Kyoto

I'm going to adapt a post from my other blog to get us started. It's all about Kyoto.

When thinking about the Kyoto treaty, remember that a Democrat president had the opportunity to have it ratified by a Democrat controlled senate, long before Bush came into the picture. Not doing so, was probably one of the best political moves that Clinton ever made. He was able to publicly support something that was politically beneficial for him, but he never had to give the treaty a chance to become law in America, and thereby he avoided the consequences of the treaty. He probably knew that the treaty either wouldn’t work, or would be bad for America. They way it was written, both things were true.

Kyoto isn’t working. The third-world continues to produce pollution at the same rate as before, and the rich countries of the world can only do so much more to control pollution than they are already doing. As technology continues to advance, we will produce far less waste, but it is the desire to find a healthier bottom line that will produce this situation, rather than just a strict desire not to pollute. Tony Blair, among others, has admitted that the treaty, as written, isn’t working, and that it’s not exactly America’s fault.

If we had been part of this treaty, it would have been bad for America. We are already beginning to use more environmentally clean technologies, and to crack down more would have hurt our economy. That by itself isn't really a good enough reason not to join the treaty. The fact that China (a country which uses technologies that produces far more pollution per unit of energy than we do) was not required to clean its act up is a far better reason to stay out. While we would have had to make extensive sacrifices for (not much) cleaner air, China (and other less annoying third-world dictatorships, along some good countries like India) would have had all the benefits of cleaner air and none of the responsibilities. That is assuming, of course, that the air got noticeably cleaner even with America participating, while China etc. did not. I don’t think that we would have had that much of an effect.

In principle, Kyoto is a good treaty. It uses market mechanisms to promote environmentalism, and those mechanisms are always more effective than simple limits or taxes. However, not including third-world powerhouses like China and India, and others, caused the treaty to miss the mark. Most of the rich countries in the world already use a lot of clean energy sources, and while it's good to convince them to use more, our time would probably be better spent cleaning up the third world. Giving them more efficient energy producing capability not only reduces pollution, but also helps provide more resources at a cheaper price, thereby making poverty more bearable, and less prevalent.

It is encouraging to hear that Tony Blair is already talking about the next round of Kyoto. He is saying that any second round needs to include technology sharing with poorer countries, along with limits on their production of pollution. It is much easier to develop a country with not much into a country that uses clean sources of energy, instead of converting an already developed country into something that is only marginally more efficient. It also has more and better returns, and is therefore more important and profitable to make the effort.

So what do you think, Gooch? Or Sean? Or the readers out there? Comments are open, and the thread can continue unabated, if we wish.