Posted on 09/29/2004 2:09:48 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON — Russian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol would leave U.S. companies cut off from new markets worth billions of dollars, according to supporters of a treaty aimed at limiting so-called greenhouse gases.
The United States signed the treaty in 1997 but has withdrawn from it.
That means U.S. producers of technologies that reduce consumption of fossil fuels will be left out of new global markets created as countries signing the treaty move to reduce their outputs of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, supporters said.
Members of Russian President Vladimir Putin's Cabinet were signing on this week to his request that the Duma, the lower house of Russia's parliament, ratify the treaty.
Russia's ratification would satisfy a treaty provision making it effective 90 days after it is ratified by industrialized countries responsible for 55 percent of the 1990 global emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The treaty has been ratified by more than 100 countries, including Japan and all the countries of the European Union.
But the refusal of the United States and Australia to sign up means only Russia had sufficient 1990 emissions to push the total up to the 55 percent figure.
If Kyoto goes into force, foreign rather than U.S. companies making everything from wind energy technology to thermal windows will benefit from its provisions, said Jonathan Pershing of the World Resources Institute.
Pershing, a former deputy director of the State Department Office of Global Change who helped negotiate the treaty, said domestic producers in countries that are reducing greenhouse gases under the treaty will be favored over U.S. competitors.
In addition, financial companies that arrange emission trades under a Kyoto provision for selling pollution credits probably will not be U.S.-based, he said.
The accord sets 1990 as a baseline year against which developed countries must cut emissions and provides a trading mechanism whereby countries that produce less greenhouse gas than their 1990 baseline can sell "allowances" to those that fail to do so.
"Russia will benefit from a great wealth transfer as EU funds flow into the country in exchange for rights to Russian carbon dioxide allowances," said William O'Keefe, president of the George Marshall Institute.
Whether Russia will have billions of dollars in allowances to sell is in dispute.
Putin economic adiser Andrei Illarionov, an opponent of the treaty, said Russia is growing and soon will exceed its 1990 baseline. Caps on further emissions would inhibit the country's economy, he said.
The protocol was signed by the United States and other countries in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. President Bill Clinton decided not to submit it to the Senate for ratification after 95 members signaled it would fail. After taking office in 2001, President Bush withdrew the United States as a signer.
"Sadly . . . this leaves the United States isolated," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense.
It might also "force" them to prepare for the end of the fossil-fuel energy era; the beginning of this end will occur this century.
Basic Choices and Constraints on Long-Term Energy Supplies (long but very informative)
Quote:
"The major source of the world's energy supply, the fossil fuels, will decline in availability within several decades. It is of paramount importance that the public and policymakers recognize the ensuing shortages and the urgent need for policies that will address them. In particular, an urgent commitment to solar and nuclear energy technologies appears to be mandatory for the long term."
Welcome.
Didn't Clinton sign it?
Back in the 70's I remember the 'experts' screaming about how we only had 25 years of oil left and only a few hundred years of coal. Now we have more oil than we did in the seventies and enough coal to last well over 500 years.
I've seen enough reports of old wells refilling and new deposits being found to not fear the end of oil. I also trust God to supply our energy needs
I'd still like to see many more nuke plants built however, save the oil for our vans and SUV's
Pure silliness. Just because the US isn't signed onto the treaty doesn't mean we can't develop the technologies it calls for or involve ourselves in the "credit trading" process. We just aren't bound to use the stuff.
In fact, it seems more likely than not that we'll dominate these markets by not taking part in the treaty.
By not being involved, our economy remains strong, which will allow for more capital. Since industry won't be bound to obey stupid regulations, producers will find it in their benefit to manufacture the technology here. If the technology works and is not overly expensive, it most likely will be used here without coersion by the regulations.
Not taking part in this foolishness makes us far stronger. We ought to be laughing when other nations are signing onto Kyoto.
Furthermore, the treaty creates a definite market for the technologies we would be producing. Businesses in other countries would need to buy our products in order to comply with the treaty they signed on to.
That's the part I love most about it: before the Kyoto goes into effect, people from outside this country talk about how stupid we are that we can't see the consequences of not joining in on the treaty. After it goes into effect, they will whine about how we somehow manipulated the situation, forcing them to sign the treaty while taking advantage of it to improve our own economy.
Foreign stupidity makes America stronger.
Clinton told people to ignore the fact it was not signed onto and just legislate like it was. The real legislators in this country, (the epa, osha, etc) will do just that.
Nothing finite can last forever if it keeps being consumed. Here's what the linked article says about coal:
"If demand remains frozen at the current rate of consumption, the coal reserve will indeed last roughly 250 years.2 That prediction assumes equal use of all grades of coal, from anthracite to lignite. Population growth alone reduces the calculated lifetime to some 90-120 years (see figure 4)."
"Any new uses of coal would further reduce the supply. The Fischer-Tropsch process has been used to convert coal to gasoline motor fuel in South Africa for decades, for example. The process requires that one carbon atom of coal be sacrificed to generate at least two hydrogen atoms, and it takes energy to decompose water to make that hydrogen. As a result, the process consumes 2 Q of coal to generate 1 Q of motor fuel. Hydrogen production would require an even greater consumption of coal. The use of coal for conversion to other fuels would quickly reduce the lifetime of the US coal base to less than a human lifespan (see figure 4)."
Now we have more oil than we did in the seventies
And we're using it a lot faster than in the seventies, too.
The reason I provided the article and this information is not to argue, it's to show that future planning is going to have to consider and develop alternative energy sources. If you are aware of current events (and I assume you are), then you'll know that the current production limits for oil are being pushed, and China is taking ever bigger sucks on the pipelines. Just the cost of fossil fuels themselves in this competitive "environment" will drive the development of alternate energy sources, as they become equally cost-effective as fossil fuels.
For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we adults need to start thinking about this now, and particularly encourage our political leaders to do the same. Unfortunately, the current crop of politicians, be they striped Republican or Democrat, seem far more interested in status quo preservation and CYA measures than real forward-thinking. Sigh.
Actually there are lots of reserves that haven't been tapped yet (ANWR, deep water gulf, off shore etc and that's just in US territory) so it's not production limits that are hurting us. It's refining limits.
and China is taking ever bigger sucks on the pipelines. Just the cost of fossil fuels themselves in this competitive "environment" will drive the development of alternate energy sources, as they become equally cost-effective as fossil fuels.
This is true. We need to get more nuke plants on line now and save the oil for our SUV's
You're right, that's what I meant to say. But in regards to the rest of your comments, undeveloped reserves such as ANWR are not considered nearly as large as the proven reserves. If you read the article, the expectation of reaching the peak in world oil production in a few decades is based on an estimate (deemed "optimistic" in the article) of the world oil resource = 2200-3900 billion barrels, "nearly twice the proven reserve". And realize that the upper bound estimate is nearly twice the lower bound estimate.
We can still find and produce more oil. But it will get used up eventually. The article also notes that the realistic way to deal with the situation is via solar and nuclear power. The long-term solution is to get nuclear fusion online.
US Constitution: Article 2, Sec. 2, Clause 2: He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ...
The Kyoto Treaty does nothing about global climate change. It doesn't even reduce atmospheric pollutant releases. It only transfers cash from the US to some other countries.
My understanding is that if the Senate does not ratify a treaty, it does not have any force of law under the Constitution. So, the US is not 'obligated' to observe the terms of such a treaty due to Constitutional separation of powers.
Whether Russia will have billions of dollars in allowances to sell is in dispute.
This should be fun to watch.
They need us more than we need them. They all talk a good game but without the US they are all 3rd world Countries.
Kyoto does not recognize the US as a carbon sink, rather than a carbon emitter. We have more trees, vegetation and farms that take CO2 out of the atmosphere, than we have factories that produce CO2.
The media never reports this. If there was a real Kyoto plan, we would be given credits, instead of being asked to pay for the plan.
Evil deals.
DK
BTTT!!!!!!!
I'm not sure I agree. I still lean more toward the "deep hot biosphere" view that oil is continually being made deep in the earth. I guess we'll see in fifty years or so.
I do agree however that we need to use more nuke power. Nuke is cool. Likewise the capture of solar is a good idea. It's there we might as well use it.
The answer to Kyoto and the WTO is , first, ANWR and coastal oil then ultimately nuclear energy abd deregulation. We will either go along to get along and become part of a rapidly declining Europe or we will take the American route and simply separate ourselves from Europe with American Enterprise and Nuclear energy. WTO and NAFTA and all of those things were expressions of the right idea about free markets and free people but the WRONG way to go about it. We should simply have dropped all barriers to trade (excepting military information), with one part of the world at a time, but relentlessly. Other countries would have to reciprocate or die economically. such things as Kyoto would be impossible. If we deregulate now and take the wraps off nuclear energy and oil we will render Kyoto ineffective against us and will rapidly leave any Kyoto bound country in the economic dust as Europe becomes the backwater workshop of American prosperity.
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.