Kyoto Treaty comes into force

[ScreamingEagle]

OSLO (Reuters) - A world plan to fight global warming has come into force, feted by its backers as a lifeline for the planet amid sniping at the United States for pulling out.

After years of delays, the U.N. Kyoto Protocol on curbing emissions of heat-trapping gases blamed for disrupting the climate took effect at 0500 GMT (6 a.m. British time) on Wednesday with muted celebrations for a deal Washington dismisses as an economic straitjacket.

Green groups marked Kyoto by protesting outside U.S. embassies, by interrupting oil trading on London's International Petroleum Exchange and by carving fast-melting ice sculptures of kangaroos in Australia.

"Climate change is a global problem. It requires a concerted global response," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in remarks beamed to the ancient Japanese city of Kyoto where the pact was signed in 1997.


http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new..._01_JON550128_RTRUKOC_0_ENVIRONMENT-KYOTO.xml

 

[5stringJeff]

China pollutes as much as the US does, yet the US gets the blame? Not surprised, but it's still ridiculous.

 

[Bonnie]

Climate change is a global problem. It requires a concerted global response," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in remarks beamed to the ancient Japanese city of Kyoto where the pact was signed in 1997.

"I call on the world community to be bold, to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol and to act quickly in taking the next steps," he said. "There is no time to lose."

So this is what takes on importance to Annan??

 

[Zhukov]

I sure hope they don't sanction us.

 

[j07950]

I hope the US won't have to come to being sanctioned, hopefully they'll sign on at some point, but I think extra time should be given to the US to comply to the kyoto treaty, if they do sign on. They are way too many changes to be made and that takes time and money... As for china I don't think they pollute as much, close enough, and they will definitly pass the US in the near future but not as of yet

 

[Huckleburry]

Contrary to popular belief, the Kyoto Protocol would probably benefit the American economy more than any other nations. Let us examine why this is true. First, America already has environmental controls. These controls internalize the cost of environmental damage so that the equilibrium condition accurately reflects the MSC and MSB. Naturally, this increases the cost of production (and thus the cost of American manufactures). This increase in cost is an oft cited reason for trade protection (just give workingman’s post's a search) from the export sector for trade protection. The Kyoto protocol would internalize these costs for all countries and therefore negate the need for trade protection. American exports benefit from a truly level playing field and the world benefits from both free trade and a cleaner environment. Second, the majority of environmental controls belong are high tech. Carbon scrubbers, living machines, and hydrogen fuel cells all require a high level of technical know-how and capital equipment. Ironically, the high tech sector is one of the few in which the US still maintains a comparative advantage over NICs. In addition, the majority of the R & D required to produce new devices happens in the United States. Thus the Kyoto Protocol enhances our trade position by requiring nations to use controls primarily developed and produced within the United States. Lastly taking leadership in regards to the Kyoto protocol gives the United States ample leverage in negotiating trade agreements with other countries (think China). Rather than resort to overt protectionism we can link access to our markets to compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. Better still, those countries found in noncompliance will not solely be punished by the US but by all member nations, including a sizeable portion of the EU bringing to bear an enormous amount of economic pressure on the delinquent state. To resist the Kyoto Protocol is to deny American business the opportunity to do what they do best namely innovate and invent. I say cry havoc and let slip the dogs of American ingenuity.
Cheers
Huck

 

[Annie]

I hope the US won't have to come to being sanctioned, hopefully they'll sign on at some point, but I think extra time should be given to the US to comply to the kyoto treaty, if they do sign on. They are way too many changes to be made and that takes time and money... As for china I don't think they pollute as much, close enough, and they will definitly pass the US in the near future but not as of yet

I do believe Z was being facetious. Sanction away, who are WE to have a say in what treaties we sign? Now the 'international body' is becoming fascist?

 

[j07950]

I do believe Z was being facetious. Sanction away, who are WE to have a say in what treaties we sign? Now the 'international body' is becoming fascist?

Well I think it's an important enough issue to eventually force sanctions on the US later down the road, if there is one thing the interational body should pressure the US in signing it's the Kyoto treaty, but I do understand that it can't be an emmediat change...just not possible...but not signing on eventually is just so wrong...you know it

 

[Annie]

Well I think it's an important issue to force sanctions on the US later down the road, if there is one thing the interational body should pressure the US in signing it's the Kyoto treaty, but I do understand that it can't be an emmediat change...just not possible...but not signing on eventually is just so wrong...you know it

Signing it WOULD be wrong. Just like France, we deal with our best interests. Senate vote to deny ratification: 95-0.

 

[j07950]

Huck

If thats true than why not sign on?

 

[j07950]

Signing it WOULD be wrong. Just like France, we deal with our best interests. Senate vote to deny ratification: 95-0.

I know it's in your best interest...that makes a lot of sense...I totally understand that...but I think the outcome of not signing on is awful

 

[manu1959]

have not seen it in this thread but do you know why the us did not sign on?

 

[j07950]

have not seen it in this thread but do you know why the us did not sign on?

Well as far as I know it's not in their interest...would cost way way way too much money...slow down the economy, and it would probably take ages for it to be efficient

 

[manu1959]

i do not belive that that was the stated reason for not signing on

 

[j07950]

i do not belive that that was the stated reason for not signing on

No, but we all know why, makes as much sense as anything, just common reason

 

[manu1959]

No, but we all know why, makes as much sense as anything, just common reason

i don't know why please tell me...

 

[j07950]

i don't know why please tell me...

I just said...economic reasons...

 

[manu1959]

I just said...economic reasons...

why didn't india sign on?

 

[Annie]

More than just economic. There's also the issue of junk science and others.

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm

 

[manu1959]

More than just economic. There's also the issue of junk science and others.

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm

economically it will hurt everyone, science is a draw ... the treaty does not do anything to address the indias of the world ....