Kyoto and the USA

[moot]

In a nutshell, why's the Kyoto environment treaty not of interest to the US (or the current govt)?

[Nilsen]

Prolly because it may put a slight hamper on economic growth.

[Ripsnort]

A good article  pointing out the flaws with the Kyoto treaty.

[GRUNHERZ]

Kyoto leaves countries like China and India with less strict envioronental regulations while imposing harsh standards on western economies..  

This is incredibly stupid and shortsighted and practically suicidal for the west for two related reasons.

First because India and in particular China are in a stage of incredible economic and industrial growth.  Historically the period where a nation pollutes the most and creates the biggest environmental disaters.  Yet Kyoto would impose far lower standards for these explosivly growing and polluting econmoies than for the west's more stable and cleaner ones...

Second this economic growth is leading to greater competition between those countries and the west. If they are allowed under the treaty to pullute at much greater rates while the west imposes on itself these harsh regulation this will be a huge economic and cost advantage for India and China. The result will be even higher profit margins for thewm, on top of cheap labor and of course even more outsourcing to these nations from the west..

No sane western economy should submint to this Kyoto nonsense...

[Nilsen]

The western countries has to set a good example before you can expect any other developing countries to care.

Reason for not signing is economical.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Nilsen


Reason for not signing is economical.

The extensive coverage given his statement showed how this attitude resonates well with the media and the public, many of whom have little patience with a "profits before environment" approach. But statements like Okalik's only have power if people really believe human activity has a significant negative impact on global climate. Do away with that doctrine and Kyoto reduces to another cost/benefit pollution debate, one that the treaty's supporters would have quickly lost.

The real question should have been, do most climate scientists support the doomsday scenarios of environmental extremists such as David Suzuki and others who have misled Environment Minister David Anderson?

Of course not. In the past few months, more and more climate scientists have been speaking out about the scientific flaws of Kyoto. These scientists are not funded by big oil or any commercial interests. However, many are funded by the federal government and so speaking out has been risky -- many of their peers, while sharing their skepticism about the foundation of Kyoto, have concluded that it is safer to say nothing than risk losing vital federal research dollars.

[Nilsen]

how convenient

[Charon]

The western countries has to set a good example before you can expect any other developing countries to care.

I don't think they're going to care all that much unless they are forced to care -- either through restrictive trade policy or an environment that is so polluted that unrest starts to develop.

Charon

[lazs2]

wouldn't it make sense to work on those who are doing the least to control pollution?

lazs

[moot]

Thanks!

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Nilsen
The western countries has to set a good example before you can expect any other developing countries to care.

Reason for not signing is economical.

China will not care unless law requires them to.  China is allready one of the worst environental offenders now, despit the fact that the west and even Japan has been implementing enviorental preservation and cleanup policies after their own industrial expansion and the huge disaters caused by it..  China has not learened anything or accepted thjose lessons..

[MrCoffee]

They should have a Los Angeles treaty. Where companies overseas that wish to keep the US in the WTO as a fair competitor must conform to an international pullution and recycle standard say within ten years with each year an incremental improvement. Etc... That would be the real fair thing to do. So anyways, that will never happen.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by moot
In a nutshell, why's the Kyoto environment treaty not of interest to the US (or the current govt)?

Economic suicide.

[Thrawn]

Global Warming is the problem, Kyoto is not the solution.


Wow, my very own sound bite!  

If nations followed the tenets of Kyoto, globabl warming will become worse.  Ask Lizking to give you an explanation, he convinced me.

[GRUNHERZ]

YOu mean somebody changed somebody elses mind on this BBS?