Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The Kyoto Turkey comes home to roost
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, June 16, 2005

They whined, they cried, they vilified. But still the US refused to become a party to Kyoto. Seems New Zealand is having second thoughts as well:
Taxpayers will be at least $1 billion worse off under revised Government estimates of the costs of the Kyoto treaty to combat global warming.

National's environment spokesman, Nick Smith, says the party, if elected, will consider pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, despite the cost to New Zealand's international reputation, given the "hammering" the economy will take under the latest numbers. "It's a huge stuff-up."
Now NZ isn't the US, and frankly, they were pretty sure they were in great shape as it pertains to Kyoto. In fact, they figured to profit from it by selling carbon credits on the international market to nations like the US.

But then something terrible happened. Their economy boomed.
The biggest change from last year's estimates is a 24 per cent or 38 million tonne increase in the emissions expected from vehicle exhausts and smokestacks, especially the former.

That is driven by more refined modelling of the impact of economic growth on energy use.
Instead of being a carbon creditor, they've become a carbon debtor to the probable tune of 1 plus billion, with a 'b', tax payer dollars. Out the door ... paid to another nation for their carbon credits.
When we ratified Kyoto in 2002 one of the reasons Hodgson gave for doing so was that not to ratify would be to set fire to "a very big cheque". Then we were assumed to have a net credit position of 55 million tonnes.
So let me get this straight ... booming economy, pay carbon credits. Lousy economy, sell carbon credits.

I think Nick Smith has it right when he says it's a "huge stuff up". Yeah, I'm glad we decided to sit this one out.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The same thing happened already to Ireland.

Wouldn’t the more normal course of action for New Zealand be to stay in Kyoto and just miss the targets, rather than repudiate it?

 
Written By: sammler
URL: http://stonecity.blogspot.com
The NZ Labour government will not leave Kyoto, it needs the support of the Green party and various other factions within itself to win the upcoming election. The monetary cost is not insignificant to the country, but the political grandstanding points are far more important to the current government. The "we are doing what America won’t so save the planet yah de yah de yah" plays very well to a portion of the electorate and can’t be compromised now, even if they wanted to pull out. But the whole "environment" thing plays well in NZ, we like to think of ourselves as clean and green and elightened in these matters regardless of the reality or the opportunity cost.

The opposition parties *might* leave if they win the election, but probably not I would imagine. It’d be easier to quietly miss the targets along with everyone else rather than pullout. The whole thing will be worthless within a few years anyway, when we’ll see various governments "discovering" loopholes to sneak through as they all begin to fail meeting the targets which now look impractical.
 
Written By: Chefen
URL: http://dailybork.blogspot.com
Clinton gave the Senate the option to endorse Kyoto, they laughed at him. Would Bush fare any better? I think not. NZ is just starting to see the irrationality of the bizarre exercise. There will be many others.
 
Written By: Abu Qa’Qa
URL: http://
It’s funny how Bush calls us "obstructionists", and the whole Kyoto exercise in the U.S. was all about obstruction.

For openers, I’ll admit that the Kyoto Protocol is a flawed treaty. It is not going to solve the global climate change issue, and arguments can be made that it unfairly favors developing nations (though good counterarguments can be made as well).

Where are the wingnuts’ constructive suggestions about global climate change? I see two camps:

1. Skeptics who claim that the science (and all those climatologists and biogeochemists) are all wrong about how humans impact climate, and

2. Do-nothing-ers who accept that climate change is being substantially impacted by human activities, but claim that we should adapt rather than mitigate because a) much of near-term climate change is inevitable owing to historic human activities, and b) that costs of mitigation will exceed costs of adaptation, despite the fact that there is HUGE uncertainty about exactly what we’re going to have to adapt to.

It’s a very nice progression: Keep arguing point 1 until it’s completely untenable, after which point 2 follows on beautifully.
 
Written By: David in AK
URL: http://
1. Skeptics who claim that the science (and all those climatologists and biogeochemists) are all wrong about how humans impact climate, and

Well you see, David, we all agree that the earth is warming, and we all agree that the earth has been known to warm in cycles, and we even agree that man may be having some impact.

But what no one can agree on or prove is how much of an impact man is having. It may be absolutely minimal for all we know.

So call that skepitical if you wish, or plop down some proof (not conjecture, not "consensus", proof) of the level of man’s impact.

THEN we can talk about what corrective action we should take.

Until then, play Kyoto games if it turns you on. Play "what if" games. Play "chicken little" games even. But do us all a favor and quit trying to pretend you know something you don’t.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I am from New Zealand and upset about this.

As the news of this blunder came out the opposition overtook the government in polling. The swing may have been as much as 2%. This is a close race and these points are important.

The treaty is bad for New Zealand and not likely to dent carbon dioxide production. However it would be even worse for America.

New Zealand thought it could make money out of carbon trading. Since 1990 we have planted alot of trees and killed a lot of sheep (they release methane). But NZ miscalulated and added in trees that had been planted in what were forests in 1990 (no change), also we have bred a lot more cows (they release much more methane). Net result was a slight increase.

There has never been any suggestion America would come out ahead on the game. Kyoto would cost alot and accelerate the movement of production to India and China.

 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
So call that skepitical if you wish, or plop down some proof (not conjecture, not "consensus", proof) of the level of man’s impact.
First, there’s no such thing in science—science can only disprove, never prove. Take a course in it sometime. Second, with climate science in particular, there are complex and interacting feedbacks that make any kind of projections very difficult—cloud feedbacks are the classic example (they both heat and cool), and to date any kind of dynamic interaction with the biosphere has yet to be implemented in a model. Nonetheless, the body of evidence is pretty compelling: human activities are the major force driving up the atmospheric concentrations of all the major greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, tropospheric ozone, the various CFC’s) except H2O, although these will drive increases in atmospheric water; all the infrared absorption physics of the various greenhouse gases are well known; models that incorporate human contributions as well as natural variability to climate forcing do a better job of hindcasting climate than either alone; and with passing time models are both improving and finding increasing agreement with current data.
THEN we can talk about what corrective action we should take.
Given that science can’t possibly prove anything, let alone the degree to which human activities influence climate, we can only present a case based on available evidence. The only "proof" that can be offered is akin to that in a court of law, i.e., a "preponderance of evidence". That case, which is getting stronger as more evidence is pulled together, is available both in the IPCC reports and in the primary literature, though I get the sense you don’t go there much. To go back to your statement, it amounts to saying that we should never talk about corrective action, unless you agree to some standard of proof that actually can be met by science.
Until then, play Kyoto games if it turns you on. Play "what if" games. Play "chicken little" games even. But do us all a favor and quit trying to pretend you know something you don’t.
My, my, did I hit a nerve? I think you presume too much, and I recommend turning down the vitriol a touch.
 
Written By: David in AK
URL: http://
First, there’s no such thing in science—science can only disprove, never prove. Take a course in it sometime. Second, with climate science in particular, there are complex and interacting feedbacks that make any kind of projections very difficult—cloud feedbacks are the classic example (they both heat and cool), and to date any kind of dynamic interaction with the biosphere has yet to be implemented in a model.

Kind of the point, David ... again, point out the level of man’s impact, will you?

If you’re able to do so, you’ll be the first.

Given that science can’t possibly prove anything, let alone the degree to which human activities influence climate, we can only present a case based on available evidence. The only "proof" that can be offered is akin to that in a court of law, i.e., a "preponderance of evidence".

No. Now you’re talking about "scientific consensus" which is worthless. Take a science course sometime. We know there’s a warming trend. Other than that there is nothing, not even a "preponderance of evidence" which points to the amount of impact man is having.

My, my, did I hit a nerve? I think you presume too much, and I recommend turning down the vitriol a touch.

Vitriol? You do indeed presume too much. Simply a statement of how tiresome it becomes listening to the eco-preachers out there who claim to know something they don’t.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Might I offer to pay David’s fee for logging on to junkscience.com? There he might find that the costs of the Kyoto Treaty, assuming both that the signatories actually follow it and that the pay the lowball estimates of costs, we will spend some $100T (as in trillion) to postpone the CO2 concentration we would have in its absence from 2100 to 2110. Seems a bit costly to me for a "consensus" guess as to whether or not the models are right.
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider