Bush is accused of hot air as Kyoto comes into force

[True_Blue]

The Bush administration was accused yesterday of deception after it claimed it was making a serious commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, despite its non-participation in the Kyoto agreement.

Environmentalists said policies introduced by the government would not prevent the continued increase in emissions from the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluter and were little more than fig leaves.

"The bottom line is that emissions are going up and with the current Bush administration policies they are going to continue to go up," said Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defence Council, an environmental group. "It's misleading for them to claim they are seriously committed to reducing global warming."

President George Bush withdrew US backing for the Kyoto protocol in March 2001, saying it would be too damaging to the country's economy and would cost five million jobs. He also claimed the agreement was based on unreliable science and unfairly excluded developing nations such as India, China and Brazil, which account for a third of the world's population. Though the US originally put its signature to the proposal, it was opposed so adamantly by the US Senate that it was never submitted for ratification by President Bill Clinton.

more....
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=611772

[Southsideirish]

1. We are made small and humiliated before the civilized world due to this...

person.

[98geoduck]

2. Bush to continue blowing smoke out of his ASS!

[truthisfreedom]

3. the ONLY people fooled by bush are the kool-aid drinkers.

we, and the rest of the world, are neither fooled nor amused.

[airfoil]

4. You'd be surprised at the real story...(see end of post)

Environmentalists said policies introduced by the government would not prevent the continued increase in emissions from the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluter and were little more than fig leaves.

There is some very good data here that suggests the environmentalists are far from accurate with this statement. Located here (http://www.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/congressional_test_031103.html) is the text from an address from the assistent secretary on energy efficiency for the US.

There is a super-critical datapoint in here that is important to understand:

We have made tremendous progress in increasing the efficiency of energy used in our economy over the past 30 years. From 1972 to 2000, the energy used per dollar of GDP produced fell by roughly 40 percent.

What this says is that we can make $1 worth of "stuff" (food, electronics, medicine, etc) for just 60% of what we could 30 years ago. In other words, todays America produces nearly twice as much for the same amount of energy.

That is a staggering improvement.

You also need to factor in the speed at which GDP is produced in America. For example, an America citizen is 50% more efficient than their European counterpart in terms of GDP/capita. Anytime you ask something to deliver more with less, it'll consume disproportionately more energy. A car going 40 MPH consumes gas at a rate much higher than 2X a car going 20 MPH. If we opted to reduce our GDP/capita to European levels, we'd need 15+% fewer workers.

Next, you must factor in that the US has been prevented from relying on nuclear energy on the scale many others that have signed on to Kyoto have. This makes it VERY hard for us to compete with countries like Japan and many in the EU that get substantial power from non-CO2 producing nuclear plants.

So, we really have 3 choices here:

1) Reduce our productivity rate to match that of the EU, and substantially reduce our work force
2) Eliminate coal-fired generation plants and replace them with nuclear plants
3) Try to make due with what we have and continue to drive the tremendous efficiency improvements we've been driving for the last 30 years.

If you are sitting there thinking "what about solar, wind and wave power?" then just keep on dreaming. There isn't a single Kyoto country that is relying on ANY of those to meet their goals because the math just doesn't work. The recipe for meeting Kyoto is NUKE NUKE NUKE. Japan knows it, Germany knows it, France knows it, Finland knows it, Korea knows it, etc etc

When you say you want Kyoto AND wind/solar/wave/bio you might as well be asking for a way to eat everything you want and not gain an ounce. Both requests deny the laws of physics.

I have a theory on why Bush is anti-Kyoto. Kyoto is blueprint for nuclear power: it's the only way to meet Kyoto's requirements long term. That doesn't sit well with Bush's oil agenda.

[Supersedeas]

5. and Nuclear Power in places like Iran is a baaaaad idear.

[mojavekid]

7. Good points airfoil,

and I agree that the * administrations economic/energy policy is predicated on Oil. Bush realizes that any move away from Oil, would make it harder for America to project power Globally and even Nationally. And * is perfectly aware that Peak Oil is eminent.

[idlisambar]

8. GDP per energy consumption is a misleading metric

"We have made tremendous progress in increasing the efficiency of energy used in our economy over the past 30 years. From 1972 to 2000, the energy used per dollar of GDP produced fell by roughly 40 percent.

What this says is that we can make $1 worth of "stuff" (food, electronics, medicine, etc) for just 60% of what we could 30 years ago. In other words, todays America produces nearly twice as much for the same amount of energy."

No doubt there has been some improvement in energy efficiency, but not 40 percent unfortunately. The reason is that GDP is not a useful measure of "output", because (among other reasons) adjustments are made for the "quality" of goods not just the quantity. For example, a car that has power windows is considered of higher quality than one that doesn't and so a corresponding quality fudge factor is added to a car's "output". It is estimated that more than the output for automobiles over the last 30 years due to "quality adjustments" is over twice double what it would be considering "quantity" of autos alone.

Other goods, especially IT-related goods, get similar treatment.

[airfoil]

9. Fair point, but also....

Very fair point, and the link in your sig looks very interesting.

I'd offer a point to consdier: As long as the gross margin on the items being made are close, then they can be fairly compared over long time spans. The problems in comparison become true when the gross margin on one items is much different than the gross margin on another. As we have evoloved into a more "luxurious" society expecting more and and more creature comforts, then the gross margin tends to be driven up. However, we're much more global than we were 40 years ago, and that has had the impact of dramatically driving down the gross margins on goods. So, in the end, we need somethign to compare and short of having long term historical data on margins from GM, Ford, etc, there's no other way to compare. We have to figure it all balances in the end somewhat :)

[idlisambar]

11. I'm not sure about your point

As long as the gross margin on the items being made are close, then they can be fairly compared over long time spans.

I can't see how a consideration of gross margins fits into the issue. Looking back at my post I garbled it a bit. Take a look here for a better explanation of what I was trying to say, it refers to the calculation of the PPI, but the same quality adjustments are used in the calculation of the GDP deflator -- the measure of inflation used to get from nominal to real GDP.

"When changes in physical characteristics of a product cause product cost differences, however, the Bureau attempts to make an accurate assessment of real price change by taking account of quality differences systematically. The explicit quality adjustment method is especially important for automobiles, machinery, and other types of goods that undergo periodic model changes. For these goods, the usual method of quality adjustment involves the collection of data from reporting companies on the costs they have incurred in connection with the quality change. For example, if the price of a new model car is $500 more than the previous model year’s version and $200 of that increase is due to the extra product cost and normal margin associated with the addition of government-mandated safety equipment, then the real price has risen by only $300. The change in the passenger car index will reflect only that amount, not the nominal price rise of $500."

http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch14_b.htm


By the way, welcome to the DU :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. And yet the USA lags most other developed countries

even in the USA's preferred measure of energy used per GDP (no that that is necessarily a good measure - why should a more affluent lifestyle excuse you polluting more?)

2001: energy consumption (kg oil equivalent) per $1000 GDP:

Canada 309
France 189
Germany 178
Italy 128
Japan 173
UK 172
USA 253

cf
China 237
India 226

source: UN
Isn't it time Americans got their act together, and caught up with China and India in terms of energy efficiency?

[airfoil]

13. You must consider GDP/capita

What you have noted above is roughly equivalent to comparing miles per gallon. It's a fair comparison if you are comparing two very similar cars, but it's nonsensical if you are comparing a motorbike and a 747. The next level down requires you to look at GDP per capita: how much does each citizen contribute to the GDP. Here we see that the US cranks 50% more GDP per citizen than the EU and Japan, and about 40% more than Canada. It's an astounding achievment.

Why is this important? Because doing more work faster will always consume disproportionately more energy. Your car might get 40 MPG at 35 MPH, but it might only get 25 MPG at 70 MPH. Why? Because you have asked the car to do the work more quickly and non-linear frictions in the system must be overcome. A motorbike that gets 60 MPG doesn't really help if you have to move 10,000 pounds of tomatoes across California. So, we use big noisy trucks that get 3 MPG to move things like tomatoes. But guess what? It's better to make one trip in a truck that gets 3 MPG than 250 trips on a motorcycle that gets 60 MPG.

Working more efficiently has incredible benefits. It allows a nation to build wealth more quickly and that in turn is why our poorest citizens live considerably better than the poorest citizens in other countries.

Make no mistake, other nations strive every year to increase their productivity because it helps nations compete in open markets. In closed markets, it's completely different. In those cases you want very LOW productivity as it keeps everyone employed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. No, I don't think mpg is a valid comparison

because, as you note, mpg measures how much you use to move a vehicle, when it's really the number of people or tomatoes that you are concerned with. So, we either look at energy per GDP, or energy per capita - because what we're worried about is the amount of energy that is being used - either to produce a good lifestyle, or just to keep people alive. But the USA is even more inefficient in energy per capita. The problem is that the USA is being too greedy - using too much, demanding too much end consumption, and not giving a toss how much pollution is produced as a result. If this were just a matter of the USA having to work harder to do it, that might be OK - but the American CO2 pollution hurts the whole world.

And I don't think the poorest Americans are better off than the poorest in other industrialized countries. The USA has much more inequality. It's just the richer Americans who are better off the the richer Europeans and Japanese - and who use more energy, and produce more carbon dioxide.

You have to get out of the mindset that growth is always good. There are real limits to what the environment can stand - and the evidence is that we're hitting them right now. If the whole world behaved like the USA, we'd have already crashed.

[airfoil]

16. Let's get back to real data...

I think you missed my (perhaps unclear) point so I'll try from another angle. A company doesn't tune their manufacturing process to make things for the minimum amount of energy. They tune their manufacturing process to make things for the minimum amount of money OR the minimum amount of time. I could theoretically make a 747 for much less energy than Boeing makes one. But it would take me hundreds of years and thus it isn't worth it.

My point is this: making things faster and cheaper requires more energy. That is where our energy goes, and it's reflected in our very high productivity figures (GDP/capita). We could make less things slower, but that'd put people out of work. (You also must factor in the geographic distances in the US along with our colder temperatures in the north. Either you believe that Canada is even more greedy than the US and that explains their (even higher) CO2 output per GDP OR you acknowledge that geography and climate factor into it too). And at the end of the day our CO2/GDP is just 30% higher than France while our unemployment numbers are 40% less. Hey! those figures might somehow be related!

The wealth distribution in the US and the EU aren't that far apart. In the US the upper 10% of the population earns about 30% of the total available income. In Europe it's 25%.

Of those identified as "poor" in the US: 38% own homes, 62% of households own a car, 14% have two or more cars, half have air conditioning, etc. Now, make no mistake, poverty is a serious problem in this country. But there is "poor" and living in a mobile home with 2 cars, cable with adequate food and a crappy job, and then there is POOR when you live in the street and die from starvation. The latter doesn't happen in the US unless someone has very serious mental issues.

[PaulaFarrell]

19. I disagree with you on most points

I seriously challenge your viewpoint that poor people in the states are better off than poor people in Europe - that's absolutely false. In the UK, you get free healthcare, a minimum amount of money each week, housing benefit, etc etc. I can't think of an 'old Europe' state that doesn't have national healthcare and a functional socioal welafre system. Poor people may have cars in the States, but they are often not safe to drive (I know form experience) - however, to do anything in most places in the US, especially work, a car is mandatory. In Europe, there are viable public transport systems in all the large cities, and in most of the smaller ones.

You talk about the benefits of one trip in a large truck, as opposed to a shitload of trips on a motorbike. Fair point, but the problem is the people in the States have the least efficient cars and they also drive them the most. 30% of people in the UK do not even have access to a car, and the cars are on the whole much more fuel efficient (although the SUV craze is taking off here as well).

You say that the reason the US uses so much power is because it's more effiecient; I say bullshit. I mean, in Texas people don't even have double glazing, the AC and heating blaze all day, even when no one's home, and the houses just keep getting bigger and bigger.

You specifically mention France, saying that unemployment in the US is 40% less, and CO2 is just 30%higher. This isn't really meaningful. The difference should be compared as to total people employed. In France 90% of a work force of 27 million is employed; in the US 94% of a workforce of 147 million. SO an increase in the number of people working in the US is 4% of 90, which is what, about 3%? Yet this is supposed to account for a 30% increase in CO2 per head? And yet you put this down to an INCREASE in productivity - it sounds exactly the opposite to me. A country with a similar standard of living (better once you calculate the massive increase in vacation time) uses 1/3 less energy to achieve it. France also has about half the percent of people living below the poverty line (12% to 6.5) and a longer life expectancy. Both countries have a similar percent of GDP resulting from manufacturing too, BTW.

AS for manufacturing things cheaper and faster - aren't most things manufactured outside the US now? They are definitely made cheaper today, but again, it's not due to efficiency, it's due to goods being made in sweatshops, and companies moving to the area which will let them cut their costs the most.

Productivity is a figure which is manipulated by economists - as mentioned previously, productivity is inflated for higher-spec goods, e.g. computers, even though realistically you cannot buy the low-spec verson anymore. This is inaccurate at best.

[airfoil]

22. We have to rely on numbers to guide us

I'd be happy to read an article talking about how much better off the poor are in Europe than in the US that is backed with data. Too much stuff is based on emotions and what someone saw on a visit. I've been to London many times, Birmingham many times and Cambridge many times. The train ride from Londom to Birmingham doesn't really instill much confidence in what you say about the poor being better off. I also took the train once from CDG down to Paris. Holy crap. I thought I was in a 3rd world country. But as I said, let's not rely on limited first-hand experience and instead fall back on real data.

Your second paragraph about texas is, again, nothing but anecdotal evidence. New homes in the UK and US both have thermal-paned windows, I can assure you.

Manufacturing, service and agricultural breakdown are very similar for the US and UK in terms of % of GDP: 1.4% agricultura, 26.2 industrial, and 72.5% services. The EU as a whole sits at 2.3% ag, 28.3% industry, and 69.4% service.

EVERYTHING happens faster if you apply more energy to it. Fields grow faster, factories run faster, software is developed faster.

Yes, the productivity figure can be manipulated. So can all figures. And that is exactly what got us onto this discussion, right? Should we spend $100T and implement Kyoto if it does nothing? Of course not. Shoudl we spend $1M and implement Kyoto if it stops global warming? Of course we should.

All we are doing is debating the numbers here. I'm sure you'd agre that Kyoto isn't it worth if it cost 1000 Iraq wars and only reduced the temperature by 0.05 degrees and caused massive unemployment world wide (all made up, but I'm just trying to pick an extreme so you'd agree).

So, let's talk about the numbers and leave emotions and anecdotal evidence on the side for now!

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Report from Social Policy Research Centre, Australia, 2002

Comparing Living Standards Across Nations: Real Incomes at the Top, the Bottom and the Middle

Conclusion:

When we translate all incomes into ‘real’ PPP-adjusted incomes, we find that rankings of countries and living standards can be quite different depending on where in the income distribution we focus and on which group we focus (e.g., overall vs. children). Clearly the nation with the highest real GDP per capita and the highest real disposable equivalent income per person is also the most unequal. And this inequality manifests itself in terms of relatively and absolutely lower living standards at the bottom of the United States income distribution, especially for children.

The distributions of noncash benefits are not expected to change these findings by much. While public noncash spending is relatively larger than cash spending in the three low cash-spending nations of Australia, Canada, and the United States, we know that noncash benefits may vary according to both quality of services provided and the amount of income paid for them by consumers. Perhaps, most importantly, we do not know how low-income families value noncash benefits relative to cash benefits. While health and education benefits received below cost most certainly improve well-being, many lowcash-income families might prefer to receive the benefits in more flexible cash terms. (Canberra Group 2001, Chapter 4). If this is the case, we cannot simply add noncash incomes to cash incomes without overstating the real incomes of poor families.

The findings have political and policy implications as well. United Kingdom children have the lowest real living standards of any of the children observed here. But they also have a Prime Minister who has set a national goal of improving living standards and eradicating child poverty in Britain over the next decade, and who has matched his political rhetoric with some modicum of real fiscal and community efforts (Bradshaw 2001; Walker and Wiseman 2001; Micklewright 2001). In contrast, the United States is led by a President whose slogan ‘leave no child behind’ is rather hollow and whose fiscal stance is to use income tax reductions for the rich and fiscal stringency for the poor to further increase the overall gap between rich and poor United States children. As we have seen, the gap between American rich and poor children is already the highest, even accounting for the effect of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) which has increased the income of United States children in the 10th percentile by a substantial amount since the early 1990s. Instead of public dollars for children, the United States President prefers voluntary ‘faith based efforts’ which are complementary to, but are not substitutes for, adequate public safety nets.

Unfortunately, analyses such as the one presented here have not had a substantial effect on these policies. It is often remarked that analyses of living standards and child outcomes are better and more complete for the United States than for any other nation (e.g., Mickewright 2001). Unfortunately these analyses do not easily transform themselves into policy actions or into better outcomes for United States children.

http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/dp/DP120.pdf

See in particular Figure 2 on page 23. Only the UK and Australia have a lower absolute income for the poorest 10% of society than the USA; France, Germany etc. all have higher incomes. And Bush's policies, as we know, have directed money to the well off, not the poor, since those figures.

[PaulaFarrell]

Firstly, we don't have to rely on numbers to guide us

Everything in life can't be reduced to cost-benefit. There is such a thing as quality of life, and there are things that a number value can't be put on. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you. I'm sorry, but being human I just can't put my emotions to one side.

I know it's just anecdotal but having been poor in both England and the US, I can say that in England I have never had to worry about whether the baby was sick enough that it was worth blowing the week's grocery money to take her to the doctor. But somehow that's not a valid observation because it's not in a table somewhere.

And yeah, some of the trains may be crap, but they're there, meaning people without access to cars can travel.

Also, US productivity is inflated due to longer hurs worked by people in the US - one of the longest, I think.

But you want to talk about numbers, but unfortunately haven't provided any actual figures. Fire away with some.

Your original statements were in effect justifying the higher CO2 use by the US by saying that it is because of the increased productivity. I still say that is not true. It's because there is almost zero energy consciousness in the states, people are profligate and I guess will continue to be so until energy prices go so high people can't afford it, or the government decides to impose some standards.

There is a lot of talk about the high cost of Kyoto, but you know, I have never seen any sort of breakdown of what these costs are. Maybe you know where to get one?

And finally, you throw in the Iraq war as some sort of cost measurement milestone. Are we talking the $200 billion plus in money or the lives lost and maimed and desolation inflicted? It makes a difference in my calculations.

[PaulaFarrell]

27. Firstly, we don't have to rely on numbers to guide us

Everything in life can't be reduced to cost-benefit. There is such a thing as quality of life, and there are things that a number value can't be put on. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you. I'm sorry, but being human I just can't put my emotions to one side.

I know it's just anecdotal but having been poor in both England and the US, I can say that in England I have never had to worry about whether the baby was sick enough that it was worth blowing the week's grocery money to take her to the doctor. But somehow that's not a valid observation because it's not in a table somewhere.

And yeah, some of the trains may be crap, but they're there, meaning people without access to cars can travel.

Also, US productivity is inflated due to longer hurs worked by people in the US - one of the longest, I think.

But you want to talk about numbers, but unfortunately haven't provided any actual figures. Fire away with some.

Your original statements were in effect justifying the higher CO2 use by the US by saying that it is because of the increased productivity. I still say that is not true. It's because there is almost zero energy consciousness in the states, people are profligate and I guess will continue to be so until energy prices go so high people can't afford it, or the government decides to impose some standards.

There is a lot of talk about the high cost of Kyoto, but you know, I have never seen any sort of breakdown of what these costs are. Maybe you know where to get one?

And finally, you throw in the Iraq war as some sort of cost measurement milestone. Are we talking the $200 billion plus in money or the lives lost and maimed and desolation inflicted? It makes a difference in my calculations.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

21. Sorry, but that's highly absurd

"and then there is POOR when you live in the street and die from starvation. The latter doesn't happen in the US unless someone has very serious mental issues."

Some of the most rational people are those who live on the street. The REAL truth is those who are starving on the street are so prejaduiced against no one wants to help them. It's the sole reason I'm sometimes against this 'we need to save the world' attitude. You may not realize, but there's an estimated thousands who die in our own streets per year, if not more. Just because someone has misfortune, especially in THIS current country as it is, doesn't make them mentally ill.

As for your facts, all facts make the pie chart. Just because someone has a single fact that aids you doesn't make every other fact wrong due to its existance. Because it seems inconveniant doesn't mean we shouldn't try, or else we'd allow murderers rapists and thieves to go free because they'd just get out again anyway.

[airfoil]

23. The numbers...

Agree. If someone doesn't want to be helped then there's not much that can be done.

We should TRY if RETURN ON INVESTMENT is reasonable. We should do something else if the ROI is poor.

Nobody has yet made a valid case that the ROI for Kyoto is reasonable. They have said things like "NY will flood if we don't!" or "Mother Earth will die if we don't!" Those are emotional arguments. When you are talking about this much money, you can decide based on emotional arguments.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. No, you're thinking like an economist

who thinks that endless growth is possible. In the real world, there are practical limits to what the planet can take. "NY will flood if we don't" is a perfectly good argument - because people will die if you carry on with policies as Bush wants to. It's not about investment, it's about survival. New Yorkers may be able to move out - but people in developing countries won't. They'll be held back at gunpoint, while their crops fail and people starve. And it's the pollution from the developed countries that will have caused this (which by that time may include China and India - or the better off in them, at least).

Kyoto is the best proposal so far for limiting the growth in carbon dioxide. Yes, it's only a beginning (though Bush has already tried to sabotage the follow up talks, indicating he's still a greedy sociopath), but people have to stop thinking about this as just a global business - if the world's climate is screwed up, millions die, wars are started, and the people who will be to blame are those who thought we could shit in our own home and leave it to our children to clear up.

[Occulus]

20. Thermal deploymerization, maybe?

If they can get the plants online quickly enough, that is...

[modrepub]

24. Does it add up?

Not sure on the energy efficiency thing. We have lost a lot of manufacturing and production facilities in the last 30 years. We are starting to see some of those make a comeback (steel, mining, "raw" materials). Surprisingly a lot of this is due to demand from China. Would like to see a direct comparison before I believe these claims.

On the power-plant front, building new plants would be a plus. Most of the ones we are using today are 30+ years old. We would be much better off if the older plants were decommissioned and new ones were built using newer technology (including the Nukes).

[Toots]

6. "it was opposed so adamantly by the US Senate"

Wonder how Kerry and Edwards voted on this one. :shrug: Democrats did not like this treaty either. The difference though is Democrats still want to do something to slow climate change. Republicans are going in the opposite direction.

[karynnj]

15. The vote was 95 to 0

So the inference is obvious. The Clinton administration wanted some things fixed before submitting it. In that time frame, with a sane President, why would anyone approve a treaty whose proponents felt needed more work before approving. If Al Gore would have become President after he won, the US would have been prominent in the effort to fix the Kyoto treaty and then probably with huge fan fare he would have pushed very hard for its passage.

Kerry, like Gore, really does have a good record on this. If you are genuinely interested in his current position he just made a speech at the Brookings Institute where one of his dominant themes was that in the current environment it's a mistake to look to Washington and pushes for states, companies,and foundations to get more involved. Now, does he know anyone who heads a foundation that has been involved on environmental issues?

[hatrack]

18. The Senate has never voted on the Kyoto Protocol

The 95-0 vote came on the Hagel-Byrd Resolution, a nonbinding "sense of the Senate" PR exercise.

Not that this is any more encouraging in terms of defining just how pathetic America's performance has been on climate issues.

[Massacure]

10. Bush's mouth releases more CO2 than the rest of Merika combined!

[SomewhereOutThere424]

17. That's terribly hypocritical of him

I wonder how many jobs the iraq war has cost us, but it was worth it despite no WMDs, and the fact saddam husseine was reduced to a cowering man with some underwear in a hole (that's not a figure I'm driven to be afraid of, sorry... well... maybe, but not in his threat to world peace sense ;)).

Who knows, maybe britain will take off where the US left environmental prosperity. You'd think that bush would be steamed about the UK being obviously better than the united states in something, but then again he probably hasn't found the right 'internets' for that kind of information anyway.