Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

[Crazed Rabbit]

A very relevant article from
http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment...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?

[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?

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

[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

[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/...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/environme...=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.

[Viking]

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