Kyoto Agreement (1 Viewer)

[BlueOnion]

Okay, I have this Dutch co-worker who decided to interupt my workday to go on a 1-hour dicitation the terrible US and how the US is trying to pollute the plant. He was making the argument that Americans Produce 9x the normal green gases (per capita) then any other country and although the rest of the planet is on board with the Kyoto agreement, the United States is not.

I figured I could either do my work (strongly considering), google the internet all day (not really considering) or just sap the FFA knowledge base on the topic.

What is the position of the US for not signing the Kyoto agreement?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

We're not japanese.

 

[kupcho1]

What is the position of the US for not signing the Kyoto agreement?

Ignoring for the moment whether or not "greenhouse" gases are causing harm to the environment, the single biggest problem with Kyoto is (IIRC) that it does not include developing countries (e.g., China, India). Not only would these countries still be pumping enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they'd also be afforded a huge economic advantage (not having to retrofit or invest in eco-friendly manufacturing methods).Moreover, most of the countries that have actually signed on to the accord have not done anything to get into accordance with it.

Now I may be recalling some of this incorrectly, so any experts can feel free to jump in and set me straight.

 

[Mad Cow]

Ozone layer.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What is the position of the US for not signing the Kyoto agreement?

Ignoring for the moment whether or not "greenhouse" gases are causing harm to the environment, the single biggest problem with Kyoto is (IIRC) that it does not include developing countries (e.g., China, India). Not only would these countries still be pumping enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they'd also be afforded a huge economic advantage (not having to retrofit or invest in eco-friendly manufacturing methods).Moreover, most of the countries that have actually signed on to the accord have not done anything to get into accordance with it.

Now I may be recalling some of this incorrectly, so any experts can feel free to jump in and set me straight.

I'm not an expert on this topic either, but that was my understanding as well.I think the Senate rejected the Kyoto treaty unanimously (with 4-5 abstentions) when Clinton put it up for ratification. It doesn't get any more bipartisan than that.

 

[SlimShady]

Kyoto exempts India and China, two countries that are the worst polluters of all. Why should the US be tied to a treaty that exempts them?

worst of all, even if all the kyoto protocols are followed to the letter by everyone on the planet, the net change in global warming over the next 50 years would be 1 degree Fahrenheit. considering the Trillions of dollars that would be spent to save one degree of global warming, the cost benefit analysis is a total failure.

 

[BlueOnion]

Kyoto exempts India and China, two countries that are the worst polluters of all. Why should the US be tied to a treaty that exempts them?

What is the accepted method for rating polluters? Pollution per capita, pollution per square mile.

 

[Running with scissors]

Canada has not only done nothing to fulfill its quotas/obligations (although I hesitate to call it an obligation since Kyoto has no teeth) to Kyoto, the Conservative govenment is putting an "alternative" strategy to the house.

 

[SlimShady]

Kyoto exempts India and China, two countries that are the worst polluters of all. Why should the US be tied to a treaty that exempts them?

What is the accepted method for rating polluters? Pollution per capita, pollution per square mile.

I don't know, why don't you go http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...6lr%3D%26sa%3DNand check out the asian brown cloud India and China are responsible for and get back to me on your analysis

 

[BlueOnion]

I appreciate the quality feedback, keep it coming.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

For anyone who wants to talk about the actual issues:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=1

The issues are whether:

1. The US should or should not be be doing this. - AND -
2. Is Obama yet again just trashing the Constitution.

This reminds me of the Executive Order thing. If at some point the execution and rule making of a law, or the amendment of a treaty, becomes so different from the original law or treaty that it's really "new" it should not be permitted and it is unconstitutional.

I have no idea if that's the case here but reading the article it sure sounds like Obama & Co. have basically shown their hand and admitted yes indeed they are willfully happily violating the Constitution. They constantly seem intellectually lazy, unwilling to deal with opponents and ultimately autocratic and not democratic.

 

[jonessed]

You can't "update" or change an existing treaty without the Senate vote. Obama can sign it, but it's still an unratified treaty. It's not going to carry any legal obligations. I think it's a disengenous thing to do, but that's his prerogative.

Maybe their internal polling suggests the environmentalists need a bone to come out and vote during mid-terms.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You can't "update" or change an existing treaty without the Senate vote. Obama can sign it, but it's still an unratified treaty. It's not going to carry any legal obligations. I think it's a disengenous thing to do, but that's his prerogative.

Maybe their internal polling suggests the environmentalists need a bone to come out and vote during mid-terms.

I don't think we really know how often this administration's rule making gets overturned or ignored or just plain unenforced.

He seems to govern by press release but with little to no effect.

 

[jonessed]

You can't "update" or change an existing treaty without the Senate vote. Obama can sign it, but it's still an unratified treaty. It's not going to carry any legal obligations. I think it's a disengenous thing to do, but that's his prerogative.

Maybe their internal polling suggests the environmentalists need a bone to come out and vote during mid-terms.

I don't think we really know how often this administration's rule making gets overturned or ignored or just plain unenforced.

He seems to govern by press release but with little to no effect.

India and China won't sign it, the US won't ratify it, and Europe won't feel compelled to live up to the goals (much like the Kyoto treaty). Its all just political posturing.

 

[jon_mx]

For anyone who wants to talk about the actual issues:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=1

The issues are whether:

1. The US should or should not be be doing this. - AND -
2. Is Obama yet again just trashing the Constitution.

This reminds me of the Executive Order thing. If at some point the execution and rule making of a law, or the amendment of a treaty, becomes so different from the original law or treaty that it's really "new" it should not be permitted and it is unconstitutional.

I have no idea if that's the case here but reading the article it sure sounds like Obama & Co. have basically shown their hand and admitted yes indeed they are willfully happily violating the Constitution. They constantly seem intellectually lazy, unwilling to deal with opponents and ultimately autocratic and not democratic.

This is a gross abuse of power and extremely irresponsible by Obama would could result in the US being fined billions of dollars. He may not be binding the US by our Constitution, but international courts may think otherwise and rule that by international law the US is bound to such an agreement. You can laugh it off, but this will end up making the US look extremely bad in signing a bogus agreement.

 

[Koya]

BlueOnion... WAIT!!!!