An urgent memo to the people whose job it is to monitor so-called ‘greenhouse gases’: there appears to be more than enough hot air over Central Europe to keep the Kyoto balloon aloft:
Russia came under pressure from the European Union at the weekend to ratify the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gases, amid fears that Moscow’s commitment may be wavering.
Yes it is probably ‘wavering’ because the Russians (in common with everybody else) know that the Kyoto Protocol is a bad idea which has been touted as the solution to a non-problem. If the Russians have got any sense they will consign the whole boondoggle to the shredder.
The protocol, which is backed by the EU but opposed by Washington, needs the support of the Russians to reach the threshold of backing required for it to come into force. Although Moscow announced last September that it would ratify, it has so far failed to do so, raising fears that the entire international effort to combat climate change could be stalled.
The keyword here is ‘fear’. Not fear of environmental catastrophes or other such fantastic nonsense, but a (justified) fear among Europe’s political elite that their dirigiste economies will not be able to compete in a truly global marketplace.
Altero Matteoli, the Italian Environment Minister, called for enhanced cooperation with the US and Russia, as well as with emerging economies,such as India and China.
‘Cooperation’ is a euphamism for ‘submission’ and what Mr.Matteoli and his ilk require is for potential competitors to hobble themselves with pointless and damaging regulatory burdens that slap a lid on industrial and technological development. The only other method of halting decline is root-and-branch reform of the Europe’s stagnating economies and that is not going to happen.
Kyoto is not about ‘saving the Earth’ or ‘improving the quality of life’ or any other enviro-mentalist nostrums. Kyoto is a deeply dishonest contrivance; a device for propping up an arcane and protectionist ‘old’ Europe.
Lately there are scientists who have done long-term thermal studies they believe demonstrate that Earth’s temperature cycles are morely likely caused by solar output variations that are having far greater impact than any human activities. Maybe the “Kyoto crowd” should best have a word with Old Mr. Sun about his ruining everything.
Not to mention the much more long-term trend of the sun getting brighter as it ages. Can’t do much about that, I’m afraid.
Shorter term trend right now is for our insolation to drop. The last time we were at this stage, England got buried in about a century.
As for the Russians, environmental studies indicate that they would be the biggest WINNERS in global warming. They don’t want to admit it, but global warming really is in their best interest.
Been picking up tidbits here and there that would seem to indicate that global warming is a good thing, in that increased CO2 output is good for plants. The smokestack industries are greening the earth! woot!
I’m now standing by to await the multiple head explosions that should start erupting amongst the envirotwits.
–Altero Matteoli, the Italian Environment Minister, called for enhanced cooperation with the US and Russia, as well as with emerging economies,such as India and China.–
Oh, sure, NOW they want to bring in India and China. Which was a sticking point to get US to sign before.
I think the Russian’s big problem with Kyoto has to do with the fact that they are banking on their significant hydrocarbon fuel reserves to keep their economy afloat, and Kyoto will take the economic wind out of their sails. Getting a warmer climate out of all this is pure gravy to them!
The American position on Kyoto would be better understood and a lot less unpopular if it had been articulated with the clarity and direction in David Carr’s post. All most people, whether in the United States or elsewhere, know about it is that the Bush administration opposes Kyoto because it doesn’t care about global warming.
Well, unless someone comes up with a projection that global warming will take place before November 2004, it’s probably correct to say the Bush administration doesn’t care about climate change. Whether one thinks that a good thing or not depends on one’s view of the science behind various climate change theories. I can’t myself speak knowledgably about that subject just now.
Assume for a moment, though, that the best science does point toward man-made climate change that changes in human behavior can ameliorate. Why would anyone believe the rule-by-buristocrats prescribed by Kyoto would meet the need? It leaves the fastest growing users of energy uncovered, and calls on signers of the convention to make commitments to do things they are fairly unlikely to do. Moreover relying on regulation as a tool to reduce energy use makes even less sense on the international than on the national level.
If the Bush administration had met the challenge of Kyoto on those terms the whole climate change effort might have returned for another spell on the drawing board, something it badly needs. Instead, Bush’s disinterest and inability to articulate any ideas on this subject not directly relevant to his own political future left a vacuum that has been filled by all manner of unhelpful people somewhat interested in climate change and supremely interested in sniping at the United States for its own sake.
I am always baffled by people who pin the refusal to go along with Kyoto on Bush. I seem to recall a 99-0 Senate vote repudiating Kyoto long before Bush became President.
Let me un-baffle you. The Senate did pass a resolution against ratifying a treaty that did not impose restrictions on developing countries, and did so before Bush became President.
That did not signal American rejection of the process, or of the general framework of Kyoto, and many of the Senators who voted for the resolution said so at the time. It was Bush, shortly after his inauguration, who dismissed both the agreement and the negotiations while raising none of the substantive points that David Carr has (and many others have before him).
I understand there is a great reluctance among some people to expect a President of the United States to be able to discuss an important policy issue as if he knew what was involved — beyond its possible political impact on him, of course — or delegate the task to someone who did. That reluctance is one of the things that sustains this administration, and is a truly remarkable phenomenon.
can anyone provide a link to somewhere where the reasons why the Kyoto protocol is not a good idea are discussed?
Thank you.
Johan, You can read this Samizdata thread
from a couple of weeks ago.
Johan,
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5334
This will explain you why Bush’s opposition to Kyoto is just inspired by US energy industry (like the illegal, unsuccessful war against Iraq).
The guy explaining why Kyoto is good & costs nothing is a dangerous, Islamicised communist sponsored by French dirty money: BP chief executive John Browne.
US/UK over run an country and depose its government, and that is an ‘unsuccessful war’. Kodiak is in a socialist universe of his own and thinks if he keeps his eyes closed long enough the world will reform itself according to his bizzare fantasies.
Snide,
Welcome to my universe where Bush is begging for UN help after having turned early offers down, where the US governor for Iraq is now babbling occupation forces could be leaving within 12 months, where US troops are deploring new casualties everyday, where Arab ressentment is mounting & turning to resistance as they view occupation as oppression.
I don’t know if this universe is socialist, but anyway Saddam is still at large, & so is the casus belli.
They haven’t found Saddam, so it’s obvious he never existed.
Edmund Burke,
Could it be that it’s easier to hide 1.000 Saddam doubles than to dissimulate 1.000 ready-in-45-minute nuclear heads?
Another good place to go for ongoing Kyoto and global warming discussions is http://www.techcentralstation.com. They tend to ignore the treaty itself, which of course will have no appreciable effect whatsoever on global warming even under its proponents most optimistic scenarios, and focus on climate science. They are quite skeptical of the thesis that man-made CO2 is driving catastrophic global warming, and indeed the current scientific debate seems to be whether there is any meaningful data at all that a significant warming trend is underway.
“The Senate did pass a resolution against ratifying a treaty that did not impose restrictions on developing countries, and did so before Bush became President. That did not signal American rejection of the process, or of the general framework of Kyoto, and many of the Senators who voted for the resolution said so at the time. ”
Since there is no way on earth that the process or general framework of Kyoto would ever accomodate imposing restrictions on developing countries (as I believe has not happened to this day), I regard the Senate vote as being a rejection of Kyoto as it then existed or could ever be expected to exist.
The statements by Senators are typical have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too ass-covering.
Kodiak,
you seem to be just as disconnected from reality as CNN, Al-Jhazeera (or how you spell it, don’t know, don’t care), The Guardian, and every other incompetent TV channel or newspaper.
Why don’t you contact Andy Duncan and ask for help. He knows exactly how to cure people like you.
Kodiak
One WMD found and eliminated yesterday. Code name Uday. More to follow.
snide, if this was such a successful war, why don’t you have some more?
as for kyoto, a stance of we cant afford it because it wouldnt be good for our economy just doesnt seem to be the answer.
Edmund Burk,
You’re farcical, but I admire your loyalty to undignified “statemen” like Butcher & Bliar.
Johan,
Even if I loathe every political “idea” coming out from David’s brain, I’m very fond of his sense of humour. That would perhaps be the only single one reason why I would happen to ask him something.
For the rest, please drop TV & get information somewhere.