Never mind the thread title: if you want to be reasonably accurate, it’s American policy and politicians (both Republican and Democratic) at odds with a plan tentatively agreed to by many nations.
My understanding is that the delegates for Kyoto II have to take the agreement back to their home nations for approval (by whomever). It’s not automatically approved, much less operational, just because the delegates voted for it. And I don’t know of a single nation that put the previous accord into effect, noble pronouncements withstanding.
As for that boycott of American goods, quite a few countries might be loathe to participate. As in, the ones with a favorable trade balance vis-a-vis the U.S., which might have a mind to retaliate with boycotts of its own. It would be an ugly situation.
Jack_mannii,
Dont put words in our mouths. Its this simple. The U.S. is the largest producer of Co2 emitions in the world. China is the second. The Bush Administration (which we are knocking, not “Americans” as you claim) outrightly rejected a plan to help reduce c02 emmisions, claiming it would damage the economy, China, the second highest producer, managed to reduce emmissions from 1997 levels while their economy grew by 34%. That dosent really look like “Damaging the Economy” to me.
Its this simple. The Bush Administration is kotowing (not kyoto-ing, sorry, I couldn’t resist) to Big Corporate/Oil (once again, not “America” ). Big Corporate dosent want the short term expenditure of complying to Kyoto, while The Oil Cats don’t want their future earnings threatened.
Parable: My son Johnny was in the high school marching band, and we went to see their performance, and everyone else in the band was out of step, except Johnny.
At the point that 180-some nations have agreed on an approach, and only the U.S. dissents…
On the question of Bush’s election, I used the word “quirk” to mean the electoral college. The rest of the world (and the U.S., for that matter, and Mr Bush himself) needs to remember that this is not a President who was elected by a majority of the voters.
Perhaps you are correct in tacitly asserting that this argument is happening too early since the UK hasn’t ratified the treaty. The difference is that not only do we intend to, but that we intend to better the 12.5% reduction of 1990 level CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions. You might be happy waiting until we ratify, or until 2008, or whatever. We’re not.
I can’t speak for other people; I imagine you can find cases where someone does take joy in America-bashing. I don’t. I like America, I like Americans, I happen not to like this particular American policy.
It’s also noted there that increased energy costs are disproportionately borne by the poorest citizens, who have to pay a higher portion of their income for energy.
It’s also noted there that the definitive causes of global warming, it’s extent and long-term ramifications are very, very much in debate.
So, let’s reduce our GDP by 3 percent, increase unemployment and break the backs of the poor, to reduce global warming by .18 degrees Celsius over the next 50 years! Because if we don’t, global warming is going to …
Just for the record, Milo. I have no problem with your questioning of the Kyoto process. It can only work if vigorously analysed and difficult questions answered because it must have popular (electorate) support to continue. OK, stop hugging now. And so…
As in “You must buy this technology that hasn’t yet been fully developed at first-world commercial prices yet to be determined and regardless of your own assessments of the best ways to affect change in your own economy” ? – instead, how about agreeing emission levels, initiating a world carbon exchange so trade can take place and imposing financial tariffs for breaching those levels ? …as Kyoto does. Carrots and sticks within a good ol’ capitalist framework.
The most sustained period of economic growth in history, unemployment at 4.5%, 2.2% inflation…this is a bad time ??? Who told ya that ?..oh, I see.
(BTW, Japan did sign up after 10 years of economic recession, the poor bastards have almost zero interest rates to try and stimulate some economic activity…the economic climate has never been worse in Japan. Their choice ? Sure. The leaders chose not to characterise the economy as a justification for not implementing Kyoto)
Please take a look at the US economy from a real-world perspective – yep, things are relatively shaky but for goodness sake: The world’s richest economy, enjoying the most sustained period of growth in history, significant personal tax reductions, vastly increased Federal spending …makes you wonder how the rest of us even considered doing something, doesn’t it ? You’re buying into the mind-set Bush wants to generate – his argument is built on sand, appropriate given that’s where he wants the American people to have their heads.
Is that what Mr Bush said ? Actually, you maybe right. Depends on the day, for me.
Your Cost-Benefit analysis: Problems, problems…
OK, I think this can only be viewed as a ‘basket’ of interconnected operators:
I don’t mean to sound cute but do you mean you personally or the US. Also, are you talking about social, political, economic, health or environmental costs and benefits ? Each of those, I believe, has quite interesting and tricky issues.
If we assume your concern is with the economics and with respect to your particular country, do you mean directly or, perhaps more interesting, the indirect costs and benefits ?
What areas of the economy will most likely bear change; Industry, domestic fuel consumption, farming are most ripe for change …and at what stage and rate do alternative option incentives kick in ?
Of complying with Kyoto as it stands today (it will develop) vs. which scenario of climate change (most optimistic, best guess or worst scenario). Over what time period do you want analysis (10 years, 20, 50) ?
What of the costs of not being ‘involved’ – like the loss of the International Carbon Exchange, on leading the tech way on solutions, that old favourite of US Administration’s : investing to secure a technical edge on the world ?
If its any help (and from the above) here’s a few potential considerations taken at random (I’ve assumed you’re familiar with the basic arguments, if you want specific cites on any, I’m happy to get back to you – just that a time issue, believe it or not);
Vastly increased property insurance costs as weather patterns become increasingly unpredictable and (relatively) extreme, potential litigation against the US (precedent set by US corporation vs. Canada in Washington State), official trade ‘problems’ (economic advantage contrary to WTO agreements), orchestrated campaigns to boycott US goods and services (please, please don’t underestimate the potential for European consumers to be radicalised by this issue and not by some holier than thou nationalism but fuelled by the apparent disregard for the future). What of the deployment of NMD early warning systems in Europe (UK and Danish EWS are vital to the project) and US diplomatic standing (continued waning of influence and regard), of the health cost (of asthma and other environmental related conditions on especially urban children (but also other groups) and, therefore, insurance premiums).
More directly, what of the loss of competitiveness in the production stages for US companies (efficiency issues), of levering tariffs against US good as a compensatory environmental tax (Euro led influence over the WHO).
In other words, the less apparent costs of a cost-benefit analysis are complex, not inconsiderable and, frankly, not wholly predictable.
BTW, in terms of your cost-benefit analysis, I’d be interested in what you see as the benefits of sticking your head in the sand ?
I think I miss your point. You argue that reductions of 1-3% are meaningless yet in your previous post you acknowledge Kyoto isn’t the end but rather the beginning of a 20 / 30 / 50 year project. Please clarify (see also framework comments, below).
Finally, you pick up on my emphasis on an international framework for action in various non-sarcastic ways:
My point on that framework (Kyoto) is not that it represents some kind of liberal, new world idealism, - a lets-join-hands-and-sing-in-harmony utopia (I suspect I read that between your lines) - but rather it provides an established, legally underpinned forum for taking this forward in terms of collective action, developing initiatives and the imposition of fines for non-compliance. As time passes, it will, IMHO, inevitably become a powerful, more confident forum with an awful lot of international leverage – don’t dismiss the forum, it’s all ‘we’ have after 10 years of work (since Rio) and the international community is keen to standby it and make it work.
I think Tejota describes the process well: “Nonsense, Weaning is a process”
** Jackmannii** - I guess you’re trying to look at the issue but the thing is you can’t really see it objectively, IMHO, unless you get passed the emotion nationalism to a consideration of the real facts: I do mean “real facts” as in not those perpetrated on the American people by a President willing to lie (to detract from those facts) and rap himself in the flag in order (to protect an irrational position) i.e. Kyoto is “unworkable” and “American jobs come first” – I ask you: Have you ever seen any economic facts to support his assertions ? If you care for a the blunt, radical perspective (not constructive, IMHO, but the contrary emotionally driven perspective to that which you seem inclined): He’s a stooge and, therefore, not working for you but manipulating you (“you” being representative of the American people) into a false position.
BTW, since the reduction in targets, ratification of the Protocol by the minimum number of countries (to put it into effect) is an absolute formality. Europe is sticking to its 2002 timescale although most could ratify tomorrow.
Also ** Jackmannii**, to follow up a little on this which was directed at you;
Taking this one step further for those not quite grasping the position: The potential is there for international action on US produced goods because they will be manufactured at an advantage compared with their competitors in so far as power is cheaper without environmental controls. However, what has actually happened is that the imposition of tighter environmental policies (in Europe and elsewhere) has increased efficiency so that the additional costs have been offset by using less energy than before – I’m sure Mr Bush mentioned that, didn’t he ?
Thus, the US is in the position of producing exactly the same amount of goods (compared with Europe before the change) but, now, being potentially penalised because of its inefficiency – kind of a strange position for a country that prides itself on capitalistic enterprise. Again, my eye “drifts” to the profit column of the power industry Annual Reports.
Phew, time for a shower.
Milo, I am simply amazed. I had thought my point was simple enough to comprehend, that the notion of 90 < 100 was blatantly obvious. Yet my mathematically rigorous proof was soundly refuted – nay, demolished – by your utter expertise of the situation and your poetic mastery of the language. Yea, your detailed and well-reasoned counterpoint to my argument should stand for all time as a gleaming example of the rigorous standards of reasoning and logic that everyone at the SDMB should strive for.
**
It’s simple enough, all right. It’s also incorrect.
There is no evidence whatsoever that if our current level of CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions is x, that the environment is improved at x-1, improved even more at x-1.1, etc. You either get down to the dramatic level reductions to have an effect, or you don’t have one.
Or do you have evidence to the contrary? I imagine it will be hard to come by, as scientists can’t even agree on whether we are causing global warming, or if its ramfications will be damaging.
As I noted in the information that I linked, to reduce global warming on a large scale will involve, essentially, doing away with fossil fuels.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, IMO. But it’s going to take a loooooooooong time.
L_C:
I find your posts on this subject interesting and informative. Just wanted you to know that.
**
Have those difficult questions been answered? And the most difficult questions that have to be answered are for the USA, as they are the ones that stand to lose, whereas other countries will gain against the US and its overseas economy.
**
I thought we were talking hypothetically, in the future, when and as the technologies are developed.
And you don’t seem all that concerned about the USA making its “own assessments of the best ways to affect change in (its) own economy.”
**
Great. Let’s start by agreeing on emission levels.
What’s that? Those other countries get to operate at an emissions level that puts them at an economic advantage and the USA at an economic disadvantage? Sorry, but the USA feels we need further negotiation on this point. We also feel it runs counter to the stated goals of the protocol (which I thought were supposed to be environmental).
Eliminate the emissions double-standard, and I guarantee the U.S. Senate’s next vote won’t be 95-0.
**
Yet again, the world’s perspective of our economy and how much of a hit it should be willing to take to follow Kyoto and make in infinitesimal dent in global warming, is very significantly different from that of the governmental representatives of the USA. (Thank God, I might add.)
Of course I think the challenges and potential problems are myriad. But you set off a domino effect of problems when you hurt the economy, for no demonstrable good reason.
And is it your assertion that implementing carbon dioxide emission reductions improves efficiency? I would think that efficiency is constantly improving due to technological and procedural advances, probably less than it otherwise would thanks to the CO[sub]2[/sub]-reducing measures. I would be skeptical if your assertion is the former.
**
As soon as you show me what we would be reducing our GNP by 3 percent for. What the end result would be, and what calamity we are avoiding.
You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
**
Well, then maybe they should be honest about it and admit, like the Princeton professor said, that what’s required will be about 30 such drastic, Kyoto-like reductions over the course of the next century, to accomplish anything appreciable. Let’s see if it has “popular (electorate) support” then.
(This is where whomever inserts the typical SDMB GD pseudo-superior gloating over the unsophisticated masses, on their cut-and-paste.)
**
And my point is, this course of collective action hurts the guy on top. The guy on top notices, and wants to mitigate that quite a bit. Those outside of the US don’t see this as such a priority. Uh, no shit. Wonder why?
Oh please. I was just as appalled by the rejection of those treaties, but ICBMs, etc. have long been a damn small portion of U.S. military spending. And were the Russians protecting their military-industrial complex when they refused to ratify Start II?
I for one am amused that the Europeans, in order to gain Japan’s consent to Kyoto, have now agreed to credit for carbon sinks and other modifications to Kyoto that were vigorously rejected at the Hague. 'Course, had the Europeans agreed to them then, Kyoto would have been in the hands of a more sympathetic American administration and (possibly) had a better chance in the U.S. Senate. Live and learn.
Thanks, I’ve never thought of myself as being “representative of the American people” (talk about needing a shower).
I should point out that a) I did not vote for Pres. Bush, b) I don’t like Pres. Bush, and c) I’m a lifelong registered Democrat, but that doesn’t mean I’m willing to overlook the political shenanigans Dems are engaging in to try to get people to forget their own inaction on Kyoto I.
Lovely stuff on how compliance with the global warming pact will actually make industries tons more efficient, better able to compete; plus participating nations will save oodles on health costs, etc.
It makes you wonder, then, why nations whose reps signed on to Kyoto II are howling mad that the U.S. isn’t participating. I mean, here we’ll sit, a sluggish, obsolescent international pariah, while the rest of the world basks in newfound health, savings and efficiency. Seems that they should care less whether we join them (as we decline economically, it’ll mean lower CO2 emissions).
As for the emission miracle-producing Chinese, whose extraordinarily open society has no doubt permitted extremely accurate data on industrial output: if they’ve found the secret to clean growth, why not 1) share it with the world, and 2) sign on to lowered emissions under Kyoto. If making the cuts is such a snap for them, why not formally join with everyone else???
Pie-in-the-sky benefit projections aside, Americans will have to live with a significant cost of living impact, including gasoline price hikes and a jump in electricity costs (up to 16% as projected by treaty supporterUSA Today) due to Kyoto. Scientific disputes aside, the pact stands a much better chance here if it’s seen that everyone’s participating.
And by the way, Moe is my favorite international stooge.
Which actually just confirms the point that the correct response was not to just reject the protocol but to continue to negotiate until you reached a position you could accept, as Japan did.
Jack, they’re annoyed because the goal is not economic superiority - the goal is a healthier environment! It’s hard to achieve that goal when the biggest polluter of all is remaining on the sidelines. Why wouldn’t they be upset?
Milo - it seems to me that you’re trying to have it two ways. On the one hand you’re saying that the reduction is “only” 1-3% (from 1990 levels). But then on the other hand you’re saying that if the US ratifies, it’s CO[sub]2[/sub] production will be 50% lower than it would otherwise have been per capita. Well which is your stance? Surely even you must admit that the levels being 50% lower than they would other wise have been will make a very real difference!
Let’s see. Why should 178 nations be upset that the world’s largest contributor to climatic change is not showing any inclination to work with them in solving problems such as CO2 emissions. Why should they be somehwat miffed that the most prosperous country in the world has stated that reducing CO2 emissions is not in it’s economic best interests. Why should a group of countries that all share one atmosphere be concerned that the single largest polluter just out and out declined to even negotiate a protocol that they’d originally signed up to.
Let me ask you - do you honestly want the obvious spelled out to you, or would you like to retract the question?
What can be more obvious than the fact that only one country (Rumania, I believe) has actually approved a global warming pact in the four years since Kyoto I was signed? Here you’ve got the EU and other countries producing (by their own data) two-thirds or more of the world’s CO2 emissions and they won’t even adopt, much less implement the controls they say are needed so badly?
Doesn’t sound so public-spirited to me.
If you’re going to quote me, I suggest going beyond rhetorical outrage and actually responding to the point I raised. We are presented with these blue-sky claims that Kyoto will promote the economic health and superior business efficiency of the nations that buy into it, yet Kyoto supporters are piqued over the U.S. gaining an economic advantage by not participating in the pact. Something in there doesn’t jibe, if you’re paying attention.
What can be more obvious than the fact that only one country (the U.S., I believe) has actually refused to participate in talks set up to achieve an equitable implementation of the Kyoto accord ?
Doesn’t sound so public-spirited to me.
If you’re going claim that no one but Rumania has ratified Kyoto, be sure to also mention the corollary that ALL the other countries are still at least trying to find an effective and fair way to limit greenhouse gas emissions through international cooperative efforts.
Despite it’s popularity with naysayers, the “no one else ratified it either” argument is both deceptive and kind of whiny. We didn’t just “not ratify”. We thumbed are noses at the possibility of international cooperation on this issue.
The Kyoto Treaty is ridiculous, as it stands. If one accepts the models predicting global warming, then the treaty’s impact is negligible. If one doesn’t accept those models (and they’re not validated), then the treaty is unnecessary.
Today, the only practical way to dramatically reduce CO2 is to go completely nuclear. Yet, Germany avidly supports Kyoto and has also stated that they will use no nuclear. This is politicians pandering to an ignorant and irrational public.
There are people who argue that Kyoto is a “start.” In other words, it’s useless, but it’s a symbol of usefulness. The trouble with symbols is that they’re all in the mind. To me, Kyoto is a symbol of superstitition achieving victory over science and reason – a massively expensive excercise in sticking one’s head in the sand. It’s also a loss of national sovereignty, which means a loss of personal freedom. Where are all you ACLU folks on a treaty that would seriously reduce the civil liberties of every American?
Hurrah for George Bush, for standing up for sense and truth! It’s only through his sort of hard-headed realism that problems will actually be solved!
If you are riding your horse down a path and decide to go in the opposite direction you’ll need to start making a turn before you can change direction. If you fail to make this start, there is no way you will ever be able to make a turn. So you see, the start of something is NOT useless, and thinking that way is likely to get you killed if you ever happen to find yourself on a horse headed for a cliff.
Dang, should we pull out of the UN now and go back to the Gold standard in order to save our precious liberties ? You make it sound as if Greenhouse Gases are the only thing protecting us all from becoming Godless Communist Zombies. I guess you pretty much oppose any sort of international approach to any problem, and global warming is just getting caught in an ideological crossfire here ? Talk about your precious bodily fluids. :rolleyes:
This would be reasonable IF it were true that reducing CO2 is the one and only appropriate way to solve global warming. In fact, current models show that changes in human activity will not make enough difference.
If one really believes that global warming is occurring and will be catastrophic, then we need intensive research to find practical means of reducing the temperature of the earth’s surface. I have no idea what means are possible, but reduction of CO2 is not enough to do the job. (Incidentally, what should be sacrificed to pay for this massive research? E.g., should we divert social security and welfare payments into global warming reseach?)
Since control of CO2 will not work, Kyoto isn’t the right path; it’s a dead end.
So the specifics of these “current models” are correct, it’s just that flaws make the models meaningless as a whole ? That seems like kind of a picky choosy way to use someone elses data.
Do you have any proof for this statement of belief, preferably something that doesn’t rely on flawed models ?
NMD seems like a perfect candidate here. Both Kyoto and NMD address threats to the continental united states. One threat is just much more real than the other. So what if we end up losing a few cities to nukes; at least we won’t lose the eastern seaboard to flood, and the interior to drought.
