A contribution to the Kyoto reading circle:

WHAT XODDAM SAID [ the soft-sell!]
"Kyoto establishes emissions caps for Annex I nations, and emissions accounting and Clean
Development Mechanism participation for all signatories, including South Africa, Indonesia and China"

WHAT XODDAM OMMITTED [ the hard-facts!]
Annex I nations (the developed nations) "are COMMITED…to ensuring … emissions of greenhouse gases do not exceed amounts assigned to each country in Annex B to the Protocol."
And if any Annex I country…"fails to meet its Kyoto obligation it will be penalized
by having to submit 1.3 emission allowances in a second commitment period for
every ton of greenhouse gas emissions they exceed their cap in the first."

The Non-Annex I nations ( the rest of the world) are ENCOURAGED, BUT NOT COMPELLED, to participate -in The Development Mechanism

"India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not
required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement"

If the USA was to ratify the present agreement the economic impact on the United States would be at least 4 times greater than on Europe. And 100 times greater than most fair-weather signatories.
Some sources predict a resultant 4% decline in USA GDP( An interesting side question:
would they still expect the USA to pay its current disproportionate % of foreign aid?)

Both the Clinton Democrats & the current Republican Administrations have been critical of the lack of compulsion on developing nations [ Shucks! that undercuts the scope to beat about the Bush with Michael Moore scenarios of big Corp Govt intransigence]

And though some flourish the list of Kyoto signatories, as if it's a Roll of Honour: It's hardly a list of the environmentally committed, most undertake little to nothing . It has more in common with the roll of diners at a Salvation Army soup kitchen.

I got a distinct sense of déjà vu while watching the Kyoto roadshow…
I had seen it all somewhere before - then it struck me!
It's that a long running cabaret production better known as "Let's shaft the USA" -only the stage-set has been changed!

Horus, you said “Kyoto has hyped-up the need for urgent action. Yet, it has targeted first & foremost many moderate (in volume), western polluters - while effectively putting off till tomorrow the need to rope-in some of the worst (in volume) , developing nation polluters.”

I think this is a fair question to put to you - The USA up till now has been the worst by volume GHG emitter – how do you think we should “rope them in?” And please, don’t get paranoid about someone wanting to “shaft the USA.”

Horus, do you think the “developed” world is living in a sustainable way?

Again, Kyoto’ is flawed and “let’s seek alternatives” (as you say) – but it’s not just about ‘Kyoto’ as some would have us believe – what bit do you think needs clarification?

APEC is next month, what do you think should happen given that Howard has put ‘climate change’ at the top of the agenda?

What do you think should happen at the UNFCCC meeting in December in moving on from ‘Kyoto’?

What do you think the US should do? Seriously>

And Horus – IT IS NOT ABOUT “SHAFTING THE USA”, they are YOUR words.

[My line,DavSab — your dots!]

The US position has been unequivocal.
I don’t recall them saying no to emission controls.
Only no to controls that exempted some of the worst polluters.


Treating China, India & Brazil on a par with the USA would make a nice start.
OR…
You could wait till some 'new age' minded Democrat(or Laborite) wins the next election & ratifies Kyoto, but then, all the yankophobes would have to find a new bandwagon- but that shouldn’t be too difficult!

Have a nice weekend

Some people obfuscate by not answering direct questions. OK, maybe we all should leave these issues to our elected leaders to act on our behalf, just like they did in Iraq.

We are going to see all the spin leading up to and emanating from APEC next week.