Kyoto ratified !

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-10-25 04:02pm

from the BBC

The United Nations treaty, already backed by 126 countries, needed Russia's support before it could come into force.
The State Duma voted 334-73 to approve the treaty, which calls on signatories to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

Wohoo !

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-10-25 04:07pm

Excellent. Take that Corporate America!

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-10-25 04:11pm

Hmm. 5.2 percent by 2012. That's Pretty Damn Good!

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-10-25 04:28pm

JME2 wrote:Excellent. Take that Corporate America!

All the way to the bank

Oh no Coperate American now has to pay no additonal fines as long as they are 100% US Based(Which few are, damn near all major companys either strive for or are multinational)

But because Kyoto is based off the same model the peoples republic of California is based off(Trading of emissions credits) the most likley course of action will simply be

Polluting Companys buy "emission" credits from Companys that don't realy have any emissions or not that many and keep on polluiting to their hearts content exept now they can put as much emissions as they want in the enviorment as long as they have the money

acesand8s · Post by **acesand8s** » 2004-10-25 04:34pm

Without the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (USA) though, it's pretty meaningless, especially when you add in the fact that the second largest emitter, China, is exempt. And it doesn't look like the US will be ratifying the treaty any time soon, since compliance costs rise every day we wait to ratify. Then take into consideration that the Kyoto Protocols fail to set emission limits on developing countries, which are expected to produce the bulk of the greenhouse gases by 2020 (I forget the exact percentage). So it's a start, but a fairly useless one.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-25 04:42pm

Excellent. Take that Corporate America!

What does it profit you that "Corporate America" suffers?

You do realize that, no matter in what country you are born and raised, or choose to live your life, big business is a positive good, marshalling resources and providing goods and services that smaller, less influential companies would be unable to offer? Big business also facilitates the success of small business on many different levels by providing demand for secondary producers.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-25 04:46pm

JME2 wrote:Excellent. Take that Corporate America!

Yes, indeed. American companies aren't subject to Kyoto, so they just got a rather large competitive advantage

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-25 04:47pm

American companies operating in the US, to be more specific.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-10-25 04:52pm

I was being sarcastic rather than optimistic.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-10-25 05:54pm

Axis Kast wrote:What does it profit you that "Corporate America" suffers?

You do realize that, no matter in what country you are born and raised, or choose to live your life, big business is a positive good, marshalling resources and providing goods and services that smaller, less influential companies would be unable to offer? Big business also facilitates the success of small business on many different levels by providing demand for secondary producers.

Sorry; I don't watch enough Fox News to understand that pollution isn't bad at all. My bad. Or maybe you're... wanking.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-25 06:35pm

Sorry; I don't watch enough Fox News to understand that pollution isn't bad at all. My bad. Or maybe you're... wanking.

Strawman. I didn't say that pollution wasn't bad, fucktard. I said that, in general, big business is an important good. The only person wanking on this thread is ... you.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-10-25 07:11pm

Axis Kast wrote:You do realize that, no matter in what country you are born and raised, or choose to live your life, big business is a positive good, marshalling resources and providing goods and services that smaller, less influential companies would be unable to offer? Big business also facilitates the success of small business on many different levels by providing demand for secondary producers.

It's the natural human tendency to despise anyone better off than oneself.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-25 07:50pm

Ugh. Kyoto is one of the stupidest ideas in the history of environmentalism gone awry. "Let's try and stop global warming by exempting most of the countries that are most responsible for it, and particularly the countries that are currently expanding most quickly and are therefore most capable of shifting their industrial structure."

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-10-25 07:53pm

Fortunately, as it is now it can never ever pass in the United States.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-10-25 07:55pm

The only reason Russia even ratified it is because of some accounting loophole or some such based on Soviet production levels, or some such ... Russia doesn't produce nearly as much pollution as the USSR did, merely because of reduced activity. Apparently, they can "sell" their excess "you're allowed this much pollution" to other countries ... or something. Don't take my word for it, I could be wrong.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-10-25 08:01pm

Vympel wrote:The only reason Russia even ratified it is because of some accounting loophole or some such based on Soviet production levels, or some such ... Russia doesn't produce nearly as much pollution as the USSR did, merely because of reduced activity. Apparently, they can "sell" their excess "you're allowed this much pollution" to other countries ... or something. Don't take my word for it, I could be wrong.

Its sounds like it makes wonderful sense, in the short term its generates alot of "vurtial" income for these companys they could use

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-10-25 08:23pm

Ugh. Kyoto is one of the stupidest ideas in the history of environmentalism gone awry. "Let's try and stop global warming by exempting most of the countries that are most responsible for it, and particularly the countries that are currently expanding most quickly and are therefore most capable of shifting their industrial structure."

And yet many of the President's most vociferous critics can't stop assailing him on his opposition to what was most clearly not common-sense environmentalism.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-10-25 11:44pm

Vympel wrote:The only reason Russia even ratified it is because of some accounting loophole or some such based on Soviet production levels, or some such ... Russia doesn't produce nearly as much pollution as the USSR did, merely because of reduced activity. Apparently, they can "sell" their excess "you're allowed this much pollution" to other countries ... or something. Don't take my word for it, I could be wrong.

You are absolutely correct. Indeed, if I recall correctly, at the time the Kyoto standards were set, the USSR was in one piece. That means that the "pollution credits" that Russia gets are for the total unregulated industry of the entire Soviet Union. This means that the Russians can continue to spew pollution out of their factories with fewer safety measures than 19th century Britain and still sell around 14 - 16 billion dollars worth of pollution credits a year.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-25 11:47pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Vympel wrote:The only reason Russia even ratified it is because of some accounting loophole or some such based on Soviet production levels, or some such ... Russia doesn't produce nearly as much pollution as the USSR did, merely because of reduced activity. Apparently, they can "sell" their excess "you're allowed this much pollution" to other countries ... or something. Don't take my word for it, I could be wrong.
You are absolutely correct. Indeed, if I recall correctly, at the time the Kyoto standards were set, the USSR was in one piece. That means that the "pollution credits" that Russia gets are for the total unregulated industry of the entire Soviet Union. This means that the Russians can continue to spew pollution out of their factories with fewer safety measures than 19th century Britain and still sell around 14 - 16 billion dollars worth of pollution credits a year.

And make me proud of the Motherland once more.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-26 01:55am

Vympel wrote:The only reason Russia even ratified it is because of some accounting loophole or some such based on Soviet production levels, or some such ... Russia doesn't produce nearly as much pollution as the USSR did, merely because of reduced activity. Apparently, they can "sell" their excess "you're allowed this much pollution" to other countries ... or something. Don't take my word for it, I could be wrong.

That is correct. The pollution levels used in the treaty are from 1990 and it is down from that level that the reduction must take place.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-26 02:29am

See now this is exactly why the US should have stayed working with Kyoto to try to get some of this bullshit ironed out. We still may never have signed it, but we could at least have made an attempt to give its provisions validity.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-10-26 05:22am

Actually, the US did sign it (under Clinton), but didn't ratify it (a Bush decision).

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that the aspects of the treaty were "ironed out" back in 1997 when it was signed.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-26 06:39am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
You are absolutely correct. Indeed, if I recall correctly, at the time the Kyoto standards were set, the USSR was in one piece. That means that the "pollution credits" that Russia gets are for the total unregulated industry of the entire Soviet Union. This means that the Russians can continue to spew pollution out of their factories with fewer safety measures than 19th century Britain and still sell around 14 - 16 billion dollars worth of pollution credits a year.

You'd think a loophole like that which you could drive the Knock Nevis through would've been picked up on and corrected.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-10-26 06:47am

White Cat wrote:Actually, the US did sign it (under Clinton), but didn't ratify it (a Bush decision).

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that the aspects of the treaty were "ironed out" back in 1997 when it was signed.

wrong. Congress ratifies treaties, not Presidents. Clinton signed Kyoto knowing full well that there was no way in hell it would pass through congress, even if it were to fall under Democratic control.

acesand8s · Post by **acesand8s** » 2004-10-26 10:53am

White Cat wrote:Actually, the US did sign it (under Clinton), but didn't ratify it (a Bush decision).

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that the aspects of the treaty were "ironed out" back in 1997 when it was signed.

Gore symbolically signed the treaty but Clinton knew it would never be ratified by the Senate. The Senate passed a resolution 95 - 0 saying that it wouldn't ratify unless certain changes were made.

Clinton did try to work within the system but he didn't get what he wanted. IIRC, one of his goals was some form of active participation on the part of developing countries, considering the fact that it would be cheaper for them to cut down on emissions and that they would soon be producing the majority of greenhouse gas emission. Yet, the Kyoto Treaty didn't demand anything of them. The Montrol Protocols, on the other hand, which reduced the emissions of CFC's, did establish firm emission standards for these nations, though they weren't as great as the standards for developed nations.