Kyoto without the US and...?

[Elind]

I find it disappointing that the US is not joining the Kyoto treaty; except for the issue of allowing the two largest and in many regards fastest growing economies on the planet to be excluded.

I believe the US has objected to China and India being excluded, but I don't understand the rational behind allowing them to do so. Is their economic growth more important to the planet than reducing global warming, or is their growth more valuable than that of the USA?

What is the real reason?

 

[DaChew]

Here is your answer:

Carbon dioxide is trading at about 7.33 euros ($9.51) per ton.

 

[Elind]

Here is your answer:

Carbon dioxide is trading at about 7.33 euros ($9.51) per ton.

Not an answer. If you mean trading credits in lieu of polution reductions, that principle is only valid if all traders are subject to the same rules. If you meant something less relevant, I'm sorry for replying.

 

[Silicon]

Stop complaining. Look on the bright side. Think of all the extra places to waterski.

And look, more places to build condos!

 

[Elind]

Stop complaining. Look on the bright side. Think of all the extra places to waterski.

And look, more places to build condos!

I think theres a forum for comics elswhere.

 

[DaChew]

Not an answer. If you mean trading credits in lieu of polution reductions, that principle is only valid if all traders are subject to the same rules.

Oh, I think the Russians disagree with you on that.

 

[Rob Lister]

I find it disappointing that the US is not joining the Kyoto treaty; except for the issue of allowing the two largest and in many regards fastest growing economies on the planet to be excluded.

I believe the US has objected to China and India being excluded, but I don't understand the rational behind allowing them to do so. Is their economic growth more important to the planet than reducing global warming, or is their growth more valuable than that of the USA?

What is the real reason?

I find it disappointing you find it disappointing. I'm quite happy the US opted out. Kyoto is expensive and a complete waste of time. I can certainly understand how other nations would want us to opt in, however, because they have the most to gain from our loss.

 

[Elind]

Re: Re: Kyoto without the US and...?

I find it disappointing you find it disappointing. I'm quite happy the US opted out. Kyoto is expensive and a complete waste of time. I can certainly understand how other nations would want us to opt in, however, because they have the most to gain from our loss.

I hate to dissappoint you but I'm not claiming to be an expert on the pros and cons, except to the degree that the majority of scientists believe global warming, by humans, is real. Bush and Falwell (who said God would not allow that to happen - I heard him say it) think differently but that's another story.

How it's dealt with, if at all, is another debate.

What I am asking is a simple question that I haven't been able to research a simple answer to. Namely why a few nations were able to get an exemption agreed to by all, except the USA?

That latter issue is one I do agree with Bush on.

As to other nations gaining from our "loss", that sounds like a gross over simplification, since they all know that if the US economy sinks, so do theirs, including China.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Kyoto without the US and...?

I hate to dissappoint you but I'm not claiming to be an expert on the pros and cons, except to the degree that the majority of scientists believe global warming, by humans, is real. Bush and Falwell (who said God would not allow that to happen - I heard him say it) think differently but that's another story.

How it's dealt with, if at all, is another debate.

What I am asking is a simple question that I haven't been able to research a simple answer to. Namely why a few nations were able to get an exemption agreed to by all, except the USA?

That latter issue is one I do agree with Bush on.

As to other nations gaining from our "loss", that sounds like a gross over simplification, since they all know that if the US economy sinks, so do theirs, including China.

I'm not an expert either, but my understanding of the issues are that, regardless of whether or not the global warming theories are correct (and I have my doubts), Kyoto is not the solution to it. Nobody (no expert) has EVER claimed that it is.

The nations that are exempt are exempt because they cannot afford it yet the protocal still requires their participation for political purposes.

The oversimplification, as you put it, is not really an oversimplification. It is exactly the reason other countries would like us to hamstring our economy: we matter too much and our torn hamstring would allow them to catch up/suppass us as the worlds leading economic powerhouse.

 

[AWPrime]

Kyoto is not the solution to it.

Well the real solutions would be political suicide in multiple levels.

 

[John Bentley]

I find it disappointing that the US is not joining the Kyoto treaty; except for the issue of allowing the two largest and in many regards fastest growing economies on the planet to be excluded.

I believe the US has objected to China and India being excluded, but I don't understand the rational behind allowing them to do so. Is their economic growth more important to the planet than reducing global warming, or is their growth more valuable than that of the USA?

What is the real reason?

It would seem that the exclusion of China and India was a blatent attempt to allow them to reap economic benefits from western economies without having to enforce any pollution controls, whatsoever.

I'll have to agree with Rob Lister. The Kyoto treaty is a farce if its main purpose is to combat global warming. It seems to be more an attempt to redistribute assets when looked at closely. I think the global warming portions are just window dressing to make it politically acceptable, and more difficult to withhold participation by the western world.

 

[Elind]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Kyoto without the US and...?

I'm not an expert either, but my understanding of the issues are that, regardless of whether or not the global warming theories are correct (and I have my doubts), Kyoto is not the solution to it. Nobody (no expert) has EVER claimed that it is.

The nations that are exempt are exempt because they cannot afford it yet the protocal still requires their participation for political purposes.

The oversimplification, as you put it, is not really an oversimplification. It is exactly the reason other countries would like us to hamstring our economy: we matter too much and our torn hamstring would allow them to catch up/suppass us as the worlds leading economic powerhouse.

You are right in that nobody sees it as a total solution, but some people believe it can make a difference, or at least that certain actions can. In that regard the US has actually always been in the lead on issues like auto emissions, fluorocarbons and so on.

The formula for Kyoto could have been debated further, but it seems to me that the US chose not to.

To say the exempt countries "could not afford to" is no different from the US saying it cannot afford to. Affordability is always a subjective issue.

And, if your oversimplification is not that, then I suggest it is plain wrong. Whatever the others think of the US, we are still their largest single customer and if you think their economies wouldn't sink even faster than ours if that started, then you really need to read up a bit more on global economics. How many Chinese do you think Wallmart employs? Do you have any idea how much money all those others have invested in the US?

The original question still stands.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kyoto without the US and...?

You are right in that nobody sees it as a total solution, but some people believe it can make a difference, or at least that certain actions can. In that regard the US has actually always been in the lead on issues like auto emissions, fluorocarbons and so on.

The formula for Kyoto could have been debated further, but it seems to me that the US chose not to.

To say the exempt countries "could not afford to" is no different from the US saying it cannot afford to. Affordability is always a subjective issue.

And, if your oversimplification is not that, then I suggest it is plain wrong. Whatever the others think of the US, we are still their largest single customer and if you think their economies wouldn't sink even faster than ours if that started, then you really need to read up a bit more on global economics. How many Chinese do you think Wallmart employs? Do you have any idea how much money all those others have invested in the US?

The original question still stands.

Elind, I respectfully submit that you are being obtuse. You seem to understand that it is not a total solution. Good. How much does the total solution cost? Go ahead and try to find an answer to that question. You might start at the UN's IPCC website. That should be a good start, no? Kyoto is not only a NON-total solution, it will do NOTHING, except, because of the way it is structructed, very probably increase CO2 output.

The "formula" for a "working" Koyto was not realistic on its face so all the debate in the world wouldn't have resulted in its passing.

To say that exempt countries "could not afford it" is a direct answer to your question as to why they are exempt. That's not ME saying it, that is the stated reason for their exemption, as per the protocol. Had they NOT been exempted, they would have been unable, politically and economically, from becoming members.

As too your last point I have to ask: why are we the largest consumers and what does being the largest consummer imply?

 

[DaChew]

In more world financial news, Carbon Dioxide credits continue to rise and are now at 7.92 euros. This continues from a solid month of increases as the cost of producing carbon dioxide has increased over 1.5 euros in just the passed month.

 

[Elind]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kyoto without the US and...?

Elind, I respectfully submit that you are being obtuse. You seem to understand that it is not a total solution. Good. How much does the total solution cost? Go ahead and try to find an answer to that question. You might start at the UN's IPCC website. That should be a good start, no? Kyoto is not only a NON-total solution, it will do NOTHING, except, because of the way it is structructed, very probably increase CO2 output.

The "formula" for a "working" Koyto was not realistic on its face so all the debate in the world wouldn't have resulted in its passing.

To say that exempt countries "could not afford it" is a direct answer to your question as to why they are exempt. That's not ME saying it, that is the stated reason for their exemption, as per the protocol. Had they NOT been exempted, they would have been unable, politically and economically, from becoming members.

As too your last point I have to ask: why are we the largest consumers and what does being the largest consummer imply?

Not obtuse, just trying to avoid a debate on the merits of Kyoto itself; but I believe the principle is most likely valid and therefore I am sorry the US did not participate to the extent of actually structuring something workable, if you are right on that point.

As to the affordability issue, I think I've squeezed a partial answer out of your earier obtuseness , finally.

So they want to be members to trade in CO2 perhaps? Without reducing CO2? Just political horse trading then?

However it still doesn't explain why Brazil got that condition, but no other South American country did. The others are stupider, richer, smarter, what?

And the Chinese? The rest of the world would benefit from a little better trade balance with China, as in buying anti polution technology. Why give in to the biggest thieves and cheats on the planet?

What I would like to see is something documenting the arguments those countries gave for their excemptions, that was accepted by the rest of the world, in its wisdom.

 

[Brian the Snail]

I believe the US has objected to China and India being excluded, but I don't understand the rational behind allowing them to do so. Is their economic growth more important to the planet than reducing global warming, or is their growth more valuable than that of the USA?

What is the real reason?

I think the rationale behind it was basically a question of "fairness." Countries like China and India are indeed major emitters of CO2, but since those countries are so populous their per capita CO2 emissions are still much smaller than in North America and Europe, since their economies aren't as developed. So, developing countries were reluctant to cut their emissions, and therefore jeopardise some of their future growth, to the same degree as developed countries.

Another reason I think was the feeling that, since most of the CO2 emitted so far has been by the developed countries, then they should be the ones that take the lead in sorting it out.

Edited to add: If anybody's interested, here is a ranked table of total and per capita emissions for each country in the year 2000.

 

[Zep]

Australia, or more accurately the current government of Australia, has refused to sign up to Kyoto too. No reasonable explanation has been forthcoming, although the reasons being touted now are identical to those coming from the current US government - warts, backflips, excuses and all.

Oh well - I guess they are saving paper by sharing the same script...

 

[a_unique_person]

The Kyoto protocol is supposed to be a first step that establishes if the world can confront a scientifically valid issue, or not. If it can, well, then it can move on to the next step, if it can't, well, it can't. Screw you, I'll be dead in about 40 years too, enough time to see who's right and not give a damn.

 

[The Fool]

Re: Re: Kyoto without the US and...?

I think the rationale behind it was basically a question of "fairness." Countries like China and India are indeed major emitters of CO2, but since those countries are so populous their per capita CO2 emissions are still much smaller than in North America and Europe, since their economies aren't as developed. So, developing countries were reluctant to cut their emissions, and therefore jeopardise some of their future growth, to the same degree as developed countries.

Another reason I think was the feeling that, since most of the CO2 emitted so far has been by the developed countries, then they should be the ones that take the lead in sorting it out.

Edited to add: If anybody's interested, here is a ranked table of total and per capita emissions for each country in the year 2000.

I checked your link and the only comment I have is wtf do they get up to on the US Virgin Islands? It appears thier main passtime must be burning stuff.....

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Kyoto without the US and...?

I checked your link and the only comment I have is wtf do they get up to on the US Virgin Islands? It appears thier main passtime must be burning stuff.....

The answer is obvious, they are sacrificing Virgins.