Kyoto Accord - this is neat stuff...

[joeclarke]

Caught this fascinating article this morning...

Electricity producer pays Chilean hog farmer $9 million to reduce it's methane gas emissions from hog manure.

Amazing eh? Two completely disconnected business entities half way across the globe from each other strike a deal that benefits both businesses (and their shareholders) while improving the air and climate quality of the planet for the benefit of all of us.

How? Why the Kyoto Accord, of course. The Kyoto accord is an agreement between most developed and developing nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the provisions of the accord, countries (or businesses) earn "Kyoto credits" by reducing emissions. These credits can be applied toward quota or target reductions under the agreement for that country or business. Excess credits can be sold and bought to help meet quotas.

So the end result in the example is that a company in a developed nation (Canada) will effectively pay for the emission reductions of a business in a developing nation (Chile). A complete win for everyone, if you consider air and climate quality to be important issues.

Unfortunately our friend George W withdrew US participation in the Kyoto Accord under pressure from US corporations about the costs of the program. It's a bit sad that countries like Chile and Canada (not to mention countless others even possibly the nearly bankrupt Russia) can make an effort - but the US (the worst polluter on the planet) just can't be bothered.

One of the long-standing right-wing criticisms of the accord has been that the reduction targets for developing nations (like Chile in the example) were less rigorous than those for developed nations (like Canada in the example). Here's a great example of how tossing good old capitalism (Kyoto credit bartering) into the mix allows a win for a both the developed and developing countries. Giving developing nations lower targets gives them room to sell their excess Kyoto credits - thereby giving them money for more emission reductions or economic expansion.

Kyoto works - encourage US participation.

[mikester]

I'm not against - but isn't China the world's heavies polluter? I've also seen the skies over places like Egypt and other "third world" countries (in pictures of course) and they certainly look like they put out a lot more greenhouse gasses then I see even over LA.

Like I said though - I'm not against what you said.

[joeclarke]

Originally posted by mikester
I'm not against - but isn't China the world's heavies polluter? I've also seen the skies over places like Egypt and other "third world" countries (in pictures of course) and they certainly look like they put out a lot more greenhouse gasses then I see even over LA.

Like I said though - I'm not against what you said.

Yeah - gotta be careful with the term "polluter". In context of Kyoto (greenhouse gases) - the US is the biggest polluter as the biggest consumer of energy and fossil fuels. In terms of things like SO2 (just yanked that outta the air) or other emissions - China could well be the leader.

[john70t]

That seems like a good plan, however it works out, but the factors not shown might make that similar to bailing the titanic ship with cups.

-it will only work with participating countrys. The US has stopped cooperating with much of the world(Kyoto, landmines, etc) since we lost exclusive control over the UN, but that'll change after the next great recession. China has the numbers and the "wild west" mentality as well as historic independance from outside influence
-will the corps start producing more cheap junk in order to regain the sales dollars lost, and how much more resources will that use?
-how do you plan for expanding populations with rising standard-of-living expectations? Intelligent zoning and city layout centered around mass transit, standardized packaging/material and financial recycling incentives, technological improvments in efficiency, etc...

All this goes against the ideas of freedom from oppressive governmental regulation, free trade/capitalism, and all peoples desire for bettering themselves.
It's also dependant on a collective of people in cooperation, and with the abilities to enact such programs.
It is a great idea to maintain a standard of enviromental conditions for the following generations, thank's for posting this, only human nature tends to follow crisis managment, and even then there will be selective diversions.

[304065]

Two completely disconnected business entities half way across the globe from each other strike a deal that benefits both businesses (and their shareholders) while improving the air and climate quality of the planet for the benefit of all of us.

Uh huh. A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Progressive theories of property rights like transferable pollution rights have been around for years, this is not new.

Do you not see that the Canadian corp. is purchasing the RIGHT to pollute?

Want to stop pollution? Buy the credits yourself and TEAR THEM UP. That's exactly what some environmental activists in my Law School class did. I had to hand it to them: raising money to purchase a pollution entitlement (they bought S02 credits) which you then destroy is one hell of a way to make a point.

The discussion ends there. You are incapable of writing anything, it seems, without using it as the opportunity to express your Bush-hatred. Good luck trying to change the world!

[joeclarke]

Originally posted by john_cramer
The discussion ends there. You are incapable of writing anything, it seems, without using it as the opportunity to express your Bush-hatred. Good luck trying to change the world!

Come on John say what you will, it's a pretty impressive story of international cooperation on a topic important to everyone on the planet.

If you want to ignore it - ignore it, your choice. That I am dissappointed that the US government declines to participate in this ground-breaking agreement and process is my choice.

You are equally free to express your opinions about what the government does or doesn't do that fails to "sit right with you". On the other hand, I do not feel that I am free to attack your opinions nor attempt to discount your observations as simply representing "hatred".

Cool it John - debate the issues, don't attack the messenger.

[304065]

Gee, thanks for telling me I'm free to express my opinion. It never would have occurred to me without you telling me.

Here's the problem: you take what ought to be a non-partisan issue like environmental policy and you turn it into an opportunity to vent your hatred of the United States and of the administration of George W. Bush in particular. Criticism of the accord is branded "right-wing."

This may come as a complete shock to you, but that kind of remark does nothing to stimulate the debate, all you have done is polarize the issue along lines that are convenient for you ideologically.

Well, if you want to express your disappointment YOU can feel free to do so. If you want to have a discussion about transferable pollution rights (and you STILL haven't answered the critical point I raised above, which is that all Kyoto does is FACILITATE continued pollution by creating an entitlement to pollute that's transferable among the parties to the accord) maybe next time you'll keep your election agenda out of it.

Either that or you can join the bleating thousands who so closely identify their own worn-out leftist agenda with the environmental movement that they sour mainstream voters on the entire issue.

Have fun debating with the multiple personality types.

[joeclarke]

yeah, OK John - enough for me, see ya 'round buddy.

[CamB]

I'd have a lot more sympathy if Bush Sr hadn't said (in relation to signing up to climate change):

"The American way of life is non negotiable".

Great reason

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by john_cramer
Here's the problem: you take what ought to be a non-partisan issue like environmental policy and you turn it into an opportunity to vent your hatred of the United States and of the administration of George W. Bush in particular. Criticism of the accord is branded "right-wing."

Hate to say it John - but didn't GWB made it partisan when he backed out of the Kyoto Accord whereas the US was previously committed to it by the Clinton administration, no?

Originally posted by joeclarke
Unfortunately our friend George W withdrew US participation in the Kyoto Accord under pressure from US corporations about the costs of the program.

Originally posted by john_cramer
Here's the problem: you take what ought to be a non-partisan issue like environmental policy and you turn it into an opportunity to vent your hatred of the United States and of the administration of George W. Bush in particular.

Hate to say this too, John but how how do you read Joe's comments as being expressive of hatred of the United States and of the administration of George W. Bush in particular.?

Unless you are suggesting that Canada and Chile have conspired in this whole Kyoto fiasco simply as an evil plot to make GWB look bad...

If that's the case - I guess Joe must be in on it too - the sinister bastards.

[MichiganMat]

Atmospheric chemistry is some of the most crazy and complicated stuff to explain and understand. As for warming, there are a number of theories, some are more probable than others. But one thing is for sure: all theories are easy politicized. Becareful with what you trust on this matter. I've seen and heard pieces and parts of the real issues used for some pretty nasty politics.

ie: talking about global warming in the middle of the cold winter
- global warming is an issue in the winter because extreme heat and radiation due to lack of protection by ozone also leads to extreme cold due lack of insulation by ozone.

ie: CO2 reductions won't help the warming issue.
- This may be true. The atmosphere is almost saturated with CO2 now and nobody really knows what to about it. Secondly, minute percentages of some other gasses in the atmosphere are 100 times more destructive than CO2 is.

ie: all coal is bad.
- Not so. The coal from the Apalachians is high in mercury which has a tendency to float to the polar caps and the arctic and embed itself in the ice and snow. Most of the arctic is heavily polluted with mercury now, polar bears, trout, and penquins alike. Coal from the Southwest has very little mercury in it.

With that said, we need to get off our butts and get into accord with Kyoto ASAP. Even Blair has come out in the last week calling for the G8 to start making measures.

Knowledge is power, better hope you have some.

[john70t]

Pollution and the birth defects it causes is non-partisan, unless you really don't care about new humans once their born.

[Purrybonker]

Originally posted by MichiganMat


With that said, we need to get off our butts and get into accord with Kyoto ASAP. Even Blair has come out in the last week calling for the G8 to start making measures.

Knowledge is power, better hope you have some.

Caught that , let's see - GB, Russia, China, India, I'll bet even the Iraqi "governing counsel" is playing around with signing up for Kyoto.

Sarcasm aside, this little arrangement between that Canadian power producer and Chilean hog farmer is a world first under the Kyoto agreement and we should all be congratulating them for making an effort to help us all breathe a little easier.