How is Kyoto doing? Who supports it and who doesn't?
How is Kyoto doing? Who supports it and who doesn’t?
You be the judge:
Exhibit 1: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?ContentID=499
Whereupon we find that President Clinton found time to sign the Kyoto protocol three years before the end of his presidency.
Exhibit 2: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html
Whereupon we learn that Article II of the Constitution requires the Advise and Consent of the Senate for Treaty ratification.
Exhibit 3:
This symbolizes the Press Release of the vote on the Kyoto protocol for which President Clinton did not call.
Exhibit 4: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/jan-june01/bush_6-14.html
Whereupon Bush announces our withdrawal from the Treaty, using his Presidential powers under Exhibit 2. Exhibit 4 also demonstrates the outrage of our partners and other treaty signatories over this action, as well as the uniform condemnation of the press.
Exhibit 5: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/10/climate.conference.ap/index.html
Whereupon we find from President Clinton that our approach in withdrawing from the non-Treaty, and climate change in general is “flat wrong.” Never mind that he did not find the time to present it to the Senate.
Exhibit 6: http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/11/18/afx2345473.html
Whereupon we find that, rather than achieving a 6% reduction from emissions as the main provision of their Treaty calls for, the following countries have increased emissions as follows:
Canada, 24.2%
Japan (home of Kyoto), 12.8%
Spain, 41.7%
Portugal, 36.7%
Greece, 25.8%
Ireland, 25.6%
Finland, 21.5%
Austria, 16.5%
In the interest of fairness, several countries have cut emissions, such as Germany and Britain (which was, of course, transitioning out of a coal-based electrical production when it signed the treaty and had already reduced from 1990).
But what about the Great Satanic Polluter, where are we? Well, as luck would have it, we have increased ours by 13.3%, well below several of the most strident protestors, even while our economy has expanded at 300% their combined rate. But you would not glean that without a little homework as it is rather unclear from the press coverage, wouldn’t you say?
Which goes to show you how words speak louder than actions.
posted by Centerline @ 11:15 AM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
In my mind, Kyoto is a simple equation. If you want something to happen that is painful then all must tighten their belts. You simply cannot say China and India, who make up much of the world's population and are growing industrially as well, are exempt. I do think we have to do our own fair share but let's have everyone step to the table.
Wow, CL, those are great statistics. I'm going to save that stuff off for my next argument on Kyoto with Shane.
Bottom-line is that I think the U.S. will come down due to energy prices before we ever do based on international agreements.
I agree with Carl, the market will balance things out before regulation does... in the meantime let's let the Canadians enjoy a little more warmth.
Here’s the most patently obvious problem with Kyoto… and it is not one of compliance. What we are talking about is a 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature over the past 100 years. The question we should be asking ourselves is: “How does this change in temperature get measured?”
And the answer is “very sketchily.”
At the end of the day, the changes in temperature are quite small…..
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm
And I would appreciate someone who can tell me how we used to do some of these things 40, 50 or 100 years ago:
1. How did we measure surface temperatures from sea level to 8 kms above sea level? I know how we do it now, but I don’t understand how we used to measure it before satellites. Perhaps tall NBA players standing on top of buildings?
2. Before the advent of digital measurement instruments, how were these temperatures recorded? I, for one, recall analog thermometers which were never calibrated to within one degree of accuracy – and then had to be read and interpreted by people, who wrote them in logs. Can someone explain how the accuracy of these measurements compares to current accuracy? I’d have to think that the margin of error is larger than 0.6 degrees centigrade (1 degree Farenheit).
3. And what about the location of where the measurements were taken? Modern surface temperature buoys now record their exact position (GPS), exact date and time (atomic clock) and exact temperature. How did we measure the temperature in the middle of the North Pacific on December 7, 1941, just 64 years ago? I tend to think the measurements were less accurate back then. As an example, I know that the sea temperature at South Beach is a little bit hotter than the sea temperature in Nova Scotia. And there’s nothing but water between the two points. So, in my mind, I picture a probable continuum of declining temperatures from South Beach to Nova Scotia. When and where the temperatures are measured is very relevant in my model, and I question how accurate the model can be when these two variables are not as precise as they are today.
Well, I definitely don't agree with Centerline here. It stands to reason that as the population increases then the waste increases as well. These byproducts are not good for the atmosphere, oceans, streams, etc.
My problem is that this is a global problem that everyone needs to step up to solve.
I have a friend who studies artic water temperatures and ice in the context of global warming. I'm pretty sure that there is not much doubt that these temperatures are going up fairly rapidly, and that the ice is retreating as well over the last few years. I think the big question that no one can answer though is why. It COULD be due to pollution, or it could just be a natural event that we don't recognize based on our timeframe being too short.
One more thing, however. I'm not in favor of Kyoto, but I am in favor of removing some of the completely ridiculous things that we deal with every day:
- The tax break for Hummers is complete and total BS.
- There should be even more tax incentives than there are today for companies and individuals to reduce pollution. It IS an economic decision, let's help make the case easier.
I don't know whether Global Warming is tied to pollution or not, but the consequences of being WRONG are so dire, that I think we should do everything we can to reasonably reduce it.
Gentle-people, all I have said is that it is difficult to measure accurately when the methods vary. Surely everyone can agree that we have better measurement methodology today than we did just a few years back.....
And, in terms of the tax break, I am for removing all tax breaks - SUV's and otherwise. And uncomplicating the whole thing.
As to why global warming is happening, and I do believe that it is, who can say? There are scientists out there staking their reputation on the fact that it is abnormal solar activity - and others are convinced that it is greenhouse gases. And yet, in this period of apparently expanding gases, the ozone hole over Antarctica, which was apparently caused by pollution, has closed.... and we don't really know why.
So, while I agree that the consequences of being wrong are dire indeed, I still think we don't know enough about what to do.
See here is where Centerline is wrong....
If the scientists are right and we fix emission problems then we have righted ourselves and moved to a better enviroment for all.
If the scientists are wrong and it is just some cyclical thing then go back to our aerosol polluting way.
If the scientists are right and we don't do shit then we may all be fucked when it gets away from us and the ozone hole is an ozone gaping hole.
Nym, you'd be correct if fixing the emission problems was cost neutral. But it isn't. We may be spending a lot of money fixing a problem that isn't there.
We are talking about CO2 here. As I write this message, I am expelling it. So do all the animals through the natural process of breathing - and so do volcanoes through their eruptions, in massive quantities. Would you propose a program to stop vocanic eruptions? Or to stop animals from breathing?
All I am saying is that jumping into a solution without fully understanding the cost benefit is fine if there is no cost.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home