Everyone's doing the Kyoto dance!

[Ysobelle]

Everyone but US.

Personally, it enrages me: the US is the world's major polluter for many toxins, but because this administration allows Big Business to hold it by the balls, we won't actually take solid steps to work on the problem. Yes, I understand that some measures will threaten factory jobs, but because there isn't an obvious solution doesn't mean we should do nothing. There ARE possible compromised that benefit workers and ther environment, we're just not looking for them, or making it profitable for our industries to look.


If it annoys you, too, go here:

http://takeaction.worldwildlife.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=24423&ms=wwf_enewsletter

[RichardMacHugely]

Actually, as an environmentalist, it annoys me that Kyoto is nothing but a political ploy that isn't worth the paper it's written on. The sole purpose of Kyoto is to allow some nations (I'm lookin' at you, Europe, Japan, and Canada) to congratulate themselves loudly and incessantly on how responsible they are while simultaneously blaming the US at the same time, and not really doing anything to address greenhouse gasses anyway.


Let's look at the problems with Kyoto.

First, Kyoto doesn't address greenhouse gasses in general, but CO2 specifically (more later on why), and with the way Kyoto is set up, it will not result in a net decline in CO2 emmissions, even among the 141 nations who have signed it.

Why not?

Partially because of the exemptions. Of the 141 Kyoto nations, only 39 have targets for reductions. The others, like China, Brazil, and India, have no limits on CO2 emissions at all, and these are the nations experiencing the highest levels of industrialized economic growth. These nations also emit more CO2 per unit of economic activity than the so-called developed nations like the US, so as these economies expand, their rate of polutiion will grow at an even faster rate than if that economic growth had occured in the West. For example, China's economy is roughly half the size of ours, but they emit 2/3 the amount of polution. In other words, they produce 33% MORE polution for every dollar of economic activity than we do. They will overtake the US as the world's largest polluter years before they overtake us as the world's largest economy, and there is nothing in Kyoto that will stop them. In fact, Kyoto gives China carte blanche to pollute at will.

The other reason Kyoto will not reduce emission is the carbon credit trading plan. Basically, the plan gives companies in the 39 countries with emission limits a set number of credits, that is tons of carbon, they can emit in a given year. If they don't use all their credits, they can sell their extra ones on the open market. If they need more credits, they have to buy them. Right now, credits are trading in London for around 7 Euros per ton of CO2. Now, there's nothing wrong with the idea of credits. In fact, this aspect of Kyoto was put in at the insistence of the American negotiators, and is based on a similar plan we used here with great effect to reduce acid rain. In the North American acid rain plan, there was a strict limit on the number of credits that could be traded, so there was real incentive to keep emissions down so that your company could either make money selling credits, OR avoid paying money to buy credits, but in Kyoto, the number of carbon credits is essentially unlimited - especially with the collapse of the Russian economy freeing up vast numbers of credits for use by Western European countries - so the economic incentive feature of the credit plan will never come into play. Credits will always be so cheap that companies won't see a great deal of benefit in saving them up to sell, and companies who need to buy them will always be able to aford them without having to reduce emissions. So basically what will happen is that German, French, Danish, etc, companies will snap up unused carbon credits from defunct Russian industries, and continue polluting essentially at will, while the Russians will use the money the make to help rebuild their infrastructure and their economy to the point where their emissions will be right back where they were before, at which point President for Life Putin - who hates Kyoto just as much as Bush - will simply walk away from the protocol.

So, taken all in all, Kyoto will NOT reduce CO2 emissions.

Meanwhile, Kyoto doesn't even address Methane emissions. Methane is 23 times more effective at trapping solar heat than CO2, and the Europeans are the world's largest emitters of Methane (because they burn more coal in their power plants than we do). So, odd that Kyoto doesn't even try to cut Methane, don't you think? Here in the US, on the other hand, Mr. Bush (no, I'm not a fan) has recently concluded a treaty with Canada and a few other countries to reduce Methane emissions dramatically. The plan is known by the klunky name "Methan to Markets" and involves giving economic incentives to capture methane from the processes that produce it (like burning coal) for use in other industrial applications (such as for fuel in natural gas fired power plants).

Finally, just because the Fed's aren't on board with Kyoto, doesn't mean that Americans aren't working hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thirty states, including most of the more populous ones accounting for about 80% of the US population) have enacted environmental plans that meet or exceed the targets established by Kyoto. Recently, the Canadian Minister of the Environment took a trip abroad to study a very ambitious plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that far exceeds Canada's committment under Kyoto. The purpose of his trip was to study the latest, and presumably best, methods for reducing emissions and addressing the problems of global warming. Know where he went? California.

[Ysobelle]

A. Marry me.

B. I get what you're saying, and I agree, but in the larger picture, my basic complaints coincide with yours anyway. We're not, as a country, doing what we should. Our administration has put environmental concerns WELL behind business concerns, leaving companies who do good work without much federal reinforcement, which would make a decent difference. While states like California are doing great work, it's not a tenth of what we could accomplish if we had a cohesive Federal program.

C. Perhaps Kyoto is window dressing, but by snubbing it without any decent PR about WHY, or without doing anything better, we look like fools and bastards.

[RichardMacHugely]

A. Marry me.


Sorry, but I can't marry you until you've finished reading every installment of my kilt making saga.

[Nevada]

kilt?! Where is your saga posted darlin...am about to enter that particular hell myself...It does seem that the last 10 years we have taken major steps backwards in conservation efforts and have bowed down to big business...especially bad since so many large corps have outsourced employment to other countries....so where is the benefit for middle America citizens...

[RichardMacHugely]

Nevada, check out the thread "Kilts!!" over in Garb Goodies.

[Brigid]

Now, I do realize that we are having an impact on the ozone, and greenhouse gasses, but according to a large number of forensic meterologists, this "greenhouse effect" has been going on for millions of years on earth. It is one of the emergant theories on the growth and subsaquent melting of the glaicers during the ice ages. The question they are now trying to answer is exactly how much of an impact will our CFC's CO2, H2O vapor, Nitrous oxide. I agree we need to do something about it, but since 82% of the US out put of said gasses is from petroleum and natural gases, we need to get moving on finishing development on alterna fuels such as Ethanol and my personal favorite Biodiesel.

[Ysobelle]

Now, I do realize that we are having an impact on the ozone, and greenhouse gasses, but according to a large number of forensic meterologists, this "greenhouse effect" has been going on for millions of years on earth. It is one of the emergant theories on the growth and subsaquent melting of the glaicers during the ice ages. The question they are now trying to answer is exactly how much of an impact will our CFC's CO2, H2O vapor, Nitrous oxide. I agree we need to do something about it, but since 82% of the US out put of said gasses is from petroleum and natural gases, we need to get moving on finishing development on alterna fuels such as Ethanol and my personal favorite Biodiesel.


That's true, and the world does go through colder and warmer periods. But the rate at which we've accelerated the slide into the greenhouse effect is staggering, take in a geologic context. National Geographic did a story on it a couple of months ago, and it was just scary.

Coincidentally, just this second, someone I'm IMing with sent me this link:

http://www.hellblazer.com/media/chicken-little-bush.gif


Richard, I prefer round-cut diamonds to emerald or princess-cut. And white gold or platinum, not yellow gold.

[Jessa]

The human impact on global warming has widespread acceptance among the scientific researchers working in relevent fields. A small group of skeptics coupled with businessmen and politicians who stand to gain from lax enviromental laws are the only ones pushing the idea that this is a non-issue. They happen to speak loudly, and with lots of ad dollars backing them, which is why they've managed to stir up some popular belief in their picture of things. The whole situation is very similar to an enviromental debate from a couple decades ago:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

[RichardMacHugely]

The human impact on global warming has widespread acceptance among the scientific researchers working in relevent fields

I'd have to disagree with that characterization. My own field is Physics rather than the geosciences, but I am very interested in this subject and have been following the debate. What most researchers agree upon is that global warming is happening, while only a small number of hacks-for-hire on the payroll of companies like Exxon claim that it is not. The exact degree to which Human Activity has contributed to the phenomon is still very much an open question, and only scientists with a political axe to grind on the opposite end of the spectrum from the oil companies are claiming otherwise.

Personally, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and take what steps we can now to minimize our impact, but the fact is that so far, we really don't know how much impact humans have had in this area. The recently published studies that claim to prove and measure the degree human impact upon the environment are, quite frankly, just as politically motivated as the "studies" that show there is no global warming at all.