Global emissions are now rising about 2 percent annually.
The only way to reduce them sharply is to have a worldwide cooperative plan to do so. The Kyoto protocol, negotiated in 1997, was one plan. But it would not have actually reduced greenhouse emissions. They would have continued rising even if the United States had adopted Kyoto. Undermining Kyoto’s effectiveness was the unwillingness of most developing countries — prominently China and India — to join. With mass poverty, they’re more interested in faster economic growth than in slower global warming.
Their refusal was one reason the Senate would never have ratified Kyoto. In 1997 senators passed a resolution 95 to 0 disapproving the Kyoto approach. The other reason is that even modest reductions in U.S. greenhouse gases might result in higher energy prices, more regulations, slower economic growth or all three.
While this won’t keep the usual supects (Democrats) from lying about Bush killing Kyoto, it is nice to see the record set straight again. No matter how often they try to lie about Kyoto, remember- George Bush did not kill Kyoto.
He simply had the common decency to provide the treaty with a proper burial.
JKC
Point well made about rapidly-industrializing 3rd world countries being the biggest source of CO2 emissions. That said, the failure of the US* to sign on to Kyoto doesn’t exactly signal any enthusiasm on our part for trying to solve the problem.
* The US… NOT the Bush League, NOT the Clenis. Just so we’re clear here.
AnswertheQuestion
“That said, the failure of the US* to sign on to Kyoto doesn’t exactly signal any enthusiasm on our part for trying to solve the problem.”
Why should we have signed on to something which not only would NOT have helped “solve the problem” but probably have made it worse if anything?
Quoting the article: “But it (Kyoto) would not have actually reduced greenhouse emissions. They would have continued rising even if the United States had adopted Kyoto….In 1997 senators passed a resolution 95 to 0 disapproving the Kyoto approach. The other reason is that even modest reductions in U.S. greenhouse gases might result in higher energy prices, more regulations, slower economic growth or all three.”
Kyoto was NOT a solution nor even a viable plan to reduce greenhouse emissions — if that can even be done.
SLD
One of the biggest sources of CO2 comes from people, not peoples vehicles, not peoples factories, but people. Every man, woman and child on the face of the earth that is breathing exhales about two pounds of it each and every day.
Kathy K
So it’s still Bush’s fault for not promoting birth control aggressively!
More seriously, there are ways (interventionist/activist ways, gasp!) that have been proposed to reduce global warming. The Kyoto proponents have totally ignored such possibilities. Seeding the oceans with iron is one such. I’ve seen some others but I’m too lazy to hunt the links at the moment.