Is Kyoto Working?

surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
edited October 2007 in A Moving Train
Simple question, is the Kyoto Accord working? Is it effectively addressing global climate change?

My take is that it has been a failure. It failed to get buy in from the most important countries. It has failed to have countries that signed it make changes. As a trade agreement it put all onus on greenhouse gas producing countries and absolutely zero onus on countries who consume goods that have intensive greenhouse gas in production. Given these failures of Kyoto I believe it's time for Kyoto to be scrapped. Something new and better needs to be put in place.

Thoughts.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Kyoto is a joke
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    kyoto has failed because we couldn't get the biggest emitter to sign and those that did are not living by it ... climate change and the environment has always and will continue in the near future to be heavily misunderstood especially in terms of economic impacts ... gov'ts today are controlled by interest groups that are only interested in short term economic benefit - their inability to make the tough decisions to ensure a sustainable future has been the dagger against environmental change ...
  • and CHina and India are practically exempted under Kyoto, too.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    With the wheels on the ground, rig wobbling
    We're cruising through Kyoto, hit the ocean, ain't no stoppin 'em
    Amphibious upgrade, I heard about this place, underwater secret base.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    Yeah kyoto failed, just like the un fails in it's peacekeeping missions. Because the countries that matter and have influence don't give a flying fuck about :
    a - peace
    b - the environment
    I don't think that any program could work if the incriminated countries are not really determined to stop doing stupid stuff.
    And yeah, not forcing China and India to do anything was a mistake.
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    Kann wrote:
    Yeah kyoto failed, just like the un fails in it's peacekeeping missions. Because the countries that matter and have influence don't give a flying fuck about :
    a - peace
    b - the environment
    I don't think that any program could work if the incriminated countries are not really determined to stop doing stupid stuff.
    And yeah, not forcing China and India to do anything was a mistake.
    Any trade deal cannot be made where you force a country to do something. Kyoto failed from the very start by not getting the necessary buy in required for success. And it did not adopt the strategy of penalizing countries for purchasing from non-compliant countries.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    surferdude wrote:
    Any trade deal cannot be made where you force a country to do something. Kyoto failed from the very start by not getting the necessary buy in required for success. And it did not adopt the strategy of penalizing countries for purchasing from non-compliant countries.

    as much as kyoto has failed to institute global change in greenhouse gases ... the failure is in the individual nations inability to succeed - not in the accord itself ...

    countries who are going to meet or exceed their targets will have gained without an impact to economics even noticed ... just because canada chooses to serve corporate interests instead of long-term sustainability doesn't mean the accord sucks ... just our leaders and populace ...
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    polaris wrote:
    as much as kyoto has failed to institute global change in greenhouse gases ... the failure is in the individual nations inability to succeed - not in the accord itself ...

    countries who are going to meet or exceed their targets will have gained without an impact to economics even noticed ... just because canada chooses to serve corporate interests instead of long-term sustainability doesn't mean the accord sucks ... just our leaders and populace ...
    Say Sweden has met their Kyoto obligations but have not changed their consumption patterns, all they've done is change from buying a good that emits greenhouse gas as a by-product of production that was manufactured in Sweden to one that was manufactured in the USA. But it let's Sweden jump up and down and say, see how green we are and how evil the USA is. And we all know how popular the "see how evil the USA" mantra is, it can be chanted without merit but people buy into it. A proper accord would ding Sweden for every greenhouse gas that resulted from every good consumed in Sweden. Kyoto doesn't do this becauzse it was never designed as an environmental agreement but just a trade agreement extremely skewed to benefit the EU's economy.

    Canada emits lots of greenhouse gas in it's oil exploration. But that oil is bought by those aroung the world. Please explain why Canada should be hit with those greenhouse gas emissions? If you want to see consumption pattern changes (i.e. conservation, a switch to greener technologies) you have to hit the consumer.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    surferdude wrote:
    Say Sweden has met their Kyoto obligations but have not changed their consumption patterns, all they've done is change from buying a good that emits greenhouse gas as a by-product of production that was manufactured in Sweden to one that was manufactured in the USA. But it let's Sweden jump up and down and say, see how green we are and how evil the USA is. And we all know how popular the "see how evil the USA" mantra is, it can be chanted without merit but people buy into it. A proper accord would ding Sweden for every greenhouse gas that resulted from every good consumed in Sweden. Kyoto doesn't do this becauzse it was never designed as an environmental agreement but just a trade agreement extremely skewed to benefit the EU's economy.

    Canada emits lots of greenhouse gas in it's oil exploration. But that oil is bought by those aroung the world. Please explain why Canada should be hit with those greenhouse gas emissions? If you want to see consumption pattern changes (i.e. conservation, a switch to greener technologies) you have to hit the consumer.

    your assumption that any country that has met their target did it on the open market is false ... they've made significant progress in renewable energy and conservation ...

    as far as the oil sands - we most defnitely should be charged with the extraction gases as we are the source ... no one is even counting the burning of the oil or manufacturing or refining (unless its done in canada) ... the reality is (as for so long) we continue to NOT pay the true cost of oil as a resource ... it costs less for gas here than pop ... tell me how that makes any sense? ... especially when you factor in the pollution and toll on the environment? ...

    we are not as dependent on oil as some would have you believe ...

    and lastly - the USA is evil mantra may be used too often these days but u can't possibly sit there and type that they are purveyors of good and all that - you can critique the bashers all you want but if you actually listen to the message - that's where the crux is ...
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    The idea is simply a little flawed. Corporations and not governments need to be driving this. Once it's proven (and it has been in small factions) that business (and the economy) can thrive in a eco friendly way (governments and people can cash in on actually building things in an ecologically friendly way the world will start changing.

    Imposing laws or standards governmentally like this will only leave loopholes.

    Kyoto was a good idea in therory, I just think they should have targeted corporations and not governments. Why not have an energy conference with energy companies? Show them how they can still be profitable and thrive while reducing harmful emmissions.

    Definately none of this will work in the US until you make it to the corporations and show them how they can still please the stakeholders while operating cleanly. It is possible, and it's been proven in cases, you just have to show the boards of directors the plan to do it. It is absolutely a matter of getting the research dollars into finding solutions.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    The idea is simply a little flawed. Corporations and not governments need to be driving this. Once it's proven (and it has been in small factions) that business (and the economy) can thrive in a eco friendly way (governments and people can cash in on actually building things in an ecologically friendly way the world will start changing.

    Imposing laws or standards governmentally like this will only leave loopholes.

    Kyoto was a good idea in therory, I just think they should have targeted corporations and not governments. Why not have an energy conference with energy companies? Show them how they can still be profitable and thrive while reducing harmful emmissions.

    oil companies are run by dinosaurs ... it's like making emission standards voluntary ... the US did not sign onto kyoto and have basically left it up to the individual states and corps to do something ... and you can see - that plan isn't doing diddly squat in the grand scheme of things ...
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    We, as in mankind, have already pumped such an excessive quantity of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that it will be the end of this century (at the earliest) before we can begin to see positive results. That's another reason that the climate change movement can be a tough sell to the public.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • I'm adopting an 'enjoy it while it lasts' platform. And then I'm stocking up on guns, gasoline and canned goods, for when civilisation crumbles and raiders and radiated zombie mutants appear from the wasteland and try to take my shit.

    I may also need some football pads and some S and M gear so I can look cool after the apocalypse.
  • 810wmb810wmb Posts: 849
    MrSmith wrote:
    I'm adopting an 'enjoy it while it lasts' platform. And then I'm stocking up on guns, gasoline and canned goods, for when civilisation crumbles and raiders and radiated zombie mutants appear from the wasteland and try to take my shit.

    I may also need some football pads and some S and M gear so I can look cool after the apocalypse.


    good idea....

    say could you send me a pic of you naked with chaps and an axl rose cap?

    yummy!
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    *runs in*

    Kyoto is definitely working and happily employed by (or is that married to?) a well known actor/director in New York.

    Or so I last heard....

    *runs out*
    Feels Good Inc.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    surferdude wrote:
    Simple question, is the Kyoto Accord working? Is it effectively addressing global climate change?

    My take is that it has been a failure. It failed to get buy in from the most important countries. It has failed to have countries that signed it make changes. As a trade agreement it put all onus on greenhouse gas producing countries and absolutely zero onus on countries who consume goods that have intensive greenhouse gas in production. Given these failures of Kyoto I believe it's time for Kyoto to be scrapped. Something new and better needs to be put in place.

    Thoughts.

    kyoto was a scam to fool the public into thinking that something was being done about a problem that is past the point of no return. in that sense; it worked. it released the highest polluters from any obligation but the public ate it up so the conspiracy worked. the public isn't being told the truth because of the panic it would cause. that's what it comes down to.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    polaris wrote:
    your assumption that any country that has met their target did it on the open market is false ... they've made significant progress in renewable energy and conservation ...

    as far as the oil sands - we most defnitely should be charged with the extraction gases as we are the source ... no one is even counting the burning of the oil or manufacturing or refining (unless its done in canada) ... the reality is (as for so long) we continue to NOT pay the true cost of oil as a resource ... it costs less for gas here than pop ... tell me how that makes any sense? ... especially when you factor in the pollution and toll on the environment? ...

    we are not as dependent on oil as some would have you believe ...

    and lastly - the USA is evil mantra may be used too often these days but u can't possibly sit there and type that they are purveyors of good and all that - you can critique the bashers all you want but if you actually listen to the message - that's where the crux is ...

    you are so correct. a country cannot fulfill it's obligations because it's THE PEOPLE that have to change. europe has done great things including solar and wind power. if you've been to a german hotel lately; the electricity is shut off when you leave the room. your room key turns on the electricity.
Sign In or Register to comment.