China takes the heat as the world’s newly-crowned largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Not exactly local news, bit it fits in well with AEI fellow Joel Schwartz’s recent visit to Greensboro.
OK, here’s the question: How will significant reductions in carbon dioxide occur as China and India continue to develop? Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has an interesting answer:
“It is a fact that more and not less development is the best way for developing countries to address themselves to the issues of preserving the environment.”
Certainly he’s not suggesting that countries will be able to fight global warming more effectively as they acquire greater wealth and technology, instead of the other way around? Schwartz uses the same argument to dispute the dire warnings from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
The IPCC itself admits its harm projections “do not take into account any changes in development in adaptive capacity.” In other words, the IPCC assumes that as the climate changes, people will not take any new steps to protect themselves, and that new, safety-enhancement technologies will not be developed…..
Surely, during the 21st Century existing technologies will continue to diffuse toward countries and people who don’t already enjoy their benefits, (as is already happening in China and India, and many other places); new marvels will continue to be developed that will improve our health and comfort; and the real incomes of the world’s people will continue to increase……
Not exactly a doomsday scenario. But here’s the real issue: As countries like China and India continue to develop, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that there is no way they will ever reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 8 percent below 1990 levels as stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol. Nor will participating countries, for that matter. In fact, attempting to keep carbon emissions at 2004 would have considerable negative impact, Schwartz says:
…….even keeping CO2 emissions at their 2004 level would require that the people of the world be restricted to a level of energy use typical of countries where average real incomes are about one-third to one-tenth that of the average American’s income.
The results of the Kyoto Protocol demonstrate the difficulty of achieving meaningful reductions in GHG emissions…… Most participating countries are on track to exceed their Kyoto caps by a large margin.
With all this in mind, here’s the way I see it: the Kyoto treaty is a fantasy. A fairy tale. And Al Gore’s proud of his role in negotiating it.
........As you post your comment, please conform to Piedmont Publius's simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. If you wouldn't say it to a co-worker in front of your boss, it probably is not civil and respectful. We will delete any comment that fails this test and issue a warning to the poster. A second offense will result in a ban on commenting on this site. In sum, disagreements, arguments even, are welcome; abusive behavior is not. Thanks.
01
2007 At 6:06 pm, University Update - Al Gore - The Kyoto fantasy Said:
[...] Wesley Clark Link to Article al gore The Kyoto fantasy » Posted at Piedmont Publius on Sunday, July 01, 2007 China takes the heat as the world’s newly-crowned largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Not exactly local news, bit it fits in well with AEI fellow Joel Schwartz’s recent visit to Greensboro. OK, here’s the question: How will significant reductions in carbon dioxide occur as China and India continue to develop? View Entire Article » [...]
02
2007 At 3:03 pm, Bubba Said:
“But here’s the real issue: As countries like China and India continue to develop, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that there is no way they will ever reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 8 percent below 1990 levels as stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol. Nor will participating countries, for that matter. In fact, attempting to keep carbon emissions at 2004 would have considerable negative impact…..”
You heretic, you!
The Global Warming Inquisition won’t like that statement at all, Sam.
03
2007 At 7:04 am, SamH Said:
They need to hear it, though, Bubba. I thnk what blew me away, admittedly, was my naivete. It’s really common sense that pre-1990 levels are an unrealistic goal, but you never hear that, do you. Just the way the EPA keeps raising the bar on standards. It’s la-la land.
03
2007 At 9:38 pm, Bubba Said:
“Unrealistic” is never a problem with certain people when the success of a major political-social-economic agenda item is at stake.
04
2007 At 8:52 am, Piedmont Publius » Blog Archive » Kyoto fantasy, Part II Said:
[...] In the last two years, the city council increased taxes to fund expanded public transportation, approved a bicycle-pedestrian plan and supervised the opening of a waste transfer station. The local Sierra Club’s Cool Cities Group is lobbying the council to sign the US Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement, a document stating the city would reduce its carbon emissions in alignment with the Kyoto Accords, an effort that’s been well-received by most of council. [...]
18
2007 At 7:58 am, Piedmont Publius » Blog Archive » Jordan Rules: large cost, little benefit Said:
[...] After listening to Williams’s presentation, the city council voted unanimously to approve a resolution opposing the Jordan Lake rules. What struck me later is the fact that many of the same arguments Williams presented could be applied to stringent and unrealistic air quality standards. Yet there’s no such unanimous skepticism from local politicians on that matter. Quite the opposite, if anything. Perhaps they’ve never had it explained to them in such clear terms. [...]
27
2007 At 8:28 am, Piedmont Publius » Blog Archive » Reality check: GSO City Council Said:
[...] Here’s a suggestion for the city: Don’t bother. There is no way in hell the city can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels short of doing our laundy on a rock and reading by oil lamp. Hence the Kyoto Fantasy. [...]