Europe misses Kyoto targets

[Dragnov]

Was it so big a deal it was worth pulling out for? I mean we're not talking a trade agreement here - we're talking about possible global implications over the next decades/century of epic proportions!

Cheers,

Andy

Yeah, and we're talking about CURRENT political issues that will have a longstanding effect on international law, the economy, as well as the environment. Why is it worth pulling out? Simple, it isn't in the best interest of the United States to enter the the Kyoto Protocol. It could possibly cripple the American economy, while leaving others free and unchecked. These other governments care no more about the environment than the United States. The Kyoto Protocol is more of political move than environmental one.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

Was it so big a deal it was worth pulling out for? I mean we're not talking a trade agreement here - we're talking about possible global implications over the next decades/century of epic proportions!

Cheers,

Andy

Yeah, and we're talking about CURRENT political issues that will have a longstanding effect on international law, the economy, as well as the environment. Why is it worth pulling out? Simple, it isn't in the best interest of the United States to enter the the Kyoto Protocol. It could possibly cripple the American economy, while leaving others free and unchecked. These other governments care no more about the environment than the United States. The Kyoto Protocol is more of political move than environmental one.

Since that arguement leads to - all polititions/governments can't be trusted and are out for themselves I don't see it as a valid reason. How would anything be agreed otherwise?

"It could possibly cripple the American economy" - A very common viewpoint - maybe it is correct, but until I see numbers I don't believe it. Here's a more believable one - "Maybe it will cost the oil/energy industry money and maybe they have friends/family/polititions/advisors in high places" - *conflict of interest at work*. That seems by far the most valid reason for the US not to ratify (from the point of view of "it will hurt us" as opposed to "they're aren't doing it so why should we?").

Cheers,

Andy

 

[rchiu]

These countries have huge military spending, China has the largest army in the world...Pakistan and India are entering a nuclear arms race...and Vietnam is well Vietnam. If these countries spent less on arms races and building up a huge military for no reason that they could funnel this over into Nader Power....

You gotta be kidding me, who can compare to USA in terms of military spending?? see following stat:

-On the military in general, the USA spends more than the rest of the G7 countries combined
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2003 is $396.1 billion
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2002 was $343.2 billion.
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2001 was $305 billion And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
-This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.
-The US military budget is more than six times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
-The US military budget is more than twenty six times as large as the combined spending of the seven "rogue" states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria).
-It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty five nations.
-The United States and its close allies (NATO countries, Australia Japan and South Korea) spend more than the rest of the world combined
-This accounts for two thirds of all military spending.
-Together they spend approximately 40 times more than the seven rogue states.
-The seven potential "enemies," Russia and China together spend $117 billion, less than 30% of the U.S. military budget.
-Global military spending has declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $809 billion in 1998. During that time the U.S. share of total military spending rose from 31% to 36% in Fiscal Year 1999.
-In 1997 alone, half of USA's aid was related to military aid/trade -- and most of that was to countries that are already wealthy, like Israel, or Turkey (which has often been one of the largest recipients of US military aid and has often been criticized for its human rights violations and crackdowns). Compare that to very poor countries like Sub-Saharan African nations that received very little aid.
-During his election campaign, President George Bush had promised an an additional 45 billion dollars over nine years to the military budget. Yet, that increase was seen in just the Fiscal Year 2003 request alone. This large increase is attributed to the "War on Terror".

Oh and US is the single largest producer of world pollution. Maybe US government should think about spending less in military and do more in environment?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

These countries have huge military spending, China has the largest army in the world...Pakistan and India are entering a nuclear arms race...and Vietnam is well Vietnam. If these countries spent less on arms races and building up a huge military for no reason that they could funnel this over into Nader Power....

Firstly, how much should the US take out of its's defence budget to fund emission reform?

Secondly, what about all my other points?

Cheers,

Andy

I'm all for alternative fuel research, but we did not sign the treaty now did we? Let's cripple our economies so the third worlds can catch up? That's the equivalent of saying let's tax the rich 90 % so we can give it to the poor so they will be better off and punish the rich for being successful.

Secondly...
Their amount of CO2 is not as large as developed countries yet, but they are steadily growing and will surpass us if they keep developing and we keep preserving. Why not have a section in the treaty stating that these developing countries have a cap on the amount of pollutants that they release yearly. Don't make laws that only apply to certain people if you want to remain partial .

Let's enter into a treaty that will restrict our corporations and businesses that will force them into getting newer more expensive equipment to protect mither earth when they are barely keeping their heads above the water as it is due to this recession.

 

[Fencer128]

I'm all for alternative fuel research, but we did not sign the treaty now did we? Let's cripple our economies so the third worlds can catch up? That's the equivalent of saying let's tax the rich 90 % so we can give it to the poor so they will be better off and punish the rich for being successful.

How do you know it will cripple the economy? You have (I believe) the best economy in the world. Where are the numbers? I hear this a lot but never see any proof. Where did 90% come from as well? I realise you're making a point - but I'm not sure how much of it is valid and how much is excuse/scare-mongering from your government.

Secondly...
Their amount of CO2 is not as large as developed countries yet, but they are steadily growing and will surpass us if they keep developing and we keep preserving. Why not have a section in the treaty stating that these developing countries have a cap on the amount of pollutants that they release yearly. Don't make laws that only apply to certain people if you want to remain partial .

Let's enter into a treaty that will restrict our corporations and businesses that will force them into getting newer more expensive equipment to protect mither earth when they are barely keeping their heads above the water as it is due to this recession.

Again, how long at their current growth rates would the countries you specifiy have to go on unchecked for before they reach the US's level of pollution? A year? a decade? 30 years?

I agree with the idea of a cap. IMHO the Kyoto negotiations should have been made public so that we could see exactly what people were asking for. The question of the cap though is where to set it. Some careful calculations need to be done in this regard. The treaty may well place "restrictions" on businesses - but then doesn't everything cost something?; the question is does the price match the benefit and can we afford it?

It seems that your arguement throws up many questions that need to be answered before we can say with any certainty that the US is going to suffer horribly from this.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: rchiu

These countries have huge military spending, China has the largest army in the world...Pakistan and India are entering a nuclear arms race...and Vietnam is well Vietnam. If these countries spent less on arms races and building up a huge military for no reason that they could funnel this over into Nader Power....

You gotta be kidding me, who can compare to USA in terms of military spending?? see following stat:

-On the military in general, the USA spends more than the rest of the G7 countries combined
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2003 is $396.1 billion
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2002 was $343.2 billion.
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2001 was $305 billion And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
-This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.
-The US military budget is more than six times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
-The US military budget is more than twenty six times as large as the combined spending of the seven "rogue" states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria).
-It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty five nations.
-The United States and its close allies (NATO countries, Australia Japan and South Korea) spend more than the rest of the world combined
-This accounts for two thirds of all military spending.
-Together they spend approximately 40 times more than the seven rogue states.
-The seven potential "enemies," Russia and China together spend $117 billion, less than 30% of the U.S. military budget.
-Global military spending has declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $809 billion in 1998. During that time the U.S. share of total military spending rose from 31% to 36% in Fiscal Year 1999.
-In 1997 alone, half of USA's aid was related to military aid/trade -- and most of that was to countries that are already wealthy, like Israel, or Turkey (which has often been one of the largest recipients of US military aid and has often been criticized for its human rights violations and crackdowns). Compare that to very poor countries like Sub-Saharan African nations that received very little aid.
-During his election campaign, President George Bush had promised an an additional 45 billion dollars over nine years to the military budget. Yet, that increase was seen in just the Fiscal Year 2003 request alone. This large increase is attributed to the "War on Terror".

Oh and US is the single largest producer of world pollution. Maybe US government should think about spending less in military and do more in environment?

Yes, and you and the rest of the world benefit from those facts, so quit your bitchen and moanin.

 

[etech]

Fencer,

How do you know it will cripple the economy? You have (I believe) the best economy in the world. Where are the numbers? I hear this a lot but never see any proof. Where did 90% come from as well? I realise you're making a point - but I'm not sure how much of it is valid and how much is excuse/scare-mongering from your government.

Name one item that the price would not increase if the price of energy increased.

The economy would be hurt by increasing the prices of all items. Plus there would have to be massive spending to change the infrastructure to a new energy source. That would take money that could be spent elsewhere which would hurt the economy.

There is no energy source at this time that is cheaper than oil and gas and the infrastructure is already in place.

If you don't like the above, prove to me how complying with Kyoto would either do no harm to or help the economy.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: etech
Fencer,

How do you know it will cripple the economy? You have (I believe) the best economy in the world. Where are the numbers? I hear this a lot but never see any proof. Where did 90% come from as well? I realise you're making a point - but I'm not sure how much of it is valid and how much is excuse/scare-mongering from your government.

Name one item that the price would not increase if the price of energy increased.

The economy would be hurt by increasing the prices of all items. Plus there would have to be massive spending to change the infrastructure to a new energy source. That would take money that could be spent elsewhere which would hurt the economy.

There is no energy source at this time that is cheaper than oil and gas and the infrastructure is already in place.

If you don't like the above, prove to me how complying with Kyoto would either do no harm to or help the economy.

I never said it would do no harm - I suggested that it might not mean "doomsday" as predicted so often. Everything costs something. If you're saying that no effort should be made when it will incur a cost - then nothing will ever happen.

Cheers,

Andy

BTW - the "future technology will make cleaner emissions financially viable" is not an arguement that I think will move at nearly enough speed to counter the pollution problems we have created/are creating.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: rchiu

These countries have huge military spending, China has the largest army in the world...Pakistan and India are entering a nuclear arms race...and Vietnam is well Vietnam. If these countries spent less on arms races and building up a huge military for no reason that they could funnel this over into Nader Power....

You gotta be kidding me, who can compare to USA in terms of military spending?? see following stat:

-On the military in general, the USA spends more than the rest of the G7 countries combined
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2003 is $396.1 billion
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2002 was $343.2 billion.
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2001 was $305 billion And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
-This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.
-The US military budget is more than six times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
-The US military budget is more than twenty six times as large as the combined spending of the seven "rogue" states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria).
-It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty five nations.
-The United States and its close allies (NATO countries, Australia Japan and South Korea) spend more than the rest of the world combined
-This accounts for two thirds of all military spending.
-Together they spend approximately 40 times more than the seven rogue states.
-The seven potential "enemies," Russia and China together spend $117 billion, less than 30% of the U.S. military budget.
-Global military spending has declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $809 billion in 1998. During that time the U.S. share of total military spending rose from 31% to 36% in Fiscal Year 1999.
-In 1997 alone, half of USA's aid was related to military aid/trade -- and most of that was to countries that are already wealthy, like Israel, or Turkey (which has often been one of the largest recipients of US military aid and has often been criticized for its human rights violations and crackdowns). Compare that to very poor countries like Sub-Saharan African nations that received very little aid.
-During his election campaign, President George Bush had promised an an additional 45 billion dollars over nine years to the military budget. Yet, that increase was seen in just the Fiscal Year 2003 request alone. This large increase is attributed to the "War on Terror".

Oh and US is the single largest producer of world pollution. Maybe US government should think about spending less in military and do more in environment?

Yes, and you and the rest of the world benefit from those facts, so quit your bitchen and moanin.

If you total all the pollution coming out of the EU, it is not far behind what the US produces. Compairing polution volumes between say France and the US is unfair. Compairing the US to the EU you get a much better comparison.

 

[rchiu]

If you total all the pollution coming out of the EU, it is not far behind what the US produces. Compairing polution volumes between say France and the US is unfair. Compairing the US to the EU you get a much better comparison.

Ok, let's compare EU and US. EU has about 30% more people compare to US, and they produce 25% less pollution. Plus they signed Kyoto treaty and most of the countries are developed countries and have to cut emission.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: rchiu

If you total all the pollution coming out of the EU, it is not far behind what the US produces. Compairing polution volumes between say France and the US is unfair. Compairing the US to the EU you get a much better comparison.

Ok, let's compare EU and US. EU has about 30% more people compare to US, and they produce 25% less pollution. Plus they signed Kyoto treaty and most of the countries are developed countries and have to cut emission.

Yes, but that still puts them at being a large producer. The US also produces more than the larger EU population, so there are many factors involved.

 

[Dragnov]

Since that arguement leads to - all polititions/governments can't be trusted and are out for themselves I don't see it as a valid reason. How would anything be agreed otherwise?

"It could possibly cripple the American economy" - A very common viewpoint - maybe it is correct, but until I see numbers I don't believe it. Here's a more believable one - "Maybe it will cost the oil/energy industry money and maybe they have friends/family/polititions/advisors in high places" - *conflict of interest at work*. That seems by far the most valid reason for the US not to ratify (from the point of view of "it will hurt us" as opposed to "they're aren't doing it so why should we?").

Cheers,

Andy

Why yes, all politicians/government are looking out for themselves. That they can't be trusted? No, hardly the case. You just look at the deeper meaning of their actions and you can easily make predictions on what they are trying to do. I fear for you, if you believe simply whatever a politicians states on the surface level.

And until I see numbers for your case. I won't believe it either then. Face it, your case is as much speculation as mine. It's a fact that the US is heavily dependent on oil, which in turn causes lots of pollution though. Are you expecting a new medium to be invented suddenly and be implemented into mainstream America withing a matter of a couple of years? And lets take your scenario. The oil/energy company will lose money. lol, yeah of course. And guess what. Those oil/energy companies are a huge part of the American economy. IF they suffer, so will the American economy.

And PLEASE stop talking about military spending. You wonder why Canada and Mexico spend so little on National Defense? No, not because they are nice peace loving people, but because they no nothing will happen to them because the U.S. protects them. What about Japan and South Korea? Both countries clearly need and want our support.

 

[Fencer128]

Why yes, all politicians/government are looking out for themselves. That they can't be trusted? No, hardly the case. You just look at the deeper meaning of their actions and you can easily make predictions on what they are trying to do. I fear for you, if you believe simply whatever a politicians states on the surface level.

This opinion was not my own. I was replying to the post above and showing how this point of view was the extension of their thought process. Not my views - their's.

And until I see numbers for your case. I won't believe it either then. Face it, your case is as much speculation as mine. It's a fact that the US is heavily dependent on oil, which in turn causes lots of pollution though. Are you expecting a new medium to be invented suddenly and be implemented into mainstream America withing a matter of a couple of years? And lets take your scenario. The oil/energy company will lose money. lol, yeah of course. And guess what. Those oil/energy companies are a huge part of the American economy. IF they suffer, so will the American economy.

Who said anything about a new medium? We're talking about managing emissions - that doesn't automatically mean switching energy supplies. It could mean renovating ageing dirtier oil/gas plants to make them cleaner. There are many ways to tackle the existing plants without shutting them. Furthermore - there IS scope for some renewable energy to be used more in limited areas. This plus other management policies are what I'm driving at.

Once again, I say that some cost to energy companies does not mean huge unbearable costs to energy companies. It's a pity you wouldn't consider the "numbers" if they were given as this is more informative than any doomsday prophicies from the industry/government. Let's face it - you and mnay others don't see the current enviornmental situation as anything to worry about unduly. Because of this you would refuse to spend anything on changing it. There are lots of scientific opinions on both sides of this debate - however the majority of scientists working in this field (take a look at some of the environmental science journals to see what I mean!) seem to believe the evidence shows that we are having an impact and a potentially disasterous one at that. Given the scale of this problem I say better safe than sorry.

And PLEASE stop talking about military spending. You wonder why Canada and Mexico spend so little on National Defense? No, not because they are nice peace loving people, but because they no nothing will happen to them because the U.S. protects them. What about Japan and South Korea? Both countries clearly need and want our support.

I'm not the one talking about military spending! It was bought up by other posts and I just responded to it.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[etech]

Fencer128

Who said anything about a new medium? We're talking about managing emissions - that doesn't automatically mean switching energy supplies. It could mean renovating ageing dirtier oil/gas plants to make them cleaner. There are many ways to tackle the existing plants without shutting them. Furthermore - there IS scope for some renewable energy to be used more in limited areas. This plus other management policies are what I'm driving at.

Once again, I say that some cost to energy companies does not mean huge unbearable costs to energy companies. It's a pity you wouldn't consider the "numbers" if they were given as this is more informative than any doomsday prophicies from the industry/government.

Fencer, you tend to make assumptions with no basis in fact.

Ex-Clinton aides admit Kyoto treaty flawed

"WASHINGTON ? As President Bush headed off Monday to face environmental critics in Europe, he fired a parting shot at the global warming treaty he has rejected. He called the Kyoto Protocol unrealistic, costly and "fatally flawed."

In that assessment, he has some unexpected supporters: Clinton administration experts.

Economists from the Clinton White House now concede that complying with Kyoto's mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would be difficult ? and more expensive to American consumers than they thought when they were in charge."



The Economic of the Kyoto Protocol

:Yet, the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol will be U.S. $150 billion to $350 billion annually (compared to $50 billion in global annual development aid). With global warming hurting primarily Third World countries, we have to ask if the Kyoto treaty is the best way to help them. The answer is no. The cost of meeting the Kyoto treaty for just one year would be enough to solve the biggest problem in the world?we could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every person on the globe. This would save two million lives each year and prevent half a billion people from contracting a severe disease. In fact, for the same amount the Kyoto Protocol would have cost just the U.S. every year, the UN estimates that we could provide every person in the world with access to basic health, education, family planning, and water and sanitation services. Wouldn't this be a better way of serving the world?
"

Costs of Kyoto will be High Regardless of Flexible Mechanisms

The flexible mechanisms were rejected.

 

[Nitemare]

Comparing the US to Europe is apples and oranges as far as emissions..In Europe, you can get in your car hop on the autobahn and be surrounded by people who don't speak your language in less than an hour...In the US it takes you a full day just to drive across the state of Texas.

We are alot more spread out and much more reliant on gas and oil for transportation. We do not have the luxory of riding our bicycles to work as quite often we commute greater than a 30 minute drive. We do not have the luxory of hopping on a double decker bus and taking it to our job site. Most of the US is divided into business(land designed for commercial zoning)zones and residential zones. It is not often that you live near your workplace.

Plus not to mention that trucks, trains and aircraft are needed to traverse the distances from the East to the West Coast and back...

It's easy to say let's do away with cars and other forms of pollutants, when you are situated on an island and everything is within walking distance,so stop getting your knickers in a bunch...

 

[Fencer128]

Fencer, you tend to make assumptions with no basis in fact.

Err...no, I ask for facts to back up the case of the opposing side. Quite a bit different.

Ex-Clinton aides admit Kyoto treaty flawed

"WASHINGTON ? As President Bush headed off Monday to face environmental critics in Europe, he fired a parting shot at the global warming treaty he has rejected. He called the Kyoto Protocol unrealistic, costly and "fatally flawed."

In that assessment, he has some unexpected supporters: Clinton administration experts.

Economists from the Clinton White House now concede that complying with Kyoto's mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would be difficult ? and more expensive to American consumers than they thought when they were in charge."

Numbers are good. Thanks. At the risk of being labelled as too finicketty, I don't suppose there is any access to how the got the numbers they did?

At the time, the Clinton White House estimated that the cost of reaching that target was relatively low: about $7 billion to $12 billion a year starting in 2008, when binding reductions would begin phasing in. An average household's energy bills would rise $70-$110 a year, and gasoline prices would inch up no more than 6 cents a gallon, the White House said.

Other government cost estimates were far higher. The Department of Energy estimated that gasoline prices would have to rise 66 cents a gallon ? or 53% over a projected 2010 price ? to meet Kyoto's emissions targets.

....

Since 1997, however, it has become clear that consumers love their gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles and aren't embracing energy-efficient technologies; China has no intention of participating in the treaty; and Europe still wants to limit emissions trading as a partial solution to global warming.

Those numbers look bleak - but I still wonder about the maths. I mean, if the Clinton administration can fudge the numbers too low - can others not fudge it too high also? Anyone have access to the raw data? I would certainly agree that such increases would lead to economic strife. It all has to be weighed up in terms of importance. The war on Iraq was deemed vital and cost a lot of money. People are living with that. Are important environmental policies so different?

The Economic of the Kyoto Protocol

:Yet, the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol will be U.S. $150 billion to $350 billion annually (compared to $50 billion in global annual development aid). With global warming hurting primarily Third World countries, we have to ask if the Kyoto treaty is the best way to help them. The answer is no. The cost of meeting the Kyoto treaty for just one year would be enough to solve the biggest problem in the world?we could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every person on the globe. This would save two million lives each year and prevent half a billion people from contracting a severe disease. In fact, for the same amount the Kyoto Protocol would have cost just the U.S. every year, the UN estimates that we could provide every person in the world with access to basic health, education, family planning, and water and sanitation services. Wouldn't this be a better way of serving the world?

An interesting article. Firstly, if that money could do so much then why isn't it doing it right now? I don't believe it will be used in that amount. The US has had plenty of oppotunity whilst the economy was good to make such a generous donation as specified in the article - but clean drinking water hasn't (and IMHO won't) be donated to every person as set out above. That is a bit of a null arguement.

Secondly the article initially plays down environmental issues - which have been overestimated by some zealots - but by no means are insignificant. i.e:

Species are, it is true, becoming extinct. But only about 0.7 percent of them are expected to disappear in the next 50 years, not the 20 percent to 50 percent that some have predicted. Most forms of environmental pollution look as though they have either been exaggerated, or are transient?associated with the early phases of industrialization. They are best cured not by restricting economic growth, but by accelerating it.

("Most forms of environmental pollution ... are best cured not by restricting economic growth, but by accelerating it." Not sure I see the logic there.) Then it highlights that there is an environmental problem in a kind of dismissive way:

"There is no doubt that pumping out carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has increased global temperature. Yet too much debate is fixated on reducing emissions without regard to cost. By agreeing to the 1997 Kyoto climate treaty, Europe has set itself the goal of cutting its carbon emissions more than 30 percent below what they would have been in 2010."

The statement in bold is a big point! I disagree that cost has been disregarded. I have no doubt that all of the 10 years of Kyoto negotiations were mostly spent argueing cost. The question is "given the nature of the problem - how much is it acceptable to pay?" Once we know this we can talk of strategies. Unfortunately it is my belief that (and there are others) the US wants to pay absolutely nothing. In which case nothing of any significance will ever happen. The reasons for this are 2-fold IMHO:

1. The problem of climate change is not seen as particularly significant or worrying (potential ostrich approach).

2. Ignoring the economy and focussing purely on profits - money will have to be spent by companies to make changes. These companies are both extremely wealthy and influencial. Result - significant lobbying/resistance to any change.

Costs of Kyoto will be High Regardless of Flexible Mechanisms

The flexible mechanisms were rejected.

An interesting quote:

One of the most hotly debated issues of global warming is the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol. Some private sector estimates put the cost as high as $300 billion per year, while the Clinton Administration?s Council of Economic Advisors claims it will cost no more than $12 billion per year. The administration argues that the large difference between the two estimates is the assumption of flexible mechanisms such as emission trading and joint implementation.

As with the former article, numbers can be argued both ways.

A new study, sponsored by the National Center for Policy Analysis, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, concludes that the cost of complying with Kyoto will be high regardless of the use of flexible mechanisms. The study, authored by Stephen P. A. Brown, Senior Economist and Assistant Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, notes that the Kyoto Protocol, "would not actually reduce global CO2 emissions. Instead, it would merely slow their growth."

I would be interested to read this. Initially I have reservations as the person presenting this is a government economist and not an independant (or fairly so at least) scientist.

The DOE estimates that worldwide CO2 emissions will rise by 45 percent for the period 1990 to 2010. If Kyoto is implemented there will be a 30 percent increase in CO2 emissions. For the U.S. to comply it will have to reduce emissions by 25 percent below its projected 2010 emissions.

I fear that world-wide something must be hammered out soon as this is getting past the point (which in itself is way past the point!) of no control!

The NCPA study, "compares the worldwide benefits of U.S. reduction of CO2 emissions with the worldwide costs." The benefits are "the economic value of the avoided environmental damage that might arise from global warming," and the costs are the "economic opportunities lost as a result of using less fossil fuel." According to the study, the benefits of reducing energy use only justifies a reduction of CO2 emissions equal to 14 percent of that required by the Kyoto Protocol. That is, Kyoto requires seven times more CO2 reduction than can be justified

The benefit is that we'll/our children/grandchildren will be healthy and have somewhere to spend their money! I'm thinking a few years ahead here.

Without the use of flexible mechanisms, compliance with Kyoto would lower GDP by 3.6 to 5.1 percent by 2010, or between $330 billion to $467 billion. With flexible mechanisms those costs are only reduced slightly, from 3 to 4.3 percent of GDP. Brown concludes, "if reducing CO2 emissions is similar to purchasing insurance against the possible consequences of global warming, these figures suggest that U.S. compliance with the Kyoto accord represents a costly and excessive insurance." The study can be found at www.ncpa.org/studies/s224.html.

A quick note on GDP as I understand it. GDP measures a countries economic might. If a country is spending more and growing it's GDP increases. GDP as a measure is set up to promote spending. So, (and here's a simple example) if everyone's gas became cheaper - all other things being equal - GDP falls because people are spending less. Similarly if cars become more efficient and less gas is bought because less is needed - all other things being equal GDP again falls. GDP is not a good measure of the effects of conservation - in fact if 2 countries are equal in all respects save that one uses half the energy of the other, GDP will most likely be higher for the less efficient country! So, although not always the case, and not being 100% of the story - give GDP values close scrutiny when applied to environmental policy.

Lastly I find the statement in bold amusing. This isn't "insurance", this is "treatment". There is a very great possibility it's already happening.

Cheers,

Andy

BTW: I don't hold the US accountable (if you read my other posts) for all the world's environmental ills. However, as one of the/the largest polluters in the world it is an important factor.

PPS: I think this is the largest post I've ever written!

 

[etech]

Those numbers look bleak - but I still wonder about the maths. I mean, if the Clinton administration can fudge the numbers too low - can others not fudge it too high also? Anyone have access to the raw data? I would certainly agree that such increases would lead to economic strife. It all has to be weighed up in terms of importance. The war on Iraq was deemed vital and cost a lot of money. People are living with that. Are important environmental policies so different?

You read but you don't seem to comprehend.

The Clinton little group based it's numbers on the assumption that the flexible mechanisms would be adopted. They were flatly rejected by the other nations. The low numbers were based on that assumption, without it those numbers were meaningless and the higher numbers more accurate.

An interesting article. Firstly, if that money could do so much then why isn't it doing it right now? I don't believe it will be used in that amount. The US has had plenty of oppotunity whilst the economy was good to make such a generous donation as specified in the article - but clean drinking water hasn't (and IMHO won't) be donated to every person as set out above. That is a bit of a null arguement

Posted for the numbers only, I don't care to argue his points as it is off topic to this discussion.

Unfortunately it is my belief that (and there are others) the US wants to pay absolutely nothing. In which case nothing of any significance will ever happen. The reasons for this are 2-fold IMHO:

Of course that is your [opinion. I wouldn't expect you to have any other opinion.

A quick note on GDP as I understand it. GDP measures a countries economic might. If a country is spending more and growing it's GDP increases. GDP as a measure is set up to promote spending. So, (and here's a simple example) if everyone's gas became cheaper - all other things being equal - GDP falls because people are spending less. Similarly if cars become more efficient and less gas is bought because less is needed - all other things being equal GDP again falls. GDP is not a good measure of the effects of conservation - in fact if 2 countries are equal in all respects save that one uses half the energy of the other, GDP will most likely be higher for the less efficient country! So, although not always the case, and not being 100% of the story - give GDP values close scrutiny when applied to environmental policy.

You cannot seperate out GDP from the cost of energy to produce and transport it. Besides that one fatal flaw, you don't have a point.

 

[Fencer128]

You read but you don't seem to comprehend.

Of course that is your opinion. I wouldn't expect you to have any other opinion.

You cannot seperate out GDP from the cost of energy to produce and transport it. Besides that one fatal flaw, you don't have a point.

I tried to respond to all of the points put to me. Also, I tried to be polite about it and have acknowledged your viewpoint as being valid (ie I understand it even if I don't agree 100%). You on the other hand have chosen to reply to only what you wish (as others do), not provided any alternative solutions to what's on the table and not acknowledged that this is a problem worth tackling. But what gets me most of all is that you do it in such an impolite fashion.

Please keep your little cutting remarks to yourself - I want a debate not a playground fight.

Andy

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: Fencer128


<snipped>

A quick note on GDP as I understand it. GDP measures a countries economic might. If a country is spending more and growing it's GDP increases. GDP as a measure is set up to promote spending. So, (and here's a simple example) if everyone's gas became cheaper - all other things being equal - GDP falls because people are spending less. Similarly if cars become more efficient and less gas is bought because less is needed - all other things being equal GDP again falls. GDP is not a good measure of the effects of conservation - in fact if 2 countries are equal in all respects save that one uses half the energy of the other, GDP will most likely be higher for the less efficient country! So, although not always the case, and not being 100% of the story - give GDP values close scrutiny when applied to environmental policy.

Lastly I find the statement in bold amusing. This isn't "insurance", this is "treatment". There is a very great possibility it's already happening.

Cheers,

Andy

BTW: I don't hold the US accountable (if you read my other posts) for all the world's environmental ills. However, as one of the/the largest polluters in the world it is an important factor.

PPS: I think this is the largest post I've ever written!

GDP is a rough measure of overall economic activity. Let's take your example and assume that there's some kind of "event" which suddenly reduced the price of oil and so the price of gasoline as well. This type of event is what's often referred to as a "shock". Generally speaking lower prices tend to increase consumption of that product, and not decrease consumption as you suggest. In the case of gasoline, lowering the price of gasoline would increase consumption, but not by that much especially in the short-term simply because it's not so easy or costless to dramatically change one's gasoline consumption. For example, some people might start trading in their Honda Civic for a Ford Explorer if gas prices came down enough. However, even relatively large percentage changes in gas prices tend to result in small percentage changes in consumption. You also have to remember that when gas prices do go down, so do some other very important prices: namely the costs of production as energy prices have fallen and the costs of transporting goods from producers to consumers.

 

[Fencer128]

GDP is a rough measure of overall economic activity. Let's take your example and assume that there's some kind of "event" which suddenly reduced the price of oil and so the price of gasoline as well. This type of event is what's often referred to as a "shock". Generally speaking lower prices tend to increase consumption of that product, and not decrease consumption as you suggest. In the case of gasoline, lowering the price of gasoline would increase consumption, but not by that much especially in the short-term simply because it's not so easy or costless to dramatically change one's gasoline consumption. For example, some people might start trading in their Honda Civic for a Ford Explorer if gas prices came down enough. However, even relatively large percentage changes in gas prices tend to result in small percentage changes in consumption. You also have to remember that when gas prices do go down, so do some other very important prices: namely the costs of production as energy prices have fallen and the costs of transporting goods from producers to consumers.

Thanks for that. I was trying (though maybe not very successfully) to show that big GDP means big spending, but big spending isn't always the best from an environmental viewpoint. Do you see? I'll try and be clearer (not too good at this!)...

If a country were to spend less on oil than another purely because its energy supply was more efficient - then - all things being equal - (I'm talking contented population here) the GDP will fall. Now that country may have a very good environmental record and it's citizens have the same comfort as another countries, but it looks as if its economy isn't so great because of the inherent efficiencies at work. With the system as is, the more oil people consume, the better the GDP looks. This is what I was trying to say with respect to GDP not being a good yardstick for environmental arguements.

I conceed from your points that with the nature of things as you are - any reduction in oil prices will bring about an increase in car numbers and engine size - but that is where politicians must make intelligent legislature to ensure that environmental oppotunities are not squandered.

I *think* I'm making a little more sense - but please feel free to correct me as I feel I'm still not able to make my point clearly enough.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: Fencer128


Thanks for that. I was trying (though maybe not very successfully) to show that big GDP means big spending, but big spending isn't always the best from an environmental viewpoint. Do you see? I'll try and be clearer (not too good at this!)...

If a country were to spend less on oil than another purely because its energy supply was more efficient - then - all things being equal - (I'm talking contented population here) the GDP will fall. Now that country may have a very good environmental record and it's citizens have the same comfort as another countries, but it looks as if its economy isn't so great because of the inherent efficiencies at work. With the system as is, the more oil people consume, the better the GDP looks. This is what I was trying to say with respect to GDP not being a good yardstick for environmental arguements.

I conceed from your points that with the nature of things as you are - any reduction in oil prices will bring about an increase in car numbers and engine size - but that is where politicians must make intelligent legislature to ensure that environmental oppotunities are not squandered.

I *think* I'm making a little more sense - but please feel free to correct me as I feel I'm still not able to make my point clearly enough.

Cheers,

Andy

I didn't have much time earlier to follow the line of argument as some posts were rather long, but I think I understand what you're trying to say. That ceterus paribus an increase in energy efficiency may reduce GDP, but that those countries' citizens would enjoy a better standard of living than purely looking at GPD would seem to indicate due to the unaccounted for benefits of a less polluted environment?

Since everyone around the world faces the same oil prices, after transportation costs and trade barriers are accounted for, ceterus paribus a country would only use less oil, or rather consume the oil it already uses more efficiently, if it was a matter of public policy. Why? Simply because without government intervention, the market will reach some determination as to what energy prices should be, what kind of vehicles are produced, so forth and so on. The choices consumers make as to what products benefit them the most will drive this process. Now, as a matter of public policy governments can for example introduce regulations to improve fuel economy in motor vehicles. However, implementing these regulations that would by their very own nature alter what the market would have indicated was most preferable can't be costless. Say without any government intervention, determined by market forces alone the average vehicle has a fuel economy of 11km/l. Suppose now the government, as a matter of public policy, decides that average fuel economy should be increased to 15km/l. Automakers will need to spend resources to redesign existing vehicles, or design entirely new vehicles in order to meet with this higher standard. The cost of impementing this policy will depend upon how large the difference is between the original market-driven average and the government-regulated average, but one thing for sure is that it will cost something.

How does this public policy impact GDP? In the short-term there will be a cost to redesign vehicles, engines, and the like and this price will be paid directly by auto purchasers, automaker investors, and auto workers. The effects will ripple throughout the economy and have a negative effect on GDP in the short-term. In due course, public policy will also lower the countries' demand for and consumption of oil as more fuel efficient vehicles are introduced into the marketplace. Assuming that this is a relatively large oil consumer like the U.S., the long-term decreased domestic appetite for oil will translate into lower global demand for oil and lower oil prices. This will eventually fuel economic growth as energy costs seen by manufacturers, transporters and consumers are reduced. However it's not over yet, as this growth itself will fuel more future demand for oil! The short-term impact on GDP is definitely negative, but there's also a positive long-term benefit to the reduced domestic demand for oil that in due course will be eventually degraded as the economic growth brought about by lower oil prices will eventually increase oil prices. Exactly how this plays out depends on how much oil that country uses as a share of total global oil consumption, and how much change in domestic oil demand results from this policy. These two factors will directly impact world oil demand and subsequently world oil prices. As you can surmise, actions of small countries will have less impact on the world oil market as opposed to larger ones and so smaller countries will benefit less from this type of efficiency regulation. The overall long-term economic impact is ambigious in the case of a large oil consumer like the U.S., but most probably negative for a small country.

This of course has not yet touched on the benefits of reducing air pollution. There are some benefits which can be quantified like reduced health care costs and increased worker productivity, but more generally it's hard to measure any benefits beyond the immediately obvious ones. This is why something like Kyoto is so difficult to analyze as the costs of global climate change is nearly undeterminable simply because we don't understand global weather patterns well enough to accurately forecast the amount of change that will actually occur and the direct impact that this change will have on the environment. Therefore it's not surprising that cost estimates of this type of international public policy vary wildly and are to be considered unreliable to say the least.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Loralon

Originally posted by: Fencer128


Thanks for that. I was trying (though maybe not very successfully) to show that big GDP means big spending, but big spending isn't always the best from an environmental viewpoint. Do you see? I'll try and be clearer (not too good at this!)...

If a country were to spend less on oil than another purely because its energy supply was more efficient - then - all things being equal - (I'm talking contented population here) the GDP will fall. Now that country may have a very good environmental record and it's citizens have the same comfort as another countries, but it looks as if its economy isn't so great because of the inherent efficiencies at work. With the system as is, the more oil people consume, the better the GDP looks. This is what I was trying to say with respect to GDP not being a good yardstick for environmental arguements.

I conceed from your points that with the nature of things as you are - any reduction in oil prices will bring about an increase in car numbers and engine size - but that is where politicians must make intelligent legislature to ensure that environmental oppotunities are not squandered.

I *think* I'm making a little more sense - but please feel free to correct me as I feel I'm still not able to make my point clearly enough.

Cheers,

Andy

I didn't have much time earlier to follow the line of argument as some posts were rather long, but I think I understand what you're trying to say. That ceterus paribus an increase in energy efficiency may reduce GDP, but that those countries' citizens would enjoy a better standard of living than purely looking at GPD would seem to indicate due to the unaccounted for benefits of a less polluted environment?

Since everyone around the world faces the same oil prices, after transportation costs and trade barriers are accounted for, ceterus paribus a country would only use less oil, or rather consume the oil it already uses more efficiently, if it was a matter of public policy. Why? Simply because without government intervention, the market will reach some determination as to what energy prices should be, what kind of vehicles are produced, so forth and so on. The choices consumers make as to what products benefit them the most will drive this process. Now, as a matter of public policy governments can for example introduce regulations to improve fuel economy in motor vehicles. However, implementing these regulations that would by their very own nature alter what the market would have indicated was most preferable can't be costless. Say without any government intervention, determined by market forces alone the average vehicle has a fuel economy of 11km/l. Suppose now the government, as a matter of public policy, decides that average fuel economy should be increased to 15km/l. Automakers will need to spend resources to redesign existing vehicles, or design entirely new vehicles in order to meet with this higher standard. The cost of impementing this policy will depend upon how large the difference is between the original market-driven average and the government-regulated average, but one thing for sure is that it will cost something.

How does this public policy impact GDP? In the short-term there will be a cost to redesign vehicles, engines, and the like and this price will be paid directly by auto purchasers, automaker investors, and auto workers. The effects will ripple throughout the economy and have a negative effect on GDP in the short-term. In due course, public policy will also lower the countries' demand for and consumption of oil as more fuel efficient vehicles are introduced into the marketplace. Assuming that this is a relatively large oil consumer like the U.S., the long-term decreased domestic appetite for oil will translate into lower global demand for oil and lower oil prices. This will eventually fuel economic growth as energy costs seen by manufacturers, transporters and consumers are reduced. However it's not over yet, as this growth itself will fuel more future demand for oil! The short-term impact on GDP is definitely negative, but there's also a positive long-term benefit to the reduced domestic demand for oil that in due course will be eventually degraded as the economic growth brought about by lower oil prices will eventually increase oil prices. Exactly how this plays out depends on how much oil that country uses as a share of total global oil consumption, and how much change in domestic oil demand results from this policy. These two factors will directly impact world oil demand and subsequently world oil prices. As you can surmise, actions of small countries will have less impact on the world oil market as opposed to larger ones and so smaller countries will benefit less from this type of efficiency regulation. The overall long-term economic impact is ambigious in the case of a large oil consumer like the U.S., but most probably negative for a small country.

This of course has not yet touched on the benefits of reducing air pollution. There are some benefits which can be quantified like reduced health care costs and increased worker productivity, but more generally it's hard to measure any benefits beyond the immediately obvious ones. This is why something like Kyoto is so difficult to analyze as the costs of global climate change is nearly undeterminable simply because we don't understand global weather patterns well enough to accurately forecast the amount of change that will actually occur and the direct impact that this change will have on the environment. Therefore it's not surprising that cost estimates of this type of international public policy vary wildly and are to be considered unreliable to say the least.

Thank you very much. You obviously have a better grasp of ecomnomics than myself! Having read your text am I right to summise that GDP numbers quoted in relation to environmental policy impact cost (and therefore the "merit" of an environmental policy) is not a particularly good indicator? - it is somewhat ambiguous and open to large fluctuations from in built assumptions? What I'm driving at is - Should we not attempt to use significantly different indicators - as well as GDP - when assessing policy merit?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Iwentsouth]

More evidence of Europe stacking deck against America. You thought countrys had to use 1990 as the base..not true. If there emmisions were higher they used there highest or almost highest emmisions as the base number.


http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/kyoto_five.htm

The year 1990 should be the base year for the estimation and reporting of inventories. According to the provisions of Article 4.6 of the Convention and decisions 9/CP.2 and 11/CP.4, the following Annex I Parties, that are undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, are allowed to use a base year or a period of years other than 1990, as follows:

Bulgaria: to use 1988

Hungary: to use the average of the years 1985 to 1987

Poland: to use 1988

Romania: to use 1989

Slovenia: to use 1986


How very fair. The site has chart that shows the scam the Europeans are trying to pull on us.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Iwentsouth
More evidence of Europe stacking deck against America. You thought countrys had to use 1990 as the base..not true. If there emmisions were higher they used there highest or almost highest emmisions as the base number.


http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/kyoto_five.htm

The year 1990 should be the base year for the estimation and reporting of inventories. According to the provisions of Article 4.6 of the Convention and decisions 9/CP.2 and 11/CP.4, the following Annex I Parties, that are undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, are allowed to use a base year or a period of years other than 1990, as follows:

Bulgaria: to use 1988

Hungary: to use the average of the years 1985 to 1987

Poland: to use 1988

Romania: to use 1989

Slovenia: to use 1986


How very fair. The site has chart that shows the scam the Europeans are trying to pull on us.

Those years - for those particular countries that are shaking off the effects of decades of communism/dictatorship - are set up with their baseline at near their highest emission levels. The question is does "the transition to a market economy" cut them any slack? Is it in the best interests to give them some extra breathing space over more advanced economies becuase of the state of their own economy/industry? This is the root cause of the decision and the actual question that must be answered.

So - the deck is stacked in that case - but is it fair to do so?

Secondly, what year would the US preferentially choose to minimise its necessity to cut emissions in the way outlined for the 5 countries above?

Cheers,

Andy

EDIT: I have extended this point with my next post.

 

[Fencer128]

Here is the link to the treaty.

The last page (annex B) shows the "quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment".

It shows the countries listed in the post above with an asterisk next to them. The asterisk footnote says:

"countries that are undergoing the transition to a market economy".

Here is a list (since we are so fond of GDP ) of GDP's from the 2002 CIA world factbook for each asterisked country:

Bulgaria purchasing power parity - $50.6 billion (2002 est.) - $6,600 per capita (2002 est.)
Croatia purchasing power parity - $38.9 billion (2002 est.) - $8,800 per capita (2002 est.)
Czech Republic purchasing power parity - $155.9 billion (2002 est.) - $15,300 per capita (2002 est.)
Estonia purchasing power parity - $15.2 billion (2002 est.) - $10,900 per capita (2002 est.)
Hungary purchasing power parity - $134.7 billion (2002 est.) - $13,300 per capita (2002 est.)
Latvia purchasing power parity - $20 billion (2002 est.) - $8,300 per capita (2002 est.)
Lithuania purchasing power parity - $29.2 billion (2002 est.) - $8,400 per captia (2002 est.)
Poland purchasing power parity - $368.1 billion (2002 est.) - $9,500 per capita (2002 est.)
Romania purchasing power parity - $152.7 billion (2001 est.) - $6,800 per capita (2001 est.)
Russian Federation purchasing power parity - $1.27 trillion (2002 est.) - $8,800 per capita (2002 est.)
Slovakia purchasing power parity - $66 billion (2002 est.) -$12,200 per capita (2002 est.)
Slovenia purchasing power parity - $36 billion (2002 est.) - $18,000 per captia (2002 est.)
Ukraine - $205 billion (2001 est.) - $4,200 per capita (2001 est.)

For a comparison, here is the US and UK:

US purchasing power parity - $10.082 trillion (2001 est.) - $36,300 per capita (2001 est.)
UK purchasing power parity - $1.52 trillion (2002 est.) - $25,300 (2002 est.)

The countries in bold are those with transitioning economies (recovering from decades of communism/dictatorship) who have chosen Kyoto baseline dates other than 1990. I'll let you do the maths on the combined GDP of those countries. The questions in this debate continues to be not so much:

"what is expected of us is wrong" but more "what is expected of others is not fair" and "it's not critical enough of a problem (if a problem at all) to bother spending money on".

Cheers,

Andy