations on Kyoto. _Talks collapsed in November of 2000 after European nations refused to accept Clinton’s final compromise.

This brings us to another myth concerning the Kyoto Treaty, that which alleges that the US sabotaged the treaty, even before Bush’s spontaneous rejection. _The truth is, the US labored over years of negotiations concerning Kyoto, wishing only the inclusion of emissions trading and exemptions for “carbon sinks.” _Carbon sinks are trees and other vegetation which consume carbon dioxide, a known greenhouse gas. _The US position was supported by Canada, Australia, and Japan. _Every European nation, however, refused to compromise on these modest proposals, thereby forcing negotiations to a grinding halt under the Clinton Administration. _In truth, it was Europe that sabotaged Kyoto via its stubborn refusal to accept any compromise from the US.

The third and final myth regarding the Kyoto Protocol was that it would not harm the US economy. _Indeed, Bush’s stated reason for scrapping Kyoto was that far too much of the burden would fall on the US. _The US target for greenhouse gas reductions would have been 7 percent from 1990, which, according to economist Margo Thorning, would have had the effect of reducing American GDP anywhere from 1 to 4 percent annually. _Why else would every single Senate Democrat have opposed Kyoto? _

Kyoto was already dead when Bush arrived in office. _Bush didn’t kill Kyoto, he simply ended the charade of walking around with it like a scene in “Weekend at Bernie’s.” _By rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, Bush simply took a flawed treaty with no domestic support and gave it a proper burial. _He had the decency to put the matter to rest.

[moki]

http://www.tsaugust.org/No%20To%20Kyoto%20Page%204.htm

Kyoto Protocol Remains Fatally Flawed

The Kyoto Protocol, however, remains fatally flawed. Forcing the United States to reduce emissions by 30% would have had a crippling effect on America’s economy; cost American’s their jobs and lowered their living standards. Countries that have different agendas can always outvote the United States. Key terms in the protocol remain undefined, allowing them to be reinterpreted later by outside groups or subsidiary bodies to the potential detriment of the United States. The protocol ignores population growth in the United States, further hurting Americans while benefiting the European Union and Japan. It establishes special obligations on the United States to provide financial aid to developing countries. It opens the door for developing countries to claim they were harmed by the United States because of actions it took to reduce emissions; and then demand financial restitution from the United States. Finally, by omitting India and China, the protocol actually fails to address the issue of global warming.

In short, those that supported it would have been hurt much less, and the US would have been hurt proportionately more. Given these conditions, what country would have accepted the protocol, if they were in the US's position?

How can anyone take this document seriously when it omits entirely the world's two most populous nations (India and China).

Have a look for yourself: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotobtxt.html

There is a lot more to it than just the US unilaterally deciding against something that is absolutely a good idea.

http://www.accf.org/Franclnadlerbast1098.htm

http://www.siyassa.org.eg/esiyassa/a.../7/1/ECON2.HTM

[tie]

Originally posted by moki:
http://www.accf.org/Franclnadlerbast1098.htm

http://www.siyassa.org.eg/esiyassa/a.../7/1/ECON2.HTM

I'll reply to these two links. The second says almost nothing at all. Why did you include it? One quote: "On the other hand, the commitment of developed countries to reduce emissions will increase oil prices. This will, in turn, negatively affect petroleum-producing countries.. This will eventually lead to a regress in the importance of oil, and that would affect the revenues of these countries." Are you trying to make the case that reducing our oil dependence will save us hundreds of billions of dollars spent on wars for oil? That there are hidden costs to our oil dependence?

The first link uses a study from the American Petroleum Institute to estimate that costs to US agriculture might increase by $20 billion, an amount about equal to their current annual subsidies. How horrible! Still, I bet the American Petroleum Institute has released better apocalyptic studies to which you could link.

Here's a link from the API's website: http://www.api.org/globalclimate/thecosts.htm

What alternative do you suggest to Kyoto? There are also likely to be very large costs to not doing anything. The science isn't entirely certain, but some uncertainty is inevitable. Kyoto is cost-effective insurance. (Besides, the current administration prefers to censor the scientists instead of trying to figure out the truth.)

[tie]

Originally posted by moki:
"Finally, by omitting India and China, the protocol actually fails to address the issue of global warming."

This is quite false. Kyoto may not by itself stop global warming in its tracks, but this isn't just because of its omission of India and China. Total emissions: The US emitted 30% of total carbon released from fossil fuels from 1900-99, while China contributed only 7 percent and India, 2 percent. Per capita: In 1999, US per capita carbon emissions were 20 times that of India and 10 times that of China. According to WRI, an environmental think tank certainly as credible as the API, the US will still have more total carbon emissions ten years from now than China and India combined.

To me, these numbers suggest that the US has in the past, currently, and will have in the future (at least the next ten years), a larger responsibility for global warming than India and China (total, not even per capita). The costs of global warming on the other hand will fall disproportionately on developing countries whose economies are more dependent on agriculture. The US needs to show leadership, instead of ducking its responsibilities.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by tie:
This is quite false. Kyoto may not by itself stop global warming in its tracks, but this isn't just because of its omission of India and China. Total emissions: The US emitted 30% of total carbon released from fossil fuels from 1900-99, while China contributed only 7 percent and India, 2 percent. Per capita: In 1999, US per capita carbon emissions were 20 times that of India and 10 times that of China. According to WRI, an environmental think tank certainly as credible as the API, the US will still have more total carbon emissions ten years from now than China and India combined.

To me, these numbers suggest that the US has in the past, currently, and will have in the future (at least the next ten years), a larger responsibility for global warming than India and China (total, not even per capita). The costs of global warming on the other hand will fall disproportionately on developing countries whose economies are more dependent on agriculture. The US needs to show leadership, instead of ducking its responsibilities.

What he said.

[Jim Paradise]

In other news today, most countries don't want to do anything that might possibly help the environment when big businesses aren't happy with those plans.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Jim Paradise:
In other news today, most countries don't want to do anything that might possibly help the environment when big businesses aren't happy with those plans.

This just in: Most governments have been found to be soulless sellouts to greedy megacorporations and will stop at nothing to please them, including but not limited to screwing up nature permanently.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by voodoo:
This just in: Most governments have been found to be soulless sellouts to greedy megacorporations and will stop at nothing to please them, including but not limited to screwing up nature permanently.

Exactly.

[osiris]

Originally posted by voodoo:
This just in: Most governments have been found to be soulless sellouts to greedy megacorporations and will stop at nothing to please them, including but not limited to screwing up nature permanently.

You said it. And in the long run, it is us that will be screwed by nature. SPF 3000 anyone?