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

[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/...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.

[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/...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.

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]

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