The Electric Commentary

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Bugger off, Kyoto.

Tony Blair is ditching the Kyoto Protocol. This is probably due to the fact that it is impossible to comply with and unconscionably expensive, while creating no environmental benefits whatsoever, but let's hear it from him:

"People fear some external force is going to impose some internal target on you which is going to restrict your economic growth," said Blair, referring to the Kyoto Protocol, under which industrialized countries must reduced greenhouse gases an average of 5.2 percent by 2012 compared to 1990 levels. "The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge," Blair said. "But all economies know that the only sensible, long-term way to develop is to do it on a sustainable basis."


Hat tip, Reason.

3 Comments:

  • The Kyoto protocol may seem drastic, but if one believes even half of the supposed extent and dangers of Global Warming, or at least concedes that it may be possible, then I think drastic measures are in order. Even if they create less growth, or even a recession. It may cost less in the long run then resettling everyone in Bangledesh and Florida.

    It would be more kick-ass though, to just build a bunch of huge pools, maybe 20 miles by 20 miles and half a mile deep and put a bunch of salt water in that pup. or, what we started a campaign where everybody on the coast gradually started shipping tupperware containers with saltwater to volunteers inland. People could like volunteer to store 20 to 30 gallons each. You could keep it in your closet or wherever. Over 100 years we could store a couple of cubic miles worth of water.

    Also, it is high time we colonize the ocean.

    By Anonymous Phil, at 7:29 PM  

  • I'm with you on the Ocean colonizing. The problem with Kyoto, as far as effectiveness is concerned, isn't that it's drastic. it's that it focuses on entirely the wrong people. China and India get off Scott free, and they will be th emain providers of greenhouse gases through the next century.

    The other problem is enforcability. The member countries have not come even close to meeting their targets, and are in violation of the treaty, but since they're basically all in violation, no one has faced any sanctions.

    At least we're honest about our non-compliance.

    And laastly, while global warming is happening (and the arctic is apparently messed up) it's hard to say that all of the consequences will be bad, or even that New York will end up underwater. It has been hotter than this before around 1000-1400 A.D., and we did survive OK. Granted, there wasn't as much seaside development back then, but it wasn't all bad.

    Still, the status quo is clearly a good climate to live in, and we should preserve it if we can. It's just that development will probably be more effective in that regard. The sooner that we can develop some serious clean-tech energy producers, the less time China will spend throwing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 8:45 AM  

  • Yes, Kyoto has problems.
    The best solution, as Paul said, would be to develop clean energy sources for developing countries. In fact, somebody had the underemphasized stance that we should incentivize development of the US clean energy industry as an highly likely expanding high-tech market because China & India will have huge energy demands as they expand their infrastructure thus creating a market with enough demand to overcome the high start-up costs. Especially China, who with stable, one-party leadership and huge growth can afford to favor to long term reduced energy source costs over short term savings (unlike U.S.).

    By Anonymous Scott, at 4:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Search:
Keywords:
Amazon Logo