 | More "peak oil navel gazing..." (or, let's just publicly ignore the lessons of the last few months) | The Oil Drum | Monday Open Thread |  |
20 comments on Kyoto Goes Local
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
20 comments on Kyoto Goes Local
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Yes, I suppose that having the mayors on board is better than nothing. Given the way that manufacturing has been exported, I am starting to think that even if the emissions within the U.S. proper were to decrease, the world emissions would continue to increase.
True. Consumers buying lots of crap, and as long as this continues the situation won't improve.
On a global scale, I am having a hard time seeing how you can have any kind of agreement on global warming. Kyoto was an attempt to freeze emission levels, but as was pointed out rapidly growing countries will never sign on. If you were to redistribute the carbon from western coutries to China and India, then the western countries would never sign on (for that matter we wouldn't even sign on to Kyoto).
In the future, we may start to see the true signs of climate change. Some aspects may have already been identified, others are yet to be seen, I fear. And even this may be insufficient to generate any sense of urgency.
I've always felt that the US should have signed Kyoto and I am glad that the mayors are on board but until someone tames the Chinese industrial dragon's emissions and the Indian subcontinent's emissions, Kyoto is doomed to fail.
The end state of the globe that I think we could all be happy with would be to bring China and India and Africa up to a living standard comparable to the US. Obviously doing that by bringing their emissions up to the industrial world's standard (a factor of 5 or 10 per capita higher) would be disastrous for global warming. But what that really illustrates is that the industrialized world's emissions are far, far too high, much more so than is usually recognized. And they're even higher if you take account of the offshoring of CO2 as others have pointed out.
In that context, I think it's politically unhelpful to place much burden on the poor states at the start. The rich states HAVE to start reducing their emissions, and the burden should be on them at the start. We in the US are after all far and away the biggest current and historical source of the problem, particularly on a per capita basis.
Certainly there's a lot that could be done to help China and India reduce their carbon burden, like aiding in building efficient factories and power plants. In addition I'd particularly like it if the US helped them ameliorate their "smokestack" phase by giving away pollution-control technology, so they could minimize the public health risk of all of those new coal plants.
In the end what we'll need is a Kyoto replacement that effectively controls CO2 on a per capita basis. Easy to do approximately on a per-nation basis. Not so easy to do the accounting really accurately, particularly with globalized manufacturing.
But the current step of having industrialized nations trying to slow their emissions under Kyoto, with developing nations exempted, doesn't strike me as fundamentally unfair, or even incomplete when viewed as the first step everyone agrees it is, and with industrialized nations busily exporting their consumer CO2 use.
Well, except for the fact that the US has exempted itself. But even ignoring that, Kyoto was always doomed to fail in the sense that it was never intended to be a full step to combat climate change. I considered it a victory just to have an agreement at all, however flawed.
Certainly the US and other industrial nations must reduce emissions. I never said otherwise. What I said was that excluding the developing nations ensures that global warming emissions will end up being worse than what they are now, probably by at least a factor of two.
We all need to reduce emissions. And it is in the best interests of the developed nations to teach the developing nations how to do it cleaner, and to loan them the money to do it cleaner than we did it.
Failure to address both the industrial nations and the developing nations will result in global warming going unchecked at all, because by the time China and India fully industrialize, every unit of emissions eliminated from the first world nations will have been replaced manyfold by emissions from the developing world.
This is the most sensible post in this thread.
However, Kyoto, if implemented, wasn't doomed to fail in goal of showing developing nations that the industrialized nations are acting in good faith. Per-capita accounting wouldn't be that hard to do if the accounting is left to the countries, i.e., a countries emissions goals is set to be proportional to its population.
Offshoring shouldn't be an accounting problem either. If China. for instance, had signed an agreement to limit its CO2 emissions and offshored production threatened to put it over its limit then they would have to incorporate that into the price they charged for the production. This would have the effect of discouraging the offshoring.
Certainly, we could help China and India limit their emissions through technology transfer. But more importantly we need to do is change our lifestyle. It would be far easier for the Chinese and Indian governments to convince their people that they shouldn't expect to drive around in private cars if we weren't doing it.
What it all boils down to is that our emissions are far, far, far to high. What we should be focusing on is reducing our emissions to the point that we can ask for the rest of the world's cooperation. To do otherwise is acting in bad faith.
By the way, can we stop with this Jevon's paradox crap? Jevon's paradox does not apply to the peak oil situation. Coal wasn't scarce in the 1830s and nobody had any reason to conserve it. What peak oil people are calling Jevon's paradox is really just acting in bad faith. We should just call it that.