Polyester Gore, or, a Snake-Oil Convenient Lie

[gc1765]

Pure and simple, this treaty is about the purchase and sale of carbon credits, not about reducing GHG's.

I think it's basic economics that the more you have to pay for something, the less you will buy of it.

But even if that's not true, even if some sort of "carbon tax" did not reduce greenhouse gases, at least it would be raising money which could go towards dealing with the problems associated with global warming.

[Charles Anthony]

Does it really matter? The consumer is going to pay in the end, regardless of where it is produced. If it costs more to produce something, it is going to be sold for a higher price.

Yes, it does really mattter because No, the consumer is not going to pay everything in the end. Otherwise, producers would continuously raise prices.

At some point, consumers will purchase less and as a result, the producers will sell less.

It seems like you know that:

I think it's basic economics that the more you have to pay for something, the less you will buy of it.

[gc1765]

Yes, it does really mattter because No, the consumer is not going to pay everything in the end. Otherwise, producers would continuously raise prices.

If producers raise prices, consumers are going to pay from another company, it's competition. If every company has to pay higher prices to produce their goods, then they will all raise prices and the consumer will pay more (or decrase consumption).

At some point, consumers will purchase less and as a result, the producers will sell less.

I think that is part of the goal here, to reduce the consumption of energy.

[Riverwind]

Does it really matter? The consumer is going to pay in the end, regardless of where it is produced. If it costs more to produce something, it is going to be sold for a higher price.

There are no provisions in Kyoto to ensure that the price will be the same regardless of where it is produced. Kyoto seeks to make it much more expensive to produce goods in developed countries and to subsidize the prodution in developing countries.

Now, the only final question is should there be some sort of personal exemption like there is with income tax, or should you have to pay tax on everything you pollute?

People should pay for what they produce. Someone in Canada who does not pollute much should not be expected to pay more because they live in a society where others pollute a lot. Wealthy chinese that pollute a lot should not get a break because they share a country with a billion people who don't pollute a lot. Kyoto is flawed because it tries to make entire countries pay rather than individual consumers.

[gc1765]

There are no provisions in Kyoto to ensure that the price will be the same regardless of where it is produced. Kyoto seeks to make it much more expensive to produce goods in developed countries and to subsidize the prodution in developing countries.

In Kyoto, no, but Kyoto is not perfect. An international carbon tax, which you seemed to be somewhat agreeable to, would not make it more expensive to produce goods in developed countries. I suppose though, that even under Kyoto it is in the best interest of developing countries to keep their emissions low. In that case, it would be up to the individual country to decide how to tax producers and if they decide not to tax them they are in effect subsidizing them.

People should pay for what they produce. Someone in Canada who does not pollute much should not be expected to pay more because they live in a society where others pollute a lot. Wealthy chinese that pollute a lot should not get a break because they share a country with a billion people who don't pollute a lot. Kyoto is flawed because it tries to make entire countries pay rather than individual consumers.

Agreed. I think Kyoto is meant to allow the individual countries to decide how to reduce their emissions, as it is more practical than trying to regulate emissions per person on an international level. Kyoto is meant to regulate emissions by country, and it is up to the individual countries to regulate on a per person basis. In your example above, it is in Canada's best interest to reduce their emissions. They might, for example, implement a "carbon tax" (or something else) in which case the person polluting more would pay. It is also in China's best interest to emit less, so they would have some sort of carbon tax in which case the rich chinese would still have to pay. Again, it's not perfect, but that is the purpose of it.

[Riverwind]

I suppose though, that even under Kyoto it is in the best interest of developing countries to keep their emissions low.

Kyoto actually encourages developing countries to pollute more. Why should China invest in GHG reductions when it can sell credits to developed countries that pay for GHG reduction inside China? Reducing GHGs on their own would cost money and deny China a source of foreign investment.

Kyoto is meant to regulate emissions by country, and it is up to the individual countries to regulate on a per person basis. In your example above, it is in Canada's best interest to reduce their emissions.

Much of GHGs produced in Canada go into the production of goods consumer elsewhere. It is the consumers (i.e. the US) of the tar sands oil that should pay for the GHGs emitted by their extraction. Canadians should not have to pay for that.

[gc1765]

Kyoto actually encourages developing countries to pollute more.

No it doesn't. The more they pollute, the less money (through credits) they receieve. Therefore, they are going to want to pollute less so that they get more money.

Much of GHGs produced in Canada go into the production of goods consumer elsewhere. It is the consumers (i.e. the US) of the tar sands oil that should pay for the GHGs emitted by their extraction. Canadians should not have to pay for that.

They will. Again, the final consumer always pays in the end through higher prices (provided there is a level playing field so that the U.S. doesn't buy their oil elsewhere. IOW, if every oil company raises their prices, the consumer pays in the end.)

[Wilber]

I think Gore's personal consumption and his justification of it by buying so called credits is a perfect example of polluting according your ability to pay. A carbon tax will do the same thing. The truly affluent will see no change in their standard of living or lifestyle. The rest will.

[Riverwind]

No it doesn't. The more they pollute, the less money (through credits) they receieve. Therefore, they are going to want to pollute less so that they get more money.

Developed countries can invest in projects that reduce GHGs elsewhere in the world. This gives places like China an incentive to build dirty coal plants and then 'sell' the opportunity to reduce GHGs. This is seperate from the credit trading system which only applies to countries with explicit targets.

They will. Again, the final consumer always pays in the end through higher prices (provided there is a level playing field so that the U.S. doesn't buy their oil elsewhere. IOW, if every oil company raises their prices, the consumer pays in the end.)

It will never happen and it would be economic suicide for Canada to try and do it our own. That is why I think we should forget about Kyoto because it unfairly penalizes us for consumption elsewhere and focus on reducing our own consumption.

[rover1]

I hate to break this to you, but pollution and greenhouse gasses are not the same thing. Indeed pollution(sulfate aerosols) protect from global warming, at least according to the IPCC.

It is a much more complicated problem that either Mr Gore or many here seem to think. Just what or who caused the problem is a different matter than just what or who might be able to solve the problem, anyway.

Kyoto was never intended to solve the problem, but rather to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the leading industrial countries were willing to try in the hopes that the other countries would take heart and put in place the much more severe measures thought necessary to limit the problem.

By the way, China is driving the SUV and Canada is driving the Smart Car, when not riding its bicycle.

[jbg]

PLANET ARK

No US Emissions Curbs Without China,India - Envoy

BELGIUM: April 19, 2007

BRUSSELS - The United States will not join an international regime curbing emissions blamed for global warming until it also applied to China and India, the US ambassador to the European Union said on Wednesday.

This is consistent with the Byrd-Hagel Resolution of the U.S. Senate (link) read, in relevant part, as follows:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Whereas the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (in this resolution referred to as the `Convention'), adopted in May 1992, entered into force in 1994 and is not yet fully implemented;

Whereas the Convention, intended to address climate change on a global basis, identifies the former Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe and the Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the United States, as `Annex I Parties', and the remaining 129 countries, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, as `Developing Country Parties';

*snip*

Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' specifically exempts all Developing Country Parties from any new commitments in such negotiation process for the post-2000 period;

*snip*

Whereas the Senate strongly believes that the proposals under negotiation, because of the disparity of treatment between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and the level of required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs, or any combination thereof; and

Whereas it is desirable that a bipartisan group of Senators be appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate for the purpose of monitoring the status of negotiations on Global Climate Change and reporting periodically to the Senate on those negotiations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

( would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

This resolution, voted 95-0, seems like a pretty decisive, bi-partisan view, that any treaty must include other than First World nations, and impose real restrictions on all, for the (supposed) benefit of all.

[jbg]

Kyoto actually encourages developing countries to pollute more. Why should China invest in GHG reductions when it can sell credits to developed countries that pay for GHG reduction inside China? Reducing GHGs on their own would cost money and deny China a source of foreign investment.

Can a non-party country such as China sell credits to a party country such as Canada? I honestly don't know the answer.

[Riverwind]

Kyoto actually encourages developing countries to pollute more. Why should China invest in GHG reductions when it can sell credits to developed countries that pay for GHG reduction inside China? Reducing GHGs on their own would cost money and deny China a source of foreign investment.

Can a non-party country such as China sell credits to a party country such as Canada? I honestly don't know the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Kyoto includes "flexible mechanisms" which allow Annex I economies to meet their GHG emission limitation by purchasing GHG emission reductions from elsewhere. These can be bought either from financial exchanges (such as the new unrelated-to-Kyoto EU Emissions Trading Scheme) or from projects which reduce emissions in non-Annex I economies under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), or in other Annex-1 countries under the JI.

IOW - Developing countries have an incentive emit more GHGs and ask developed countries to pay for the technology that would clean it up.

[gc1765]

IOW - Developing countries have an incentive emit more GHGs and ask developed countries to pay for the technology that would clean it up.

Developing countries still have an incentive to reduce their emissions. They can sell "credits' to developed countries and make money. If their emissions increase, they have less credits to sell and they get less money. If their emissions decrease, they make more money.

[gc1765]

By the way, China is driving the SUV and Canada is driving the Smart Car, when not riding its bicycle.

What? Canadians emit a lot more carbon dioxide than the Chinese.

[Riverwind]

Developing countries still have an incentive to reduce their emissions. They can sell "credits' to developed countries and make money. If their emissions increase, they have less credits to sell and they get less money. If their emissions decrease, they make more money.

Non Annex I countries have no caps which means they have no credits to sell. They can, however, get developed countries to pay them to eliminate their GHGs instead of doing it themselves.

[sharkman]

By the way, China is driving the SUV and Canada is driving the Smart Car, when not riding its bicycle.

What? Canadians emit a lot more carbon dioxide than the Chinese.

China's industry has been ramping up since the mid 90s. They have serious polution problems and many coal fired power plants, with many more slated. Could you show the class with a link to back up your remarks?

[gc1765]

Non Annex I countries have no caps which means they have no credits to sell. They can, however, get developed countries to pay them to eliminate their GHGs instead of doing it themselves.

For some reason I thought there was a provision in Kyoto that developing countries could sell credits to developed countries, but I could be wrong on that. (Incidentally, what happens if every country exceeds their cap...who is left to buy credits from?)

Ok, so the fact that developed countries can invest to reduce emissions in developing countries means that developing countries have no incentive to reduce their own emissions....but what incentives would they otherwise have? Seems to me, Kyoto or not Kyoto, developing countries have no incentive to reduce their emissions.

[gc1765]

Could you show the class with a link to back up your remarks?

Here you go

[sharkman]

Could you show the class with a link to back up your remarks?

Here you go

That link has data that is from the UN, and is 4 years old. Thanks, but I think I'll do some research that is not UN sourced, those guys are pushing kyto like a crack dealer.

[gc1765]

That link has data that is from the UN, and is 4 years old. Thanks, but I think I'll do some research that is not UN sourced, those guys are pushing kyto like a crack dealer.

I just posted the first thing that came up on google....if you have some more reliable data that contradicts it, please post it.

[jbg]

That link has data that is from the UN, and is 4 years old. Thanks, but I think I'll do some research that is not UN sourced, those guys are pushing kyto like a crack dealer.

If the UN says it it must be quite true.

[gc1765]

If the UN says it it must be quite true.

I'll extend the challenge to you as well (or anyone else)...if you can find stats that contradict these, please post them.

[jbg]

If the UN says it it must be quite true.

I'll extend the challenge to you as well (or anyone else)...if you can find stats that contradict these, please post them.

As always, I was supporting the UN. I was a bit startled that the IPCC report didn't at least mention that restoring the Palestinians' right of return wouldn't bring global warming to a screeching halt, since Zionism is the underlying cause.

[rover1]

By the way, China is driving the SUV and Canada is driving the Smart Car, when not riding its bicycle.

What? Canadians emit a lot more carbon dioxide than the Chinese.

Per capita emissions really are a non sequitur, they simply don't make any difference. They might if all Americans consumed like Al Gore, but they don't. Joe Smith, the Canadian rides a bicycle, and re-cycles everything, and is a vegetarian, but not all Canadians are like him either. Per capita figures might be some sort of teaching device, but it is what is emitted, in total, that counts. The fact is that Canada emits more or less 2% of the world's greenhouse gases, and China, starting this year or next, will be the world's greatest emitter. Whatever Canada does, for good or evil, will make no significant difference as far as greenhouse gases are concerned.