Demand for 'Kyoto Tax' on the US

[kskiska]

Countries refusing to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases should face trade sanctions, according to a British independent think-tank.

The United States has not signed the Kyoto agreement on climate change and Russia has indicated it may follow.

The New Economics Foundation wants the EU to tax imports from these countries because they enjoy a competitive disadvantage as energy costs increase.

Signed-up countries are currently meeting in Italy to discuss the treaty.

New Economics Foundation spokesman Andrew Simms told BBC Radio 4's Today programme EU countries would be within their rights to "work out the cost of the free ride America is getting" and raise that amount.

"There are very few signals the United States understands - they do understand economic signals," Mr Simms added.

more…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3296819.stm

[JailBush]

1. Yahoo!

If the American sheeple won't make George W. Bush clean up his act, I say let the international community do the job!

I suspect Dubya is going to get hit with a trade war, one way or another.

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. It's not just *

The Senate voted 95-0 AGAINST Kyoto.

If the Kyoto nations want a trade war, I expect they would not like the result.

[Mikimouse]

4. Well, that's OK, but

just because we are acting in a totally unprincipled and sophomoric manner, doesn't require the other, more mature nations of the world to do so as well. Kudos to the EU!

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Unprincipled?

How come Kyoto only impacts first world nations?

Shouldn't a true environmental law impact every nation?

[Mikimouse]

6. Considering the fact that many of the

'first world' industrial nations tend to spread their pollutants to the second and third world nations, I would argue that the Kyoto treaty would have a universal effect, in more than one way. It is hypocritical of the US to withdraw from the rest of the nations supporting Kyoto, while continuing to be the largest contributor to 'greenhouse gasses'and otehr pollutants. Many, if not most of the major polluters of the world are the large industrial nations with subsidiaries in the poorer nations of the world. And yes, I consider that unprincipled and unethical behavior.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Not exactly hypocritical

Only a crazy man hangs himself because others ask him to do so.

While the first world does indeed pollute more, it also does indeed produce more, research more, etc. Maybe it's not a balanced equation, but to expect one group to agree to suffer and let another group of nations ignore the rules is politically unrealistic.

And, to be honest, the U.S. didn't so much as withdraw. It never really agreed, nor would it. Remember, the Senate made it clear where it stood -- 95-0 against. Bill was trying to encourage support, but he knew better than to send it to the Senate.

Personally, I would love to see a universal plan that impacts all nations and we can get approved. I don't consider that likely.

[Fovea]

11. the goal is to cut greenhouse gas emissions

without causing the distruction of the economy of developing nations.
What Kyoto needs is clear definitions of when a nation's economy is sufficiently developed to kick in the Kyoto protocol.
I think China should be phased in by treaty into Kyoto.

But that will not happen unless Russia, the EU, and America all insist.

[aneerkoinos]

8. Real Trade War

would do wonders to diminish transportation and curb emissions, so of course we would like the result, very much! It's your definition of victory (Nunber One Glutton of the Globe) that we think is disgustingly irresponsible.

[Mokito]

2. Money talks

And at the moment it wants to scream its lungs out at b*, as do we all!

[tlb]

7. More justification for those who say Kyoto was ONLY to bleed US money

to third world nations in the form of trading pollution credits. Enron pushed strongly for the treaty in the belief they would get the middleman franchise. If the treaty has collapsed, a case can be made this tax is the next best way to chase the loot.

Kyoto would do two things, neither which would materially improve the enviromental situation. First it permits all the continued pollution we were prepared to pay for. Second it would encourage the ongoing trend of dirty industries ( and JOBS ) being transferred to third world states. States lacking their own EPA's, states indifferent to pollution control standards, states exempt from Kyoto.

The holes in the treaty led to the senate rejecting it without a SNGLE vote in its favor, and the Clinton administration totally abandoning any effort on behalf of ratification.

A serious pollution control treaty would apply equally to the industrial pollution wastelands such as those found in China and India. Kyoto just never struck me as a serious try for what it claimed to be.

[aneerkoinos]

9. Kyoto sucks

Of course it does. It will not make a difference per se. It was US that insisted and got the emissions trade in, EU wanted simple CO2 tax. US never did anything to produce an effective treaty, only sabotage. These comments that US was right to reject treaty it sabotaged in the first place and was never serious about because the treaty is not a "serious try" is beyond rich.

The Kyoto is what was politically possible so far, with tremendous affect by EU. It's the opening of a PROCESS to actually get something done, not an self-serving purpose.

It's easy for the Glutton Supreme to bitch about Kyoto, but how about doing something instead of sabotaging the attempts of others to do what is possible without the support of the Glutton Supreme?

Your attempt at finding moral justification for US inaction by critizising Kyoto not being perfect is insulting to anyone's intellect.

[Turley]

12. They would lose the resulting case at the WTO

This is not a workable solution, much like Kyoto itself.

[aneerkoinos]

13. So what?

"Loosing" the case at the WTO would be a moot point, because wasn't the idea to start a trade war, not avoid one?

[Turley]

17. Let me put it a different way

Starting a trade war in order to salvage a doomed environmental treaty is a stupid idea. In fact, starting a trade war regardless of the reason is a stupid idea.

[aneerkoinos]

19. Trade war

is more effective and faster way to curb CO2 emissions than Kyoto agreement, so why do you call trade war stupid? Free trade and economic groth is not very high on my list of priorities, global warming is.

[Turley]

20. I see

Then I suspect we won't find much common ground. I believe economic growth is vital to the well-being of the World's poor. Wrecking the World economy will lead to nothing but more war and less prosperity.

I also believe that lowering emmissions is politically doable outside the Kyoto framework.

Your mileage may differ.

[aneerkoinos]

22. "economic growth"

Is faulty myth. GNP numbers does not account for natural resources depletion or for enviromental destruction.

So what is today called "economic growth" is actually negative growth. For example the havoc caused by global warming (increasing instability and extreme fenomena) is already costing more than what the wealth or added value that CO2 emissions in North America and elsewhere create. So I don't accept your argument about caring about the world's poor. The truth is US wants to increase it's well being by wrecking other peoples (poors) lives and economies.

Kyoto, schmyoto, whatever. Let's do it.

[truthisfreedom]

14. we need scientific solutions to this problem, not political.

we need a way to manage CO2. it's that simple. until there's a realistic method for managing CO2, you'll never get Americans to reduce it. our country is all about excess, whether or not there is a strong contingent of earth-conscious people here. the real focus has to be on a scientific/technical solution of some kind. you can't stop an ifrastructure like ours from barreling forward under the corrupt system that's evolved to control our government.

[aneerkoinos]

15. Deus ex machina

OK, this is one of those problems only God can take care of? Well, kind of, God is Mother Nature and the scientific solution is to do what is required, with what is ecologically and technologically possible. That's no problem, we can already do the science part easily - if there is political will.

I would say the real problem is politics and politicos debunking science, because of social and political realities in US. Since Carter (hurting a bit) was rejected by US voters, Bush II (pain, pain pain) is actually doing the best job to stop US CO2 emissions by soon shutting down the US ecenomy and destroying the consumerist US middle class sooner than any other President could.

[seasat]

16. For those complaining about China...

They just imposed fuel mileage standards that are far above those of the US. Theyare moving to start a Hydrogen based transportation fuel economy. Another third world country, Brazil, is the world leader in biofuels. They burn more ethanol in their fuel than any country in the world. The biggest emitters of CO2 are transportation, power plants, and cement plants. These are not affected by "moving industry" to third world countries. The CO2 output per person in the US far exceeds those of any third world country ... or any other first world country.

A scientific solution would be nice but we have to invest in finding that solution and by the time we discover it the global ecology may be screwed. There exists plenty of alternatives that would significantly lower our output of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. We could switch to modern nuclear plants and develop a reprocessing system that would limit waste. We could build infrastructure for a solar based hydrogen fuel use. We could use more bio-fuels. We could modernize our public transportation systems. The techology is there, it is just not as appealing as continuing along the Status Quo.

[truthisfreedom]

18. hydrogen is no panacea.

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Hydrogen-Harm-Ozone12jun03.htm

type hydrogen ozone layer into google and take a peek. apparently, free hydrogen destroys the ozone layer very quickly. and any infrastructure using hyrdogen fuel that had a major leak or catastrophe could cause more damage to the ozone layer than we've ever seen before.

in an attempt to be a technological civilization, with limitless energy to use for transportation, manufacturing, and environmental control, we may not find any simple solution that doesn't lead to trouble for our planet. as i stated before, the real solution is with science and technology. we have to find balance, and quickly.

[seasat]

21. I read that article in Science when it first came out.

Of course Hydrogen isn't a panacea. It's only best usage now is as a method of storing solar energy for fuel. Even bio-fuels such as ethanol have draw backs. Evaporated ethanol into the atmosphere may lead to increased smog and methane can be released during production. Not mentioned in the AP story is the statement by the authors that hydrogen has a complicated cycle in the environment that is poorly understood. Hydrogen ions have to make to the stratosphere without first reacting with other gases. The AP story did point out that there could be a sink for hydrogen in soils. The hydrogen issue needs to be studied thoroughly but one article does not mean that it will result in ozone depletion and should be immediately abandoned. Science involves repitition of the experiment before a theory is accepted.

The problem of global warming, IMHO, is that we don't know definitely how severe the problem may be. There exists a number of paleoclimatological studies that indicate the earth may go through rapid environmental changes if the right trigger is met. One trigger proposed years ago was the slowing of the ocean currents due to capping of the downwelling regions around Greenland. This may result in lower upwelled nutrients and lower primary production. With lower uptake and subsequent deposition of carbon by phytoplankton, the CO2 in the atmosphere will increase at a faster rate resulting in a multiplier effect on global warming. Recent observations have indicated slower global ocean circulation and lower primary production. We need to adress the global warming situation now.

[san antonio]

23. Why would Russia agree?

In the event of global warming Russia would become new bread basket for the world. If they were think only of themselves the would start building CFC factories and release as much CO2 as humanly possible.

[seasat]

24. Because the changes in global weather hard to predict.

Russia could have a decades long drought that results in their country turning into a desert.

[san antonio]

25. Still no reason...

..for Russia to sign on. If you can't predict the results, why go ahead with sweeping changes to prevent them?

[seasat]

26. Observed increases in invasive species are occuring in warming regions.

Alaska is an example. Insects that are normally kept a low populations by the cooler climates are now spreading out to new territories where they have little natural predictors and the native plants have little natural resistance. Reductions in fisheries would be another reason. Changes in climate can result in the destruction of the local fisheries. The climate change under global warming is too rapid for most species to adapt and the decline in primary production is limiting food sources. Destruction of glaciers can lead to lower river flow. If you want more examples of how risky it is to assume that global warming is some sort of panacea for Russian farmers, I can come up with quite a few more. The risks would outway the benifits. Russia has some pretty good scientists. I've worked with a few. If the Kremlin listens to them unlike how Dubya has ignored the evidence here in the US, they'll sign on.

[san antonio]

27. That's my point...

I just don't see the Kremlin buying into before our government does. Even when they were playing along they demanded HUGE concesions for Russia. Now that they are openly balking at it I just don't see them coming around.

[hatrack]

28. Don't forget the potential effects of permafrost melt

Massive amounts (hundreds of billions of tons) of carbon and methane are currently captured by permafrost.

With permafrost in many areas only a few degrees below melt point, and with warming proceeding faster in Arctic/Antarctic regions faster than anywhere, areas like Siberia and Alaska have the potential to release amounts of GHGs orders of magnitude beyond the amount currently released through industrial processes.

Considering that tens of thousands of acres of permafrost terrain interior Alaska are already collapsing into Arctic swamps, it may already be too late to do much about this phenomenon.