As I sit up in the middle of the night, working on my Environmental Law take home final, I can't help but wonder the same thing :(

i'm not sure of the US's exact reasons for not ratifying kyoto. i haven't looked into the issue a whole lot, but the one really thorough argument against it that i've seen was by bjorn lomborg. his research is -very- controversial, but anyway: the upshot of his work was implementing kyoto would be very, very expensive and would only result in a very, very small reduction in total emissions. his argument was that the trillions of dollars could be better spent elsewhere.

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

2 reasons:

1) Pollution: Because unless India and China are also part of Kyoto (they're exempt), they will become mega-polluters. If the US is the largest greenhouse gas emiter with our 350 million people, imagine what happens when 2 billion people combined can do as their economies continue to grow. All the work the rest of the world does won't make a difference.

2) Financial: our trade deficit is hard enough; now our fuel companies, our power generation, and taxpayers would need to foot the bill for all the changes for Kyoto. Meanwhile, these other growing-market countries like India and China don't have to play. It puts our economy at a competitive disadvantage - everything becomes more expensive in the US, and if the economy takes a downturn....

All the world must be tied into Kyoto, and that's why Bush says no. I don't agree with him much, but I do on this case. We all need a hand in on this one.

Our best bet is to innovate the solutions within the US (like we do with all other technology) and get the demand running over here.

ibchillin has it right. India and China are exempt, so all the treaty does is tie the Unites States' hands behind its back while other countries catch up. If pollution is bad, it is bad for everyone. This of course, assumes that the studies on the ozone layer and climate change have any validity. The earth has been in a state of flux since it was created/happened (or whatever you want to say). Haven't there been ice ages? Aren't there storm cycles every 20 years for hurricane intensities? And all of this before I started to run my air conditioner! People look at the "little picture" of what has happened during their own lifetimes. People do not like change and seek to explain it in the context of something they/we are doing. So much of what happens here is directly related to the sun, and the sun is a dynamic "entity". The sun is such a factor that anything we can do as humans is laughable. Surely we are not doing anything that causes changes on the sun. Interesting that the peole who espouse these theories are the same ones who believe that Tookie Williams redeemed himself for 4 murders and a life of crime by letting someone else use his name to write a few children's books. (I know, I have a Tookie obsession).

At least that is what Rush Limbaugh told me.

Do yourself a favor and don't quote anything I have said, because it is mostly made up.

Without question the Kyoto treaty is laughable legislation for all of the reasons you and ibchillin pointed out, and then some. Complete bunk.

What interests me about it is how Bush got the tag of holding it up. It seems people don't remember that 99 senators voted against it or Clinton being against it when he was in office. It seems to be a much more partisan issue now.

There is some partisan crap going on, but Bush could do one thing in response (and he hasn't done it yet): invest/encourage tech innovation for fuel cell cars, solar panels and wind. Tax breaks on those who put investment money into this new technology. If we become world leaders on green tech, we get to sell it to the world (and make money in the future).

SIDE NOTE: the state of MA legislature is thinking about TAXING people who drive hybrid cars, because they don't buy enough gas (pay enough gas tax!).

Actually, Clinton signed it and sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification, where it was subsequently trounced. Now, Clinton could have done it for largely political reasons--i.e. make the Senate look bad on the environment.

As for Kyoto itself, it'd need major re-vamping. I think there is some validity to the idea that certain countries should be exempt. After all, the U.S. was not constrained by environmental regulations on its way to becoming an economic super power, why should other developing countries face those limitations in their efforts to bridge some of the gap with the U.S.? Countries like China and India, however, don't really fall into that category anymore. They are plenty industrialized at this point and exempting them would cut the legs out from Kyoto in a big way and create an unfair trade advantage for those countries(although that advantage already exists in large measure due to self regulation by the U.S.).

At this point in time, Kyoto doesn't work. There needs to be a new agreement drafted that more accurately reflects economic, technological, and political realities and that brings the big polluters under the same emissions system...

---

f/k/a mclamb6

If this treaty is laughable, expensive, and not worthwhilte, then why have 150 countries decided to agree to it? If the real reason is that China and India are exempt, why not make them non-exempt since their on course to becoming the major polluters (we are now) on the planet?

Our whole reasoning for not agreeing to it is quite suspect and based on fuzzy environmental studies (the ones that prove that there is no ozone layer and no global warming).

 Because unless India and China are also part of Kyoto (they're exempt), they will become mega-polluters. If the US is the largest greenhouse gas emiter with our 350 million people, imagine what happens when 2 billion people combined can do as their economies continue to grow. All the work the rest of the world does won't make a difference.

Why are India and China exempt?

Oh, and I think the population of the U.S is about 295 million, not that that changes your point.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

I don't know why I wrote 350 mil. I know we were 295 mill estimated in 2004, I think my brain made some weird jump to estimate...

India and China are exempt because they were not the prime offenders (prime emiters) of greenhouse gases during the industrial period that the Kyoto authors/supporters think has caused the global warming stuff going on. However, with their development growing exponentially... and 2 billion folks... in no time (with today's technology) they could be mega emiters, with no restrictions.

The US, Japan and other nations are being punished for emitting so much pollution during our buildup phase, essentially. I disagree with that thought process because there wasn't any other alternative fuel technology at the time, besides oil/coal. If we allow 2 billion to industrialize the way we did (way less than 350 million :-) - WTF good is that to the environment?

Every country at this point should work towards the goal. We share alot with India/China in regards to trade, outsourced jobs, tech manufacturing, Walmart-driven goods-manufacturing. If they've got "our" factories, and "we" are supposed to run clean, by that token "they" should be clean - right?

Good information, thank you.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

"If this treaty is laughable, expensive, and not worthwhilte, then why have 150 countries decided to agree to it?"

If everyone on this forum votes that tritnow should give them a dollar, I would bet that everyone would vote for it but tritnow. Now, why wouldn't you vote for it, everyone else is..

Maybe not the best analogy since we would actually be spending money on our own infrastructure. Thereby making us more competitive for the future. We wouldn't actually be giving anybody money.

That's why Bush is correct - but also a total dolt on the Kyoto issue. After not signing it, he should have giddyup'd on pushing for new development of fuel tech here in the states. Unfortunately - and thanks to Bush being an OIL GUY - Korea or Japan will probably beat us to all the new stuff and standards, and we'll lag behind. It's not like US to lag behind in tech, at least during the innovation part. Usually WE innovatate and the world manufactures for us. Sigh...

We'll if we're lucky, Korea and Japan will outsource their jobs out to us. I think we are ready to start setting call centers for them now.

That would be sad because that could be our next tech boom and economic/stock market growth, if we were the innovators. Unfortunately, if that comes true, we may have a long term lag economy. If he lets this one go by, Bush 2 will go down in history as the guy who missed the boat because of greed.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/37464

Maybe not the best analogy since we would actually be spending money on our own infrastructure. Thereby making us more competitive for the future. We wouldn't actually be giving anybody money.

How does making business practices more restrictive increase our competitiveness for the future? It makes us less competitive as the barriers to entry are greater and the cost of doing business goes up. This would lead to an ever greater imbalance between the US and China/India, making their goods even less expensive then they currently are.

Pushing innovation in this area will definately help to create new or build upon current industries would definately help though. And something that should be undertaken while removing all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (that and many more).

You need to look at who "we" is. We in this case is American industry, companies like Ford or GM or US Steel, you local Power Company in my case NIPSCO, or maybe the local manufacturer down the road from you that employers half of your small town. Now all of these companies will be forced to live within the boundaries of Kyoto and force to purchase the technology and equipment to live with in the limits of Kyoto, additionally they will also be forced to change manufacturing practices and processes to live with in Kyoto. All of this adds to the cost of manufacturing and that coat is ALWAYS passed on to you, the consumer. Now if that cost associated with living with in Kyoto makes the cost of the gadget the manufacturer down the street from you makes, more expensive than the same gadget coming over from China because they don't have to live under Kyoto then that manufacturer goes out of business. And when that manufacturer goes out of business half the people in that town are unemployed, the suppliers of material to the now defunct manufacturer have just lost a key customer and now they are hurting also, as is all the other small businesses in the town because half the town has no money to spend because they are unemployed or they left town looking for work. Now take that and factor it into every manufacturer in the US and think about how profound the effects can be. Weigh that against the few US based companies that may be profiting from the sale of equipment technology and training and you will quickly see that the US will loose billions and more likely trillions of dollars because of Kyoto.

Kyoto will not make money for the US as you claim. I work for a company that sells equipment that can assist with keeping the environment clean. My sales are driven mostly by heath and safety and environmental regulations. If I were to put a % on it I would say 20% of my sales are driven by manufacturing needs, 50% health and safety, and 30% Env Regulations. So effectively 80% of my business in non manufacturing driven, in other words my product was not purchased to make manufacturing more efficient, better or cheaper, instead it was an additional cost.

Kyoto is a horrible treaty which is unfair to some countries and a profit center for others. And of the 150 or so that signed on you can bet they have something to gain from it, and those gains will come straight out of your pocket.

I vote tritnow gives everyone on the forum a dollar.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

If you have been in class and none of what was written here was discussed, do you feel you are getting a "proper" education, or perhaps is your professor skewing you towards a liberal point of view? If the latter, call the bastard on it.

(Note use of Socratic Method)