U.S. Continues Opposition to Kyoto Environmental Treaty

fenris_23 writes "The AP is reporting that President Bush has reiterated his opposition to the Kyoto Treaty despite President Putin's acceptance of the treaty and recent scientific evidence directly linking greenhouse emissions to arctic warming. 'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality."

I'm sure he'll love the jobs created....

[hta]

in the dike-building industry based on sea-level change, for instance......

Re:I'm sure he'll love the jobs created....

[fossa]

Let the Dick Cheney jokes begin...

American Jobs

[thewiz]

'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

If that's the case, why does the President support off-shoring American jobs? Sounds like he's speak out of both ends of his a$$ to me.

Wrong, but thanks for playing

[rsilvergun]

this is the typical arguement pro outsourcers make. It's the sister arguement to the pro work-visa crowd (i.e., Americans don't want these jobs, lets give 'em to foreigners). It's bullshit either way. The work still needs to be done, no matter whose doing it. If company A goes out of business, that doesn't mean what company A was doing for society is no longer necessary. So along comes company B. Same for the work visa arguement: These jobs need to be done, and you can _always_ find an American willing to do it, for the right price. It's just that the rich fucks of the world don't want to pay that price. They want to shift societies efforts to grant them their every little desire.

Make no mistake, 1% of our population makes all the food we need and a small percent more is needed to make our housing. Everything else is just gravy. There's plenty of wealth to go around, and it's not even that rich bastards want it all to themselves. It's more complex than that. It's about power. It's about playing the rest of the poor dumb saps off each other so the Bushs and the Haliburtons of the world can continue to trick the people at large into giving them everything they want. They're the new monarchy, they just don't rely on God or Tradition as excuses any more. Now it's property rights and freedom.

Outsoucing is all about playing one group off the other to keep the masses in check. And I've said it before and I'll say it again: This isn't a consipracy, it's just good business.

That's easy to counter.

[khasim]

From that link:

"When you cut tax rates, employment always goes up," he said in a phone interview Monday with The Arizona Republic.

Okay, taxes have been cut, but employment didn't go up.

Bush's campaign on Monday released a letter signed by Prescott and five other Nobel laureates critical of Kerry's proposal to roll back tax reductions for families earning $200,000 or more.

In The Republic interview, he said such a policy would discourage people from working.

"It's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a household," Prescott said. "We want those highly educated, talented people to work."

I guess that depends upon your definition of "easy". Considering the median income is NOT $100,000. It's $43,318 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf).

Meanwhile, we have 39.5 million people living in poverty (same url). Since it is "easy" to get over $200,000 with two wage earners, why do we have so many people in poverty? Can't they accomplish this "easy" task?

Prescott also backed the idea, espoused by Bush, to reform Social Security by allowing some workers to place a portion of their payroll taxes into private savings accounts.

"some workers"? Who gets to decide who doesn't have to pay into Social Security? What is the criteria?

And who is going to pay MORE Social Security tax to make up for the lost revenue?

Such an arrangement would give people greater incentive to work, thus leading eventually to higher tax revenue, Prescott said.

Who needs "greater incentive to work"? Practically everyone I know works 40+ hours a week with the current incentives of food, shelter and clothing.

Now I may not have a Nobel prize, but I can understand the numbers.

Jobs?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job"

He doesn't need any treaties for that!

Financial Benefits

[fembots]

Are there reports done on the financial benefits (eg in medical bills) of Kyoto Treaty?

And why must reducing gas emission equate to job loss? Couldn't companies be more efficient instead?

In IT outsourcing, which costs a lot of jobs to foreigner countries, there are suggestions [slashdot.org] that with the increased exports to other countries, outsourcing probably isn't so bad after all.

--
Play iCLOD Virtual City Explorer [iclod.com] and win Half-Life 2

Re:Financial Benefits

[meburke]

First off, in a competitive world, the pinciple of comparative advantage would suggest that goods and services be produced where they can be produced most economically. By subscribing to the Kyoto treaty, we are burdening ourselves with higher costs that don't leead to higher productivity. This reduces the USA overall prosperity, and tips the comparative advantage of many of our goods and services toward countries where they don't have to watch their output as strongly.

Second, the USA has been the world's largest consumer as well as the largest producer, but this is changing. Probably within the next 30 - 50 years, the USA will only consume about 22% of the world's goods and services. This is a result of the growing prosperity of the other nations in the world, especially the EU (which has mostly recovered from WWII). This means that the USA will not automatically be the highest bidder for the worlds resources, and the cost of production will climb dramatically when there are 50 nations bidding for, say, massive amounts of oil, instead of only 12. Multiply this effect by thinking in terms of lumber, minerals, concrete, etc and you can see that we will be replacing many of our most resource-hungry industrial practices with more efficient (and presumeably safer, less polluting) practices as a matter of business evolution. We won't be able to sustain ourselves if we don't, and we won't be able to do it if we squander our capital at this time by allocating it to non-productive goals that are mostly unobtainable at this time.

Third, comparing national emissions output between countries is not a valid measurement, and neither is a per-capita emissions level comparison. Basically, what is needed is some type of emissions-per-productive-unit measurement. I suppose it's theoretically possible for a couple hundred blacksmiths to produce a car without using the energy and emitting the pollution of a USA automotive plant, but is it economically feasible? Will it add the same value to the economy and provide the same level of utility?

Fourth, (and this is a hugely debatable point) we are working toward a world-wide crisis. The Club of Rome published a book called, "Limits to Growth" that was updated 20 years later as, "Beyond the Limits". Using a method called System Dynamics (pioneered by Jay Forrester) researchers illustrated the interaction of essential resources and uses and have shown that we are eventually going to have to change our ways or die out. The first book's gloomiest scenario predicted a collapse sometime in the early 90's, and when it didn't come the whole prediction was pooh-poohed as just another doomsday book. Well, the system was more flexible than we thought, and we had a couple of reallocations of resources and technology and so we had a reprieve. But the system is still in place, and in the not-too-distant future we will have to contend with shortages of basics like clean water and decent food. The solution to fending off environmental disaster probably lies in economic incentives, not social regulation.

A number of times I've come across the question of Easter Island: Who cut down the last tree? Didn't they see that deforesting their island would ruin their lives? My guess is that society in general lives like a bunch of slowly boiling frogs. Unless the heat gets turned up significantly, we are willing to adapt to the higher temperature until we're cooked. Pollution is affecting our lives today, but it's happening so slowly that we don't take massive action to remedy the situation. IMO, the Kyoto treaty is an attempt to regulate people by force, rather than improve the situation with feedback. I'd be more impressed with an "Osaka treaty". Turn the air in Osaka as clean as the air in Kyoto, and I'll help everyone adopt the practices that work.

Fishing anyone?

[Ledora]

Think of all the fishing jobs this will create when we have that much more water!

Re:Fishing anyone?

[Presidential]

Actually, much much less. More water from melting ice caps will dilute the total oceanic salinity. Some species will tolerate this change to brackish, but most will die. The entire food chain can be disrupted vitally by the absence of only one or two key species.

Re:Fishing anyone?

[wkitchen]

Ah yes. This could create a whole new industry for the coastal towns of Tennessee.

It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway....

[aslagle]

Because it won't pass Congress. You know, that body that has to ratify any treaty? Clinton didn't sign it either, for the same reason. Why sign something you know won't be ratified?

Re:It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway...

[Tim C]

Why sign something you know won't be ratified?

To publicly lend it your support. To persuade people and businesses to take steps on their own, even if it won't be legislated for. To show everyone that no matter what the rest of the government thinks, *you* consider it important.

I could go on, but you get the idea; doomed to failure or not, sometimes it's worth standing up to be counted. That's if you believe in it, of course. If not, then no, of course you wouldn't sign.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job

o_O Wait, why did he run for election then?

Re:zerg

[Kristoffer Lunden]

Because he was against losing his single American job.

Jobs

[ReverendHoss]

Out of curiousity, how many jobs would be created in research, production and implementation of green technologies?

If you're going to defend outsourcing by pointing to the number of jobs created by the cheaper goods, shouldn't you also point out the green-inspired jobs, and the savings in health care from cleaner air?

Re:Jobs

[reverse flow reactor]

Bush is thinking like a short-term manager, not a long-term engineer. For example, what are the largest costs to a chemical plant? Well, the big three major costs to a chemical plant are often:

1) energy

2) raw materials

3) wages/insurance.

They are often in that order. How do you make you chemical plant more efficient and more cost-effective? Focus on reducing your major costs.

Since the biggest cost to a chemical plant is energy, how do you reduce you energy usage? Design more efficient processes, reuse energy - instead of dumping heat into the atmosphere, reuse it as utility steam (and reduce your energy costs). Process integration (using the byproducts of one process to fuel another instead of just dumping it) requires some smarts, some planning, but can make your industry more efficient, more cost-effective and more profitable. Did I mention that reducing energy costs is not only profitable, but environmentally friendly???!?

Yes, you heard me right - reducing energy costs is not only good for the bank account, but good for Mother Nature too? And it makes the industry more competitive?

What that means is that American industries will not be nearly as competitive or profitable as Kyoto countries. It will take a few years for the Kyoto countries to become more efficient, but when they are, America will lose big time in the global economy due to their lower efficiency.

Re:Jobs

[reverse flow reactor]

To oversimplify - implementing Kyoto is in the short term more expensive, long term cheaper. However, the long term is more difficult to measure. A couple hundred $$ for a catalytic converter, or long-term better environment, lower health-care costs, and improved quality of life? How do you measure these things??

Then there is the whole issue of Tragedy of the Commons [wikipedia.org]. Why shouldn't YOU implement these measures, and I'll keep to my old ways. It is cheaper for me to not buy the catalytic converter, and because everyone else is polluting less, I still enjoy cleaner air. But that only works when I am the only one who thinks that way. When everyone thinks that way, we have the Tragedy of the Commons [wikipedia.org]. So we need some kind of incentive to make sure everyone sees the advantages of cleaner air and less pollution.

Hypocrisy

[cmason32]

President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job ... unless it's tax breaks for corporations that move jobs overseas.

It really makes you think...

[tkrotchko]

Let me just understand...

We're okay exporting jobs in the name of "global competitiveness", but we're not okay getting rid of jobs in the name of protecting the environment?

Look who's talking now

[sexysciencegirl]

Job growth/loss graph under different presidents [musicforamerica.org]
Missing jobs under Bush administration [zfacts.com]
So
- job loss=OK
- alienating the world=OK
- job loss to undo some alienation of the world=not OK
Lovely logic.

A single American job

[Blair16]

"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job"

By that he means his.

To review...

[bullitB]

This entire US/Kyoto debacle started in 1998 when Al Gore decided to sign the treaty even after the entire US Senate voted in 1997 (well, okay, it passed 95 to 0) to say they wouldn't sign any climate protocol without certain details changed. Knowing this, the Clinton administration didn't even submit the treaty for ratification.

Knowing all this, it is unreasonable to expect any administration to again resubmit the treaty for ratification, especially when US green gas emissions have gone up a bit since 1998. For what it's worth, John Kerry not only voted in favor of the 1997 resolution, but also made it clear he would not push for Kyoto ratification were he to be elected. (His campaign did criticize the Bush administration's decision to not resubmit the treaty for ratification in 2001-2004, however)

FUD ?

[Etyenne]

President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton

How does Kyoto would make the US lose 5 millions jobs ? I would tend to believe the opposite : increased energy efficiency would make American industries more competitive and help fix the trade deficit.

But who am I to oppose the American people God-given right to burn fossile fuel like there is no tomorrow ?

Plain numbers: US can improve efficiency

[erik_norgaard]

US has about 4% of the world population, yet consumes more than 25% of world energy production according to this statistics http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1. html [usgs.gov]
(1998).

Just to compare, EU represents about 6% of the world population, and consumes 16% of the worlds energy, hence the average european consumes only 40% of the energy resources of the average american. China, about 25% of the world population consumes 10% of the energy. (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/euro.html [doe.gov])

Comparing the EU and US economies, they are about equal size. This means european energy to money conversion is about 40% more effective than US. Taking into account the larger population of Europe the production per capita is about 65% of US, but the average efficiency per capita (that is the conversion of energy to money per capita) is some 60% better (consuming 40 units of the energy to produce 65 units of value).

In other words, US can do a lot to improve efficiency! If US were as efficient as EU, US would maintain BNP and comply with Kyoto.

So what's the problem? Who has the interest of keeping US production inefficient?

Re:Plain numbers: US can improve efficiency

[erik_norgaard]

Please read the whole post, you seem to indicate that I suggest US should cut energy consumption to 20% of current level and hence also cut production.

The whole point of my post is that US can cut energy consumption AND maintain current production level by investing in efficient production methods. I have assumed that US and EU are comparable in economic and industrial development, quality of life etc.

The Bush administration has actively supported ineffective production in US by adding special taxes on steel imports to protect ineffective american industry.

This was a popular move because it saved jobs in the steel industry, what is less known is that it cost more jobs in the car manufacturing industry due to higher prices and hence reduced sale.

EU has invested hugely to improve efficiency and was outcompeeting US industry. The import tax was ruled illegal by the WTO, and resulted in counter meassures, hurting american industry - again.

Many ask, why do US have to reduce emissions and China or India not? Well, there you have it, if the whole world consumed the amount same of energy per person as US, the consumption would 5-double.

Pofits or Jobs?

[iopha]

"It is perhaps worth mentioning that the word 'profits' has largely disapeared from respectable discourse. In contemporary Newspeak, the proper word is to be pronounced 'jobs'."

-Noam Chomsky: Perspectives on Power

Don't know if quoting Chomsky means I'll get modded down or what, but I think President Bush's decision makes sense after we do the translation suggested by Chomsky. Otherwise we are tangled in a morass of contradiction, as other posters have pointed out. Everything falls into place if we think about profits instead.

Yet another chance to bash the President

[isa-kuruption]

However, in 1997, 94 U.S. senators voted for and signed Senate Resolution 98 which says that the U.S. should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol if: 1) it did not impose restrictions on developing countries, and 2) it would "would result in serious harm to the economy.

John Freakin Kerry was also one of the senators to also sign this resolution.

Conservatism

[celeritas_2]

This enviromentalism is one area where the conservative idea just can't work. If you're wrong about it and say, the icecaps melt, or there are 20 hurricanes a year, it's already too late to fix things. The truth is that these enviromental disasters are a natural part of the system, but with carbon emissions, we're changing the system in one way or the other without complete understanding. I'd rather pay a little more on gas and have a lesser economic growth than even risk such things.

The USA uses 40% of the world oil supply...

[Dzimas]

According to the US Department of Energy, the USA uses 40% of the annual world output of oil, 23% of the natural gas, and almost 23% of the coal.

And the US has only 4.6% of the world's population.

Kyoto or not, its time to buy smaller cars less often, take public transit, and carefully consider the effects of overconsumption. In the past three years, I've traded my SUV in on a Toyota Echo, taken the bus/train to work nearly every day, and started to buy gently used stuff on eBay.

It was actually pretty easy - And I was able to pack an extra $18,000 into the bank. I suppose I'm my own little "Mini Kyoto."

Of course, my behaviour is bad news for corporations like GM and many manufacturers - but its better for me.

Why Russia already signed on, and other fun facts.

[graffix_jones]

The main thing to understand behind the Kyoto agreement is the fact that it institutes a system of Tradeable Emissions Rights (TERs). TERs are already being used in the U.S. among coal-fired power plants with great success in curbing emissions. Basically, a TER is a publicly traded permit that allows 1 ton of pollution emission per permit purchased. Each power plant is granted a certain number of emissions permits up to the amount that needs to be abated (by statute), and the company must then purchase additional rights to pollute above that amount.

This is a great market because it makes the industry self-policing. Those powerplants that can economically abate emissions are free to sell excess TERs to companies that are unable to do so, making it a win-win situation for all parties. Every year the amount of pollution abated increases, which encourages companies to invest in cleanup technology, or decommission powerplants that simply can't meet the requirements economically (which are replaced with new plants with better technology).

Now apply this on a global scale, and you have Kyoto. The reason Russia is so gung-ho about signing onto this treaty is because they stand to make billions of dollars on the deal. "Why" may you ask? Because the baseline was set at 10% below 1990 pollution levels (IIRC). Anybody that knows anything about Russia's economy since the collapse of the Soviet Union knows that they're running at about 30-40% of their industrial output as they were during the Communist heyday... in other words, they have a shitload of permits to sell... and guess who their #1 customer will be? The U.S., of course.

This is why the U.S. is so apprehensive about the treaty... we're already doing what we can within our country's own TER system to combat pollution, so there's not much room left for maneuvering on a global scale (we've already hit the point of economical abatement). So, that's the primary reason why the U.S. won't sign on, and why it's been a bipartisan issue.

We stand to lose quite a bit of GDP if we have to implement the Kyoto agreement, though with the price of oil forever-escalating this could finally spur development in the Hydrogen/Solar area.

Also, to those protesting the unfairness of Kyoto, keep in mind that in every country's industrial development, there's a point in time where they emit huge amounts of pollution... attempting to deny those developing countries economical fossil-fuel sources is a bit hypocritical, even though on a global scale it make sense. That is why Kyoto makes exception for these countries... they're allowed to pollute at their current levels for 10-20 years, upon which time they will also be subject to the provisions outlined in the Kyoto treaty. The hope is that by that time technology will have evolved enough that it will be economically feasible for these developing countries to afford, which will lead to implementation.

Any questions? ;)

So why should Bush sign Kyoto?

[InsaneGeek]

Factoids:

Not a single senator 99-0 signed up for Kyoto as it stands. Bush and Kerry both have said they would not sign it as it stood, both said they would sign it if changes were made.

The US is decreasing it's per-capita emissions at a faster rate than Canada has since signing the treaty.

So if the entire government refused to move forward with it and the US is reducing it faster than nations who signed up for it... what good would it be?

It's more than Kyoto...

[RayBender]

It's not just about the Kyoto treaty - the treaty itself would have a rather limited impact, though would be a good first step. The reason the rest of the world (and half of the U.S. voters) dislike the Bush attitude is that it is basically an attitude of "Me first. Screw the rest of the world."

Bush seems to think that a) there are no global-scale problems, b) even if there were, they should not be solved through collective action and c) the U.S. has a divine right to screw the rest of the world, take their resources, install oppressive regimes, etc etc.

The rest of the world doesn't like getting screwed. And half of the U.S. voters are smart enough and civilised enough to realize that sometimes co-operation is the better way. But it doesn't matter - the world isn't a democracy, and as we know, a few idiots in the "heartland" have taken all the world along for a demonstration of what happens when you let Enron-style capitalism and religious fundamentalism run things.

The good news is that now we'll all find out who is right. Are those who warn of the dire consequences of unilateralism, pre-emptive war, environmental destruction etc etc. just being whiny, or not? Maybe global warming really is just a conspiracy among scientists who want attention and funding. Maybe freedom and U.S.-style free markets will bloom in Iraq, and be so wonderful that the Palestinians will realize that they should strop trying to get back their land and go get a job for McDonalds. Maybe the "expert" opinions of the NAS, or the U.N., or our oldest allies, are just plain wrong, and reality will yield to faith.

I'm rather curious, actually. It's not every day that you get a chance to see your beliefs put to the test. Besides, it'll be fun - kinda like watching NASCAR; it's more fun when you think there will be a wreck.

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[Eggplant62]

India and China aren't currently producing the same amount of greenhouse gasses that USA and EU are currently producing. It's like comparing apples to oranges. India could never meet the USA's output due to its size; China isn't developed enough yet to produce, and with the steps that are being taken by China, they may never become as great a greenhouse gas producer as the US.

What the fuck with all this fairness shit? Live ain't fair, neither are greenhouse gases. Let's get on the stick about it and work out differences *later*!

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[Sergeant Beavis]

About 10 years ago, China was the 5th largest consumer of oil. Today they are #2. China is burting at the seams with economic growth and they're pollution control standards are weaker than they are in both the US and the EU. That is but one of the many reasons that many US companies are moving factories over there.

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[iwadasn]

Unfortunately, the radical greens have shot down the only really viable means for radically reducing CO2 output, nuclear power. It seems odd to see them whine on one hand about too much CO2, and then whine on the other hand that people would *gasp* actually consider using a CO2 free source of electricity.

If you want to reduce CO2, ban coal. Simple as that. Coal is responsible for more than half of our CO2 (correct me if my numbers are wrong), and banning it would do more than anything else. Just get rid of coal and leave people with the choice of either paying ludicrous prices for gas power, or using nuclear. The NIMBYism would end real quick as soon as people couldn't choose to just pollute the whole world evenly and cheaply with coal burning.

Nothing else would matter much other than that. Natural Gas and Oil produce far less CO2 per unit of energy than coal, and they'll run out anyway within a couple of decades, so it's a really bounded problem. Coal however has sufficient supply, and produces so much CO2 per unit of energy, that it's the only one that could truly decimate the planet. It's also responsible for all the fish you eat being loaded with mercury and lead, and it releases more radioactive gunk into the atmosphere than all the world's nuclear powerplants (including cherenoble) ever did.

Actually there are at least two others.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Unfortunately, the radical greens have shot down the only really viable means for radically reducing CO2 output, nuclear power.

Actually there are (at least) two others. But I'm sure the eco-fascists (not to be confused with actual environmental scientists) would be opposed to them as well.

One is space solar power: Orbital solar collectors and milimeter-wave downlink to rectennas. It's actually price-competitive with fossil fuel plants (despite a flawed NASA study) and will get moreso with the development of private orbital capacity. (Bullshit about birds cooked in flight has already been issued.)

The other is to seed the South Pacific with a bit of iron compounds so the algae bloom will suck down megatons of CO2 and sequester it in the deep ocean for time measured in kiloyears, and continue with fossil fuel until, say, the necessary fusion breakthroughs occur or the eventual price rises make other alternatives attractive.

It seems odd to see them whine on one hand about too much CO2, and then whine on the other hand that people would *gasp* actually consider using a CO2 free source of electricity.

Hear hear!

Re:Actually there are at least two others.

[Atzanteol]

rectennas

Just one of those words one can't say without smirking...

Re:Actually there are at least two others.

[rduke15]

rectennas?

You want me to get my energy from space, through an antenna in my rectum?

Re:Actually there are at least two others.

[mcdesign]

The other is to seed the South Pacific with a bit of iron compounds so the algae bloom will suck down megatons of CO2 and sequester it in the deep ocean for time measured in kiloyears, and continue with fossil fuel until, say, the necessary fusion breakthroughs occur or the eventual price rises make other alternatives attractive.

Sorry that isn't correct. Recent research has suggested that after iron, growth of the bloom is limited by silicates. For evey ton of iron added you need to add 5000 tons of silicate if you want the bloom to have any effect on CO2 levels.

See here:
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2004/19-03-04_pre ss_release.html [otago.ac.nz] for more details.

Re:Actually there are at least two others.

[kaffiene]

The other is to seed the South Pacific with a bit of iron compounds so the algae bloom will suck down megatons of CO2 and sequester it in the deep ocean for time measured in kiloyears,

And you're not at all concerned that algal blooms destroy the marine ecosystem? Great idea - destroy the food chain so we can drive SUV's for longer. Only an American would think like that.

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[ickle_matt]

Well if that's true, then I would argue that that's all the more reason for them to be included in the protocol. If we want this thing to get signed, the US has to be on its side, period. If they're not producing the same amount of greenhouse gases than the USA or the EU, then adopting the Protocol should not be too big a deal for them, and they should be able to handle it. Er, they both ratified it a couple of years ago, as have 124 other countries. For some reason the USA continues to believe that it doesn't have to be responsible for picking up the mess it's making, unlike most of the world who're quite happy to deal with what they produce...

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[Theatetus]

Maybe you should go find the section in the treaty that says "China and India can produce as much polution as they like".

Jesus...

Kyoto [dawtrina.com] doesn't [cato.org] apply [iastate.edu]to developing [about.com] nations [bbc.co.uk] like India [junkscience.com] and China [psu.edu].

Maybe you could start learning about the subject before you form an opinion?

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if that's true, then I would argue that that's all the more reason for them to be included in the protocol.

China and India?

If they're not producing the same amount of greenhouse gases than the USA or the EU, then adopting the Protocol should not be too big a deal for them, and they should be able to handle it.

What the hell are you talking about?

India has ratified Kyoto. [people.com.cn]

China has ratified Kyoto [www.cbc.ca]

Are you going to say now that you think the US should too? Or was all that talk about India and China a smokescreen?

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[arivanov]

Now, lets see that again. If Kyoto will be accepted there will be a GLOBAL framework. Good or bad is another matter. The important part is global.

People may be bitching about China, India and Russia, but if all the factories GM, Ford, GE and so on are building there will be completed China will definitely hit its pollution limits before the end of this decade and they know it. Even so, they have signed it. I have my own hypothesis on why - to twist the hands of the same GE, GM, Ford, VW, etc to move there modern technology, not to become the scrapyard of the world. There are many things you can say about Chinese "communists" (quotes intended), but one thing you can't say is that they are stupid.

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[protohiro1]

So wait, Kyoto doesn't go far enough. Therefore we shouldn't sign it. I mean, its a start, right?

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[southpolesammy]

Consider where they'll be in the next 50 years, not where they are now. According the the CIA World Factbook [cia.gov], China's current electricity consumption is 1.3 trillion kWh, oil consumption is 4.57 million bbl/day, and natural gas consumption is a paltry 27.4 billion m^3. By comparison, the US is consuming 3.6 trillion kWh of electricity, 19.65 million bbl/day of oil, and a whopping 640.9 billion m^3 of natural gas (although I will guess that this figure is necessitated due to the majority of the US population living the northeast to upper midwestern parts of the country, thus increasing the need for gas heat in the winter, while China's population base is mainly coastal and temperate and therefore winter heat needs are much less).

The difference is the growth rate of the industrial sectors of the two countries. The US is just barely expanding at a 0.3% growth rate, while China is massively expanding at a 30.4% yearly clip. IOW, China's energy needs for just the industrial sector are doubling just over every 3 years. Now couple this growth in industry with the subsequent growth in quality of life, and you'll have a similar growth in energy demands for the residential sector as well, meaning that there will be a massively increasing need for energy in China over the next 10-20 years.

Now unless they plan to tap some huge clean power source in the very near future, the Chinese are going to have to start doing the same things that the US currently must do in order to feed the energy needs of the country, and probably moreso in their case. But given the Kyoto accords, they will not be held accountable for the ensuing black cloud that will result from this huge and necessary increase of energy production if the industrial machine they are creating is to continue to progress.

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[ONOIML8]

Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like that rather than what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves?

Look at WWII for a moment. Look at all the terrible loss of life. For that matter, look at all the environmental damage that resulted. Based on your logic, Churchill and Stallin should have just handed over the keys to their countries to Hitler and saved all that. Sure a few jews would have died but many more people would have lived and the environment would not have received such harm.

I don't think so. That's not how nature works, human or otherwise. Survival is about taking care of #1. We're not all one big happy family. I'm going to make sure that I survive and my family survives regardless of the cost to anyone or anything else. THAT is how the president or any other political leader makes his decisions.

If you'll read that Yahoo story you'll find that's exactly why Russia decided to sign. They are looking out for their own immediate interests and don't give a wet shit about what it does to the US or anyone else. That's as it should be.

.

My God, you're right!

[Namarrgon]

Survival is about taking care of #1. We're not all one big happy family. I'm going to make sure that I survive and my family survives regardless of the cost to anyone or anything else.

Back shortly - I'm sneaking off next door to get dinner from my neighbour's fridge.

That's an excuse and you know it

[Tim C]

It's an excuse to sit back and do nothing. So what if all countries aren't held to the same levels? Surely doing *something* is better than doing nothing at all.

So developed nations have to cut back more than developing nations? Well guess what - we pollute more than they do.

Re:That's an excuse and you know it

[tunabomber]

Surely doing *something* is better than doing nothing at all.

Not if "something" hurts our economy while doing nothing to curb global greenhouse gas emissions.
Globalization and the current incarnation of the Kyoto Protocol should be mutually exclusive. If we don't apply the same pollution-control standards to *all* WTO countries, then the multinationals will just move their manufacturing operations to the countries where the Kyoto standards are weakest so that they can keep producing as much CO2 as they feel like.

I'm all for preventing global warming, but the Kyoto protocal is worthless unless the same standards apply to everyone.

It's even worse than that

[Tau Zero]

Kyoto-style restrictions on nations create incentives to move production to countries where there are unfilled quotas, no matter how much more wasteful the move might be. If production of widgets in the USA emits .75 tons CO2 per thousand and production in Botswana emits 2.5 tons per thousand, quotas could still force a producer to move to Botswana.

This lies at the core of the problem with Kyoto: it attempts to create a socialist "one person, one unit" system regardless of comparative advantage. The other problem is the international trading scheme for emissions; dictators in impovershed nations (with little carbon emission) would have one more way to collect fees from rest of the world and continue oppressing their people. The appropriate fix would be a mandated world-wide carbon emissions tax which is collected by each government, the level to be set by treaty. Anything else leaves perverse incentives which will be abused, no matter how much the socialists (aka "progressives") believe otherwise ("reality-based", my ass).

Re:That's an excuse and you know it

[d34thm0nk3y]

But this is /. where thinking is an endangered species

At least we are talking about it. Just because we all don't agree with you doesn't mean we haven't thought about it.

A lot of us have trouble swallowing the bad for the economy line especially. Pollution control would create an entire new industry, but I guess that would be bad for certain entrenched industries so all of a sudden it is bad for the economy.

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[iamsure]

China has ratified it, and *will* be held to the same standards (Annex 1 country) within the decade - probably sooner.

India has also ratified it, but is not yet an annex 1 country. As more countries join in, more countries will commit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty

So ?

[Space cowboy]

[Warning - this post assumes that Global Warming is indeed a problem. It also presupposes we might be able to do something about it]

A picture comes to mind. A birthday party, where one child has already eaten a large quantity of cake, but wants all the rest subdivided equally. Not getting this result from the adults present, she throws a tantrum....

The US (and all the developed world) have exploited the natural resources of the world during the creation of their relatively-advanced technological society. Why should those who have been gentler towards the planet suffer the same consequences ? The US is not held to any harder regulations than any of the other developed countries, but it refuses to turn from its' self-indulgent and destructive path.

There will be more hurricanes next year; each will be stronger. There will be more of an 'El Nino' effect. The great farm areas of the American interior will suffer the consequences of this misguided 'screw-tomorrow' policy, and starving US children will curse their grandfathers stupidity and arrogance.

Or maybe not. The thing is that the risk-assessment of any course of action is the probability of the consequences multiplied by the effect of the consequences - and the potential downside here is enormous. Irrespective of the probability of the risk, it makes sense to limit the risk further, and that is what is not happening.

What US-observers see is a blind lemming-like tendency to rush towards oblivion with no provision for being wrong. Kyoto is not enough. Kyoto is a damage-limitation exercise - triage, if you like - that will need to be reviewed and tightened in various areas before it will be effective.

Global Warming does not require everywhere to heat up, it simply states that the average temperature will increase, thereby releasing more phase-space for the atmosphere to explore, and exposes us all to more-extreme weather - weather that was unavailable before the average temperature rose. Those extremes will kill people.

It never ceases to amaze me that people can dismiss a rise in temperature of (say) 1 degree C as nothing worth bothering about. I can barely conceive of the energy required to raise the average temperature of a *planet* by a degree C.

Simon.

Re:So ?

[fredrikj]

I can barely conceive of the energy required to raise the average temperature of a *planet* by a degree C.

The atmosphere's mass is 5 × 10^18 kg. Assuming it takes 1000 joules to raise the temperature of one kilogram of air by one kelvin, the the energy is 5 × 10^21 joules.

Energy released by Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated: 2 × 10^17 joules.

So, 25,000 Tsar Bombas, enough to fight a global nuclear war several times over.

My heat capacity calculations are probably off a bit. Feel free to correct me.

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[@madeus]

Your right the treaty doesn't assume everyone is equal, because (oddly enough) they arn't all the same! Some nations - such as those in the EU and in North America - can afford to make greater sacrificies as they are significantly more developed.

I am quite happy to give nations like India greater allowances for some time, to allow them to build their economy and industry up to a greater level. I'm not surprised to hear Americans say they are unwilling to do that though (even though as an EU member citizen I'm happy to make greater sacrifices because I know we can afford it, and I think the vast majority of EU members think the same way).

The rest of the world has a very low opinion of the US now (not because of GWB, but because you were so collectively retarded as to re-elect him, not because he's Republican, just because he's the wost president the US has ever had). You guys can do what you like now, other people have ceased to care what Americans think or do. The sad truth is America no longer has any real friends in the international community.

Note I say that as someone who has been a big fan of the US for along time and is both pro-globalisation, and was in favour of the invasion of Iraq (because it meant disposing Saddam). I'm not a typical 'anti-American/anti-capitalist' left wing loonie. I just think the US has simply burned too many bridges now, the re-election of GWB was seen mind bogglingly stupid (especially given that in the end he was found to have lost the popular vote by 900,000 votes in the first election). The rest of the world looked on last week and thought "WTF?".

I've been to North America many times, as far west as San Fransico, as far east as New York, as far south as Cape Kennedy and as far north as Canada. I will not being going back though. The requirements to be finger printed and iris scanned are the most over the top in the western world. Law enforcement is comparibly officious and oppresive and the people are highly insulated with very limited knowledge of the world in which they live. I think Americans are lovely people, just staggeringly poorly informed.

This is not intended as a flame or troll, it's very tragic, but really I honestly don't think people care if you sign up or not anymore, because as a nation you've made it quite clear you don't give a damn about 'the free world' (or those who are not free), just yourselves.

It's also tragic that in such a close election you never the less have a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican Supreme Court, along with the divisive final term Republican president (politically empowered to do what ever the hell he likes, even though the result was so close). The system is fubard and Americans don't seem to even notice or admit it to themselves, let alone care. *sigh*.

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[ChodeMonkey]

Please don't over generalize. I care, my friends care, and my family cares. We are all pissed as hell that W is going to be around for another 4 years as the leader of our country.

As I see it, this is a very dark time for the US. Our leadership rejects science when the results don't agree with their policies, they promote religion as the answer to moral and ethical questions (bad idea), and their skill in diplomacy is about what I would expect to see from a bully on a fifth grade playground.

Remember, although a record number of people voted to elect W, a record number of people also voted against him. Those people are now screaming for help. Now more than ever we need help from our friends and allies abroad to help control this country from going off the deep end.

Just because a slight majority elected W don't abandon the rest of us.

Re:It's is a SHAM.

[IamTheRealMike]

The bible thumpers hold critical numbers in strategic areas of the United States, and any plan to change the composition of the US government will have to include them.

Unfortunately it's difficult to see how you can change an agenda dominated by right-wing Christian fundamentalists: you cannot argue with these people, they are quite happy to choose their president based on only one issue (abortion) because the Church tells them to do so. Hate to say it, but they are apparently as impossible to reason with as Islamic terrorists.

The situation with America is very tricky indeed: the country appears to be deeply divided politically and worse, that division is split cleanly between geographic regions with the coastal city (more educated) areas blue and the middle states voting red.

Deep political divisions along geographical lines is historically a recipe for civil war. I think it's very unlikely to happen, but there's no denying the lessons of history. May we all hope that it is not so.

India & China

[commodoresloat]

China is reducing its CO2 emissions [globalissues.org] already. The US accounts for 25% of greenhouse emissions; its output dwarfs that of India and China put together. The US has 5% of the world's population. People whining about the "fairness" of the protocol are ignoring the unfairness in the US polluting the planet at far greater rates than nonindustrialized countries. Read the following from the Centre for Science and the Environment:

The total carbon dioxide emissions from one US citizen in 1996 were 19 times the emissions of one Indian. US emissions in total are still more than double those from China. At a time when a large part of India's population does not even have access to electricity, Bush would like this country to stem its 'survival emissions', so that industrialised countries like the US can continue to have high 'luxury emissions'. This amounts to demanding a freeze on global inequity, where rich countries stay rich, and poor countries stay poor, since carbon dioxide emissions are closely linked to GDP growth.

Personally I would like to see China and India held to tough emission standards too, but the Kyoto protocol is a good place to start, and it's telling that just about every other country in the world is willing to deal with the "unfairness" of the treaty.

Re:Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you're against polution or against jobs.

It's not "pollution". It's our survivial. How much would you like to pay for your water? And how much would you like to spend on preventing and treating skin cancer and other diseases? People tend to think of "The Economy" as the only thing that matters. We may be all dying, but "we have more jobs". What about quality of life?

We need less people in the world. That way we won't need to pollute too much.

Re:Jobs

[lphuberdeau]

That's the american way of life: watch your belly and let others die. Following Mr. Bush's politics, no treaty against child pornography, prostitution or drug dealing should be signed: after all, those things create jobs.

It just feels like a very lame excuse to avoid responsibilities to me. Actually, I don't see how Kyoto kills jobs. I always thought opening a lab to search for new solutions actually created jobs.

Anyone actually think this is serious?

Re:Jobs

[AvantLegion]

Following Mr. Bush's politics, no treaty against child pornography, prostitution or drug dealing should be signed: after all, those things create jobs.

*sniffle* God bless America.

Re:Jobs

[kiatoa]

Better than having less children: wait until you are 35+ years old to have kids. Spreading the generations out does just as much as having less kids. That and the fact that if you wait to have kids your are likely to want less of them anyhow :)

Re:Jobs

[Harassed]

You're entitled to think what you like. Being right is a different matter entirely.

In response to your points:

1. The US population is a fraction under 300 million people (source: CIA World Factbook [cia.gov]). The world population is around 6.3 billion people (source: CIA World Factbook [cia.gov]). The US population is therefore around 3% of the world population which, in my book at least, makes it a relatively small fraction - consider that India and China between them account for 2.3 billion people - over a third of the worlds population!

2. You are right, it is not only the US. If you look at the figures for CO2 emissions, you will find that the US accounts for around 36% of all emissions (source: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [unfccc.int]) - far higher than their 3% of the population would attest to. In fact, it is double what the next largest polluting nation (Russia) emits. You will find that the figures for other pollutants are similar.

3. The US currently has a huge budget deficit. According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the deficit for goods (i.e. tangible things rather than services) was:$150.8 billion (source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis [bea.gov]). Contrary to your comment, this would suggest that the US imports far more than it exports.

Re:Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

>It might be bad business for America, but every year,
>every GOD DAMNED YEAR, a new member of my family is
>stricken with cancer because of American pollution that
>wanders north.

>Heavy metals are found everywhere in Greenland now,
>and there's no way of avoiding ingestion of it.

Canadian, are you? Rest assured you are getting your revenge from the Cominco smelter in Trail, BC that has been dumping lead waste into the Columbia River 5 miles north of the border, and has by now laid down a layer of said toxic sludge all the way down to Grand Coulee Dam.

And if you check the wind patterns, you will see much of that Greenland metal dust comes from Sudbury, Ontario.

You talk a good line, but Canada has no "holier than thou" buttons to push.

Re:Jobs

[forgetful_ca]

If you have ever seen that "entire earth at night" image, compounded from several hundred night satellite photos I understand, you'd probably agree with my first impression: We look like fungal growth, clinging first and strongest to the damp edges of the earth but essentially still covering it.

To my mind, "intelligence" isn't a gift, it's a responsibility. Helping to maintain the balance is MUCH more important. More important than your mortgage rates, more important than your particular kids. WAY more important than the drivel that'll get replied to this msg.

Not a troll.

Re:Jobs

[SenseiLeNoir]

I am a hindu, and although I rarely let religion come into any of my discussions, one point you made up is somethign that my religion preaches, which I think is a very good common sense point.

Intelligence is not a gift, it is a responsibility. Those with greater intelligence also carry a greater burden. It is up to us to care for those with less intelligence animals and other humans alike.

Unfortunately this message keeps getting lost in our current "me me" society.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Senate Resolution 98

[TheConfusedOne]

A "Sense of the Senate" vote:

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

95-0 was the vote against any framework.
source [nationalcenter.org]

Re:Jobs

[MikeXpop]

No, you don't understand the mindset:

You're either for the loss of jobs, or your for the creation of jobs. Now which are you?

Re:Jobs

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

The problem here is Bush's stance is BS. Increased Polution controls creates jobs, not destroys. No one gets laid off because a company can't meet some polution reg. The company hires more people to solve these problems. Or they have to buy more stuff from companies that make polution reducing hardware which then makes those companies grow. Bush's stance that reducing polution cost jobs is one of the most mind numbing of his policies. Sadly people tend to not call him on it since people just seam to belive even the dumbest things he says.

Also the idea of loosing a few jobs should never be a concern verses loosing the whole planet.

If there was some company that made a device that did nothing but make polution, that was it's purpose "bobs earth killing device co: All polution, no Purpose" You wouldn't say we shouldn't shut that company down to save 2 jobs at that company. It would be gone over night.

Also by going after companies that polute it gives companies that are clean a foot hold to grow.

Environmental friendliness is a win win all around.

Re:Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

"No one gets laid off because a company can't meet some polution reg. The company hires more people to solve these problems."

-- What about moving the company to another country that not only does NOT have limitations on green house gas production but also significantly lower wages and benefits costs. Same level of green house gas production, but it just gets made on the other side of the world AND the evil company makes more money.

Re:Jobs

[IamTheRealMike]

You could use that logic to veto pretty much anything.

Abolish slavery? But the slave drivers would just move somewhere else and take our jobs!

No, Bushs position is total BS and is yet another reason why pretty much everybody in Europe loathes him and can't believe middle America was dumb enough to vote for him.

Everyone: "Bush, we need you to help us save the world!"

Bush: "That would cost at least one American job, I'd rather we all die in massive floods and freak weather events instead"

Europe is hardly a saint when it comes to pollution and environmental policies but at least it's not heading full steam in the wrong direction.

In England we've been hearing for the past week about how Bush makes "moral stands" and "does what is right not popular". So even if the bad guys move abroad, wouldn't that be morally preferable to keeping them here?

Me, bitter? Why yes. I think I am.

Re:Jobs

[Doomdark]

No, Bushs position is total BS and is yet another reason why pretty much everybody in Europe loathes him and can't believe middle America was dumb enough to vote for him.

Indeed! What many americans do not realize is that non-americans dislike of George is and was based on many things other than Iraq. GWB basically gave the middle-finger salute to the rest of the world right after becoming the president in 2000: refusing to join land-mine treaty and international court of war crimes, along with Kyoto protocol; and doing so without any diplomatic tact. In many cases excuses given were ridiculous ("gee, in the court it could happen that americans would get prosecuted and that would be bad"... yeah, saints like, say, torturers at that iraqi prison). Iraq really is the icing on the cake: important, but not the sole reason.

The whole presidential election was like a bad dream: and yes, it's hard to believe how dumb the middle class here is.

Re:Jobs

[rainer_d]

> find it funny that foreiners liked clinton and
> he didn't sign any of those treaties either

As others have pointed out, he was probably more diplomatic about it.
GWB's reasoning was slightly more polite than "STFU".

> Would you like it if america started just
> walking
> inot other countries and aresting thier citizens
> and bringing them to trial for laws not even
> passed in thier country?

Sounds like Guantanamo Bay to me.

Also, CIA and friends is deporting prisoners into 3rd-party countries where "other questioning methods" are allowed.
Additionally, several American citizens are held "incommunicado" in undisclosed location in the US.
So much for your constitution.

You are really diverting the discussion: the point of the ICC was to make sure, things like in Bosnia would never happen again - and if they happen again, the *leaders* could be properly prosecuted.

So, if you think about it, had the US signed the ICC-treaty, someone might have brought Donald Rumsfeld to the ICC over Abu Ghraib, not some poor underling like England or Graner !

The Bush-administration knew fully what they were doing, even back then.

Rainer

Re:Jobs

[Doomdark]

What about moving the company to another country that not only does NOT have limitations on green house gas production

You do realize that Kyoto protocol is an international treaty, and as such reduces number of such hypothetical countries? And specifically, it is to be ratified by all significant industrialized countries. The reason for this is exactly to prevent unfair competition between countries.

Re:Jobs

[dslbrian]

Well I guess that about says it. Either you're against polution or against jobs. Take your pick.

Yeah Bush has problems thinking ahead. Better to burn more coal and oil now, and keep the costs down, so our economy doesn't suffer. It would be just terrible if we lost jobs on our way to making the planet uninhabitable...

Its the same idiotic way that he thinks about the economy. Better to have large deficits now, and deplete social security now, so things look good NOW. In 20 or 30 years when the economy is shot and social security is gone, things will royally suck, but hey thats not Bush's problem as long as things look good NOW. He's such a freaking moron...

Re:Jobs

[silentbozo]

The problem is that the lobbyists with money all represent established, old-tech companies, like oil, automobiles, gas/coal/oil power plants, land developers, etc. Ironically, many of these companies have shifted their operations toward becoming more environmentally compliant, as quite a few of them are international conglomerates with operations/plants outside of the US.

What's being left out of the equation are all the technologies that the US could be developing if we were on the forefront of compliance - things like CO2 sequestration, alternative power systems, etc. Regulation has a cost (it creates economic friction), but where there's economic friction (inefficiency) there's an opportunity. If we took the lead on these things, we could be building a whole new export industry - equipment to retrofit existing plants to deliver Kyoto compliance.

What we need is a progressive interpretation of the Kyoto agreement in the states - one that would allow the same levels of growth, as opposed to the current negative interpretation, which is that going Kyoto would freeze American competitiveness (a given if we keep doing things the same old way.) Unfortunately, I think one reason that the US has been reluctant to commit, is because we're no longer willing to innovate as strongly as we used to - and personally, I blame trial lawyers for that (in addition to a bad patent and copyright system.) Why take the risk of putting $11M in development for a new exhaust control system, if at some point, some lawyer will point to your system, and instead of highlighting that the system saved the combined lives of 100 people (80yr lifespan) over 10 years of operation, point to the possibility that if you had spent an additional $1M, you could have saved 10 more people, and then sue you on behalf of the theoretical 10 more people.

If you need evidence for this, look at the cars and car systems in Europe and Japan, that they're not willing to release in the US for fear of litigation. Toyota is developing cars for the elderly in Japan, but they refuse to commit to selling any of those models in the US for fear of getting sued. Dalmier-Chrysler is selling the Two-Fours in Canada, but environmental compliance aside, they're unwilling to sell those vehicles in the US for safety (ie, litigation) reasons as well. Copyrights and patents also will contribute to this problem - basically, anything that enshrines the status quo, and deters development on anything new. If nobody is willing to innovate in the US, Kyoto treaty or no, we're going to have job problems...

Re:Jobs

[Coryoth]

Reminds me vaguely of this [satirewire.com].

For a taste:

"US Suspects World not putting US Interests first"

Whitehouse evidence

International politicians and the media have blasted the U.S. for abandoning the Kyoto global warming treaty, despite the fact that the U.S. has explained the treaty would not be good for the U.S. economy."

Jedidiah.

Re:Let's compare false dichotomies...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions.
...
Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle.

Funny that you said this. Check your facts -- Brazil has REDUCED green house gas emissions BECAUSE of the Kyoto protocol.

Re:Let's compare false dichotomies...

[iamsure]

> The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions

Sorry, yes it does. It deeply encourages countries to commit to reducing their outputs - and it has already worked. In the UK, in Brazil, and in other countries, since signing on, they've made substantial reductions specifically to increase their position with the treaty.

> What is says is "if you're a third world country you can produce as much green house gasses as you want

Actually, no it doesnt. It sets levels for all countries at the time the treaty was written. The lower-tier countries still have a limit on their production - its just not as tight as the largest producers.

The net result is that if those third-world countries sell their credits, they too will quickly become annex 1 countries - putting them under the same rules we would be under. The net result? They get money to modernize, we get to slow our reduction rates, and eventually everyone is under the same rules! A net win for all sides.

>Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle
Brazil has reduced their emissions - not increased them.

It has nothing to do with Bush - and everything to do with bad assumptions due to a short-sighted focus on "jobs".

Re:Let's compare false dichotomies...

[startled]

Now, I realize that you'll tear apart my argument because "George Bush is evil" and "the US economy doesn't create any value to the world." Obviously those aren't valid arguments any way you slice it.

While I admire your proactive stance, it's generally considered poor form (not to mention confusing) to set up straw men for hypothetical future arguments. There's a shortage of straw men due to excessive over-use, so please, treat them like an antibiotic: wait to use them until you need them!

This message was brought to you by Straw Men Against the Constant Killing of Straw Men.

Re:What??

[Anonymous Coward]

The text protocol can be found here [unfccc.int]
And you're right, the quote is nonsense.

Re:Okay....

[Doomdark]

As much fun as conspiracy theories are, I think the simplicity principle applies here: don't attribute to evil what can be easily explained by ignorance. I think it's enough that he's just short-sighted greedy ignorant fool, representing wants of other likeminded fools.

Sad as it is, I don't think mr. Bush really needs alleged extra money this will save/earn him.

Re:Mixed opinions

[iamsure]

China ratified it, and will become an annex 1 country (bound by its terms) within the next decade - probably sooner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty

Re:kyoto is not good for the US

[Angostura]

Nope. The sole purpose of Kyoto is to attempt to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses. These gasses are are likely to cause the type of severe environmental degradation which will cause real problems for your children and my children.

The problem is where to set the 'proper per-capita' output for carbon dioxide. As you may know, the U.S produces by far the most CO2 per citizen.

Some background from the UK environmental agency may help illustrate some of the curbs that Europe put in place, at the same time that the U.S kept belching the stuff out. It is left as an exercise for the reader to find out how much C02 China and India put out per capita.

"By 1992, the world's governments had signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In the treaty, industrialised nations aspired to stabilising their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.

Most failed. By 2000, US emissions were 13 percent higher, though the European Union had made a small reduction, mainly through cuts in Britain and Germany.

In 1997, in a bid to strengthen their commitments, most nations signed the Kyoto Protocol. This time industrialised nations agreed to an average cut in emissions of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But, individual targets ranged from an 8 percent cut in the EU, a 7 percent reduction in the US and an 8 percent increase allowed in Australia.

After the deal was signed, the EU agreed to reallocate its entitlements so countries like Ireland and Spain could increase their emissions, while Britain and Germany compensated by making higher cuts. The UK has promised to reduce emissions by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012."

Re:kyoto is not good for the US

[bug]

I certainly don't claim to be an expert in the Kyoto treaty or environmentalism in general, but why in the world is "per capita" considered the proper measurement of CO2 emissions rather than something like "per square mile?" It seems to me that given the US's low population density that our country is far better able to absorb what we churn out than other areas of the world. I've read frequent complaints about Kyoto not weighting carbon sinks enough, but all that I've seen from either side is rhetoric.

Re:kyoto is not good for the US

[geg81]

it does NOT put restrictions on developing nations,

Why should it? The US and Europe have emitted most of the extra greenhouse gases now in our atmosphere. The fair thing would be to greatly reduce emissions in the US and Europe and to give developing nations a chance. And if we can't do that, we should actually compensate the developing nations for their share of global emissions that they were entitled to but didn't get to make.

It's like the US and Europe raiding a penny jar shard by the whole office. Now that it's almost empty, rather than returning the amount of money that went beyond their fair share, they are complaining that they can't keep taking out of it.

Re:Hopefully

[TWX]

No, the only three ways Bush could lose his job are to be impeached and convicted, for him to resign, or for him to be bodily unable to do the job, like if he had been more hurt when he fell of that Segway, among other injuries.

Normally I'd include "mentally unable", but for some reason that hasn't stopped this particular president.

External forces like treaties and trade don't usually directly affect the President to the level that would be needed to call for his impeachment. Bush would have to have a stance so heinous that most other nations would completely cease trading with us in order to really cause enough trouble motivate the people to call for his removal. The problem with this is that our economy has been very important to other countries internationally. This can be seen easily back to 1929 when our economy's tanking took Europe, and a large portion of the rest of the world, straight to the crapper. The Middle East, for example, can't afford to cut off oil sales to the U.S. any more than we can afford to immediately cut them off as a supplier, we consume so much that they would be in as much trouble as we would.

I'm getting tired of how the Government constantly makes short-term changes to deal with long-term problems, somewhat blocking the problem until it rears its' head again. We could set the example for what a country can do for the world, but we don't.

I guess that I'm still just a little peeved by the election results.

Re:a good thing?

[iamsure]

Sorry, not quite.

First and foremost, it will reduce our dependence on oil - a huge win for America, considering that 12 presidents havent managed to do so.

Second, it puts the biggest producers first, and the "little guys" who will be hit the hardest financially a close second - the little guys still get moved up to Annex 1 in time, resulting in everyone having the same rules.

Third, as you said, it gives us an easy transition method - we can buy credits from other countries, allowing us to reduce the impact of transition, and ALSO increasing the speed of those smaller countries reaching annex I status.

All in all, its a team-work oriented approach to getting everyone on the same rules, as fast as posisble, while still being reasonable.

All in all, very good for America - less reliance on oil, less pollution, less health problems, new jobs (green technologies), and a better standing in the international community.

Re:So he supports....

[Wind_Walker]

He was reelected by 51% of the American people.

He knows we're stupid.

Re:just seed the oceans with iron

[Dimensio]

Wouldn't this be bad for life in said ocean?

Re: Seeding with iron doesn't work.

[Esteanil]

Let's start with the conclusion of the study:

"And while it might be feasible for us to add iron to the ocean to stimulate blooms, for every ton of it we throw overboard, we'd need to add at least 5,000 tons of silicate to enable the blooms to persist for long enough to impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels," he [Philip Boyd] said.

Read the full article at http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040319014625.tbceuc pi.html [spacedaily.com] (First article about this study I found that didn't require registration)

There is no quick and easy technological fix. Time for the US, and the world, to take responsibility. The Kyoto-agreement is just the start, MUCH more is required for CO2 levels to stabilize.
And the top polluter in the world doesn't even want to take that first, symbolic step...

Re:Amazing

[Richard_at_work]

They are on the list. They have restrictions. Balls in your court. Again.

Re:Amazing

[Saville]

"We'll do it when others do it. Get India and China on the list and we'll talk."

The decline of the US is interesting to watch from abroad. Decades ago the US was proud and optimistic and lead the world in practically everything.

Today many US citizens are happy letting other first world countries like Japan and the EU (even Russia!!) lead the way and compare themselves underdeveloped 2nd world nations.

Re:Amazing

[Doomdark]

This is a troll, but I'll bite.

And you are an ignoramus. Check out Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for details if you don't take my word:

The Kyoto protocol was specifically designed to hamper american economic dominance

This is so silly it's hard to even comment. Maybe try wearing looser tin foil hat?

A treaty that places tight restrictions on CO2 coming from developed countries, but no restrictions what so ever on developing countries like China

Uh, China has ratified the damn thing! 80/20 rule also applies here: of course it's better to focus on the biggest producers. Who cares if, say, Gambia reduces its Co2 production by 12% if USA continues its excessive Co2-producing energy consumption? Likewise, although limits could be set to be, say, equal amounts per capita, those would be meaningless for third world countries: they'd have to increase production tenfold to reach such limits.

There's no reason to ask the US taxpayers to actually pay for an outsourcing of thier jobs when the net result will actually be to increase worldwide pollution, now is there.

Increase? Huh? Even if industry did move (which it wouldn't, to any large degree), how on earth would Co2 production increase?

If the treaty had reasonable constraints on all countries, then the US should sign it, but a treaty that seeks to move dirty industries from the US (and EU, though to a lesser degree)

Actually not only has EU slightly stricter RELATIVE targets (even though it already produces less than half as much pollutants than USA, per capita), EU has already worked on reducing pollution much more efficiently than USA.

And for some weird reason, EU doesn't whine and bitch about cleanup costs. Partly because it's more densely populated, and people have experienced pollution (acid rain of 80s killing forests in Germany etc); partly because the sense of social responsibility is much higher back there.

From rhetorical stand-point, I would think USA would WANT to lead the world here... but I guess that theme is only used when there's a dictator the president has beef with. So in the meantime, it's actually that loathed pacifist continent of Europe that is actually leading the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Re:You're right

[shostiru]

The multilateral anti-American radical left here

If you think slashdot is "radical left" you need to spend some quality time in Cambridge or Berkeley. I'd say ranging through moderate left, substantially libertarian, and occasionally (IP and corporate issues) touching on anarchist. Multilateral, in this case, I'll grant you; global warming is obviously a global problem, and addressing it will require cooperation among nations.

(as evidenced by the anti-Bush rhetoric and pro-Kerry numbers in the polls recently)

Sucks to be in the minority, doesn't it? Life isn't fair! Nobody's making you stay here; you can avoid political threads or articles, or just leave /. entirely and hang out at freerepublic. On the other hand, it's substantially more difficult for me to avoid the impact of laws and policies I find abhorrent. It's all but impossible for me, or anyone else, to avoid the impact of global warming, without the imposition of constraints on CO2 emissions. Somehow, I'm feeling less than sympathetic for your situation.

isn't going to let you live it down though.

If you take any position here you can expect a rebuttal from someone. That's kinda the point.

I'm burning karma right now, but who gives a shit

If that's a ploy to avoid being modded down for a reply that isn't relevant to the topic, I don't think it's going to work.

as if caring what this crew thought is somehow important.

which you obviously do, otherwise you wouldn't waste your time replying.

When the US won't defend your ass

If by "your" you mean other countries, it seems to me, based on conversations with many people around the world, quite a few see our "protection" as being at best misguided, and at worst in the finest tradition of the Mafia. I'm all for our allies picking up more of the tab for their own protection if they find it necessary.

If by "your" you mean those of us in the US who disagree with you, I'm quite capable of defending myself (nice thing about being a left-libertarian is you can support all the amendments). But when did agreement with a particular side become a litmus test for patriotism, anyway? I'm pretty convinced you're misguided about environmental policy, but I don't think the US should sell you down the river because of it.

Look, this may be difficult to believe, but most of us are in favor of Kyoto and other measures to address global warming because we believe it is in our long-term best interest, not because we want to hand the keys to the country over to the UN or foreign nations. We're racking up environmental debt. Sooner or later we're going to have to pay up, and there won't be a mommy and daddy to bail us out.

Re:This man is unbelievable.

[An Onerous Coward]

"He has done nothing to harm the environment...

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

The Clear Skies Act of 2003

Bush supported the Clear Skies Act of 2003, which repeals or reduces air pollution controls. This act reduces caps on toxic chemicals in the air and cuts enforcement of the Clean Air Act, and is opposed by environmentalist groups such as the Sierra Club. Bush has faced heavy criticism over his advocacy for the act, with Henry A. Waxman (D-California) describing its title as "clear propaganda." Among other things, the Clear Skies Act:

* Weakens the current cap on mercury pollution levels from five tons per year to 26 tons.
* Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68 percent more nitrogen oxide pollution.
* Weakens the current cap on sulphur dioxide pollution levels from two million tons to 4.5 million tons, allowing 225 percent more SO2 pollution.
* Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015.
* Allows industrial buildings undergoing renovation, modernization, or expansion not to install machines that allow the building to come into current environmental standards compliance.

By 2018, the Clear Skies Act would allow 450,000 more tons of nitrogen oxides, one million more tons of SO2, and 9.5 more tons of mercury than what would be allowed by enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

The fact is, if Bush wanted the treaty, I think he could get it through the Senate. He has the political capital, and says he wants to reach out to Democrats. But the fact is, he doesn't want it, but it sounds like you're blaming Congress for the treaty's lack of viability.

Again, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], George Bush is said to have said:

"The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

So which is it? Is this a critical issue where America needs to take responsibility? Or something about which we can be petty? If the environment is going to suffer irreparable harm because of our inaction, then we should stop griping about fairness and dig in, doing whatever needs to be done to avert that damage.

Since Bush says he wants the U.S. to be a leader on this issue, tell us what he's done to reduce the CO2 emissions of the U.S.?

One final point: On a per-capita basis, the U.S. puts out ten times the greenhouse gas that China does, and China has reduced its emissions by 17% over the last five years (same Wikipedia article). Now, I think it's perfectly fair to allow looser standards for a developing country that is trying to build up an economy that can provide a decent standard of living for a billion people. China is doing more than the Kyoto Protocol demands, while the U.S. claims to want to be a global leader on this issue yet does nothing.

If Bush said, "I won't sign the treaty because I have a plan for reducing emissions that will be less harmful to my country," and then vigorously pursued that strategy, I would fully respect his effort. As it is, it sounds like he's just using China as an excuse to avoid our very real obligation to do more about global warming.

correction

[uncadonna]

I am an expert on this matter. I hold a doctorate in atmospheric and oceanic sciences and I spend my time on the computer science aspects of climate models.

We have essentially bulletproof evidence that accumulating CO2 is caused by human activity. We understand the thermodynamic of atmospheres well enough to know that this is a significant perturbation. Paleonotological evidence indicates that this perturbation is occurring much more rapidly than any comparably large climate forcing event has occurred over at least the last fifty million years.

The first order prediction is that this will cause significant warming. Significant warming has been the consensus expectation of the scientific community starting in the early 80's, after a few years of debate as to whether human activity would cause cooling (through dust) or warming (through greenhouse gases). This prediction predates the observation of warming.

Since about 1990, computational models of sufficient fidelity to capture contemporary climate variations have been run with extrapolated greenhouse forcing.

Earliest and subsequent model results consistently predicted patterns of warming concentrated in the northern reaches of the continents. This is exactly the warming pattern that has emerged since then. These predictions show that the disruptions are expected to accelerate based on plausible emissions scenarios in the absence of policy constraints.

I encourage you to study the matter seriously rather than assert your hunches. The best place to start is the IPCC scientific working group report [grida.no].

Michael Tobis