Kyoto Protocol Ratification
is a Environment centric issue
Agreed. There is a difference between ratifying Kyoto and addressing global warming. Now that business finally sees the opportunity to profit from cleaner technologies, we may actually see some progress in this country. but it's not just about what the government should be doing! if we are worried about global warming, then individuals need to start evaluating their own consumption!
Even if one was to believe that humans are the cause of global warming (rather than a fluctuating sun), binding ourselves to another pointless 'resolution' won't do any good. Canada actually increased its emissions since it signed by 24%. This is just a poor attempt at world legislation that no one follows.
Bold Strike says:
"humans are the cause of global warming (rather than a fluctuating sun)"
Good point Bold Strike. We should all realize that there are natural temperature cycles that occur independently of human activity. however, there is a consensus in the scientific community that holds human activity responsible for an acceleration and intensification of whatever changes are already occurring. even if scientists do turn out to be incorrect, it would be in our best interest to change our behavior now because the potential consequences are so severe.
i agree with bethany - even if scientists are wrong (which i don't personally believe) what is the harm in being prepared for the case that they are correct? i do applaud the efforts of the mayors of 18 of the world's largest cities (including some American ones) and some U.S. states to fill in where the federal government is failing though. let's hope they do make actual progress and their resolution is not just another empty promise to counteract global warming.
The problem with Kyoto is that there is little in terms of enforcement. If I remember correctly Annex 1 countries, if they fail to meet emissions reduction levels, have to cover the difference as well as 30% more, that's a little extreme. Also the idea that developing Non-Annex countries can sell carbon credits to bigger countries seems to me counter productive. And of course, the fact that the US and the Aussies aren't playing along reduces its credibility substantially. That's the UN for ya though. Noble in vision, weak in action.
Kyoto is an outdated treaty which hasn't done one thing to curb GHG emissions in meaningful way. If we are serious about climate change we need a market based system of incentives, not some pie-in-the-sky accord, that will enable continued economic growth for both us and the developing world. China is poised to surpass the United States in emissions this year, so any future action has to take into account the fact that whatever the EU and US do it will be more than offset by NIC's. Domestic policy that funds or encourages the adoption of new energy products and infrastructure is a better way to go. We need to have green technology that is cheap and readily available so that up and coming economies like India and China can grow in a more clean and sustainable way.
Much like the economy, I don't think Man alone impacts the environment to the the degree we are seeing. A President's policy can speed up or slow down the rise and fall of the economy, but alone can not create a depression or a time of plenty. I think our actions have sped up the normal cycle. I think the evidence is there. What I don't understand is why, even if you don't believe in the science (and probably would like to see ID taught in the schools....oooooh, science is scary) why you wouldn't want to protect the giant ball of life we live on, anyway. It's not like can just uproot and move to the planet next door.
JasonF says:
"We need to have green technology that is cheap and readily available so that up and coming economies like India and China can grow in a more clean and sustainable way."
I think JasonF brings up a great point - what about the impact of developing countries and economies on the environment? Most of the developed world was allowed to go through the industrial revolution and everything after with an almost complete disregard for the impact they were having on the environment. If these countries are going to expect the Indias and Chinas of the world, plus all the other developing countries hoping to grow their economies, to develop cleanly we need to develop the cheap and available green technology to pass on to them.
I think our leaders need to make a decision. Either we let China, India, Brazil and every other country that follows develop using whatever technology they have available or the developed world endures passes on clean technology. This is such an enormous problem. The developed world is still figuring out how to live sustainably while also trying to curb the impact of development. Governments worry about the added costs and competition from giving away or cheaply selling green technology.
We can't start preaching to other countries about THEIR emissions until we make a cooperative effort ourselves--i.e., ratifying the protocol. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. In response to a couple other comments: Bold Strike says:
"Even if one was to believe that humans are the cause of global warming (rather than a fluctuating sun), binding ourselves to another pointless 'resolution' won't do any good. Canada actually increased its emissions since it signed by 24%. This is just a poor attempt at world legislation that no one follows."
Bold Strike, you're right that there are natural fluctuations in
natural temperature, but not like this. The scientific community
has reached a relative consensus that global warming is a real
scientific phenomenon not just due to natural fluctuations (or cow
flatulence). Also, you said that no one follows this legislation,
and others said that the U.N. is ineffective. I apologize for the
bluntness of the statement, but anyone who says that is being
utterly hypocritical. Hasn't it ever crossed your minds that the
U.N. can only function if member countries allow it to? Its
ineffectiveness is due to countries LIKE THE US NOT FOLLOWING U.N.
PROTOCOLS AND STANDARDS.
Sorry, but the choices aren't "market-based" or "pie in the sky".
The market has had its chance to regulate itself, and it has failed. Therefore government must act.
On the other side, however -- the other major polluter, China, must also be dragged into this. And that means international economic action. I don't think we should boycott the Beijing Olympics over Tibet, but I would be okay boycotting them because of China's record on pollution, product safety standards, intellectual property record...all the rules that the rest of the world obeys, which they don't, thus giving them an unfair trade advantage. If they want all the benefit of selling in the global marketplace, which is netting them trillions of dollars of everyone else's money, they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
How is it that overall US emissions have gone down without signing on and several countries that actually signed on to this farce have had emissions go up significantly? When will you stop drinking the Kool-aid and actually look at some honest data? Kyoto is a failure so when are you going to take an honest look?
