Asymmetrical Information

The purpose of the Kyoto accord was never to affect global warming. It was always about throttling (choking) the US economy so that everyone else could
"catch up". Since it is now blatantly obvious that there is absolutely zero chance of the US ratifying the treaty and letting its economy be trashed thereto, the treaty is now useless.

Denbeste:

Can you document such a wild statement as 'The purpose of the Kyoto accord was never to affect global warming. It was always about throttling (choking) the US economy so that everyone else could "catch up".'

Denbeste:

Can you document such a wild statement as 'The purpose of the Kyoto accord was never to affect global warming. It was always about throttling (choking) the US economy so that everyone else could "catch up".'

Implementation of Kyoto might reduce CO2 emissions by 2-3% over the next 50 years. The effect would be nearly negligible. The idea of some sort of worldwide effort to manage pollution is actually a very good one. It's a shame that a bunch of dimwits turned it into something as stupid as the Kyoto treaty.

Since it is now blatantly obvious that there is absolutely zero chance of the US ratifying the treaty and letting its economy be trashed thereto,

Right. We have a much better plan for trashing our economy.

David, I'm absolutely certain I cannot provide enough evidence to satisfy you on that, since I suspect you wouldn't accept anything less than a signed confession from one of those proposing the treaty.

But there's plenty of indirect evidence. And the US Senate clearly thought that was what it was about, because it passed Byrd-Hagel unanimously.

Jane wrote, a while back, in response to a question from me about Kyoto,

The European politicians who pushed it care less about absolute prosperity than relative prosperity. They're okay with hurting their economies if ours is hurt more.

"Implementation of Kyoto might reduce CO2 emissions by 2-3% over the next 50 years."

Crap. I have sitting in front of me the DoE's EIA Annual, with projections for CO2 emissions to 2025. If I revert the Kyoto Annex II countries emissions to 1990 levels, *even leaving developing world emissions unchanged*, I get a 14% reduction in CO2 emissions in 2025. So I strongly suspect you are, um, what's the technical term, Making Shit Up.

"David, I'm absolutely certain I cannot provide enough evidence to satisfy you on that, since I suspect you wouldn't accept anything less than a signed confession from one of those proposing the treaty.

But there's plenty of indirect evidence."

Translation: I can't back up my paranoid ranting.

"The European politicians who pushed it care less about absolute prosperity than relative prosperity. They're okay with hurting their economies if ours is hurt more."

Which is laughable, because:

1) The marginal cost of reducing CO2 emissions is projected to be less in the US than in the EU
2) Projections of the effects of global warming show much stronger adverse effects in North America than in Europe.

Ditch the paranoia from the conservatarian think-tanks and read some actual scholarly work on the subject, folks.

Uh, "urinated," first, if you want to be taken seriously, you might at least adopt a nick that doesn't suggest up-front that you are so offensively opinionated as to *not* be taken seriously. Second, I happen to have read the Kyoto treaty carefully along with multiple scholarly sources on Kyoto from both ends of the political spectrum, and in fact I agree with the general assessment that it was five parts gladthink and a couple more parts spite-the-US with three parts of general incompetence.

Kyoto was, simply put, an attempt to carry the momentum of the Montreal Protocol into the global warming debate which instead turned into a "28+2"-point politicized doily with just two meaningful qualities: (a) a general inability to do anything meaningful about global warming; (b) a general ability to harm large economies, particularly ones dependent on fossil fuels.

You can't seriously believe none of the European entities involved didn't have that pleasant thought on the back burner, particularly since the protocol specified 1990 as the 'base' year, which was remarkably convenient for the UK and Germany (and Russia and Ukraine, actually) while being remarkably inconvenient for the US.

Kyoto didn't put any kind of restrictions on emmissions from India and China, and these two countries are currently growing at an 8-10% clip. Leaving developing world emissions unchanged would clearly be a bad assumption. Emissions from these two countries will grow rapidly. Trying to forecast emissions without including growth in China and India is really Making Shit Up.

"Kyoto didn't put any kind of restrictions on emmissions from India and China, and these two countries are currently growing at an 8-10% clip. Leaving developing world emissions unchanged would clearly be a bad assumption. Emissions from these two countries will grow rapidly. Trying to forecast emissions without including growth in China and India is really Making Shit Up."

Err, the EIA forecasts I used *include* China and India.

Time to take your mindreader into the repair shop.

"You can't seriously believe none of the European entities involved didn't have that pleasant thought on the back burner, particularly since the protocol specified 1990 as the 'base' year, which was remarkably convenient for the UK and Germany (and Russia and Ukraine, actually) while being remarkably inconvenient for the US."

No, I don't; 'cos the European and developing countries could point to the US' lower CO2 intensity compared to other OECD countries. Hence the reason projections of the marginal cost of CO2 reductions are lower for the US than for the EU region.

I'll note that this is, to me, a revisionist reading of Kyoto as part of the growing anti-EU meme on the US right. Your reading of the situation is remarkably given that the EU is implementing internal CO2 trading even with the US bugging out of the treaty. If the EU's aim were to screw over the US, then it's curious that they would still be on the forefront of implementing Kyoto, being ahead of even the Japanese.

"Kyoto was, simply put, an attempt to carry the momentum of the Montreal Protocol into the global warming debate which instead turned into a "28+2"-point politicized doily with just two meaningful qualities: (a) a general inability to do anything meaningful about global warming;"

Err, using a projection out to 2100 underestimates the long-term effect of Kyoto. There are multiple lags. Even on a 550ppm stable concentration of CO2, which would require *all nations* to stabilize at 1990 levels, you have a delay of several centuries before sea levels reach their equilibrium (source: New Scientist, October 18th, 2004). CO2 concentrations, sea levels, temperature levels of Kyoto and Business-As-Usual substantially differ post-2100, even without non-Annex I nations.

Pissy wrote:

No, I don't; 'cos the European and developing countries could point to the US' lower CO2 intensity compared to other OECD countries. Hence the reason projections of the marginal cost of CO2 reductions are lower for the US than for the EU region.

"Lower CO2 intensity?" That's just hiding alfalfa in a haystack. By picking 1990 as the base year -- rather than, oh, I don't know, December 1997, maybe? 1998? -- four countries saw green lights and one saw red. Specifically,

(1) Russia and also

(2) the Ukraine underwent economic collapse in the early 1990s and were thus primed to be very large pools of credits, a.k.a. free income;

(3) the UK could get a compliance head-start because Thatcher broke the coal unions by converting power production to North Sea gas in the early 1990s;

(4) Germany could get a compliance head-start because it had been shutting down inefficient, high-polluting eastern industries after the 1990 reunification; and

(5) the US underwent an unprecedented ten-year economic expansion starting from the early 1990s, during which the carbon intensity dropped ~17% (due to such things as implementation of gas-turbine power generation) but a 39% expansion resulted in a net total emissions increase of roughly 14%.

If you don't believe the use of 1990 as a base-year didn't have political overtones, check your birth certificate to see if it says "yesterday."

I'll note that this is, to me, a revisionist reading of Kyoto as part of the growing anti-EU meme on the US right.

Call it what you will, but I subscribe to no "growing anti-EU meme," whatever that is. Stick instead with the argument at hand.

Your reading of the situation is remarkably given that the EU is implementing internal CO2 trading even with the US bugging out of the treaty.

Your reading of my response is mostly between the lines, apparently. First, I didn't write anything there, so don't bother looking. Second, you seem to be overlooking the fact that the US was originally instrumental in getting emissions-trading language into the protocol, which language was initially protested by some EU members as being a US "cop-out" attempt. Never mind that the US has been running a successful sulfur dioxide emissions trading program since 1990. Then the protesting parties realized just how much Kyoto was going to cost long-term, and suddenly trading was Kosher again, and in fact many of the CO2 trading regimes implemented by Kyoto signatories have used the US' SO2 program as a model.

As for the EU continuing through with Kyoto -- more power to them; they signed and ratified it. The US executive signed it against the better judgement of the entire Senate, and the US never ratified it.

Do I wish the US would implement a cap-and-trade system on CO2? Yes, actually, I do; if done correctly, I believe it would be a good way to implement the so-called 'precautionary principle' with an approach that would cause minimal economic harm while fostering the development of low-emission technologies.

Having recently driven from Denver, CO across Nebraska and Iowa, and observing the presence of several new coal-fired power plants, I also wish the anti-nuclear-power crowd would fall into a hole somewhere, and cease hindering the one known low-emissions technology.

While I'm at it, a pony. I definitely want a pony.

If the EU's aim were to screw over the US, then it's curious that they would still be on the forefront of implementing Kyoto, being ahead of even the Japanese.

I didn't say it was their "aim," as though implying it to be the exclusive goal of Kyoto; just that it was an element of the political process.

Comments are Closed.