Blair pulls plug on Kyoto

[Canuck E Stan]

Blair pulls plug on Kyoto

Blair, a longtime supporter of the Kyoto treaty, further prefaced his remarks by noting, "My thinking has changed in the past three or four years." So what does he think now? "No country, he declared, "is going to cut its growth." That is, no country is going to allow the Kyoto treaty, or any other such global-warming treaty, to crimp -- some say cripple -- its economy.

With Britain's departure, the Kyoto treaty no longer has enough support in order to be enacted.

Does this make Kyoto in Canada finished or will Martin carry on with Kyoto anyways, or will he go with something that is made in Canada?

[Montgomery Burns]

New Zealand pulled the plug on the farcical Kyoto, too.

[newbie]

So, over 140 countries that have ratified the agreement are all wrong. Interesting.

[newbie]

And just a year ago Blair had this to say:

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?f...mental%20Impact

So where does he really stand?

[B. Max]

So, over 140 countries that have ratified the agreement are all wrong. Interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of them are standing there with their hand out. However i'm afraid guys like jack martin are all to willing to fill it. Kyoto was a farce from the beginning. Even russia said so until they realized they could fill their pockets. After a time and they had gotten some loot they would have pulled out too.

[Guest eureka]

Blair did not pull the plug on Kyoto. In fact, his views are a confirmation of the correctness of Kyoto and a belief that we must go beyond that treaty. It may have been some sort of carrot to mad King George to explore other ways of acheiving what Kyoto wants for American consumption.

Certainly he believes that growth need not be cut in order to reduce emissions. What else could he think when Britain rduced emissions by 15% between 1990 and 2002 while growing its GDP by 36%.

Kyoto has always been looked on as a first step. Nobody but a complete fool could believe that its goals will not be maintained and enhanced. Only George Bush and two (three?) posters in this forum can lay claim to that perfection.

[B. Max]

Blair did not pull the plug on Kyoto. In fact, his views are a confirmation of the correctness of Kyoto and a belief that we must go beyond that treaty. It may have been some sort of carrot to mad King George to explore other ways of acheiving what Kyoto wants for American consumption.

Certainly he believes that growth need not be cut in order to reduce emissions. What else could he think when Britain rduced emissions by 15% between 1990 and 2002 while growing its GDP by 36%.

Kyoto has always been looked on as a first step. Nobody but a complete fool could believe that its goals will not be maintained and enhanced. Only George Bush and two (three?) posters in this forum can lay claim to that perfection.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Better get used to it, kyoto is dead as it should be, or he wouldn't even be saying what he did. Blair has realized that the thought of being publicly hanged by a lynch mob isn't his cup of tea. What do you you think would happen with millions out of work and losing everything they have while starving to death at the same time are going to do. Just lie down and die. No sir. The resulting wars and destruction would not even be the slightest bit worth it. While all along being based on a pack of lies.

[Montgomery Burns]

China and India - two of the fastest growing countries in the world - weren't covered by Kyoto.

Just another example of this flawed accord.

[Guest eureka]

I suspect that you were intending to convey some insight, Bmax. What, I cannot imagine.

Monty, China and India are covered by Kyoto. Interestingly, China, which is not in the first round, has voluntarily done far more to reduce emissions than has the US. The only actors in the US are some of the States. They, of course, are limited in what they can do.

[Montgomery Burns]

eureka:

Monty, China and India are covered by Kyoto.

China and India are not covered by Kyoto.

[Guest eureka]

They are, are, are, so, covered by Kyoto. Read the damn thing.

[cybercoma]

They are, are, are, so, covered by Kyoto. Read the damn thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They're covered, but they have an unfair advantage over other countries, hence the credit thing.

[Riverwind]

Monty, China and India are covered by Kyoto. Interestingly, China, which is not in the first round, has voluntarily done far more to reduce emissions than has the US. The only actors in the US are some of the States. They, of course, are limited in what they can do.

If you are correct and China is reducing emissions it only because it has a huge pollution problem that it want to clean up. If China ever has to make a choice between economic growth and reducing emissions China will choose growth without question. If the developed world complains China will give the same answer they give when anyone complains about Tibet or human rights.

[cybercoma]

I think it would be grossly irresponsible to pay for credits if money is needed here at home and we're going through rough times.

Grossly irresponsible may be an understatement.

[Guest eureka]

China is in Tier Two of Kyoto as a developing country. Its targets will be set in the next round. The current round is for the developed industrial countries who account for the greatest amount of emissions.

I don't recall figures, but they were all on the appropriate thread. China's per capita emissions are about one tenth those of the US. For a period of several years after the Kyoto agreement, China actually did reduce emissions. I have not seen figures for the last few years.

There is only one problem with Kyoto and that is that it does not have teeth to bite the US. The US alone is responsible for about 25% of the world's total emissions and the Bush company is happy to keep it that way.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

China's per capita emissions are about one tenth those of the US.

Don't forget, China has a huge population and the majority are dirt poor...most don't have enough money to produce an offensive fart, let alone 'industrial emissions'. Conditions in China are deplorable, CO aside. Industial waste is dumped straight into rivers, or onto the soil. It will take way more than Kyoto to clean up China.

[mcqueen625]

Blair did not pull the plug on Kyoto. In fact, his views are a confirmation of the correctness of Kyoto and a belief that we must go beyond that treaty. It may have been some sort of carrot to mad King George to explore other ways of acheiving what Kyoto wants for American consumption.

Certainly he believes that growth need not be cut in order to reduce emissions. What else could he think when Britain rduced emissions by 15% between 1990 and 2002 while growing its GDP by 36%.

Kyoto has always been looked on as a first step. Nobody but a complete fool could believe that its goals will not be maintained and enhanced. Only George Bush and two (three?) posters in this forum can lay claim to that perfection.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you have the two largest economies in the world rejecting Kyota how can it possibly succeed? In fact China was exempted from Kyota, and would not have signed on anyway. They are one of the largest polluters in the world and that is not about to change regardless of what Canada does or doesn't do. If Martin was so concerned about Kyota, why did he just sign trade deals, and lobby China for investment into Canada when they are one of the major problems in the world as far as human rights violations, and pollutting the environment goes. I guess the promise of trade trumps any concerns about infractions on many fronts.

[err]

And just a year ago Blair had this to say:

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?f...mental%20Impact

So where does he really stand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it has more to do with who he's kneeling down on front of .....

[err]

There is only one problem with Kyoto and that is that it does not have teeth to bite the US. The US alone is responsible for about 25% of the world's total emissions and the Bush company is happy to keep it that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To quote Richard Nixon:

We use 30 percent of all the energy... That isn't bad; that is good.  That means that we are the richest, strongest people in the world an that we have the highest standard of living in the world.  That is why we need so much energy, and may it always be that way

Everyone in power in the Bush administration comes from Big Oil, and will return there when put out of power in a few years. Why in God's name would they want to promote reduction in oil consumption.... It's not in any of their personal interests...

[B. Max]

I suspect that you were intending to convey some insight, Bmax. What, I cannot imagine.

Monty, China and India are covered by Kyoto. Interestingly, China, which is not in the first round, has voluntarily done far more to reduce emissions than has the US. The only actors in the US are some of the States. They, of course, are limited in what they can do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one is going to meet those targets. You can tie production directly to CO2 emissions. In 1990 we were in resession, so essentially we are suppose to create a recession 6% worse. Today our emissions are about 20% higher than they were in 1990. The US may be the largest consumer of energy but they are also the most productive. Since those that do the producing are to be sent into poverty, it begs the question, what government trough are you in.

[cybercoma]

China is in Tier Two of Kyoto as a developing country. Its targets will be set in the next round. The current round is for the developed industrial countries who account for the greatest amount of emissions.

I don't recall figures, but they were all on the appropriate thread. China's per capita emissions are about one tenth those of the US. For a period of several years after the Kyoto agreement, China actually did reduce emissions. I have not seen figures for the last few years.

There is only one problem with Kyoto and that is that it does not have teeth to bite the US. The US alone is responsible for about 25% of the world's total emissions and the Bush company is happy to keep it that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They're not necessarily happy to keep the emissions that way (the US that is), they just don't believe in answering to a panel of other nations, let alone handing money over to other countries to buy credits. I'll have to see if I can find the reason why China has an unfair advantage, something about forests there or the dissipation of CO2 emissions. I really can't remember. All I can recall is that countries like the US and Canada would have to buy credits from China, helpiing to fuel their building economy.

Why the heck would we want to make China any more powerful than it is already becoming?

[Montgomery Burns]

They are, are, are, so, covered by Kyoto. Read the damn thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are not covered by Kyoto. China and India are exempted from limits on greenhouse gases. Read the damn thing.

[Riverwind]

All I can recall is that countries like the US and Canada would have to buy credits from China, helpiing to fuel their building economy.

The biggest flaw in Kyoto is the use of a the emissions in the country in 1991 as 'baseline' for determining whether a country meets their targets. Using 1991 hurts North American countries since we were in a recession at the time and our emissions were artificially low. On the other hand, the Russian economy collapsed after 1991 so their limits are artificially high. That is why the US and Canada would end up buying credits from Russia. Yet the Kyoto proponents would like us to believe that astute environmental management on the part of the Russians is the reason the Russians are in a position to sell credits.

I have not heard that China would be in a position to 'sell' credits to other countries since they have no limits that they would need to meet and therefore no way to measure 'surplus' reductions that they could sell.

[cybercoma]

All I can recall is that countries like the US and Canada would have to buy credits from China, helpiing to fuel their building economy.

The biggest flaw in Kyoto is the use of a the emissions in the country in 1991 as 'baseline' for determining whether a country meets their targets. Using 1991 hurts North American countries since we were in a recession at the time and our emissions were artificially low. On the other hand, the Russian economy collapsed after 1991 so their limits are artificially high. That is why the US and Canada would end up buying credits from Russia. Yet the Kyoto proponents would like us to believe that astute environmental management on the part of the Russians is the reason the Russians are in a position to sell credits.

I have not heard that China would be in a position to 'sell' credits to other countries since they have no limits that they would need to meet and therefore no way to measure 'surplus' reductions that they could sell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given what you're saying, why the heck would the United States hand money over to Russia under ANY circumstances, when they could use the money at home?

Kyoto won't work, for a million reasons, the least of which is that scientists don't even agree on CO2 emissions causing global warming, let alone the scientists that don't even think global warming is a problem.

[Guest eureka]

China has "signed on" to Kyoto, as have most countries of the world. The only notable holdouts are a few rich polluters.

China cannot sell credits and may have to buy them when its targets are set.

Russia and the other European countries were also in recession and Russia's growth since 1991 has been nothing to write home about. That excuse has worn thin and I don't see even the US trying to make it any more. It was another Bushism and not used by Clinton who had agreed to ratify Kyoto.

The fact that China is mostly "dirt poor" Fleabag should have led to great increases in emissions with its recent growth. The increase ( I suspect that there has been in the last few years) has not neem great and, indeed, for several years, China achieved a reduction.