On what grounds does the USA conservative movement (or at least the GOP and Bush administration) object to Kyoto?
Please note I am only interested in their stated reasoning, so let’s try and keep hidden agendas out of this to avoid flame wars.
The primary objection is that businesses would have to spend far too much money to come into compliance with the protocol, and this would hurt job growth and bankrupt smaller firms. Further, since a lot of the protocol affects the energy industry in particular, it would mean higher electricity prices as all the fossil-fuel plants upgraded their equipment or had to buy more expensive fuels.
Two other arguments :
-The protocol would be innefective anyway
-The develloping countries should be included too (the Kyoto protocol only puts obligations o develloped countries)
The “ineffective anyway” and “business trouble” objections are the key.
Ironically, however, it now appears that the U.S. was abel to meet Kyoto standards on our own, while most of the nations which signed failed outright; most didn’t even make an effort!
Keep in mind also that the Senate voted 95-0 to not even consider ratifying Kyoto.
This is a big issue. There is a sense that the US is being singled out for blame, while other countries that have far worse pollution control standards get free passes.
cite(s) please?
It’s the U.N. way! :rolleyes:
This cite only has the fairly vague “Although the US and Australia have pulled out of the Kyoto process, their emissions have risen less than some nations which remain within the treaty.” But from what I’ve heard elsewhere (and that table backs me up), it’s the Western European nations who pushed so hard for it which are actually doing the worst. I may, however, have been wrong about the U.S. meeting the Kyoto standards anyway; I can’t find the right data for that.
Thanks for the thoughtful replies all.
And thus the protocol is a veiled socialist attempt to redistribute wealth to the poorer unindustrialised countries.
Also, since the emmision levels are pegged to 1990 levels, when the former Soviet-bloc nations enjoyed a relatively stable economy, the western nations are unfairly disadvantaged.
:rolleyes: For it to be socialist, it would have to involve government ownership of the means of production. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/socialism You can honestly oppose something without bringing up the red herring of socialism.
For that matter, the Kyoto Protocol does not redistribute wealth either. What it does is set targets for emission reduction. Wealthy countries are asked to reduce their emissions far more than poor countries under Kyoto. That’s what’s percieved as unfair, not some canard about wealthy countries having to give wealth to poor countries.
So your theory is that the incredibly stable economies of eastern Europe brought about the revolutions of 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall? (Former) Soviet Bloc economies were in terrible shape throughout the late '80s and into the early '90s.
This didn’t stop them from being far worse polluters than western nations. There is not a direct correlation between pollution and wealth: in fact, wealthy nations often pollute less than developing nations.
My humble O is that it is backwards. The US has some of the cleanest emmisions and has build it’s ecconomic strenght on it and is dependant on it. We know now how bad these things can be, fortunatally the US has strict polution controls to mediate it. But for developing nations, this would be very bad, we know the effects of such polution and they should be outright barred from it (unless they can do it as cleanly as the US) and should go another route.
Also the whole thing is a farse, as pointed out above, those who signed it has increased emmisions.
BIGGEST REASON BAR NONE china is exempt.
Actually, I kind of think it does, in a way, just not directly. Greenhouse emissions are a kind of ‘tragedy of the commons’ situation… the atmosphere of the planet is, in a sense, a piece of property that is inevitable held jointly by all the nations of the world, since there’s no way to keep carbon dioxide buildups floating over the nations that produced them. Air drifts everywhere, that’s its nature.
Now, if there’s a proposal for a tragedy of the commons situation that forces certain members to take on extra expense and obligation to take care of common property, while other members aren’t held to anything like the same standards, that’s a form of indirect wealth redistribution.
In this case… reducing emissions has very strict economic consequences, that much is clear. If the US is having to take on an extra share of the burden of reducting emissions, while poorer countries don’t have to worry so much, then that would fit the above criteria.
Does that make sense??
Kyoto also has some strange concepts like credits for forests and other carbon sinks, which means that some countries gain natural advantage over others. There’s a lot of political wheeling and dealing in the details of the bill, and to many of us it does look like the deck was stacked against the U.S.
Furthermore, Kyoto was just a drop in the bucket, and would have hardly made a dent in global warming despite being incredibly expensive. To actually *stop global warming would require changes to our infrastructure and lifestyles so drastic that it would throw the world into a recession or even a depression. So it’s not going to happen.
The alternative view, even among some former Kyoto adherents like Tony Blair, is that we’re now better off trying to figure out how to deal with the enevitable warming than trying to stop it.
The States have not cut greenhouse gas emissions, exactly. Some Western European countries have. I’m very disappointed in Canada.
The stats:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051128.wxemissions28/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth
Kyoto progress report
Changes in greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries, 1990-2003.
Over all among these countries there was a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions of 5.9 per cent, from 18.4 billion tonnes CO² equivalent in 1990 to 17.3 billion tonnes CO² equivalent in 2003.
Country Per cent
Spain +41.7
Monaco +37.8
Portugal +36.7
Greece +25.8
Ireland +25.6
Canada +24.2
Australia +23.3
New Zealand +22.5
Finland +21.5
Austria +16.5
United States +13.3
Japan +12.8
Italy +11.5
Norway +9.3
Denmark +6.8
Liechtenstein +5.3
Netherlands +1.5
Belgium +1.3
Switzerland -0.4
European Union -1.4
Slovenia -1.9
France -1.9
Sweden -2.3
Croatia -6.0
Iceland -8.2
Britain -13.0
Luxembourg -16.1
Germany -18.2
Czech Republic -24.2
Slovakia -28.3
Hungary -31.9
Poland -34.4
Russian Federation -38.5
Belarus -44.4
Romania -46.1
Ukraine -46.2
Bulgaria -50.0
Estonia -50.8
Latvia -58.5
Lithuania -66.2
I wasn’t stating my opinion, just answering the OP.
First, the Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto, ands that happened during the Clinton Administration. So, keep in mind that it wasn’t just conservatives who opposed the accord. Bill Clinton and every Democrat in the Senate opposed the Kyoto accord, too.
So, why George W. Bush is singled out by foreigners as the main obstacle to passage is beyond me.
Since many of the nations most passionate about signing the accord have actually INCREASED their pollution levels since signing the accord, it’s becoming increasingly clear that thye pact is meaningless. It’s just another case of Euro-leftists saying “How can we do absolutely nothing while SEEMING to do something? How can we keep on doing exactly what we’re doing, but make a public display to show how deeply we CARE about this issue?”
In short, instead of taking real steps to reduce pollution, way too many international diplomats would prefer to pass and sign a feel-good anti-pollution resolution.
Americans prefer not to waste time on meaningless formalities.
Here is what the Senate said when it voted against it:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
There was some grumbling about “legally binding targets,” too.
I’m trying to parse all this together, and I am hoping you’re not saying what I think you’re saying.
How is the US dependent upon cleaner emissions?