|
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
The problem with the Bush administrations refusal to ratify Kyoto IMO, was that it said it wouldn't sign anything that would hurt the US economy. That's a clear prioritization which taken to the extreme would mean that no matter what global disaster may be caused by CO2 emmissions then we will not see the Bush administration take any steps whatsoever to prevent that, unless some hitherto unknown approach to limiting global heating is discovered. I find that the real problem with Bush's refusal - if it only was the Kyoto accord in itself, then so be it, but the refusal to sign it was categorical I think. |
I remember that his exact words at the time were something along the lines of that "the American way of life will not be compromised" which, as you said, seems to be a pretty clear indication that no degree of economic sacrifice - via the Kyoto Protocol or any other means - will be made to curb global warming. While there isn't much doubt that some sacrifices would have to be made by the Americans were they to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, I think that the economic costs of its implementation are being highly overstated.
The most prominent argument is that the US would be punished and forced to reduce emissions where other economies would not, thus reducing the US's short to mid-term economic competitive advantage. There are, however, several problems with this. Firstly, the US has the highest per-capita and gross CO2 emission rates in the world (4% of the population and 25% of the emissions) and thus already has an advantage over the rest of the economies of the world in this regard. The EU for instance, has a population that is 55% greater than that of the US's (456 million compared to 295 million), yet creates just 63% of the emissions that the US does (link). Even so, EU nations - despite the fact that, by and large, their economies are not developed as that of the US's - have committed to greater reductions in CO2 emissions than would be expected of the US in the event that they were to ratify the protocol (link). This raises the question, if the EU can do it, why can't the US?
Then of course, there's the issue of China. Why should they be allowed to continue to increase emissions, the US asks, when the rest of the world can't? The answer is two-fold: the first, which most neoliberalized Americans will be unlikely to accept, is that China is still, like it or not, a developing economy. Many people still do not have easy access to electricity or running water and there are less personal vehicles in China than in Los Angeles alone. If we draw a distinction between "survival emissions" and "luxury emissions" then China should, theoretically, be allowed increases in CO2 emissions to ensure that essential services are provided to its citizens. Where the US is concerned, however, a small reduction in CO2 emissions would not involve the sacrifice of any of these essential services (people will still have access to power, water and cars for instance) whereas in China, India and - to a lesser extent - Russia, a mandatory reduction in CO2 emissions may make it difficult for the government to provide its people with these essential "survival" services. It might also be worth pointing out here that compared to Russia the US produces 4 times as many total CO2 emissions and twice the per-capita emissions, compared to China it produces twice the total emissions and nearly seven times the per-capita emissions and compared to India it produces about six times as many total emissions and some nineteen times the per-capita emissions - and the US are suggesting that reducing their CO2 emissions by a few percent is somehow unfair?
Besides all this though, the often overlooked fact is that - independantly of globally enforced treaties - China has actually been able to significantly reduce CO2 emissions despite meteoric economic growth:
| quote: | Earlier this year, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) released a report that found China's greenhouse gas emissions declined between 1996 and 2000 while its economy grew at a rapid pace. We based our report on U.S. government analyses: The Energy Information Administration and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had determined that China's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions -- the main cause of global warming -- declined 17 percent over that four-year span, despite economic growth of 36 percent. China was able to accomplish this feat by restructuring its economy, switching to cleaner energy sources and improving energy efficiency.
[...]
By contrast, U.S. emissions over the same period grew by approximately 70 million metric tons per year, approximately 5 percent. These newer, more reliable figures still provide enough evidence to argue that China has done more than the United States to combat climate change over the past decade. |
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/achinagg.asp
These reductions are greater than the reductions expected of any the Kyoto Protocol signaturies and several times greater than the emissions reductions that would be expected of the US were they to ratify it. Once again, if a developing economy can acheieve these results, why can't the US? How can US politicians possibly claim that affording China a theoretical increase in pollution under the Protocol is unfair when they are - without any real external pressure - already significantly reducing CO2 emissions and still acheiving solid economic growth?
Like I said before, the Kyoto Protocol is not a perfect solution and it will require many nations to make small, short-term sacrifices. Those who continue to wail and gnash their teeth, however, about the horrendous economic costs and the unfairness of the protocol have their fears significantly misplaced. Compared to the costs of inaction, the global implementation of the Kyoto Protocol comes relatively cheaply.
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) 
