What’s The Point Of Signing The Kyoto Protocol Supposed To Be?
Remember when the environmentalists, liberals, & Euro-weenies were originally touting Kyoto back in the nineties? Back then they essentially sold it like so,
“Either we all get on board with Kyoto man or it’s game over! It’s the only thing that can save us all from burning like a puppy on a hotplate, man! Do you hate puppies, man? Do you want them to die? Then you tell the corporate machine to make their political puppets in Washington sign up for Kyoto, man! You understand what I’m saying here? We do Kyoto, we live. We don’t do Kyoto, we all die! How clear do I have to say it, man!”
Surprisingly enough, this message worked well, especially in Europe. However, once it looked as if Kyoto was ready to go into effect, there was a 180 degree shift in how its backers described it. Suddenly the “fix” for our climate problems was nothing but a band-aid — and not even an expensive band-aid — it’s one of those band-aids that doesn’t stick really well and is about to fall off the scab it’s covering. This article from Reuters does an adequate job showing you today’s line of attack…
“Defying repeated premature reports of its death, the Kyoto Protocol will come into force in a few days. But doubts are already growing over the long-term future of the world’s most ambitious environmental agreement.
As developed countries struggle to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets by the treaty’s “first commitment period” of 2008-12, they also have to start discussing what happens next.
“The nay-sayers have all said Kyoto will never go into force, now they have been proven wrong,” said climate campaigner Steve Sawyer of Greenpeace. “Now what they are saying is there will never be a second period.”
Even before the United States, which produces a quarter of the man-made emissions blamed for causing global warming, pulled out, it was clear that Kyoto’s aim to reduce greenhouse gas output by 5.2 percent of 1990 levels was just a first step.
Scientists say an emissions cut of at least 60 percent is needed to prevent catastrophic impacts of climate change this century, including rising sea levels, the spread of deserts and even worse weather-related disasters.
…Europe’s influence on climate change policy will depend on its ability to live up to its own targets. The 15 EU countries that signed up en bloc have to reduce emissions by 8 percent of 1990 levels but in 2002 were only 2.9 percent below.
Some EU countries are really struggling. Spain’s emissions are up 40 percent, way above its limit of a 15 percent increase.
“If Europe meets its target it will strengthen the hand of people pushing for binding emissions reductions,” said Richard Tarasofsky of the London-based think-tank Chatham House.
“If that doesn’t happen … other countries will lose faith in the multilateral approach to climate change.”
So despite the fact that Europe is predictably having great difficulty meeting its emissions targets as it is, the goalposts have been moved and instead of aiming for “5.2 percent (off) of 1990 levels,” the new goal is to cut greenhouse gas levels by 60% of 1990 levels. Of course, there is currently no way to cut greenhouse gasses that much without let’s say banning cars, slaughtering half the world’s population, or without utterly & completely destroying the world economy.
Given that, there’s an obvious question that not enough people are asking: Even if man is causing global warming and global warming is going to be a big problem in the future (and those are two huge ifs), what’s accomplished by signing on to Kyoto if it’s not going to stave off global warming and the “next step” is currently unreachable?
Sure, you could argue that we need to work on technological solutions that would give the world the ability to make those 60% cuts, but what’s the rationale for signing up for an expensive, inefficient, growth limiting treaty when even its own backers admit that it serves no practical purpose? Kyoto is pointless and steering clear of it was a smart decision for our country…