Kyoto Protocol - US missing the boat?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by C1ay

As long as any nations are exempt it is an ineffective effort.

To use a more extreme example, this is equivalent to saying that as long as *any* countries don't sign the treaties limiting the enrichment of nuclear materials to to weapons-grade levels, there's no point in anyone obeying the treaty. I almost agree with that, but the consequences are a lot scarier than an "ineffective" agreement to limit them. Iran and North Korea actually have signed nuclear limitations accords, they just don't obey them. Treaties of any kind must apply to the old Soviet/American line of "trust, but verify" because people will cheat, but I think its arguable that trying to get people to obey a treaty even when "outlaws" are cheating is still a good thing. You can over time bring the political or military pressure to bear to get these people to comply. This is all based on the principal of being able to take the "moral high ground" which the American neo-cons just don't consider necessary any more: as our new Ambassador to the UN John Bolton is on the record as saying: "There's no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States." Yikes!

Originally Posted by C1ay

Dirty processes will be exported to countries like China and India that are exempt since this would be cheaper than cleaning up the processes to reduce the emissions the protocol is designed to reduce.

Its going to be interesting to see how long these two countries, which are rushing headlong into major cultural upheaval with a massive underclass with nothing to lose and everything to gain via violent overthrow, will last....

Power-to-the-Proletariat,
Buffy

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Buffy

You can over time bring the political or military pressure to bear to get these people to comply.

While that is true, it the short term the reality is this. If the U.S. signed the treaty it would only result in the companies with dirty processes in the U.S. moving their operations to China and India since they are exempt. This simply results in moving U.S. jobs to these countries without reducing the emmisions the treaty is intended to reduce.. Why should the U.S. do this? Australia refuses to sign the treaty as well claiming that it is too costly.

This treaty is flawed. As long as anyone is exempt or nations are allowed to trade emmisions there will be loopholes to avoid violating the treaty. This will effectively redistribute jobs from developed nations to developing nations thereby shifting the global economy. From this aspect it is too costly and grossly unfair to developed nations.

It should also be noted that methane contributes to global warming 21 times more than carbon dioxide. The top 3 methane emitters in order of significance are China, Russia and India. Again China and India are exempt from Kyoto and Russia's commitment is delayed since it is listed in Annex I as a country transitioning to a market economy. All 3 of these though, have joined a Methane-To-Markets partnership with the U.S. and nearly a dozen other countries. The U.S. will also assist 7 of these countries with U.S. technology and $53 million in seed money.

At any rate, that is my rant on Kyoto. I know it seems like the U.S. is being selfish and stubborn on the Kyoto Treaty but IMO, the big picture does not show this to be the case. Let's hope the future will bring a solution that discriminates against no one. The world does have some real problems that need to be addressed, but that it just it, they need to be addressed, not juggled from place to place while bureaucrats take advantage of the holes.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by C1ay

At any rate, that is my rant on Kyoto. I know it seems like the U.S. is being selfish and stubborn on the Kyoto Treaty but IMO, the big picture does not show this to be the case. Let's hope the future will bring a solution that discriminates against no one. The world does have some real problems that need to be addressed, but that it just it, they need to be addressed,
not juggled from place to place while bureaucrats take advantage of the holes.

True- it has holes. But the psycological effect of not signing has made global warming an issue of less importance to US citizens, which is idiotic. This is an issue that goes far beyond economic realities, and denying the treaty, in the public mind, i thnk has been the same as denying the phenomenon.

[Buffy]

...and that actually is my point. Sure its imperfect, but the fact of the matter is that by playing the game--which by the way lets you game the system (see Robert Byrd's not-as-controvertial -as-they-might-seem statements about Hitler last week in the Senate)--is something that in the past the US has been tremendously successful at, although unfortunately usually in Democratic administrations (Adlai Stevenson's: "Don't wait for the translation ambassador, do you have missles in Cuba, yes or no?"). By staying out of it, we lose all leverage to twist it in a way that would leave us sitting on top of the world *and* having everyone applaud us for having done so!

Machiavellian,
Buffy

[freeztar]

I see both sides, and it IS tricky.

Since Kyoto wraps up in 2012, it might be best for the US to jump on the next climate treaty/pact at this point. One more year folks, one more year...

I'm wondering how Rudd is going to influence the US, if at all.

[Kayra]

It really is an excelent question buffy.

The only answer I can come up with is that the administration really missed the bus. Looking at Kyoto with the wrong perspective can easily cause an entire chain of poorly constructed descisions.

As you have stated, they could easily have joined Kyoto, been none the worse for wear, and even come out with some nice global kudos (at the very least).

[Buffy]

Thanks. I wish it had generated more discussion!

Actually at the time I posed it, we had a more vocal right-wing contingent here who had been bloviating about how unfair Kyoto was in some other threads, and a couple of them told me privately that they thought my question was "unfair"...

I think Google's announcement about investing heavily in solar energy kind of proves my point though: the Google Boys are not doing it just because they think its morally good. They think they can make a *ton* of money off it too!

Green and greed are co-patable,
Buffy

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Green and greed are co-patable,
Buffy

A term for this was coined in 1999: Natural Capitalism

The book by the same is an excellent read if you are into economics and the environment.

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Iran and North Korea actually have signed nuclear limitations accords, they just don't obey them.

Hi Buffy,

That's changed now (and it was wrong in 2005). The US intelligence agencies admit unanimously that Iran stopped it's nuclear weapons program in 2003 and an agreement was made with North Korea recently.

U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work - New York Times

If nations think that International conventions on torture are something to wipe their arses on then can they be expected to treat International environmental obligations the same.

p.s. Three cheers for US Intelligence.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

That's changed now (and it was wrong in 2005). The US intelligence agencies admit unanimously that Iran stopped it's nuclear weapons program in 2003 and an agreement was made with North Korea recently.

Thank you for posting that information, but its of course important to note that Iran did at one point have a nuclear weapons program, with the current intelligence being based on secret documents from Iranian military leaders bemoaning the fact that the effort was abandoned in 2003. This means that Iran was indeed violating their international agreements up to that point!

I know you well enough though to know you obviously were simply pointing out that things have changed, and not being a typical 16 year-old about "correcting" any "error" that would assume that I had intelligence that no one in the world had at the time of the post above, as some disinterested observers might assume from your tone, and I appreciate that!

What hidden secrets will you say are in my head,
Buffy