The Kyoto Accord Is Useless So We Better Sign It Anyway?
The Kyoto Accord Is Useless So We Better Sign It Anyway?: Before we get into this editorial, I feel the need to warn those of you who are webmasters, who have tests tomorrow, or those of you who really need to be mentally sharp in the next 24 hours: DON’T READ THIS ARTICLE from the Times Online by Anatole Kaletsky. It’s a black hole of idiocy from which no intelligent thought can escape. Quite frankly, I’m shocked that something this illogical could ever make it into the mainstream press (and that’s saying something). Well, you can’t say I didn’t warn you….
Kaletsky starts out by opining that the nation that signs the Kyoto Accord will “change history.” So he must think that only the Kyoto Accord can forestall global warming right? Wrong….
“I do not believe, any more than George W. Bush does, that the Kyoto Protocol will prevent climate change. And I have no more idea than the US President whether the world is really getting hotter or colder – and if so, why this is happening and whether it is a real threat to mankind’s survival or “just one of those things”.
So after making Bush’s case for not signing the Kyoto Accords for him, why does Kaletsky want it to go into effect? Mainly, just to stick it to America. In fact, he thinks it’s great that Colin Powell was booed at the Earth Summit…
“For the world to thumb its nose at America – whether by childish booing of US leaders or, more constructively, by simply ignoring American policies on energy and global warming – is a healthy reaction to the arrogance and unilateralism of President Bush.”
Considering his previous statements in this piece shouldn’t he be encouraging the rest of the world NOT to sign instead of calling Bush “arrogant” for not signing what Kaletsky himself admits is a bad treaty? Kaletsky then goes on to say that it’s more important that the rest of the world comes to an agreement without America — even if it’s a bad one…
“Every time Washington opposes or repudiates an international agreement which the rest of the civilised world chooses nonetheless to observe, America’s global dominance is weakened in several ways. Other powers become more confident as they take over the mantle of leadership. This has been particularly true of the EU, for better or worse….And the world finds it can get things done more quickly and consensually without US participation.”
Yes, but if under EU leadership the world finds it can do really stupid things, “more quickly and consensually,” isn’t that a bad thing? Sigh…Kaletsky then goes back to obliviously making the case for American unilateralism…
“First, Kyoto does not purport to be a final solution to climate change, which in any case is not yet clearly defined. The small emission cuts mandated, even if they were observed by America as well as others, would have no perceptible effect on greenhouse concentrations.”
Well since Kyoto is useless then America should definitely sign right up and…hey wait a second….that makes no SENSE AT ALL. So what is the point of Kyoto in Kaletsky’s opinion then? Kaletsky spends five paragraphs basically saying that it will force new technology to be created and that will force American companies to fall behind giving European and Japanese companies the edge….
“American companies that fail to commit themselves to the necessary research and to change their business practices will suffer enormous competitive disadvantage, especially if they try to sell their goods in Europe, Japan and other markets where emissions are more and more tightly controlled. US multinational businesses will have to invest heavily in the campaign against carbon emissions. They will have to play by the same international rules as their European and Japanese rivals. But this will be a global game whose rules America can no longer control.”
Serious question here: why would American companies, “fail to commit themselves to the necessary research and to change their business practices?” They became powerful, rich, and influential corporations by being smart enough to do the research and change their business practices where necessary in the first place.
Besides, a more likely scenario is that American companies will make much more profit by producing cheaper and more efficient products while European and Japanese companies are strangled by burdensome Kyoto related restrictions and rules. Then not only will American companies have much more money to pour into research, but they’ll be able to just buy out any exciting new technology that comes along because they’ll be making billions of dollars while European companies struggle to survive while using inefficient technology that emits less “carbon emissions.”
To make a long story short, this piece of idiotarian rambling isn’t fit to grace a high school newspaper, much less the Times Online.