"The White House said Wednesday that President Bush would not implement the climate treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan"
The story so far. According to the Kyoto treaty, the US (which with 4% of the worlds population is responsible for about 25% of global emissions of C02) would have had to cut their levels by 7%.
According to White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, President Bush decided against implementing the protocol because “it is not in the United States’ economic best interest.”.
Considering the extra costs involved in reducing pollution, is it ever likely that there will be an environmental policy that is in a countries economic interests? Is this just a case of America not being prepared to accept environmental responsibilities, without care for anyone else?
I personally, per the recent thread on global warming, reject the concept that we should be looking at this in terms of environment versus economy.
A properly framed agreement can and would be beneficial in medium and long run to both economy and environment. Higher fuel efficiency, once initial costs are paid for, is good for overall economic efficiency. Maintenance of the environment helps agricultural and other resource based sectors in the long run.
The seperate question is whether Kyoto was the vehicule. To my reading, most economists concerned with the issue --and I am not referring to Cato folks-- feel its mechanisms were fundamentally flawed (excessive concentraiton on carbon, inflexible methadology, poorly concieved time tables, etc.)
At the same time, a good solid agreement based on realistic transitions but forcing the issue could have long term positive effects.
So, a restatement might be that Kyoto might not have been in anyone’s best interests, but an agreement on action of global warming is likely to be.
Yes, when a country finally decides to include environmental costs in its economy.
Right now North American governments and companies completely ignore all consequences of whatever economic action is taken. This applies to everything, from tobacco, to cars, to logging, to dot-coms.
If all the long-term costs associated with these economic engines were front-loaded, we’d see a lot of things get much more expensive… but they’d also start to reflect their real cost to consumers.
Aren’t there wider issues of responsibility here? While Kyoto probably was something of a bungled compromise (you trying getting 170 countries to agree on anything) there were at least some modest aims which, though not perfect, were a step in the right direction. Quite a small step, compared with what many think must be done.
It seems a little disingenuous for the oil-influenced leadership of the richest and largest per capita producer of greenhouse gasses on the planet to pack up its marbles and go home because a possibly flawed but nevertheless valuable (to some extent) treaty is not 100% perfect.
Nope, I didn’t miss it, which is why I included it in quoting you.
The environmental concern that the Kyoto accord was primarily concerned with was the output of greenhouse gasses from developed nations. Do you think that this is a secondary consideration to economic considerations.
Perhaps you do, as there’s no concrete, proven link between greenhouse gasses and global warming - or even certain proof that global warming is occuring. If so, it would be understandable to decide to reject Kyoto, as it would be very expensive to implement.
Alternatively, perhaps you feel that the accumulating evidence of the harm of raised levels of CO2 are reason enough to make the Kyoto accord well worth implementing.
Or do you want to just get sniffy, and we’ll just start bickering over “Congratulations - you’ve missed my point.”
The Kyoto Treaty has been adopted by only one country (I forget which). It was never going to fly. New that it’s dead, there’s a chance to do something real.
Good question, matt_mcl and excellent point above Barbarian. I always love when people argue that we can’t do anything on the environmental front in regard to energy because it might result in, say, higher gasoline prices. Well, hello!?! I might want to be able to buy a new 1.5 GHz computer for only $5.50 but that doesn’t mean I am justified in demanding that my computer manufacturing or purchasing be subsidized to the point where I could do so. Apparently, people do not have similar qualms when it comes to their fossil fuel use.
As for Kyoto, well, it is true that very few countries had actually ratified it yet, but it was far from dead. And, in fact, considerable progress had been made toward an agreement on how to implement it. The main thing holding it up was a certain lack of leadership on the U.S. side, which has now turned into leadership in absolutely the wrong direction!
And, Collounsbury is right that higher fuel efficiency is good for the economy and can actually result in savings to the economy that are higher than the costs. Where he gets derailed, I think, is in believing that Kyoto was so seriously flawed and that most economists thought so. In fact, its mechanisms were quite flexible and there was a letter signed by hundred of economists, including several Nobel prize winners, that endorsed it. There are also various studies showing that the U.S. could meet the Kyoto protocal at little cost: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/CEF.htm http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/pubs-home.html#environment (see the publication “A Small Price to Pay”).
Finally, there is an interesting article showing that historically the costs of complying with environmental regs, bans, etc. has consistently been overstated, not only by industry, but even by government agencies such as the EPA! http://www.prospect.org/print/V8/35/goodstein-e.html
In my opinion, which may not accurately reflect the opinion of the entire universe, the entire argument that helping tne environment will hurt the economy is just an excuse for polluters to hide behind.
First of all, Bush says that we can’t implement the Kyoto accords because of the recession. But wait a minute, the Senate voted against the accords in 1998, back when the economy was in full swing. Clearly, recession is not the problem.
But any attempt to reduce gasoline usage in the United States gets attacked because it will be harmful to the economy. The U.S. spends billions on foreign oil every year, creating a significant chunk of our trade deficit. Wouldn’t it be just a little bit helpful if some cars ran on alternate technologies that didn’t require the outflows of huge amounts of American money? Furthermore, the Japanese and Germans have started building cars that are more fuel-efficient than ours, with the help of more government subsidies. Wouldn’t it be good for the American economy if our car companies build vehicles with competitive mileage per gallon?
[quote]
Environmental concerns (at least, the ones being mentioned here) shouldn’t come at the expense of economic health. quote]
Yeah even if Bush’s own EPA cabinet member advised him not to go ahead with his plans.
Has this guy ever heard of deferred gratification (maybe that’s a bad question, he’ll be a first termer)? I personally think that the economy would be in better shape if we realized that we’ve been spoiled by a booming economy for the past years.
This is just another example of Bush showing how “moderate” and “compassionate” he is.