Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

[Crazed Rabbit]

A very relevant article from
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_28_05_JKE.html

It would seem the enviro-wackos are more interested in talk than action. Not that that's very surprising.

December 28, 2005
Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?
By Jack Kelly

It isn't absolutely necessary to be a hypocrite in order to be a liberal, but it sure helps.

During the first week in December, ten thousand people gathered in Montreal for a UN-sponsored conference on global warming.

Rex Murphy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. thought the size of the gathering inappropriate:

"Just think of the Montreal summit's ecological footprint," he said. "Is there really a need to fly ten thousand people from 189 countries to a cold city to exchange ideas? Is there no email? Are the phone lines down?"

Then Mr. Murphy answered his own question: "I suppose...ecology is not really different from politics. High on sermons, low on example."

The principal topic of the conference was the future of the treaty drafted in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, which obligates signatories in the developed world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

In his address, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin took a poke at the United States for refusing to sign on to the Kyoto Accord.

Toronto Star columnist Richard Gwyn agreed with what Mr. Martin had to say about the evil Bush administration, but speaking of Canada in general and Mr. Martin's Liberal government in particular, Mr. Gwyn noted:

"We've done nothing about climate change and about global warming except talk. For us to now preach at others is pure hypocrisy."

Since 1990, the base year for Kyoto calculations, Canadian emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases" have increased 24.2 percent, while those of the United States have increased by only 13.3 percent, Mr. Gwyn noted.

Another popular speaker was former President Bill Clinton, who declared President Bush was "flat wrong" that the Kyoto targets would damage the U.S. economy.

Mr. Clinton failed to mention to his audience in Montreal that, as president, he had described the Kyoto accord as a "work in progress," and refused to submit it to the senate for ratification. This was chiefly because in July of 1997, the senate had voted, 95-0, for a resolution saying the U.S. should not sign the treaty if it would damage our economy, or if it excluded developing nations from emissions restrictions.

A 1998 study by the Energy Information Administration estimated trying to meet the Kyoto standards would cost the U.S. economy about $400 billion a year, mostly by hugely increasing the cost to consumers of electricity, home heating oil, and gasoline.

China and India, expected to be the world's largest producers of greenhouse gases by 2020, are exempt from Kyoto's restraints, as are South Korea and other emitters in the developing world.

"(Clinton) can't have it both ways," said Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Either the lack of meaningful participation by key developing countries justified his no ratification policy or not. If it did, then Bush's identical policy of not seeking ratification is equally justified. If it did not, then he should apologize today to his fellow Kyoto supporters for not submitting the treaty when it was in his power to do so."

This week the Institute for Public Policy Research, a left-leaning British think tank, released a study which indicates that 13 of 15 European nations which signed the Kyoto treaty will not meet the "mandatory" emissions reductions to which they agreed.

The worst offenders, the IPPR said, are Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, all falling about 20 percent short of their targets.

"The poorly performing nations are among the many who have criticized the U.S. and President George Bush," noted Alison Hardie, a reporter for the Scotsman newspaper.

Britain and Sweden are the only two European countries close to meeting their Kyoto targets, the IPPR said. But at a news conference in September, British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- heretofore considered a strong Kyoto supporter -- said ordering countries to cut greenhouse gases won't work.

But though no signatory has met its Kyoto goals, and only a few are likely to come close, the talk at Montreal was about a new, more restrictive treaty to follow Kyoto when it expires in 2012. For liberals, it is talk that matters, not action. Appearances trump reality.

"Perhaps Kyoto is Japanese for hypocrisy," the CBC's Mr. Murphy said.

Of course, signing that treaty is more important than the results of said treaty.

Crazed Rabbit

[Devastatin Dave]

All words and no action. Typical.

[Husar]

That first sentence

It isn't absolutely necessary to be a hypocrite in order to be a liberal, but it sure helps.
makes me tired already...why does everything on this world have to do with being liberal or conservative? And why does the author of this article have to pick on liberals instead of presenting a solid article and letting the reader draw his/her own conclusions?:rtwno:

[Ronin]

That first sentence

makes me tired already...why does everything on this world have to do with being liberal or conservative? And why does the author of this article have to pick on liberals instead of presenting a solid article and letting the reader draw his/her own conclusions?:rtwno:


that would be because he doesn´t have anything to make a solid article with....~:rolleyes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Perhaps if you extended your reading past the first sentence. I know it's a tremendous effort, but you shouldn't pretend you've refuted the article or even dealt with its contents if you don't actually read the article, which is strong on facts and weak on hyperbole, which is why you may find it difficult to refute.

Crazed Rabbit

[Viking]

This topic makes me want to nod my head against a wall. Thanks for the attention, gentlemen.

[Slyspy]

Perhaps if you extended your reading past the first sentence. I know it's a tremendous effort, but you shouldn't pretend you've refuted the article or even dealt with its contents if you don't actually read the article, which is strong on facts and weak on hyperbole, which is why you may find it difficult to refute.

Crazed Rabbit

If your article is clearly biased from the off do not be surprised if people do not want to read it. Certainly do not patronize them for it. Husar's point is entirely valid.

I have not great love for Kyoto myself since, without the US on board and with a great many frankly hopeless signatories , it has no great impact. Wrong-headed from the word go and generally ineffective. At least Britain appears to be cleaning up its act (though since we have little heavy industry left this is not that hard).

[Redleg]

If your article is clearly biased from the off do not be surprised if people do not want to read it. Certainly do not patronize them for it. Husar's point is entirely valid.

I have not great love for Kyoto myself since, without the US on board and with a great many frankly hopeless signatories , it has no great impact. Wrong-headed from the word go and generally ineffective. At least Britain appears to be cleaning up its act (though since we have little heavy industry left this is not that hard).

The United States not signing the Kyoto accord has nothing to do with its failure to address the issue, nor does it address the failure of the signatory nations in meeting the committments they agreed to when their nations signed the accord.

http://www.beyondintractability.org/m/monitoring_agreements.jsp


It is difficult for environmental agreements to be self-enforcing because of the nexus of actors involved. Corporations, interest groups, and other non-governmental organizations are important not only in communicating information, but in actually designing and implementing the agreements. Environmental agreements are difficult to enforce and monitor, for the same reasons that they are difficult to agree to. Agreements involving multiple and diverse actors tend to be more difficult to monitor because they create a multiplicity of interpretations and enforcement protocols. Effective agreements will specify in their design the means of enforcement and the standards by which compliance is judged.[8]

The success of the Montreal Protocol and the failure of the Kyoto Protocol are two illustrations of this basic principle. One reason that the Montreal Protocol was successful was that there was a basic agreement on the severity of the problem and the requirements for successfully dealing with the problem. Widespread agreement on the issue can lead to widespread agreement on the methods of monitoring and enforcement. In the end with environmental issues, the agreements must largely be self-monitored within each nation. Another important issue associated with the success of the Montreal Protocol is the relatively low cost of compliance.

We can see in the Kyoto Protocol a fundamental failure on all of these accounts. The scope and nature of the problem, carbon-dioxide emissions, is widely disagreed upon. If agreement on the problem is impossible, agreement on how to monitor compliance to any ameliorative agreement is certain to be impossible as well. Additionally complying with the agreement imposes high economic costs for both developing and developed countries, making compliance unlikely and monitoring difficult.



Then again its not all fine and dandy in Britian concerning the Kyoto Accord either

http://www.senate.gov/comm/environment_and_public_works/general/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=246497


Kyoto Support Eroding

Support for the Kyoto Accords, even among Europe’s one-time greatest supporters, is waning. Last month at Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative Conference in New York, Prime Minister Tony Blair made a stunning statement that initially went unreported by the press. Blair, as the London Telegraph reported Sunday, made a “U-turn” on Kyoto. The Telegraph reports, “Mr. Blair, who has been seen up to now as a strong supporter of the Kyoto Treaty, effectively tore the document up and admitted that rows over its implementation will ‘never be resolved.’ Regarding future Kyoto like plans Blair stated, ‘To be honest, I don’t think people are going, at least in the short term, to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto.”

Europe’s Failure to Meet Its Kyoto Targets

Prime Minister Blair’s “U-turn” comes as Europe struggles to meet the limits imposed by Kyoto. Robert Samuelson in a Washington Post op-ed on June 29th wrote: “Considering Europeans’ contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you’d expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto’s base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency.”

Samuelson itemized those increases:

France, a 6.9 percent increase; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; and Spain, a 46.9 percent increase over 1990 levels.

The failure of EU nations to meet targets under Kyoto further demonstrates the lack of will or ability by those claiming to be the biggest supporters of reducing greenhouse gasses. Catherine Pearce, global climate change spokeswoman for Friends of the Earth, is correct to ask: “If Britain and the rest of Europe cannot get it right, then how can anyone expect the US or developing countries to?” (John Vidal, “Europe fails to cut greenhouse gas emissions,” The Guardian, 6/18/2005)


So it seems at least the United States was honest in its refusing to sign the accords verus caving into the popularity of an accord that can not be enforce, regulated, monitored, or even agreed upon by those who actually did agree to sign the Kyoto Accord.

[Slyspy]

With all due respect mate you need to tone down the knee-jerk nationalist response. Read the words of my post and you will see that at no point did I criticise the US for staying out of Kyoto. It is their call after all, and Kyoto was always a lame duck. What I did say was that Kyoto is effectively pointless without the US on board. I could of course have mentioned China as well, but thought that the US was more relevant to these boards. Neither did I claim that Britain was meeting its targets, or that anyone was or could, or that Kyoto was workable in the first place. Jeez, everyone is so prickly these days on this board, so eager to argue!

[Redleg]

With all due respect mate you need to tone down the knee-jerk nationalist response.

Oh look who needs to tone down their knee-jerk response. Pot calling the Kettle black I see.



Read the words of my post and you will see that at no point did I criticise the US for staying out of Kyoto.

Read the words of my post - and you will see that I am not criticising your post in a nationalistic defense. But pointing out that the failure of the Kyoto accords has absolutely nothing to do with the United States not signing it.



It is their call after all, and Kyoto was always a lame duck. What I did say was that Kyoto is effectively pointless without the US on board.

And see you missed the point of my post - Kyoto was pointless regardless if the United States was on board or not.



I could of course have mentioned China as well, but thought that the US was more relevant to these boards.

Tsk Tsk - an attempt to only criticize one nation when many are at fault because of the audience of the board. It seems my knee-jerk reaction was not so far fetched after all.



Neither did I claim that Britain was meeting its targets, or that anyone was or could, or that Kyoto was workable in the first place.

You might want to read what you wrote then, my impression was of something else, hence the response you got.



Jeez, everyone is so prickly these days on this board, so eager to argue!

Why not - when the opposition seem to only look at one narrow aspect of the issue.

[GoreBag]

In a word, no.

[Red Harvest]

The United States not signing the Kyoto accord has nothing to do with its failure to address the issue, nor does it address the failure of the signatory nations in meeting the committments they agreed to when their nations signed the accord.

http://www.beyondintractability.org/m/monitoring_agreements.jsp

??? The U.S. has not only failed to address the issue, but it has denied it exists. Pointing out failures of others when we sabotaged the agreement, there is hypocrisy in the extreme.


So it seems at least the United States was honest in its refusing to sign the accords verus caving into the popularity of an accord that can not be enforce, regulated, monitored, or even agreed upon by those who actually did agree to sign the Kyoto Accord.
"Honest?" Not at all. The U.S. approach has been anything but honest. Denying the obvious is hardly honest. It is intellectually dishonest, and we will be paying the price of this for decades. It will set us back technologically, and economically. Short sighted approaches usually do. We have not invested properly for the future and will lag instead of leading.

Hell, the anti-Kyoto approach has not even been good for us economically--and that is the whole basis for not dealing with the issue. What the knee jerk conservatives missed in all this was that Kyoto could be used to restrict other developing nations, and advance ourselves at the same time. Without international agreements there is nothing to prevent the world's most populated nations from using considerably more in the way of fossil fuels each year.

The oil & gas price run up over the past few years? I predicted that based on the above reasoning about India and China and the fact that we were emerging from global recession. (I actually expected it to take a few years longer than it did to *consistently* run above $50--but my analysis of the trend was spot on.) I take a big picture, longterm view.

By the way...with regard to Canadian CO2 emissions. The oil sands development is a killer in that regard...as it will be in the U.S. Remember that part of that is exports to the U.S. now that the oil sands projects are viable with higher energy prices. The CO2 cost of extraction is getting higher for oil in general.

[Redleg]

??? The U.S. has not only failed to address the issue, but it has denied it exists. Pointing out failures of others when we sabotaged the agreement, there is hypocrisy in the extreme.

The United States did not sabotage the agreement. The agreement was nothing from the beginning. No nation that signed the agreement had an honest expectation to fulfill the conditions within the agreement. No measures were established for monitoring the complaince for the agreement. In a nut-shell the agreement was sabotaged from the beginning by the inablity of the drafters to agree upon the conditions of the treaty. The United States only had a small part to play in that.



"Honest?" Not at all. The U.S. approach has been anything but honest. Denying the obvious is hardly honest. It is intellectually dishonest, and we will be paying the price of this for decades. It will set us back technologically, and economically. Short sighted approaches usually do. We have not invested properly for the future and will lag instead of leading.

THe dishonest approach was done by Bill Clinton when he signed the treaty and never sent it to Congress for ratification. So in that aspect you are correct - there was a dishonest approach to the treaty. Disagreement with what the conditions that cause global warming is not a dishonest approach.




Hell, the anti-Kyoto approach has not even been good for us economically--and that is the whole basis for not dealing with the issue. What the knee jerk conservatives missed in all this was that Kyoto could be used to restrict other developing nations, and advance ourselves at the same time. Without international agreements there is nothing to prevent the world's most populated nations from using considerably more in the way of fossil fuels each year.

You might want to go read the agreement. The developing nations were not restricted - one of the reasons the United States did not agree to the Kyoto Treaty was because it only placed constraints on the developed nations - not the developing nations.



The oil & gas price run up over the past few years? I predicted that based on the above reasoning about India and China and the fact that we were emerging from global recession. (I actually expected it to take a few years longer than it did to *consistently* run above $50--but my analysis of the trend was spot on.) I take a big picture, longterm view.

WIthout seeing such an analysis when it was made to show the date - I can not comment on your supposed findings. I could come up with data that shows that the Kyoto Treaty has no effect because it does not address the slash and burn of Rain Forests nor the logging of Rain Forests in Asia. Two can play that arguement - in fact about 1-2 years ago in a previous thread about the Kyoto Accords I brough up just that problem with it.



By the way...with regard to Canadian CO2 emissions. The oil sands development is a killer in that regard...as it will be in the U.S. Remember that part of that is exports to the U.S. now that the oil sands projects are viable with higher energy prices. The CO2 cost of extraction is getting higher for oil in general.

Speaking of short sightness - if your only address the CO2 emmissions from fossil fuels your just as short sighted as you are claiming the Bush Adminstration and intellectually dishonest is in regards to the Kyoto Treaty.

Care to explain why Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Accords and never sent the treaty to Congress for Ratification?

[Red Harvest]

The United States did not sabotage the agreement. The agreement was nothing from the beginning. No nation that signed the agreement had an honest expectation to fulfill the conditions within the agreement. No measures were established for monitoring the complaince for the agreement. In a nut-shell the agreement was sabotaged from the beginning by the inablity of the drafters to agree upon the conditions of the treaty. The United States only had a small part to play in that.
No, that won't fly. With the U.S. being unwilling to participate it had insufficient support to work. Saying what makes you feel good about our nation's irresponsible approach is not gonna work.


THe dishonest approach was done by Bill Clinton when he signed the treaty and never sent it to Congress for ratification. So in that aspect you are correct - there was a dishonest approach to the treaty. Disagreement with what the conditions that cause global warming is not a dishonest approach.

The fact that Americans have stuck their heads in the sand on the issue is not Clinton's fault. It does illustrate the intellectually dishonest approach of my countrymen on the matter.


You might want to go read the agreement. The developing nations were not restricted - one of the reasons the United States did not agree to the Kyoto Treaty was because it only placed constraints on the developed nations - not the developing nations.
It would have provided the political leverage to do so. Things like this must be done in steps. If you don't take the first step, you go nowhere (which is what has happened.) As I've maintained for many years, our best interests are to set a tone that gives us some authority in encouraging energy conscious development. If you won't do it at home, it won't happen abroad.


WIthout seeing such an analysis when it was made to show the date - I can not comment on your supposed findings. If memory serves it would have been July or August of 2003 as we were doing our strategic planning for 2004, 2005 and beyond. I reviewed the industry projections and found them to be uniform, and bogus. They were typical conservative oil industry documents, telling industry what they wanted to hear (and thereby discouraging energy conservation projects.) Industry accepted them, because they were what they wanted to hear. In a nutshell prices were predicted to drop to $25/bbl for 2004, and rise about 4-6% per year for the next ten years or so. How they thought prices would fall when at the same time we were emerging from recession, and demand historically increases when that happens...it's called wishful thinking in the absence of contrary historical data.

Anyway, I was looking at it considering whether or not we should be making plans for an investment of several hundred million dollars to get a permanent leg up on the competition by switching to a much cheaper feedstock (even then, with oil at $28/bbl!) Not surprisingly, the conservative execs had no interest in anything innovative because of risk potential. So they lost any potential initiative and lead on a long development project. Those of us who had an interest in such things along with the expertise and mindset to make them happen instead left the company or retired (or both.)

These execs were the same clowns that took several months and tons of justification to decide on spending less than $20,000 to save over $200,000 annually on one of my projects just a few months before. In frustration I broke the impasse by telling them I would loan them the money out of my own savings for just a few percentage cut of the longterm benefits from such a pissant expenditure.


I could come up with data that shows that the Kyoto Treaty has no effect because it does not address the slash and burn of Rain Forests nor the logging of Rain Forests in Asia.
No you cannot, becaust that is 100% false logic. Whether or not you address one source does not mean that it has no effect. That's like saying if I reduce my discretionary spending I won't see a net improvement in my savings because my wife does not. I might not see as much improvement as I want, but I will see an effect. Pointing the finger at the other guy is a dishonest approach.

Years ago I had a fellow engineer (true knee jerk conservative that prompted me to begin using the term) try to convince me that burning the rain forests would actually *reduce* CO2 because ag use would tie up more carbon. He must have read that in one of his conservative sources somewhere, as he was always repeating the stuff verbatim without doing a basic logic check. The guy was brilliant with process design, but when it came to social/political matters he became a nearly brainless automaton.


Speaking of short sightness - if your only address the CO2 emmissions from fossil fuels your just as short sighted as you are claiming the Bush Adminstration and intellectually dishonest is in regards to the Kyoto Treaty.

This is a "two wrongs make a right" approach, but it is far wide of the mark. I have not said anything should be off the table, so your strawman appears to have caught fire.

[Redleg]

No, that won't fly. With the U.S. being unwilling to participate it had insufficient support to work. Saying what makes you feel good about our nation's irresponsible approach is not gonna work.

Again you are incorrect. If the particpants of the treaty wanted it to work they would of ensured it was correctly implemented in their nations and monitored. It seems that even the signators of the Kyoto Agreement could not decrease their own emissions to the agreed upon limits - and some even increased their emissions. Blaming the United States for the failure of the Kyoto Accords does not fly when one looks at the facts and not just the hyperbole involved.



The fact that Americans have stuck their heads in the sand on the issue is not Clinton's fault. It does illustrate the intellectually dishonest approach of my countrymen on the matter.

Clinton refused to send it to Congress after he signed the treaty, which I argee is a intellectually dishonest approach and a violation of the constitution by the way. The President must send all treaties entered into to congress or it does not carry. The fact that Clinton refused to send the treaty for ratification is Clinton's fault, which helped along the stuck in the sand approach of Congress in relationship to the treaty.



It would have provided the political leverage to do so. Things like this must be done in steps. If you don't take the first step, you go nowhere (which is what has happened.) As I've maintained for many years, our best interests are to set a tone that gives us some authority in encouraging energy conscious development. If you won't do it at home, it won't happen abroad.

The Kyoto Accords did not provide any political leverage to do so - nor was it being discussed in the initial rounds that a successful complaince with the Koyoto Accords would lead to developing nations coming in line. The Kyoto Accords was an attempt only by the developed nations to curb what some believed to be the cause of Global Warming, one in which they could not agree on completely even among the nations that signed the accords.



If memory serves it would have been July or August of 2003 as we were doing our strategic planning for 2004, 2005 and beyond. I reviewed the industry projections and found them to be uniform, and bogus. They were typical conservative oil industry documents, telling industry what they wanted to hear (and thereby discouraging energy conservation projects.) Industry accepted them, because they were what they wanted to hear. In a nutshell prices were predicted to drop to $25/bbl for 2004, and rise about 4-6% per year for the next ten years or so. How they thought prices would fall when at the same time we were emerging from recession, and demand historically increases when that happens...it's called wishful thinking in the absence of contrary historical data.

Anyway, I was looking at it considering whether or not we should be making plans for an investment of several hundred million dollars to get a permanent leg up on the competition by switching to a much cheaper feedstock (even then, with oil at $28/bbl!) Not surprisingly, the conservative execs had no interest in anything innovative because of risk potential. So they lost any potential initiative and lead on a long development project. Those of us who had an interest in such things along with the expertise and mindset to make them happen instead left the company or retired (or both.)

These execs were the same clowns that took several months and tons of justification to decide on spending less than $20,000 to save over $200,000 annually on one of my projects just a few months before. In frustration I broke the impasse by telling them I would loan them the money out of my own savings for just a few percentage cut of the longterm benefits from such a pissant expenditure.



Fair enough - but again fossil fuels are only part of the ecology crisis facing many nations. The failure of the Kyoto Accords is that it asked only the developed nations to reduced - and provided no suggestions to developing nations.



No you cannot, becaust that is 100% false logic. Whether or not you address one source does not mean that it has no effect. That's like saying if I reduce my discretionary spending I won't see a net improvement in my savings because my wife does not. I might not see as much improvement as I want, but I will see an effect. Pointing the finger at the other guy is a dishonest approach.

You seem to be only discussing the emissions of Developed Nations in this discussion, and pointing the blame of failure at the United States. However you decide to call my logic 100% false because I am looking at aspects beyond just the developed nations and fossil fuel emmissions. If your not willing to discuss the overall failures of the Kyoto Accords - then calling my logic and reasoning 100% false logic is indeed a logical fallacy on your part. (Speaking of Strawman Arguements and Red Herrings).



Years ago I had a fellow engineer (true knee jerk conservative that prompted me to begin using the term) try to convince me that burning the rain forests would actually *reduce* CO2 because ag use would tie up more carbon. He must have read that in one of his conservative sources somewhere, as he was always repeating the stuff verbatim without doing a basic logic check. The guy was brilliant with process design, but when it came to social/political matters he became a nearly brainless automaton.


And I would of told him he was incorrect also. The Rain Forests help reduce CO2 by scrubing it as a food source. Basic Biology. Reducing the Rainforests to plant crops - is a reduction of the ability for the natural cycle to work.



This is a "two wrongs make a right" approach, but it is far wide of the mark. I have not said anything should be off the table, so your strawman appears to have caught fire.

Actually you have committed the fallacy - it seems you missed a key word in the sentence. I did use the qualifer of If and I did not commit a distortion of your postion, I made a simple statement that if your only using..., then you are being as short sighted. It was an if then statement.

Edit: Initially misread the final paragraph, but in review fixed my chain of thought.

[Red Harvest]

Again you are incorrect. If the particpants of the treaty wanted it to work they would of ensured it was correctly implemented in their nations and monitored. It seems that even the signators of the Kyoto Agreement could not decrease their own emissions to the agreed upon limits - and some even increased their emissions. Blaming the United States for the failure of the Kyoto Accords does not fly when one looks at the facts and not just the hyperbole involved.
False. It might make the guilty feel better about themselves, but the truth is that taking no step forward at all is a greater sin.

The U.S. as the world's largest energy user and highest per capita (IIRC) does deserve the largest share of blame on this. We had the greatest responsibility because of our position, and we failed to do the right thing...and out of selfish, short sighted greed--counterproductive at that.


The Kyoto Accords did not provide any political leverage to do so - nor was it being discussed in the initial rounds that a successful complaince with the Koyoto Accords would lead to developing nations coming in line.
Again, false. If you don't take the first step on the journey, you go nowhere. You have to show leadership in order for the developing nations to follow. Without it you have no leverage. (And a number of the nations who have not kept their commitments would qualify as being underdeveloped at the time.) Kyoto would have provided leverage because it would have lent credibility and sent the message that the U.S. saw this as important and was willing to take action. That lays the ground work for further treaties.

If you think that developing nations are going to use less each year, then you are sadly mistaken. I recognize that their per capita use is tiny and it will grow. The biggest handle on that is containing the growth by making it more efficient in spite of *their* inevitable increase. (It is very much like the medical cost issue that the U.S faces--as I've illustrated before, you can do a lot to improve the situation simply by taking small positive steps early.) Leadership makes a big difference. The best the U.S. could really strive for is somehow keeping others at a lower *percent* per capita than what we use.


The Kyoto Accords was an attempt only by the developed nations to curb what some believed to be the cause of Global Warming, one in which they could not agree on completely even among the nations that signed the accords.
The biggest gains were to be made in the habits of the developed nations. A good engineer finds the factor that gives the biggest potential response. This is a matter of leadership. The U.S. has shown no positive leadership on the matter. U.S. conservatives are the worst offenders.


Fair enough - but again fossil fuels are only part of the ecology crisis facing many nations. The failure of the Kyoto Accords is that it asked only the developed nations to reduced - and provided no suggestions to developing nations.
You never get to the second phase if you never start the first. The defense you are using falls flat on its face for that reason.


You seem to be only discussing the emissions of Developed Nations in this discussion, and pointing the blame of failure at the United States. However you decide to call my logic 100% false because I am looking at aspects beyond just the developed nations and fossil fuel emmissions. If your not willing to discuss the overall failures of the Kyoto Accords -
The overall failure comes from not using them as a first step. Saying something is flawed, then doing NOTHING is unpardonable. It shows that the real problem was with the key non-participant, not Europe, not the 3rd World. That is why the widest possible participation was needed. With the U.S. on board and acting positively others would have had incentive to meet their commitments. At present there is little incentive and no reasonable expectation of carrying this through to the rest of the world.


then calling my logic and reasoning 100% false logic is indeed a logical fallacy on your part. (Speaking of Strawman Arguements and Red Herrings).
No, what I went after was that particular comment about how the rest of the Kyoto protocol would have no impact because of the rain forest loss.


And I would of told him he was incorrect also. The Rain Forests help reduce CO2 by scrubing it as a food source. Basic Biology. Reducing the Rainforests to plant crops - is a reduction of the ability for the natural cycle to work.
It is worse than that because the volume of fixed carbon is also reduced by the loss of rainforest. It hits twice. (Interestingly, some of the same applies to logging old growth forests...and preserving other various habitats in the U.S.)


Actually you have committed the fallacy - it seems you missed a key word in the sentence. I did use the qualifer of If and I did not commit a distortion of your postion, I made a simple statement that if your only using..., then you are being as short sighted. It was an if then statement.
Whether or not the "if" is there does not change the attempt at shifting the blame. Continued growth in energy use and subsequent CO2 emissions is a bigger long term threat. I haven't forgotten about the rain forests, but many of the same folks who want unfettered exploitation of fossil fuels here are also opposed to ecological initiatives.

[Papewaio]

Gentlemen, when you attempt convert someone it is better to give them cappocinos then a knee capping.

Try first to list what you agree on.
Second out of what is left decide what is important.
Then discuss various methods of achieving these goals. :2c:

[Redleg]

False. It might make the guilty feel better about themselves, but the truth is that taking no step forward at all is a greater sin.

Shifting the blame for the failure of the Kyoto Accords onto the United States because of its not signing a treaty - is just that. A shifting of the blame. The failure of the accords lies soley with those who signed the accords and did not honor what they agreed to honor.



The U.S. as the world's largest energy user and highest per capita (IIRC) does deserve the largest share of blame on this. We had the greatest responsibility because of our position, and we failed to do the right thing...and out of selfish, short sighted greed--counterproductive at that.

You can rightful appeal that the United States must do something to curb its emissions to lead the world in ecology, but its just hyperbole to blame the failure of the Kyoto Accords on the United States.



Again, false. If you don't take the first step on the journey, you go nowhere. You have to show leadership in order for the developing nations to follow. Without it you have no leverage. (And a number of the nations who have not kept their commitments would qualify as being underdeveloped at the time.) Kyoto would have provided leverage because it would have lent credibility and sent the message that the U.S. saw this as important and was willing to take action. That lays the ground work for further treaties.

When the first step is counterproductive as was the Kyoto Accord then the responsible thing is to not take the step because of populist opinion. Clinton signed the accord because of populist opinion but failed to send it to Congress because he understood that it was not a benefit to the United States nor would Congress ratify the treaty.



If you think that developing nations are going to use less each year, then you are sadly mistaken. I recognize that their per capita use is tiny and it will grow. The biggest handle on that is containing the growth by making it more efficient in spite of *their* inevitable increase. (It is very much like the medical cost issue that the U.S faces--as I've illustrated before, you can do a lot to improve the situation simply by taking small positive steps early.) Leadership makes a big difference. The best the U.S. could really strive for is somehow keeping others at a lower *percent* per capita than what we use.

Oh I don't think any such thing.

The Kyoto Accord does not address India, China, nor the slash and burn de-forestion, nor does it address workable solutions toward the developing world to help them address such issues.



The biggest gains were to be made in the habits of the developed nations. A good engineer finds the factor that gives the biggest potential response. This is a matter of leadership. The U.S. has shown no positive leadership on the matter. U.S. conservatives are the worst offenders.


The Democrates were against the Kyoto Accords also, because of the percieved harm to the economy.

The Kyoto Accords only address parts of the issue and in doing so it did not provide a workable solution for what it did address. Responsible leadership means that you do not enter into a worthless and unworkable treaty because of popular opinion states that something must be done.



You never get to the second phase if you never start the first. The defense you are using falls flat on its face for that reason.


Blaming the United States for the failure of the Kyoto Accords falls flat on its face when reviewing the facts of the nations that signed the accords and failed to honor them.



The overall failure comes from not using them as a first step. Saying something is flawed, then doing NOTHING is unpardonable. It shows that the real problem was with the key non-participant, not Europe, not the 3rd World. That is why the widest possible participation was needed. With the U.S. on board and acting positively others would have had incentive to meet their commitments. At present there is little incentive and no reasonable expectation of carrying this through to the rest of the world.

Not at all - the nations who signed the treaty were under the obligation to fulfill the committments of the treaty if possible. The United States did not have to sign the Kyoto Accords, for it to be successful or unsuccessful. The only part that you have absolutely correct is the statement that saying something is flawed, then doing nothing is unpardonable.

The responsiblity for the failure of the Kyoto Accords falls smack on those who signed the accord.



No, what I went after was that particular comment about how the rest of the Kyoto protocol would have no impact because of the rain forest loss.


And the Rain Forest is just as valid of an arguement as the fossil fuel emmissions. To claim its 100% false shows that you were not understanding the arguement



It is worse than that because the volume of fixed carbon is also reduced by the loss of rainforest. It hits twice. (Interestingly, some of the same applies to logging old growth forests...and preserving other various habitats in the U.S.)

Yes indeed - I am also against old growth forest logging. I don't mind conservation of the land and cutting some of the old forest to insure proper growth and health of the forest, but I am against logging just to harvest old growth



Whether or not the "if" is there does not change the attempt at shifting the blame.

Goes to show that you jumped to the wrong conclusion about what the arguement was. Careful of accusing others of using a strawman arguement when you did not read the sentence fully to get the intent of the postion.



Continued growth in energy use and subsequent CO2 emissions is a bigger long term threat. I haven't forgotten about the rain forests, but many of the same folks who want unfettered exploitation of fossil fuels here are also opposed to ecological initiatives.

I agree - but it must all be addressed not just pieces and parts to fit some popular political agenda.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm all for ecological conservationism, but even I knew that the Kyoto Accords were faulty from the get go, yeah sure, it tries to paint a pretty picture, but sometimes obligations cannot be met even by 1st and 2nd world countries, there are other things that our tax dollars (and the taxes from other countries) should go towards right at the moment. And I'm not saying that we should refute the basis of the treaty and build huge industries that billow CO2 into the atmosphere, but that perhaps right now is not the best time to commit fully to the program, and cut back on it for awhile. The issue isn't going to go away.

[Red Harvest]

Shifting the blame for the failure of the Kyoto Accords onto the United States because of its not signing a treaty - is just that. A shifting of the blame. The failure of the accords lies soley with those who signed the accords and did not honor what they agreed to honor.
Nonsense. It took the participation of the U.S. to make it work. The U.S. made no effort to produce anything better, in fact it wanted no teeth. The U.S. essentially got what it wanted, and that is a pitifiul legacy worthy of scorn.


You can rightful appeal that the United States must do something to curb its emissions to lead the world in ecology, but its just hyperbole to blame the failure of the Kyoto Accords on the United States.
No, it is not.


When the first step is counterproductive as was the Kyoto Accord then the responsible thing is to not take the step because of populist opinion. Clinton signed the accord because of populist opinion but failed to send it to Congress because he understood that it was not a benefit to the United States nor would Congress ratify the treaty.
Now that is all nonsense. Populist but couldn't get is signed? There isn't any logic in that. The real problem is that the majority of the U.S. population is unwilling to make ANY *perceived* sacrifice for the good of all. That is what I see in my countrymen, an incredibly selfish an ultimately counterproductive approach. I do not believe you have to give everything away to do the right thing. With Kyoto, I see no evidence that our country is doing the right thing.


The Kyoto Accord does not address India, China, nor the slash and burn de-forestion, nor does it address workable solutions toward the developing world to help them address such issues.
And there will be no follow up to do so, because Kyoto was neutered by the U.S., stalling the process. Just because others share blame does not relieve the U.S. of its lion share of guilt. It is at least as guilty as its share of energy use.


The Kyoto Accords only address parts of the issue and in doing so it did not provide a workable solution for what it did address. Responsible leadership means that you do not enter into a worthless and unworkable treaty because of popular opinion states that something must be done.
I do not believe that it was either worthless or unworkable. That is your belief, the rest of the world would tend to disagree with U.S. conservatives on that. I don't see it as perfect, only as a first step.


Blaming the United States for the failure of the Kyoto Accords falls flat on its face when reviewing the facts of the nations that signed the accords and failed to honor them.
No, the U.S. broke the back of the system.


The responsiblity for the failure of the Kyoto Accords falls smack on those who signed the accord.
No, they have only partial responsibility. The U.S. created a huge imbalance that doomed the accord. You can't take a narrow view of this and be intellectually honest.


Goes to show that you jumped to the wrong conclusion about what the arguement was. Careful of accusing others of using a strawman when you did not read the sentence fully to get the intent of the arguement.
Nope, I read it correctly. No matter how much you try to backtrack, it still reads the same. Your strawman has burned to ashes now.

Most importantly most U.S. "conservatives" (oxymoron that one is) continue to resist any of the concepts of energy conservation, carbon dioxide reduction, ecological preservation, global warming etc. Heck, I know many who still oppose the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion.

They got what they wanted with Kyoto, let them take the heat for their actions. I believe in accountability.

[Redleg]

Nonsense. It took the participation of the U.S. to make it work. The U.S. made no effort to produce anything better, in fact it wanted no teeth. The U.S. essentially got what it wanted, and that is a pitifiul legacy worthy of scorn.

It did not take the United States participation to make the treaty work. All it required was the signatory nations to attempt to fulfill the conditions of the treaty.



No, it is not.

Oh yes it is - the failure of the accords lies with those who signed it.



Now that is all nonsense. Populist but couldn't get is signed? There isn't any logic in that.

Sure there is - Clinton signed the treaty because it was the popular thing to do - but did not send it to Congress because it would not be ratified by Congress.



The real problem is that the majority of the U.S. population is unwilling to make ANY *perceived* sacrifice for the good of all. That is what I see in my countrymen, an incredibly selfish an ultimately counterproductive approach. I do not believe you have to give everything away to do the right thing. With Kyoto, I see no evidence that our country is doing the right thing.
And there will be no follow up to do so, because Kyoto was neutered by the U.S., stalling the process. Just because others share blame does not relieve the U.S. of its lion share of guilt. It is at least as guilty as its share of energy use.



Take out the reference to Kyoto and I could even agree. The failure of the Kyoto Accords lies squarely upon the shoulders of the leaders who signed the accords and did not attempt to fulfill the treaty.



I do not believe that it was either worthless or unworkable. That is your belief, the rest of the world would tend to disagree with U.S. conservatives on that. I don't see it as perfect, only as a first step.


Actually they don't disagree with the United States conservatives as much as you are alluding to - hence the failure of the Kyoto Accords.



No, the U.S. broke the back of the system.

Not at all - those nations had the obligation to follow the Kyoto Accords. The system had no monitoring for compliance - which makes it unworkable. So the back was broke by the system itself not the United States.

From the link in my first post on this subject


We can see in the Kyoto Protocol a fundamental failure on all of these accounts. The scope and nature of the problem, carbon-dioxide emissions, is widely disagreed upon. If agreement on the problem is impossible, agreement on how to monitor compliance to any ameliorative agreement is certain to be impossible as well. Additionally complying with the agreement imposes high economic costs for both developing and developed countries, making compliance unlikely and monitoring difficult.



No, they have only partial responsibility. The U.S. created a huge imbalance that doomed the accord. You can't take a narrow view of this and be intellectually honest.

My view is not as narrow as yours seems to be. The Accords failed because it was an unworkable plan, those who signed the accord own the responsiblity for its failure - not a nation which did not sign the accord.



Nope, I read it correctly. No matter how much you try to backtrack, it still reads the same. Your strawman has burned to ashes now.

Attempting to state I backtracked is a strawman in itself, since there is no backtrack in my statement. Again if you did not follow the if then statement in the initial statemen, you committed the strawman, not I.



Most importantly most U.S. "conservatives" (oxymoron that one is) continue to resist any of the concepts of energy conservation, carbon dioxide reduction, ecological preservation, global warming etc. Heck, I know many who still oppose the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion.

Tsk Tsk couldn't resist the hyperbole could you.




They got what they wanted with Kyoto, let them take the heat for their actions. I believe in accountability.

If you believed in accountablity you would not be shifting blame toward the United States for the failures of the nations that signed the Kyoto Accord from honoring the treaty they signed.

But I see you are still only attempting to blame conservatives - and not the Democratic Party which has a major part (maybe even more then the Republican Party) in the failure of the United States to have a sound ecological policy and even more for the failure of the Kyoto Accords - ie remember good old Bill Clinton initially signed the treaty and did not send it to Congress.

[Red Harvest]

Redleg,

We'll have to agree to disagree, because there is no way I can break the conservative circular logic with respect to Kyoto. Conservatives scuttled it. It could not work without U.S. participation. Things like this must happen in steps and require the participation of the major parties to make it work. That didn't happen, nor do U.S. conservatives want it to happen--whether it is Kyoto or something different. They don't believe there is any need to control CO2 or energy use. You can't get past that little fact...no matter how much you try to claim the problem was in the structure of Kyoto.

If there is any cost or sacrifice conservatives will reject it. That's what I have learned from my discussions here, from watching FOX, from reading conservative editorials, blogs etc. "Greed is good." They want it all for free. Guess what, life doesn't work like that, you have to invest in your future. That is not happening with conservatives in charge. De-investing seems to be the key, empty the accounts ASAP.

Kyoto was broken because of U.S. non-participation. Doesn't mean it was perfect. The defense you have used is like Enron claiming it was okay to defraud all the western states by manipulating energy prices because of California's flawed energy regulations.

[Crazed Rabbit]

We'll have to agree to disagree, because there is no way I can break the conservative circular logic with respect to Kyoto. Conservatives scuttled it. It could not work without U.S. participation. Things like this must happen in steps and require the participation of the major parties to make it work. That didn't happen, nor do U.S. conservatives want it to happen--whether it is Kyoto or something different. They don't believe there is any need to control CO2 or energy use. You can't get past that little fact...no matter how much you try to claim the problem was in the structure of Kyoto.

:rolleyes:
All the US' fault, is it? How could the US killing its economy to change have helped when the majority of other signatories to the treaty aren't meeting their set emissions goals? When some of the biggest polluters, and all third world countries, aren't bound to do anything?

As it is, the US is doing better emissions wise than Canada and most of Europe.

The real problematic logic here is that of liberals who believe in kyoto so blindly that they think it was the fault of the US it failed, not the general ignoring of the treaty by the people who did sign it, nor the fundamental, flaws o the treaty.

Crazed Rabbit

[Vladimir]

Remember the ozone hole? I thought we were supposed to be fried by now.

[Red Harvest]

:rolleyes:
All the US' fault, is it? How could the US killing its economy to change have helped when the majority of other signatories to the treaty aren't meeting their set emissions goals? When some of the biggest polluters, and all third world countries, aren't bound to do anything?

As it is, the US is doing better emissions wise than Canada and most of Europe.

The real problematic logic here is that of liberals who believe in kyoto so blindly that they think it was the fault of the US it failed, not the general ignoring of the treaty by the people who did sign it, nor the fundamental, flaws o the treaty.

Crazed Rabbit
I didn't say it was "all" the U.S.' fault, however we do share a disproportionate amount of the blame. And yes, this even applies to our impact on Canada.

For instance, at 1 million bbl/day tar sands production (roughly equivalent to Canadian exports to the U.S.) Canadian greenhouse gases are 4% higher than they otherwise would be (and account for about 19% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions growth since 1990.) Don't worry, it's gonna get a hell of a lot worse, we'll see to that.

Then there is the U.S. led push toward larger vehicles and SUV's. This has hurt energy efficiency in Canada as well. Yes, we have a substantial impact on our smaller neighbor as indicated by transportations accounting for 31% increase in Canadian greenhouse gas emissions since 1990.

[Ser Clegane]

As it is, the US is doing better emissions wise than Canada and most of Europe.


Uhm - I don't know what kind of criteria you apply, but if you look at CO2 emissions/GDP or TPES*/GDP the US might be on a level with Canada (or China) but the US are significantly worse than e.g., France, Germany, the UK or Japan (based on 2003 numbers).

* TPES = Total Primary Energy Supply

[Red Harvest]

Remember the ozone hole? I thought we were supposed to be fried by now.
Well, Vladmir, looks like you might want to read the history on this one. The reason it didn't get that bad is because we actually took action back in the late 80's...yes, even the U.S. Might want to ask those in Oz about the hole, I understand it effects them much more. The Montreal protocol actually worked quite well. Various CFC levels have stabilized and finally shown some indications of declining. Things have followed the generally predicted trends, as it was known that the peaks would take decades--hence the need for immediate action back then. It is one of those times where science won over ignorant wishful thinking, and affected global policy in a positive way.

It is a favorite of mine, because many of the same folks who so vociferously opposed the concept of CFC contribution to ozone layer loss also don't believe CO2 emissions or global warming are a problem or will become one.

[Redleg]

Redleg,

We'll have to agree to disagree, because there is no way I can break the conservative circular logic with respect to Kyoto.

Its my logic - I did not gain it from any source other then my own research and ability to reason facts for myself. Nothing circular in the logic - its pretty straight line thinking. My premise is that the Kyoto Accords failed because they were not probably thought out, implemented, nor agreed upon by the signator parties. To demonstrate that I used circular logic or begging the question fallacy - you will have to demonstrate where I stated the something along the following

Bill: "God must exist"
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."


Or arguement so far can be summed up in this way.

Redleg: The Kyoto Accords failed because of the failures of the treaty and the signatory parties.
Red Harvest: The Kyoto Accords failed because the United States would not particapate nor agree to committ to the Accords.

Now you will have to demonstate the remaining of the circular logic - or begging the question fallacy to substain your allegation of circular logic being used. From my understanding the circular logic being used stems not from me - but from someone else.

You seem to be stating that the failure of the Kyoto Accords is because of the non-particapation in the Accords by the United States, and sighting the evidence of that failure being the lack of particapation of the United States. That my friend Red Harvest is the fallacy of begging the question - or as you stated here circular logic.

I am sighting actual reasons for the failure of the accords beyond just the lack of particapation by the United States, and have provided evidence of such.




Conservatives scuttled it. It could not work without U.S. participation.

So blame the United States all you want. The failure of the Kyoto Accords falls smack onto the parties that signed the accords. Those who signed the accords either could not meet the unrealistic expectations, or refused to meet the expectations. There was no agreed upon monitoring system, nor a complaince assurance in the agreement.



Things like this must happen in steps and require the participation of the major parties to make it work. That didn't happen, nor do U.S. conservatives want it to happen--whether it is Kyoto or something different. They don't believe there is any need to control CO2 or energy use.
You can't get past that little fact...no matter how much you try to claim the problem was in the structure of Kyoto.


You don't know what facts I accept and which ones I don't. It seems that you have completely misunderstood my position and are resorting to your own strawman arguement. I have stated that CO2 emmissions from fossil fuels are only part of the problem. The Kyoto Accord failed to address all the issues involved, and did not provide a workable plan for those who particapated in the negogations for the development of the treaty. You have committed a major arguementive fallacy here.



If there is any cost or sacrifice conservatives will reject it. That's what I have learned from my discussions here, from watching FOX, from reading conservative editorials, blogs etc. "Greed is good." They want it all for free. Guess what, life doesn't work like that, you have to invest in your future. That is not happening with conservatives in charge. De-investing seems to be the key, empty the accounts ASAP.

Resorting to hyperbole and false claims because you can not convince me of the merit of your arguement, does not bode well for your postion nor your premise.



Kyoto was broken because of U.S. non-participation. Doesn't mean it was perfect. The defense you have used is like Enron claiming it was okay to defraud all the western states by manipulating energy prices because of California's flawed energy regulations.

Hyperbole statements and a strawman arguement again does not gain merit for your premise. To bad - it was an enjoyable discussion until you resorted to the standard strawman and Ad Hominem arguements on those who do not agree with your premise or postions.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Uhm - I don't know what kind of criteria you apply, but if you look at CO2 emissions/GDP or TPES*/GDP the US might be on a level with Canada (or China) but the US are significantly worse than e.g., France, Germany, the UK or Japan (based on 2003 numbers).

* TPES = Total Primary Energy Supply

I'm talking about emissions growth since 1990.


I didn't say it was "all" the U.S.' fault, however we do share a disproportionate amount of the blame. And yes, this even applies to our impact on Canada.
blah blah blah...
Yes, we have a substantial impact on our smaller neighbor as indicated by transportations accounting for 31% increase in Canadian greenhouse gas emissions since 1990.

Ha, now even Canada's problems are our fault!

Crazed Rabbit

[Ser Clegane]

I'm talking about emissions growth since 1990.

Well, if you have the highest emission levels its obviosly much easier to reduce them than if you already have a lower level.

So, although the US managed to increase emissions at a slower rate than European countries in the past 15 years, they still have not reached the same efficiency level, but are on a level with China, Malaysia and Korea...

EDIT: The funny thing is - considering the high energy prices in the US, one should think that you would be interested in being more competitive in terms of energy consumption ... but I might be wrong

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would be happier if we increased substantially our use of nuclear power to gradually replace the fossil-fuels consuming plants. We need to export that coal to North Italy and to China.

I would also be happier to see more and more people turning to hybrid engines. Reducing our need to import oil. Increasing fuel prices seem likely to promote this shift.

As to the treaty, Kyoto failed in large part due to U.S. intransigence.

Thankfully.

Kyoto's underlying goal (which is NOT the altruistic goal from which it garners most of its support) was to hamstring the U.S. in order to promote Red China's development. Long-term goal was to re-establish political parity by having the U.S. unseated as a "sole" superpower and re-stablish a political system of "continuity" akin to than enjoyed from 1957 through 1988.

[Vladimir]

Well, Vladmir, looks like you might want to read the history on this one.

The data that I looked at suggested that it had always been there from the first year they took measurements on it. Also the whole magically disappeared in 1988. Last thing I've heard is that it doesn't exist. As far as starting to stabilize and be reduced: How many countries still use Freon and CFCs? I believe Mexico is one of them. If the hole is gone as I have heard how can the levels only now start to decline? Instead of debiting the level of man made chemicals in the air we're debating the level of CO2? Seems to me that plants and algae breath this stuff and the more advanced we become the more of them are around. Think how much "green space" can be made if projects like Japan's sky city are successful? There's just too much junk science and uncertainty for me to buy into it. Some even say it's too late, there's nothing we can do about it. That and the anti US rhetoric makes me suspicious about the intentions. They should be about universal efficiency standards and not blame us for all the world's problems. Does anyone know how China, Russia, et. al. are doing on the environmental front?

[Ser Clegane]

Kyoto's underlying goal (which is NOT the altruistic goal from which it garners most of its support) was to hamstring the U.S. in order to promote Red China's development.

Interesting hypothsis.

Some questions:

a) Do you have any actual prove for these allegations or is this a rant?
b) Why would Europe be interested in promoting China's industrial development?
c) How is the US hamstrung by achieving the same energy efficiency levels as other developed industrial countries?

[Redleg]

Kyoto's underlying goal (which is NOT the altruistic goal from which it garners most of its support) was to hamstring the U.S. in order to promote Red China's development. Long-term goal was to re-establish political parity by having the U.S. unseated as a "sole" superpower and re-stablish a political system of "continuity" akin to than enjoyed from 1957 through 1988.

Well I expect some Ad Hominem arguements will be forthcoming for adding the not so well known political aspects of the Kyoto Accords into the arguement. I steered away from this particular argument for a reason, one being that its a hard assertion to prove.

Second being that the underlying failure of the accords was more in line with the reasoning demonstrated in a previous quoted article.


We can see in the Kyoto Protocol a fundamental failure on all of these accounts. The scope and nature of the problem, carbon-dioxide emissions, is widely disagreed upon. If agreement on the problem is impossible, agreement on how to monitor compliance to any ameliorative agreement is certain to be impossible as well. Additionally complying with the agreement imposes high economic costs for both developing and developed countries, making compliance unlikely and monitoring difficult.

Adding the nefarious political reasoning to the arguement well - only shows why many in Congress would not have signed off on the treaty for ratification.

[Ser Clegane]

How many countries still use Freon and CFCs?
Global consumption of major CFCs went from ca. 1000kt in 1986 down to ca. 30kt in 2001 - I guess that qualifies for a major reduction ("Freon" is just the brand-name of Dupont's CFCs)


Instead of debiting the level of man made chemicals in the air we're debating the level of CO2? Seems to me that plants and algae breath this stuff and the more advanced we become the more of them are around. Think how much "green space" can be made if projects like Japan's sky city are successful? There's just too much junk science and uncertainty for me to buy into it. Some even say it's too late, there's nothing we can do about it. That and the anti US rhetoric makes me suspicious about the intentions.

a) CFCs/ozone layer and CO2 emissions/global warming are two very separate issues
b) It's funny that you make you remark about how good increased CO2 emissions are for plants and about junk science in the same context. As amatter of fact the global deforestation (e.g., rainforest in Brazil) adds to the problem as we not only increase the CO2 emissions but at the same time destroy the "natural converters" of CO2. Your remark about some trees to solve the problem is at best funny, considering the scale of deforestation.

[Vladimir]

Globally deforestation is much less severe than in your extreme, emotional plea for the rain forest. How much CO2 is consumed by plants in the ocean? What kinds of societies are participating in massive deforestation? Why is Mars getting warmer (or is it)? Look at the history of any developed country as to how they handled their forests. You'll see a dramatic increase in green space in developed nations than developing nations and clean coal vs. the old, black smoke.

I don't see how plants consuming CO2 is junk science, they actually breath it (sorry, being a smartass, please clarify). You have ignored my comments about advanced societies being environmentally friendly and the ozone hole "miracle". If entire cities can be replaced by a few, massive structures not only can the green space be improved but the heat generated and energy consumed by those cities is decreased as well. Of course the demand would have to be there but the technology would have ramifications outside the extreme example planned in Japan. If this is a crisis that only the US is willing to ignore why don't all other countries reduce their emissions now instead of being hypocritical?

[Ser Clegane]

Globally deforestation is much less severe than in your extreme, emotional plea for the rain forest. How much CO2 is consumed by plants in the ocean? What kinds of societies are participating in massive deforestation? Why is Mars getting warmer (or is it)? Look at the history of any developed country as to how they handled their forests. You'll see a dramatic increase in green space in developed nations than developing nations and clean coal vs. the old, black smoke.

OK - could you please provide some facts that show that green space is (globally) increasing? (BTW, is there any purpose to your question about Mars?)


I don't see how plants consuming CO2 is junk science, they actually breath it (sorry, being a smartass, please clarify). You have ignored my comments about advanced societies being environmentally friendly and the ozone hole "miracle".
The fact that plants are "breathing" CO2 is correct - the hypothesis that there are increasing "green spaces" that counter the increase in CO2 emissions is what falls into the realm of "junk science"


If entire cities can be replaced by a few, massive structures not only can the green space be improved but the heat generated and energy consumed by those cities is decreased as well. Of course the demand would have to be there but the technology would have ramifications outside the extreme example planned in Japan. If this is a crisis that only the US is willing to ignore why don't all other countries reduce their emissions now instead of being hypocritical?
Not quite sure what the first part has to do with the issue...
Regarding the second part:
a) that the targets are not met is not equivalent to not reducing emissions at all (or reducing the increase)
b) as I said before - the problem is that the US is not only the largest economy but also has (even if normalized with GDP) higher CO2 emissions compared to most EU countries and Japan


EDIT to add:

You have ignored my comments about advanced societies being environmentally friendly and the ozone hole "miracle".
On the "ozone hole miracle": The problem (CFCs) has been eliminated
What about the "advanced societies"? I think I don't understand your question.
Isn't being environmentally more friendly (e.g., reducing CO2 emissions) exactly what we are talking about?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting hypothsis.

Some questions:

a) Do you have any actual prove for these allegations or is this a rant?
b) Why would Europe be interested in promoting China's industrial development?
c) How is the US hamstrung by achieving the same energy efficiency levels as other developed industrial countries?

I don't know if I would label it a hypothesis, as there is no way to "test" it per se, aside from living through it.

A) No direct proof is available, as no reputable group/nation/government would ever admit to holding such a view.

Indirectly, the movement to invest China with superpower status has numerous supporters including Warren Christopher when serving as Sec of State for Clinton, members of national assembly of The Gambia, and author/journalist Emil Guillermo.

I can profer no verifiable proof of a connection between these two modes of thought, other than the correlation of those who wish to label China a superpower and those who support Kyoto. Correlation, of couse, is always suspect and can do no more then suggest a direction for proper inquiry.

B) For economic reasons. An expanded/industrialized China would become a greater market for European goods. China has demonstrated a preference for European firms where contracts/products/serivces in question were more or less equivalent -- which is, of course, their right. Europe, per capita, could end up benefiting more from and expanding China than does the U.S.A.

C) I am a fan of energy efficiency, as my first post on this thread should corroborate. The limits suggested by Kyoto, however, could have been met by the U.S.A. only through cutbacks forced through government regulations -- improved efficiency would not have sufficed. Few of the other signatories would have faced such cutbacks.

Don't mistake me. Better use of energy sources, a lessened reliance on fossil fuels for combustible purposes, clean air and water are all worthwhile goals. I do not see such vehicles as the Kyoto accord as being effective tools in pursuing such goals. Economic imperatives and pressures promote growth and change, and though some degree of regulation is necessary for the public good it should be sparing. To legislate and then force economics to live up to the legislative goal is somewhat akin to putting the cart before the horse. It may work, but not well.

[Red Harvest]

Well, if you have the highest emission levels its obviosly much easier to reduce them than if you already have a lower level.

So, although the US managed to increase emissions at a slower rate than European countries in the past 15 years, they still have not reached the same efficiency level, but are on a level with China, Malaysia and Korea...

Actually, all those countries are far more efficient on a per capita basis I believe (have not checked the numbers.) GDP basis, probably not (although China might be now...) Efficiency can be defined many ways. A nation like Singapore could be very energy efficient because of its small size, mass transit etc. It could excel both on per capita and GDP. The U.S. and Canada would be challenged by the distances involved in commuting, transporting goods, etc. Climate can also have an impact. Canada would likely suffer because of extensive heating requirements compared to the U.S.



EDIT: The funny thing is - considering the high energy prices in the US, one should think that you would be interested in being more competitive in terms of energy consumption ... but I might be wrong
But U.S. energy prices are actually relatively cheap. Gasoline is dirt cheap. You wouldn't know it from listening to your average U.S. consumer, but few of them have ever bought gasoline in foreign countries. This has been a driver for the large vehicle demand and of course sales. Other nations with higher vehicle operating costs did not go the bigger vehicle route.

The U.S. consumer mindset is that cheap gasoline and energy prices are some sort of God given right. It is rather amusing since the average Joe has no idea how all this works. It really comes across in pump conversations where I try to get a feel for what other motorists think of things.

When I've seen studies on this in the past and from personal conversations the interesting thing is that folks want to shift burden to industry, and not pay an extra dime themselves. That is economically the worst way to do it. It is consumption behavior that needs to change. Production side is responding to consumption habits.

How many average folks have any clue where hydrogen comes from? They think it is some resource that we are just going to tap into, or mine, or pump.

[Red Harvest]

The "Kyoto was intended ot decapitate the U.S. and help China" line is really weak. First of all, it is typical of scare mongering paranoia. More importantly, the rise of China is happening without Kyoto, and in fact will be assisted in the long run by the failure of the U.S. to recognize THE TREND. We have lost any political authority to join with others to get committments out of China. Short sighted thinking once again.

That's what I've been trying to get through to conservatives in my industry for years. With India/China it is not IF but WHEN their energy demand rises. I hit on the mark with respect to oil demand and pricing trends...while the same conservative voices in industry said I was crazy.

And the real kicker is that the same industry types that will claim Kyoto was selling us out to China are the ones selling us out to China themselves. The hypocrisy is hilarious and staggering. These same folks were opposing Kyoto, but shipping our plants, processes, and jobs to mainland China.

If you want to get upset about China, Kyoto has zip to do with it. What you should be concerned about is the way China has companies giving away all their trade secrets, processes, and production techniques (as well as jobs) to the Chinese govt. with little in return--market access, that's all. I've seen how these things work from inside the companies doing this. It's about equivalent to the deal the Indians got for Long Island...only in this case it is in reverse as the "lower tech Indians (Chinese) fleecing the "Europeans" (developed nations.) China created an inequitable market structure and everyone still wants to play, because if they don't someone else will.

[Red Harvest]

The data that I looked at suggested that it had always been there from the first year they took measurements on it. Also the whole magically disappeared in 1988. Last thing I've heard is that it doesn't exist.
What you are repeating sounds like junk science acquired from some non-reputable source. The "hole" was first measured in the 70's. It grew larger and peaked in 2000. Check organizations like NOAA for summaries. One comment on their site says that the levels resembling a hole were not seen until the 70's despite annual data extending back to 1957.


As far as starting to stabilize and be reduced: How many countries still use Freon and CFCs? I believe Mexico is one of them. If the hole is gone as I have heard how can the levels only now start to decline?
It isn't gone and the science for the levels actually peaking and declining over long time periods is well established. CFC use is a tiny fraction of what it once was, and it is not released nearly as often. Much of the science involves free radical chemistry in the upper atmosphere from what I recall (I haven't looked at that aspect in a long time.) CFC's were a problem because of their persistence and their catalytic destructive power.

The CFC link to ozone depletion was a happy accident. The researchers who discovered it were not looking for anything like that as best I recall.


Instead of debiting the level of man made chemicals in the air we're debating the level of CO2? Seems to me that plants and algae breath this stuff and the more advanced we become the more of them are around.
This was suggested early in the CO2 debates. As I recall, studies have proven that increased CO2 levels do not result in accelerated plant growth as was hoped. That is why you won't hear much about it anymore.

There's just too much junk science and uncertainty for me to buy into it.
The junk science has been coming largely from the same folks that opposed CFC phaseout. They like to label mainstream science "junk science." Handy little tag to confuse those without the technical background, knowledge and time to sift through the information.


Some even say it's too late, there's nothing we can do about it. That and the anti US rhetoric makes me suspicious about the intentions. They should be about universal efficiency standards and not blame us for all the world's problems. Does anyone know how China, Russia, et. al. are doing on the environmental front?
This last part is easy if you are speaking of CO2. The nations you mention likely produce quite a bit less CO2 per capita than the U.S. because their energy use is a fraction of ours. China consumes about 1/8th as much, Russia about 60% as much. Considering climates and the fact that Russia is a large exporter (while the U.S. is a large importer) it is a rather unflattering comparison for the U.S.

As to whether it is too late: That is hard to say, since we are conducting a global experiment on a system we still don't fully understand. The outcome can only be predicted. CO2 is a greenhouse gas...the question is how large will the effect be. Lower growth rates in CO2 emissions could only be a positive.

Interestingly, ten years ago folks were still denying that humans were having an impact on CO2. That debate has largely ended. At that time I pulled global energy consumption, and did my own hand calcs to determine if human energy use would have the observed effect. My calcs agreed with what was being stated. That along with the ice core results were enough to convince me where the real junk science was emanating from.

[Red Harvest]

Redleg,

When I see "hyperbole, fallacy, Ad Hominem, and strawman" littered throughout, there isn't anything worth reading within. History will judge the wisdom of the U.S. position. I have no reason to suspect it will be kind. I'm comfortable with my assessment being closer to the historical mark than yours. ~:cheers:

Our nation is going through a repeat of the "me decade" only I would call 2000+ the "greed decade."

EDIT: Put in "generation" when I meant decade. Should have been obvious...

[Redleg]

Redleg,

When I see "hyperbole, fallacy, Ad Hominem, and strawman" littered throughout, there isn't anything worth reading within. History will judge the wisdom of the U.S. position. I have no reason to suspect it will be kind. I'm comfortable with my assessment being closer to the historical mark than yours. ~:cheers:

When I read your posts and your attempts to call other people's logic certain terms - I call it like I see it, remember who threw the terms out arguementive fallacy terms first in this discussion. What you should of done is left the rest of your post after we will have to agree to disagree, since after that your post was nothing but what I have alreadly posted about it.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1023409&postcount=14

Your arguement about the Kyoto Accords failing is the fault of the United States falls on its face. The failure of the accords rest with each nation that signed the docuement.

I have not discussed the failure of the United States to address the ecological issues that it faces, since that was never my initial premise, you responded to my initial arguement - so I maintained the same premise that I had with my initial post.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1019181&postcount=8


What I have addressed is only the failure of the Kyoto Accords to address the issues, and that the failure of those accords rest squarely on those who signed it. :juggle2:

Now if you are wanting to talk about conservation, the environment, and the failures of mulitple generations and adminstrations of the United States and its government - then lets discuss the issues in a seperate thread, as mentioned earlier I have issues with Clear Cut forest harvesting, and there are a few others but this thread was about the hypocrisy of the Kyoto Accords, not what I believe are the ecological concerns facing the United States.

What I have seen of your arguement so far reminds me of when the Germans were blaming Bush for the flooding in their country.



Our nation is going through a repeat of the "me generation" only I would call 2000+ the "greed generation."

And you would be incorrect - the generation that is still effecting the policies of the government is the Baby Boomer Generation. But we are getting toward the time that the Baby Boomers will begin to retire very shortly, but unfortunely the generation grouping lasts to about 2 years before I was born. So you get to rile at the Baby Boomers for about 15 more years.

[Red Harvest]

Say what you want, Redleg, doesn't change a thing.

Fact: The majority of the U.S. was unconvinced on Global Warming and the need for CO2 controls.

Fact: The U.S. was unwilling to do anything requiring any sacrifice with respect ot CO2.

Fact: Conservatives were the ringleaders of the opposition to accords like Kyoto.

Fact: Lack of U.S participation made Kyoto unworkable. (Like OPEC without Saudi cooperation.)

Fact: U.S. leadership and credibility has fallen as a result.

Fact: Energy consumption and CO2 levels are worse for the lack of U.S. participiation.

Call it strawman/fallacy, etc. if you like. I'll let history be the judge.

[Redleg]

Say what you want, Redleg, doesn't change a thing.

You have not shown where my premise is wrong, only that your opinion is different. Again the discussion on this thread was about the Hypocrisy of the Kyoto Accords and its failure.



Fact: The majority of the U.S. was unconvinced on Global Warming and the need for CO2 controls.


Sure they were - that is from a lack of knowledge on the subject and the failure of communicating the information. Care to guess what President and other political leaders that could be held responsible for that one - since your attempting to cast blame later on in one of your points. There are a few of them in fact, from both parties.



Fact: The U.S. was unwilling to do anything requiring any sacrifice with respect ot CO2.

http://www.usembassy.it/file2000_11/alia/a0112107.htm

http://www.icfconsulting.com/Publications/Perspectives-2005/co2-emissions.asp

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/environment/news_issues/news/ghgreport_2003.pdf#search='CO2%20emissions%20reduction%20in%20the%20United%20States'

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR5CZKVE/$File/ghgbrochure.pdf

Hmm I wonder how much of your fact here is based upon real evidence, or are you attempting to speak only of the government? I know some othe industries that have attempted to reduce CO2 emmissions on their own, plus some state regulatory attempts, to include emissions tests for motor vehicles.



Fact: Conservatives were the ringleaders of the opposition to accords like Kyoto.


Of course, the critics are being disingenuous. Bush announced his opposition to Kyoto during his campaign and has never wavered. His position also reflects the U.S. Senate vote of 95 - 0 against any such treaty that would cause severe economic damage to the U.S. but exempt most of the rest of the world. And while the American public may express concern about global warming, a recent Time/CNN poll indicates that less than half would be willing to pay an additional 25 cents for a gallon of gasoline.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=296

Doesn't look to me like there was any oppostion in the Senate concerning the vote against the Kyoto accord. The ringleaders happen to be from both parties and all sides to get such a vote.



Fact: Lack of U.S participation made Kyoto unworkable. (Like OPEC without Saudi cooperation.)


The flaws in the treaty made it unworkable. The lack of participation of the United States did not make it impossible for the signatory nations to meet the emission reductions that they agreed upon. If the conditions of the treaty were workable - those nations would of meet their agreed upon reductions without the participation of the United States. In theory if they would of meet the conditions the United States would have to rethink its postion on the Kyoto Accords.




Samuelson itemized those increases:

France, a 6.9 percent increase; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; and Spain, a 46.9 percent increase over 1990 levels.

The failure of EU nations to meet targets under Kyoto further demonstrates the lack of will or ability by those claiming to be the biggest supporters of reducing greenhouse gasses. Catherine Pearce, global climate change spokeswoman for Friends of the Earth, is correct to ask: “If Britain and the rest of Europe cannot get it right, then how can anyone expect the US or developing countries to?” (John Vidal, “Europe fails to cut greenhouse gas emissions,” The Guardian, 6/18/2005)

One can not blame the United States for the failure of others in meeting thier agreed upon reductions.



Fact: U.S. leadership and credibility has fallen as a result.


You are correct on this one.



Fact: Energy consumption and CO2 levels are worse for the lack of U.S. participiation.

Not completely correct - the developing nations increasing their emissions also play a factor in this increase. The increases noted in Europe also have a part to play in this.



Call it strawman/fallacy, etc. if you like. I'll let history be the judge.

History will be harsh on all of the developed nations in this issue. However the history on the failure of the Kyoto Accords will contain more then non-particapation of the United States.

[Ser Clegane]

Actually, all those countries are far more efficient on a per capita basis I believe (have not checked the numbers.) GDP basis, probably not (although China might be now...) Efficiency can be defined many ways. A nation like Singapore could be very energy efficient because of its small size, mass transit etc. It could excel both on per capita and GDP. The U.S. and Canada would be challenged by the distances involved in commuting, transporting goods, etc. Climate can also have an impact. Canada would likely suffer because of extensive heating requirements compared to the U.S.

The following publication by the IEA gives some nice indicators (in chapter 8)
Key World Energy Statistics (http://www.iea.org/bookshop/add.aspx?id=144)


But U.S. energy prices are actually relatively cheap. Gasoline is dirt cheap. You wouldn't know it from listening to your average U.S. consumer, but few of them have ever bought gasoline in foreign countries. This has been a driver for the large vehicle demand and of course sales. Other nations with higher vehicle operating costs did not go the bigger vehicle route.
But aren't natural gas prices extremely high in the US currently?


It is consumption behavior that needs to change.
Indeed - a major problem is not only the industry but also private households - the extreme use of air condition comes to mind (don't get me wrong - I know that in parts of the USA AC makes a lot of sense, and I also know that Europeans certainly also can improve a lot when it comes to the waste of energy)

[Slyspy]

I would be happier if we increased substantially our use of nuclear power to gradually replace the fossil-fuels consuming plants. We need to export that coal to North Italy and to China.

I would also be happier to see more and more people turning to hybrid engines. Reducing our need to import oil. Increasing fuel prices seem likely to promote this shift.

As to the treaty, Kyoto failed in large part due to U.S. intransigence.

Thankfully.

Kyoto's underlying goal (which is NOT the altruistic goal from which it garners most of its support) was to hamstring the U.S. in order to promote Red China's development. Long-term goal was to re-establish political parity by having the U.S. unseated as a "sole" superpower and re-stablish a political system of "continuity" akin to than enjoyed from 1957 through 1988.

This is about the time to start asking for tin foil hats, is it not?