I'm pretty damn hot right now
Excerpts from the following post are taken from the Wikipedia article on the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol is "an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change," the objective of which is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
Now, if I understand it correctly, it's an agreement that was opened up to all nations in 1997. The agreement divides the nations of the world into two groups, developed nations and developing nations, and it requires those developed nations which choose to ratify it to take certain measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations which ratify the agreement are under no obligation to take these reduction measures.
The United States has not ratified the agreement. It has signed it, but the signature is not binding, and it seems to have been done only for symbolic purposes. Most arguments against ratifying the treaty seem to point to the "uncertainty in the climate change issue" and the potentially harmful effects that the reduction measures would have on our economy. Neither Clinton's administration nor the current Bush's administration have submitted the treaty for ratification, based mostly , I believe, on those two arguments.
Here is an excerpt:
"The current president, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which are present in the climate change issue. Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I (Developed) countries and others (Developing.) Bush said of the treaty:
'This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto ... America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change ... Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.'"
So the arguments:
Uncertainty on the climate change issue: (and I'm not sure how they can argue with a study recently released by a U.N. network of 2,000 scientists [see MSNBC.com article 5/4/07 "Warming road map issued by nations"] which says very clearly that there is not a great deal of uncertainty that if we do not take action soon it is VERY likely we will have done devastating damage to our planet and our economies, including the loss of a great deal of the East Coast, all of New Orleans, and a third of Florida due to the rise of ocean waters.) Again, uncertainty on the issue? I'm not sure who's still uncertain, because I'm pretty certain most scientists are very certain we have to act NOW.
Strain on the economy: this seems like a decent argument. At least, it seems convincing to me who knows nothing of global economics. But I do know that a recently released U.N. report supposedly outlines measures which are economically reasonable for all nations across the globe.
But the one that really gets me is this: The U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty ... For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I (Developed) countries and others (Developing.)" The administration does not support the idea that some countries have to reduce emissions and others don't.
So, we are going to refuse to commit to taking measures to reduce greenhouse gases within our country based on the argument that since other countries don't have to, it's unfair that we should? Seriously, how else can you interpret that?
It's not as if refusing to sign this thing is going to prevent those countries which have been given exemptions from being exempt. The protocol goes into effect (actually, has gone into effect) whether or not the U.S. ratifies it. It is an agreement that a nation signs if it is willing to commit to the measures outlined within it. So, by refusing to submit the protocol for ratification, President Bush, and before him, President Clinton, are INDEED shirking responsibility.
Well, you may say, why not commit to our own emissions reduction measures? We don't have to ratify this particular one.
That's a good question. Why not commit to our own emissions reduction measures? Or ANY emissions reduction measures?
Another quote: "In keeping with its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken no specific actions towards mitigation of climate change."
So, if, in President Bush's own words, "my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change," why isn't this administration taking any steps toward enacting any sort of emissions control measures?
And if this article is outdated, and the United States has, since this article's publication, committed to such measures, I apologize and I am pleasantly surprised. If you know of any, please let me know.
But based on the information I have, I am very frustrated with our government with regard to this issue.
The Kyoto Protocol is "an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change," the objective of which is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
Now, if I understand it correctly, it's an agreement that was opened up to all nations in 1997. The agreement divides the nations of the world into two groups, developed nations and developing nations, and it requires those developed nations which choose to ratify it to take certain measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations which ratify the agreement are under no obligation to take these reduction measures.
The United States has not ratified the agreement. It has signed it, but the signature is not binding, and it seems to have been done only for symbolic purposes. Most arguments against ratifying the treaty seem to point to the "uncertainty in the climate change issue" and the potentially harmful effects that the reduction measures would have on our economy. Neither Clinton's administration nor the current Bush's administration have submitted the treaty for ratification, based mostly , I believe, on those two arguments.
Here is an excerpt:
"The current president, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which are present in the climate change issue. Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I (Developed) countries and others (Developing.) Bush said of the treaty:
'This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto ... America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change ... Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.'"
So the arguments:
Uncertainty on the climate change issue: (and I'm not sure how they can argue with a study recently released by a U.N. network of 2,000 scientists [see MSNBC.com article 5/4/07 "Warming road map issued by nations"] which says very clearly that there is not a great deal of uncertainty that if we do not take action soon it is VERY likely we will have done devastating damage to our planet and our economies, including the loss of a great deal of the East Coast, all of New Orleans, and a third of Florida due to the rise of ocean waters.) Again, uncertainty on the issue? I'm not sure who's still uncertain, because I'm pretty certain most scientists are very certain we have to act NOW.
Strain on the economy: this seems like a decent argument. At least, it seems convincing to me who knows nothing of global economics. But I do know that a recently released U.N. report supposedly outlines measures which are economically reasonable for all nations across the globe.
But the one that really gets me is this: The U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty ... For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I (Developed) countries and others (Developing.)" The administration does not support the idea that some countries have to reduce emissions and others don't.
So, we are going to refuse to commit to taking measures to reduce greenhouse gases within our country based on the argument that since other countries don't have to, it's unfair that we should? Seriously, how else can you interpret that?
It's not as if refusing to sign this thing is going to prevent those countries which have been given exemptions from being exempt. The protocol goes into effect (actually, has gone into effect) whether or not the U.S. ratifies it. It is an agreement that a nation signs if it is willing to commit to the measures outlined within it. So, by refusing to submit the protocol for ratification, President Bush, and before him, President Clinton, are INDEED shirking responsibility.
Well, you may say, why not commit to our own emissions reduction measures? We don't have to ratify this particular one.
That's a good question. Why not commit to our own emissions reduction measures? Or ANY emissions reduction measures?
Another quote: "In keeping with its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken no specific actions towards mitigation of climate change."
So, if, in President Bush's own words, "my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change," why isn't this administration taking any steps toward enacting any sort of emissions control measures?
And if this article is outdated, and the United States has, since this article's publication, committed to such measures, I apologize and I am pleasantly surprised. If you know of any, please let me know.
But based on the information I have, I am very frustrated with our government with regard to this issue.