It is not a difference in philosophy; it’s a question of perceived self interest. Had developing nations been required to be signers for round one (rather than round two) American would likely have been on board.
The ad hoc approach that the States and municipalities are taking will achieve some reductions but eventually you will have to have a collectivist agreement within the US. This tragedy of the commons type problem requires nations to agree to behavior that limits their actions.
Cleaner technology will save the environment. And the best way to get that cleaner technology is not to hamper everyone’s economic growth through poorly thought-out treaties like Kyoto, which by the way, has been ratified by only a handful of the nations that signed it, and implemented by none.
Climatic variation does not necessarily imply a higher need for energy. Proper insulation does a lot to keep heat out or in. Yes, that only works to some degree, but it is not even trying to work on that end that has the largest effect. Second, energy for heating can still be produced and transported more or less efficiently. Precisely because of its size, energy transmission is inefficient in the US. Yet it is precisely energy transmission that is one of the major loss factors in the US. Where in Europe, many urban areas set on combined heat and power production, producing heat and electricity locally, a whole lot of energy in the US is lost in outdated wires as it gets transported huge distances overland. (cf. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,44213,00.html ). More, combined heat and power power allows the use of the heat which is lost in other power production methods, thereby creating a much higher degree of efficiency (cf. http://www.nemw.org/uschpa/CHP_SecurityEconomicGrowth.pdf )
As for the trade factor, I don’t think you have a case to make. There’s so much intra-EU trade going on that the US situation is in no way exceptional.
False on all accounts.
a)There is no proof that the Kyoto protocol hampers the economy. In fact, there is evidence it does not.
b)Cleaner technology will not be developed unless it is economically sound to do so. That will be the case once there is no oil left, but can be made the case sooner through regulations. It is not sound to wait until the damage has already been done and is possibly irreparable. It is the duty of governments to take the necessary measures, precisely because they are not tied to the economic profit of an individual company, but operate on a national good level.
c)The claim that only a handful of nations has ratified the Kyoto protocols is seriously outdated. Try using information not from the last decade. The EU has ratified the protocol both collectively and individual countries have ratified it previously on their own.
d)The mere fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make the Kyoto treaty poorly thought-out.
I would suggest getting a bit more solid basis for your posts.
But what will lead the market to develop cleaner technology? I agree that the market is the best vehicle for achieving clean technology quickly. Currently there a few costs associated with polluting. Few costs mean little incentive to develop cleaner alternatives. Kyoto allowed for a framework among developed nations to present more or less uniform demands on their economies to develop clean technologies.
By not signing American has presented a problem to countries such as Canada. The costs associated with Kyoto will impact their economies while they implement them. Now if your biggest trading partner and next door neighbour decided not to take on those cost what would prevent companies from fleeing the new cost structure (remember the market goes to lowest cost/benefit ratio) and locating in the US?
By the way, can you believe it this early and we’re tag team these issues? 
**a)There is no proof that the Kyoto protocol hampers the economy. In fact, there is evidence it does not.
**
Then why isn’t Germany implementing it right now?
**b)Cleaner technology will not be developed unless it is economically sound to do so. That will be the case once there is no oil left, but can be made the case sooner through regulations. It is not sound to wait until the damage has already been done and is possibly irreparable. It is the duty of governments to take the necessary measures, precisely because they are not tied to the economic profit of an individual company, but operate on a national good level.
**
That’s not how we do things over here. Thus, the 99-0 rejection fo Kyoto by our Senate.
**c)The claim that only a handful of nations has ratified the Kyoto protocols is seriously outdated. Try using information not from the last decade. The EU has ratified the protocol both collectively and individual countries have ratified it previously on their own.
**
Very few have ratified it to this day. Even fewer have even made small attempts to implement it.
**d)The mere fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make the Kyoto treaty poorly thought-out.
**
Even the Sierra Club admits that Kyoto would only slightly reduce environmental damage.
A treaty that doesn’t accomplish much is poorly thought out.
In any case, the Kyoto is moot if the ones who did ratify it can’t meet it’s requirements.
Kyoto. The Maastricht Treaty. How many treaties does Europe sign for PR purposes and then fail to abide by?
I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the terms of the protocol, and the terms under which the EU intends to become compliant. (Ever heard of 'joint implementation?) Take a look at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/eccp.htm
But I take it you consider the fact that Germany has been called by the Worldwatch Institute exemplary in its expansion of solar and wind energy is no indication whatsoever of implementation, huh?
http://www.worldwatch.org/live/archive/20030214.html
Just because you don’t know about these and other measures being taken doesn’t make them nonexistant.
Yup. You wait till the car piled over, killing four people inside until checking whether there might have been something wrong with the brakes. Certainly a very sound policy. Who cares for those four, after all. Here’s a hint: If you want to avoid a problem from happening, you need to act before it happens.
I would once more suggest you actually inform yourself on the issue rather than just parroting arguments by lobbyists.
Here’s a list:
You will find quite a bunch of nations listed in the ratification/accession column.
Then again, since it usually too much to ask of some people to actually click a link, let’s see which nations have signed but not ratified or acceded to the protocol. According to your claims, that should be the majority. When we look at the list, we see:
Australia
Croatia
Egypt
Indonesia
Israel
Kazakhstan
Liechtenstein
the Marshall Islands
Monaco
Niger
the Phillipines
Russia (which has stated it intends to ratify the protocol)
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Switzerland
the Ukraine
the US
and Zambia.
False. A treaty that accomplishes something, even if it is little, is a step in the right direction, and infinitely better than doing nothing.
**But I take it you consider the fact that Germany has been called by the Worldwatch Institute exemplary in its expansion of solar and wind energy is no indication whatsoever of implementation, huh?
**
We have GE working on the same thing over here.
Yup. You wait till the car piled over, killing four people inside until checking whether there might have been something wrong with the brakes. Certainly a very sound policy. Who cares for those four, after all. Here’s a hint: If you want to avoid a problem from happening, you need to act before it happens
Yes, but government isn’t the answer.
You will find quite a bunch of nations listed in the ratification/accession column
Most of those nations aren’t required to actually do anything under Kyoto.
False. A treaty that accomplishes something, even if it is little, is a step in the right direction, and infinitely better than doing nothing.
We are doing something. Developing cleaner technologies in the private sector. And I am willing to bet that in twenty years we will be polluting less than most other industrialized nations, without the need for Kyoto.
Um, sorry, but what you present isn’t evidence. It is hand-picked editorials with a specific agenda. And here one that is intentionally misleading, but unfortunately openly so.
"Last year they fell by just 1.2%, in line with a fall in energy consumption of 1.3%. "
Um, yeah, so a fall in energy consumption is not a valid reduction or what? Since you are obviously unaware of that, with a decrease of CO2 output by 1.5% last year, Germany has now reached an overall reduction of 19.4%, almost reaching its obligations under the JI agreement of the EU. The overall target for Germany is 21%. The article is pretty ridiculous in its attempt to make reductions ‘not really valid’.
Germany introduced a new law expanding combined power and heat production last year. In case you didn’t know that, combined power and heat production greatly enhances the efficiency of heating and power production, since from a given amount of fuel, less energy is wasted, i.e. for the same amount of energy gained from fossil fuel, you put out less CO2.
Working on is not the same as already having implemented. Read the cite.
Nice try to backpedal from your false claims. I guess it is too much to expect you to admit you were wrong in your claim that only an insignificant number of countries has ratified the protocol. Fact is that there’s only one of the G7 who has not ratified it.
You shouldn’t be betting your income so easily when the US is moving full speed ahead in the opposite direction. The US has average fuel efficiency in cars as bad as 20 years ago. Many fuel efficient cars aren’t even brought on the market in the US. At the same time Europeans and Japanese are already selling 80mpg cars, Iceland is moving towards a fossil-fuel free society, numerous cities are using buses powered by rapeseed oil methyl ester and hydrogen-powered buses are already being delivered to municipal authorities in key cities in Europe for testing.
adaher: It is quite clear that you have entered this discussion without reading the rest of the thread since you have just repeated many arguments that have already been answered. If you find the answers insufficient, then you are welcome to explain where you disagree but just repeating these arguments over again is bad form.
This sense of the Senate vote (actually 95-0, but I quibble), which was taken pre-Kyoto, was not a direct vote on Kyoto as discussed above. And, the political climate has changed a fair bit as shown by the bipartisan bill recently introduced by Senators Lieberman and McCain.
Here is a link showing that it has been ratified by 109 parties and have been ratified by countries representing 44% of emissions (or 44% of Annex I country emissions…I’m unclear on this point). Once Russia ratifies, as it is expected to do later this year, we will be up over 55% of emissions which will be the trigger for it to come into force. (Note that the U.S. alone represents like 25% of the emissions.)
Cite? Plus, we discussed above this issue of the difference Kyoto will make.
The laws of market economics apply in the U.S. just as they do everywhere else. Could you please explain to me the forces that will bring about the development of cleaner technologies in the private sector when the costs for the dirtier technologies are not being accounted for in the marketplace? I suppose a certain amount of non-economic pressure can be brought to bear … or companies can anticipate future economic pressure if they anticipate we eventually we try for emissions reductions, but neither of these seem that strong to me (at least, the latter is not unless the threat of future emissions reductions seems credible). [My guess is that the market is imperfect enough that there are some efficiency measures that can be implemented for zero cost…or even net savings…right now, as companies like BP have discovered. And, there are indeed some companies, like the one I work for, that have set their own Kyoto-like targets. So, there may be some movement in that direction. But, eventually, we have to send signals to the market if we expect it to act rationally.]
Actually, the 55% number is for Annex I parties (those nations which have limits under Kyoto). That is, it has to be ratified by enough Annex I parties that these parties represent >55% of the total emissions from Annex I parties. [The baseline for the percentages is 1990 emissions.] The U.S. actually represented 36.1% of the Annex I party emissions in 1990. So, the highest possible amount they can get ratifying it if the U.S. doesn’t is 63.9%. The fact is that they are already up to 43.9% and will be up to 61.3% once the Russian Federation ratifies, leaving just the U.S., Australia, and some other country(ies) accounting for 0.5% of emissions as the only Annex I countries not on board.