US stands firm against post-Kyoto talks

[Judi Lynn]

US stands firm against post-Kyoto talks
Web posted at: 12/12/2004 2:25:1
Source ::: AFP
BUENOS AIRES: The United States is open to holding “informal gatherings” to discuss climate change as long as they do not pave the way to post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations, a US official said here on Friday at a major UN conference on climate change.

Argentina proposed this week that two “seminars” be held next year ahead of formal talks in November 2005 to address greenhouse gas emissions policy after the Kyoto agreement expires in 2012.

The European Union’s representative here, Yvo de Boer of the Netherlands, said the EU was very favorable to Argentina’s proposal.

But US senior climate negotiator Harlan Watson, repeating a statement he made earlier this week, said it was premature to begin post-Kyoto talks.
(snip/...)


http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Americas&month=December2004&file=World_News200412122251.xml



"climate negotiator Harlan Watson"
(professional liar or motivational speaker?)

[Judi Lynn]

1. Landfill Gas Recovery Project in Argentina is Helping to Turn Gas from Gar

Landfill Gas Recovery Project in Argentina is Helping to Turn Gas from Garbage into Development Benefits

Olavarría, Argentina, December 9, 2004

--The people of Olavarría in the province of Buenos Aires are seeing first hand, the development benefits that are possible under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, with the signing of the first carbon finance agreement in Argentina today—the Olavarría Landfill Gas Recovery Project. It is a project that signals the vast potential of landfill gas recovery projects throughout the developing world.

The Kyoto Protocol¾which, with Russia’s ratification, will now come into effect in February 2005¾is the 1997 agreement to limit climate altering greenhouse gas emissions by industrial countries. The CDM, a flexible mechanism of the Protocol, allows OECD countries to fulfill some of their greenhouse gas emission-reduction commitments through projects in the developing world, projects that reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and also contribute to sustainable development at the local level.

In 1999 the Municipality of Olavarría commissioned a sanitary landfill to dispose of the town’s solid waste. Five years later to help improve overall solid waste management practices and to address remaining environmental problems associated with waste disposal, i.e. odor and contamination of groundwater, the Municipality embarked on a new project to recover the gases emitted by the landfill. These gases are among those that contribute to climate change and global warming.
(snip)

The Olavarría Landfill Gas Recovery Project will capture and destroy the landfill gases through flaring. The resulting reductions in landfill gas emissions will be monitored, verified, certified and sold as verified greenhouse gas emission reductions to the Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF). The fund has agreed to purchase a total of 131,000 tons of carbon dioxide emission reductions equivalent. This partnership of four governments and 12 companies managed by the World Bank is designed to provide communities in developing countries, and in particular least developed countries with an opportunity to benefit from new investments in renewable energy and clean technology that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change, while measurably improving the welfare of the communities involved.
(snip/...)

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20292909~menuPK:34463~pagePK:64003015~piPK:64003012~theSitePK:4607,00.html

[mikh]

2. NZ has signed...

Halleluyah!
We in New Zealand occupy a tinpot, constipated (but politically correct) little country about the size of Oregon (with great scenery) and have embraced Kyoto and all the mumbo jumbo that goes with it. Our near neighbour Australia, won't sign - and of course India and China will have nothing to do with it, and neither (I read this morning) will have Intellectual Giant Michael Crichton ("Jurassic Park" and now "State of Fear").
I think it means (gulp) that as the sceptics voices get louder that Kyoto's dead in the water. Even though Putin has put up.
Oh no!
I like Bjorn Lomborg's comment though. Although he is a believer in man-made global warming says, "...If the Crichton story can help us to say we do over worry...then maybe it can serve some good purpose."

[Just Me]

7. If ever having the opportunity,...NZ would be the place I'd live.

NZ has one of the most transparent and accountable governances in the world.

You NZians are quite special!!!

:bounce:

[mikh]

10. ...thanks...

(Love that little bouncing green person!)

[sweetheart]

3. US? Seems like criminal minority

Why don't well tell the truth. A criminal group of corporatists...
the Confederate States Authority denies science, proof, evidence
and the kyoto protocol. There is no "US" denying this... just some
whackjob election fraudsters and their lying apologists in the media.

[mikh]

4. Well, not really....

There's a bit more to it than that...the link below and the precis of the article quoted from it is very interesting. I think we have to embrace diversity of opinion a bit here and be a little more tolerant.
The issue is complex. Please check out the link below.

http://www.policynetwork.net/main/index.php

Save the planet and the third world will pay
2004-12-05
Barun Mitra
Barun Mitra, co-author of Climate change and sustainable development (released 29 November 2004), writes "Not surprisingly, Kyoto does not sound convincing to the world’s poor. For what this present debate over climate change has done is to divert attention from the core issue of mankind — poverty." Mitra discusses a salient economic lesson from history — "increased consumption stimulates efforts at improving efficiency, which in turn contributes to conservation, economic and environmental... The Kyoto protocol seeks to reverse this relationship by focusing on reducing consumption through punitive taxes and so on, which will not ultimately help conservation goals."

[sweetheart]

5. then where is the alternative response?

If the USA believes, collectively, that kyoto is innefective, then
lets hear the counter-proposal? It seems that negativism is the
only proposal.

I respect that kyoto is flawed. It is incumbent then, upon the
nation doing the most polluting, to offer an alternative... and
institutional denial and the sidelining of science is not that.

Bullshit that cutting emissions costs jobs. Bullshit that it costs
growth. That is pure bush doublespeak. I hope that if you're
saying that americans are not for kyoto, that we have some even
more comprehensive alternative. As it appears, it seems that that
alternative is to hope the polar ice caps melt so we can drive
ships over the north pole in the winter and drill for oil in the
arctic.

... and (on edit) kyoto was not to prevent poverty, it was to prevent
a disastrous climate problem caused by pollution. The way past
this hurdle is a symboiotic economic linking with the planet whole
to economically reward environmental intelligence.... and what does
the USA propose?

[mikh]

6. Alternatives?

...I don't know what your administration specifically believes or specifically proposes...but to agree with Kyoto is to accept that it will work to effectively reduce global temperatures.
With respect I don't think it will.
And with respect also, I think the threat of runaway global warming leading to cataclysmic end-of-the-world disaster has been overplayed.

Re the first point, if Kyoto doesn't apply to China and India, huge ecomomies growing at huge rates, then it is hopelessly compromised anyway.
As to the second point, I am sceptical about how much temperature rise we can really expect, and how much of this is due to natural (ie, solar) causes rather than carbon emissions.
And if carbon is such a problem, let's follow the urgings of James Lovelock,(author of The Gaia Hypothesis) and make a huge increased and increasing committment to nuclear energy....

[Just Me]

8. If profitteering were disciplined,...and investment into the future,...

,...of humanity were made a priority,...this exchange wouldn't even be necessary.

Weigh "greedy consumptionism" against "best interests of humanity".

GREED,....HUMANITY.

GREED,....HUMANITY.

GREED,....HUMANITY.

Choose.

[mikh]

9. Greed?

...or humanity?

Well it's hard to believe that the question is quite that simple.
If it was then I don't think that we would be sitting round enjoying the incredible luxury of international communication by tapping into our keyboards. (Food and other sustenance within easy reach.)

We'd be living in societies that are by today's standards oppressive and totalitarian. North Korea comes to mind.

[sweetheart]

12. Disputing climate change?

The fact of the receeding arctic ice sheet is quite striking, as
clearly the planet's eco-system is buffering the effects of this
pollution.

Clearly where you live, the effects of climate change are minimal,
in some parts of the world, like the UK, the effects are already
quite intense with flooding and less snow fall, that certain crops
are now cultivatable further north in britian due to the warming.
It seems the only people who will dispute the climate change are
those who don't need silly things like evidence to base claims on.

Were my administration to focus on this area, i would demand another
summitt and a comprehensive accord that includes china and india.
In this accord, we would create a market for pollution credits and
environmental footprints, that would be required from all corporations
who are polluting this planet.

This would involve particular charges for waste and irresponsible
pollution, "pollution tax" to recoup the public costs of the issue
and to make it unprofitable to be a polluter. All corporations that
wish to do business in the US, would be required to follow that rule.

I, unlike many at DU, believe that a progressive sales tax is the
solution. This would allow certain supply chains that have excessive
damage to the public environment; that these are charged the tax,
and not the clean supply chains. An obvious factor of that, would
be the gasoline tax, that would, overnight, charge at the pump the
full cost that the taxpayer subsidizes for petrol. This would make
humvee drivers pay for wars, tankers, refineries and all the tax free
goodies that the lobbiests have bought their standard oil buddies
over the past century.

To be frank, i don't think any change needs be made except tweaking
the tax code to remove artificial support for polluting industries.
I would also revise the sarbanes oxley sculduggery with something
substantial. Corporate results should report the full scope of
environmental variables, including the emissions and energy usage
of the company, (and all buildings)... that public ratings allow
the stock markets to punish abusers using markets, and not politics.

So, yes, i don't support kyoto either, but i do have an alternative
that would work much better, and would lead the world by example,
as the US should be doing given its economic poll position of times
past. We should be leading the world in this regard, as otherwise,
one has to be totally cynical to suggest how 9 billion people of
a few decades will be able to get on with climate change if its
a problem with today's 6 billion. The problem is overpopulation
at root, and letting certain supply chains that enforce the wrong
methodology run roughshod over the public common is criminal.

[mikh]

13. ...thanks and...

...very interesting and thought provoking. Kyoto hasn't had much support in this thread so far.

But re over-population; may I differ a little?

It's hard to see that over-population is a problem for the planet at all, when the most densely populated parts, ie, in the industrialised world; are among the most wealthy (and I don't believe that wealthy societies owe their wealth to the world's poor). In addition, I've done some simple work with a calculator that suggests (and my maths skills are woeful....please correct me if I'm wrong) that 6 billion people - if given standing room only - ludicrous I know - but stay with me, would only occupy an area of around about 130 square kilometres.
In addition the work of Julian Simon, Bjorn Lomborg and others reinforce the theory that corruption and mismanagement are the real culprits for poverty and hunger (and arguably for the most extreme pollution of the planet - witness Eastern Europe) rather than "supply chains".

[CHIMO]

14. Beliefs Are Common

Today.
Maybe you could throw around some references showing that the insects will manage to survive the abrupt changes in the world environment.
Dr. Suzuki in a recent presentation pointed out that there are 6 billion people in the world. For every person on the face of the earth there are 2 million insects.
Need one say that the odds are pretty good that some of them will survive any unexpected change. Unless one is 100% sure that they have all the answers, then one is dealing with unknowns.
Thus one should be safe rather than sorry.

[Frozen Hamster]

15. Over-population is a problem

because while the human population has a tendency to grow exponentially, the food-supply can only grow linearly. Already most of the commercial fishing species are over-hunted and many are on the verge of collapse, or can't handle any abrupt environmental change.

[CHIMO]

17. Models

Are just that. Models.
The limitations on models are often not given because they are not recognized as assumptions or limits.
Tendency. Exponential. Linear.
These words can be used to develop models.
Limited growth, complicated histories and long periods of individual development all have to come into the model.

The fact remains. If you keep on shitting on your doorstep you are not going to live there too long.

If we are going into global warming, or creating climate extremes, then we are going into new territory that we have not yet been able to define clearly. But from the best scientific evidence we are going there.

[neweurope]

20. Wealthy countries don't owe their wealth to the poor?

Sorry, but you have some thinking to do.

And no, overpopulation won't be much of a problem. It never is in nature. Once a population of any species grows too big, it collapses. We're one step away from that. Not my favorite scenario, though, especially given the fact that it will probably happen through nuclear warfare which will endanger every other species on this planet. :cry:

Pollution is a direct result of industrialization. Of course it gets worse when you add mismanagement and corruption; the US aren't the biggest polluters of the world for nothing.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

21. China and India are trying to catch up

And should be included in the treaty for the U.S. to sign. It should impact everybody fairly. Then we should sign it.

[neweurope]

23. *sigh* Whatever happened to the idea of giving a good example?

[mikh]

24. ...thank you...

...you are so right.
If they don't the whole thing is meaningless.
Otherwise their rapidly growing ecomomies, dependent in the main on fossil fuels (coal in particular) will continue unabated. If we are sincere about greenhouse gases and their effects on our shared environment, the exclusion of India and China simply doesn't make sense.

[Judi Lynn]

27. Apparently we underestimated George W. Bush, then.

He sounds like a citizen of the world, conscientious, and far-thinking by refusing to sign the Accord. And we doubted him!



Bush, the visionary!

:eyes:

[mikh]

25. Of course.

...I never stop thinking.

[struggle4progress]

11. kick

:kick:

[Frozen Hamster]

16. Kyoto is better than nothing at all

Most politicians who criticize the Kyoto treaty have no other alternative strategy, Shrub is content to let the US pollute a much as it can. Global warming is real, it has consequences and we need to do something about it. Kyoto not ideal but it's the best we got.

[neweurope]

18. Kyoto can only be seen as a first step. The US

won't even take that.

They are obstructing and downright fighting literally everything that could make this world a better place.

I don't know too much about this matter. But I know that each and every environmentalist in my country and the rest of Europe is PRO Kyoto. That's enough for me.

[mikh]

26. Kyoto

...is a clumsy attempt at global income re-distribution. Its science is flawed, its design is preposterous and it's an outright failure.It may even mark the beginning of the end of the radical left green movement internationally.

[NuttyFluffers]

19. oh, fer cryin' out loud, when will the world ignore us already?!

i mean, how much more of this must we all put up with? seriously, the rest of the world, you have my absolute blessings to just ignore us and go about your business as if US was a non-entity. and even though we consume like 25% of the world's resources all you have to do is reassign your trade links and just resource deprive america. just ignore us already. half of america is ignoring america already, just hurry up and join the crowd and ignore us as a factor. just assume we are recalcitrant assholes and work around us as if we don't matter. eventually, with enough dismissal we really will fade away and not matter.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Majority of bush supporters thought bush supported the Kyoto treaty

Duhhh SURPRISE, idiots!

Dumb as dirt rightwingnuts.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf