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The United States signed the treaty in 1997 but has withdrawn from it.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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229187/posts
____________________________________________________
Heinz Kerry has an ecology agenda
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/05/24/heinz_kerry_has_an_ecology_agenda/
__________________________________________
Adviser rejects Kyoto Protocol for Russia
Moscow, Russia, Sep. 28, 2004 (UPI) -- Signing the Kyoto Protocol on global warming would prevent Russia doubling its gross domestic product, a top Kremlin adviser said Monday. Russia plans to double its GDP in the next decade, but the goal could not be achieved if the nation signed and implemented the Kyoto Protocol, Andrei Illarionov, an economic adviser to President Vladimir Putin, told a Moscow investment conference, the Interfax news agency said.
"The scenario for doubling GDP implies an annual increase of 7.2 percent over 10 years. At that rate of growth the increase in carbon dioxode emissions could be significant," Illarionov told the conference, entitled "Russia; Investment in an Economy of Growth."
Economy Minister German Gref, however, signed a letter to the government voicing his approval of the treaty, the Moscow News reported Monday.
The Kyoto Protocol, calling for a cap on greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the effects of global warming, can only be ratified if signed by the developed nations that produce half of the world's emissions.....
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040927-050027-3463r.htm
Actually, the United States never signed it; it was never submitted to Congress to be ratified and therefore never had the force of law...IIRC
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. ***
_____________________________________________________________
July 25, 2002 - Robert Novak: Kyoto: Still Signed (A word of warning back when Russia was with us on rejecting Kyoto)
WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate, Inc.) -- Is the Bush administration going to "unsign" the Kyoto global warming treaty just as it unsigned the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty? "We can do that," replied one senior official, "but we won't do it." The principal reason: quiet but decisive influence by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Advocates of scrapping the pact initialed at Kyoto in 1997 until recently were on course to make it the latest of Bill Clinton's diplomatic agreements to be stripped of its U.S. signatures. Dick Cheney, perhaps the most active, powerful vice president ever, was behind the effort. That was before the intervention of Dr. Rice, who is matching her higher profile predecessors in backstage power. In the international treaty question, she reflects the views of European allies, the State Department bureaucracy and the American foreign policy establishment.
George W. Bush is in the middle, buffeted by opposing pressures. He ended up wavering on adherence to the ICC in a way that satisfied nobody on an issue about prestige and ideology. In contrast, the Kyoto treaty involves the future health of the American economy -- making it all the more peculiar that the Bush administration is so sensitive to foreign pressures.
President Bush's conviction that the one-sided Kyoto pact threatens prosperity here is not in doubt. While Kyoto will not be ratified while he is in the White House, there is no statute of limitations for diplomatic treaties. Accordingly, a future Democratic president—elected in 2004 or later—could push it through the Senate.
To prevent that, the U.S. would disavow Kyoto—unsign the treaty—prior to the United Nations global warming conference in Johannesburg beginning August 26. The plan, under Cheney's patronage, was to unsign Kyoto before the Johannesburg meeting and then submit it to the U.N. (as was done with the ICC). Bush disconnected from the Rome treaty establishing the ICC just before it went into effect.
Now that Rice has scuttled Kyoto unsigning plans, the global warming treaty at long last may go into effect at Johannesburg without U.S. approval. If Secretary of State Colin Powell insists on attending the conference, however, that could be interpreted as tacit American support. .........
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/25/column.novak/
George Bush I signed it.
George Bush II rejected it.
See post #3.
Clinton signed it, even though the Senate voted 97-0 before the Kyoto negotiations that if "developing" countries were not included that they would not ratify. It's another of Clinton's wonderful foriegn policy legacy's. All Bush did was withdraw the signiture of something that would never be ratified. But, of course, that makes him evil.
Clinton signed it.
Gee, I really feel bad about that. Guess the rest of the world will have to get by without us.
You are CORRECT!
I was confused by GHW Bush's behavior at the 1992 Rio Summit.
***In 1998 the Clinton administration signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. In doing this it committed the United States to a 7 percent reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 emissions levels, to be achieved between the years 2008 and 2012. Three years later in 2001, the Bush administration withdrew the U.S. signature, claiming that the treaty was "fatally flawed". Upon rejecting the Kyoto Protocol (often called just "Kyoto"), Bush outlined an alternative plan for U.S. emissions reductions that left other signatory countries scoffing at best. For Kyoto to take effect, it was required that countries responsible for 55% of world greenhouse gas emissions sign on to it. The Bush administration's withdrawal was a great blow to the hope that this percentage would be achieved. ***
http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/kyotocol.htm
If Kerry was sitting in the Oval Office he'd be behind this 110%, with Teresa pulling the strings.
No, Clinton signed it.
Or Clinton I, if we're not lucky.
Yes.
Since the Senate rejected it 97-0, was John Kerry part of the 97 against Kyoto or the "zero" for it?
Actually, Al Gore signed it. Kyoto was after Bush I, although Bush I did get the US involved in the process.
Thanks for the info.
I knew Bush I had walked the fence and that "little knowledge" was a dangerous thing.
Bump!
He was a zero, but the vote was not on Kyoto, but a rejection of the principles that ended up being in Kyoto.
It was 95-0.
Kerry was not in favor of it.
He voted with the majority.
Russia, China would just cheat then we would have the UN involved in a new "emmissions from food" scandal.
Stinks to me.
It's just a wealth transfer program to penalize the productive.
We can hurt our economy across the board, but help some nitch market in pollution control equipment... Gee that sure sound like a good trade to me...
The problem is, we signed it and if countries that emit 55% of the emissions ratify it, we're obligated to abide by it.
If Russia signs it (and Putin is pushing it now) that puts it over 55%.
Bush told them to take a hike about ratifying it but that doesn't let us off the hook.
We should have unsigned it (post #3) but we didn't.
Perhaps someone else has a better understanding of this than I do and could explain if and where I'm wrong.
While there are many treaties that we sign and our not ratified, but we more or less abide by them anyway (such as the nuclear test ban treaty). I don't think we our under any legal obligation to follow them.
But then again I may be wrong, I'm certainly no expert in treaties...
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.