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?

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Do you think it is a valid arguement that the USA won't ratify Kyoto because it does not make China, India and Brazil reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its first round?
That part of it. Another part is the economic cost to meet the goals outlined for the USA. When you look at what it would cost the USA to meet its government and treaty imposed objectives, in conjunction with the exceptions allowed to other countries, the USA would be spending a tremendous amount of money locally, with very little world-wide effect or improvement. In essense, the treaty front-loads objectives and costs to the USA, with very little benefit to the global environment.

Of course China and India signed the treaty, as they are exempt from compliance. Russia didn't ratify the treaty until being granted exemptions as well. There are provisions in the treaty for one country to 'buy' unused emissions from another country. In other words, it allows a developing nation to sell its emissions quota to an industrialized nation. That's nothing but a handout, with again, no benefit to the environment.

At the end of the day, the treaty is nothing but political fluff, and does nothing to address the real environmental issues. It simply moves money around.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[JAE]

At the end of the day, the treaty is nothing but political fluff, and does nothing to address the real environmental issues. It simply moves money around.

Yes.

 

[QCE]

"At the end of the day, the treaty is nothing but political fluff, and does nothing to address the real environmental issues. It simply moves money around."

I thought reducing emissions was the environmental issue. I agree that the treaty should have been more focussed on technilogical advances then on other factors. Well we will see how things go. I think the USA will be involved at some point when the money starts to fly.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> I thought reducing emissions was the environmental issue.

That is supposed to be the issue. However, one has to wonder how seriously committed they are to that when several countries are granted quota exemptions, and any country can buy unused quota from a nation which is under their quota.

It seems to me that if you're serious about the environment, you don't allow either of these.

** NOTE **
No more posts in this thread. Use the other Kyoto II thread which is a continuation of this discussion