A Rather Objective Look at the Reality of Kyoto - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

A Rather Objective Look at the Reality of Kyoto

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

A Rather Objective Look at the Reality of Kyoto

Postby StlSluggers » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:39 am

CNN.com wrote:The dirty secret behind Kyoto
The U.S. chose economic growth over reducing emissions - but so have many of the countries who actually signed on to the Kyoto treaty.
By Cait Murphy, Fortune assistant managing editor
July 31 2006: 5:40 AM EDT



NEW YORK (Fortune) -- The green fundamentalists have never been shy about casting the first stone.

If the world fries because of climate change, they thunder, it will be America's fault. Or, more specifically, George W.'s, because he took the Kyoto Protocol out of the desk drawer where Bill Clinton had stashed it for several years, and definitively binned it.

Indeed, the United States and Australia are the only rich industrial countries that have not signed on to Kyoto, the international treaty designed to slow down the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. (President Bush said that meeting the target of reducing U.S. emissions by 7 percent from 1990 levels would be too much of an economic burden.)

This willful resistance of world opinion, say the Bush administration's many environmental critics, is the classic example of how America is setting itself apart from mainstream thinking.

But is it? Take a close squint at the numbers, and frankly it looks as if many of the countries that did sign Kyoto share Bush's concern that the economic pain might outweigh the green gain.

Look at those nice people north of the border: Canada agreed to cut emissions by 6 percent. Whoops. The country is running 24 percent ahead, a lot more than the United States, which is 15.8 percent above 1990 levels. Japan has the same 6 percent target, and is also missing big, by about 13 percent.

Okay, how about the 15 western European countries that were Kyoto's original members? Sorry, for the second year in a row, according to figures released in late June, emissions rose for the EU-15.

As a whole, the EU-15 was supposed to cut its emissions by 8 percent; just two years before the clock begins ticking (the deadline is the average between 2008 and 2012), it has cut emissions by less than 1 percent.

And even that is not as impressive as it may sound, since much of the reduction dates to the early 1990s, when Germany was shutting down filthy and unprofitable industries in the post-communist east and Britain was dashing for gas, as it scaled back its filthy and unprofitable coal industry. About two-thirds of the reductions they have recorded so far occurred by 1995 - i.e., two years before the Protocol existed.

To look at it another way, from 2000 to 2004, U.S. emissions increased by 1.3 percent; in the EU-15, they increased 1 percent. In both places, the only time since 2000 that emissions actually fell (2002 in the EU, 2001 in the US) have been recession years.

And there's the rub.

The EU-15 has done a far better job of weakening the link between emissions and economic growth - remember, it has in fact cut emissions a teeny little bit, while the regional economy grew 32 percent from 1990-2004. (The U.S. over the same period grew 52 percent and emissions rose almost 16 percent.) But the link still exists. And nowhere is anyone putting climate change ahead of the economy.

The German government, for example, has gone further than anyone to cut emissions (minus 17.5 percent from 1990). But not only does it continue to subsidize its coal industry, but in late June scaled back the requirements for major industrial emitters and exempted new power plants from any limits until 2022. To make up the difference, German motorists will be asked to drive slower. Hah!

And it is telling that one of the major reasons for the rise in EU emissions in 2004 was that high prices for natural gas prompted power producers to shift to coal, which is dirtier. Given a choice, people decided to save money, not the planet.

Canada signed up to Kyoto, but it is still going full speed ahead developing Alberta¹s oil-sands industry, which produces millions of barrels of oil - and millions of tons of GHG emissions. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said flat out that Canada will not meet its target.

Japan didn't manage to reduce emissions when it was in perpetual recession; now that the economy is actually showing signs of life, no one is clamoring to take tough action to meet the requirements of a treaty signed in its own country.

No question: Japan and Europe are more efficient in their use of energy, and a couple of countries (Denmark and Britain come to mind) have been sincere, serious and successful in keeping their promises. With the development of other climate strategies, such as trading and sequestration, the pace of compliance could quicken.

But that is speculative. For now, the bottom line is this: When the choice comes down to growth or Kyoto, the evidence is that the EU, Canada, Japan and the United States all go for their wallets. In this sense, at least, the U.S. is very much in the mainstream of global climate policy.


http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/28/news/in ... tm?cnn=yes
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Postby knapplc » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:00 am

I saw this yesterday. What a great, informative article. It's funny how so many nations attend to the window-dressing of agreements like Kyoto but fail to abide by what they sign. They get off the hook by signing while nations like American take all the flak, but the reality is that all sides are equally guilty.

The one thing this article does NOT say, though, is that America produces 1/4 of the world's greenhouse gases. So while their numbers may be correct they don't portray the entire truth of the situation. All nations have percentage increases but the bottom line is that the US is still the world's biggest polluter.

All equivocation aside, we need to work on that, treaty or no treaty.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7870
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Postby acsguitar » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:03 am

Hey whats STL Sluggers doing here we want JTwood!
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby Lofunzo » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:04 pm

acsguitar wrote:Hey whats STL Sluggers doing here we want JTwood!


:-? :-?

acsguitar wrote:Hey check your PM's.

Glad your back JTwood really sucks
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby StlSluggers » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:24 pm

Lofunzo wrote:
acsguitar wrote:Hey whats STL Sluggers doing here we want JTwood!


:-? :-?

acsguitar wrote:Hey check your PM's.

Glad your back JTwood really sucks

Yeah, I saw that, but I decided not to bother. It's ACS after all... :-b
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Postby Mookie4ever » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:51 pm

Objective, right. The US leads the world in greenhouse emissions per capita (1996 is the most recent on the US EPA site).

Like it or not the US is a world leader and they have to lead the way in this. This article is worse than the Yankees pointing at other MLB teams and complaining about fiscal irresponsibility. The US has the largest industrial sector in the world, the largest economy and produces the most greenhouse gasses at least on a per capita basis. You can't just point the finger at other countries and be absolved of any responsibility.

Canada knows that it has a problem and it is a major issue here. Unfortunately, we elected a heartless conservative who places the economy above all other issues. He will not be re-elected and we hope to get back to Kyoto.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19486
(Past Year: 301)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby StlSluggers » Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:13 pm

Mookie4ever wrote:Objective, right. The US leads the world in greenhouse emissions per capita.

Just because the article neglects to mention that the U.S. is the worst polluter doesn't make it less objective. The goal of the article was not to argue who was/was not the worst polluter in the world. The article discusses the assertion that, while everyone blames the U.S. for making Kyoto ineffective, virtually every economic country in the world has done in quiet exactly what the U.S. has been vocal in doing, and that is putting economic concerns ahead of environmental concerns.

To that extent, it was objective. It points out who agreed to what. It points out who accomplished what both positive and negative. The only subjective part of the article is at the beginning when it snipes at the "greens," which is why I said it was "rather" objective and not perfectly objective.

The article's point is clear: What America feared would have happened is indeed what would have happened, and that's us sacrificing our economy for environmental concerns while everyone else ignores the treaty and goes for the profits. Hell, even Japan - the host country for the treaty - has blown it off for the sake of economy.

If you thought I was discussing the merits of valuing economy ahead of environment, you came to the wrong thread. I was just posting a nice, concise article on the reality that no major, modern country cares about environment more than its economy - the exact same thing they chastise us for.
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Postby Lofunzo » Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:56 pm

This Stl guy is a real ball breaker. :-°
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby theclefe » Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:04 am

China was also a signee and their industrial capacity has boomed in recent years, with talk of dangerous rises in pollution. The accord seems hardly worth the paper. Interesting article.
Image
theclefe
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 1747
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Rakeville

Postby bleach168 » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:33 am

Great article.

Sadly it's going to take a catastrophic event to get countries to stop emiting greenhouse gases. Even then, I bet most countries won't stop unless there is some world governing police force to make them stop.
bleach168
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 5047
(Past Year: 51)
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Next

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: incimussand, unioreimi and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Sunday, Apr. 20
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Toronto at Cleveland
(1:05 pm)
LA Angels at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
Seattle at Miami
(1:10 pm)
indoors
Atlanta at NY Mets
(1:10 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(1:35 pm)
St. Louis at Washington
(1:35 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(1:40 pm)
indoors
Minnesota at Kansas City
(2:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Chi White Sox at Texas
(3:05 pm)
Houston at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Colorado
(4:10 pm)
Arizona at LA Dodgers
(4:10 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(4:10 pm)
Baltimore at Boston
(7:05 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact