Nature magazine - Kyoto a complete failure

[hellokeith]

Time to ditch Kyoto

The Kyoto Protocol is a symbolically important expression of governments' concern about climate change. But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, it has failed1. It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth. And it pays no more than token attention to the needs of societies to adapt to existing climate change. The impending United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Bali in December ? to decide international policy after 2012 ? needs to radically rethink climate policy.

Kyoto has failed in several ways, not just in its lack of success in slowing global warming, but also because it has stifled discussion of alternative policy approaches that could both combat climate change and adapt to its unavoidable consequences. As Kyoto became a litmus test of political correctness, those who were concerned about climate change, but sceptical of the top-down approach adopted by the protocol were sternly admonished that "Kyoto is the only game in town". We are anxious that the same mistake is not repeated in the current round of negotiations.

So here we have the London School of Economics and the Oxford School of Science telling it like it is, that the Bush Administration has been 100% correct in its cricitisms of Kyoto. So will all the mmgw supporters now apologize for preaching Kyoto when it has been demonstrated as a complete and total failure? Will they now criticize the Clinton/Gore administration for its involvement in Kyoto?

 

[Genx87]

I read somewhere else about the failures of Kyoto. Anyways the biggest failure was letting India and China off the hook for emissions. It guranteed the United States wasnt going to sign on. Those fools in Europe signed on and most of them wont make the quota's anyways because in doing so, it will cripple their economies.

 

[StageLeft]

It's stupid to expect humans to take hard and meaningful approaches to doing what they feel will slow GW. It's not human nature. So, I just hope we're not killing ourselves, but if we are, it will happen anyway.

 

[homercles337]

Will the OPie troll more than he already has? Unlike the right, the left actually evaluates new information and forms a logical course of action. Is the OPie claiming that this is what happened with president shit for brains? This is also a commentary of an economist and a sociologist. I wonder if OPie could recognize science if it smacked him upside the head?

 

[StageLeft]

Unlike the right, the left actually evaluates new information and forms a logical course of action.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

 

[Lemon law]

A few things to note in what amounts to a quality link.

1. The link does not deny that something needs to be done about greenhouse gases.

2. The failures of Kyoto are many faceted. But still in many ways a chicken and the egg problem of which came first. Did Kyoto fail because no one followed it or was it a flawed treaty because it was too one sided? The failure of Kyoto does not vindicates anyone in the process. Nor could any really anticipate the huge growth of China and India as a major polluters in 1999.

3. I do see the link as saying we have learned much since 1999 and the world needs to come up with a much better model to address the problems and fairly rapidly. But step one is to acknowledge the Kyoto model has failed to address the problems and have the desired effects.

4. Any treaty that no one follows can't have the desired effects so there must be realistic carrots and sticks.

And my personal disgust must be registered at seeing another two NEW global warming denial threads to day on P&N. As long as the world sticks with the risk/reward belief that nothing need be done because the risk is zero, no progress will ever be made on reducing human greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
So here we have the London School of Economics and the Oxford School of Science telling it like it is, that the Bush Administration has been 100% correct in its cricitisms of Kyoto. So will all the mmgw supporters now apologize for preaching Kyoto when it has been demonstrated as a complete and total failure? Will they now criticize the Clinton/Gore administration for its involvement in Kyoto?

While the article makes some good points about possible other approaches to the problem it doesn't really support Bush's position on the subject at all.

Opposing the international climate treaty the Unites States signed in 1997, President Bush and members of his administration have made misleading and erroneous comments

Text

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Unlike the right, the left actually evaluates new information and forms a logical course of action.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

😕 Give me ONE example of the right being scientifically logical and following that logic up with action. Just one.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Unlike the right, the left actually evaluates new information and forms a logical course of action.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

😕 Give me ONE example of the right being scientifically logical and following that logic up with action. Just one.

You misinterpret my HAHA as a partisan comment, which it wasn't (yours was). The right is no better than the left. In regards to your charge, do you want me to find a single case of anybody who considers themselves a republican who has ever followed a scientifically logical conclusion to action? If so, one of the people who works on R&D for a weapons system that works and is currently employed in the gov, surely somewhere in there there's a republican who made something work and used the scientific method to do it 🙂

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Unlike the right, the left actually evaluates new information and forms a logical course of action.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

😕 Give me ONE example of the right being scientifically logical and following that logic up with action. Just one.

You misinterpret my HAHA as a partisan comment, which it wasn't (yours was). The right is no better than the left. In regards to your charge, do you want me to find a single case of anybody who considers themselves a republican who has ever followed a scientifically logical conclusion to action? If so, one of the people who works on R&D for a weapons system that works and is currently employed in the gov, surely somewhere in there there's a republican who made something work and used the scientific method to do it 🙂

By the right, i mean the party line. Of course you can find some Rs using the scientific method to further an evil agenda. However, many more are scientifically illiterate. This is clear here with folks like Genx87, NonProfJohn, Shityva, HelloKitty, Pab, Vic, and their ilk that have demonstrated that they lack scientific understanding entirely.

edit: i had to add vic to my list.

 

[Rainsford]

Kyoto certainly has problems, but I find it pretty silly to claim that the Bush Administration is "100% right" about it. Because most of the opposition to Kyoto has been in the form of opposition to the goal, not the methods. Kyoto's failure is an argument for better means of controlling emissions, not an excuse to jettison the whole idea of emissions control, which is how the Bush Administration (and many folks here) seem to be interpreting it.

 

[Vic]

Kyoto doesn't work because it's not realistic. With current technology, emissions of greenhouse gases are, in effect, the results of economic activity. Manufacturing and commerce all result in the release of greenhouse gases at every single step and interval without fail. If we generate or use energy, we release greenhouse gases. Granted, there are many varying levels of efficiency and environmental friendliness involved within that economic activity, and certainly the best should be striven for in those areas, but the volume of activity worldwide that we're discussing is so great as to make those variances trivial on the grand scale. Therefore, it is unrealistic to assume that, short of technological innovation, greenhouse gases can be significantly curtailed without a corresponding negative impact on economic activity and, likewise, human health and prosperity, particularly in developing nations. The only possible results of that -- if not war -- would be that we all become poorer, or that most of us become much poorer.
If one is looking for logic and rationality, there it is. There is no chicken and egg scenario. Kyoto failed because it was the mice voting to bell the cat (and in this case, the cat [which is the people of the world] needs mice with which to feed its kittens).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Unlike the right, the left actually evaluates new information and forms a logical course of action.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

😕 Give me ONE example of the right being scientifically logical and following that logic up with action. Just one.

You misinterpret my HAHA as a partisan comment, which it wasn't (yours was). The right is no better than the left. In regards to your charge, do you want me to find a single case of anybody who considers themselves a republican who has ever followed a scientifically logical conclusion to action? If so, one of the people who works on R&D for a weapons system that works and is currently employed in the gov, surely somewhere in there there's a republican who made something work and used the scientific method to do it 🙂

By the right, i mean the party line. Of course you can find some Rs using the scientific method to further an evil agenda. However, many more are scientifically illiterate. This is clear here with folks like Genx87, NonProfJohn, Shityva, HelloKitty, Pab, and their ilk that have demonstrated that they lack scientific understanding entirely.

The terms "left" and "right," as you use them, are fictions used by armchair politicians arguing on the internet. They no more exist in the real world than does the huge ideological schism which you imagine between the 2 major parties, or your imaginings that all of scientific literacy and understanding hinges on a single issue.
More to the point, with comments like "evil agenda" and "ilk," you only prove yourself to be a troll for an opposing faction of ilk, and thus no better morally than the other gang of ilks.

Science is the objective study of the real world. In that regard, it is a discipline, a method, and not a set of beliefs. What you or anyone else believe in the fantasy of your minds has jack to do with science. Belief is the domain of religion.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Vic
Kyoto doesn't work because it's not realistic. With current technology, emissions of greenhouse gases are, in effect, the results of economic activity. Manufacturing and commerce all result in the release of greenhouse gases at every single step and interval without fail. If we generate or use energy, we release greenhouse gases. Granted, there are many varying levels of efficiency and environmental friendliness involved within that economic activity, and certainly the best should be striven for in those areas, but the volume of activity worldwide that we're discussing is so great as to make those variances trivial on the grand scale. Therefore, it is unrealistic to assume that, short of technological innovation, greenhouse gases can be significantly curtailed without a corresponding negative impact on economic activity and, likewise, human health and prosperity, particularly in developing nations. The only possible results of that -- if not war -- would be that we all become poorer, or that most of us become much poorer.
If one is looking for logic and rationality, there it is. There is no chicken and egg scenario. Kyoto failed because it was the mice voting to bell the cat (and in this case, the cat [which is the people of the world] needs mice with which to feed its kittens).

Well it would seem like a successful version of Kyoto would be set up to ENCOURAGE that technological innovation you mention. The problem is that I don't think our current system will do a good enough job encouraging development of non-greenhouse gas emitting energy technologies, because much of the economic cost of using traditional energy sources is hidden in environmental damage that won't be obvious for many years. A good program would work to make the very real economic costs more immediate, so as to encourage alternative energy technology development based off of the real costs of traditional energy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Kyoto certainly has problems, but I find it pretty silly to claim that the Bush Administration is "100% right" about it. Because most of the opposition to Kyoto has been in the form of opposition to the goal, not the methods. Kyoto's failure is an argument for better means of controlling emissions, not an excuse to jettison the whole idea of emissions control, which is how the Bush Administration (and many folks here) seem to be interpreting it.

This is very true, EXCEPT in the comment about the opposition to the goal. It is in that regard (practically all by itself), and in the irrational paranoia that has inevitably resulted from it, where the self-labeled "left" have completely deluded themselves.
It's not "the goal," it's the price of "the methods." Why is this so hard to figure out? Or is it because, in this particular chicken and egg, that you have insisted on demonizing your ideological opposition first? No wonder we never get anything accomplished, eh? But then if we did, what would the internet warriors have to fight about? 😉

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Kyoto certainly has problems, but I find it pretty silly to claim that the Bush Administration is "100% right" about it. Because most of the opposition to Kyoto has been in the form of opposition to the goal, not the methods. Kyoto's failure is an argument for better means of controlling emissions, not an excuse to jettison the whole idea of emissions control, which is how the Bush Administration (and many folks here) seem to be interpreting it.

This is very true, EXCEPT in the comment about the opposition to the goal. It is in that regard (practically all by itself), and in the irrational paranoia that has inevitably resulted from it, where the self-labeled "left" have completely deluded themselves.
It's not "the goal," it's the price of "the methods." Why is this so hard to figure out? Or is it because, in this particular chicken and egg, that you have insisted on demonizing your ideological opposition first? No wonder we never get anything accomplished, eh? But then if we did, what would the internet warriors have to fight about? 😉

That's not accurate. I believe he was specifically referring to the opposition of Bush and his political allies, and until very recently (certainly when it was relevant to our participation/the drafting of Kyoto) Bush was a vigorous denier of man's effect on the climate. And so naturally if you believe that CO2 emissions do nothing you would certainly oppose their reduction, the goal of Kyoto.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Unlike the right, the left actually evaluates new information and forms a logical course of action.

Then how do you excuse the Kyoto Protocal in the first place?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well it would seem like a successful version of Kyoto would be set up to ENCOURAGE that technological innovation you mention. The problem is that I don't think our current system will do a good enough job encouraging development of non-greenhouse gas emitting energy technologies, because much of the economic cost of using traditional energy sources is hidden in environmental damage that won't be obvious for many years. A good program would work to make the very real economic costs more immediate, so as to encourage alternative energy technology development based off of the real costs of traditional energy.

The issue there IMO is that everyone is trying to avoid the inevitable growing pains that come with technological innovation and efficiency. Everyone, it seems, has their own little domain of buggy whip manufacturers that they're trying to protect while screwing the other guys'.

Consider our reliance on the internal combustion engine and its fossil fuels. A ridiculously complicated issue, yet everyone tries to pretend it's so simple. Let's consider just a tiny factor, the let's all use electric cars! idea. Leaving aside the environmental disaster that would be the trillion lead-acid batteries required for the task (an issue that is only now being addressed in recent years by emerging technology), some of the biggest opponents against the electric car are not just the oil and energy companies (who we will still need to generate the energy required), but the auto manufacturers and their union companions. And why is that? Because electric cars are SIGNIFICANTLY less complicated than ICE-driven cars. By many orders of magnitude. From some 5,000 parts down to about 500. No more complicated engine building, no more transmissions period. The whole supply chain would disappear. Tens of thousands would be out of work.
OTOH, there would be a massive increase in efficiency, which according to basic economic principle would result in both a massive increase in consumption and redistribution of wealth. And with those goes both the original intention and the entire supporting power structure (on both sides of the aisle) of those would/could put it in place.
And for "technological innovation," that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're talking about a revolution here.

So yeah, "evil agenda" is a comment that only a child could utter in this context.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Time to ditch Kyoto

So here we have the London School of Economics and the Oxford School of Science telling it like it is, that the Bush Administration has been 100% correct in its cricitisms of Kyoto. So will all the mmgw supporters now apologize for preaching Kyoto when it has been demonstrated as a complete and total failure? Will they now criticize the Clinton/Gore administration for its involvement in Kyoto?

In your zeal and partisanship I don't think you even bothered to read the entire article.

It seems reasonable to expect the world's leading economies and emitters to devote as much money to this challenge as they currently spend on military research ? in the case of the United States, about $80 billion per year. Such investment would provide a more promising foundation for decarbonization of the global energy system than the current approach.

I would like to thank you for endorsing meaningful action - $80 billion/year in the US alone - on energy R&D for the betterment of the environment.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Kyoto, the anagram lover's Tokyo.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Will they now criticize the Clinton/Gore administration for its involvement in Kyoto?

Republicans killed it, of course. That is why it failed. 😉

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Kyoto certainly has problems, but I find it pretty silly to claim that the Bush Administration is "100% right" about it. Because most of the opposition to Kyoto has been in the form of opposition to the goal, not the methods. Kyoto's failure is an argument for better means of controlling emissions, not an excuse to jettison the whole idea of emissions control, which is how the Bush Administration (and many folks here) seem to be interpreting it.

This is very true, EXCEPT in the comment about the opposition to the goal. It is in that regard (practically all by itself), and in the irrational paranoia that has inevitably resulted from it, where the self-labeled "left" have completely deluded themselves.
It's not "the goal," it's the price of "the methods." Why is this so hard to figure out? Or is it because, in this particular chicken and egg, that you have insisted on demonizing your ideological opposition first? No wonder we never get anything accomplished, eh? But then if we did, what would the internet warriors have to fight about? 😉

I don't feel I have one particular ideological opposition, and while not everyone fits the description I gave, my complaint is with those who do. And you know as well as I do that that's a pretty large group. I find it perfectly reasonable that there are people who oppose Kyoto for economic reasons but like the stated goal of reducing greenhouse emissions. All I'm saying as that I don't think that characterizes a lot of the opposition to the treaty...certainly not when we're talking about the Bush administration.

 

[sierrita]

Gee, how was it supposed to succeed if the U.S. refused to sign it?

:roll:

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I would like to thank you for endorsing meaningful action - $80 billion/year in the US alone - on energy R&D for the betterment of the environment.

I will thank hellokeith for that as well. $80 billion a year will certainly get us started on the right track.

 

[CanOWorms]

The problem with it is that its true purpose is to advance the colonialistic agenda of various groups. Reduction in emissions is not its goal.