Kyoto Treaty

[iamjoy]

I find myself wondering, it seems like trade is going to be a hot issue in this election. The Democratic candidates seem in favor of free trade, but say it has to have fair environmental and labor provisions.

But what about the Kyoto Treaty? Supposedly, President Bush opposed this treaty because it placed stricter standards on the U.S. than on developing nations.

So, how can our candidate, whomever he is, claim to support the Kyoto Treaty and still call for trade agreements to have fair standards for labor and environment.

Perhaps the larger question is, as Democrats, we have the support of the labor unions and environmentalists (or at least more support than the Republicans). How can we keep both groups happy and voting Democrat when sometimes their interests seem to collide (eg: the Kyoto Treaty, demanding better gas mileage from cars ticks off the autoworkers)?

Am I on to something or am I way off base? If it is the latter, will some one please enlighten me?

[DrWeird]

1. I don't see how better mileage from cars...

would piss off autoworkers.

[iamjoy]

2. Makes their jobs harder?

same reason they were annoyed when Bush put on those protective steel tariffs (to help the workers in PA)

[Etzel510]

3. Kyoto treaty

The Kyoto accord was rejected 95-0 in the Senate. It was never intended, by Bill Clinton or anyone else, to be enacted. In fact the Kyoto treaty is nothing more than an proposal to transfer wealth from the US and Western Europe to developing countries. The telltale sign that Kyoto is not intended to reduce pollution is that it exempted the dirtiest developing nations (most pollutants per output) of India and China, despite the fact that application f western technology can give the greatest gains against their impact on global warming.

Kyoto was rightfully rejected by the Russians who saw it as a drag on their own economic development.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Carbon efficiency facts

Units: tonnes CO2/$ GDP
Russia 3.84
Australia 2.07
China 2.03
United States 1.77
Canada 1.69
India 1.39
Germany 1.19
United Kingdom 1.17
Italy 0.91
France 0.78

source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_car_eff

What was that about the most pollutants per output? Not only does the US produce vast quantities of CO2 in total, it's less efficient than India. No surprise that it's the USA, Australia and Canada that have rejected it - they're the worst Western offenders. Russia hasn't rejected it yet.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

5. Keep in mind

China and India are still developing. Those numbers will get worse.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Not necessarily

China and India's GDP is growing faster than their growth in CO2 emissions. Those figures I gave were from 1998; here's some figures for what's happened since.

Country              USA   China  India 
1998 CO2             5569  2952   844
2001 CO2             5739  3050   922
CO2 %growth/year     1.0   1.1    3.0
avg GDP growth 98-02 3.0   7.6    5.4

(sources: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1119.html , http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/donstat/econm_finnc/conjn_econm/compr_inter/pdf/pib-ang.pdf )

So the USA's GDP is outpacing CO2 growth by 2% a year; China by 6.5%, and India 2.4%. Those developing countries are getting more efficient.

Or take the DOE's prediction:
"In developing Asia, fairly rapid improvements in carbon dioxide intensity are expected for China and India over the projection period, primarily as a result of rapid economic growth rather than a switch to less carbon-intensive fuels. Both China and India are projected to remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels, particularly coal, in the IEO2003 reference case, but their annual GDP growth is projected to average 5.9 percent, compared with an expected 3.4-percent annual rate of increase in fossil fuel use from 2001 to 2025."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html