Was Congress wise to not ratify the Kyoto protocols?

Question

As I understand it, the Kyoto protocols punishes developed nations for high carbon dioxide emissions. It does not punish nations with developing economies. Although I favor policies which would increase the standard of living for Indian and Chinese citizens, I do not think they should adopt inefficient and wasteful technologies and habits for short term economic gains. To make a more environmentally benign economy, I believe it would be easier to start from scratch, so to speak, than to change existing infrastructure. I believe any carbon reducing treaty ratified by the U.S. should include reductions for all nations, especially developing nations. Having prefaced my question above, was Congress and the Bush administration correct to not ratify this treaty?

Answer 1

Given your contentions (the logical constructions you assume), then yes Congress and Bush were correct to not ratify this treaty.

I do think though, that we should continue to try and find avenues to reduce our own carbon emissions outside of the structure of the treaty. Nothing says we have to wait for a treaty to start doing something on our own. The U.S. should be the leader in these efforts. If we're going to be a world leader, we need to lead by example.

Answer 2

The Senate voted in 1997, and unanimously handed ninety 5-0 (ALL Democrats and Republicans) S.RES.ninety 8 which somewhat pronounced the Senate does not even evaluate ratifying it. Neither Presidents Clinton or Bush tried to sign onto it with the aid of fact the two events in the Senate unfavorable it. .

Answer 3

NO...

The KP asks developped nations to take their historical responsability for their emissions.

It does not require YET for developping countries to take mandatory efforts that could compromise their development since they have the same right to develop as we have.

But in fact, 70% of the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in developped countries have been from their own initiative. 30% are from the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) financed by Japan and the EU.

China punishes already itself with pollution since the estimated cost for its society is around 7% even according to their own estimates !!!

The Kyoto-P does reduce emissions around the world. Since it is market based to be more efficient, reductions start where they can be achieved at a minimal cost which is often in developing countries.

A difference should be made between:
-developped countries which have an absolute reduction target
-poor and developing countries which do not have targets at all
- EMERGING COUNTRIES (INDIA AND CHINA) which might have an intensity target in a post-Kyoto treaty. This means that they can develop but in a greaner way and should not emit more than .... t CO2 per $ of their GDP.


As for: WHY TAKE A MANDATORY TARGET ???
Because unless you clearly and fairly split the tasks, no project can be accomplished efficiently and no responsability is taken. A goodwill treaty not quantified is only a PR activity.

If you don´t take a self commitment, why would others do ?

We already tried this with the RIO Conference in 92 and the result was that nothing happened.
-----------------------------------------------
CONCERNING THE COSTS:

The US was not wise to reject the KP and not take action. There is only one way to avoid a warming over 2°C which would be a big harm, it is the 500PPM path calling to limit the CO2 concentration under 500 PPM. It has to be met no matter what... and no matter how late we start. Starting later to reach the same point will require more efforts...

The US has continued to build energy and CO2 intensive plants (electrical, steel, cement, aluminum, etc...). Most of them have a lifespan of 50 years. Cars also have a lifespan of 20 years.
As such the US is locked in a carbon intensive path.
If the US has to go out of this caron intensive path (and it will have to anyway), this will mean: THE INVESTMENTS IN CARBON INTENSIVE TECHNOLOGIES WILL BE TRASHED !!! People who believe that staying out of CO2 reduction measures the latest they can will save money are wrong and have no understanding of economics.

Countries having signed the KP like GERMANY AND BRITAIN have achieved a DECORRELATION BETWEEN THEIR GDP GROWTH AND THEIR CO2 EMISIONS.
These two countries which are also heavily industrial are on the way of achieving their Kyoto Target and even below !!! they have even as first movers found advantages in reductions since they have created economical sectors oriented toward the future (energy efficiency, renewable energies, carbon finance, etc..)-



BUSH was elected on a KYOTO friendly platform and turned his coat
CLINTON asked specifically for a market oriented form of the KP and left the boat once other countries gave him what he wanted.

Answer 4

Not ratifying Kyoto has proven to be something of a downfall for the US - not just environmentally but financially, politically and economically.

The US further alienated itself from the rest of the world (bar Australia) when it chose not to ratify the agreement, this was far from popular and in the minds of many people made the US appear insular, uncooperative and irresponsible. In many countries there is still resentment felt towards to US for not ratifying Kyoto.

The countries that have taken up the environmental challenges set forth in the Kyoto Protocol are the ones that are developing new and improved technologies in a diverse range of products and services including manufacturing, construction and electronics. The result is that the US is not moving with the times and is getting left behind in some respects and losing it's edge in others. Already this has cost the US economy many billions of dollars.

Exports of cleaner products are booming as the world demands better performance and economy and as such the Japanese and Europeans are reaping the rewards, this is proving harmful to the US which has seen exports of the 'old' technologies decline.

If the US wants to retain it's position as world leader in many markets it will need to start incorporating environmental concerns. Economies are driven by supply and demand and the current demand is for newer, cleaner, better products that are less harmful to the environment.

Answer 5

Yes, none of the goals have been met by any major country who signed this treaty. Every county's CO2 emissions are up 3 times what they used to be. Millions have been spent to keep them down with no results. This is not made up look it up for yourself, the only country to meet a goal was Norway, every other country has increased their CO2 emissions. Signing this treaty has been shown to be ineffective.

CO2 is tied with the economy, if you decrease CO2 you will decrease the GDP and your economy will fail, this is the realization every country that signed the treaty has come to.

Answer 6

YES

Al Gore's Kyoto Hypocrisy
Edward I. Koch
Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/22/92331.shtml

+

Answer 7

Definitely. Not only for the reasons you stated, but because if the developing countries go directly to the more efficient, modern designs, they will make a bigger profit from the technology. Why make them start out with obsolete technology when they can benefit from our experience?

Answer 8

the protocals were never accepted here, not because they were not ratified by the senate, but because pres bush refused to allow them to go forward. he was against them to begin with, and never changed his mind. just ask his oil company friends. they didn't want them, so neither did he.

Answer 9

Yes they were.

It would have done next to nothing and cost us billions that could be better spent on say funding global warming research and combating global warming propaganda.

Answer 10

Have a look at this it is very interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

... and this

http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html