Kyoto Accord

[Codeblue]

I have to give a speach for my Public Speaking class and I've decided to do it on advocating for the Kyoto Agreement.

Can anyone point me to some good information pointing out both sides of the argument since two weeks later I have toa rgue the other side?

I was at the official Kyoto site a few days ago, and it said the U.S. had signed and ratified the Treaty. I thought we had withdrawn and never accepted the Treaty because of fear for destroying our economy?

[James T. Kirk]

1. I don't think the treaty was ever ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Do you have a link to the site you refer to?

[hatrack]

2. The US government did sign the treaty - however . . .

It's not just that the president signed it. It also had to be ratified by the Senate, and Clinton never even bothered sending it up to the Hill.

At around the same time, the Hagel-Byrd Resolution (a non-binding statement) condemning the Protocol as devastating to the American economy should never be signed a stake through theheartoftheAmericandreamblahblahblahblah passed by a vote of 97-0.

I would google for IPCC, and try their site - it has some good stuff. Also try searching for the Hadley Center, a UK climatology lab, roughly equivalent to NOAA here.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Partly correct...

The original Kyoto Protocols were a great first draft, but it would not have been ratified by Congress. The Senate past a resolution with no dissenting votes (95-0) rejecting the language and raising specific objections. Clinton recognized that sending Kyoto through for an official vote would have been destructive.

All of the objections raised by the Senate were met in the revision of the protocols, but Bush refused to send an official representative of the US, so we did not participate. Thanks to Bush, we are now on the outside looking in.

links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol (general info)
http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/byrd.htm (letter to Clinton from Byrd)
http://www.opic.gov/GeneralOPIC/senateresolution98.htm (text of Byrd resolution)

[Viking12]

3. Arguments for/against Kyoto

When advocating for the Kyoto protocol, you need to demonstrate that it is the BEST policy response. Relying on science is necessary but not sufficient to make your case. Use the science to define the current situation as "dangerous" which requires a response by law according to the 1992 UNFCCC (ratified by the US in 1994). In addition to establishing the scientific base for GHG mitigation, you also need to demonstrate that this is a global problem that requires global response. Argue by analogy using the Montreal Protocol on CFCs as your vehicle. Concede that Kyoto is not in and of itself sufficient to slow climate change, but it is a necessary first step toward further reductions in emissions. Don't ignore economic issues - demonstrate that Kyoto will provide for national security benefits, environmental and health benefits, and long-term economic efficiency that can be delivered by renewable resources developed as a result of regulatory pressure.

A rational argument against the Kyoto protocol is detailed by the Council on Foreign Relations', David G. Victor in his book, "The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming" (2001). Princeton University Press. In contrast to fossil fuel PR hacks, Victor argues that Kyoto is flawed not because of a lack of scientific knowledge, but because of policy problems: a) emissions trading poses very real logistic problems, b) Kyoto doesn't provide for adequate monitoring and enforcement, & c) doesn't provide for the allocation of new permits if/when the treaty is expanded to developing nations like India and China.

The cheap and easy way to argue against Kyoto is to invoke the various claims of climate change deniers and economic fear-mongers. Don't go that route. You want to argue against Kyoto in a way that doesn't undercut the necessity to do SOMETHING about climate change.

Good luck.
.

[cprise]

5. Those are good suggestions. I would add:

...that no approach to an environmental problem of this scale can demand absolute proof that the pollution will have the expected effect (i.e. that global warming is really anthropogenic) before curbing that pollution. The argument for Kyoto ultimately rests on two things: a) the substantial evidence that pollution is causing climate change (vs. scant evidence against) and b) the Precautionary Principle.

The latter is extremely important. It states that where evidence shows a probable outcome that is negative, and where the stakes are very high (i.e. risking the health of the entire globe) that the high-risk activity should be abandoned.