However, the treaty is fundamentally flawed, because instead of setting the CO2 quota by GDP (in other words, the more money you make the more pollution you are allowed to produce) it was set arbitrarily, country-by-country, with economic development considered in a way that was heavy industry friendly. And the 3rd world nations ganged up on the U.S. to allow India, China, and Brazil to have much higher allowed levels than the U.S. or Europe (proportionately). That is what many people (myself included) really don't like, because I think that a global treaty that included a FAIR pollution tax (which is what Kyoto boils down to) would be OK.
I don't think it should be according to GDP at all. That's a terrible way to measure pollution. You are assuming that there is a direct relation between GDP and pollution which is not necessarily true (although perhaps a good predictor). I don't know how they set the quotas but it should be according to pollution per capita.
I can understand the grievance versus China and maybe Brazil, but I think India should be considered a developing country considering the rampant poverty and illiteracy. China on the other hand, I could write a huge rant against. They are exempt from the treaty since they are considered a developing country. I mean these people want to put a man on the moon. Sheesh. Work on your freaking poverty problems.
China and India aren't that big of a polluter. I know you think that might be crazy and that map suggests otherwise but look at these stats:http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/problems/co2_polluters.cfm
China is pretty low per capita compared to other indutrialized nations. They have even reduced their emissions somewhat over the years.
The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol
So I think the whiny China argument is pretty lame.
I don't think it would "cripple" the US economy, but you have to admit, it would be bad. Two of the discs in the spinal cord of the US eceonomy is the auto industry and energy. If the US were just simply to jump in and ratify without lowering emissions, they would have to pay billions for credits. That money would be downloaded onto the tax payer or the auto industry or energy industry. Not good. And if it tried to lower emissions, it would require some sort of strangling of the auto industry (since cars are one of the biggest source of CO2) or energy which again will drain tax payers or factories or whatever. It's just so much easier to pollute and shit all over the environment.
the treaty HAD NO MEANS OF SLOWING THE GROWTH OF CO2 OUTPUT, it only taxed countries for making too much.
Well, incentives are a method of slowing CO2 output. So I would argue it does have means of slowing output in industrialized nations. And if you are right, that it has no means of slowing CO2 growth, doesn't that make it silly and pointless?
What we need is new energy sources that don't involve freeing up stored reactive gases that have been kept out of the atmosphere for millions of years. Solar, Fusion, Wind, Tide, etc. And whoever invents something like that that works is going to make money regardless of international law.
Totally agree. I don't think anyone could disagree.
edit: oopsie, forgot a quote tagThis comment was edited on Oct 20, 23:07.