Is Kyoto Japanese for Hypocrisy?

[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]

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.

[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

[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