Why Kyoto failed

Emissions should be tied to GDP

from JoeUser Forums

The chart below is a chart of CO2 emissions vs. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Many in Europe falsely accuse George W. Bush of "killing" the Kyoto accords. In actuality, the Kyoto accords died in the United States in 1998.  They don't have a chance to pass in the United States no matter who is President because the Kyoto accords are, basically, a joke.

Now, if you're not familiar with the Kyoto accords (most Americans who argue for it probably have never looked at it) let me give you a primer: The accords are designed so that countries will reduce the amount of green house gas to be 5% less than they were in 1990 (which I've highlighted).

Data Source: IEA CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion
Data Provider: International Energy Agency
 

The first issue Americans have is the arbitrary choice of year -- 1990.  In 1990, the United States was in the midst of an economic boom while many nations in Europe (notably France) were suffering a relative economic slowdown.  Why 1990?

The second problem has to do with reporting. How accurate are reportings on CO2 emissions? I suspect they are very accurate in most western European nations, Japan, and the United States.  But look at the countries that they have. How do they measure Angola?

The third problem has to do with the one size fits all solution. It's a helluva lot easier for say France to lower its emissions. Just tighter controls on its remaining factories.  The United States, however, is a relatively sparsely populated nation spanning a continent. Much of the CO2 emissions in the United States are from cars. How exactly is the US supposed to solve that? Smaller cars? Small cars are nice in urban environments. But most of the driving takes place outside the cities in the suburbs and changing that reality isn't doable or practical or even necessarily desirable. And people driving significant distances to work are not likely to tolerate doing it in tiny cars to satisfy some European politicans who have decided that CO2 emissions are going to cause global warming (when I was a kid, it was global cooling that was all the rage).

The fourth problem is related to the third, different industries have different requirements and difficulties to reduce CO2 emissions.  The American power production grid is largely coal based. France's, being controlled by the government, is largely nuclear. I would love to see the US move to nuclear power for power generation but the same people who want Kyoto are usually the same people protesting against nuclear power plants.  And France is transitioned to being a post-industrial nation. Do they still have factories in Paris?

The biggest problem, however, has to do with economics. If times are good, emissions go up. Many Americans see the Kyoto accords as a cynical attempt to try to slow down the US economy.

What Bush and many Americans have supported is the idea of trying to tie emissions to GDP.  That is, become more efficient at power generation.

Interpreting the table

There's a lot of countries on that table so let's get to the bottom line here.

The United States went from 1191 (1972) to 650 (1999).  So the United States has greatly improved its efficiency in power.  Instead of tarring and feathering the United States, people should be pleased that the US (and the world in general) has gotten so much better at using energy more efficiently.

Other countries who are roughly the same as the United States (or worse) include Canada, Romania, Australia, China, Cuba, Poland, (heck pretty much all of eastern Europe).

The former Soviet Union is at 1530.5.  Think about that. That's worse than the United States was in 1972. Anyone who's visited Moscow can tell you the air conditions there.

The worst country, btw, was Iraq at 2816. You'd think that the Euroleft would be glad to see the US take out the world's worst polluter per GDP.

But really, the numbers show another trend - countries that produce energy have high emissions. Hence, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. have high emissions. And it's not commonly known but do you know which country produces the most energy each year? It's not Saudi Arabia. It's the United States. It's just that we consume so much that we still have to import. But think about that, despite producing more energy each year than any of the countries in the middle east we still have a remarkably low emissions per GDP.

If you have any doubt about the correlation between energy production (oil refining) and emissions, Egypt, which is quite close to Saudi Arabia, has an emissions ratio of 529. That's less than one fifth that of most of the oil producing states in the middle east.

And btw, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, and others who produce virtually no energy are not significantly better than the United States. The USA is around 650, Germany is at 444. That's 200 units difference. When you take into account that they are relatively small countries that don't have the massive automobile use of the US and Canada and don't refine their own fuel, they are actually remarkably inefficient. They should actually be much lower than that considering their relatively ideal conditions. And don't forget the emissions in the United States from having to transport goods across the continent (such as the food many Europeans eat).

BTW, Ethiopia is at only 75.9. Are they who we should be striving to emulate?

To all but the most hard headed, it should be clear why the Kyoto accords were always unworkable. It was a simplistic solution to a complex problem. And besides, that, it's really hard to take France and Belgium and other Europeans terribly seriously about environmental issues when they are just now phasing out leaded gasoline (want to talk really nasty stuff).

The US senate, in 1998, did the right thing by voting a resolution (unanimously) making it clear that these flawed, simplistic protocols would never be welcome here. On top of all this, there's the basic issue that odds are, Kyoto is meaningless when it comes to the environment. CO2 emissions going back to 1990 levels may (and in my opinion would) do nothing to affect the weather either way. The in the 70s climate models showed global cooling. Now we hear about global warming. In reality, we don't know and we also don't really know whether we produce enough CO2 to make that kind of effect. But that's a different discussion enitrely.

When Kyoto's advocates are ready for taking a stab at serious environment resolutions the US will be waiting. But having Europeans trying to take the high ground on environmental issues is like having a vegetarian chain smoker trying to take the high ground on health issues over a non-smoker who happens to eat red meat.

politics
24,705 views 43 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting, but there is a bit mistake: We now know that reducing OC2 emission is useful, because many countries did so and... tadam!!! Miracle !! In Sael, the desert was going forward and forward... and now, it's going backward ! Scients are now almost sure that reduction of OC2 emission has something to do with it.
This said, the article is interesting, and the table too: Particularly interesting to see that even if US did not sign the Kyoto protocol, they did a great job at reducing OC2 emission.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good information. Like many I didn't really know anything about Kyoto. I had assumed Bush wouldn't sign it because he is so pro big business. A fair assumption considering his track record on envioremental issues.

"Much of the CO2 emissions in the United States are from cars. How exactly is the US supposed to solve that? Smaller cars?"

It wouldn't even have to be smaller cars, just average size cars would be a huge improvement over all the SUVs, trucks and vans on the road. When I look at traffic it looks like roughly half of all vehicles fall into the "big" category and that simply isn't necessary. Look inside all those SUVs and in almost every case only one or two people is in them. Vehicles that don't get at least 25mpg should be heavily taxed unless it is needed for the work that you do.

I think there are better options than nuclear power.

1. A significant tax on inefficient vehicles
2. Federal money to improve mass transit systems in all large cities
3. Ban incandescent light bulbs
4. Significant tax credit for purchasing an alternative energy source; eg solar, wind, hydro.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
XXX: I coudl just as easily say that the desert receded thanks to my magic rock. Would you like to purchase my magic rock?

BTW, CO2 emissions haven't gone down worldwide. They've gone up. It's just that CO2 emissions per economic output have gone down. Which is good, it demonstrates a commitment to efficiency.

Bush being pro/anti Kyoto never was an issue because it had already died before Bush was elected. Blaming Bush (or crediting Bush depending on your POV) for Kyoto's failure is like blaming/crediting Bush for the Vietnam war.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
BTW, even if we increased the gase mileage of our vehciles by 25% it would be a drop in the bucket.

All of the things you mention really just trim around the edges without much effect.

If you want to *reduce* CO2 emissions in the United States you have to move away from coal burning power generation and move away from fossil fuel cars.

Solar, wind, hydro are not going to make a significant dent. In fact, wind power is actually awful because the energy involved in creating the wind mills is immense and the return marginal.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think if all of my suggestions were implemented, the result would be significant. Here are some made up numbers to demonstrate.

1. 25% less emissions from autos.
2. The implementation of quality mass transit systems, lets say that is a 15% drop
3. Getting rid of incandescent light bulbs? How about 10%.
4. An increase in the use of alternative energy? 15%?

Total=65%(?) decrease in emissions.

That does not strike me as a drop in the bucket. As for what types of alternative energy sources are good or bad, that is completely dependant on where you live. In some places wind is great, in others it is not.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
When you make up your numbers you can have all kinds of fun.

Lightbulbs cause 10% of our CO2 emissions? "Alternative" energy? You think wind, hydro, and solar can make up 15% of our energy? Explain. Hydro is already pretty much maximized. Solar costs a lot of energy to produce the panels, only work in some areas, and are incredibly inefficient. And wind power is a total bust. In the best conditions it takes years for them to break even in how much energy it requires. And guess what? Even if we maxed that out you're talking a few percent.

Right now, only nuclear power could generate a major dent power generation. Lightbulbs represent a tiny tiny number. Mass transit? In the United States? Huh? Using what? Trains? That would cost Trillions (with a T) and probably not reduce emissions by 15%. 25% less from emissions. How?

Here's how you reduce emissions:

1) Switch to nuclear power generation
2) Migrate to fuel cells on cars.

That's it. But the two won't happen any time soon.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Lightbulbs cause 10% of our CO2 emissions?"

OK, pick a number and adjust the total accordingly.

"You think wind, hydro, and solar can make up 15% of our energy?"

First, I am speaking of all sources of alternative energy. Second, solar alone could make up 15%.

"Solar costs a lot of energy to produce the panels..."

I did not know this, could you elaborate?

"[solar panels] are incredibly inefficient."

I have read that they pay for themselves and then some.

"Mass transit? In the United States? Huh? Using what? Trains? That would cost Trillions (with a T)..."

If that is true then I retract that suggestion...maybe. Guestimating, based on what it cost to implement trains in Portland OR, the cost would be less than 1 trillion. How to pay for it? How about canceling a Big Government project (which you as a Republican hate), like say...the war on drugs.

"1) Switch to nuclear power generation"

I am not opposed to that, but I think it's best if we can do without it.

"2) Migrate to fuel cells on cars."

Is that feasable now? I fully support it, if it is. If it's not, then it isn't relevant.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting article Draginol but as mentioned time and time again it sets no LIMITS on how much a country can pollute. Let me elaborate

By your arguement America could triple it's release of CO2 but reduce it's emission to 600 per GDP and you'd be happy.

Three times more pollution and you'd be happy.

See the problem yet?

When you look at the total pollution from a country (as Kyoto does) you see a different story. You see some countries have successfully reduced total emissions (like China) while others have increased total emissions by 15% (like the US). As many poorer countries point out "why should a rich country with lots of industry be allowed to pollute more?". Just being more efficient at polluting is not good enough. It doesn't guarentee a REDUCTION in total pollution.

Paul.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
To answer some of the other qustions others have raised,

Wind farms are actually highly efficient and very good at repaying their build costs within a few years. Off shore wind farms are particularly good as they also don't create "visual pollution" on the landscape. Improvements in wind turbines in the past few years have been huge and many European countries are now looking at using wind farms to up their renewable energy production to 20% of total production (a target provisionally agreed within the EU).

Solar cells are very efficient but are not very environmentally friendly in their materials and production. They do pay for themselves over a fairly short period of time though (assuming decent sunlight). More modern solar cells have begun to appear on the market that are even more efficient and less expensive to manufacture. Polymer electronics will totally revolutionise this area.

Paul.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
solitaire is entirely right. Because you are talking of a rate. Double GDP and double CO2 emission will give the same rate. This index is a pretty good tool for comparing countries efficiency toward CO2 emissions not for showing the variation of emission.

There is also another bias in your argument that is related in the definition of GDP. A definition of GDP I obtain from http://economics.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-gdp.htm said:

"The GDP is the market value of all the goods and services producted by labor and property located in" the region, usually a country. It equals GNP minus the net inflow of labor and property incomes from abroad". So you put together GDP growth from industry, agriculture and services. Industry and agriculture are good producer of CO2 as service is less. If GDP growth from service increase quicker than the GDP growth from the other you will not correlate really the real polution to the real polluter by using you table. You could pretend that the economy as a whole is becoming more eficient for producing wealth.

That come to a second thing about the value of GDP, because it is tie to the market price. If you have a big stock market growth due to speculation, wouldn't it be reflected on the GDP by increasing it and so induce a decrease of the index in the table ?

One last point is according to BBC world archive, USA in 1997 was responsible for 35% of greenhouse gas ever produced but counting for only 4% of world population. Shouldn't it be (as the world sole hyperpower) held responsible for showing the way ?

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
oh just another article abt how gr8 USA is and just blame the rest of da world 4 all the problems (mayb others kno who is da problem) , blame it on countries dat does not hav the might to talk bac.... dats cool ...... doesnt care abt the world u kno........ they think dat da rest of da world is justa piece of shit...... i bet most of americans hav no idea abt wat is happenin in other countries or how the people in other countries are
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
@aryan: Yes, most American's probably do care less about other countries, and dare I say most people in EVERY country feels the same way. I find it hard to believe that some peasant out in China pulling up rice grains with his hand is really interested in the CO2 emmisions of American industries. Please, your calling the kettle black.

Also, writing intelligently and readable (aka not "elite") is far more effective at getting your point across.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Solitair: You are correct - I believe countries should be "allowed" to put as much CO2 into the atmosphere as they choose. However, I think that every country has a moral duty to try to use energy wisely. But yes, 600 GDP even if it trippled CO2 emissions wouldn't bug me one bit. At the same time, history has shown the United States making remarkable strides in energy efficiency despite all the disadvantages it has being a continental nation split by mountain ranges and such. Canada, btw, is just as inefficient as the United States. Didn't they sign Kyoto. Why not go yell at them. What's their excuse?

Abe: You can't just pick numbers out of your rear end and say things like Solar could reduce global emissions by 15%. You need to have soemthing called sources to back up your info. But I can tell you right now there is no feasible way for solar energy to reduce emissions by a significant amount.

Solitair: The other problem is that you rely on CO2 emissions stats. China lies on all kinds of statistics, why should you trust their CO2 emissions? It's hard to take China's anti-pollution seriously when satellites can VISUALLY see a brown cloud over China. Do you have any idea how much pollution they must be doing in order to have their pollution show up from space?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/12/asia.haze/

If China has reduced its CO2 emissions, and I have my doubts, it's only because they were so incredibly inefficient before that just moving from say wood burnign stoves in every home in their major cities to a central coal based power plant would reduce emissions massively.

What should matter is that China, even using their, ahem, statistics, is much less efficietn with their energy. And they have far FAR less excuse because they, being an authoritarian regime, could simply put in nuclear power plants and put their major cities on such a grid. But they haven't. They apparently don't really care that much.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The bottom line of your argument is that polluting shouldn't be considered as a problem globally but locally. And you could pollute as much as you want if it is done the more effficiently that you can... Sorry, but if you act like this in your house, I wouldn't be one of your neighbourhood. I find your argument both weak and insensitive. May be you like to live in rubish...
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol, when I preface a statement with "I am making this up", I can pull anything out of my ass that I want. The purpose of my numbers post (which should have been obvious to you) was to loosely demonstrate that implementing a variety of solutions could make a significant impact on emissions and energy efficiency.

"...say things like Solar could reduce global emissions by 15%."

OK, where exactly did I say that? I didn't, did I?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Abe: No, you haven't shown that other alternatives can reduce emissions. You simply made up a bunch of numbers. I could say that switching to candy canes for fuel could reduce power use by 50% but that doesn't make it true.

In addition, you said in your previous post: "Second, solar alone could make up 15%." Which is utter BS. Facts aren't something we simply agree to. Facts exist as part of objective reality.

Let me say it very simply: OTHER THAN NUCLEAR POWER THERE IS NO CURRENT ENERGY SOURCE THAT WILL MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN GLOBAL EMISSIONS FOR POWER GENERATION.

Jepel: Clearly you don't live in the United States. Compared to Europe, the US is a pollution free zone. And I say that in terms of air quality and amount of refuse one finds in cities.

Visit New York (or even "smoggy" LA) then go to Berlin, Moscow, or Beijing and tell me who lives in "rubbish".

The Kyoto accords failed for many reasons. One reason was intolerance on the part of Europeans to accept that not all nations are alike.

1) Energy producing nations produce more CO2 as part of the refining process. And it is hard (and expensive) to make that produce less CO2.

2) Continental powers like Australia, Canada, and USA have to use cars for transportation which produce a lot of CO2 and the only realistic way to reduce that is to find an alternative to fossil fuels.

3) The European case for the Kyoto accords is astoundingly weak. The entire thing is premised that CO2 emissions are very bad. It is followed up by an even weaker case that human production of CO2 is going to change global weather. And then on top of all that it is assumed that any global weather change is bad.

Anyone who has done any significant travel internationally (USA, Europe, China, Japan, etc.) can tell you that the United States is pretty efficient with its power use. The air quality is good. The water quality is good.

Kyoto strikes me as a cynical attempt for Europeans to slow down the US economy. They could have taken a GDP approach with milestones such as trying to have countries make it to 600 per GDP by 2005. 500 by 2010. 400 by 2015, 300 to 2015 and so on.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol --> "Let me say it very simply: OTHER THAN NUCLEAR POWER THERE IS NO CURRENT ENERGY SOURCE THAT WILL MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN GLOBAL EMISSIONS FOR POWER GENERATION."

Wrong. And while you are demanding proof from others that also say 'no' to your claim, even while it's in caps, I demad that you do the same to back up your statements.

The combination of wind, solar, hydro, and other forms of more eco-friendly fuel sources with the conscious reduction of CO2 releases into the environment will make a significant difference in global environmental health.

I am in agreement with most here in that if nuclear power is the only way to go, I can't do much to stand against it. Because of its volatile history however, I'd prefer to try alternative sources. It baffles me that you can make a statement like the one I quoted when you have the internet and library at your fingertips to discover the vast possiblities of using wind, water, and the sun for energy.

Draginol --> "But I can tell you right now there is no feasible way for solar energy to reduce emissions by a significant amount." & "Solar costs a lot of energy to produce the panels, only work in some areas, and are incredibly inefficient. And wind power is a total bust."

Ok, again show me why you think there is no feasible way for solar energy to reduce emissions significantly. Solar costs more energy to produce the panels? I highly doubt that, please prove me wrong. No, don't just give me some numbers, show me how solar panels cost more than the energy they can glean and transfer to use in their lifetime. I think that you pulled a statement from some dark place when you said that. Solar panels can work in most places, even on cloudy days, and that's a fact I didn't pull out of my bum. Wind power is a total bust? Where did you get THAT idea? Honestly, I'd really like to know why you are making these statements.

If there is truth to them, please prove me wrong.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol, you talk a lot about facts. So where are yours? Where are your facts that say we can't get 15% of our energy from solar? Where are your facts that show "wind power is a total bust"?

Here are some solar "facts".

1. Passive solar designs can reduce heating bills as much as 50 percent.
2. An average home has more than enough roof area to produce enough solar electricrity to supply all of its power needs.
3. Solar water heating typically reduces the energy needed to heat your water by 40-80%.

If most homes and businesses adopted the above it would reduce our need for fossil fuel based energy tremendously.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol,

I think you making confusion between CO2 emission and air pollution in big city (smog). Both can be considered as air pollution, and are partly connected, notably due to car engine combustion. However breathing good quality air in some part of USA doesn't mean that USA isn't polluting.

I would like to answer your point; the Kyoto treaty was reckoning difference between country. The concept of emission trading that would allow big producer to buy licence to emit CO2 from country with lower CO2 production than required, was supposed to allow some flexibility. You have also to note that 3 countries (Norway, Australia and Iceland) were given different treatments.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9811/11/climate.summit/index.html

Big CO2 producer countries would have to pay to pollute and I feel that can be part of the answer. Especially if you remember that American senate, heavily lobbied by industry, was quiet against paying anything.
I’m not sure about the principle that green regulations will necessarily bad for economy. After all, you would have to create new solutions, and it would make sense that some company will make money out of that.
Another thing, the classic argumentation saying that Europe is doing bad thing so America can do bad things isn’t really a constructive one and sounds a little bit childish. You just have to admit that both side are wrong.

I totally agree on the fact that the correlation between global warming and greenhouse emissions hasn’t been proved. As we talking about extremely complex systems, which are considered as chaotic, you cannot establish, by definition, any strong causality links. Anyway, it’s seems that elevation of the global temperature is coinciding with the industrial era.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html

Is global warming necessarily a bad thing?
It depends in which part of the globe you are, but as climate is going to reach a different state, you have to be prepared to an increase of violent events such as storm, tornado, etc…
Differently, some part of the world might actually become colder. The reason would be the end of hot/cold sea flow such as golf stream. These things are really sensitive about relative temperature and would very likely to be modified. It has already happened in the past as climate has always been fluctuating.

You are right to point that being efficient about CO2 production is already a good aim. It’s just not enough if you want to achieve low impact on the earth.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
The car comment is clearly wrong.

There is no reason that North Americans need SUVs or Minivans.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just a few comments:

1. I didn't think Kyoto treated all countries the same. I was under the impression that "developing countries" (I believe India is considered a "developing country") were exempt, but I could be wrong.

2. Moving to fuel cells in cars won't solve anything because fuel cells aren't an energy source. They run on hydrogen, yes, but the process of isolating the hydrogen takes energy, and right now that usually comes from a "dirty" fossil fuel.

The only way to get around that is to use a renewable energy source like solar power to separate hydrogen, but then you run into the problems of solar power and economies of scale. In order to do this on the scale where it would create a beneficial emissions reduction, you would need literally hundreds of square kilometers of solar collectors.

Steven Den Beste has a great discussion on this very subject here:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/Carbonemissions.shtml

3. Fuel Cells have problems of their own. Even if we manage to solve the isolation problem described in point 2, we have to find a way to drastically reduce the cost and efficiency of fuel cells. Recent research indicates that the damage produced by leaking hydrogen would be significant (but CO2 emissions would be down!)


IMHO we should conscientiously work towards finding solutions for clean renewable energy sources, but do so on a realistic timetable. In the mean time, let us continue to refine our current processes. Hybrid electric vehicles that get 40-70 mpg should be our future. Many companies are even working on Hybrid SUV's. They cost a little more, but have significantly lower gasoline needs (and thus you save money there). And you wouldn't need to deal with creating an entirely new distribution infrastructure, as you would with hydrogen.

I need to run, but I just wanted to say a fwe things:)
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
"There is no reason that North Americans need SUVs or Minivans."

OK, one more thing, you might be able to get away with that statement for a significant portion of SUVs, but Minivans? What is wrong with them, other than that they are large and pseudo-ugly?

No one in their right mind buys a minivan unless they need one. They're roomy, safe and much more fuel efficient than SUVs - more efficient even than a lot of regular cars, and larger families (with, say, 4 or more kids) absolutely need to have something that size to cart their family around.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think you making confusion between CO2 emission and air pollution in big city (smog). Both can be considered as air pollution, and are partly connected, notably due to car engine combustion. However breathing good quality air in some part of USA doesn't mean that USA isn't polluting.

No, I'm not confused. Other people have been trying to argue that the US would live in its own "refuse" (see earlier responses). I pointed out that air pollution wise, US air is fine. CO2 is not pollution. It is a greenhouse gas.

1. I didn't think Kyoto treated all countries the same. I was under the impression that "developing countries" (I believe India is considered a "developing country") were exempt, but I could be wrong.

I didn't mean to imply that it treated all countries the same in that sense. I meant that the treaty didn't do anything to look at what causes CO2 emissions. But you touch on one of the gripes Americans have with Kyoto. China, India, Pakistan all get treated as developing countries. That's BS. If you are developed enough to build nuclear weapons then you're deeloped enough to be treated the same as say Japan which doesn't even have nuclear weapons.

2. Moving to fuel cells in cars won't solve anything because fuel cells aren't an energy source. They run on hydrogen, yes, but the process of isolating the hydrogen takes energy, and right now that usually comes from a "dirty" fossil fuel.

You'll note that I always put fuel cells WITH nuclear energy. You have to do both. Because as Steven correctly points out, fuel cells aren't an energy source. You would need nuclear energy to provide that energy they need. And the same people who tend to promote Kyoto are anti-nuclear energy.

Big CO2 producer countries would have to pay to pollute and I feel that can be part of the answer. Especially if you remember that American senate, heavily lobbied by industry, was quiet against paying anything.
I’m not sure about the principle that green regulations will necessarily bad for economy. After all, you would have to create new solutions, and it would make sense that some company will make money out of that.
Another thing, the classic argumentation saying that Europe is doing bad thing so America can do bad things isn’t really a constructive one and sounds a little bit childish. You just have to admit that both side are wrong.

How is it "childish" to point out the obvious fact that Europe is demanding the United States to live up to standards that it doesn't even maintain.

Also, the big issue that Kyoto ignores: WHY SHOULD THE UNITED STATES SIGN IT? What exactly is the case for Kyoto? To make France happy?

As you pointed out: CO2 is not a pollutant. Not in the dirty air sense.  Heck, water vapor is as much a "pollutant" as CO2 if you want to come right down to it.  The argument that the US could just pay other countries for its excess CO2 use is absurd and arbitrary. When will the French start paying us for their lead in the air? When China start paying its neighbors for the massive sulfur pollution?

If some of you could just get away from your anti-Americanism you would realize how absurd Kyoto is. If the US signed it, it would have to make damaging changes to its economy or face PAYING other countries. Oh and to top it all off, economic competitors like China? They're off the hook.. And this is good....how?

 

 

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
For being honnest, I didn't found that Kyoto was perfect at all. But it would have been a first step toward a multilateral solution. Probably that now it's going to be even more difficult to reach an agreement for pollution problems. As you mention accuratly, Europ is a polluted place, but the actual policy trend is to try to reduce that. With different level of support and different success. But that the direction.
Anyway, I don't see that as antiamerican to say that US is the biggest CO2 emiter on earth by amount and one of the worse per head (if you except petrol producer country). It's just true. You mention frequently, making any comparison between France and US is a little unrelevant, there are not even the same kind of political unit. You could compare France and california or any other of state. The federal gouvernement can only be compare to EU, and even it's extremely different. I know that France bashing is still popular, but I'm sure you could easily find better argumentation.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

In what way was Kyoto a step forward? A step forward in what?

BTW, the US is the world's largest petro producer too. That is why you come across as Anti-American. You and other Europeans are so ready to cut slack to other countries.

If you took out the massive amount of oil production and refining that goes on in the United States I suspect you would find that the US is as CO2 friendly as say France.

And France is only low because of their reliance on Nuclear power.

If the Kyoto people were serious, they would have a treaty to try to get countries to convert to say nuclear power.