Bush on Kyoto

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world...le-climate-deal/2005/07/04/1120329360516.html

While the G8 has to tackle climate change, US President George W Bush vowed to spurn any Kyoto-style deal on the "significant" problem of global warming, he said in an interview to air tomorrow.

Bush told Britain's ITV television ahead of the July 6-8 gathering that global warming was "a significant, long-term issue that we've got to deal with".

However, any G8 climate change agreement at this week's G8 summit in Scotland along the lines of the of the UN's Kyoto Protocol - which the US refused to sign - would get short shrift, he said.

Instead he offered up new technology as the way forward.

"If this (draft plans under negotiation) looks like Kyoto, the answer is no," Bush said. "The Kyoto treaty would have wrecked our economy, if I can be blunt."

The Kyoto Protocol requires industrialised countries that have ratified it to limit their emissions by a 2012 timeframe as compared to a 1990 benchmark.

The president has strongly opposed action against climate change since he took office in 2001 in favour of further studies of the phenomena -- despite significant global pressure that the world's largest consumer of fossil fuels change its policies.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who hosts the three-day gathering by Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Russia and the US starting on Wednesday, wants to secure deals on climate change as well as African aid and debt.

French President Jacques Chirac said today he was optimistic a deal on climate change could be struck at the summit following informal talks with the German and Russian leaders in Russia.

"We are waiting to know the American position, which was ... far more moderate, or less demanding than ours. I hope we can find a sufficiently clear, firm agreement in this field," said Chirac.

Negotiators for the G8 countries are reportedly drawing up draft plans on climate change.

The US president said he wanted G8 leaders to put Kyoto behind them and move on to supporting new technologies to limit global warming without harming businesses.

Bush underlined the US government's $US20-billion ($A26.2 billion) investment in technologies such as zero-emission power stations and hydrogen-powered vehicles.

There is nothing in Kyoto that stops him from using new technology to reduce emissions, in fact, I thought that was the intent behind it. Is Dubya now doing what Australia did, not signing up, but trying to meet the requirements anyway?

Is this a change in Dubya's approach to Kyoto? I think it is.

 

[Orwell]

He's either trying to go along with emission reductions while saving face or he's trying to throw sand in people's eyes... I bet on the later.

 

[Ziggurat]

He's either trying to go along with emission reductions while saving face or he's trying to throw sand in people's eyes... I bet on the later.

The Kyoto targets were never realistic, and as we're seeing, they aren't going to be met by the countries that did sign up. Meeting them would have had a crippling effect on the US economy - saying so isn't deception, it's the truth. So rather than sign up to a protocol we couldn't actually implement, we're being honest and staying out of it altogether. Unlike Europe, which signed up but won't make the targets. Saying you'll make cuts you can't actually make, or denying the economic costs of making those cuts, or (ala Clinton) signing a treaty that the senate already declared overwhelmingly it would never ratify, now THAT is throwing sand in people's eyes. So you've got it completely backwards. You might not like Bush's stance on the whole thing, but he's being more honest about that than any of the other G8 leaders.

 

[Kopji]

Sorry I don't see any change. Even the same quaint wishful thinking on Chirac's part.

Global warming is not the huge subject of massive public discussion and interest in the US that it is elsewhere. This is tough to take but most Americans don't care about global warming and as long as Bush says everything is hunky dory that's good enough.

Bush's actions seem designed to show him engaged in the subject. This is good politics because although global warming is not in the forefront of American thinking - appearances matter a lot. Involvement in discussions are a good way to KEEP it from becoming a political issue here.

Research money in the US still goes to exotic things like bacterial carbon sinks. This kind of 'swap' thinking has gone on for a while and still continues. The basic idea is that if we can come up with artificial carbon sinks they will offset our increased emissions.

Bush 'misspoke' a while back and mentioned global warming as something something he personally accepts as true. This position was actually one the US spent a lot of time and effort denying. So when Bush speaks to global warming there is a weird effect where sometimes he is expressing his views as a private citizen and sometimes as leader of the US.
Nothing new there.

 

[Orwell]

The Kyoto targets were never realistic, and as we're seeing, they aren't going to be met by the countries that did sign up. Meeting them would have had a crippling effect on the US economy - saying so isn't deception, it's the truth. So rather than sign up to a protocol we couldn't actually implement, we're being honest and staying out of it altogether. Unlike Europe, which signed up but won't make the targets. Saying you'll make cuts you can't actually make, or denying the economic costs of making those cuts, or (ala Clinton) signing a treaty that the senate already declared overwhelmingly it would never ratify, now THAT is throwing sand in people's eyes. So you've got it completely backwards. You might not like Bush's stance on the whole thing, but he's being more honest about that than any of the other G8 leaders.

Zig, that's all fine and dandy, and I would (maybe) believe you if there wasn't for one simple fact: the Bush administration has done its best to ignore as much as it possibly can anything that has to do with Global Warming. You know it, and I know it. The administration doesn't care about the treaty, not because it didn't believe it could implemented, but because the administration's position on Global Warming can be neatly summarised by following: "Global Warming? What Global Warming?". If you want quotes and articles backing this up, I can give you a heap of them.

 

[Elind]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world...le-climate-deal/2005/07/04/1120329360516.html



There is nothing in Kyoto that stops him from using new technology to reduce emissions, in fact, I thought that was the intent behind it. Is Dubya now doing what Australia did, not signing up, but trying to meet the requirements anyway?

Is this a change in Dubya's approach to Kyoto? I think it is.

We've discussed this earlier, and while I have little respect for the Bush team on science issues, I don't get your point.

The US has always been ahead of the rest of the world in reducing polution of various sorts, including greenhouse gasses. Europe was making cars with catalytic converters for export to the US for years, for example, before they made their own that way.

The one think I do agree with Bush on in this, is that until there are clear provisions for the second largest polluter (probably first soon), and those close behind, to also comply in a significant degree, it's a seriously flawed treaty with too much politics.

However I will take a swipe at Bush's touting of hydrogen derived energy. Until he builds a hell of a lot of new nuclear power stations, which won't happen 'till he's dead, all the hydrogen he wants to burn cleanly still has to come from normal power stations. Same polution, just in a different place.

 

[Orwell]

Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

The US has always been ahead of the rest of the world in reducing polution of various sorts, including greenhouse gasses. Europe was making cars with catalytic converters for export to the US for years, for example, before they made their own that way.

I've heard this "catalyctic" claim before, but I've never seen it backed...

 

[a_unique_person]

The Kyoto targets were never realistic, and as we're seeing, they aren't going to be met by the countries that did sign up. Meeting them would have had a crippling effect on the US economy - saying so isn't deception, it's the truth. So rather than sign up to a protocol we couldn't actually implement, we're being honest and staying out of it altogether. Unlike Europe, which signed up but won't make the targets. Saying you'll make cuts you can't actually make, or denying the economic costs of making those cuts, or (ala Clinton) signing a treaty that the senate already declared overwhelmingly it would never ratify, now THAT is throwing sand in people's eyes. So you've got it completely backwards. You might not like Bush's stance on the whole thing, but he's being more honest about that than any of the other G8 leaders.

I can't help getting the feeling, Kyoto would cost a lot less than the war in Iraq. "Crippling" is relative.

BTW, I'm not too happy with the other states either, but at least they signed. The impetus is gathering steam, eg, this statement by Bush.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

The US has always been ahead of the rest of the world in reducing polution of various sorts, including greenhouse gasses. Europe was making cars with catalytic converters for export to the US for years, for example, before they made their own that way.

It's not quite that simple, the US had bigger cars that emitted more exhaust and used more petrol, as well. European cars tended to use engines that were smaller and burned fuel more cleanly and efficiently, by design.

You are correct, however, but those improvements were also dictated by governments, an example of governments leading the way.

 

[Elind]

Re: Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

I've heard this "catalyctic" claim before, but I've never seen it backed...

Is that a joke? I can remember buying leaded gas in Europe when I couldn't in the US. Don't ask me when, memory is poor, but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

 

[Orwell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

Is that a joke? I can remember buying leaded gas in Europe when I couldn't in the US. Don't ask me when, memory is poor, but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

Oh no you don't! You made the claim, you prove it right.

Until you provide me with some proof, I choose not to believe you.

 

[Elind]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

Oh no you don't! You made the claim, you prove it right.

Until you provide me with some proof, I choose not to believe you.

OK

 

[Chaos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

Oh no you don't! You made the claim, you prove it right.

Until you provide me with some proof, I choose not to believe you.

I´m from Germany, so I think I can speak with some authority on European gas.

My memory may be poor, too, but I recall that leaded gas was phased out at some time when I was a kid, but already old enough to understand what leaded and unleaded meant. I´m 28 now, so I think it was between 1987 and 1992 at the latest. Unleaded gas was around for as long as I can remember.


Another issue - what´s the usual fuel efficiency for US cars? It used to be around 10 litres per 100 km for passenger cars when I was a kid, and now it is around 5-7 litres per 100 km, with some few modern cars able to achieve 3 litres per 100 km.

 

[Rob Lister]

Zig, that's all fine and dandy, and I would (maybe) believe you if there wasn't for one simple fact: the Bush administration has done its best to ignore as much as it possibly can anything that has to do with Global Warming. You know it, and I know it. The administration doesn't care about the treaty, not because it didn't believe it could implemented, but because the administration's position on Global Warming can be neatly summarised by following: "Global Warming? What Global Warming?". If you want quotes and articles backing this up, I can give you a heap of them.

The sum of the U.S. positions on Kyoto is that it is very seriously flawed. i.e. it will not effect a useful or prolonged reduction of increase even if it is proven that AGW exists. IOW, stipulating AGW doesn't change the equation.

Yes, as AUP is no doubt about to inform me "for the millionth time", Kyoto is just the "framework". Fine. We know roughly what the cost of the framework and it is laughably unacceptabe (IMO) given the cost(huge)/benefit(none) analysis.

So, how much is the rest of the house for which this framework is proposed? So far, nobody has demonstrated that such a houseplan exists.

Still, I'm willing to compromise to the worried believers of AGW and replace every coal-fired plant in the U.S. with a Nuke plant. That would go a very long way toward reducing CO2 output. But alas, IMS, we get no carbon credits for that.

 

[Orwell]

The sum of the U.S. positions on Kyoto is that it is very seriously flawed. i.e. it will not effect a useful or prolonged reduction of increase even if it is proven that AGW exists. IOW, stipulating AGW doesn't change the equation.

The fact that the Bush administration refused for quite a long time to even acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming was actually taking place clearly indicates their enormous bad faith regarding this subject.

 

[Rob Lister]

The fact that the Bush administration refused for quite a long time to even acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming was actually taking place clearly indicates their enormous bad faith regarding this subject.

Maybe so, but even now that he has reluctantly admitted it, it doesn't make it true. And his position on it would not change the position of the vast majority of the congress that laugh hysterically (though silently) at idea of implementing Kyoto.

I'm on the fence myself but I admit to leaning strongly toward the AGW side. Doesn't change anything. IMS, there was a vote sometime back in congress (during clinton). I don't remember the exact congressional breakdown but suffice it to say that hell would freeze over (thus cooling down the planet) before they passed it.

 

[Orwell]

Yeah, how convenient for the Prez, eh? It leaves him perfectly free to invoke "political reasons" to justify doing bubkis on this subject, totally ignoring the scientific consensus i.e. that the Earth is warming, and that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are making a significant contribution to this.

 

[Rob Lister]

Yeah, how convenient for the Prez, eh? It leaves him perfectly free to invoke "political reasons" to justify doing bubkis on this subject, totally ignoring the scientific consensus i.e. that the Earth is warming, and that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are making a significant contribution to this.

Nope. It justifies him thumbing his nose at Kyoto.

The "Scientific consensus" may or may not exist but it is moot.

Pay close attention here: It it moot because Kyoto does not, in any manner, shape or form, do anything, whatsoever, to change any warming that may or may not be taking place.

I know that is a compound sentence but understanding it is very important to understanding why Bush is against Kyoto and why the U.S. Senate decided NOT to ratify it by a vote 95-0 (S.RES 98) and Clinton willingly signed the bill. Only vice president Gore seemed disappointed but, thankfully, he didn't have a vote and it wouldn't have mattered if he did.

I suggest that with a vote of 95-0, you've got a long and very up-hill battle. Best you pick one you can win.

 

[Elind]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

I´m from Germany, so I think I can speak with some authority on European gas.

My memory may be poor, too, but I recall that leaded gas was phased out at some time when I was a kid, but already old enough to understand what leaded and unleaded meant. I´m 28 now, so I think it was between 1987 and 1992 at the latest. Unleaded gas was around for as long as I can remember.


Another issue - what´s the usual fuel efficiency for US cars? It used to be around 10 litres per 100 km for passenger cars when I was a kid, and now it is around 5-7 litres per 100 km, with some few modern cars able to achieve 3 litres per 100 km.

This issue is only relevant to the point I made that I believe the US was first in implementing this and other similar polution reducing measures....then followed by Europe, but not that US is above criticism in any such regards.

3.8 liters to the gallon make that abour 23 miles to the gallon. Most cars, including my pickup, will do that or better. Only the large hogs are worse. Granted there are plenty of those, but they are now selling at a discount.

 

[Orwell]

Nope. It justifies him thumbing his nose at Kyoto.

The "Scientific consensus" may or may not exist but it is moot.

The scientific consensus exists. I have to insist on this, even if, as you say, it is "moot". I'm too tired of seeing this subject spinned into oblivion.

Pay close attention here: It it moot because Kyoto does not, in any manner, shape or form, do anything, whatsoever, to change any warming that may or may not be taking place.

Says who?

Some current estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol is predicted to reduce the average global rise in temperature by somewhere between 0.02°C and 0.28°C by the year 2050 (source: Nature, October 2003), compared to the increase of 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100 predicted by the IPCC [2]. Because of this many critics and environmentalists question the value of the Kyoto Protocol should required modifications fail to produce deeper cuts in the future. Kyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases. Proponents also note that Kyoto is a first step [3], as requirements to meet the UNFCCC will be modified until the objective is met, as required by UNFCCC Article 4.2(d). [4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

I know that is a compound sentence but understanding it is very important to understanding why Bush is against Kyoto and why the U.S. Senate decided NOT to ratify it by a vote 95-0 (S.RES 98) and Clinton willingly signed the bill. Only vice president Gore seemed disappointed but, thankfully, he didn't have a vote and it wouldn't have mattered if he did.

I suggest that with a vote of 95-0, you've got a long and very up-hill battle. Best you pick one you can win.

I also noticed that the vote you mentioned was at least 7 years ago, before the scientific evidence started really pilling up. I'm willing to bet that if the vote took place today, the results would be closer to ratification, specially if the administration actually made an honest effort to back it up. I agree that they probably wouldn't ratify the treaty, but a new vote would at least give the impression that they care (maybe). But all of this is not that important simply because, as I said before, the administration only grudgingly would admit that there is such a thing as global warming. If they don't even accept this basic premise, it is obvious that anything related to greenhouse gases emission controls, no matter how ineffective (I'm of the opinion of "better something then nothing"), won't be taken seriously by this administration.