It's time for everyone to move past the Kyoto Protocol.
For those not familiar with the details, Kyoto imposes specific emission-reduction targets for each industrialized country over a five-year "commitment period" of 2008-2012. Targets were defined for total emissions of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases: the required emission reductions were 8 percent for the European Union and a few other European nations; 7 percent for the United States; 6 percent for Japan and Canada; and zero (i.e. hold emissions at their baseline level) for Russia and Ukraine. If all nations met their targets, the total emission reduction from these nations would be 5.2 percent below 1990 levels.
Given the time it takes to reduce emissions and the fact that the commitment period starts in about a year, it would be impossible for the U.S. to make the necessary reductions to comply with Kyoto. The only option for the U.S. would be to buy credits from countries like Russia. This is not a good solution because Russia's emissions are far below their baseline level, so the U.S. would be buying credits for emissions that never would have occurred in any event -- thus there would be no real reduction in emissions.
Thus, Kyoto is done. Finished. Last week's news. The U.S. is never going to ratify it, and at this point, that's probably sensible. Instead, we should be focusing on what the world is going to do after 2012. What will the follow-up agreement look like, and how can the rest of the world engage the U.S. and China in it?
There is, however, a reason that advocates continue to focus on Kyoto. Many opponents of Kyoto actually oppose all mitigation efforts, but focus their attacks on Kyoto because of its many problems. By setting up the false choice between Kyoto and doing nothing, they can use Kyoto's many weaknesses to appear to discredit any mitigation program. This is similar to the false choice that Republicans attempted to set up between "stay the course" and "cut and run."
Those false choices willfully misrepresent the problems. So while Kyoto has clear problems, those problems do not discredit future mitigation efforts. This needs to be made clear to everyone who's still arguing about Kyoto. The debate needs to move past that agreement and start focusing on the future of mitigation.
Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 12:48 pm
11 Nov 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 2:06 pm
11 Nov 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:32 pm
11 Nov 2006
The US refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocal has become a symbol of American indifference to global warming and our willingness to work with others to address problems.
It's great to say let's move beyond it, but in terms of negotiating a new protocal, the US lacks credibility since many people may say "Who cares what they think, they'll never ratify it anyway."
While it may not have any practical benefits at one level, it would signal to the rest of the world that the US is serious about global warming.
And the idea that we cannot move forward if we are still "discussing" Kyoto is a false dichotomy.
There is no reason we can't do both.
FWIW, Symbols matter.
patrick
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 5:24 am
12 Nov 2006
I don't think credibility is a problem for the U.S. George Bush has NEVER said he's going to reduce emissions, so you cannot accuse him of breaking agreements. If he says we will reduce emissions, I think the rest of the world has to take him seriously.
Regards.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:17 am
12 Nov 2006
What we need is a major non-partisan think tank to advise the politicians. Burning corn ethanol in SUVs is not my idea of progress.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:40 pm
12 Nov 2006
My concern is over whether we can come up with something that will mesh with what everyone else is doing if we aren't talking to them.
As the biggest source of the problem, the US can be very helpful by co-operating with others... or not.
It would be interesting to hear what various international sources think.
patrick
Permalink
enviroarts Posted 8:29 am
13 Nov 2006
WHERE: The ARK in BEREA
519 Karen Dr.
Berea, Ohio 44017
WHEN: 7 PM on November 14, 2006
GUEST SPEAKERS:
David Jakupca, ICEA CEO
Maria Roth, Editor GERMANIA Newspaper
Beth Pasek, Editor DAILY ENVIRONMENTALIST
Open to the Public
Free Admission
Contact: Call ICEA 440-891-8376 For More Details
As the international community meets this week in Nairobi, Kenya to formulate international climate policy, you can depend upon the International Center for Environmental Arts (ICEA) to support the Kyoto process as an established mechanism to reduce emissions that can be tightened and expanded, rather than restarting international negotiations from scratch. Clearly India and China must enter the emissions caps, though just as clearly they and other developing countries should be allowed to emit more per capita then rich countries. Climate change will be averted or minimized only by dramatic emissions reductions, rapid embrace of renewable energy, an end to ancient forest deforestation and diminishment, and an embrace of energy conservation and efficiency. As individuals we must do what we can to achieve these goals, while leading our leaders to establish societal constraints that make living green more easy. Meanwhile, lets hope for enlightened global governance from Nairobi. International action, with agreed upon limits for ghg emissions, are essential for success. Right now, a lot is riding on the efforts of the developed countries that are participating in Kyoto to show they can successful in meeting their targets.
In the United States we must take advantage of the new political landscape to put comprehensive and ambitious federal climate change legislation on the national agenda.
ADDRESS:
International Center for Environmental Arts (ICEA)
P. O. Box 81496
Cleveland, Ohio 44181 USA
Phone/fax: 440-891-8376
Email: (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[27]='\"';l[28]=' 116';l[29]=' 101';l[30]=' 110';l[31]=' 46';l[32]=' 108';l[33]=' 97';l[34]=' 98';l[35]=' 111';l[36]=' 108';l[37]=' 103';l[38]=' 99';l[39]=' 98';l[40]=' 115';l[41]=' 64';l[42]=' 48';l[43]=' 48';l[44]=' 48';l[45]=' 50';l[46]=' 65';l[47]=' 69';l[48]=' 67';l[49]=' 73';l[50]=':';l[51]='o';l[52]='t';l[53]='l';l[54]='i';l[55]='a';l[56]='m';l[57]='\"';l[58]='=';l[59]='f';l[60]='e';l[61]='r';l[62]='h';l[63]='a ';l[64]='
Permalink