Kyoto is a bargain 9

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   David Roberts Posted 9:37 am
   10 May 2006

   Valid comparison?There's some interesting discussion of Sunstein's comparison over on Volokh Conspiracy (and a follow-up here). Also, Sunstein posts some thoughts here that make it very clear he's not endorsing Kyoto.
   Count me among those who think the costs of Kyoto have been grossly exaggerated.
   
   www.grist.org

   Permalink

2. 

   bookerly Posted 11:09 am
   10 May 2006

   Bitter Irony
   
      Ironically, the costs of the Iraq war do not include cleaning up the Iraqi environment after bombing it and spreading radioactive dust everywhere.
      Nor do they actually include the costs of rebuilding the infrastructe of Iraq, since we have apparently given up on that as a boring idea.
      To laugh or cry?
      Why is the environmental movement (not talking about folks here or any particular individual) afraid to see war as an environmental issue?
      Do we honestly think it is not?  Or are we afraid to be controversial?  Or do we think that telling the truth is too scary?
      In terms of Kyoto, we never considered the costs of NOT implementing the treaty.... Oops.
   patrick

   Permalink

3. 

   ivegoneunderground Posted 6:44 am
   11 May 2006

   Was it really costCost makes for good talking points and a simple headlines, but wasn't the Kyoto Treaty nixxed because it didn't included:
   "129 countries, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, as `Developing Country Parties'"
   that:
   "are rapidly increasing and are expected to surpass emissions of the United States and other OECD countries as early as 2015"
   I would think it should include the two largest populations in the world.
   stash zyka
   Quotations from:
   Byrd-Hagel Resolution
   Sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
   Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations... (Passed by the Senate 95-0)
   105th CONGRESS
   
   1st Session
   
   S. RES. 98

   Permalink

4. 

   bookerly Posted 8:34 am
   11 May 2006

   Why Kyoto Was Nixed
   
      The basic argument against Kyoto (used by Bush) was that it would damage the US economy too much.  He was correct that it would cost a lot of money, but the point is that he is ready to bleed money like crazy if he cares about something.
      Blaming developing countries is a red-herring.  They were excluded from being required to reduce their emissions below 1990 levels because their per-capita emmissions at that point would plunge them into permanent poverty.
      Rich countries were being asked to clean up their act.  Which they can afford to do, if they are willing to spend the money.
      They were also required to participate in technology transfers which would enable the developing countries to continue to grow their economies with less damage to the environment.
      Many countries are still working under the Kyoto protocals.  Only the US (and now Canada) are scofflaws.  
      Of course, these days, the US ignores many international treaties, even the ones it has ratified.  Our reputation for honest dealing is pretty much in tatters.
      The world image of America has declined quite a bit in the last six years.
   patrick

   Permalink

5. 

   0ld curmudgeon Posted 9:11 am
   11 May 2006

   us world imageI would tend to agree with Robin Williams  lets pull out of Iraq,Germany,japan,Korea,Afganistan,Kewate,and any place we`re at let them have it back.But next time they have a earthquake,famine,drought,war,plague or tidal wave they can call france they`re big and brave they`ll fix it all

   Permalink

6. 

   cdehaes Posted 7:16 pm
   11 May 2006

   fuel from cropsJust to say that the use of crops to generate alternatives to fossil fuels is, in my opinion, a double edged sword.
   Yes it would be carbon neatral and thus not add to global warming.  At the same time though it would also encourage the further expansion of agricultural land, more than likely at the cost of the rainforest.  It may turn out like the craze for soya beans (after the BSE crisis in Europe), which has caused the destruction of vast swathes of rainforest in order to find an alternative feed for dairy cows and beef cattle.
   Has anyone actually worked out how much extra agricultural land we would need to replace even 30% of our current thirst for fossil fuels with this 'wondr fuel'?  I haven't.  And this land would have to be in addition to the current agricultural requirements.
   I am sorry, there is only one thing for it.  Drive less and hybrid, put solar panels on the roof of your car, slow down, don't fly! (And that is just the transport bit!
   
   I did not inherit the world, I am borrowing it from my grandchildren (as yet unborn) and at the moment I don't even know if they will be able to live there!

   Permalink

7. 

   jgray008 Posted 2:12 am
   12 May 2006

   Benefits of KyotoI just want to echo the comments of the poster who mentioned that our current administration did not consider the benefits of joining Kyoto.  I just finished attending 3 days of conferences at the Carbon Expo <http://www.carbonexpo.com> here in Cologne, Germany.  I was blown away at how far the Europeans, Japanese and Canadians have progressed at getting the carbon trading market set up, as well as the projects that are either done or in the pipeline.  Essentially there are projects such as energy efficiency, methane capture from landfills, biofuels, wind and solar, etc, which are being done either within Kyoto signatory countries or in developing countries through what is called the Clean Development Mechanism (or Joint Implementation in some more advanced countries.  The latter two programs allow the Kyoto countries with emissions reduction targets to do projects in developing countries and get emissions credit for them.  The poor countries benefit by getting investment and new technologies.
   Anyway, my main point is that the Kyoto countries are now ahead of us since they have been getting the infrastructure in place to do these projects - energy companies, consultants, lawyers, hedge fund managers, green technologies and the now successful European Union Emissions Trading System - you name it.  What is this expertise worth?  I would guess a great deal.  They are getting everything in place to be less carbon dependent, while we sleep (and complain).  Considering the benefits gained by this, I'd be curious to see a real cost-benefit analysis of Kyoto.
    

   Permalink

8. 

   jb943 Posted 4:09 am
   15 May 2006

   Follow the moneyYou can talk about cost, but who is getting paid? For Iraq, it's the military and defense industries, it's Halliburton, etc. If the US were to comply with Kyoto, the government's investment would benefit and strengthen the part of the economy that works on energy-efficient and renewable technologies, not to mention the auxillary benefits of cleaner air and water, and a step towards mitigating the effects of climate change.
   
   Environmental Associate
   
   Kingston, NY

   Permalink

9. 

   Zyka Posted 6:55 am
   15 May 2006

   red-herringAgreed, but then they should write a sunset, or re-evaluation clause into it for China and India. I don't think that the other 3rd world countries would have as much impact in 10 or 20 years as those two will. I'm with you, not against you. I was just trying to widen the debate.
   sz

   Permalink