Is Kyoto alive or dead?
Posted by Melody in General InterestSome news comments asked this question at the end of a year full of good and bad news on climate change policy. To mention just a few milestones,
- the Kyoto Protocol entered into force
- the EU ETS started
- hurricanes in the US and Central America showed that global warming can be dangereous
- the EU looks at new GHG cutting options in transportation and beyond
- Tony Blair causes confusion with his statements about climate change and economic growth, and talks "frankly" to George W. Bush about climate change policy
- US states sign an agreement for a regional GHG ETS
- the COP/MOP in Montreal ends without a binding commitment.
Forbes titled today: "Bye, bye, Kyoto", stating: "For the time being, then, Kyoto is essentially a western European proposition. With the Bush Administration and Australia opting out and the developing world no longer being asked to join, the European Union stands as the default supplier of signatories who are in a position to make significant reductions in carbon emissions. This seems anomalous, as China and India together send more tons of carbon into the atmosphere than all of western Europe combined, and the U.S. accounts for more than China and India together."
And summing up: "And yet it appears that even western Europe is not reducing emissions... The increase for western Europe as a whole was 5.4%... it is of possible interest that the increase in carbon emissions in the U.S. during those years was slightly lower (4.7%)."
And a comment from Moscow by Tatyana Sinitsina (RIA Novosti news agency) on United Press International: "2005 began very favorably for the Kyoto Protocol but has gradually changed from positive to pessimistic... Montreal gave the Kyoto Protocol a chance to start working towards full capacity. But how large can this capacity be without the United States, China and India, who are the main emitters of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? The chances of involving them in the Kyoto process are slim, and the enthusiasm of the European Union, even if supported by Russia, is clearly not enough.
Americans say that they are taking national measures to reduce dangerous emissions. And India and China claim that they need to catch up with the world's industrialized countries at all costs. This leaves little chance for the Kyoto Protocol."
Permanent link to this posting | e-mail this article | post a comment below
Michael --
I'm not sure I'm convinced by the negative press reports you cite, particularly regarding China. I posted a response over at Carbonara, Carbon-360's blog (http://blog.carbon-360.com/).
-- Peter
I would go even further and says that I disagree with Michaels assessment or at with least his listing of quotes. There are ample quotes available to show the opposite. Essential is that we have a formalised process going non both in the Kyoto as well as in the Climate Convention framework. Montreal succeeded to keep the door open for a future willing US administration to join again. Australia was already less hostile towards Kyoto in Montreal and some developing countries were willing to adopt climate commitments. But it is ashame that countries with half of worlds emissions meet outside the Kyoto Framework, play the press and negate Kyoto, while Kyoto contains the exact flexibility the US asked for. Walking out of Kyoto will not stimulate developing countries... Also a good development is that the EU trading scheme is up and running, soon for 27 countries, and joining later with Norway, Canada, Japan. And which companies operate the best under the EU ETS: probably US companies (see also here: http://community.newvalues.net/international/001225.shtml )
Of course, I am in support of the binding agreement idea of the Kyoto protocol. "Voluntary" commitments by companies, industries or even countries usually won't work, as political economical theory widely prooved. Painting the Kyoto idea black is definitely not the solution. Rather, it should be a race to the top. Don't we all believe that Europe is gaining a strategic technological and know-how advantage from its leadership role in climate protection?
Still, I like to cite controversial ideas here, to give us the opportunity to check our ideas against other point of views.
By the way, here is another one, which I feel you will all LOVE:... http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17785122%255E7583,00.html
By the way, to mention also some positive news, General Electric is joining the climate change abatement crowd: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1681287,00.html
If you are willing to buy a car, you will have to receive the loan. Furthermore, my father commonly utilizes a sba loan, which seems to be the most rapid.