| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Kyoto treaty to be binding after Russian ratification |
| 2004-10-23 |
| Environmentalists hailed Russia as the world's ecological saviour yesterday after the Russian parliament made good on President Vladimir Putin's promise to endorse the Kyoto climate change pact. Yesterday's vote will see the UN treaty take effect early next year. The world's industrialised countries (with the exception of America, the largest polluter) will have to cut their collective emissions of six greenhouse gases to 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels in eight years or face stiff penalties and global humiliation... Once it is approved by Russia's upper house and President Vladimir Putin  which is all but assured  the pact will have been ratified by the necessary 55 countries that accounted for at least 55 per cent of global emissions in 1990. Russia's upper house still has to ratify the pact and Mr Putin sign it into law, but both are seen as being merely procedural. Yesterday's vote was billed as the one that counted. Mr Putin signalled that Russia would sign on the dotted line in May, making it clear that EU support for Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO) had been influential. "We support the Kyoto process," he said at the time. "The fact that the EU has met us halfway in negotiations on the WTO could not but have helped Moscow's positive attitude to the question of ratifying the Kyoto protocol." Mr Putin decided to back the pact in the face of often fierce domestic opposition. Two reports  one by the country's academy of sciences and another by a senior policy adviser  recommended he reject because it would cause irreparable damage to Russia's economy. Andrei Illarionov, an adviser to Mr Putin on economic matters, was particularly negative, angering Jewish groups by likening it to a "global Auschwitz", whose main purpose was to stifle economic growth. The importance of Russia's ratification cannot be overstated. With America's continued refusal to ratify Kyoto Russia, responsible for 17 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, essentially had the casting vote. To enter into force the pact needed to be ratified by developed countries responsible for 55 per cent of emissions. That figure was 44 per cent before Russia came on board; now it is 61... |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #22 Y'all are forgetting something about the Kyoto accord: The Europeans have never meant to abide by it. Oh, they signed it, they ratified it (mostly), they wax eloquently on it, but as with many other solemn, sacred international treaties, they'll dump that sucker the moment it becomes inconvenient. Remember the solemn, sacred financial accord the EU states signed to get their budget deficits reined in? Who's been the biggest defaulter since? Why, the French of course. Quelle surprise! The Kyoto accord has been aimed at one country all along: the US. They put in exemptions for India and China, they used funny numbers for Russia and others, they cooked the numbers as much as they dared for Europe, and they've prepared an extra-special edition of the "blind eye" for their friends. They've never intended to honor the sucker. But we were supposed to. And every time we didn't, some NGO or LLL interest group would complain loudly and sue Uncle Sugar. They'd get us all tied up in legal knots. There would be grave pronouncements at international meetings comdeming American violations. Kyoto would be used in our elections with the malefactors (e.g., Republicans, factory owners, utilities, oil companies, etc) all on the defensive. Kyoto has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with restraining the US. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-10-23 6:58:27 PM |
| #21 In a very few years, with EU regs and Kyoto in place, they won't need these "carbon credits", heh. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-23 5:40:49 PM |
| #20 Even if Russia sells their carbon credits, the idea was that the United States was supposed to be the buyer, not the Euros. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-10-23 5:37:50 PM |
| #19 Clinton signed Kyoto to enhance his own personal popularity around the globe, pure and simple. He knew it didn't have a chance in the Senate. The fact that the greens & Marxists are finding common ground is interesting but they're fundamentally very different groups. Marxists want to control the means of production, greens want to destroy it and send us back to the pre-industrial age. I could be wrong but that doesn't seem like a stable alliance. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-10-23 5:25:16 PM |
| #18 Putin's Russia is in Kyoto for the money, plain and simple. Their base numbers will bring in billions. Also, they will get into the WTO. Russia is acting like a 3rd world country. The EU is willing to give them billions of their taxpayers hard earned Euros without even a blink of the eye. It is all about money, the environmental issues are just a smokescreen. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-10-23 4:13:45 PM |
| #17 hmmm but when they were in the Senate and had a chance to vote for it, nobody did, nor did Clinton/Gore push it. Talk is cheap, especially for chronic liars |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-10-23 3:59:21 PM |
| #16 Kerry "would have signed it" Gore "would have signed it" every democrat politician "would have signed it." You don't know how close we are to being stabed in the back by our own on this. The frankly don't give a shit they are all millionares and can afford to do what ever they want regardless. Think about this you want to buy LPG or Charcoal to BBQ with and can't you find out it's because of Koyto. You can't drive your car or travel today because it's mandated becasue of Koyto. You get the picture it's about control by the leftist elites. Neo-Marxists Turn From Red to Green Red is Green a list of resources right from one of the wack jobs. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-23 3:42:50 PM |
| #15 Never before has there been such a systematic assault on industrial production. That's true but an even more sinister aspect of Kyoto is that it's also the first global (or at least quasi-global) implementation of Marxist economics. Had the US signed on I'd be terribly worried about the future but as it stands I think our friends in Western Europe will be presenting to the world a very clear-eyed look at the junk science behind the treaty in relatively short order because without the designated stuckee they'll be left holding the bag. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-10-23 3:25:25 PM |
| #14 Never before has there been such a systematic assault on industrial production. That's true but an even more sinister aspect of Kyoto is that it's also the first global (or at least quasi-global) implementation of Marxist economics. Had the US signed on I'd be terribly worried about the future but as it stands I think our friends in Western Europe will be presenting to the world a very clear-eyed look at the junk science behind the treaty in relatively short order because without the designated stuckee they'll be left holding the bag. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-10-23 3:23:40 PM |
| #13 "EU citizens will pay for it in the form of reduced productivity and lower standards of living." BZZZZZTTTT! We have a winner. That is what it's always been about, reducing the standard of living of the First world. This has almost zero to do with polution. If it did it would apply to 3rd and 2nd world nations. It doesnt. Guess who it's biggest target is? Gues what it's really about? |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-23 3:06:01 PM |
| #12 Never before has there been such a systematic assault on industrial production. Russia is playing with the EU politicians, and the EU citizens will pay for it in the form of reduced productivity and lower standards of living. Note that it is a loss for everybody on the planet. Less productivity among 300m+ people means less trade means higher prices (over and above the expansion of fiat money, i.e. inflation). Now, the only rational way around Kyoto would be for all industrialized countries to re-start nuclear energy production. But they're too busy helping Iran... |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-10-23 1:21:29 PM |
| #11 The numbers are fiction. They're based on "1990 emissions". In 1990, almost no one was tracking actual emissions on a comprehensive basis. So somebody was free to fiddle the numbers to their liking based on inference from fuel consumption, ASSumed efficiencies, etc. -- a consultant's dream job. I know of one large company that tried to work up their own 1990 numbers in about 1997 and found it to be an exercise in creativity. The exercise is prone to error. Some companies use natural gas and oil as raw materials, for instance. In some cases, efficiencies are under-estimated because the people who sell new equipment and energy conservation systems stretch the truth to make their products seem more attractive. As one high-level corporate manager once said to me, "we've been doing energy efficiency improvement projects every year for decades -- you'd think we'd be at about 200% by now." What should have been done in 1995 or 1997 was to set the baseline at about 1998 so some real numbers could have been obtained. Oh, well. That's Gore and Kerry for you -- half baked and half truths. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-10-23 12:23:12 PM |
| #10 No, I honestly don't think Western Europe can afford to kick off a full scale trade war over Kyoto. Most of them are carrying higher debt loads and facing relatively larger unfunded mandates than is the US. Having their producer's access to the world's richest consumer market damaged isn't something they can even afford to consider. More likely we'll see them pushing a condemnation through the UN General Assembly where it can't be vetoed and/or attempting to sue for imagined damages in one of their European global courts. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-10-23 11:53:05 AM |
| #9 I agree that they'll try to tie us down with it thru regulatory, treaty, or moral tut-tutting. Any American politician willing to play that card should be run out of the country on a rail, right, Jean-Francois? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-10-23 11:50:02 AM |
| #8 Check THIS out for links and info, from the non-Moonbat perspective. You don't think that those who signed up for this phantasy won't attempt to punish those who didn't? If they could garner enough support to sign on, they'll have no difficulty getting support to add on punishment - likely via trade. I would be surprised if they didn't vote as a block to tie the WTO regs to this fairy tale - to, y'know, make it all "legitimate" and everything. It's already a UN thingy, so the next logical step... |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-23 11:26:18 AM |
| #7 Kyoto is a lying facade to strangle America's economy by the ankle-biters and weak sisters of the EU. True but since we've chosen not to play ball I see no downside for the US here. Exports from developed nations will become marginally less competitive in the global marketplace as compared to those from the US. This is a good thing for us. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-10-23 11:16:36 AM |
| #6 And the 55% magic number that magically puts Kyoto "in force" world-wide? Why, they pulled it out of their asses, of course! Along with most of everything else in the Kyoto Accord. Therefore, prudent people should wipe before handling. I feel a rant coming on... |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-23 11:04:53 AM |
| #5 no word on how this'll affect China and India (it won't). Kyoto is a lying facade to strangle America's economy by the ankle-biters and weak sisters of the EU |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-10-23 11:02:26 AM |
| #4 That 40% more per capita. I can believe 17% for the entire FSU, but Russia has slightly less than 1/2 the population of the FSU. So it makes no sense to assign the entire 1990 FSU CO2 budget to Russia. Can you say let the bribes commence? FSU industries are extraordinarily polluting. I have seen it. But the CO2 output per unit production is more an indicator of energy effciency than a pollution metric. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-10-23 11:02:11 AM |
| #3 ed: You have to calculate that, while Russia's industries are indeed anemic, they currently have zero pollution controls. So one old Russian plant produces pollution at levels not seen in the US since the 1950s (or before)--equivalent to dozens of modern US plants. Pollution in Russia is truly nightmarish, with schoolchildren often sent to the countryside just to get them out of the local contamination, and a horrific number of clearly pollution-related birth defects. The best visual image I can give for much of their industrial urban areas is the movie "Eraserhead". |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-10-23 10:46:56 AM |
| #2 17% is the alleged Soviet figure, they're almost certainly way below that today. Methinks the Ruskies had this one played correctly from the start. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-10-23 10:42:38 AM |
| #1 There is no way Russia produces 17 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The US produces 25%. Russia with 1/2 the population, tiny apartments, little private transport, and anemic industry does not produce 40% per capita. Figures lie and liars figure. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-10-23 10:05:27 AM |