The Trashing Of The Kyoto Treaty

[Alex H]

@j2k4 - Yes we don't have an increadibly shit-hot fantastic environment right now. What do yo think will happen if we keep going the way we are? The environment is bad now cause we polluted it. Therefore if we continue polluting, it will get worse.

Do you agree?

And everyone sucks up to America cause they want to trade with you. And cause trade is the only thing your country seems to understand, everyone have to deal on your terms

[j2k4]

I think many of the needed controls as re: industry are in place already, and this fact needs to be recognized.

That is not to say the job is complete, as it is surely not, but the extremists act as though nothing at all is being done, which is not true.

The problem here in the U.S. is the rhetoric.

Some examples:

About 10 years ago, the Pacific northwest was beset by the anti-logging Save-the-Forest crowd, who chose, as their raison-detre, the spotted owl.

Their argument was that the spotted owl could only live in old-growth forest, which they said was at risk from the logging industry; the owls were being deprived of their habitat.

Soon, the spotted owl had attained protected status, and the logging industry sort of went away.

As the logging activity hit it's nadir, spotted owls were discovered living inside a K-Mart sign, to no evident ill.

They also proved to flourish in the new-growth left by the loggers, who are, by and large, still out of work.

Another:

Certain pulp-milling industries which require water are known to release PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, a carcinogen) into the environment, primarily the water supply.

Sometime in the late '70s-I forget exactly when-the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had determined that a level of X parts-per-million was a safe level in water-that is to say, that was the point they determined as a threshold of no-ill-effect.

This development required the pulp industries to spend massive amounts of cash to comply with the regulations; this was an entirely legitimate endeavor, as PCBs are kind of nasty ( I suffered PCB poisoning at one time; it was, to put it mildly, very unpleasant).

The new safe-guards were very effective, and the industry was justifiably proud of it's new image as "enviro-friendly".

A couple of years later, new detection technology arose that enabled the EPA to measure on the order of parts-per-billion.

The EPA immediately changed the standard as re: PCB, based merely on the fact that they could now detect much smaller amounts of PCBs.

This obsoleted all the technology the industry had implemented; they had to start from scratch.

This type of thing is typical.

As to the international scene, the French, I believe, rely largely on nuclear power, and the international community seems not to mind.

We couldn't get a nuke plant built in the U.S. if every Democrat in the government wanted it.

Amazing.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 December 2003 - 07:20
I think many of the needed controls as re: industry are in place already, and this fact needs to be recognized.

That is not to say the job is complete, as it is surely not, but the extremists act as though nothing at all is being done, which is not true.

I knew you were coming back with a nice long one!

I think you're right about controls already in place, but I also think that the "exremists" are doing the right thing by kicking up a huge stink. Unfortunatly a lot of the time the only way to get any action taken is by scare tactics (And this also works everywere else: "I said NO pickle on my burger! Get rid of it or I'll call the manager!" or "No, the warranty is still valid. Look I bought it yesterday, plugged it in and it didn't work. Just get me a new one and I won't have to be sending notice to your legal department". )

Another example is Greenpeace. If they didn't resort to sabotage and lots of yelling and screaming in the 60s and 70s, there would be several species of whale that would be extinct. We may never know would have happened to the ocean's ecosystem if they had died out. The effect may have taken 50 years before we noticed it.

I'd sometimes wonder why my old boss would stand there looking at a job but not doing it. I asked him and he said "I'd rather spend 10 minutes thinking about a job than spending an hour fucking it up".

Preventative maintenance is a good strategy.

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by Alex H@3 December 2003 - 05:04
Countries who don't sign it are fucked. It exists so that everyone gets a nice environment to live in.

The trouble is if countries such as the US don't sign it then we're all fucked.

[ilw]

Kyoto would fuck everyone.

What we currently call "Third-World" countries would remain so, indefinitely.

The sky would have to be an extraordinary shade of blue to make up for starvation, oppression and AIDS.

I'm not sure I understand why the kyoto agreement would make 3rd world countries stay that way indefinitely or how it would increase starvation, opression or AIDS? I thought developing countries were exempt, or are you talking about the fact that you can pay other countries to reduce their emissions instead of you reducing yours. Whose idea was that in the first place
Personally i can't really see an argument to think badly of the original Kyoto agreement which basically just suggested reducing GHG emissions, but now that Japan, US, Australia and Canada have done their little job on it, I agree it is flawed. As to the US not agreeing to it, that is quite annoying I'm pretty sure the US economy can handle the cuts at least as well as the European economy. Is the environment of less concern than the economy across the pond?

As to why Russia is pulling out, the only reason I can see is because they are in a unique bargaining position. If they don't agree to the treaty then its down the shi**er so they are in a great position to renegotiate some better terms/clauses. Saying their economy can't handle it seems a bit of a strange excuse, because the amount their heavy industry has decreased means they've probably already met most of their targets and could sell off spare pollution capacity to countries that are falling behind.

I don't know, for example, that genetically-engineered crops are capable of polluting the environment, but it seems we can't even arrange for the poorer countries to feed themselves thus.

Somehow, the "international community", in the guise of the E.U., has put the kibosh on extending such technology to poor countries.

Wait 'til the same people whip a little "Kyoto" on them.

Unfortunately it already is the same people who are stopping the spread of GM crops on the basis that they may irretrievably damage the environment. I think you may be mixing up bleeding heart liberals with tree hugging greenies.

We are already capable of producing enough food for everyone, thats not necessarily the problem, its more likely to be the massive farm subsidies and protected markets in the US and EU that are most problematic. Of course putting all our farmers out of business isn't really an option either.


I get the impression that in the US, International pressure seems to be spectacularly unpopular reason for doing something. Doesn't what the rest of the world think matter in deciding American policy? Europe and others don't just make these treaties to piss you guys off or make you the bad guys. Aren't these treaties (eg Kyoto, Landmines, International Criminal Court etc) things that would seem to make the world a better place?

[j2k4]

ilw-

These countries could benefit from a little economic/industrial progress, could they not?

Do you think non-polluting high-tech just springs up out of the sand?

There is a progression to such events, and it would likely begin with some sort of agricultural endeavor, which also presents a nice "starter set" of GHG problems; they're called, among other things, cows, which are at times on the verge of being outlawed by the enviro-vegetarians.

To simplify, this process is what begins the movement away from crushing poverty, starvation and disease.

Look at Africa and tell me we (and you) are producing enough food.

Production may indeed be fine, but the foodstuffs are not being consumed by those in need, even if the effort is made-think Mogadishu/Somalia and throw in the warlords-get the picture?

The propagation of GE crops is being forestalled for economic reasons, nothing more.

BTW-Explain to me the difference between a "Bleeding-Heart Liberal" and a "Tree-Hugging Greenie", if you will?

[ilw]

Bleeding heart liberal - Peoples lives are so important, even if it drives our economy into the ground, we must save every life we can. Typical quote: "Won't someone think of the children"
Tree hugging greenie - The environment is so important that even though it'll cost jobs and peoples livelihoods we must save every panda we can. Typical quote "dude i'm so fu**ing stoned"

Helpful?


The kyoto agreement is much less restrictive on the emissions from developing countries, and i think that to a certain extent they get to choose/set their own deadlines/targets at later dates.

It puts the lion's share of the responsibility for battling climate change -- and the lion's share of the bill -- on the rich countries. The Convention notes that the largest share of historical and current emissions originates in developed countries. Its first basic principle is that these countries should take the lead in combating climate change and its adverse impacts. Specific commitments in the treaty relating to financial and technological transfers apply only to the 24 developed countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. They agree to support climate change activities in developing countries by providing financial support above and beyond any financial assistance they already provide to these countries.

Specific commitments concerning efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions and enhance natural sinks apply to the OECD countries as well as to 12 "economies in transition" (Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union).

-- The Convention recognises that poorer nations have a right to economic development. It notes that the share of global emissions of greenhouse gases originating in developing countries will grow as these countries expand their industries to improve social and economic conditions for their citizens.

source is the kyoto protocol website

The Kyoto Treaty commits industrialised nations to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, principally Carbon Dioxide, by around 5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. Drawn up in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, the agreement needs to be ratified by countries who were responsible for at least 55% of the world's carbon emissions in 1990 to come into force.

The agreement was dealt a severe blow in March 2001 when President George W Bush announced that the United States would never sign it.

If and when the revised treaty takes effect in 2008, it will require all signatories, including 39 industrialised countries, to achieve different emission reduction targets.

The revised Kyoto agreement, widely credited to the European Union, made considerable compromises allowing countries like Russia to offset their targets with carbon sinks - areas of forest and farmland which absorb carbon through photosynthesis.

The Bonn agreement also reduced cuts to be made to emissions of six gases believed to be exacerbating global warming - from the original treaty's 5.2% to 2%.

It was hoped that these slightly watered down provisions would allow the US to take up the Kyoto principles - but this has not proved to be the case.

bbc website


I said we are capable of producing enough food, I'm sure your aware of the subsidies and various grants farmers get for not producing food in the EU (and I'm guessing the US?). Even so we constantly overproduce food and could easily produce significantly more. Making this food available to people in poorer countires may seem like a nice idea, but these countries as you point out are generally agricultural and so supplying cheap food generally just puts their farmers out of business and leaves them little chance of progressing beyond subsistence farming. Giving them GM seeds might help, or it might cause problems, either way in many cases the simplest thing to do to help would probably just be to cancel their debt.
Stopping GM seeds doesn't seem purely economic to me, to a certain extent it plausibly could be economically motivated, but saying GM crops are the answer would also be economic , ie your not trying to do whats best for them or anything philanthropic, your trying to improve your economy and to a certain extent helping them at the same time.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@3 December 2003 - 12:03
Bleeding heart liberal - Peoples lives are so important, even if it drives our economy into the ground, we must save every life we can. Typical quote: "Won't someone think of the children"
Tree hugging greenie - The environment is so important that even though it'll cost jobs and peoples livelihoods we must save every panda we can. Typical quote "dude i'm so fu**ing stoned"

Helpful?


The kyoto agreement is much less restrictive on the emissions from developing countries, and i think that to a certain extent they get to choose/set their own deadlines/targets at later dates.

It puts the lion's share of the responsibility for battling climate change -- and the lion's share of the bill -- on the rich countries. The Convention notes that the largest share of historical and current emissions originates in developed countries. Its first basic principle is that these countries should take the lead in combating climate change and its adverse impacts. Specific commitments in the treaty relating to financial and technological transfers apply only to the 24 developed countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. They agree to support climate change activities in developing countries by providing financial support above and beyond any financial assistance they already provide to these countries.

Specific commitments concerning efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions and enhance natural sinks apply to the OECD countries as well as to 12 "economies in transition" (Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union).

-- The Convention recognises that poorer nations have a right to economic development. It notes that the share of global emissions of greenhouse gases originating in developing countries will grow as these countries expand their industries to improve social and economic conditions for their citizens.

source is the kyoto protocol website

The Kyoto Treaty commits industrialised nations to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, principally Carbon Dioxide, by around 5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. Drawn up in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, the agreement needs to be ratified by countries who were responsible for at least 55% of the world's carbon emissions in 1990 to come into force.

The agreement was dealt a severe blow in March 2001 when President George W Bush announced that the United States would never sign it.

If and when the revised treaty takes effect in 2008, it will require all signatories, including 39 industrialised countries, to achieve different emission reduction targets.

The revised Kyoto agreement, widely credited to the European Union, made considerable compromises allowing countries like Russia to offset their targets with carbon sinks - areas of forest and farmland which absorb carbon through photosynthesis.

The Bonn agreement also reduced cuts to be made to emissions of six gases believed to be exacerbating global warming - from the original treaty's 5.2% to 2%.

It was hoped that these slightly watered down provisions would allow the US to take up the Kyoto principles - but this has not proved to be the case.

bbc website


I said we are capable of producing enough food, I'm sure your aware of the subsidies and various grants farmers get for not producing food in the EU (and I'm guessing the US?). Even so we constantly overproduce food and could easily produce significantly more. Making this food available to people in poorer countires may seem like a nice idea, but these countries as you point out are generally agricultural and so supplying cheap food generally just puts their farmers out of business and leaves them little chance of progressing beyond subsistence farming. Giving them GM seeds might help, or it might cause problems, either way in many cases the simplest thing to do to help would probably just be to cancel their debt.
Stopping GM seeds doesn't seem purely economic to me, to a certain extent it plausibly could be, but saying GM crops are the answer would also be economic , ie your not trying to do whats best for them or anything philanthropic, your trying to improve your economy and to a certain extent helping them at the same time.

Your definitions are reasonably accurate, to my assessment, although there is an overlap here.

Farm subsidies exist here, also.

They don't make sense, never have; at least not as to leaving land fallow, etc.

The poor countries I was speaking of don't even have agriculture worth mentioning.

Many have other resources (yes, like oil) they can't access, due to their other limitations.

Kyoto also stipulates the size of the "bill" be based on pollution produced, yes?

What would induce this nascent industrialization to be of the highly regulated and controlled (and low-polluting, Kyoto-friendly, but EXPENSIVE) sort, rather than the non-augmented "high pollutant" type (lightly penalized by Kyoto)?

Suppose they choose the cheap route?

Do we (and they) suffer the ills of such a plan in perpetuity?

What end, exactly, if the aim is to reduce pollution? The choice must be removed; there can be no option if reduced/eliminated pollution is the desired result.

The difficulties of administering and enforcing Kyoto's high-flown ideals are it's fatal flaw.

I hereby recommend to you a book, if you can find it:

"The Quest For Cosmic Justice" by Thomas Sowell.

Beg, steal, or borrow it (or buy it from Amazon); you'll see what I mean.

[Rat Faced]

But we all know that there is no problem in the US....

Florida

Chesapeake Bay

Jamesi Island

Alaska

Rising Sea Levels

Montana

Alaska again

Carbon Trading....

Effects on Global Economics...



Quite frankly, no politicians have the balls to grasp the problems.

Most companies have to answer to their shareholders, and wont do the decent thing; due both to costs and the advantages to their rivals if they start to address the problems on their own...


They all need Insurance in order to operate however.

The Insurance companies know the problems... I think that its upto the Insurance companies to force the Industrial Companies into change. I believe we will see this before too long....the effects of Global Warming cost the Insurance Companies Billions...

[j2k4]

Rat-

You may or may not be right as to things like global warming, GHG, etc., but if you rely on oneworld for info, I promise you're getting agenda-driven content, and therein lies the problem: No objective sources-and, especially in this case, no proof we are not in the midst of the normal waxing and waning of the ozone layer and global temps.

You can't compare what is happening this very day to events even 500 years ago and conclude anything.

To do so is the height of presumptuousness.

One volcanic eruption of decent size (Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo) emits atmospheric contaminants well in excess of the sum total of man's efforts throughout history.

There are greater powers at work here, and no, I don't mean God.

Or maybe I do, on second thought.

I wonder what the effect of the breakup of Panagea had on the real-estate market way back when?

All that new shoreline property for sale-did the bottom fall out of the market?

The lawyers must have had a field-day sorting the riparian aspects of that development.