TACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2145 times:
What's your opinion about teh Kyoto Protocol?
From December 1 through 11, 1997, more than 160 nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate binding limitations on greenhouse gases for the developed nations, pursuant to the objectives of the Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992. The outcome of the meeting was the Kyoto Protocol, in which the developed nations agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, relative to the levels emitted in 1990. The United States agreed to reduce emissions from 1990 levels by 7 percent during the period 2008 to 2012.
The analysis in this report was undertaken at the request of the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives. In its request, the Committee asked the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to analyze the Kyoto Protocol, “focusing on U.S. energy use and prices and the economy in the 2008-2012 time frame,” as noted in the first letter in Appendix D. The Committee specified that EIA consider several cases for energy-related carbon reductions in its analysis, with sensitivities evaluating some key uncertainties: U.S. economic growth, the cost and performance of energy-using technologies, and the possible construction of new nuclear power plants.
The energy projections and analysis in this report were conducted using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), an energy-economy model of U.S. energy markets designed, developed, and maintained by EIA. NEMS is used each year to provide the projections in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). In its second letter, in Appendix D, the Committee requested that the analysis use the same general methodologies and assumptions underlying the Annual Energy Outlook 1998 (AEO98), published in December 1997; however, some minor modifications were made to allow greater flexibility in NEMS in response to higher energy prices and to incorporate some methodologies that were formerly represented offline. These differences are outlined in Appendix A. The macroeconomic analysis used the Data Resources, Inc. (DRI) Macroeconomic Model of the U.S. Economy, which is also used for the economic analysis in the AEO.
Chapter 1 of this report provides background discussion of the Kyoto Protocol and the framework and methodology of the analysis. Chapter 2 summarizes the energy market results from the various carbon reduction cases. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 analyze in more detail the issues and results for the end-use demand sectors, the electricity generation sector, and the fossil fuel supply markets, respectively. Chapter 6 provides the results of EIA's analysis of the macroeconomic impacts of carbon reduction under different monetary and fiscal policy assumptions. Chapter 7 compares the results of this study with those from other studies of the costs of carbon reduction, with accompanying tables in Appendix C. Appendix B includes the detailed energy market results from the carbon reduction cases.
Within its Independent Expert Review Program, EIA arranged for leading experts in the fields of energy and economic analysis to review earlier versions of this analysis and provide comment. The assistance of the following reviewers in preparing the report is gratefully acknowledged:
Consultant to Hagler Bailly Services, Inc.
Resources for the Future
Resources for the Future
Resources for the Future
Resources for the Future
Stanford University Energy Modeling Forum.
The legislation that established EIA in 1977 vested the organization with an element of statutory independence. EIA does not take positions on policy questions. It is the responsibility of EIA to provide timely, high-quality information and to perform objective, credible analyses in support of the deliberations of both public and private decisionmakers. This report does not purport to represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Energy or the Administration. "
Derico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4258 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2050 times:
While the United States is not participating officialy, it is slowly being forced to toe the line nontheless.
United States multinationals now HAVE to comply with the new regulations in the countries where the treaty is valid. Otherwise, they will face warnings, fines, revokation of expansion licenses, or even confiscation of their assets in that country. Many companies are beginning to comply even without such warnings.
Thus, if a US multinational wants to be in another country, they must comply. As such, some US companies have already stated they will soon be applying the same emission standards at home as they have to abroad.
They realize that they might as well do make the investment now and get it off the bottom line, rather than to delay the inevitable.
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
Flybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1796 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2024 times:
The Kyoto nonsense is for industrialized nations only. Only industrialized nations have the extra dough to burn on useless things like this. The developing third world economies need to pollute to develop themselves. That is a fact. Developing countries need not follow these wacky standards or greenpeace and the other eco-nuts will keep millions more people than necessary in poverty to save trees good for building materials and animals good for axle grease.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
TACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1968 times:
Quoting Flybyguy (reply 9): The Kyoto nonsense is for industrialized nations only. Only industrialized nations have the extra dough to burn on useless things like this. The developing third world economies need to pollute to develop themselves. That is a fact.
Mham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3215 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1965 times:
I am very thankful that the US politicians saw the treaty for what it was-a bad agreement. Too bad the euros took Bushs' anouncement so personal, but Clinton agreed to it knowing it would never pass.
Now as it relates today. China and India are exempt, yet in todays news, I read that China is now the worlds second largest user of oil in the world. Their rate of use increased 15% last year. India is now the fourth largest user. This will grow tremendously in the near future as China still only uses 1/6 per capita of the US. Yesterdays news reports that China is now the largest consumer nation in the world, outstripping the US in everything except autos. Still less per person by far, but that only points to the fact that they, above all others, need to pay their fair share, especially since much of their infastructure is still being built. What Kyoto did was put the worlds pollution problems on the backs of US taxpayers.
I understand that the usual suspects will say that they deserve to pay since they use 25% of the worlds resources. On the other hand, the US produces 30% of the worlds goods. While doing so, our air is already significantly cleaner than it has been in many decades, and still getting better.
Kyoto was a bad agreement, and I am very happy not to take part.
Mham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3215 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1901 times:
The usual suspects have weighed in and as usual its George Ws fault. Yet by 2020, 60% of the worlds CO2 will come from developing nations.
I don't suppose they know the research that GW began, combined with private funds towards a hydrogen-fueled society? It is now beginning to show results, such as the the first automotive hydrogen-fuel infrastructure being built, and the worlds first zero-emissions coal fired power plant to produce that hydrogen as well as research money to develop other cheap ways of hydrogen production, including nuclear.
This years NASA budget also includes hundreds of million to develop the worlds first electric powered aircraft, fueled by a hydrogen fuel cell.
Do our usual suspects know what their own countries are doing in these endeavors? I don't, so please, tell, I am very interested.
I am aware of private German reseach, Siemans, BMW are notable. Curious, why hasn't the Euro auto industry produced a hybrid car yet?
Derico, you are corrrect, the US will not only comply, but will be leading the pack, just not under the constraints of a BAD agreement.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 848 posts, RR: 51 Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1895 times:
Solarix, the last global warming caused the ice age and weather (some very cold or hot days) isn't the same as climate, you know. Ok, you don't know ...
During the last ice age the Saharah desert was also a grassy plain. Your point? The world doesn't end during climate changes, the comfortable areas just shift.
...since they are the world's largest polluters I see nothing wrong about it.
Will the US be the largest polluter before the end of the decade? No, China and India will well surpass us. The Chinese are already raping us up the trade deficit because of their cheap labor laws... why throw them another bone that restricts our economy while lets them pollute away?
Kyoto is about greenhouse gases (CO2) so your illusion of "cleaner" air has nothing to do with it.
What about smog forming particles, Nitrous oxides, sulfur emissions, and chloroflorocarbons?? CO2 doesn't cause health problems and cancer, Kyoto will prevent one tenth of a degree of warming before 2100. Wow... that's worth it... not
Too bad foot-stomping and booing from the sidelines have never been a viable substitute for long-term thinking and plain old hard work...
Here's a thought: look beyond the next two years and realize that the slowing the economy of developed nations will ironically burn the money needed to invest in cleaner industry world-wide.
Kyoto can only be a first step, true, and you are welcome to make proposals for more challanging steps. But the US and Australia didn't refuse to join because Kyoto would not have any effect but rather because it's their opinion that this first step already goes too far.
I support the right to arm bears
25 NoUFO: Now, that's calming ... Sorry, source, please. Edit: And while you are looking for a source: what does that ominous source say concerning the huge co
26 DfwRevolution: The TDI engine also produce signifcantly higher smog forming pollutants and releases more sulfur into the atmosphere than the Toyota Pruis hybrid. Th
27 DfwRevolution: Sorry, source, please. Pay $14 and buy yourself a Questia subscription. Search for pollution + developing nation. If you do any sort of research inten
28 NoUFO: If you want more, you have to go further. I didn't hear your President making suggestions for improvement.
29 Klaus: Mham001: The usual suspects have weighed in and as usual its George Ws fault. Yet by 2020, 60% of the worlds CO2 will come from developing nations. I
30 DfwRevolution: Hydrogen only makes sense with large scale conversion of energy production to renewable sources. Let's not forget that the intracies of the hydrogen c
31 NoUFO: Over 95 years? Who in his right mind would perdict the effects the Kyoto Protocol has on the world's economy for the next 95 years to come? The goals
32 Mham001: Klaus: ...Instead of leading the charge for new technologies and new processes so the developing nations will have a chance at all to follow us later
33 NumberTwelve: Absolutely right, Scanorama. I hate these pix with cold weather and people deny having Global warming. It's definitely proved that weather is getting
34 Klaus: DfwRevolution: Let's not forget that the intracies of the hydrogen cycle in the atmosphere are not yet understood. Lage quantities of free hydrogen ga
35 Sebolino: The hypocrisy of Americans is a constant source of wonder.
36 Gkirk: France are doing their bit by continuing their refusal to wash anything thus saving water
37 Airplay: As the US further isolates itself from the world, responsible countries are making a serious effort to address environmental concerns. Americans speak
38 Greaser: ratified Kyoto, tarrifs should be applied to products from non-Kyoto countries. I don't see this at all, considering what u apply tariffs, tariffs wil
39 Klaus: Mham001: Your hatred of GW completly blinds you to the reality that the US is leading the way in many areas. "Hatred"? Well, yes, I do hate what he an
40 Airplay: NOT GOOD if you want to sell anything in the 2 largest markets (China,US). The 2 largest markets are also large manufacturers of goods and require raw
41 ConcordeBoy: Um, exactly how did any facet of the Bush administration plan/attempt "destroying the UN"?
42 Klaus: ConcordeBoy: Um, exactly how did any facet of the Bush administration plan/attempt "destroying the UN"? The Bush administration and its ideological ex
43 ConcordeBoy: Hmm, you saying that this is because of the Iraq War II? Dude, said assertions were in place lonnnnnng before GWB any any of his policies were; as we
44 TACAA320: Many people get sick in southern Chile for eating poisoned sea food. According with CNN, Chilean authorities said that such bacteria proliferate due t
45 Mham001: Klau, I know you hate the US, your hatred of Bush is even deeper, but perhaps you will be open to learning. Your ideas that the US and Bush are only i
46 L-188: Such bacteria poliferate because of the abundance of Salmon farms in Chile. One of these farms puts enough waste in the ocean to match a city with a
47 JetService: The refusal of the Kyoto Protocol only means the US does not believe it will be effective. First steps are great, but when they aren't effective, agre
48 Klaus: Mham001: Klau, I know you hate the US, your hatred of Bush is even deeper, Defamation as a substitute for actual arguments may have worked in domestic
49 Mham001: Nice side-stepping Klaus. You have been given solid information to prove that your claims that nothing substantial is being done on the energy front i
50 Aer Lingus: I think the Kyoto Protocol is a very good way to reduce pollution and reduce global warming. If everyone, every country work together we can in fact r
51 Klaus: Mham001: Nice side-stepping Klaus. You have been given solid information to prove that your claims that nothing substantial is being done on the energ