Why the Kyoto treaty is a very very very bad idea

[sandorski]

$300-400 Billion on the surface seems like a lot(assuming that would be the cost), but consider that this is only abot 30% of the recently approved tax cuts. Also consider, that the surplus predictions that the tax cuts are based on still have more than that amount left over. The cost is not prohibitive.

Let us also consider, that every industrialized nation is obligated to achieve the same goal. Each has to expend large sums of money. All are bearing the brunt economically. The US, despite the whining, is not being singled out! Of course, if the US continues on it's current path, it will end up spending more, simply because it will have to do more to come in line than other nations who acted swiftly. I'm sorry, but if the Kyoto Agreement brings the US economy to it's knees, it will be because of it's own foot dragging, not because it has been given the short end of the stick.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Texmaster - first off, thanks for the posts. I don't necessarily agree with you, but you've given me something to think about.

Secondly, about your &quot;let's not resort to name calling&quot; remark. Don't attempt to pander or talk down to people. Most of these posts have been intelligent and polite, if not down right reserved compared to other threads. Keyword being most. And even then, you should keep a level head and just use logic and facts to disprove them and move on, ignore the snide remarks.

And hey, it'll give your posts more weight in people's minds and persuade them to agree with you. >>




I only directed that comment at someone who called me a &quot;fool&quot;. Please read more carefully next time.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I just want you to remove all the &quot;verys&quot; and just acknowledge it might only be a &quot;bad thing&quot;

q]

I'm sorry but I cant do that. The treaty in its current form would be well on its way to crippling the American economy, exempting the 2 largest nations in the world who by the way produce more greeenhouse has per capita than the US and are both growing, and lastly but most importanly, the lacking of conclusive evidence to support the actual benifits derived from the restrictions.

This treaty is a good warm hearted message about the inviroment. The problem is the details that can cripple our economy while other countries go exempt.

I think Bush said it best in the artle you posted:

&quot;We agreed to create new channels of co-operation on this
topic,&quot; Bush said. &quot;We don't agree on the Kyoto treaty, but we
do agree that climate change is a serious issue and we must
work together.&quot;


Kyoto is NOT the only soliution to global warming.

 

[Piano Man]

Got this from greenhouse.org:



<< Climate is variable, so naturally we can never be 100% certain. But, to quote the American Geophysical Union, an international scientific society with more than 35,000 members, &quot;the present level of scientific uncertainty does not justify inaction in the mitigation of human-induced climate change.&quot; So compelling is the scientific evidence that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel of the world's leading climate scientists, concluded in 1995 that &quot;the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.&quot; Since then, the evidence has gotten much stronger. >>




When there is a debate like this between people crying foul and people who want to save money, I usually put my money on those crying foul.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Texmaster - I like to see that you conceded to a middle ground. This gives me some hope at least.

You said that I was diminishing our reliance upon energy in my argument. I guess I failed to say that I also agree with a timeframe of 10-15 years to see this accomplished. With this in mind and some of the emerging technologies, I don't feel that it's not doable. While you like to focus on the negative aspects, which there will be some, I like to see the positive aspects that could result. Already, fuel cells are slated to come to market within the next 5-10 years. This will have a huge impact upon our fossil fuel use in the automobile industry. Recyclable alternatives to petroleum-based plastics are now becoming a reality and could be cost-effective within the next 10 years. These 2 alone could reduce the amount of fossil fuels consumed in our environment by a significant amount. In some areas of the country, high speed trains and monorails are coming into place. If energy prices continue to rise and the population incrases, this might become more prevalent which will have a positive affect as well.

The petroleum industry would be hurt by this as well as anyone else relying up these natural resources as a way to derive their income, but that's the way the game is played. In the early 20th century, the 10 industries at the top in the US were natural-resource based. They employed hundreds of thousands of people. Today, only 1 of those companies still survives (GE) and only because they have expanded into many, many different areas. The other 9 are gone. Today, the top industries are information based. Tomorrow, they might be healthcare and bioscience based. Times change, people adapt and move on. >>



I dont have a negative view on new energy sources to the contrary, I'm excited about it. The problem again is implementation. Just like you said for example, fuel cells wont hit the market for 5-10 years. If the Kyoto treaty was implemented right now, the fuel cells would have very little impact in widespread use using the current timeline for emissions. I believe a more sound timeframe is 20 years with incentives to beat that timeline. That way if fuel cells or other technolgy hit it big, thats great. IF they dont, we have the time to ease our way out of gasoline.

And again just like your post, recyclable alternative plastics would be available in 10 years. Well, given the current Kyoto timeframe, that wont help us. Your figure about the top businesses is interesting but it completly ignores the impact we are already seeing today. Look at what OPEC can do by simply cutting back on their production. Our prices skyrocket and the economy slows down. Now times that situation by a factor of 3 and you have the economic reality of the Kyoto treaty for the US. You may not think the oil business is very large but you would be mistaken. It is a HUGE business and more importantly, it effects EVERY SINGLE business in our economy. The danger comes from this domino effect that would occur if the Kyoto treaty was implemented in its current form.

Remember, Europe is made up of very small and controlled populations. Its FAR easier for sweeden to promise to reduce greenhouse gas when their country is only 9 million people. The problem is they are using their model of small countries with small populations and are trying to adapt it to a country 10-20 times their size. Its simply not a realistic timeframe for a country so much larger than theirs. I think that is also part fo the reason China and India have been left out because of their populations.

And for people who still think exempting China and India is ok, this article might change your mind. One of the most notable statements was India is on the road to doubbling its population to 1.9 BILLION &quot;with a b&quot; by 2050.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm

 

[Texmaster]

<< $300-400 Billion on the surface seems like a lot(assuming that would be the cost), but consider that this is only abot 30% of the recently approved tax cuts. Also consider, that the surplus predictions that the tax cuts are based on still have more than that amount left over. The cost is not prohibitive.

Let us also consider, that every industrialized nation is obligated to achieve the same goal. Each has to expend large sums of money. All are bearing the brunt economically. The US, despite the whining, is not being singled out! Of course, if the US continues on it's current path, it will end up spending more, simply because it will have to do more to come in line than other nations who acted swiftly. I'm sorry, but if the Kyoto Agreement brings the US economy to it's knees, it will be because of it's own foot dragging, not because it has been given the short end of the stick. >>



Nwo consider with the tax cuts we will not be gouging people for that kind of revenue. The cost is extremely prohibitive because it effects people's lives. If they loose jobs and hurt the businesses giving them jobs which suffer on wall street, the 400 Billion dollar pricetag is a drop in the bucket. And that surplus took years to develop. You dont make 400 Billion extra in revenue in a couple of years. It takes time. And that is one of my strongest disagreements with the Kyoto plan. The timeframe was set up my low population small countries. Its not realistic implementation for a country 20 times larger than the treaty was written by.

The US IS being singled out because the impact is FAR greater. The population is far larger, the territory far greater to cover. The goals were set up by Europeans for European countries, they were not set up for the US and its size and a power. It was designed to stunt and cripple US growth however.

And please address the fact that the world's biggest countries are exempt from the treaty altogether.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Got this from greenhouse.org:



<< Climate is variable, so naturally we can never be 100% certain. But, to quote the American Geophysical Union, an international scientific society with more than 35,000 members, &quot;the present level of scientific uncertainty does not justify inaction in the mitigation of human-induced climate change.&quot; So compelling is the scientific evidence that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel of the world's leading climate scientists, concluded in 1995 that &quot;the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.&quot; Since then, the evidence has gotten much stronger. >>




When there is a debate like this between people crying foul and people who want to save money, I usually put my money on those crying foul. >>



No one is claiming that human actuaivty does not impact the enviroment. Its the LEVEL of impact we are addressing. Right now, animals far outstrip greenhouse gas production than humans or human production does.

And even with that this treaty cannot be proven to actually benifit the greenhouse question.

Would you heavily invest in a company without researching its goals and see if they are realistic?

 

[Texmaster]

BTW, for anyone else who thinks Europe is not out to get the US with this treaty:

&quot;But the EU-US summit had the tone of a clash of two global rivals when Mr Bush's host, the Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson, astounded US officials by stating that the EU's new mission in the world was to serve &quot;as a balance to US domination&quot;.&quot;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=00...tmo=ggggg3JK&amp;pg=/et/01/6/15/wbush115.html

 

[rmeijer]

I wouldn't classify that statement as &quot;out to get&quot;....

Do you really think the EU is trying to cripple the US economy by forcing a ratification of the Kyoto Protocol? If anything, I think they are try to gain some leverage over the US so that the US doesn't act with impunity when it comes to global concern (as it tends to do).

 

[sandorski]

Tex: No, the Kyoto Agreement does not &quot;cripple&quot; the US. If the agreement said that all industrialized nations were told to not exceed xxx amount of emmissions, I would agree with you, but that's not what the agreement says. The agreement says that each Industrialized nation is to lower their(each individual nation's) emmissions by 7% of their(each individual nation's) 1990 levels. Sweden must produce 7% less than it did in 1990, France must produce 7% less than it did in 1990, the US must produce 7% less than it did in 1990, and the same goes for the rest. The point of Sweden having 7 million people vs the US having close to 300 million is moot. It is moot because how much emmissions produced Sweden has no bearing on what the US is required to do to fulfill the obligation of the Kyoto Agreement.

If you insist on comparing populations, then consider this: Europe as a whole, exceeds the population of the US, yet the economy of the US exceeds that of Europe. Strangely enough, much of Europe began early to try and meet the levels set out in the Kyoto Agreement. They did this without whining or claiming poverty, but they will end up spending less money than the US in the long run, because they started early. The US is making it harder on themselves and has no one else to blame.

India and China together probably have lower emmissions than the US. Their economies, although experiencing very good growth rates, are still dwarfed by the US economy. They *would* suffer economically if they were required to meet the standards of the Kyoto Agreement, there is no doubt about this. The US(according to the $300-400 billion figure), would have no problem accomplishing the Kyoto standard.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I wouldn't classify that statement as &quot;out to get&quot;....

Do you really think the EU is trying to cripple the US economy by forcing a ratification of the Kyoto Protocol? If anything, I think they are try to gain some leverage over the US so that the US doesn't act with impunity when it comes to global concern (as it tends to do). >>



Yes I do. Its quite obvious from that statement alone that Europe is incredibly jealous.
Want more proof?

EU Regulators are trying to Squelch a merger already approved a GE Honneywell Merger by the US and Canada.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,27378,00.html


And isn't it interesting that they came to the decesion the day Bush came to Europe to say no to their warped treaty.

 

[zzzz]

Ok, lets continue producing the most amount of pollution. After all, our industries have thrived in the last 70-80 years just doing that.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Tex: No, the Kyoto Agreement does not &quot;cripple&quot; the US. If the agreement said that all industrialized nations were told to not exceed xxx amount of emmissions, I would agree with you, but that's not what the agreement says. The agreement says that each Industrialized nation is to lower their(each individual nation's) emmissions by 7% of their(each individual nation's) 1990 levels. Sweden must produce 7% less than it did in 1990, France must produce 7% less than it did in 1990, the US must produce 7% less than it did in 1990, and the same goes for the rest. The point of Sweden having 7 million people vs the US having close to 300 million is moot. It is moot because how much emmissions produced Sweden has no bearing on what the US is required to do to fulfill the obligation of the Kyoto Agreement.

If you insist on comparing populations, then consider this: Europe as a whole, exceeds the population of the US, yet the economy of the US exceeds that of Europe. Strangely enough, much of Europe began early to try and meet the levels set out in the Kyoto Agreement. They did this without whining or claiming poverty, but they will end up spending less money than the US in the long run, because they started early. The US is making it harder on themselves and has no one else to blame.

India and China together probably have lower emmissions than the US. Their economies, although experiencing very good growth rates, are still dwarfed by the US economy. They *would* suffer economically if they were required to meet the standards of the Kyoto Agreement, there is no doubt about this. The US(according to the $300-400 billion figure), would have no problem accomplishing the Kyoto standard. >>




Look at your logic. Do you think 7% for Sweeden is even close to 7% for the US, a country over 35 times larger? Of course its going to take us longer! Sweeden has 9 million people just fyi.

As far as your economic point, you are talking about controlled areas of small countries, not one large country. Did it ever occur to you that the population of the country might be one of the reasons China and India are exempt?

You cannot even Begin to compare Europe and the US. In Europe the population is FAR more dense per square mile than the US. That makes is much much harder to cover the same ground as it does in Europe. Europe is also not growing in population whereas the US still is growing at a very fast rate.

The ten countries which will contribute most to world population growth over the next 30 years are India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Indonesia, United States of America, Bangladesh, Zaire, and Iran - in that order

Do you see Europe anywhere?

I know I see the two exempt countries occupying the first 2 slots.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm

You keep saying that the US would not be hurt by this treaty economically. I have posted links to facts that say it will. Do you have a counter link that says it wont?

Can you guarantee it? Can you even say with and certainty that it will work? There isn't a scientist in the world who can say it conclusively.

And being a collection of smaller countries with dense population means that transportation is far easier. That in turn means less emphasis on cars. And thats just one example.

America and Europe are NOT the same in population, land space, population density, values, and this treaty is slanted at small European countries. Those besides the US that are not in Europe (China and India) are exempt. Bush asked yesterday for middle ground on six points to make the treaty work and the EU turned him down flat.

You really expect us to sign something so lopsided and so unopen to negotiation?

 

[Texmaster]

<< Ok, lets continue producing the most amount of pollution. After all, our industries have thrived in the last 70-80 years just doing that. >>




Thats right. If we are against this stupid treaty we are against any enviromental regulation. LOL Spare me.

Read more, assume less.

 

[etech]

sandorski &quot;No, the Kyoto Agreement does not &quot;cripple&quot; the US.&quot;

It's a long report but worth reading, a little dated but still applicable.
October 6, 1997
THE ROAD TO KYOTO:

WHAT'S AT STAKE FOR THE UNITED STATES
Despite a combination of low inflation, increased productivity, and relatively low unemployment, the U.S. economy is holding at a stable but historically low growth rate of 2 percent. However, even this modest economic growth could not be maintained under the UNFCCC. New emissions control standards would raise electricity prices by from 40 percent to 50 percent, the price of gasoline by 70 cents per gallon, and the cost of primary metals from 4 percent to 10 percent, in addition to causing massive layoffs.36 The economic consequences of moving forward on the proposed post-2000 global warming treaty would be devastating for Americans. In fact, a study performed by the Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy37 in February 1997 predicted that the protocol now being discussed would cause:

20 to 30 percent of the basic chemical industry to move to developing countries within 15 or 20 years;

All primary aluminum smelters to close by 2010;

A 30 percent decline in the number of steel producers at a cost of 100,000 jobs;

Domestic paper production to be displaced by imports;

A 20 percent reduction in the output of petroleum refiners; and

The closing of between 23 percent and 35 percent of the cement industry, which is significant because many cement plants are major employers in small communities.

The Clinton Administration suppressed this study for several months, and it continues to be ignored. The Clinton Administration is trying to debunk the use of economic modeling to capture the magnitude of the treaty's economic impacts. Recently, the Administration's Interagency Analytical Team released a draft report entitled &quot;Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Policies.&quot; The study was supposed to determine the economic impact of the Kyoto Protocol, but the team failed to reach any conclusions. Janet Yellen, chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, testified before Congress that &quot;the effort to develop a model or a set of models that can give us a definitive answer as to the economic impacts of a given climate change policy is futile.&quot;38 Amazingly, even as the Administration is dismissing the use of economic models because their output is a function of the assumptions put into them, it holds up its own global warming models?which function precisely the same way, with output dependent on assumptions?as gospel truth, not subject to question or debate.

The Treasury Department, however, recently raised concerns about the economic impact of the Administration's plan to achieve mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by establishing emissions budgets for the UNFCCC parties and allowing them to buy and sell emissions rights among themselves. It is also concerned about the amount the United States would have to pay for emitting carbon dioxide and about the potential financial costs of purchasing permits.39 Regardless of how the Administration chooses to implement the emissions targets, it will be a no-win proposition for the U.S. economy.

 

[Texmaster]

<< sandorski &quot;No, the Kyoto Agreement does not &quot;cripple&quot; the US.&quot;

It's a long report but worth reading, a little dated but still applicable.
October 6, 1997
THE ROAD TO KYOTO:

WHAT'S AT STAKE FOR THE UNITED STATES
Despite a combination of low inflation, increased productivity, and relatively low unemployment, the U.S. economy is holding at a stable but historically low growth rate of 2 percent. However, even this modest economic growth could not be maintained under the UNFCCC. New emissions control standards would raise electricity prices by from 40 percent to 50 percent, the price of gasoline by 70 cents per gallon, and the cost of primary metals from 4 percent to 10 percent, in addition to causing massive layoffs.36 The economic consequences of moving forward on the proposed post-2000 global warming treaty would be devastating for Americans. In fact, a study performed by the Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy37 in February 1997 predicted that the protocol now being discussed would cause:

20 to 30 percent of the basic chemical industry to move to developing countries within 15 or 20 years;

All primary aluminum smelters to close by 2010;

A 30 percent decline in the number of steel producers at a cost of 100,000 jobs;

Domestic paper production to be displaced by imports;

A 20 percent reduction in the output of petroleum refiners; and

The closing of between 23 percent and 35 percent of the cement industry, which is significant because many cement plants are major employers in small communities.

The Clinton Administration suppressed this study for several months, and it continues to be ignored. The Clinton Administration is trying to debunk the use of economic modeling to capture the magnitude of the treaty's economic impacts. Recently, the Administration's Interagency Analytical Team released a draft report entitled &quot;Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Policies.&quot; The study was supposed to determine the economic impact of the Kyoto Protocol, but the team failed to reach any conclusions. Janet Yellen, chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, testified before Congress that &quot;the effort to develop a model or a set of models that can give us a definitive answer as to the economic impacts of a given climate change policy is futile.&quot;38 Amazingly, even as the Administration is dismissing the use of economic models because their output is a function of the assumptions put into them, it holds up its own global warming models?which function precisely the same way, with output dependent on assumptions?as gospel truth, not subject to question or debate.

The Treasury Department, however, recently raised concerns about the economic impact of the Administration's plan to achieve mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by establishing emissions budgets for the UNFCCC parties and allowing them to buy and sell emissions rights among themselves. It is also concerned about the amount the United States would have to pay for emitting carbon dioxide and about the potential financial costs of purchasing permits.39 Regardless of how the Administration chooses to implement the emissions targets, it will be a no-win proposition for the U.S. economy. >>




Great Quote. Thanks for taking the time.