Will Kyoto cause the US problems? 29

[QCE]

Please read the following article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4254877.stm

Any comments?

Will the Kyoto accord coming into effect cause the US to change its position on emissions?

I realize that many people don't believe that the US is a major polluter and that the 3rd world is doing all the polluting. Please refrain from dragging that arguement into this thread. The main issue is that other countries are going to be buy/selling/devloping new technologies to reduce emissions. Will the US be majorly involved?

 

[moltenmetal]

What you're really asking is two different questions:

1) Is the US likely to engage in the worlwide effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to pre- 1990 levels?

and

2) Will the US engage itself in the Kyoto Accord, which puts in place economic penalties if nations do NOT meet this goal by the stated deadline?

The answer to 1) is no. The US will make token efforts, perhaps better than the efforts of some Kyoto signatories, but when push comes to shove they will not put in the effort required to meet this target. The US is ideologically and politically incapable of doing so at this time. Businesses dependent on the pyramid scam known as "economic development" have near-complete political control in the US, and they also determine a significant portion of both the perception AND the reality of public sentiment in the US.

The answer to 2) is HELL NO! The US will not become a signatory, regardless what half-hearted pressure the rest of the world puts on them. The US feeling is that its money is better spent at home reducing its own emissions rather than subsidizing the non-consumption of developing nations. This is in line with the US's position on most multilateral issues like the Landmines Treaty, the International Court of Justice etc. etc. Not great foreign policy, and not in its own long-term best interests, but at least it's consistent...

 

[metengr]

No, and certainly not during the current administration. I suppose as the political winds blow to and fro, the US will clamp down and ratchet in air emissions over time, and will enforce new clean air technology.

I work in the Fossil Power industry, so from my slant I am tired of all the blame that gets placed on Fossil power plants in the US. Yes, we do emit combustion by-products like simple and combined cycle units, like other industries, like automobiles, buses, trucks, airplanes and homes that burn fossil fuel in the winter, and so on and so forth...

I am all in favor of a cleaner environment, and are you and others willing to pay for advanced air emission upgrades at US Power Plants or perhaps building new units using coal gasification technology or supercritical fossil units? Someone will have to pay for this because these air emission upgrades or new fossil units are certainly not for free. Of course, when it comes to "pay up" or "shut up" most tend to prefer the latter.

 

[BobPE]

The Kyoto accord is based on what I will call green science. That is, the data used to justify various impacts on the environment from industralized and progressing countries has an environmental slant with the assumption that Global Warming will be mitigated through pollution reduction.

When real science is used, the Kyoto accord becomes an unrealistic and usless goal to achieve in a world theater based on the underlying goal of reducing global warming and this is where I believe the US based its decision not to join.

Junk science (and engineering) is pervasive in todays society. This accord prooves that main stream science can be manipulated to achieve laypersons goals.

To answer your quaestions: I believe the Kyoto accord will have an impact on how the US manages emmissions, but not throught adopting the accord. I think restrictive trade limitations imposed by others will force the US to modify its current practices.

The US should not sign to Kyoto based on poor science and the unconnected goals it is trying to achieve which are all based in junk science.

I believe the US is already involved quite heavily in reducing pollution that affects people, all over the world. The US is leading the way, unlike the signatories to Kyoto that will trudge forward harming the very people they inted to protect.

Just my informed opinion.....

BobPE

 

[Rich2001]

The Kyoto Treaty will cause the signatures major economic problems. Already the cities of Vicenza, Milan and others, prohibit traffic on certain days of the week.

 

[samv]

BobPE, since you are so informed maybe you can help me understand

why is the science behind Kyoto junk,
and what is the US doing to reduce pollution
and how is it leading the way?

 

[BobPE]

The science is junk, because it is based up junk data. The data is junk, because it excerpts historical data to reach a pre determined conclusion, then extrapolates that data to support this conclusion in an aparant scientific manner....To anyone in science, this is junk.

The US, under pressure from both domestic and foreign interests, is, through the EPA, advancing technology that reduces pollution from the proposed worst contributors, mainly cars and power generation.

The US is leading the way with respect to technology that is used to treat and remove pollutants from dischagres.

The Kyoto accord is a political document, which has been sadly mistaken as a scientific document. We (engineers and scientists) need to remain on the path of letting data speak the truth through our eyes for the world to see.

Yes I do have a strong and informed opinion on Kyoto, because it is so sad for me to see that our profession is manipulated so easly by others for their own benefit or political agenda. The accord will fail, and the sooner the better in my opinion, so that the real science has a chance to make it out to the world.

BobPE

 

[samv]

Thanks for your responses to my questions.

I have not seen the hockey stick data, but I do know the earth cannot support infinite growth of population and industry. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that we need to eat and breath and up to now we only have one planet on which to do this. If the direction we are headed now is compromising both of those needs, should we not work towards adopting a less destructive behaviour?

does it not worry you
-that there are more violent storms than there once were,
-that the ice caps are melting at an alarming rate and that the rain forests are being clear cut (this will have a definite impact on regions way beyond where these events are actually taking place)
-that there are actual data showing that there has been an actual increase in temperature (not going to go look for the data but heard on the radio that the 4 warmest years on record have occured in the last seven years or so, with 3 of these 4 being these past three years)

As engineers should we not stop being manipulated by sales&marketing and insist that more efficient methods&technologies be used wherever possible. In many cases, the technology is there - we simply need to embrace it.

ha what a coincidence - my husband just emailed me from home to tell me that it's +11C (52F)outside, and the robins have returned to the yard. Robins and +11C did not happen in the middle of February in Eastern Canada when I was a kid. Climate change is happening.

 

[samv]

I want to add that's it's not just about climate change - it's also about soil pollution, air pollution, water pollution... we are destroying the very planet that keeps us alive at a rate that can absolutely not be sustained.

 

[BobPE]

samv:

You and Kyoto assume that we (humanity) are the root of the problem. This conclusion has not been supported by scientific data to date, nor do I believe it will be supporten anytime in the future. To have the people behind the Kyoto Protocol define their complex computer modeling of the future conditions used to support Kyoto as "fanciful storytelling" is more scary than the topic of global warming as they have defined it.

Where does your concern for violent storms come from and do you feel Kyoto will address this? My feelings from the limited (i say limited because I am a scientist and the data set for storm tracking goes back only to the mid 19th century with any accuracy) data is that there is no significant increase in storm activity and this is supported by scientists for the insurance underwriters industry here in the US. This is a Kyoto farse and scare tactic of the environmental left.

Deforrestation is a bad thing however, I do not see Kyoto imporving this and in fact, I see Kyoto increasing deforrestation as it allows developing countries to industrialize over and above their current status. Some science shows that as levels of CO2 increase, vegetation shows a corresponding increase in density due to the availability of this nutrient.

As for temp increase, again, with the limited data, one can not draw accurate scientific conclusions as rise or fall. Using the argument in Kyoto, I would argue that during the 1970's, we were in danger of entering an ice age which was predicted to last several thousands of years and that global warming would be a good thing. Again, the data do not support drawing conclusions about future conditions as the past 100 to 200 years of data compared to the real historical record that would impact us of 2 to 5 million years ago is merely a tick on the earth time clock.

Your Robins are responding to a change in climate that we scientists and engineers know is driven by natural cycles of climate and time. Kyoto places inhumane restrictions upon the human race that will reduce the quality of life for hundreds of millions, with no benefit to anyone. Is this human suffering worth the cost, with Kyoto I say no.

I do agree that climate change is happening, I don't agree that we are influencing this change with the significance as demonstrated in Kyoto.

this is an interesting conversation...professional sparring keeps us all on out toes...

BobPE

 

[BobPE]

I think the US is radical in a positive way as to its' present and past approaches to "improve" the environemnt. We take a balanced approach that considers the human and economic impact of pollution. I think not supporting Kyoto is a huge step forward to protecting the environment.

Kyoto makes me sick to my stomach, and my non-support for the protocol is what I am doing to save the environment!!!

All too often, people don't look at both sides of the issue. I look at both sides, which are always extreme, to understand the middle ground. I like being on the moddle ground, because I feel that society is best served from policy makers who are also on this middle ground with me.

I like you synopsis on air pollution. With the current regulations, the state of Florida is non-compliant with EPA regulations due to background concentrations of particulate matter that blow into the state of the trade winds from Africa. Now, even though there are high levels of particle concentrations in the state, industry must still clean the air to lower levels of particulate than is ambient just so they can discharge polluted air into the "clean" environment. It is this type of madness that is so pervasive in Kyoto only the madness isn't even based in science which makes it environmental propaganda.

BobPE

BobPE

 

[BJC]

Junk Science is science that does not agree with your political views.
One side has money the other side has science. It's corporations with money and various RWWS vs a few Nobel Lauriats.

 

[BobPE]

BJC:

You make reference to the two extremes in the issue and the extremes create junk science, but as I stated, the truth is in the middle somewhere as the middle excludes junk science by defination.

BobPE

 

[samv]

BobPE

I do not believe that
helping the environment = human suffering.
How have you come to such a conclusion?

 

[BobPE]

samv:

Read up on Kyoto. As it is written, Kyoto will not improve or help the environment, again, based on real science, and not what is included in the Protocol.

The cost to comply with Kyoto is astronomical for all those involved. Costs are now starting to be incurred by those that ratified the protocol. This diversion of monies away from those people that need it for real issues that impact their daily lives will cause human suffering, in the case of Kyoto, on a massive scale.

I find the topic of CFC's (refridgerants) to be a good example to use. CFC's were banned (again on junk science) world wide. Everyone believed this was great for humanity. What I found most disturbing is that the majority of 3rd world countries were just getting refridgeration that was dramatically improving their lives. The elimination of CFC's drastically impacted (and continues to do so) these people as their source of refridgeration (which was made available due to the combined efforts of thousands of good hearted people in the early 21st century) is now unaffordable to them. They cannot upgrade to other refridgerants as the equipment will not accomodate them and the cost is too great. Now, in following the junk science of banning CFC's, many people and governments made drastic changes that allowd CFC's to be eliminated drawing funds from the very people that need them the most. Their continued suffering to this day is our (scientists and engineers) fault for letting laypeople manipulate data that belongs in our world to be interpreted by us.

I firmly believe that helping the environment does not equate to human suffering.......and subsequently, should never equate to human suffering.

BobPE

 

[corus]

I have not heard of a lack of refridgerators in the 3rd world caused by the banning of CFCs, nor have I heard that this ban is causing suffering. Can BobPE post a web site or some reliable source to back up his 'informed' opinion, particularly how the 141 countries that have signed up to Kyoto will now 'trudge forward to harm the people they inted (sic) to protect'?

Can it also be possible to keep the topic on a technical matter as QCE intended, and not just on gossip?

corus

 

[BobPE]

corus...I will be glad to back up my opinions, but that may just be more gossip????

I am glad I could shed some light on the impact of CFC's to those fellow humans in many 3rd world countries, it is not a lack of refridgerators, it is a lack of redfidgerant. Now that you are aware, you may be sensitive to the data available and may find more information.

The Kyoto protocol is a large document, by design to confuse. A digested version I often use goes like this:

"The expected increase in temperature with business as usuall vrs that with Kyoto is 1.92 degrees C (higher for the business as usuall approach) in year 2100." Reference Source: Wigley 1998.

It is unwise to justify such a tiny slice out of the predicted (with science other than that used for Kyoto) temperature rise as this is a poor use of resources and the funds could be used more effectively to eliminate human suffering in the developing world.

Read both sides of the issue...

BobPE

 

[CRG]

Samv,

-that there are more violent storms than there once were-

What gives you the impression that the climate on our planet is static? A scientist would be a fool to state the climatic change is the exception on our planet in the past (and using logic, in the future). Why would anyone be so insecure as to believe that mankind cannot adapt to the natural changes in climate? Note: I said natural. The earth has gone through cycles that have been both warmer and colder than it is now. So who are you going to blame for the climate changes in the past?

-that the ice caps are melting at an alarming rate and that the rain forests are being clear cut (this will have a definite impact on regions way beyond where these events are actually taking place)-

Canada logs aggressively on the West Coast with limited environmental concerns. In contrast, it is no longer profitable for logging in Southeast Alaska due to stringent environmental regulations. What are you doing about the environmentally insensitive logging that takes place in Canada? Who is to blame for the ice caps melting 6,000 years ago when most of Canada was under ice? Do you think if the Kyoto accord was enacted 6,000 years ago, that Canada would still be under ice?

Seeing that the ice caps have been retreating over Canada during the last 6,000 years, it would surprise me if the planet wasn’t under a warming trend.

My recommendations for global warming:
1. Don’t waste time trying to affect the planets weather. The unintended consequences of such action may be disastrous. There has been a history of unintended consequences when looking at political action in the past.
2. Invest in technology that will enable the world to adapt to the changes.

 

[BJC]

QCE
Back to your original question.
"Will the Kyoto accord coming into effect cause the US to change its position on emissions?"
The question should be "Will the Kyoto accord coming into effect have an economic effect on the US?" and the answer is yes, weather or not we sign on.
If your the owner of a smoke stack industry it causes you problems in the short term ( and short term thinking is the norm for american corporations).
The enire Koyto accord is 33 pages long and doesn't say much.

http://unfccc.int/files/essential_b...lications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf

As engineers we should look at it as an opportunity not a problem.
We have a few well financed groups who are trying to convince us that it's voodoo science an we shouldn't make them clean up their act ( again American short term corporate thinking- we don't want to miss our bonus next year).
In the meantime the rest of the world is going ahead. Right or wrong a lot of the equipment, processes and other engineering needed to comply with the provisions of the accord are going to be engineered and manufactured somewhere else. We could do it better here but if our leaders have their head in the sand, I'm sure the engineers in India, Germany, France, Canada etc will do a fine job.

 

[Laplacian]

The main issue I have against Kyoto is the emission credit trading scheme (or scam). Just a pollution shell game with no net effect on pollution levels. How does that effectively reduce pollution?

Countries that ratified with a surplus of credits; countries that have experienced a contraction in industrialization since 1990 (Russia, France and Japan) have much to gain from this.

Another minor issue is that CO is NOT pollution; it's not toxic and is required for plants to thrive.

The protocol is a form of wealth redistribution on a global scale.