The United States has taken a lot of flack for not joining the Kyoto Treaty and the Bush Administration has taken a lot of heat from Democrats for not passing the treaty. While I believe more needs to be done to preserve the environment, I was convinced in 1998 by arguments from the Democrats, not Republicans that Kyoto was bad for America. So, let us set the record straight on this issue.
It is true that President Bush has never submitted the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate for ratification, however, the question really should be, why didn't Bill Clinton do it since the treaty was signed late in 1998 and was able to be submitted to the Senate for ratification while he was still a sitting President and while Al Gore was still the sitting Vice President and President of the Senate? That's a good question, with a relatively simple answer. EVERYONE was against it. Even though Al Gore did symbolically sign the treaty, before it was signed, but after it was finalized, the U.S. Senate did in fact vote on the treaty. Although it was not a ratification vote, the vote was 95-0 (see the results of the vote here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm
.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205), which is as unanimous as the Senate ever gets on something. The resolution they voted on was S.Res. 98 which stated that the "United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". This is stunning. Even though the Senate passed a resolution NOT to sign the treaty by a vote of 95-0 because it was a flawed treaty, the Vice President signed it anyway. Well, I guess the people of this country have been lied to in regards to Kyoto. The lie is that Republicans and President Bush don't support a good treaty when in fact, the only supporter of the treaty was Vice President Al Gore. The Senate unanimously voted against it and President Clinton didn't even see fit to present it to the Senate for ratification. There's the truth. EVERYONE WAS AGAINST IT! Now, what is so bad about the treaty?
When asked directly about the treaty, President Bush said he would not submit the treaty for ratification as long as it exempted China from reducing their emissions. Really? China is exempt? Why is that? Well, because a majority of developing nations were exempted from implementing the protocols, but were required to do nothing more than report their total emissions. Okay, so still, what's the big deal? The United States is still the biggest carbon dioxide emitter in the world, right? Well, as of 2004, the United States was listed as the largest emitter, yes, but there is more to that story. In fact, the largest ten emitters as reported to the U.N. in 2004 were 1. United States 2. China 3. Russia 4. India 5. Japan 6. Germany 7. Canada 8. United Kingdom 9. South Korea 10. Italy. Hmm... looks like a good list and I bet all these countries are required to reduce emissions under Kyoto, right? Well, we already know that China is exempt, so who else is exempt. Supposedly developing countries are supposed to be exempt, so why is it that Germany is also exempt from the accord. In addition, India, as a developing nation, is exempt from the accord. Wait, that means that 2 of the top 5 emitters are exempt from reducing their emissions including India and China which as of 2006 means that the top emitter is exempt from reducing emissions. Oh yeah, in 2006, China took over from the United States as the top emitter according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. So, are any of these other top 10 emitters exempt? Well, I mentioned Germany earlier, but they get a bye because of the EU's special exception in working together as a group. This way, all EU nations including Germany and Italy in the list above get to redistribute their emissions to meet their targets. Sounds interesting. In addition, South Korea is also exempt. This means that three of the top ten producers are completely exempt and Russia, who was required to ratify the treaty only did so after being given certain guarantees by the EU that probably violate the spirit if not the letter of the treaty. So... according to the 2004 emissions report, the world produced 27,245,758 total emissions. The top 10 countries in the 2004 list produced 18,136,545 total emissions. This is almost 67 percent of the total emissions worldwide. That means that the top 10 producers should be responsible for the majority of the reduction. However, 3 of those countries are exempt outright which means that 6,818,775 emissions in 2004 are exempt from reducing, placing additional burden on the other 7 countries. But wait, three of those top 10 are EU countries that can "redistribute" their emissions around the EU to make their targets so it is questionable how much they would actually contribute to reduction? In addition, how much did the EU really give to Russia in order to get them to sign. Do they even have to reduce anything? Probably they are supposed to, but with some crazy EU scheme in buying and selling credits, Russia can probably get away with reducing very little. Therefore, that leaves the United States, Japan and Canada as the only countries in the top 10 who can be relied upon in reducing emissions to meet Kyoto goals. Hmm... That means that 3 countries out of the 39 required to lower emissions are responsible for the majority of the required reductions since most of the top 10 countries have outs for getting around those reductions. Therefore, countries that produce 29 percent of reductions are responsible for reducing 67 percent of the Kyoto requirements. Even if the other countries did meet their required reductions, that would mean that China and India and South Korea are still exempted, so that would mean the 7 countries who produce 42 percent of the emissions are required to be responsible for 67 percent of the reductions. As long as China, India and South Korea are exempt and as long as Russia and some EU countries can use formulas and credits to get around actual reductions, then I agree with the unanimous Senate that we should not have signed and certainly shouldn't join this treaty because it is a sham and not a treaty that should ever have been agreed to. We need to start over and do it right.
8 comments:
First of all, excuse my English.
Second, the �bubble approach�, and carbon exchange is open to any country in the world that can�t reach goals by national programs. It does not mean that all reduction of Green house effect gases can be done by this instrument. There is a requirement in the agreement that carbon exchange is complementary. This means that at least the majority of the reduction can not be done through carbon credits, it requires national actions/responsibility. For that reason it can�t not be said that carbon exchange is a scham against the USA.
We can argue if stocks of credits are truly real credits or, for instant, some fake credit created in Russia by the local mob. (kidding)
Third, underdeveloped nations do not have quotas in Kyoto, but they have to reduce emissions according to there capabilities. It�s a common understanding that 3th world countries need help from developed nations to fight the problem. That why CDMS � clean development mechanism � projects exist. All sponsored in the underdeveloped nations by rich nations/(or ; and) national enterprises. This is used to increase local capabilities on environmental issues, and help all countries fight GHG�s. We can�t expect nations like Bolivia to spend large sums of money on carbon reduction when they can�t feed 80% of the population.
A agree that China, India and Brazil (BRICS) have to take quotas. Nonetheless, THEY ARE NOT HISTORICALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GREEN HOUSE EFFECT. What I am saying is: today, they are large producers but not as much as historically he USA- AND EUROPE are. Since the industrial revolution these nations alone have polluted more than all. So it is not fair to expect BRICS to reduce as much as others. By doing so we would kill all prospect of developing theses economies.
The other problem is Oriental European countries, such as Ukraine, Russia, Poland are sky rising pollution due to lack of investment in environmental sound power supplies. But because they are �new economies�, we can not hold back transformations occurring there. If we do, we are likely to see the rise of new communist figures in the east. Isn�t Putin there and Chaves here enough? So they need more time and help to comply w/ the protocol.
In my understanding, the American interest is to fight global warming in a way that it won�t stop American growth, your own fault for having a idiot as president( not like lula is any better) nor stop American hegemonic global situation. So, the American interest is to grasp status quo. It has nothing to do with environmental sense of right and wrong. The problem is that � the usa is responsible!
My last point is: The USA doesn�t have to enter the protocol. But why the federal American government doesn�t take real actions? Why not impose quotas nationally? You have the technology and money to do so. Many American states learned the lesson. I know that California�s energy problem was not environmental; it had to do w/ corruption on regulatory and service provider companies. But, anyway it just shows how environmental sound practices are need all over the US. And maybe, just maybe, things like fires, energy shortage, etc.. have created a conscience in California that you need in Central government.
line 15 read --their capability not there...
also- needed all over.
Once again... pardon me.
Later JEFF!
I didn't mean to suggest the bubble approach wasn't a valid one, I was badly explaining the concepts behind how the EU countries do it amongst themselves and how they basically negotiated some sort of de facto exempt status with Russia in order to get them to sign the treaty since we (the USA) refused As for stifling the economies of developing economies and real 3rd world countries, I wasn't suggesting doing that either, but Russia, China, South Korea really shouldn't have any type of exemption on this in order to achieve real change.
Since I don't buy the whole idea that the first world is most responsible since we've been doing it longer, mostly due to the fact that nobody knew it was harmful so it would be like trying to hold George Washington's great great great great grandson responsible for his owning slaves, which is a ridiculous concept, I don't really get that whole part of the argument.
Finally, the U.S. is in fact doing some things internally. In fact, we're no longer even the top producer anymore. I do not think that progress on this front has been sufficient in the U.S., but there has been some including new technologies etc. that have had great affect and will have even greater affect in the future.
The descendents of Washington or Bowen aren’t liable for their parents fault. That is an absurd. The Kyoto Protocol can’t be viewed as a sanction on people, but as a responsibility. Of course slavery can’t be blamed on us, but until today we have affirmative actions in our systens. Brazil was the last country to stop slavery, for that reason we are responsible for what has been done in the past. We have the social and moral responsibility to “repay” afro-brazilians for the oppression resulted in the marginalization of a race. That means giving opportunity for change.
I agree that you are doing things to relive tension on the environment. But China passed you because it grows 10% each year. It has multiplied the use of coal energy and gas. So it isn’t due to American enforcement of environmental sound practices.
The historical approach of responsibility is not only reliable but fair. So, you had economic growth by polluting and now because of the scientific knowledge poor countries can’t do the same? So what option do they have? If they can’t pollute, and therefore grow, what can they do? They have no technological capabilities and the most technological nations on Earth refuses to enter a regime that gives them the opportunities not only to develop but to do it so in a sustainable way.
The US doesn’t have to enter the regime. But it did not need to live the table too. If the attitude wasn’t so arrogant you could have stayed in the negotiations. Clinton, without the fast track, never sent the bill for voting, and because it was never sent for voting, the opening for a larger discussion was prevented. I can’t judge Clinton for not sending a dead project for a house filled with republicans, that’s politics. But that didn’t help either.
The problem is why didn’t the US stay in a project that only wanted to reduce 5% in the total man made problem? Again, only 5%. And that planned to extend the reduction to all in 2012? NATIONAL INTEREST. It’s not in your interest for institutions that can alter any balance in power. That’s the major plain of the Republicans. The fact is that not only you are losing real power but, now with Iraq and Kyoto, you are losing all moral standing that gave the authority to position the Us as King of the Hill. The economic idea that Kyoto would decrease jobs and growth in America is some where lame. Yes, it might be true, but you are they most prepared nations to fight negative economical effects.
OK, since you brought it up, affirmative action is a judicial remedy on perceived and real inequality. I do believe that ALL people should be treated equally. The same is true for nations. The basic truth of Kyoto is that it is unfair and rather ineffective. Past pollution by industrialized nations "may" have caused the problems that exist today. Under that assumption, and with your affirmative action statement, you would argue that we therefore have a "greater" responsibility? Even if that were true, allowing any of the top 10 polluters to be exempt from this treaty prevents you from reaching your goal. It is that simple. If the number one producer, whether it be the U.S. or China or whoever, is exempt then you will not be able to reach the goals spelled out in the treaty. Period. The math doesn't add up.
Next, Bill Clinton did not send Kyoto to the Senate, not because he had hostile Republicans in control, although that was true, but because it was a flawed treaty in the opinions of himself and ALL members of the Senate, who are the only ones that matter since the House can't vote on it. A 95-0 vote is a clear indication to the President that he'd better not send the treaty for ratification. That 95-0 vote included Democrats, so it wasn't about hostile Republicans.
The U.S. position isn't asking Bolivia or Cameroon or Nepal or Guatemala or any of those truly poor nations to reduce emissions. The U.S. position is simply that we don't believe China should be exempt. The sitting President, Bush, has stated that if China were not exempt he would send the treaty for ratification. It's that simple. He's not even asking that India or South Korea, the other two exempt top 10 producers not be exempt. Just China. That's not unreasonable.
As for the U.S. being able to absorb economic effects, I'd agree that to be true. In fact, we are currently working on technologies that would make the whole treaty moot. Hydrogen Fuel Cell engines for cars would reduce carbon emission in this country alone to such a great extent over 10 years, once they are commercially available, that Kyoto would look like a joke of a treaty. Plus, that technology can be sold overseas to other industrialized nations as well as assisting less developed countries in its use. In addition, I have no sympathy for China using coal and other fossil fuels when they could just build supercolliders and nuclear plants to power their country. There already is technology available that makes the use of fossil fuels unnecessary. In fact, the U.S. should be doing more on this front as well, but the crazy people who believe nuclear power is dangerous (it isn't and never has been with the exception of two plants that were horribly mismanaged) won't let us and they are the same ones who won't let us build wind power on Nantucket Sound or build solar power in Utah. Somehow, not doing things that will clearly help the environment is good to environmentalists. All of the projects I mentioned are beling blocked, not by Republicans, but by Democrats. Figure that one out. So, is it national interest that causes us not to want to enter the treaty? Absolutely, as it should be. If our primary economic competition (China) is not part of the treaty, then our companies and businesses will spend billions implementing new technologies etc. in order to reduce emissions. The country will have a recession, we'll lose market share worldwide all while China exploits the void, expands their businesses and market share and has no requirement to reduce emissions. I will vote against that EVERY SINGLE TIME and be completely unapologetic about it.
Finally, I really don't care about historic causes of the greenhouse effect anyway. That damage is already done. The only thing that matters is what is happening now. My point above is that even if the U.S. and Europe did in fact reduce their emissions 5 percent (which is stupidly low) there would be NO, NONE, ZERO, significant effect to the greenhouse effect. Without significant reductions by all major polluters (the top 10 perhaps) there will be no significant reductions in the atmosphere. Your argument proves my point. Granted, the U.S. hasn't fallen behind China because we've done anything about our emissions, but we are working on it in a free market way, which is our tradition and will probably reduce emissions more than anyone within the next 20 years. But, even if we did that and China continues to grow their economy and their emissions at the 10 percent you stated, then even if the U.S. fell out of the top 10, the emissions being put into the atmosphere would not diminish because of the overall growth from those developing economies. Therefore, the treaty accomplishes nothing. It doesn't even stand up to the idea of something is better than nothing because it achieves less than nothing.
As an example of my argument above, go to this site: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm
and look at the charts. Yes, the U.S. keeps going up, but I do believe that estimate doesn't take into account new and emerging technologies that are now emerging here. In addition, it shows an exorbitant increase by China. So, in order to control carbon emissions today, we must include China because as these charts clearly show, even if the U.S. and Europe were to start reducing today, China's increases would counteract anything we do, therefore making this "treaty" not worth the paper it is written on. Should the U.S. be doing more? ABSOLUTELY!!! Should we be part of this treaty? Nobody should, it is ilconceived and ineffective and even if we did join it, doesn't do nearly enough, assuming it actually achieves anything at all, which I just don't think it does.
One final thing. In 2006 which is that latest year for which we have numbers, China's output grew at such a rate that it didn't just surpass the U.S., but it surpassed us by 8 percent. Since it was 2 percent behind us in 2005, that is in fact a 10 percent jump, which is a stunning elevation. In contrast, despite economic concerns, the U.S. actually managed to decrease our CO2 emissions 1.3 percent from 2005-2006. If we continue that trend, granted it isn't guaranteed (this is the first year U.S. emissions have dropped), we will surpass our 5 percent goal and then some by 2012 without being a part of the treaty. Hmm... that would suggest we should have signed it anyway you say? Not necessarily because things ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS work better if you allow the market to demand change rather than having the government force the change. Americans are tired of high gas prices and high energy costs and want solar energy and nuclear energy and wind energy and hybrid cars and ethanol and hydrogen fuel cell technology and "clean" coal technology. All this is now being done here because the consumer is demanding it. I'd argue that it would have happened if the government demanded it too, but it would have happened much more slowly and with much less effectiveness.
Post a Comment