Kyoto Protocol enters in action

[El Kaz]

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A world plan to fight global warming goes into force today, feted by its backers as a lifeline for the planet but rejected as an economic straitjacket by the United States and Australia.

After years of delays, the 141-nation Kyoto protocol formally starts at midnight New York time (5 a.m. British time on Wednesday) with celebrations including in the ancient Japanese city of Kyoto where it was signed in 1997.

The pact is the first legally binding plan to tackle climate change, building on a scheme launched at an Earth Summit in 1992 to stabilise emissions at 1990 levels by 2000, a goal not met. But it excludes until at least 2012 major developing nations India, China and Brazil, which comprise more than a third of humanity.

"This is a great stride forward in our struggle to confront one of the biggest challenges we face in the 21st century: climate change," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in pre-recorded remarks to be aired during a ceremony in Kyoto later on Wednesday.

"Climate change is a global problem. It requires a concerted global response," he said, adding: "I call on the world community to be bold, to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, and to act quickly in taking the next steps. There is no time to lose!"

Kyoto aims to brake a rise in temperatures widely blamed on human emissions of heat-trapping gases that may spur ever more hurricanes, floods and droughts and could drive thousands of species of animals and plants to extinction by 2100.

Sea levels are also expected to rise, threatening low-lying islands, coastal cities and aquifers.

Under the deal, developed nations have to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

"Kyoto gives us a very solid basis for our climate policy," said Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, praising it as a small first step towards preventing what could be catastrophic climate change in coming decades.

But Kyoto has been weakened by a 2001 pullout by the United States, the world's top polluter and source of almost a quarter of human emissions of carbon dioxide, because the pact excludes developing nations.

KYOTO "A BUILDING BLOCK"

Some environmental groups were planning protests outside U.S. embassies on Wednesday to underscore Washington's isolation on climate policy.

President George W. Bush has dismissed Kyoto as too costly and misguided for excluding developing nations from the first phase to 2012. His administration once denounced it as "an unrealistic and ever-tightening regulatory straitjacket".

Kyoto backers say rich nations are probably the main cause of a 0.6C (1F) rise in world temperatures since the Industrial Revolution and so should take the lead by cutting use of fossil fuels and shifting to cleaner energy such as wind and solar.

"Kyoto won't do very much in itself but it creates a framework for action," said Kristian Tangen, head of Point Carbon analysis group in Oslo. "But there is a real risk that the whole thing will collapse after 2012."

Big developing nations, led by China and India, are unlikely to sign up after 2012 unless the United States joins, he said. Bush says more research is needed and that predictions of climate change are too uncertain.

"We will do our part in the developing world," said South African Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk.

"But one of the global challenges will be to encourage countries like the United States and Australia to ratify the protocol or at the very least to remain committed to the multi-lateral international process to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

The United States is not alone in snubbing Kyoto. Many Kyoto supporters -- for whom targets will be legally binding -- are far above 1990 benchmarks.

Spain and Portugal were 40.5 percent above 1990 emissions levels in 2002, Ireland 28.9 percent and Greece 26 percent, according to U.N. data. By comparison, Australia was 22.2 percent above 1990 levels and the United States 13.1 percent.

In Japan, the world's number two economy, emissions have risen eight percent over 1990 levels.

"It is a goal in the sense that it would be going into effect, but only the start for Japan to achieve its responsibilities set under the protocol," Japanese Environment Minister Yuriko Koike told parliament on Wednesday.

Even if fully implemented, Kyoto would cut a projected rise in temperatures by just 0.1C by 2100, according to U.N. projections, a pinprick compared to forecasts by a U.N. climate panel of an overall rise of 1.4-5.8C by 2100.

For some, any reduction would be better than nothing. In the remote South Pacific, low-lying islands are already seeing the future of global warming and rising sea levels, as extreme high tides crash over crumbling sea-walls and flood their homes.

At the poles and high in the mountains, glaciers are melting rapidly and there is a growing fear that global warming could cause huge icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica to melt in the long term, triggering a sea level rise of many metres. Coastlines around the world would be swamped and major cities such as London, Shanghai, Bombay and New York flooded.

Is it worth it without the world's biggest polluter participating?
Is it worth it AT ALL, or will it fade away as a "good on paper, but just doesn't work" project after a while?
Time will tell, but I have doubts...

[archer2371]

I'm more worried about the pass it gives China for polluting as much as we do.

[C4 Diesel]

It's way better than what was in place before. ...Oh, yeah. That'd be nothing. It's just too bad that more countries aren't involved in it.

[stevo]

KP does nothing to stop the pollution by the worlds largest countries, India and China. Why should the US sign on, weaken our economy more, when there are no provisions for a third of the world's population?

I'm glad this thing never went through in the US.

[the_marq]

Yeah this is one forgien policy the US has that I can agree with, I wish Canada had never gotten involved in this half-baked idea. Sure it has good intentions but could not have been more poorly implemented.

[Lebell]

Others have beat me to it.

The fact that the treaty would give China and India a pass is the real problem, as they stand to be the biggest polluters (China uses coal extensively for the production of power...more so than the US if I remember correctly. Their coal plants do not have even remotely the same emission controls our plants have.)

[connyosis]

What are you? A bunch of babies?
"Those countries pollute, we should be able too as well!"

Why not be a role model and do your part? If more and more countries join in, in the long run it will be better for everyone. People has to stop thinking short term...

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by connyosis

What are you? A bunch of babies?
"Those countries pollute, we should be able too as well!"

Why not be a role model and do your part? If more and more countries join in, in the long run it will be better for everyone. People has to stop thinking short term...

It is not a matter of being "a bunch of babies", it is the matter of very real economic impact on those implimenting such standards.

In other words, China and India would be allowed the economic benefits of NOT curbing their emmissions while the United States would pay the cost of controlling theirs.

The treaty isn't a level playing field as it stands.

[flstf]

I wonder just how much of a difference we humans have made in the Earth's climate. It seems that the planet has been warming up and cooling down many times throughout it's history with no help from us. The land my house now sits on was a glacier not so long ago.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity. http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Lebell

Others have beat me to it.

The fact that the treaty would give China and India a pass is the real problem, as they stand to be the biggest polluters (China uses coal extensively for the production of power...more so than the US if I remember correctly. Their coal plants do not have even remotely the same emission controls our plants have.)

Pollution is not really the primary concern for the KP. It's more about curbing American economic power. If it were really about pollution, China and India would be included and sub Saharan African countries and other third world countries would not be permitted to slash and burn their forests and savanna land.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by NCB

Pollution is not really the primary concern for the KP. It's more about curbing American economic power. If it were really about pollution, China and India would be included and sub Saharan African countries and other third world countries would not be permitted to slash and burn their forests and savanna land.

Agreed, but when we point that out, we're a "bunch of babies".

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Lebell

Agreed, but when we point that out, we're a "bunch of babies".

As well as right wing selfish scumbags who care nothing for anything but themselves.

[Charlatan]

If we are so concerned about India and China, why not make all signatories impose some sort of tarrif on any goods imported from nations that are not signatories to the accorrd.

Level the economic playing feild as far as being able to import cheaply produced goods.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

If we are so concerned about India and China, why not make all signatories impose some sort of tarrif on any goods imported from nations that are not signatories to the accorrd.

Level the economic playing feild as far as being able to import cheaply produced goods.

Why?

I mean, even if India and China were willing to agree to it (which I seriously doubt) why not include them in the treaty?

That seems to be the best, most straight forward solution to me.

But to agree with was was previously stated, I think several nations saw this as a good way to curb the US, which is the real reason they weren't included.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

If we are so concerned about India and China, why not make all signatories impose some sort of tarrif on any goods imported from nations that are not signatories to the accorrd.

Level the economic playing feild as far as being able to import cheaply produced goods.

You're missing the point. The treaty claims that this is the way to curb pollution. How are taxes going to curb pollution in the third world countries that slash and burn?

[Charlatan]

What I am suggesting is that the protocol is a good first step in terms of getting nations (and by the extention people in general) to start thinking about the impact they are making on the global climate, etc.

People here (and elsewhere) are complaining that since India and China have not signed on it give them an unfair advantage of those nations that have signed on...

An economic advantage that could be partially leveled by the signatory nations agreeing to impose tariffs on imports coming in from non-signatory nations. Suddenly cheap goods from China become just as expensive as those made in nations who have agreed to keep their emmissions in check.

The revenues generated could be used to further the reduction of green house gas emmisions or to help pay for the hospital bill of those who are dying from inhaling all these pollutants...

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

What I am suggesting is that the protocol is a good first step in terms of getting nations (and by the extention people in general) to start thinking about the impact they are making on the global climate, etc.

People here (and elsewhere) are complaining that since India and China have not signed on it give them an unfair advantage of those nations that have signed on...

An economic advantage that could be partially leveled by the signatory nations agreeing to impose tariffs on imports coming in from non-signatory nations. Suddenly cheap goods from China become just as expensive as those made in nations who have agreed to keep their emmissions in check.

The revenues generated could be used to further the reduction of green house gas emmisions or to help pay for the hospital bill of those who are dying from inhaling all these pollutants...

You make a good point and I see what you're saying, but if that's the case, why not do it now and include the USA? They won;t do it, because this is not about pollution. In fact, I'm willing to wager that if something like this does come to pass, it would be ONLY the US that gets the tariffs slaped on.

And BTW, who are all these people that you say are dying because of this?

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by NCB

You make a good point and I see what you're saying, but if that's the case, why not do it now and include the USA? They won;t do it, because this is not about pollution. In fact, I'm willing to wager that if something like this does come to pass, it would be ONLY the US that gets the tariffs slaped on. ?

It would be great to see the US come on board but that won't happen for any number of reasons. The biggest reason being that the US doesn't like to be told what to do. Meanwhile, the US doesn't appear to be doing *anything*.

Originally Posted by NCB

And BTW, who are all these people that you say are dying because of this

There are all sorts of stats relating to the number of people who are dying around the world from deaths related to the quality of the air they breathe... of course there are an equal number put out by corporations who claim there is no way to really pin these death on air quality... much like the tobacco issue... too many other factors to actually point a finger at air quality.

That said, try living in Bangkok or Jakarta... the air there is toxic... We in the west aren't that far behind.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

There are all sorts of stats relating to the number of people who are dying around the world from deaths related to the quality of the air they breathe... of course there are an equal number put out by corporations who claim there is no way to really pin these death on air quality... much like the tobacco issue... too many other factors to actually point a finger at air quality.

That said, try living in Bangkok or Jakarta... the air there is toxic... We in the west aren't that far behind.

If there are all these people dying from pollution, and the US is one of the biggest polluters there is (according to the libs, of course), how do you explain that women in this country have a life expectancy of 83.3 year, the highest in the entire world?

[oktjabr]

Originally Posted by NCB

how do you explain that women in this country have a life expectancy of 83.3 year, the highest in the entire world?

Maybe that is the republican information?

CIA factbook (probably the most partisan liberal source?) says that the estimate of female life expectancy of USA is 80,36 and that there is lots of countries with higher values (Finland, the land of knives and booze = 81,89).

Sorry, just nitpicking.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by oktjabr

Maybe that is the republican information?

CIA factbook (probably the most partisan liberal source?) says that the estimate of female life expectancy of USA is 80,36 and that there is lots of countries with higher values (Finland, the land of knives and booze = 81,89).

Sorry, just nitpicking.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Programs Center, International Database, Gender and Aging: Mortalit and Health, 1B/98-2.

North and South America
Male Female
Argentina 70.9 78.3
Brazil 59.4 69.6
Costa Rica 73.5 78.5
Cuba 73.0 77.9
Mexico 68.6 74.8
United States 72.9 83.3

[oktjabr]

Originally Posted by NCB

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Programs Center, International Database, Gender and Aging: Mortalit and Health, 1B/98-2.

I had to google because you didn't provide a link, is it this:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774532.html

That has a title Life Expectancy at Birth for Selected Countries: 1950 and 1998. Means seven year old data. The CIA fact book, on the other hand:

total population: 77.43 years
male: 74.63 years
female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)

Now we can argue which source is more reliable.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by oktjabr

I had to google because you didn't provide a link, is it this:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774532.html

That has a title Life Expectancy at Birth for Selected Countries: 1950 and 1998. Means seven year old data. The CIA fact book, on the other hand:

total population: 77.43 years
male: 74.63 years
female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)

Now we can argue which source is more reliable.

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing here, but either way, how can you explain the LE rate in the US while claiming the we are the biggest polluter and causing all sorts of premature deaths?

[oktjabr]

Originally Posted by NCB

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing here, but either way, how can you explain the LE rate in the US while claiming the we are the biggest polluter and causing all sorts of premature deaths?

I wasn't going to explain that as I only corrected your outdated information. I do think that the logic behind that comparison is a bit flawed though, but that is an argument I don't want to take part, at least not now.

And about being the biggest polluter, I think it in this case refers to CO2 emissions, which are not directly harmful (as in killing people) but that they contribute to the climate change. Note that I didn't post the original post saying that people are dying because of pollution. Even though I wouldn't be surprised if even in my rather small (in US scale, that is) home city, car exhaust fumes get rather unbearable on rush hours. Probably nothing compared to cities like Los Angeles etc.

Now when you think about it, notice how the female life expectancy is degrading there...? Maybe it is the pollution?

[Charlatan]

Some examples...

http://healthandenergy.com/pollution_kills.htm

http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9908/30/air.pollution.enn/

http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/2603

http://www1.worldbank.org/devoutreac...nly.asp?id=218

[connyosis]

Originally Posted by Lebell

It is not a matter of being "a bunch of babies", it is the matter of very real economic impact on those implimenting such standards.

In other words, China and India would be allowed the economic benefits of NOT curbing their emmissions while the United States would pay the cost of controlling theirs.

The treaty isn't a level playing field as it stands.

Well the world isn't fair, never has been and never will, that's just something you have to accept. Of course I see where you are coming from, and I agree that both China and India should do their part as well.
Still, the US is a big polluter (Maybe not as big as China and India, I don't know about that) and should try to limit their emmissions no matter what other countries are or are not doing. In the long run that is what's best for everyone. I like my ozone where it is thank you very much.

[aKula]

Developed countries account for three quaters of the world's greenhouse gas emissions while constitutuing one quater of the world's population.

http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou.../items/278.php

If each country were given a quota of allowable emissions based on population (rather than 1990 emission levels), then developed countries would currently be far in excess of this quota, while India for example, would only use one third of it's quota. This extra share could then be sold off to developed countries that are above their quota. If this were the case then the developed world would be hit far harder than is the case under the current kyoto protocol.

Developed countries have created the problem by their emissions over the last 2 centuries, following the "polluter pays principle" (whoever broke it, should fix it) these countries should contribute the most in fixing the problem.

Originally Posted by Matt MacDonald

Emissions in the developing world are related to the need to survive, emissions in developed countries are related to particular (unsustainable) standards of living.

Developed countries are more in need of an increase in emissions to improve their standard of living (to escape poverty), while an increase in emissions in an industialised country only leads to an unessecary, and unsustainable increase in the standard of living.

The Kyoto Protocol ensures the first steps are taken to reducing the enhanced greenhouse effect, and does so in a way which goes easy on developed countries.

reference: Peter Singer and Tom Gregg, How Ethical is Australia?, 2004

[Superbelt]

I am a big supporter of having us sign that thing. That said.

Will this do anything? No it won't.

The exclusion of developing nations like China and India (and us) make it effectively nil.
But it is all we have right now. It's a good first step towards actual teeth in a commitment to reducing CO2 levels. Maybe one day soon we can get together with the rest of the industrialized world and impose a tariff against nations that refuse to reduce. But that won't happen unless the USA is a part of the process.

FLSTF: What the sun does and what we get out of it are two different things. We are getting farther away from the sun (on average) for several thousand years now and will continue this for thousands more. It's part of an ellyptical to circular cycle that our planet has. The math says we should be cooling off. Reading the carbon concentrations in our atmosphere, our current temperature shift gels with the stated energy absorption properties of carbon.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by Superbelt

FLSTF: What the sun does and what we get out of it are two different things. We are getting farther away from the sun (on average) for several thousand years now and will continue this for thousands more. It's part of an ellyptical to circular cycle that our planet has. The math says we should be cooling off. Reading the carbon concentrations in our atmosphere, our current temperature shift gels with the stated energy absorption properties of carbon.

I don't doubt that pollution is not a good thing for many reasons. But from what little I have read the Earth appears to have been through some tremendous temperature swings in the past. The last book I read speculated that it was a warm up period that caused the desert areas to bloom and allowed our ancestors to walk out of Africa.

I'm just wondering if we are not blowing this thing out of proportion. The Earth will go through it's ice ages and warm up periods no matter what we do. During the last ice age the glaciers were as far south as where I live on the Ohio River. I think that if we think that our activities can have a major impact on these things we may be kidding ourselves.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by aKula

Developed countries account for three quarters of the world's greenhouse gas emissions while constitutuing one quater of the world's population.

http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou.../items/278.php

If each country were given a quota of allowable emissions based on population (rather than 1990 emission levels), then developed countries would currently be far in excess of this quota, while India for example, would only use one third of it's quota. This extra share could then be sold off to developed countries that are above their quota. If this were the case then the developed world would be hit far harder than is the case under the current kyoto protocol.

Developed countries have created the problem by their emissions over the last 2 centuries, following the "polluter pays principle" (whoever broke it, should fix it) these countries should contribute the most in fixing the problem.

Developed countries are more in need of an increase in emissions to improve their standard of living (to escape poverty), while an increase in emissions in an industialised country only leads to an unessecary, and unsustainable increase in the standard of living.

The Kyoto Protocol ensures the first steps are taken to reducing the enhanced greenhouse effect, and does so in a way which goes easy on developed countries.

reference: Peter Singer and Tom Gregg, How Ethical is Australia?, 2004

aKula,

This is a well constructed argument and I will second it. Some sort of paragmatism should be in order. China and India most certainly should not be left off the hook. They have exhibited strong desire to be global leaders - with leadership comes responsbility and they should have seized this chance to "one up" the US by taking the lead on this.

A good sound environmental policy doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. I believe it can be mutually beneficial. World Bank IMF should offer great incentives in capital investiture in environmentally-friendly infrastructure. In other words, try and take the "it costs too much" argument away.

I don't know about global warming but I do have enough common sense to not "pee & poop" in the drinking water. We should all do our part in creating a clean and safer environment to live in.

In LA, the latest studies have shown the pollution as being a primary contributor, source of asthma in children contributing to skyrocketing health costs and sick days which reduce funding in our schools. (Funding for schools in LA are based on attendance due to delinquency problem) One could argue, that hurts our economy. Many times a year, the pollution shuts down our famous beaches hurting the tourism economy. Economic costs can go both ways.

The main problem is that politicians and human beings in general are tied to the short term. We are remarkably weak and unwilling to plan for the future. A common sense approach to a "green earth" policy should not be a pariah in this country nor should it be a dirty word.

[matteo101]

I like how afew people on this forum have resorted to the grade school mentality...If they didnt have to do it why should we?
Take some initiative, set a good example, you are the most powerful country in the world, grow some balls, and step up to the plate and do a good thing for the environment. rude comment removed

[Superbelt]

flstf: according to all measurables we should be entering a scheduled cooling off period, but because of our CO2, we are reversing it.
If you don't think we have much of an impact, you should look up how much of an increase in CO2 we are directly responsible for in teh past 300 years.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by matteo101

I like how afew people on this forum have resorted to the grade school mentality...If they didnt have to do it why should we?
Take some initiative, set a good example, you are the most powerful country in the world, grow some balls, and step up to the plate and do a good thing for the environment. rude comment removed

May we assume that you support hte US taking the lead in promoting freedom throughout the world too?


Didn't think so...

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by NCB

May we assume that you support hte US taking the lead in promoting freedom throughout the world too?


Didn't think so...

I would certainly expect the US to take the lead in promoting freedom by setting an example... This is a different thing than the US taking the lead in imposing freedom by making an example.

Big Difference.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I would certainly expect the US to take the lead in promoting freedom by setting an example... This is a different thing than the US taking the lead in imposing freedom by making an example.

Big Difference.

So you believe that freedom is an "imposition"?

[Charlatan]

In the context of Iraqi freedom? Yes.

It is not one nation's job (mission?) to force another sovreign nation to be "free". The logic behind that sort of thinking is the exact same as the Soviet's imposing Communism on the nations of the iron curtain.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

In the context of Iraqi freedom? Yes.

It is not one nation's job (mission?) to force another sovreign nation to be "free". The logic behind that sort of thinking is the exact same as the Soviet's imposing Communism on the nations of the iron curtain.

For the moment , let's drop the international legal terms and deal with basic humanity.

I don't feel it's an impostion to help people who want to be free. Freedom is man's natural state, and I feel that free nations have a moral obligation to help unfree people become free. It wasn't very long ago that liberals believed this as well.

[Superbelt]

Can we forget Iraq and just war theory for just this one thread people?

It is so infrequent that ANYONE gives a damn about the environment. When people are willing to discuss it I sort of treasure the moment.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Can we forget Iraq and just war theory for just this one thread people?

It is so infrequent that ANYONE gives a damn about the environment. When people are willing to discuss it I sort of treasure the moment.

Yeah, sorry about the temporary hijack.


BTW, I thought this thread was about the KP, not the enviroment?

[aKula]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

China and India most certainly should not be left off the hook. They have exhibited strong desire to be global leaders - with leadership comes responsbility and they should have seized this chance to "one up" the US by taking the lead on this.

China and India are developing countries. Developing countries are not bound to reduce emissions. Their emissions on a per capita basis are far below those of the west. Countries such as these require an increase in emissions to reduce their level of poverty.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Developing countries have no immediate restrictions under the UNFCCC. This serves three purposes:

* Avoids restrictions on growth because pollution is strongly linked to industrial growth, and developing economies can potentially grow very fast.
* It means that they cannot sell emissions credits to industrialised nations to permit those nations to over-pollute.
* They get money and technologies from the developed countries in Annex II.

Developing countries might become Annex I countries when they are sufficiently developed.

full text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Climate_Change

Once these countries are no longer 'developing', their future emission level growth will be limited.