Greetings Stevefoder, re Kyoto, you wrote:
<I am all for reducing use of fossil fuels, but the Kyoto protocol is brain dead for many reasons.>
Kyoto, as a followup to the Rio agreement of 1992, aims to reduce GHGs to ~ 5% below 1990 levels and despite its’ flaws has managed to gain consensus, after much national debate, from all major developed nations except for the US and, I believe, Australia.
It is both a big step in terms of each country’s perception of its' economic costs and a small step in terms of the 50%
reduction some climatologists argue is needed to really stop global warming in this century.
<Congress would never even come close to ratifying such a treaty with a majority vote much less 2/3 required. They could agree to it, but would they add a $2 a gallon gas tax to implement it? No!!!>
Is somebody trying to scare Americans with a bit of politically suicidal hyperbole? Increased efficiency, pollution controls, investment in cleaner/renewable technologies, shifting energy portfolios to less-polluting fossil fuels, adding carbon sinks, carbon trading… these are the mechanisms I’ve read about. The tax the Kyoto signatories are trying to avoid comes in the form of costs of doing nothing about climate change. For a 'scare' from our Congress, I think back in one of the hearings where someone pointed out that US agriculture output would be threatened by global warming, some congressman tried to reassure the hearing by saying that agriculture represented only 2% of our GDP. How alive is his mentation? And then there are the anti-Kyoto scenarios that warn by signing Kyoto the US GDP could wind up falling as much as 1-2% in a few years. We are losing our atmosphere while these business and political lobbies continue to stall and argue for business-as-usual.
<You also said California would ratify. But, California would never be able to meet the stringent requirements with its exploding population and love of cars.>
California has already passed the enabling legislation for CARB to regulate and set limits on greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles INCLUDING CO2 (the US has always avoided any CO2 emissions regulation), and this bill’s passage was posted, if I recall correctly, on this board 2 years ago. This is the first legislation in the US and possibly the world to regulate and reduce auto manufacturer fleet emissions of GHGs. The bill, AB 1493, enables the Calif Air Resources Board to set these standards and I definitely predict lawsuits from Detroit once they are formulated. Their technology report is due out in July. It is not just an issue of oil consumption, it is an issue of the health consequences of poor air quality from excessive emissions and over half of the CO2 released in California comes from transportation. Still, California has less than half the per capita emissions of Texas but California is in violation of federal air quality standards and this bill represents a potentially bold attempt to do something about it.
<Kyoto expectations are just too high for the USA.>
I’ve read that Japan already had advanced emissions technology on their energy plants by 1990, the baseline year, that we have barely begun to install in the US
making Japan’s compliance all the more difficult compared to US. Most signatories had huge internal divisions and debates in their government, business and public arenas. Are we not up to the challenge?
<Countries as India and China have no requirements to meet under Kyoto and are growing their use of fossil fuels incredibly fast. China's growth in oil usage is increasing 20% a year.> Kyoto was a bad agreement. Clinton had years to push it in the USA but he knew better and never tried. He agreed to a treaty and just ignored it, which is dishonest. Bush is just being honest by saying forget it. >
China’s emissions fell by over 17% from 1997 to 2000, the latest figures available, while US emissions continued to rise. (This is controversial data because it is the figures are indirectly derived but it is still cited by the US Dept. of Energy.) China’s per capita emissions are 1/13th those of the US and India’s are about 1/26th. And under Kyoto, I believe developing countries will have to accept reduction quotas in a few years time. Meanwhile, should the US with 4% of the world’s population continue emitting 25% of the world’s global warming gases, sort of a free ride, while Europe, Japan, Russia, Canada and others shoulder their Kyoto commitment?
<Kyoto was a bad agreement. Clinton had years to push it in the USA but he knew better and never tried. He agreed to a treaty and just ignored it, which is dishonest. Bush is just being honest by saying forget it. >
Bush Jr. declared that Kyoto was ‘fatally flawed’ and unilaterally withdrew the US from further negotiations without offering alternative plans to the Kyoto participants, throwing the US into an isolated position. Does anyone else see a similarity with his Iraq moves?
Some may remember Bush Jr’s campaign promise to reduce industrial CO2 emissions and also that Bush Sr. signed and the US Senate ratified the Rio treaty requiring the USA to reduce emissions to 1990 levels. I say don’t forget it.
A good Memorial weekend to all,
Al |
