Friday, December 09, 2005
Here's an email that got out of control. Happily, the intended recipient will never have to read it all.
It's been a busy week at the Kyoto summit in Montreal. Today was a good day to recap, especially after the U.S. delegation walked out.
Let's start with a Guardian article on Bill Clinton's address to the Kyoto conferees in Montreal:
It's easy to be a critic when you are powerless. If Bill Clinton thought Kyoto was such a great idea, and no threat to our economy, why didn't he ratify the treaty?
As I remember, he wanted carbon sink credits (if I plant a tree, it counts the same as reducing CO2 emissions) and a carbon market (if Canada is ahead of its goals and the US is behind, the US can buy credit for the excess carbon emission reductions from Canada to offset its own over-produced carbon emissions).
Still unlike Bush, he stayed engaged with Kyoto even when those ideas were rebuffed (by the morally-superior countries who haven't come close to meeting their goals). This despite knowing Congress wouldn't back him in ratifying the treaty (all treaties must be ratified by Congress, not the President).
Is it better to string the other countries' representatives along, or just honestly let them know, as everyone recognizes, there will never be a meeting of the minds on this one?
I liked this line from "The Scotsman":
Emission-cutting treaty? Is it fair to call it that, given the actual track record? Are they expecting a sudden surge of compliance in the next six years?
Here's a 2003 article with a summary of EU countries meeting their targets. If you can't meet your targets during an economic slowdown, what hope do you have in a heated up economy?
Try this reporting from Forbes:
How can Congress refuse to ratify a treaty not put before it? In spirit, the statement is correct: Congress warned Clinton not to bother submitting the treaty, because it would fail. But in fact, the statement is false, because Clinton followed the advice and never gave them a chance to vote it up or down.
How about this line from a British politician, quoted in the Scotsman story. Don't bother with his name; he is nearing his political peak:
Do you think a single politician will lose his job or suffer a pay cut trying to meet Kyoto targets? Or does the "we" who will be accepting tough decisions really mean "you tradesmen and manufacturing workers" or maybe "car owners and home buyers"?
And finally, the Prime Minister of Canada criticizes the U.S. for not signing on to Kyoto. This despite the fact (if Mark Steyn is to be believed), that the U.S. has done better at keeping its emissions down that Canada, with a 13% increase in the U.S. vs. a 24% increase in Canada. Lucky for Canada, Kyoto isn't binding if it doesn't affect 55% of the world's carbon emissions.
It's been a busy week at the Kyoto summit in Montreal. Today was a good day to recap, especially after the U.S. delegation walked out.
Let's start with a Guardian article on Bill Clinton's address to the Kyoto conferees in Montreal:
America's isolated stance on climate change drew thinly-veiled criticism from former president Bill Clinton, who dismissed as "flat wrong" Mr Bush's argument that Kyoto would damage the US economy.
It's easy to be a critic when you are powerless. If Bill Clinton thought Kyoto was such a great idea, and no threat to our economy, why didn't he ratify the treaty?
As I remember, he wanted carbon sink credits (if I plant a tree, it counts the same as reducing CO2 emissions) and a carbon market (if Canada is ahead of its goals and the US is behind, the US can buy credit for the excess carbon emission reductions from Canada to offset its own over-produced carbon emissions).
Still unlike Bush, he stayed engaged with Kyoto even when those ideas were rebuffed (by the morally-superior countries who haven't come close to meeting their goals). This despite knowing Congress wouldn't back him in ratifying the treaty (all treaties must be ratified by Congress, not the President).
Is it better to string the other countries' representatives along, or just honestly let them know, as everyone recognizes, there will never be a meeting of the minds on this one?
I liked this line from "The Scotsman":
The United Nations-sponsored talks in Montreal, Canada, are intended to pave the way to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the emissions-cutting treaty that will expire in 2012.
Emission-cutting treaty? Is it fair to call it that, given the actual track record? Are they expecting a sudden surge of compliance in the next six years?
Here's a 2003 article with a summary of EU countries meeting their targets. If you can't meet your targets during an economic slowdown, what hope do you have in a heated up economy?
Try this reporting from Forbes:
Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, was instrumental in negotiating the treaty protocol initialed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan - a pact that the Senate subsequently refused to ratify. When Bush, taking office, rejected Kyoto outright, he complained that China, India and other major industrializing countries were not bound by its emission controls.
How can Congress refuse to ratify a treaty not put before it? In spirit, the statement is correct: Congress warned Clinton not to bother submitting the treaty, because it would fail. But in fact, the statement is false, because Clinton followed the advice and never gave them a chance to vote it up or down.
How about this line from a British politician, quoted in the Scotsman story. Don't bother with his name; he is nearing his political peak:
"We have to show we are prepared to accept the tough decisions necessary to meet the carbon-reduction targets and other environmental challenges," Mr Cameron said on BBC Radio Four.
Do you think a single politician will lose his job or suffer a pay cut trying to meet Kyoto targets? Or does the "we" who will be accepting tough decisions really mean "you tradesmen and manufacturing workers" or maybe "car owners and home buyers"?
And finally, the Prime Minister of Canada criticizes the U.S. for not signing on to Kyoto. This despite the fact (if Mark Steyn is to be believed), that the U.S. has done better at keeping its emissions down that Canada, with a 13% increase in the U.S. vs. a 24% increase in Canada. Lucky for Canada, Kyoto isn't binding if it doesn't affect 55% of the world's carbon emissions.
So much for resolutions. After a two month hiatus, I'm back.
On of the purposes of this blog as stated in the inaugural post was to decrease the number of annoying "have you read this" types of emails I send to acquaintances. I did this by not sending over-long emails, but instead cutting the email contents to a bare minimum, and posting the excess here.
I've gotten better at keeping personal emails short, hence there was no need to post for two months.
I had a good response in November to an item on a right-of-center European blog touting low-tax Ireland as a success in a sea of slow economies. I had read stories of corporate shells established in Ireland, a full-fledged EU member, as a beach-head for European marketing (you have to pay taxes somewhere on European sales) to avoid the higher taxes in posher countries. Economic activity throughout Europe shows up on Ireland's books as GDP. Hardly fair, and important to account for when comparing economic statistics.
Sadly, smarter folks with better facts posted similar challenges in the message thread on that blog, which were addressed in part by other well-informed posters who knew how to adjust staticstics to compensate, so I stuffed it. You didn't want to read it anyway.
On of the purposes of this blog as stated in the inaugural post was to decrease the number of annoying "have you read this" types of emails I send to acquaintances. I did this by not sending over-long emails, but instead cutting the email contents to a bare minimum, and posting the excess here.
I've gotten better at keeping personal emails short, hence there was no need to post for two months.
I had a good response in November to an item on a right-of-center European blog touting low-tax Ireland as a success in a sea of slow economies. I had read stories of corporate shells established in Ireland, a full-fledged EU member, as a beach-head for European marketing (you have to pay taxes somewhere on European sales) to avoid the higher taxes in posher countries. Economic activity throughout Europe shows up on Ireland's books as GDP. Hardly fair, and important to account for when comparing economic statistics.
Sadly, smarter folks with better facts posted similar challenges in the message thread on that blog, which were addressed in part by other well-informed posters who knew how to adjust staticstics to compensate, so I stuffed it. You didn't want to read it anyway.
