Kyoto

[Bleedinbluengold]

So, here's my question:

Are the Nations who signed the Kyoto agreement making any progress on reducing emissions? Just wondering, because it sure seems like everyone is more focused on whether the U.S. signs the treaty, or not.

I would suggest, to member Nations, that the best way to encourage the U.S. to sign up would be to prove that their efforts at reducing greenhouse emissions were effective, and prove that our Clean Air Act was less stringent than what those countries are doing.

I really don't buy the argument (Bush) that the U.S. economy would be hurt that badly, because U.S. industry has always had a way of complying with tougher and tougher environmental laws, while still making a billion or two. (NAFTA was supposed to be a giant sucking sound - and the US economy and unemployment has never even burped due to that deal).

On the other hand, I don't think the world needs a Kyoto agreement...it has always struck me as a big happy group hug for the world, but won't really accomplish more than making diplomats feel really good about themselves.

[SonomaCat]

This AP6 coalition's approach appears to me to be a more common sense approach to the problem of pollution/global warming that the Kyoto protocol.

Kyoto does seem like it is more of a symbolic thing than a real solution to any problem, and the fact that zero Senators voted for its ratification (if I am remembering the facts correctly) suggests that there are some real problems with it.

Better technology development seems to be the right answer to me ... especially if it can wean our dependence on oil (which would be good for national security purposes, consumer purposes, environmental purposes, etc., etc.).

http://www.techcentralstation.com/120705B.html

[briannell]

wow! substance to think about. I'll have to research a little more before commenting. I've been in fluff mode lately, but nice to switch gears and discuss something of global importance.

[briannell]

found this interesting.


Clinton: Bush 'Flat Wrong' About Greenhouse-Gas Emissions

Friday, December 09, 2005



MONTREAL — Former President Clinton told a global audience of diplomats, environmentalists and others Friday that the Bush administration is "flat wrong" in claiming that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to fight global warming would damage the U.S. economy.

With a "serious disciplined effort" to develop energy-saving technology, he said, "we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets in a way that would strengthen and not weaken our economies."

Clinton, a champion of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing emissions-controls agreement opposed by the Bush administration, spoke in the final hours of a two-week U.N. climate conference at which Washington has come under heavy criticism for its stand.

Most delegations appeared ready Friday to leave an unwilling United States behind and open a new round of negotiations on future cutbacks in the emissions blamed for global warming.

"There's no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, accelerating and caused by human activities," said Clinton, whose address was interrupted repeatedly by enthusiastic applause. "We are uncertain about how deep and the time of arrival of the consequences, but we are quite clear they will not be good."

Canadian officials said the U.S. delegation was displeased with the last-minute scheduling of the Clinton speech. But U.S. delegation chief Paula Dobriansky issued a statement saying events like Clinton's appearance "are useful opportunities to hear a wide range of views on global climate change."

The former president spoke between the official morning and afternoon plenary sessions of the conference, representing the William J. Clinton Foundation, which includes a climate-change program in its activities.

In the real work of the conference, delegates from more than 180 countries bargained behind closed doors until 6:30 a.m. Friday, making final adjustments to an agreement to negotiate additional reductions in carbon dioxide and other gases after 2012, when the Kyoto accord expires.

Efforts by host-country Canada and others to draw the United States into the process were failing. The Bush administration says it favors a voluntary approach, not global negotiations, to deal with climate issues.

"It's such a pity the United States is still very much unwilling to join the international community, to have a multilateral effort to deal with climate change," said Kenya's Emily Ojoo Massawa, chair of the African group of nations at the two-week long conference.

Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, was instrumental in final negotiations on the 1997 treaty protocol that was initialed in the Japanese city of Kyoto and mandates cutbacks in 35 industrialized nations of emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases by 2012.

A broad scientific consensus agrees that these gases accumulating in the atmosphere, byproducts of automobile engines, power plants and other fossil fuel-burning industries, contributed significantly to the past century's global temperature rise of 1 degree Fahrenheit. Continued warming is expected to disrupt the global climate.

In the late 1990s the U.S. Senate balked at ratifying Kyoto, and the incoming President Bush in 2001 formally renounced the accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy.

The Montreal meeting, attended by almost 10,000 delegates, environmentalists, business representatives and others, was the first annual U.N. climate conference since Kyoto took effect in February.

The protocol's language requires its member nations to begin talks now on emissions controls after 2012, when the Kyoto regime expires. The Canadians and others also saw Montreal as an opportunity to draw the outsider United States into the emission-controls regime, through discussions under the broader 1992 U.N. climate treaty.

But the Americans have repeatedly rejected the idea of rejoining future negotiations to set post-2012 emissions controls. The Canadians continued to press for agreement early Friday, offering the U.S. delegation vague, noncommittal language by which Washington would join only in "exploring" "approaches" to cooperative action.

While rejecting mandatory targets, the Bush administration points to $3 billion-a-year U.S. government spending on research and development of energy-saving technologies as a demonstration of U.S. efforts to combat climate change.

[PapaG]

found this interesting.


Clinton: Bush 'Flat Wrong' About Greenhouse-Gas Emissions

Friday, December 09, 2005



MONTREAL — Former President Clinton told a global audience of diplomats, environmentalists and others Friday that the Bush administration is "flat wrong" in claiming that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to fight global warming would damage the U.S. economy.

With a "serious disciplined effort" to develop energy-saving technology, he said, "we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets in a way that would strengthen and not weaken our economies."

Clinton, a champion of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing emissions-controls agreement opposed by the Bush administration, spoke in the final hours of a two-week U.N. climate conference at which Washington has come under heavy criticism for its stand.

Most delegations appeared ready Friday to leave an unwilling United States behind and open a new round of negotiations on future cutbacks in the emissions blamed for global warming.

"There's no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, accelerating and caused by human activities," said Clinton, whose address was interrupted repeatedly by enthusiastic applause. "We are uncertain about how deep and the time of arrival of the consequences, but we are quite clear they will not be good."

Canadian officials said the U.S. delegation was displeased with the last-minute scheduling of the Clinton speech. But U.S. delegation chief Paula Dobriansky issued a statement saying events like Clinton's appearance "are useful opportunities to hear a wide range of views on global climate change."

The former president spoke between the official morning and afternoon plenary sessions of the conference, representing the William J. Clinton Foundation, which includes a climate-change program in its activities.

In the real work of the conference, delegates from more than 180 countries bargained behind closed doors until 6:30 a.m. Friday, making final adjustments to an agreement to negotiate additional reductions in carbon dioxide and other gases after 2012, when the Kyoto accord expires.

Efforts by host-country Canada and others to draw the United States into the process were failing. The Bush administration says it favors a voluntary approach, not global negotiations, to deal with climate issues.

"It's such a pity the United States is still very much unwilling to join the international community, to have a multilateral effort to deal with climate change," said Kenya's Emily Ojoo Massawa, chair of the African group of nations at the two-week long conference.

Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, was instrumental in final negotiations on the 1997 treaty protocol that was initialed in the Japanese city of Kyoto and mandates cutbacks in 35 industrialized nations of emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases by 2012.

A broad scientific consensus agrees that these gases accumulating in the atmosphere, byproducts of automobile engines, power plants and other fossil fuel-burning industries, contributed significantly to the past century's global temperature rise of 1 degree Fahrenheit. Continued warming is expected to disrupt the global climate.

In the late 1990s the U.S. Senate balked at ratifying Kyoto, and the incoming President Bush in 2001 formally renounced the accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy.

The Montreal meeting, attended by almost 10,000 delegates, environmentalists, business representatives and others, was the first annual U.N. climate conference since Kyoto took effect in February.

The protocol's language requires its member nations to begin talks now on emissions controls after 2012, when the Kyoto regime expires. The Canadians and others also saw Montreal as an opportunity to draw the outsider United States into the emission-controls regime, through discussions under the broader 1992 U.N. climate treaty.

But the Americans have repeatedly rejected the idea of rejoining future negotiations to set post-2012 emissions controls. The Canadians continued to press for agreement early Friday, offering the U.S. delegation vague, noncommittal language by which Washington would join only in "exploring" "approaches" to cooperative action.

While rejecting mandatory targets, the Bush administration points to $3 billion-a-year U.S. government spending on research and development of energy-saving technologies as a demonstration of U.S. efforts to combat climate change.

Clinton had two years to get Kyoto ratified by the Senate and couldn't sway a single senator. Not even one on his side of the aisle. Now he is bashing Bush over the head with this?

Shameless. Whatever happened to the tradition of ex-Presidents being stately and not criticizing their successors? Clinton and Carter pretty much have shattered that long-standing custom.

[PapaG]

Kyoto won't last past 2012.

'End nigh' for Kyoto Protocol

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 07995.html

[BWahlberg]

Yeah Clinton and Carter actually standing up for what they still believe in, even out of office, how shameless

I remember Bill's speech at the DNC before the 2000 elections, and I believe the point he's still putting out there is during his presidency the White House worked very hard to protect the environment, and the economy stayed strong. I believe his words were, "We proved that you can protect the environment and keep a strong economy."

[SonomaCat]

In this article, it appears that Clinton doesn't really endorse the Kyoto protocols, either. In the article above, he doesn't speak to Kyoto specifically, either, but rather just speaks to the Bush claims that reducing emissions would hurt the economy. Of course, trying to make sense out of any complex issue is impossible in sound bites, so who knows what his real position is.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... G62771.DTL

It is kind of bizarre that the Bush administration threatened to boycott the conference if Clinton spoke. That comes off as just a wee bit insecure.

[PapaG]

Yeah Clinton and Carter actually standing up for what they still believe in, even out of office, how shameless

I remember Bill's speech at the DNC before the 2000 elections, and I believe the point he's still putting out there is during his presidency the White House worked very hard to protect the environment, and the economy stayed strong. I believe his words were, "We proved that you can protect the environment and keep a strong economy."

He never had Kyoto signed. I guess he didn't "protect the environment".

[BWahlberg]

I do believe there's more than one way to protect the environment...

[PapaG]

I do believe there's more than one way to protect the environment...

Such as signing NAFTA?

Have you ever been to Monterrey, Mexico? A company I used to work for had a US client that manufactured in Monterrey. Go there sometime, tell me what color the sky is, and then tell me how Clinton "protect[ed] the environment".

[Bleedinbluengold]

Yeah Clinton and Carter actually standing up for what they still believe in, even out of office, how shameless

I remember Bill's speech at the DNC before the 2000 elections, and I believe the point he's still putting out there is during his presidency the White House worked very hard to protect the environment, and the economy stayed strong. I believe his words were, "We proved that you can protect the environment and keep a strong economy."

The only thing I'll point out about the Clinton era with respect to the economy is this: During his tenure, the biggest stock market bubble in history inflated to uprecedented proportions. I think that was THEE reason the US economy grew. I don't think Clinton's economic policies, nor his environmental policies necessarily were good or bad, but they were definitely overshadowed by the bubble.

[Bleedinbluengold]

I do believe there's more than one way to protect the environment...

Such as signing NAFTA?

Have you ever been to Monterrey, Mexico? A company I used to work for had a US client that manufactured in Monterrey. Go there sometime, tell me what color the sky is, and then tell me how Clinton "protect[ed] the environment".

I understand the reasoning behind NAFTA. Think of it as Affirmative Action for third world economies. I guess in a big picture point of view, the sooner a developing country can become part of the G-8, the sooner those countries can economically afford pollution control regulations. There is no question that pollution control regulations cost companies millions, and there is hardly a precise way to measure the economic benefits of such regulations. However, the 'gut check' would suggest that pollution control measures benefit the world. Luckily for the US, our economy is resilient and a juggernaut, its workers unequivocal in terms of efficiency, and thus, our economy has been able to afford pollution control.

I wonder, with respect to Kyoto, whether anyone would have had the ability to comply? I don't know which PR is worse: (A) not signing the treaty, or (B) not meeting the conditions set forth in the treaty.

[ChiOCat]

So, here's my question:

I really don't buy the argument (Bush) that the U.S. economy would be hurt that badly, because U.S. industry has always had a way of complying with tougher and tougher environmental laws, while still making a billion or two. (NAFTA was supposed to be a giant sucking sound - and the US economy and unemployment has never even burped due to that deal).

On the other hand, I don't think the world needs a Kyoto agreement...it has always struck me as a big happy group hug for the world, but won't really accomplish more than making diplomats feel really good about themselves.

The corn mill I worked at in Iowa, we had to return water to the river cleaner than we pulled it. Does that make sense?

I do believe that industry can exist and flourish without taxing the environment. And as new technologies are found they should be used in newly constructed facilites. But trying to retrofit old plants around new technology is many times not economically feasible.

I do believe that forcing the Kyoto on US industries would drive even more jobs out of the country. If it's cheaper to produce somewhere else, why wouldn't you?

[Bleedinbluengold]

[quote="ChiOCat"]
The corn mill I worked at in Iowa, we had to return water to the river cleaner than we pulled it. Does that make sense? [quote]

The impressive part was that you COULD and DID do that!

[ChiOCat]

The corn mill I worked at in Iowa, we had to return water to the river cleaner than we pulled it. Does that make sense?

The impressive part was that you COULD and DID do that!

Well, maybe you've never seen the Des Moines River Not hard to improve upon that!