My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

December 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Finally, The Washington Post debunks Joseph Wilson | Main | Go-with-the-flow forecasting: Now expect below-average hurricane total »

September 01, 2006


Christopher Taylor

Japan - where Kyoto is - has the same problem. The Kyoto Accords were never really intended to make the slightest difference in terms of the environment anyway. They were just a socialist money grab, a global tax to move money from the rich to the poor.

Frank Warner

I'm not sure that was the intention of Kyoto, though I can see the argument.

If everyone in the industrialized world complied with Kyoto's targets, there was a good chance that no one would have benefitted. Power plants and factories would have shut down in every advanced nation, and the recession that followed probably would have hurt the poorer nations much more than the richer ones.

Both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate smelled out the problem in 1995. The diplomats at Kyoto came up with a formula too clearly aimed at penalizing the U.S. for the way we live, and too clearly exempting most other nations for their harmful activities.

It reminded me too much of those pushing the international ban on land mines. That's a fine goal for every nation on Earth that doesn't protect South Korea. But for the U.S. and South Korea, a land-mine ban is obviously insane.

jj mollo

I am not in favor of Kyoto, but I think you should straighten out your analysis here. The relevant issue is whether non-Kyoto countries are any different from signatories in terms of changing greenhouse emissions. IOW, is the rate going up faster in the US than in Europe? Is there any valid argument that the program is effective? That is question 1.

Frank Warner

Unfortunately, Reuters left out the numbers that would answer that question.

Perhaps there was a longer version of that story.

The comments to this entry are closed.