jorgelito

So then, it comes down to:

If some countries are allowed to pollute and others aren't, does it in fact, give one an advantage over the other? Is it measurable or is it just speculation?

I disagree with the contention that pollution is necessary for growth. Although China and India do not pollute as much as say, the US (largest polluter), it's still not a great idea to just let them pollute freely.

I believe that they have a perfect opportunity (and many developing countries for that matter) to put into place good environmental policies that do NOT have to necessarily be uncompetitve or contstraining economically.

Because they are developing, there is still a lot of room for infrastructure building. Since it is in a sense, building from scratch, it should be easier to build a "cleaner, greener, leaner" factory, power plant etc... simply because you don't have to tear an older, existing pollutiing one. Yes, it may be a bit more expensive (I'm assuming) but I believe it should be better in the long run. Studies (sorry, I don't have a source handy, I'm just recalling from memory) in our own country show that green or smart buildings, solar power are all "profitable" in the long run. I don't believe it is a ero-sum game. People argue that environmental policies create job loss. I would argue that new industries are created in its place.

I don't know about global warming, but I do care about breathing clean air and drinking clean water. It really should be simple and based on common sense. Don't pee in the drinking supply or don't dump your garbage in there either. Prevention is far less costly than trying to clean it all up.

Charlatan

That can't be right... Under what criterea are China and India defined as developing?

I thought they weren't party to Kyoto because, like the US, they don't like being beholden to the rest of the planet...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

NCB

OK, now you're begining to understand what the KP is all about. Like I mentioned earlier, it has nothing to do with pollution and everything to do with curbing US economic power and overall power.

__________________

Charlatan

I would really like to believe otherwise... can someone in support of Kyoto defend this, please?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

NCB

I know you would, but sometimes us right wing, gun totin' rednecks are right

__________________

Charlatan

Very interesting...



yes India and China are big emmiters BUT when you look at their numbers per capita... they are much lower... I can see why Bush rejected this but also why the achitects of Kyoto have done this...

The US as the biggest polluter on the block clearly has the most to lose...

That said, the US, as a "world leader" really needs to take the initiative here... I think they are missing an opportunity to lead by example...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

NCB

Per capita pollution???

Come on

__________________

Charlatan

Why is that so hard to fathom?

You have a total amount of CO2 emmisions and you have a population...

You don't find it interesting that the US, Brazil, Germany and Japan with very high emmissions have a fraction of the population of nations like India and China? I'm not saying those two nations will not increase over time or that they shouldn't be considered Annex 1 nations...

I am saying that I can now appreciate where Bush is coming from as well as the other side of the arguement.

Simply put there is a lot that could be done by everyone... the fact that the US wants status quo is just wrong... The fact that these two nations are not held accountable (for now... the literature suggests some Annex 2 nations will have to conform to targets in the next few years) is wrong.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

jorgelito

I don't think the pollution numbers are in dispute. It's no secret we (US, major industrial countries) are huge consumers and polluters (producers of waste).

However, I think the main problem is that people believe the Kyoto Protocol would be economically debilitating. I disagree. It may produce an initial capitalization cost to correct factories etc but over the long run there should be better results. Additionally, by the same argument, I think China and India should most definitely participate as well as the two most populous and developing countries.

I actually think of it as an opportunity. As a leading country in technology and innovation, we could be exporting our expertise in helping China and India build "green" and "smart' facilities. Moreover, we can also invest or help them set up more enironmentally sound sources of energy. There is also an opportunity for Halliburtn here: I think they have some sort of haz-mat disposal or toxic clean up division. They can be busy for the next 2 decades cleaning up the environment all over the world. Perhaps we could see this as an ecoomic opportunity. China and India could be induced to investing in these environmentally friendly policies with cheap loan incentives from the World Bank or IMF (As developing countries they would qualify). The rest of us can further encourage responsible environmental policy further with favorable trade policies.

I dunno, something like that. I just don't think it's all doom and gloom.

alansmithee

Alot of what you say assumes that China and India would have any desire to change their current procedures. And why do countries with economies the size of China and India deserve cheap loans from the World Bank? If anything the US should get cheap loans to convert because they pollute the most, and hence loose the most under kyoto.

And really, without China, India or especially the US i really think kyoto will have a minor effect.

alansmithee

I think per-capita pollution might not be the right metric for measuring, but I'm not sure what it would be replaced with. The only thing I could think of would be pollution per acre/sq. mile but that would skew in favor of low population density countries (and would probably put Japan at the top for polluters).

Personally I'm not that worried about the environment, I think if something really critical is about to happen technology will find an answer. But admittedly I also have a very short-term view of the problem.

NCB

Yeah, we can't do that. We have skew the data to make the US look like that the pollution it creates is causing asthma for the Creator himself. After all, this is about punishing the USA.

__________________

aKula

How would the kyoto protocol 'punish' the USA. It would be bound to reducing emissions by 7% from what they were in 1990. All other industialised countries are reducing by an average of 5.2%.
full text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol

Why aren't developing countries included in this reduction of emissions?
1. Even after the reduction of emissions by the industrialised countries the developing countries emissions per capita will still be much lower.
2. If an emissions per capita system were in place the developing world could sell carbon credits to the industrialised world. This would lead to either no reductions anywhere (and huge profit for the developing world) or reductions in the industrialised countries (to reduce the cost of buying carbon credits) and reductions in the developing countries (to increase their profit from selling carbon credits). Either way, in such a system, the industrialised countries will be 'punished' by having to buy carbon credits from the developing countries. Hence such a system isn't in place.
3. An increase of emissions is required to to escape poverty more rapidly.

Including developing countries in the '1990 emission system' would be unfair as outlined in points 1. and 2. above.

There is alot of poverty in India and China (particularly in the rural areas) that is why they are developing countries.
China is on rank 94 in the HDI ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDI ) while India is on rank 127.

2004 HDI report: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2.../hdr04_HDI.pdf

Charlatan

But... the US is *both* the greatest polluter *and* the greatest polluter per capita...

The US *looks* bad without anyone doing anything... I'm the first to admit that Canada is right up there as well and something needs to be done... That the Bush administration wants to put off solving anything in the short term is *no* surprise... The administrations increasing debt just mirrors this desire to put off todays problems for other generations to solve.

I think history will judge the US, India and China negatively for their collective inactivity...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

jorgelito

It's not just about reduction or clean up but about prevention as well. It's good policy in my opinion.

But, the reason why China and India should want to be on board (yes I know this is normative) is because quite simply, environmental issues are finite in the sense that they also desire clean air and clean water as well as satisfying energy and consumption demands. Resources are limited.

EX: If you insist on chopping down the forest for subsistence, sooner or later there will be no forest left to chop down. Then what? Now, I'm actually not opposed to chopping down the forest, I'm for a good, practical policy that makes sense (i.e - planting trees and rotation).

It's the same with fishing (and rights). Why kill your own industry by overfishing and polluting to depletion? It makes no sense. It's like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

So, in relation to emissions, if we are to believe that there are certain costs associated with poor air quality, then you have a quantifiable measure to evaluate the cost benefit of implementing an environmental policy such as the Kyoto Protocol.

For example, in LA, poor air quality has been shown to reduce worker productivity and contribute to the rising costs of healthcare. (Sorry guys, I don't have the report reference handy and I'm too lazy to google). It would seem that reducing emissions and the associated costs would yield real tangible benefits.

Therefore, if India and China were to look at their enormous populations and the task of providing an environment or infrastructure, clothing, feeding, employing, etc, they would see that a long term plan would be necessary to maintain stability and prosperity. Short term benefits are politically popular but may not be the best solution for the state. By planning for the long term, they can ensure some stability, prosperity and balance for their respective populations.

jorgelito

akula,

I don't understand #3.

QUOTE: 3. An increase of emissions is required to to escape poverty more rapidly.

Why does it have to be this way? actually, I think that may very well be the main point.

If the asumption is that emissions standards create economic advantages, then what is the rational? Why does that necessarily hold true? How would reducing emissions hurt one's economy?

Bear in mind, cost benefit entails not just economic costs but opportunity and accounting costs as well.

EX: My old school (SMC) made quite a bit of money recycling waste on campus to supplement the school's budget.

EX: When I didn't have health insurance, I spent $3500 in hospital visits because something I should of went to the doctor for escalated tenfold and cost more. Since I defaulted on the hospital visits, the taxpayers picked up the bill (sorry guys). Now that I have health insurance, I get regular preventative care and haven't been to the hospital in over two years.

Also, because I get regular dental care, instead of waiting to the last minute and needing $1000s in oral surgery.

Preventative remedies do pay off in the long run. Having clean air and water will go a long way in reducing health care costs and other associated costs like damaged crops form acid rain, loss of top soil form over-fertilization (dustbowlers). Cost of clean up is way more than prevention.

Lebell

I'll just note that the 'per-capita' comparison is BS, IMO.

What matters is totals.

That per-capita comparison makes China and India look much better than actual and the US worse since the US has a smaller population than either (by approximately 1/5 of each or 1/10 of both.)

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Dyze

The reason that India and China are not included is indeed that they are developing countries. They simply cannot afford yet to produce under those standards. The US administration says implementing the standards would give the US a disadvantage. But the US economy is so far ahead that it will take the developing countries decades to catch up.
I like the idea of putting tariffs on goods from polluting countries that could afford more ecological production but don't do it.
And I honeslty cannot believe that you think US live expectancy has anything to do with air quality. Maybe a little, but medical service and nutrition play the major role there. If it would be so easy to say, India pollutes air, so Indians die and that is their problem. This huge hole in the ozone layer over Australia for example was not caused by Australian boomerang factories. Those people down under don't die from skin cancer because it is their fault. Global pollution caused the ozone layer to break over that part of the world because *insert intelligent metereologic comment*.

The KP is just an idea, a step, a start. But if the US do not take part then nothing is getting better and I better think about that whole having children part...

__________________
Knowing is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

aKula

So Iceland should be entitled to pollute just as much as China and the USA?
Maybe you could factor in land area, but then again Australia shouldn't be able to pollute as much as Europe.

I agree that China should build clean factories (not likely to happen though), the thing is when a country develops into an industrialised one factories that emmit pollution will be built, increasing total emissions. (Even if the factories are efficient, though in most cases they aren't. I agree this should change.)

Charlatan

Well the numbers also show the total amount of emmissions... China and India are in the top ten BUT the US, regardless of whether or not you look at per capita is STILL higher than the rest...

Hell it's higher than the European Union combined...

Yes, China and India have higher populations... a reason we should be concerned about the spead of mass consumerism in those nations... imagine how bad they will be if they continue to increase their output on the same gowth pattern?

They should be held accountable... if not by the accord then by trade tariffs...

Again, the whole this will damage our economy, is BS... the US has the opportunity to be a world leader here and they are squandering that... of course the current administration can't afford to take any economic hits... they need all the treasure they have for other things...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

alansmithee

The problem is that you can't quantify other costs associated pollution but a business can quantify the cost of reducing pollution. There might be benefits, but from a business perspective it's a risk. Also, this is a big problem with political science-the business doesn't absorb all the costs of pollution, but would absorb all the costs of preventing it. There is no incentive for them to reduce it.

As for China and India, I don't think either is that concerned with providing stability and quality of life for their people. Otherwise they wouldn't allow the working conditions that allow for both countries to be making their current economic gains.

I personally think that technology will compensate for any percived problems, if the need is that dire (i've been told that that is a blue environmentalist view). That's why enviromental issues are personally low priority. However, I admit in the future things could change.

alansmithee

The economic hit is real-there are real, quantifiable costs associated with reducing polluting ommissions. Also, businesses will relocate to India, China, or any other place where emmisions standards are lower if America were to drastically change their current policies.

Earlier I said I don't feel that per-capita is the best metric, but I don't know offhand of a better one. I suggested one earlier, but I don't know if it's really any better.

And as for tariffs, if they could be implemented I would be heavily in favor of them. But it's currently extremely difficult to have tarrifs implemented in the "global economy". Although if countries were to levy heavy tarrifs against China and India, I personally think those countries would have little recourse (they both heavily export and have very little importing, so threats of counter-tarrifs would probably be ineffective).

Charlatan

There's the rub... as long as we continue to use GDP as an indicator of the economic health of nations we will be behind the proverbial 8 ball...

We need a new indicator folks...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Joan of Arc

I'm getting hot just thinking about it...or...maybe I'm getting cold. Whatever!!!!!

__________________
"Insanity and Genius are on the same side of the street"

Dyze

I know there is this theory, but I cannot think of the name right now. I read about it, it's kinda ols but was never really developed further.
It basically said that every country has certain emission rights. If it would want to exceed those, it could purchase rights from another country, but at an exorbitant price. In the long term it would be cheaper to upgrade factories.
Again, main problems: how to measure? How to supervise? How to fine? Neutral head organization?
Would probably never work because we can't even agree on an international court for war crimes.
They talked about this theory in that book called One Trillion Dollars where this poor guy inherits this money that his great great great great grandfather one deposited.

__________________
Knowing is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

charlesesl

You guys are really horrouble people.
How can you guys even suggest keeping half of the world's population in poverty as an alternative to slowing american's pollution problem?

Well, good luck on fighting this uphilled battle, you have 141 nations as oppoents.

__________________
It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us.
Dr. Viktor E. Frankl

Manx

I wouldn't call you that. I would call you unreasonable and self-centered.

The U.S. is entirely industrialized. There is nothing the world gains by giving the U.S. a temporary pass as is being given to China and India. Neither China nor India are nearly as industrialized as the U.S., they have a lot of catch up to do. The process of catch up and the result once they become more industrialized is a stronger global economy. The purpose of their temporary pass is to provide them with incentive and means to do what the U.S. has already done.

The U.S. did it first and it has enjoyed the benefits of it and will continue to enjoy the benefits of having been first. Now it is time for other countries, including the two with the largest populations, to do it.

The difficulty you are having accepting the inherent fairness of that scenario is that you do not think of this on terms of a global issue. And let's be clear - we are talking about the global environment and how policy on the global environment affects the global economy. The U.S. has already done the most poluting and the U.S. has reaped the benefits of their unchecked polution policies. The world has been negatively affected. It is now time that other countries receive benefits. That the U.S. will then need to accept some negatives is simply the pendulum swinging back.

And my feeling is that the U.S. will eventually find itself in a position where it must join the treaty. As the world economy begins leveraging the treaty, the U.S. will find itself left out in the cold.

connyosis

Well put Manx. Could not agree more.

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.