The Environment

[Nurvingiel]

Russia has signed the Kyoto accord, thereby making it International Law. The concept of international law seems a bit sketchy at the moment, but at least those involved with this accord are making some sort of attempt at sustainable environmental policies, to varying degrees. (Frankly I'm not terribly impressed with Canada at the moment, but we do a decent job, and maybe this new initiative will spur us on to actually trying to acheive the goals outlined in the accord. I have hope.)

However, I can't imagine countries who didn't sign the accord saying "Oh, you guys all agreed we should do this, okay then." I mean, the non-signing countries don't agree with the Kyoto accord, or they obviously would have signed it. Here are articles relevant to Canada's involvement with the accord: link.

Canada has signed, although as I mentioned above, we haven't done much about it yet. I'd like to think that we signed the accord with the intent of doing something, but never really got around to it. I hope that now that it's international law (whatever that realistically means) we will be inspired to do something, and set an example with the rest of the world.

One incentive I've heard for good environmental policies and practices is economic gains. What if you could "trade" an "environmental credit" with other nations?

Firstly, what is an environmental credit? It would take a lot of effort to first determine a scientifically sensible and practical definition for this, and second, to agree on said definition. I suspect that the countries deciding this thing would tip the balance in their favour (either on purpose or not). If Russia or Canada were deciding, we might say an environmental credit is equal to one hectare of untouched boreal forest. Naturally, everyone else would say no way Jose!

This also poses another problem. Countries lucky enough to have a large expanse of forest within their borders will gain yet another advantage over countries with less forest. There are also many other issues with practicality and implementation.

However, we need some practical method of rewarding countries for sustainable environmental practices. Just because something works well and is fair within the constraints of a capitalist economy does not mean it's good for the world in the long run. Ocean fisheries are perhaps one of the best environmental examples.

In North America, Canada and the United States have a great potential to set an example for the world as well as significantly impact current environmental problems. Instead, we continue to exploit the resources of developping nations, use too much chemical fertilizers, and devote far too many resources to automobiles.

How does everyone feel about the current environmental policies of their respective countries?

The fact that currently, human life on this planet is not sustainable does not seem to bother people as much as it should. I think the onus is on "developped" nations to start improving the global environment, as we have partly acheived this status with the resources of "developping" nations.

Thoughts?

[jerseydevil]

Kyotot treaty has no basis in international law whatsoever. It is a treaty only among the countries who signed and even they don't think they can fulfill their obligations in it - it's one of the reasons Clinton never sent it onto Congress for approval and let Bush take the fall for killing it. Kyoto treaty is pure nonsense and waste of time.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks for your input JD.

However, I disagree. Canada's goal is to bring "greenhouse gas" emissions to 6% below our 1990 levels. This would take money, government support, and effort, but it is not impossible. The Kyoto accord isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

If we (everyone) actually got behind some of the environmental policies we talk about, we really could make a difference! Making a half-assed attempt and then saying it doesn't work just doesn't cut it. Like a paper with a looming deadline, this is only going to get worse the longer we ignore it.

If Kyoto is a waste of time, what do you propose instead? I strongly feel that we have to start doing something. It doesn't have to be Kyoto, but it's about time that nations start to make an attempt to curb pollution and misuse of resources.

[Insidious Rex]

Agreed. That was the problem with our reaction to the treaty. We didnt like the apparent impact it would have on us and we took our ball and went home and didnt bother to say "no but...". Pretty poor way to handle it if you ask me. If you are the most powerful and biggest resource eating country in the world you certainly have a place to say hey i dont like that but why dont we try this and adjust that.

Now that the treaty is in effect (as flawed as it may be) we now are in danger of losing the pole position for influencing and dealing with how this and other environmental agreements develop and operate around the world. I dont really see a problem with the concept of a market run environmental policy where the right to polute (essentially) can be purchased if a country thinks that too much immediate restriction would be bad for the health of its own economy. Frankly I think in another 20 or 30 years we will be trading "polution futures" (for lack of a better term) as fast and as commonly as we trade pork futures now or any big time commodity. And thats capitalism 101 right there. Hard for a capitalist country to be wholly against that.

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting idea IRex. Difficult as it may be to impliment, I like the concept of paying to pollute. It is already possible to do this through taxes. We could stop subsidizing gasoline and (though this is more complex) chemical fertilizers.

We could also have an extra "packaging" tax on products that either use ridiculous extra amounts of packaging like Jello cups, for example, or have packaging that can't be recycled (or is difficult to recycle).

This begins to deal with one problem (landfills) but what about the use of fossil fuels and other resources like wood and other plant material, animals (domestic and wild, like fish) etc. ?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Now that the treaty is in effect (as flawed as it may be) we now are in danger of losing the pole position for influencing and dealing with how this and other environmental agreements develop and operate around the world. I dont really see a problem with the concept of a market run environmental policy where the right to polute (essentially) can be purchased if a country thinks that too much immediate restriction would be bad for the health of its own economy. Frankly I think in another 20 or 30 years we will be trading "polution futures" (for lack of a better term) as fast and as commonly as we trade pork futures now or any big time commodity. And thats capitalism 101 right there. Hard for a capitalist country to be wholly against that.

That isn't anything new IR if you look at what various states are doing - but I guess you really haven't been following it. I don't really see how we would be left out in the planning of any future environmental things. If the world wishes to include us - then they shouldn't be such hard asses and try sticking it to us.

As for the Kyotot treaty - I think it is crap - it doesn't include the major polluters (such as China and India) and it would have put most of the burden on the US. Everyone argues about how much energy the US uses - but they refuse to look at how much we produce in products and so forth. We have made strides to reduce pollution through the years and the states have taken additional action. Varuious states are even in discussions on an international lever. I've posted about that several times. it seems like you have not read it - otherwise you wouldn't be saying that the US would be cut out of selling "pollution credits".

When people start cheating on Kyoto - then you will see how useless it was. The signers don't even think it can be followed or do they even think it can be met. It's useless piece of paper becuase it was watered down to appease China, the Middle East and India.

After reading Nurv's response - i see she didn't read anything i posted regarding "energy credits" either. They already exist.

[jerseydevil]

Here is the article I posted from the other thread...

U.S. states consider European carbon controls
Source: Copyright 2004, Associated Press
Date: December17,2004

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) -- Two sets of Americans have come here to talk global warming: the United States, opposed to controls on carbon emissions, and a bloc of united states, from Maine to Delaware, that plan to impose them.

"It's not an in-your-face thing," Kenneth Colburn, helping coordinate the nine-state effort, said of the seeming defiance of the Bush administration. "They're doing what they think needs to be done."

That may even include linking up with the Europeans in a backdoor trading scheme on emissions -- although a key Republican says that would meet a "lot of skepticism" in Congress.

The American by-play is taking place at the annual U.N. conference on climate change, where delegates from scores of nations are filling in last-minute details on the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 pact that takes effect February 16 requiring 30 industrial nations to reduce, by 2012, emissions of "greenhouse gases" that scientists blame for global warming.

The biggest pollutant is carbon dioxide, byproduct of fossil fuel burning by automobile engines, power plants and other industrial operations.

The United States is not among the 30. The Bush administration has rejected Kyoto, protesting that it would damage the U.S. economy and that it should also cover poorer nations, such as China and India.

But in the pyramid of powers called the U.S. federation, there were other ideas.

"The United States is 'states' with an 's,"' said Fred Butler, a New Jersey public utilities commissioner here for the U.N. conference. The 50 states are 50 "laboratories of ideas," he said.

More than two dozen U.S. states have taken action individually to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, by ordering cuts in power-plant emissions, for example, and limiting state government purchases of fuel-inefficient sport utility vehicles.

Most significantly, California regulators last September ordered the auto industry to trim exhaust levels on cars and light trucks in the state by 25 percent before 2016. Other states may follow if California's move survives a court challenge.

In the U.S. Northeast, New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, in April 2003 invited other states to develop a regional plan for "cap and trade" on power-plant emissions of carbon dioxide -- a system whereby plants that don't use up their reduced quotas of emissions can sell "offsets," or credits, to other companies that overshoot their allowances.

Under an existing consortium, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, eight other states joined in: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware. Four have Republican governors, four Democratic. Combined, they account for 14 percent of U.S. carbon emissions.

A proposed design for the system is expected next April, to be considered and approved by the nine states. Colburn, executive director of the Boston-based consortium, said the states may be trading carbon emission credits in two or three years. "It's a question of 'when,' not 'if,"' he said.

Although the governors want to help ease climate change, there's a host of other environmental, health and economic motivations, Colburn said.

For one thing, New York is seeing London take the lead in "carbon trading," which may balloon into a multibillion-dollar market. "We're missing out on this economic opportunity," he said.

The 25-nation European Union launches its own carbon-trading system on January 1, and it has left the door open for outside participants, a possibility the U.S. states are examining.

"I don't see why our own individual power plants couldn't register and purchase allowances in the European system," Colburn said.

The head of the Bush administration delegation to the climate talks was asked about such a merger of U.S. and European markets. "We haven't had an opportunity yet to analyze and look at such proposals -- what it would mean for U.S. law and international law," replied Paula Dobriansky, an undersecretary of state.

Republican congressman Joe Barton was less noncommittal.

Any international compact involving state governments would have to be approved by Congress, said the Texas lawmaker, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

"We would tend to look at it with a lot of skepticism," he said.

But Colburn questioned the need for federal authorization, saying any trans-Atlantic trades would be pure commercial transactions, not government-to-government. In some states the plan won't even need legislative approval, but could be enacted via executive regulations, he said.

The list of trading states may grow.

Washington, Oregon and California, jointly developing plans to control carbon dioxide, are studying the possibility of carbon trading. And next-door Canada, which like the European Union has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, may be yet another natural partner.

In the US - you don't need the federal government to do thing or sign a worthless piece of paper to do something.

Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

There it is AGAIN about carbon/energy trading.

[edit]Another thing is that people - personal people - can take action themselves - like buying energy efficient lightbulbs and buying energy from utility companies Green Mountain like I do.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Varuious states are even in discussions on an international lever. I've posted about that several times. it seems like you have not read it - otherwise you wouldn't be saying that the US would be cut out of selling "pollution credits".

Well I didnt have to read your monster cut and paste jobs to know that some states were so discouraged by the administrations hard line approach to the environment that they felt they had no choice but to do what they could on their own. But we were talking at first from the perspective of a national approach on the Kyoto Treaty and on evironmentalism in general which is why I said hard for the country to be "wholly" against this idea (which you proved). And frankly Im a little confused about being staunchly against the nation having a unified approach (even if its a 50 prong approach because there are certainly differences in various states) and celebrating 4 or 5 states that feel they need to take it on their own accord. We really need ALL states to be on board with this and in a coordinated way. Not a few "rebels" going against the adminstrations staunch "let the power companies police themselves" approach.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Russia has signed the Kyoto accord, thereby making it International Law.

Law for all those that signed the treaty, though. Which makes me think that it's a bloody good idea that Europe decided to go ahead with it even if both the USA and Russia (either of which was needed to put the treaty in work) turned it down at first. Now that Russia has agreed to the treaty, Europe doesn't have to start from zero again.

For Belgium, it's very convenient that Russia finally decided to join. Belgium has a tough target ahead (a cut of about 8% greenhouse gas emissions) which I doubt we will reach in time. We're a close inhabited country and we don't have many woods left to use as carbon sinks. We either have to reduce greatly or buy emission certificates. A lot of people here were hoping we'd be able to buy them from Russia, which will now be possible if need be.

But at least all three regions of Belgium are working at translating the treaty into legislation and setting up the organisation needed for implementing the treaty. Even if we don't meet the target, steps are being taken to reduce emissions and more awareness of global warming is created. Which is definitely positive.

Kyoto has it's flaws, but IMO for the sake of our environment a flawed treaty is better than none at all. At least this way the treaty can be tested and ajusted (at least I have hopes for that) which would never happen if it was dropped entirely.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for the Kyotot treaty - I think it is crap - it doesn't include the major polluters (such as China and India) and it would have put most of the burden on the US. Everyone argues about how much energy the US uses - but they refuse to look at how much we produce in products and so forth. We have made strides to reduce pollution through the years and the states have taken additional action.

The major polluters of green house gasses are China, India... and the USA. I don't really see why produce should be taken in consideration here. While sustainable development, which includes producing more with less pollution is also an environmental issue, it is not the issue here. Also, the ecological footprint of Europe and the USA is still many times larger than those of less developped countries. Still, it's commendable that states are seeing that pollution is a problem and take steps to reduce it outside any international framework.

[EarthBound]

I think the Thread should be called "The World Environment" or "Kyoto", since this really isn't the place for regional environmental discussion to remain on topic.

My 2 cents: Kyoto is a broken bike, some think it's better than having no vehicle at all, I personally would rather walk than creep on a bike with no chain. There also seems to be no true culmination of pollution controls already implemented upon given nation industry (by individual standards).

The US's EPA is no small entity and is a STRICT enforcer. Bush has recently lightened EPA's hand (unarguable, I get the inter-office memo's from the top on that one). But it is still a thorn to the industry (growth) and the economic slow-pitch found game back in the '70's, but we've managed to grow our economy ANYWAYS and IMPROVE our environment TREMONDOUSLY. The rivers I grew up with have improved quality by a HUGE significance. Air Quality has been greatly improved, and soil retention is been greatly reduced thanks to better agriculture land management practices (and forestry).

In the '90's there was still some forestry land abuse on PRIVATE lands (held by large lumber companies), I've seen it first hand, made me want to wretch. But I think those days are numbered for that type of abuse and certainly isn't allowed on public lands.

YaDaYaDaYaDa -- I think the "enviro-credit" deal is a joke. I think cutting back on power-plant pollution (air quality) threshold limits is a mistake. JD is right about Hydrogen, too costly to the enviro via production. Most people give a Hoot and Don't Pollute (70's slogan in the US). The world is waiting for the Nurv-Accord of 2006 to change the paradigm for The World Environment ...

Come on Nurv...save the world for us (I'll make the coffee).

[Nurvingiel]

I think "World Environment" was implied at the outset of this thread, and with a lack of any regions name in the thread title.

Maybe we should repair the broken bike? Chains aren't that difficult to get, all you need is the tool, and the will, to attach it.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

well, it looks like we in the UK are set to reduce our CO2 emissions considerabely

[Nurvingiel]

In the Venting thread, we got to talking about the environment when Nerdanel posted this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4355871.stm

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

fossil fuel usage must be phased out
public transportation in all cities worldwide
renewable energy worldwide

oh wait, it'll hit america's wallet, of course we can't

In the short term it will hit the USA and Canada's wallet. Canadians absolutely love driving as well, and we can whine about gas as much as the next guy. However, in the long run, we know there will no longer be any more oil. We should all look up to Charlie on the show Lost.

He's addicted to crack, and when the plane crashed, the stash he had in his pocket was the last of the drugs he could conceivably use. (It's possible that over time he could grow and manufacture his own, but that would take so long he would no longer be addicted.)
Now, he could have carefully used the rest of his drugs, but he knew he would run out. Rather than torture himself over it, he got rid of the drugs. He knew he would have to quit, and he was strong enough to do so on his time. Yes, the withdrawal will be painful and difficult, but he won't be dead. Given an unlimited supply of crack, it's highly likely he would have someday overdosed.

I think this situation is highly analagous to the world oil situation.