Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

[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/...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.