Kyoto Protocol

[alienation]

From the New York Times:

Rebuffing Bush, 132 Mayors Embrace Kyoto Rules

By ELI SANDERS
Published: May 14, 2005


SEATTLE, May 13 - Unsettled by a series of dry winters in this normally wet city, Mayor Greg Nickels has begun a nationwide effort to do something the Bush administration will not: carry out the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle formed a bipartisan coalition of mayors to adopt the Kyoto Protocol on global warming on the local level.

Mr. Nickels, a Democrat, says 131 other likeminded mayors have joined a bipartisan coalition to fight global warming on the local level, in an implicit rejection of the administration's policy.

The mayors, from cities as liberal as Los Angeles and as conservative as Hurst, Tex., represent nearly 29 million citizens in 35 states, according to Mayor Nickels's office. They are pledging to have their cities meet what would have been a binding requirement for the nation had the Bush administration not rejected the Kyoto Protocol: a reduction in heat-trapping gas emissions to levels 7 percent below those of 1990, by 2012.

On Thursday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg brought New York City into the coalition, the latest Republican mayor to join.

Mr. Nickels said that to achieve the 7 percent reduction, Seattle was requiring cruise ships that dock in its bustling port to turn off their diesel engines while resupplying and to rely only on electric power provided by the city, a requirement that has forced some ships to retrofit. And by the end of this year the city's power utility, Seattle City Light, will be the only utility in the country with no net emissions of greenhouse gases, the mayor's office said.

Salt Lake City has become Utah's largest buyer of wind power in order to meet its reduction target. In New York, the Bloomberg administration is trying to reduce emissions from the municipal fleet by buying hybrid electric-gasoline-powered vehicles.

Nathan Mantua, assistant director of the Center for Science in the Earth System at the University of Washington, which estimates the impact of global warming on the Northwest, said the coalition's efforts were laudable, but probably of limited global impact.

"It is clearly a politically significant step in the right direction," Dr. Mantua said. "It may be an environmentally significant step for air quality in the cities that are going to do this, but for the global warming problem it is a baby step."

Mr. Nickels said he decided to act when the Kyoto Protocol took effect in February without the support of the United States, the world's largest producer of heat-trapping gases. On that day, he announced he would try to carry out the agreement himself, at least as far as Seattle was concerned, and called on other mayors to join him.

The coalition is not the first effort by local leaders to take up the initiative on climate change. California, under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is moving to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and Gov. George A. Pataki of New York, also a Republican, has led efforts to reduce power plant emissions in the Northeast. But the coalition is unusual in its open embrace of an international agreement that the Bush administration has spurned, Mayor Nickels's office said, and is significant because cities are huge contributors to the nation's emission of heat-trapping gases.

Michele St. Martin, communications director for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the Kyoto Protocol would have resulted in a loss of five million jobs in the United States and could raise energy prices.

Ms. St. Martin said President Bush "favors an aggressive approach" on climate change, "one that fosters economic growth that will lead to new technology and innovation."

But many of the mayors said they were acting precisely out of concern for the economic vitality of their cities. Mr. Nickels, for example, pointed out that the dry winters and the steep decline projected in the glaciers of the Cascade range could affect Seattle's supply of drinking water and hydroelectric power.

The mayor of low-lying New Orleans, C. Ray Nagin, a Democrat, said he joined the coalition because a projected rise in sea levels "threatens the very existence of New Orleans."

In Hawaii, the mayor of Maui County, Alan Arakawa, a Republican, said he joined because he was frustrated by the administration's slowness to recognize the scientific consensus that climate change was happening because of human interference.

"I'm hoping it sends a message they really need to start looking at what's really happening in the real world," Mayor Arakawa said.

Mayor Nickels said it was no accident that most cities that had joined were in coastal states. The mayor of Alexandria, Va., is worried about increased flooding; mayors in Florida are worried about hurricanes.

But Mr. Nickels has also found supporters in the country's interior. Jerry Ryan, the Republican mayor of Bellevue, Neb., said he had signed on because of concerns about the effects of droughts on his farming community. Mr. Ryan described himself as a strong Bush supporter, but said he felt that the president's approach to global warming should be more like his approach to terrorism.

"You've got to ask, 'Is it remotely possible that there is a threat?' " he said. "If the answer is yes, you've got to act now."

[Nessie]

better late than never!
Global warming is something we all should be aware of! It's really a threat!

[Halo]

From Greenbiz.com:

Climate Wise
by Knut H. Alfsen and Bjart Holtsmark
June 2005

The Kyoto Protocol -- A Step in the Wrong Direction?
After a lot of back and forth, the Kyoto Protocol finally entered into force February 16 this year, more than seven years after the Conference of the Parties in Kyoto. This event has been described as an important victory in climate policy, and at least in Europe there have been few dissenting voices. We believe, however, that there is a need to take a closer look at what has actually been achieved, and what challenges lie ahead.

The fundamental basis of the Kyoto Protocol is national emissions quotas for greenhouse gases, in this first round (2008-2012) exclusively for industrialized countries. These targets, however, do not set absolute limits for each industrialized country. If they see fit, the countries can meet their commitments by buying emissions permits from one another, by getting credit for storing carbon in forests, and/or by acquiring credits from countries without commitments through the project-based Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). If a country has more emissions permits than it needs at the end of a commitment period, they can be banked for use in future periods.

After Australia and the United States withdrew from the agreement, 36 countries now have emissions commitments for the period 2008-2012: Bulgaria, Romania, EU-25, Canada, Russia, Japan, New Zealand, and Ukraine, as well as six small West European states. Together, these countries represent 30% of the global CO2 emissions. The developing countries and USA/Australia are responsible for the remaining 70% of the emissions, emissions that are not restricted through the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, while emissions in the participating countries are growing only at a slow pace, emissions growth in the developing countries and the United States is strong.

The question is whether the basic form of the Kyoto Protocol can lay the foundation for new agreements with more stringent quota obligations. We are skeptical about this; in fact, the Kyoto Protocol is built around a concept that is very likely to result in agreements with very little environmental impact also in new rounds of negotiation.

Defenders of the protocol point out that we have negotiated an "impressive" regulatory framework for the protocol's various mechanisms, thus laying an important foundation for new agreements. We do not wish to discount the solid craftsmanship that has taken place, and recognize that various parts of the agreement represent true bridges between differing perspectives. But at the same time we must not exaggerate what has actually occurred. The truly difficult controversies are only minimally addressed in the regulatory framework for emissions trading, carbon sequestration in forests, and the CDM. Where they are evident is in the initial allocation of quotas. And here we have not been able to negotiate targets that will lead to a significant overall reduction in emissions. In addition, despite the fact that the protocol can be implemented by the parties without significant cost, it barely squeaked by the ratification process. We are afraid this is not coincidental, but that it should tell us that we are working with a concept that is not suitable for the nature and scope of the climate problem.

The Quota Game

It is becoming widely accepted that the climate problem is serious, and must be faced with a coordinated international effort. Despite this knowledge, we cannot ignore that the United States and Australia withdrew from the agreement. We also know that key developing countries -- led by China and India -- do not seem willing to take on quota obligations in the foreseeable future. Even in Russia, a country that actually stands to earn a lot of money from emissions trading, ratification of the agreement was fraught with controversy.

Before we can make any pronouncements about what it will take to establish new and more stringent agreements within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, with significant emissions reductions, we must first understand what motivates key actors such as the United States, China, India, and Russia. Is it likely that the United States, China, and India will do a total turn-around and not only accept national quotas, but even more stringent quotas? Is it likely that Russia will join an agreement that will actually cost something when it was reluctant to accept an agreement that would result in a nice profit? We are skeptical, and believe that there are strong indications that new rounds of negotiations will be a repeat of the first round, making it impossible to create real incentives that would generate the necessary technology development. We think the strong focus on national quotas, on which the entire Kyoto Protocol and its comprehensive regulatory framework is built, should be supplemented with completely different types of agreements that are more attractive to major emitters.

Alternatives to the Kyoto Protocol

Neither we nor any one else has the ultimate answer to how the climate problem can be resolved. However, we believe that new concepts for a climate treaty should meet the following requirements:

Enforcement of the agreement should be advantageous for all parties, as participation in an international agreement is necessarily voluntary.


The agreement must have credible verification and sanction mechanisms.

Large regions must participate if the reductions are to be big enough. This means especially that the EU, United States, Japan, and the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) must take part.
What, then, constitutes a good alternative or supplement to the Kyoto Protocol? There is not enough room here to carry out an exhaustive discussion, but we can note that instruments such as harmonized greenhouse gas taxes, direct regulation through the introduction of international technology standards, active work for removing subsidies that lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, and so on are ideas that should be further developed. We nevertheless believe that main solution will ultimately reside in technology development. Thus agreements that directly stimulate technology development will probably be the most fruitful. Examples include agreements where the parties are committed to devoting a certain amount of research and development work to relevant technologies. Property rights to the technological solutions that are developed can be then shared collectively between the parties in the agreement. A key element is the necessity of increased public funding and investment in technology-oriented research. Here it is not just talk about money, but also getting a necessary number of young and skilled people to educate themselves and work with these types of research questions over time. The framework conditions for research activity must therefore be stable, credible, and -- not least -- long term.

Conclusion

Ever since the climate issue appeared seriously on the political agenda toward the end of the 1980s, focus has been directed at national emissions targets. We fear that this has been a dead end. In any case, we can now state that the Kyoto Protocol will not result in any noteworthy emissions reductions, and it seems unlikely that we will succeed in negotiating a follow-up agreement from 2013.

The time is thus ripe for exploring the possibilities for other types of agreements than the established norm of commitments connected to emissions caps. The key to a solution of the climate problem clearly lies in developing energy technology, including capturing and storing carbon from fossil fuels as well as making nuclear power socially acceptable. Agreements that in one way or another commit member states to stimulating research on and development of these kinds of energy technologies are thus perhaps in the long run both more cost-effective and easier to enforce than the Kyoto Protocol.

We do not have the basis for drawing definitive conclusions about what constitutes the best concept on which to base an agreement. It is also fully possible that the problem should be addressed from several angles at the same time through a set of different agreements. Scott Barrett, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, has, for example, proposed that several international agreements be negotiated in addition to the Kyoto Protocol's focus on quantitative national commitments.

The aim of this article is thus not to argue in favor of tossing the Kyoto Protocol on history's scrap pile. There is nothing wrong with going further with the Kyoto Protocol to see what can eventually come out of this concept. But we believe that there is a need to be more realistic with respect to the limitations and possibilities of the concept. At the same time, we want to point out that alternatives to the agreement concept are currently circulating and they should be taken seriously and become the subject of studies by competent researchers.

(GreenBiz.com is a program of The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation)

[moneyisevil]

Global warming isnt real....

[Halo]

moneyisevil said:

Global warming isnt real....

There is certainly debate over that. Care to expand on your reason why you don't believe it is real?

There are many articles on the subject, from both sides. I could have posted some links, but I thought I'd let you do some research and post what you feel, since you brought it up.

[alienation]

From an independent news source.

G8 scientists tell Bush: Act now - or else...
An unprecedented warning as global warming worsens.
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
08 June 2005


An unprecedented joint statement issued by the leading scientific academies of the world has called on the G8 governments to take urgent action to avert a global catastrophe caused by climate change.

The national academies of science for all the G8 countries, along with those of Brazil, India and China, have warned that governments must no longer procrastinate on what is widely seen as the greatest danger facing humanity. The statement, which has taken months to finalise, is all the more important as it is signed by Bruce Alberts, president of the US National Academy of Sciences, which has warned George Bush about the dangers of ignoring the threat posed by global warming.

It was released on the day that Tony Blair met Mr Bush in Washington, where the American President was expected to reaffirm his opposition to joining the Kyoto treat to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Over dinner at the White House last night, Mr Blair appeared to make little progress on one of his main priorities for Britain's year chairing the G8 - a new international effort to combat climate change. The Prime Minister is trying to draw the US, China and India into the discussion, but there is little sign that the Bush administration will accept the growing scientific evidence about the problem.

Lord May of Oxford, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's national academy of sciences, lambasted President Bush yesterday for ignoring his own scientists by withdrawing from the Kyoto treaty. "The current US policy on climate change is misguided. The Bush administration has consistently refused to accept advice of the US National Academy of Sciences ... Getting the US on board is critical because of the sheer amount of greenhouse gas emissions they are responsible for," Lord May said.

Between 1990 and 2002, the carbon dioxide emissions of the US increased by 13 per cent, which on their own were greater than the combined cut in emissions that will be achieved if all Kyoto countries hit their targets, he said.

"President Bush has an opportunity at Gleneagles to signal that his administration will no longer ignore the scientific evidence and act to cut emissions," Lord May said. "The G8 summit is an unprecedented moment in human history. Our leaders face a stark choice - act now to tackle climate change or let future generations face the price of their inaction.

"Never before have we faced such a global threat. And if we do not begin effective action now it will be much harder to stop the runaway train as it continues to gather momentum," he added.

The joint statement by the national science academies of the 11 countries does not mention Kyoto but it does refer repeatedly to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change that spawned the 1995 protocol to limit future greenhouse gas emissions, which the US has signed up to.

Climate change is real, global warming is occurring and there is strong evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are implicated in a potentially catastrophic increase in global temperatures, the statement says. "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate."

Human activities are causing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to rise to a point not reached for at least 420,000 years. Meanwhile average global temperatures rose by 0.6C in the 20th century and are projected to increase by between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100.

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions," the statement says.

In a veiled reference to President Bush's reluctance to accept climate change by claiming that the science is unclear, the academies emphasise that action is needed now to reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases.

"A lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic [man-made] interference with the climate system," the statement says.

"We urge all nations... to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies."

The national academies warn that even if greenhouse gas emissions can be stabilised at existing levels, the climate would continue to change as it slowly responds to the extra carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. "Further changes in climate are therefore unavoidable. Nations must prepare for them," the statement says.

CO2 on the increase

1958: A US scientist, Charles Keeling, begins measuring the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) on an extinct volcano in Hawaii. It stands at 315 parts per million (ppm).

1968: The US spacecraft 'Apollo 8' takes the first pictures of Earth from a distance, beautiful but fragile - which help start modern environmentalism. The C02 level has reached 323ppm.

1972: The UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm - the moment when the world first recognises environmental threats to the Earth as a whole. CO2 now at 327ppm.

1988: The world wakes up to the danger of climate change, with an outspoken warning from scientists, and a speech by Margaret Thatcher. CO2 level stands at 351ppm.

1992: The Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro sees more than 100 countries sign the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the first global warming treaty. CO2 now at 356ppm.

1995: The Kyoto protocol to the UN's climate treaty is signed in Japan, binding countries, including the US, to make cuts in their CO2 emissions. The CO2 level has now reached 360ppm.

2000: Obvious that the 1990s were the hottest decade in the global temperature record, with 1998 the hottest year in the northern hemisphere for 1,000 years. CO2 is 369ppm.

2001: George Bush withdraws the US, the world's biggest CO2 emitter, from Kyoto, alleging it will damage America's economy - jeopardising the whole process. CO2 level now at 371ppm.

2003: First two weeks of August are the hottest period ever recorded in western Europe: 35,000 people die. New record high temperature for Britain. CO2 now at 375ppm.

2004: After much dithering, Russia ratifies Kyoto, enabling the protocol to enter into force despite the desertion of the United States. But that doesn't stop the CO2 level rising to 377ppm.

[alienation]

admin said:

The Kyoto Protocol -- A Step in the Wrong Direction?

Halo, surely you must think some action is better than no action. Obviously the Kyoto Protocol isn't some magic band-aid that is going to fix this, but we have to start pushing people to think globally & realize their actions have repercussions (for our planet and future generations).

I'm actually reading a paper right now that created a lot of stir in the environmental world called "The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World". It suggests that we are approaching the whole problem in an ineffective way. I'm sure I'll have some comments when I've finished reading it.

For those of you interested in environmental concerns check out Grist, an online environmental news magazine.

GRIST

[Halo]

alienation said:

admin said:

The Kyoto Protocol -- A Step in the Wrong Direction?

Halo, surely you must think some action is better than no action.

Absolutely I do. I was just presenting another side of the story. There's much debate over whether global warming is real or not, there's debate over whether the Kyoto protocal is the answer. I thought it would be good to open up all possibilities for discussion.