US Proposes Kyoto Alternative (sort of)

#1
TennTradition

TennTradition

Defended.
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
16,919
Likes
822
#1
U.S. prepared to cut greenhouse emissions, Bush says - CNN.com

Well, there is no doubt that Kyoto is seriously flawed. However, I question whether a consortium of nations acting independently will be able to address the greenhouse gas emissions reduction problem without imposed limits with penalty. Or - at the very least, an international framework for emissions reductions. I do not see how real emissions reductions will happen without an effective emissions trading system. And, I do not see how an effective emissions trading system can develop without an international framework and international emissions restrictions. I'm not saying that this has to be under the nose of the UN - but I think some sort of international treaties/protocols would almost have to be in order.

Also, what ramifications will an independent take on tackling the emissions problem have with regard to the fact that we are a signer of the Framework Convention on Climate Change - under the UN? My guess is nothing, but we agreed to the FCCC framework, and now we are proposing a new one.

Regardless, I am happy to see steps being taken - as long as this isn't a hand waving attempt at making climate change less of an issue in the upcoming elections.

Thoughts? (OE Style :) )
 
#2
#2
And..by the way, as far as I can tell, the article is wrong. The US is still a member of the Framework Convention on Climate Change - and as a result we submit annual reports to the UN on our emissions. The FCCC and the Kyoto Protocol are completely different - the Kyoto Protocol is the document that dictates what countries will do, the FCCC was an international agreement that set up the framework for how international discussions on climate change would take place. So, the Kyoto Protocol was formed under the provisions of the FCCC. We withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol (which we signed, but never ratified) under Bush.
 
#4
#4
volinbham said:
I thought it was never ratified under Clinton?
Click to expand...

Yep, you're right. What my statement was saying was that we withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol (which we signed, but never ratified) under Bush. I could have written that "we withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol (which we signed, but never ratified under Clinton or Bush) under Bush. The Bush statement was pertaining to the withdrawl...the stuff in parentheses was just additional information - sorry for the confusion.
 
#6
#6
time for a philosophical question - can you withdraw from something you never were part of? My understanding is that when Gore signed the agreement it was openly acknowledged that it had no effect until ratified.
 
#7
#7
volinbham said:
time for a philosophical question - can you withdraw from something you never were part of? My understanding is that when Gore signed the agreement it was opening acknowledged that it had no effect until ratified.
Click to expand...

I think that the question I have to ask myself is can I be upset with Bush for withdrawing from something that when signed, we knew we would not ratify. The answer is no. Although it doesn't look good from a PR perspective, it is the right thing to do - but only if you find an alternative that will work, a solution for the US that will reduce absolute emissions.

As for your question, I don't remember the specifics, but I think that since there was no provision for removing signers from the protocol if they did not ratify it, then we were still technically non-ratified members of the Protocol, which meant that we didn't have to meet the requirements set forth in the agreement. So, Bush's withdrawal was really just more of an admission that we were not going to seek ratification again.
 
#8
#8
Not to belabor the point but the wording "withdraw from" seems inappropriate in this context. When the Clinton admin signed on they made no effort to ratify the treaty rendering the signature symbolic. The Senate was strongly against Kyoto (95-0 or something like that IIRC).

When Bush and Co. said they don't support the treaty and therefore wouldn't seek ratification it is essentially the same thing. There was no "withdrawal" since there was nothing to withdraw from.

I think it would be a better description to say the Clinton administration supported Kyoto (but not enough to pursue ratification or otherwise fight for it) and the Bush administration opposed it.

The withdrawal language suggests Bush backed out of a treaty to which we had committed when in fact there was never such a commitment.
 
#9
#9
As to the bigger picture - I don't know enough about credit trading to evaluate the system.

I would like to see a system that is focused on cutting emissions rather than cutting emissions and redistributing global wealth as some suggest Kyoto was intended to do.
 
#10
#10
volinbham said:
Not to belabor the point but the wording "withdraw from" seems inappropriate in this context. When the Clinton admin signed on they made no effort to ratify the treaty rendering the signature symbolic. The Senate was strongly against Kyoto (95-0 or something like that IIRC).

When Bush and Co. said they don't support the treaty and therefore wouldn't seek ratification it is essentially the same thing. There was no "withdrawal" since there was nothing to withdraw from.

I think it would be a better description to say the Clinton administration supported Kyoto (but not enough to pursue ratification or otherwise fight for it) and the Bush administration opposed it.

The withdrawal language suggests Bush backed out of a treaty to which we had committed when in fact there was never such a commitment.
Click to expand...

Now, I've got you. As I understood it, Bush withdrew from negotiations on Kyoto that were ongoing in an effort to shape it for US ratification. However, I agree with you on the point that official withdrawal would mean a renouncing of signature, which Bush has done for the International Criminal Court, but not for Kyoto. I thought that he actually renounced the signature - but that is incorrect, we are still a Kyoto signatory nation. While we were negotiating Kyoto under the Clinton administration, it wasn't going to go anywhere...and everyone knew it. So, Bush didn't really reverse policy, he just made it official.
 
#11
#11
volinbham said:
As to the bigger picture - I don't know enough about credit trading to evaluate the system.

I would like to see a system that is focused on cutting emissions rather than cutting emissions and redistributing global wealth as some suggest Kyoto was intended to do.
Click to expand...

I think that some wealth redistribution is going to be a consequence of any trading system. The cheapest cuts that can be made to emissions are the first cuts. So, as developed nations come in and pick the low-hanging fruits of developing nations, pay for their emissions reductions so that the developed countries don't have to cut at home, and increase the wealth of that country (in capital equipment or dollars) - then some wealth gets distributed.

I am whole-heartedly against any system that unfairly and significantly damages the economies of the developed nations and gives developing nations whatever they want. But, we can't forget that developed nations are responsible for a lot of the problem - so they must make some serious cuts. In that same vein, the technological advances that allow developing countries to not commit the same "emissions sins" as the US did in its early days was brought forth on the shoulders of years of emissions - as we developed and learned from our mistakes. We should be given credit for the technology that allows for lower emissions today (that is being implemented in developing countries) while at the same time owning up to our past emissions. Ultimately, the US and Europe have to start making some absolute emissions cuts and developing countries will need to start bearing part of that burden. There are steps that can be taken now to help reduce China's and India's carbon impact - and if we are willing to pay for some of those, we should get credit for those reductions while at the same time alleviating some of the growing emissions problem. With that said, we will still have to reduce our own emissions, though.....we are too much of the problem to do nothing.
 
#12
#12
TennTradition said:
Now, I've got you. As I understood it, Bush withdrew from negotiations on Kyoto that were ongoing in an effort to shape it for US ratification. However, I agree with you on the point that official withdrawal would mean a renouncing of signature, which Bush has done for the International Criminal Court, but not for Kyoto. I thought that he actually renounced the signature - but is incorrect, we are still a Kyoto signatory nation. While we were negotiating Kyoto under the Clinton administration, it wasn't going to go anywhere...and everyone knew it. So, Bush didn't really reverse policy, he just made it official.
Click to expand...

works for me.
 
#14
#14
No one has made a convincing or compelling case why CO2 (which makes up less than 1% of the Earth's atmosphere) is considered to be a major greenhouse gas we should be concerned with, when you have water vapor that is in higher concentrations and is a more active component for controlling the greenhouse effect.
 
#16
#16
Rasputin_Vol said:
No one has made a convincing or compelling case why CO2 (which makes up less than 1% of the Earth's atmosphere) is considered to be a major greenhouse gas we should be concerned with, when you have water vapor that is in higher concentrations and is a more active component for controlling the greenhouse effect.
Click to expand...

Do you mean convincing or compelling to you or a rational human being? Water vapor is in equilibrium proportions (subject to ocean temperatures), and is thus not a greenhouse concern outside of rising ocean temperatures.
 
#20
#20
TennTradition said:
I think that some wealth redistribution is going to be a consequence of any trading system. The cheapest cuts that can be made to emissions are the first cuts. So, as developed nations come in and pick the low-hanging fruits of developing nations, pay for their emissions reductions so that the developed countries don't have to cut at home, and increase the wealth of that country (in capital equipment or dollars) - then some wealth gets distributed.

I am whole-heartedly against any system that unfairly and significantly damages the economies of the developed nations and gives developing nations whatever they want. But, we can't forget that developed nations are responsible for a lot of the problem - so they must make some serious cuts. In that same vein, the technological advances that allow developing countries to not commit the same "emissions sins" as the US did in its early days was brought forth on the shoulders of years of emissions - as we developed and learned from our mistakes. We should be given credit for the technology that allows for lower emissions today (that is being implemented in developing countries) while at the same time owning up to our past emissions. Ultimately, the US and Europe have to start making some absolute emissions cuts and developing countries will need to start bearing part of that burden. There are steps that can be taken now to help reduce China's and India's carbon impact - and if we are willing to pay for some of those, we should get credit for those reductions while at the same time alleviating some of the growing emissions problem. With that said, we will still have to reduce our own emissions, though.....we are too much of the problem to do nothing.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with most of this. In my view, what's good for the world is good for us. IMO we made the right move with Kyoto - it was a bad plan that wouldn't significantly impact worldwide CO2 emissions.

The big ? is how do you get a unified focus on an issue when we've shown that no other issue has received a unified focus. The UN has demonstrated again and again that there is not unified approach to any issue. I have no problem with disproportionate burden baring. But, we certainly have to approach the problem from a "what's best for us" perspective since every other country will do the same.
 
#24
#24
Al Gore...one of the biggest advocates for and detractors from real discussions about global warming science and issues.
 
#25
#25
I want to know how 'global warming' is really a problem, when the current high temperature records for this area were all set in the late 1800's-1930's?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top