I just thought of one thing in reference to your subject of the car culture, London.
I agree we need to address it. The advantage that most European countries have over the US is a well developed passenger rail system. The US’s version, Amtrack, is woefully underbudgeted and has to use commercial rail lines, when available plus pay rent (as far as I know) for their use of those lines.
The size of the US forces us to use the only thing we can truly rely on: our cars.
When I was planning on going to Spain this last year (didn’t get to go, darn it!), I was amazed at the rail system there. It was fabulous.
Unfortunately, we’re back to the crux of our problem. The US is in a comfortable rut and doesn’t want to get out.
Okies, I agree that the U.S. should not get credit for its already existing CO2 “sinks”, although even here I see a bit of a point - if this credit were written to require the U.S. to preserve woodlands that are otherwise slated to be logged, this wouldn’t be all a bad thing. That being said, I don’t think that’s how it would work, so I’m agin it.
“Sinks” in other countries is a different matter, as well as other exchanges of CO2 “credit”. First and foremost, the goal of the Kyoto accord is to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore, any method that achieves that goal is appropriate. Trading for CO2 sinks *that would otherwise be destroyed *will achieve this goal.
Second, the use of market mechanisms for environmental goals work. The most successful U.S. pollution reduction schemes use market mechanisms, for the simple reason that it is easier to reduce pollution in certain activities/industries than in others.
Sua
It would be nice to think so, BunnyGirl. Isn’t the true measure of where a particular issue lays in a nations psychology, where that issue rates at election time ? This was, unusually, not an election dominated by one or two great issues of the day. In fact it seemed, from here, to be especially mundane in that regard yet the environment didn’t appear to register as part of any vote-winning package. My conclusion (I stand to be corrected) is: It ain’t happening. I remember the Seattle demonstrations not being entirely well received by the media - misinformation and outright propaganda ensured the message was pretty well lost to the American people (the methods of the protesters weren’t too good, either, but…)
Nor is it about “standard of living”. The statistics say that Europeans apparently now enjoy a higher standard of living than their US counterparts (that’s using the *whole of * society as a measure). Also, any modern ‘standard of living’ must include the effect of pollutions – pollution now as well as what it means for the future – because of, for example, the effect the growth in asthma in kids has on health services / insurers resources. Very many effects of pollution are hidden but costly.
Oh geez, don’t get me started on the damn trains. The UK is in the most dreadful pickle at the moment (briefly – I do mean briefly – we privatised the railways a few years ago in a kind of “well, it might work” kind of way. It has been, thus far, an almost complete disaster. Some things – I bizarrely recall from basic economics class the idea of Lighthouses – just don’t respond to the free market concept. I’m currently inclined to believe railways are another example). Every successful railway system in the world is subsidised by central Government, every unsuccessful railway system (including Amtrack and the UK’s), is privatised. I await contradiction on that point.
Point is, I’m not aware of a modern rail system being successful in a free, unsubsidised, market. Again, increasing the price of fuel could act as a motivator for change.
My point on the trains was that we need to have the system that Europe has: mostly government subsidized.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not much for a lot of government intervention however, there comes a time where having the government run something just makes more sense. But that’s another thread entirely!
Yeah, I guess you’re right. Americans, in general, don’t place a large priority on the environment. They care about it but they just don’t want to do anthing about it unless it affects them personally. The problem is that it does affect them (in the long run) and what western society has ever been really good at looking at the big picture, long term?
Also, when I was talking about standard of living, I mean the fact that we’ve had a high one for so long. And considering how many people the US has, it’s like turning around a cruise ship: they’re big suckers and you don’t turn them on a dime. Hopefully, the younger generation of Americans (I include myself in that) is more focused and serious about making strides toward an environmentally friendly attitude in our business and industry.
We also have to consider that America is still largely agricultural (if you don’t believe me, drive across the Midwest and the Southwest - more cows than I ever thought possible!) and anything we do towards a more environmentally friendly policy will affect those ranchers, farmers etc. Granted, we’re not speaking about CO2 emissions in their case but more of the land-use, waste disposal, pesticide overuse, etc. Another thread I guess, again!
But it’s the countries with the higher GDP that produce the most emissions. They have more cars, electrical appliances, etc. If you give them proportionately lower targets, you have to give the countries with lower GDP targets which are proportionately much higher in order to achieve the same overall reduction in emissions.
Effectively, you’re advocating penalising the inhabitants of poor countries to give the inhabitants of rich countries an easy ride.
Are you guys forgetting something? The United States has never ratified the treaty. The protocol does not become binding on the United States unless ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Pact, Agreement, Protocol…whatever spin your politicians want to attach is fine (although as the thrust of Kyoto is internal to each nation ‘Treaty’ seems a little harsh):
Sorry London_Calling but the simple fact is that the United States is not yet party to the agreement. For a refresher see this www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2
There is no commitment from the United States to ignore.
. . . Take these points with the appropriate grain of salt.
I think you guys may be missing the point in focusing on cars. The data for France and Sweden indicates a high percentage of nuclear power; Norway uses hydro power. These countries are not using reactors and water to run their cars. The problem in the U.S. is only peripherally that we have so many cars (and so many gas-guzzlers); the main problem is that we use fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) to heat our homes and light up our cities (where France and Sweden use nuclear power). And that problem will remain, IMO, until the U.S. comes around to seeing the efficacy and safety of nuclear power. Most Americans do not believe nuclear power is either safe or, in the long term, clean, since it results in radioactive waste which then must be disposed of somehow. Now, most Americans might be wrong in this, but that is the general belief. IMO, we will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels until we find a better alternative we are willing to embrace.
Cars: Yes, the U.S. has lots of cars and uses lots of gas, but the U.S. is also a very large country. Americans tend to travel farther, and consider it less of a big deal, than Europeans. How often will a European travel 100 miles for little or no reason? I’ve gone that far – one way – just for dinner. I think it will be very difficult, if ultimately necessary, to wean Americans away from that luxury. And it will only be possible if we have reliable inter-city and intra-city transportation, which we currently do not have (except for certain big cities). In my state, I routinely travel 200 or 300 miles just for hearings, because that’s how far it is between major towns. And I do not have the choice of going by train even if I wanted to. Even if I wanted to take the bus across town, I couldn’t, because my town doesn’t have a bus line. There’s no bus line because there’s no demand for one because everyone drives everywhere. It’s a vicious cycle.
Sinks: One of the most effective reducers in industrial pollution in the U.S. is the trade of pollution shares. The government determines how much pollution each factor is entitled to generate, with an eye towards reducing pollution. Exceed your entitlement and you incur big fines. If I have an over-polluting factory, and you have an under-polluting factory, I can buy some of your pollution allotment for my use. That way, there is a net reduction in pollution (as, together, we reach our combined reduction goal), even though I continue to over-pollute. You make money and I am effectively penalized for over-polluting by being compelled to purchase someone else’s pollution shares to cover the overage. This, over time, should encourage me to bring my emissions down to avoid having to purchase extra pollution shares from you. It also encourages you to continue to reduce your pollution to free up more shares for sale.
This is akin to what the U.S. was proposing on an international scale. The U.S. is over-polluting and will continue to do so; Costa Rica (or some such country) may not be using up its pollution allotment under the agreement; so the U.S. buys Costa Rica’s “right” to pollute and the emission goals of both countries (taken together) is met. The alternative to this, of course, is that the U.S. over-pollutes (which, realistically, it will continue to do anyway) but incurs no economic penalty at all. At least by offering to purchase and preserve “sinks,” the U.S. is trying to reduce world-wide overall pollutive damage, even though it cannot dramatically reduce its own pollution without undertaking major societal changes that are unlikely to succeed, at least right now.
WHAT FUCKING MESSAGE!?! (damn, it feels good to be in the Pit.) More accurately, which of the approximately 3,000 distinct and often contradictory messages were we idiot Americans supposed to listen to from Seattle?
barker, The Kyoto accord might not have been ratified by the US Senate, but the point is your Government gave an undertaking to the rest of the World which it now appears to be trying to weasle out of. If the President wasn’t willing or able to secure the approval of Senate he should never have entered into the agreement.
