Democrats & Liberals: Archives

This will stand as a major blow to our ability to achieve international cooperation on a host of other issues as we move forward. This is a sad day for American history.

Not to take away from the gravity of the situation, but isn’t polling Americans about what Americans think about Americans a little surreal?

And how did Clinton feel about this same treaty?

And how did Clinton feel about this same treaty?

And who’s President right now?

Clinton has no authority right now, and thus his opinion on the matter is utterly irrelevant.

David-

While a blow to international cooperation is a serious thing, coddling the international community is not a good reason to sign a treaty if the treaty is a bad deal.

Is Kyoto a good deal for the U.S.? The Greens say yes and the libertarians (CATO) say no. I don’t know, but I think we need to debate that first.

President Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification and never intended to because he knew it couldn’t pass. (Americans may support such things in theory, but they dislike paying more for gas more.) But he did sign onto it on almost his last day as president, thus throwing Bush (and the U.S.) a hot potato. The Clinton administration also did little but talk about the problem, but they were very good at that.

The U.S. is not doing nothing. We are the major researcher in fusion energy, and alternative fuels. President Bush’s hydrogen initiative, for example, provides $1.7 billion through 2008 to develop and fuel a new generation of hydrogen-powered vehicles that produce no pollution and exhaust nothing but water. President Bush’s 2005 budget proposes $5.8 billion for activities related to climate change - a 13.9% increase - and includes over $200 million to support technology transfer to developing countries. This is where the real crunch (and most future pollution) will come. The big developing countries don’t have responsibility under Kyoto, which is one reason why it won’t work. The other reason is that not many countries will really do their part. President Bush made a mistake, but not pretending to go along, much like the Euros and others are doing. The Russians have a good chance of actually meeting targets only because their socialist industries were so dirty and inefficient that simply replacing the old machines reduces emissions by large amounts, but most others can’t do it at today’s levels of technology.

The article in your link refers to the Methane to Markets initiative. I was just reading up on that. Carbon dioxide represents by far the largest percentage of greenhouse gas. But in terms of impact on climate change, methane traps 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide; nitrous oxide captures 270 times more heat. As important as it is to look at ways to control carbon dioxide, it may be really productive – at least in the near term - to examine ways to control trace gases such as methane. Capturing methane emissions would reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with the added benefit of providing usable energy, since methane itself is a fuel (natural gas).

This is a serious problem so whatever we do, we have to be careful not to get stuck with old solutions. We really can’t conserve ourselves out of this problem; we have to shift the whole energy paradigm.

bugcrazy wrote:
“And how did Clinton feel about this same treaty?”

cejayoz answered:
“And who’s President right now?”
“Clinton has no authority right now, and thus his opinion on the matter is utterly irrelevant.”

That pretty much hits the nail right on the head. Clinton is a plain old ordinary citizen now, and like the rest of us, his “feelings” or opinion(s) are totally irrelevant to, and otherwise ignored by, our (elected) Congress and the Bush administration. Unfortunately, unless we support their agenda, that of the big money that put them in power, we are “utterly irrelevant.”

DuPont has done a wonderful job with Kyoto principles.

DuPont, the second-biggest U.S. chemicals company, has trimmed emissions by 65 percent below 1990 levels over the last decade, said Tom Jacob, DuPont senior adviser for global affairs.

From what I understand, they were able to achieve this (above expectations) while increasing profitability.

Thank you Jack. A well informed and civilized answer.

ceejayoz,
I expected something more like, Clinton didn’t whole heartedly support it and neither does Bush.

“Clinton is a plain old ordinary citizen now, and like the rest of us, his “feelings” or opinion(s) are totally irrelevant to, and otherwise ignored by, our (elected) Congress and the Bush administration.”
…but the Democratic Party goes running to their ‘golden boy’ when they find themselves slipping in deep doodoo.

Escobar, your comment about government no longer being responsive to the needs of the people is so bluntly correct, it appears to go right over folks heads. That, or they dodge its meaning as bugcrazy did by changing the subject.

The subject, Bugcrazy, was not parties out of power, like the communist party, or fascist party or Democratic party, the subject was the those in power. We can’t change the past, what are you going to do about the government in power today. It only takes a couple minutes to send and email or phone your Congressperson. Yeah, I know, to much work for lazy, complacent, boob tube, alcohol guzzling Americans, whose favorite pasttime is to critique from the cheap seats. To make a difference, one has to DO SOMETHING, not just say something.

BULLETIN: There is no human induced global warming.

There is no evidence whatsoever that humans are causing global warming.

Kyoto is essentially an anti-american protocol. It’s main goal is to put the screws to big bad polluting America. Why wouldn’t competing nations sign it to hamstring our economy?

Escobar wrote;

“That pretty much hits the nail right on the head. Clinton is a plain old ordinary citizen now, and like the rest of us, his “feelings” or opinion(s) are totally irrelevant to, and otherwise ignored by, our (elected) Congress and the Bush administration. Unfortunately, unless we support their agenda, that of the big money that put them in power, we are “utterly irrelevant.”

As an outsider looking in, I wonder if things in the US can really be as they seem from abroad. Where people vote for a regime that is so clearly at odds with the interests of the majority? That a majority believes that the Rights agenda, not least its laissez faire ( pardon my french )attitude to big business, is acceptable, giving a free ride to big business to spread its immorality and amorality at will. Is is that the myths that so bind such a disparate community are being taken too seriously? Americans seem to believe that one day they too will be rich, but reality shows that most retire poor. There is a huge disconnect between peoples beliefs about their possibilities and the actual outcome of their lives. How is this? Have they swallowed a pup?

There is no evidence whatsoever that humans are causing global warming.

…except that there is. The Bush administration’s EPA has concluded humans are responsible, UN studies have concluded humans are responsible. I even included a study in this article.

And if it’s too much for some people to wrap their heads around all at once, here’s the EPA’s Global Warming Kids Site where they spoon feed the situation to you a little at a time without using big words. :)

Paul In Euroland,

I have a printed copy of that Daily Mirror front cover page, that I plan to frame and hang right in front of this here computer!

As you can see from the last few comment posts, one commenter asserted ‘there is no evidence whatsoever that humans are causing global warming’, followed by a commenter offering several links to documented evidence to the contrary.

Now imagine a vast communication/information complex including the Internet, broadcast media, print and radio, where the erroneous opinion of the first commenter is perpetuated and accepted as the truth, and the contrary evidence offered up by the second commenter is forbidden, or dismissed as flawed and/or bias (absent any proof), with no discussion?

Now you know why some of us only watch the BBC News.

Eric, there is one other fatal flaw to the logic of your comment. If the primary intent of the Kyoto accord is to torpedo the U.S., and since the U.S. has already made it abundantly clear it will not comply or sign, why does the Kyoto Accord still exist? Why is the rest of the world still willing to sign and agree to be subject to its terms?

If its primary purpose was to torpedo the U.S., the Accord would have lost its appeal a few years ago when the U.S. announced it had no intention of signing or complying. Yet, the Kyoto Accord has come to pass. Your logic is entirely flawed on this issue.

Eric:

Another unsupported but grandiose statement about what is and what isn’t. There’s also no evidence whatsoever that the universe wasn’t created by a spastic wombat on Quaaludes.

Kyoto is something that just got out of hand. It combines a lot of good ideas with almost no effectiveness. Signers can feel good that they are doing something to fight an unseen foe of greenhouse gas, but they have no reason to believe it will work.

Climate change is constant. Anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows that Europe was warmer in the year 1000 than it is today. When the Viking colonized Greenland, they could actually raise livestock. After that we went into the “little ice age” that lasted through the 19th Century. The warmest decade of the 20th Century was the 1930s. If that kind of weather had persisted, Hitler probably could have successfully invaded Russia, since “General Winter” would have been much less formidable. Natural shocks can change climate drastically. 1815 is known as the year without a summer. There were frosts in every month of the year in New England that year because of the eruption of Mt. Tambora in Indonesia. And lets not forget that the last ice age ended only 10,000 years ago. What is now the U.S. as far south as Illinois and Ohio were covered with miles of ice. So tell me, what is the “normal” climate of the earth?

I am not writing this to advocate doing nothing. Only to emphasize that natural changes can easily swamp our meager actions. Human interactions with the environment are complicated, and scientific understanding of the effects of those interactions is constantly improving. This reality is a challenge to scientists and policymakers. Actions meant to improve the environment may not have their full, intended effects. Sometimes the most costly steps may not be the most effective. I think Kyoto falls in that category. Our first step should be to go after the easier targets, like methane. Unlike CO2, we have a reasonable chance of making a rapid impact.

Greenhouse gas emissions have historically been linked to economic growth. Since 1990, the United States has reduced greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP by about 1.8 percent each year. If the economy didn’t grow, we could meet targets like Kyoto. But the economy has grown faster, so there are more greenhouse gases. We need to change our energy paradigm. One solution we will again need to consider is nuclear power. I am a believer (and investor) in alterative power, but I don’t believe it is realistic to count on these technologies in the next decades.

Jack, headlines and research released just this week would contradict you postulation that human activity has no impact. Sorry, the evidence just doesn’t support your or Eric’s view.

Heat wave risk rising with emissions

Deadly hot summers ‘to become the norm’

Good Goddess - If Russia endorses Kyoto, then it MUST be good for America. Honestly, I was waiting to see what Iran’s position on it was before taking sides myself, but now I’m sold. We must sign our economy over to the UN immediately, or Dennis Quaid will be sledding around the frozen tundra that used to be New York City.

Eric,
You might want to send your bulletin to the good people of Lima, Peru. Lima has a population of 8 million, and is totally reliant upon the River Rimac for its drinking water. That river flows year around for one reason- it is fed by glacial runoff. The glaciers feeding the river are rapidly receding (like most of the world), which means it’s a matter of years before the river becomes seasonal, and Lima dies.

Foolishly enough, the Peruvians are building dams & spending money to ensure a year-around water supply. Please let them know there is no global warming, and the glaciers will not continue receding. You’ll save them a lot of time, money, and effort.

But if you want to hedge your bets, you might want to visit Glacier National Park soon. It used to have 150 glaciers. They’re down to 50. By mid-century there will be no glaciers in Glacier National Park.

I could go on, but the statement about there being no global warming is simply indefensible, and not worth further addressing. The extent of Global Warming is debatable, and the pros & cons of Kyoto as well. However, it’s existence is well documented, and the fact that humans are the major cause as well- more specifically, people from the US.

David

I went through a lot of trouble to properly nuance and explain my position. I never said y human activity had no impact on climate. I said that natural forces interaction makes things very complicated and some of the solutions proposed by Kyoto may do little or nothing to make the situation better.

I have “believed” in the greenhouse effect since the early 1980s (long before it became fashionable) I digressed into the climate history because it is so interesting how climate has changed over the course of the centuries. If humans did not exist, the climate would change as it has before humans had any impact.

Remember – ICE AGE was not long ago and it covered half of N. America. GLOBAL WARMING about 9000 years ago. COOLING probably doomed the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt and the Mycenaeans. GLOBAL WARMING during the height of the Roman Empire and the medieval warm period made these periods productive. GLOBAL COOLING during the little ice age doomed the Greenlanders and reduced the English populations. The list goes on.

Humans do not induce MOST of the climate change and the U.S does not induce MOST of the part induced by humans. Most of the waste methane, which is 21 times more potent than CO2 comes from rice patties and wetlands in Asia. The U.S produces about 25% of the world GNP and has CO2 emissions commensurate with that. The U.S. has been reducing its carbon intensity by about 1.8% a year since 1990, as I wrote above. We are willing to share these technologies with developing countries, like China and India. These are the places most pollution will come from very soon. They are not restricted by Kyoto.

Climate change is a potentially serious problem, but the steps outlined in Kyoto will do almost nothing to stop it and may even create greater hazards. The only way out of this problem is through a change in the energy paradigm to the extent anything limits economic growth it limits the technological potential. We should probably consider nuclear power, which creates no greenhouse gases. At existing technology levels, nothing else will come close to working. We have to make hard choices, but they probably are not the choices the green lobby thinks we should make.

This is a problem that can’t be reduced to simple slogans.

One more thing about headlines and research. I read the one about warm summers. It is not based on science; it is mere extrapolation and conjecture put into a statistics program.

If these guys can predict the weather fifty years into the future, why can’t they predict it next week?

Just to be clear, I believe that the climate is changing and that human activities are playing a role. But I also know that nobody can make predictions with any certainty.

The reason why George W. Bush wouldn’t sign the Kyoto treaty is his background.

Don’t forget that he’s from oil industry. He’s the representative of special interest group.

jack, c’mon, man, proabability and statistics are the only methods of science applicable to weather and atmospheric predictablility. To use any other information set would be less reliable and less rational. Just because the best evidence available is not empirically tight laboratory controlled conditions with only one variable at play does NOT mean we should abandon all attempts to apply the best scientific methodology available to make decisions. The best scientific methodology regarding earth science and atmospherics is probability and statistical modeling. Abandon that and one might just as well consult the spirit world and develop national and international policy on that basis.

There is not concrete proof and never will be. That does not mean we should not assess and act on the best assessments available.

…the U.S does not induce MOST of the part induced by humans… The U.S produces about 25% of the world GNP and has CO2 emissions commensurate with that.

But we produce disproportionately more per capita than any other country.

The U.S. has been reducing its carbon intensity by about 1.8% a year since 1990, as I wrote above.

I’m sure you’re aware that means the US has been reducing the increase of carbon emissions on average since 1990. The Kyoto protocol calls for actually rolling back emissions to pre-90’s levels.

…some of the solutions proposed by Kyoto may do little or nothing to make the situation better.

[Chuckle] You guys said the Kyoto protocol would never be ratified. You were wrong. Now the rationalization is, some of the measures may not work. I’m willing to bet you guys are wrong about that, too. :)

This is what drives the rest of the world nuts about Americans. If there’s a chance that reducing greenhouse gas emissions might affect our current lifestyle, then preserving our civilization is absolutely not worth it. This is where Americans get the reputation for being selfish, gluttonous, and spoiled.

Jack, your point about the climate’s effect on civilization is well taken. Here’s a Pentagon study about how it would affect ours. It’s not pretty.

And according to the EPA, global warming will cause drought, food shortages, rising sea levels, and disease.

The good news is, more frost-free days!

AP and David

I am not for doing nothing. On the contrary, I believe in effective action. The science on the human effects on the climate is evolving. The studies that show how hot it could get or how high sea levels could become are interesting, but not really very useful. In order to address a risk, you have to know what causes it and how it works. We concentrated on CO2 a couple of years ago because that seemed like the big problems and it was politically correct to go after that component since it was produced mostly by western and American activities. CO2, however, in the atmosphere is very complicated. It stimulates plant growth and the more rapid plant growth removes some CO2. On the other hand, warming bogs might release more of it. On the third hand, the oceans might absorb more etc. There are also many surprises. For example, rain forests don’t trap much CO2 because of the rapid decaying and recycling of nutrients. Young temperate forest trap a lot. Old growth forests have a lot, but on balance release about as much as they trap in any given year. One thing that is certain: attempts to cut back on C02 emissions are hard to do.

My comment about natural causes is meant to temper the human arrogance that we are in control of all of this. There is a good current example. Mount St Helens has been acting up again lately. It is probably not going to erupt, but it is emitting gases including sulfur dioxide and CO2. Even at this benign stage, it often produces each day about twice as much air pollution as all the industries and people in its home state of Washington. We humans don’t know what real power is.

AP, I understand that reducing carbon intensity does not mean a reduction in total amount. That is the point. If the U.S. economy hadn’t grown, we would have reduced our CO2 by the compounded rate of about 1.8% a year. I don’t have my calculator handy, so I can’t figure the exact compounded rate, but it would be about 30% reduction. “Unfortunately” the U.S economy grew about twice that fast. In other words, you could reduce CO2 emissions if you were willing not to grow the economy, which is exactly the crux of the problem. European economies have grown slower than the U.S. during that period. What is more, the European populations will soon or already have begun to decline. That is why they are more optimistic about meeting their goals. Closed industries don’t produce pollution and neither do dead people or people who have never been born.

Kyoto was based on older science and the political, demographic and economic structures of the early 1990s. Things have changed a lot since then. The biggest and most obvious problem is that Kyoto doesn’t task the big developing economies. The phenomenal economic growth (and even more phenomenal environmental impact) of China and India, among others, was not foreseen in 1990. Kyoto has become much more an article of faith than a practical program.

So what do we do? The first step is to go after those things we can most easily and quickly address. Obvious targets are methane and nitrous oxides, which are respectively 21 and 270 times more potent greenhouse gases than CO2. The other important thing about these gases is that they are actually pollutants, which we should go after for other reasons. (CO2 is not in the same class, unless you count breathing as a pollution creating activity.) Next we have to change the energy paradigm, which probably will include greater reliance on nuclear energy, at least as a bridge until the renewables we all hope for come on line.

Jack M, there are two ways to dramatically reduce methane emissions. First, sort garbage into compostable and non compostable, and compost organic garbage capturing the methane and selling it as a raw resource fuel. Second, and this is not as insignificant as it sounds, develop an anti-flatulent for grazing animals, cows, goats, pigs and sheep. I forget the figures now, but, total sum of methane from grazing animals is huge!

Both of these are doable. The technology already exists. But, without something like the Kyoto Treaty agreement to build on, nothing like this will occur world wide. Kyoto is imperfect, but, it is a start. THe longer we fight over the validity of Kyoto, the longer we delay having to actually do anything. Another President might see the wisdom of signing on to Kyoto and adapting and evolving it toward real efficiency in achieving its stated goals. This President however, would rather delay and protect commercial interests who last week were shown to be among his biggest campaign finance supporters - an no, this time these same contributors did NOT contribute to Kerry’s campaign.

David

President Clinton never signed on to Kyoto (except rhetorically) and neither could President Kerry. Senate confirmation is impossible and everyone knows that.

Just a couple of days ago, the Bush Administration signed on to the methane to markets initiative, which is scheduled to recover 500 billion cubic feet of methane annually by 2015 – and do this at a profit. Making a profit is sustainable. I know your “cattle farts” example is no joke. Significant gains can be made by altering the feed of cattle. But most human produced methane comes from rice patties. I don’t know how to get at that with today’s technology. President Bush’s 2005 budget proposes $5.8 billion for activities related to climate change — a 13.9 percent increase — and includes more than $200 million to support technology transfer to developing countries. That is where the real pollution must be tackled.

I don’t care for Kyoto because I think it larded in too much social engineering and global redistribution along with environmental concern. The special treatment for the developing world, for example, was very short sighted. Those places are the likely sources for most pollution within a very short time. Besides, it is Obe’d. These treaties can work, like the Montreal Protocol did, if they take into account the realities of business and technologies. Kyoto was no Montreal.

And you don’t always need an international treaty. Since 1970, for example, total U.S. emissions for six major pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, have been cut by half at the same time that our nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew by more than 160 percent. The U.S. is the leader in environmental protection. This all happened without any treaties. Why didn’t we address CO2? Because we only recently began to define CO2 as a pollutant. I recall in the 1970s fighting pollution by making sure the only product of combustion was “harmless” CO2 and water vapor. Back in the 1970s, experts worried about global cooling. You may recall. It was called the “snow blitz” and was supposed to be triggered by man made pollution that was reflecting too much sunlight.

The only technology currently available to satisfy the world’s energy needs without producing CO2 in nuclear. We need to decide on how we want to process the wastes. It is more a political than technical problem. Let’s get back to that while we develop renewable alternatives.

Jack M, I agree with what you have said except for two points.

First, I think you underestimate the power of Executive authority of the Oval Office that has been added to that office by every President from FDR on, except Carter. The Veto Pen, and the power of negotiation with the Senate has become an awesome power the Constitution never intended the President to have - and Clinton’s Presidency was proof of that. Also, note, that if Clinton - Bush had agreed in principal with the goal of Kyoto, each could have negotiated the conditions of our entry into the accord. That never happened. They didn’t even try.

Our other disagreement is on nuclear. Nuclear power is just as dangerous as atmospheric pollutants, just in a different way. We must not increase nuclear waste until we have found an effective and safe method for its disposal. Our national security is already weakened by the huge number of oil can filled nuclear wastes rusting out in surface installations dotted all around the country. They are a nightmare for America just waiting for a terrorist, domestic or foreign to trigger it, or simply time to make the nightmare real. The costs of such a cleanup could be greater than the Savings & Loan bailout, not to mention the loss of life and health for a large number of Americans.

Nuclear is not the answer until we come up with an effective answer for nuclear waste.

…you could reduce CO2 emissions if you were willing not to grow the economy

That’s not true. The two are not mutually exclusive. A dedicated private/public program to develop alternative energy (including nuclear) and reduce the amount of oil we burn would have a significant effect on emissions and minimal impact on economic growth. In fact, Kerry’s energy plan was estimated to create a half-million new jobs and would have made the US a leader in exporting new energy technologies.

A rollback of Bush’s tax cuts on the top 2% should more than cover such a program. :)

So what do we do? The first step…

Sounds good. Why aren’t we doing it?

BTW, this is where states as laboratories will be a driver. California keeps pushing fuel efficiency standards, and we’re developing a hydrogen infrastructure. If we could keep Bush from filing lawsuits blocking these efforts, we might accomplish something pretty amazing.

Australia is on track to meet greenhouse gas emission targets set under the Kyoto protocol, but the majority party refuses to ratify it because the treaty doesn’t do enough to curb emissions from developing countries.

The opposition parties say that’s not the point. Or rather it is, but Australia could help make it less of a problem AND make a bundle o’ dough while doing it,

Labor’s environment spokesman Anthony Albanese says if the nation is meeting the Kyoto targets, it should enjoy the economic benefits as well.

“The whole benefit of signing up to the protocol is that the signatories can then engage in emissions trading to the benefit of billions of dollars that will occur over the coming years, so Australia is missing out on massive economic opportunities by not signing up, he said.”

By the way, I am not being polemical. This is a subject I am interested in. Below is a good background - from the American but non-partisan point of view.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/38566.pdf