Kyoto---- 3 facts, 1 opinion

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 27 Oct 2004 11:20

1. Kyoto Protocol- a treaty that the U.S. was NEVER in.

-A presidents signature did not ratify that treaty.

-A presidents removal of a signature did not un-ratify that treaty.

2. The Senate voted 95-0 to kill our participation in the treaty.

3. John Kerry was among those 95 who voted us OUT OF KYOTO.

Opinion:

The treaty did not have a snowballs chance in hell of being ratified.

Clinton knew this and signed anyway, knowing he would receive praise and admiration from YOU (generic), for a meaningless environmental gesture.

-n

mc · Post by mc » 27 Oct 2004 12:26

thanks for that. that was great.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 27 Oct 2004 15:06

Quite right. Although i support reduced emissions at almost any cost (more because of the carcinogenic qualities than fear of global warming) it is true that the Kyoto protocol was never going to be ratified by the US.

Not just because the US is intent on environmental devastation, but more because it has no desire to commit economic suicide. Neither do any other inustrialised nations. When you leave developing countries out of the restrictions then how is it going to help in the long run anyway? Everyone in China will want a car soon and then it doesn't matter if the us had reduced it's emissions to zero (and gone bankrupt) by that time the world would still be in an ugly state.

More has to be done to help the environment , but expecting the first world to carry the entire burden is foolish.

HG · Post by HG » 27 Oct 2004 16:45

Bill Clinton is brilliant. He can talk his way out of anything, and always make people think he is being considerate.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 28 Oct 2004 14:07

Yea, he was a smart, slimey bastard with a winning smile.

That said he's better that an uncouth clod willing to use a country to settle personal vendettas.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 28 Oct 2004 18:20

Franzal said:
--------------------------
Quite right. Although i support reduced emissions at almost any cost (more because of the carcinogenic qualities than fear of global warming) (....)
-----------------------------

I totally agree with concern over local air quality, and local pollution here can become local pollution in the next hemisphere nearly.

Franzal said:
--------------------------

When you leave developing countries out of the restrictions then how is it going to help in the long run anyway? Everyone in China will want a car soon and then it doesn't matter if the us had reduced it's emissions to zero (and gone bankrupt) by that time the world would still be in an ugly state.
--------------------------

China is not in the treaty, yet has the fastest growing oil demand in the world (or Asia).

I saw that Russia just ratified the treaty, as enticement to get into the WTO (Putin can do WHATEVER he wants now).

Their spokesmouth said that since their economy had contracted , they would never have to worry about exceeding their limits, anyhow.

This would put them into position to sell their "pollution credits" to other nations exceeding their "limit". So they can't lose.

p.s.

I'm going to look right now for the article again, because something about the measurement and enforcement steps made me think the treaty itself is unenforceable.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 28 Oct 2004 23:13

Russia somehow managed to have it's emissions limit based on it's peak economy during the cold war or something didn't it? Sounded like bullshit to me anyway.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 29 Oct 2004 03:27

I think I've said it before, but the trillions that would be spent fully implementing the protocol would be better spend in R&D in solar, wind maybe even tidal power (my preference would be for it to be in that order). I think it's easier and better for us overall to make the market get into alternative energy not because they're being forced by a strong hand of the government, but because alternatives become simply the best option available to them economically. I think that's the only way to really get alternatives fulfilling base load energy production within the next 50+ years (I'm an optimist).

I have studied environmental change at uni during my degree so I know the risk is there and pretty well documented by the IPCC, but when you look at the amount of change the protocol will do when fully implemented it isn't really worth it. If you can get alternative energies down to something crazy like 1 - 2cents per kilowatt-hour with low capital costs, then coal would die a fairly quick and natural death (again...optimism). We'd still have cars to deal with, but it's estimated that in 2020 40% of our (meaning human induced) greenhouse emissions will come from fossil fuel electricity production. At the moment I think it's about 1/3.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 29 Oct 2004 04:28

The Kyoto protocol actually says that countries can only allow their emmisions to rise by 8% per year - so it means that we are still producing more greenhouse gasses every year than the year before - just by less of a margin.

Australia is already 30% above the target

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 29 Oct 2004 10:09

Much easier and cheaper perhaps, would be to function in violation of the treaty.

Then instead of "spending to develop clean",
a nation will be "fined for non-compliance".

So tiny nations would stand to benefit more from pollution violators, than from "clean-green" ones.

p.s.
I couldn't find the Russian ratification article, but I remember at the bottom, it said how another meeting would be convened in 2010, or 2020 to determine if nations had been in compliance.

That's a long time.

If this is true, a nation could just say "to hell with compliance,nobody will know if we are polluting the same as before."

My original question about if enforcement will work has morphed into this:

What will the world, or the U.N. do when a member cheats?

-n