03 Dec Australia Ratifies Kyoto
Well, that was quick. Amazing what a change of administration can do:
Kevin Rudd has started his prime ministership with a bang, ratifying the Kyoto Protocol as his first act of government hours after being sworn in.
Mr Rudd’s signing of the climate agreement yesterday brought applause from environmental groups and delegates at the United Nations climate conference in Bali.
It leaves the United States as the only major economy to boycott the Kyoto pact, which sets binding emissions targets that force countries to reduce or cap their greenhouse gas output.
Mr Rudd says his decision to ratify Kyoto so soon after being formally inducted as prime minister shows how serious he is about tackling climate change.
With the ratification process now in train, Australia will be a full member of the Kyoto Protocol by March.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have all — with various degrees of enthusiasm and clarity — said that they support ratifying Kyoto. I hope we get the chance to find out whether that’s more than a campaign promise.
Isn’t there the “small” problem that states that sign Kyoto don’t actually reduce their carbon output, or do we international lawyers just support anything that is a treaty?
So Germany and the UK are no longer states?
NSD,
Such the drama queen.
“For all its flaws, Kyoto was a remarkable agreement, forged at a time when there were still widespread doubts about the seriousness–or even existence–of global warming.”
One reason UN talks have begun in Bali, Indonesia is to correct the very real flaws of the first treaty (which expires at end of 2012).
To quote again from a well-written recent Los Angeles Times article on the topic:
“The negotiations for the next phase of the accord have the advantage of taking place when public and scientific opinions have swung behind taking aggressive steps to stabilize global warming. To be effective, Kyoto II will have to directly address the failures of the past. It will have to include the United States and force developing nations to rein in their polluting, experts said.”
Professor Heller,
Simple question, have the states that have signed Kyoto, in the aggregate, increased or decreased their carbon emissions? The answer is, of course, increased.
Here is the proof, an article by Robert Samuelson that discusses both what Europe is doing and, by the way, explains why Germany and the UK don’t stand for what you think:
“Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It’s true that Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2 emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).
On their present courses, many European countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012.”
So I repeat my factually indisputable question, why does it matter if a country signs Kyoto when it has no import?
NSD,
Do you have factually-indisputable proof that the increases would have been smaller or the same if Kyoto did not exist? In the absence of such proof, your statistics mean nothing.
Professor Heller, “your statistics mean nothing” … Are you trying to do a Colbert impression? I know you don’t like dealing in facts but come on! Anyway, we both know (I hope at least) that a direct way to prove that “the increase would have been smaller or the same if Kyoto did not exist” does not exist. We can’t run a null hypothesis in which Kyoto does not exist. We can, however, look at the indirect evidence. First, one point you don’t dispute, is that the majority of Kyoto signatories are still increasing their CO2 emissions. Second, again another point you don’t dispute, is that the states that have decreased their emissions under Koyoto have done so for non-Kyoto reasons. Third, the United States, the main non-signatory to Kyoto, has actually decreased its CO2 emissions. Specifically, the US decreased its greenhouse gas emissions by 1.5 percent between 2005 and 2006. At the same time, its northern neighbor, and Kyoto signatory, increased its greenhouse gas production. So we have Kyoto signatories increasing their CO2, and non-Kyoto decreasing their CO2 emissions. Seems to me that Kyoto is not related to CO2 emissions. If you disagree, pretend for a second (c’mon it… Read more »