Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia Puts Global Climate Pact in Doubt(Kyoto Protocol is not sufficiently grounded in science )
Associated Press ^ | Tue, Sep. 30, 2003 | VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV

Posted on 09/30/2003 11:01:52 AM PDT by getget

Russia Puts Global Climate Pact in Doubt

MOSCOW - A senior adviser to President Vladimir Putin outlined strong reservations Tuesday about ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, saying the pact to limit greenhouse gas emissions is not sufficiently grounded in science and would harm Russia's economic growth.

Although Putin's economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, stopped short of ruling out Russia's ratification of the protocol, which is necessary for it to take effect, his strong criticism of the agreement appeared to leave little hope for approval of the document.

Illarionov, an influential adviser, spoke to reporters on the sidelines of the U.N. World Climate Change Conference. He made the remarks after Putin said Monday that his Cabinet hadn't yet made up its mind whether Russia would ratify the protocol.

To go into effect, the 1997 protocol must be ratified by no fewer than 55 countries, accounting for at least 55 percent of global emissions in 1990. After the United States rejected the treaty, the minimum can be reached only with Russia's ratification.

Illarionov said that the United States and Australia opted out of the protocol after deciding that compliance would be too expensive, and that it would be even less affordable for Russia, which has a much smaller economy.

He elaborated on Putin's statement Monday that Russia could benefit from global warming, saying that warmer temperatures would help increase harvests, cut energy consumption and open ice-encrusted seas to navigation.

"Public opinion was artificially focused on negative consequences of climate change, but there are also positive consequences for both our country and the planet as a whole," Illarionov said.

Yuri Vorobyov, Russia's deputy minister for emergency situations, challenged Illarionov's optimism, telling the conference that warmer temperatures could increase the number of catastrophic floods and damage energy pipelines and other infrastructure in the north.

Whatever the consequences, Illarionov voiced doubts about global warming being a stable trend, echoing Russian scientists who told the conference that the Kyoto protocol's advocates had failed to prove that emissions trigger global warming. They pointed at other factors, such as volcanic eruptions and the ocean's impact, saying they need to be more thoroughly analyzed.

The Kyoto Protocol calls for countries to reduce their level of greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. If a country exceeds the emissions level, it could be forced to cut back industrial production.

Russia's emissions have fallen by 32 percent since 1990 largely due to the post-Soviet industrial meltdown, but they have started to rise again as the economy revived.

Illarionov said that the Kyoto Protocol would hamper Putin's goal of doubling Russia's gross domestic product in 10 years and the subsequent growth by requiring Russia to launch a costly overhaul of its industries in order to cut emissions.

He said that doubling the GDP will bring Russia's emissions to 104 percent of their 1990 level, conflicting with the protocol. "But Russia isn't going to stop at this level, so the carbon dioxide level will be much higher," Illarionov said.

He said that the United States, China and many other nations staying out of the protocol account for 68 percent of global emissions, making the document largely senseless. He said that Russia currently accounts for some 6 percent of global emissions compared to U.S. share of 25 percent and China's 13 percent.

"We are facing a bizarre situation when Russia, which makes less emissions, must cut them, while nations which make much more, like the United States and China, won't curb them," Illarionov said.

"That raises the question about the document's efficiency," he added. "No matter what sacrifice Russia makes, it won't bring us closer to the goal. It would be strange to undertake such obligations if they aren't universal."


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Russia
KEYWORDS: badscience; emissioncharts; globalwarming; kyoto; kyotoprotocol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: randog
Yea, take two rocks....about this big :-) and rub them together!!
21 posted on 09/30/2003 11:22:59 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; mafree; gubamyster; marron; RussianConservative; Cincinatus' Wife
Russia was not interested in Kyoto because of the purported environmental claims, but how much money they could get out of it by the Eurocrats rigging of the scheme.

FYI, Putin's action might have something to do with coal. I read a while back that Russia aimed to increase coal electricity production to free up more oil for export and export earnings.

22 posted on 09/30/2003 11:23:05 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: getget
HA! Excellent.
23 posted on 09/30/2003 11:23:33 AM PDT by leadpencil1 (Kill your television)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Hark! I hear it too!! Tis music to my ears!!!
24 posted on 09/30/2003 11:23:52 AM PDT by SierraWasp (I prefer consistent "Considerate Conservatives," to "Compassionate Conservatives," everytime !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: getget
The Rooskies get it.
25 posted on 09/30/2003 11:25:07 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: getget

the pact to limit greenhouse gas emissions is not sufficiently grounded in science

Geee, yah think maybe?

 

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2003/cap_03-02-20.html

"The Economist, which provides the best environmental reporting of any major news source, carried a small story last week about a simple methodological error in the latest U.N. global warming report that has huge implications. The article, "Hot Potato: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Had Better Check Its Calculations" (February 15 print edition), reviews the work of two Australian statisticians who note an anomaly in the way the IPCC estimated world carbon dioxide emissions for the 21st century."

......

"The IPCC's method has the effect of vastly overestimating future economic growth (and, therefore, CO2 emissions) by developing nations. The fine print of the IPCC's projections, for example, calls for the real per-capita incomes of Argentina, South Africa, Algeria, Turkey, and even North Korea to surpass real per-capita income in the United States by the end of the century. Algeria? North Korea? The IPCC must be inhaling its own emissions to believe this."


 

Mankind's impact is only 0.28% of Total Greenhouse effect

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

 

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics  % of All Greenhouse Gases

% Natural

% Man-made

 Water vapor 95.000% 

 94.999%

0.001% 
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 

 3.502%

0.117% 
 Methane (CH4) 0.360% 

 0.294%

0.066% 
 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 

 0.903%

0.047% 
 Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 

 0.025%

0.047% 
 Total 100.00% 

 99.72

0.28% 

 

The reality is a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration over current levels, that the UN/IPCC "story line" pretends, even if it were true, could not induce significant temperature change whatever its source.

Climate Catastrophe, A spectroscopic Artifact?

"It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.

The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.

This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO2 (as asserted by Kondratjew and Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book The Global Climate [14]), the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is 0.012 degC only. If we take 1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative forcing of 4.3 W/m2, we get a similar value of 0.015 degC."


 

CO2-Temperature Correlations

[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]

[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]

 

Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis

http://isi-eh.usc.es/trabajos/122_41_fullpaper.pdf


26 posted on 09/30/2003 11:26:26 AM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Russia just bought Getty Oil and has over 1,000 gasoline stations in the USA.

Putie may be a PIA at times, but he isn't going to commit financial suicide for himself and his country.
27 posted on 09/30/2003 11:28:17 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mj1234
Many scientists, including myself spoke against the scientific foundation of the concept of global warming. The temperature data gathered from balloons shows no trend toward temperature rise, while the data gathered from the surface (lots concrete/asphalt causes heat absorption/radiation) shows a little trend of a fraction of a degree increase. The radical leftists from around the globe like to be activists over something, and this concept (even if it is wrong) became their cause celebre.

Kyoto was written with excessive pro-China/India language and lots of punitive (practically impossible) language against the US. Carbon dioxide that is emitted from animals and humans, and the sea cannot practically be sequestrated. In fact it is better for this earth, and the plants if CO2 increased a bit.
28 posted on 09/30/2003 11:35:48 AM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: getget
(Kyoto Protocol is not sufficiently grounded in science )

Those wacky Russians. What a bunch of kidders. As if it was ever about science to begin with.

Snort.

29 posted on 09/30/2003 11:36:08 AM PDT by LTCJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: getget; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp
"If the Kyoto agreement doesn't enter into force it will be very damaging for international environmental work," said Boerge Brende, head of the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development.

Great quote. I like this one from the article.

He elaborated on Putin's statement Monday that Russia could benefit from global warming, saying that warmer temperatures would help increase harvests, cut energy consumption and open ice-encrusted seas to navigation.

"Public opinion was artificially focused on negative consequences of climate change, but there are also positive consequences for both our country and the planet as a whole," Illarionov said.

Make Greenland green again.

30 posted on 09/30/2003 11:40:32 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in groups or whole armies.....we don't care how we getcha, but we will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Wonder why Putin didn't disclose this in his press conference with President Bush.

Had to get out of country first. This has to be a low blow to algore.
31 posted on 09/30/2003 11:44:12 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
I think that GW let Putie know that he has about 1.5 strikes against him re his support of $oddomite and selling the Iranians nuclear how tos and tech. Remember GW met him at Camp David instead of GW's Crawford ranch. The next step would be a Rose Garden Photo Op.

So Putie had to go back to Russia to consolidate some agreements he made with GW.
32 posted on 09/30/2003 11:49:41 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Agreed but this news is huge, considering that our own Senate would not vote for it, an algore deal, slides away.

Alot of signals were sent over this weekend.
33 posted on 09/30/2003 11:55:12 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Also in Russia almost every two week, new factory open...so I believes, Russia soon run out of "credit" to sell anyway. Beside, warmer weather....why not? Envirogoons not count on Russians saying hmmm warmer weather, why not? Then they not count on having to rely on Russia for silly pact.
34 posted on 09/30/2003 12:00:54 PM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RussianConservative
Had the US agreed to the protocol, Russia stood to make a lot of money selling us emissions credits. The timing of the cut off date was specifically chosen to be before the Soviet Union collapsed.

This would have more than offset any pain that they would have had to endure trying to meet the requirements of Kyoto.

Now that that isn't going to happen, Putin isn't going along with it.

It was never about the environment, it was about transferring money from the US to Eastern and Western Europe, and putting UN bureaucrats essentially in control of the entire Wests' economies.
35 posted on 09/30/2003 12:53:23 PM PDT by dinasour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: getget
"saying the pact to limit greenhouse gas emissions is not sufficiently grounded in science"

hey the research is as good as any other junk science like evolution

36 posted on 09/30/2003 12:59:07 PM PDT by patriot_wes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Glint
"Global warming" is unproven theory, and one with a lot of evidence aginst it. It is not something to base political decisions on.

Which is precisely why despite all the blathering about "climate change", the Senate voted 95-0 against the treaty.

37 posted on 09/30/2003 1:01:25 PM PDT by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; LTCJ; shadowman99
Russians and Americans have a common enemy - communism. Few people know how many Russian Christians died in the hands of the kookcomms. Few people know that the Russian revolution came on the heels of intense hate propaganda imports. This was followed by a huge terror wave, also illegally imported. Phony issues, just like enviromentalism, were used to fire up the dirt of the Russian society and make them enemies of the entire Christian culture - including their own. (Does it sound familiar?) Putin knows excactly what he is doing. But he needs money to fend off the commies. All disagreements come from this fact and that makes them minor. I've noticed that Russia's haters are always confused about this point.
38 posted on 09/30/2003 1:10:21 PM PDT by singsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: singsong
I wholeheartedly agree about Russian Christians. They have put American Christian to shame.

I also agree that communism that godless religion is a common enemy.

Communism is a religion and too many the world over have been stung with some form or fashion of it.

I do not hate the Russian Christians rather admire them greatly. The government and its actions can hardly be call Christian considering some of its actions since that iron fist went broke.

Putin asking for US to sign a "non-aggression pact" with N. Korea can hardly be a Christian thing to ask.
39 posted on 09/30/2003 1:20:02 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Russia is poor nations" biggest benefactor
http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_120662.php
40 posted on 09/30/2003 1:21:22 PM PDT by getget
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson