The Kyoto Protocol to reduce global warming went into effect on February 16. Ratified by 141 nations, the treaty aims to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases by 5 to 8 percent in 35 industrialized nations by 2012. The United States, which leads the world by releasing 23 percent of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, is… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (10)Page 1 of 1 pagesAs much as I despise the Bush/Republican approach to environmental issues, they’re really just part of an overall illusory mindset that not just they but Dems, not just Americans but most of the civilized world subscribe to: we can make for ourselves a luxurious (i.e. wasteful and unsustainable) life now and take care of the problems “later”. The only people who haven’t acquired this attitude are societies still live close to the land and interact with natural cycles ongoingly (a tiny fraction of humanity). Kyoto, for instance, does very little to curb greenhouse gas emission from China or India, arguably the two potential biggest sources of pollutants for the coming generation as they continue to develop their economies. Symbolic indeed, and also misleading if the real goal is to safeguard the atmosphere. Short of a new, more realistic way of thinking, which prioritizes stable human population, tightly efficient use of all energy sources, massive reduction/reuse of waste products of all kinds, and parsimonious consumption, the picture for our grandchildren’s generation and beyond is pretty dismal. It’s just more “magical” thinking that avoids looking at measurable cause-effect relationships and puts political expediency (as well as short-term luxury) ahead of sincere, scientific assessment of environmental problems and how they take place. There’s a conundrum here too, though; when the “good things” of life are so concentrated in some places and so sparse in others, how can you ask people with the potential to improve their perceived quality of life to postpone or refuse doing so? They’ll either laugh in your face or say you want to keep all the goodies for yourself. I hope a massive crisis isn’t necessary for humanity to learn these lessons, but I fear it may happen that way…
Posted by Kuya on Mar 2, 2005 at 2:53 AM I’m sorry
You fear it may happen that way???!!???
The true “race” of humans
cannot learn the idea which is before us.
We continue to follow the history of our true
nature.
Being decendant from the same people only makes us
kill our own kin.
Who killed Abel?
Yee-Haw.
Science can PROVE we are related to each other, but
so what????
Just a theory, right???The MAJOR religions all recognize MOSES,yet the
6th commandment means nothing.We are one of the few species on the planet that
kill each other not for food.And so what???
No one cares to stop this.
“Kill Them all and let god sort’em out”
Casualties of War.
If you are not with us
you are against us.Your perspective depends on your proximity to
Mathew Hale(the far right) or the Libertarians
(far left)Let’s vote to keep everything going
coz this is the best that’s ever been
and the best that will ever beee..“The masters tools will never destroy the Masters
House.”
Posted by R.B.Green on Mar 2, 2005 at 12:46 PM ???
Thanks for your response I guess, RBG, but truthfully, I can’t go with the “humans are inherently trash, destined to fuck themselves” hypothesis. Sorry, call me biased, but the Original Sin and Vicious Learning-Disabled Ape models just don’t fly with me. Can’t help thinking there’s at least a slim chance we’ll get the clue before we screw ourselves irreversibly.
Wish I could say there’s nothing to support your view, but we both know better, eh?. Still…
I suppose it’s my pathological optimism. May peace be with you, though. Shine on.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 2, 2005 at 11:51 PM Ok we all know the Kyoto is not perfect, but for the administration to site as its #1 reason not to join, was it wouldn’t affect Africa and developing countries. Oh No!! Africa’s emmissions are going to kill us all. PLEASE! Kyoto is symbolic, and that’s the reason the US needed to stay involved. But no, anything Clinton did, Bush must reverse it. There is no way for the world to jump right to the 50-80% reduction needed without first testing the waters(warmer). Bush has takken it upon himself to ruin the world for everyone but the haves and the have mores. Shucks, who cares that Bangeledesh and the Maldives will disappear. They aren’t in his news. An ignoramus with the power! That’s just what the world needed for four more years.
Posted by skip on Mar 3, 2005 at 12:54 AM ????
Of course.
there is a slim chance
of all sorts of thingsLike the true distribution of wealth to benifit
humanitylike the gift bags given at the oscars/grammys/
golden globes being changed into money for someone,
nay, Anyone who might need it more
(for you rite-wingers we’ll even let you decide)Or maybe a coalition of the Rich and Infamous
to help the kids who are “left behind”Oh that’s already too much
I mean THEY do so much for “us little people”
already,
we couldn’t possibly ask for moreWe don’t want our children to think critically
we want them to regurgitate test scores and get
into the college/work force and moo with
everyone elseKyoto is a subset of Bully Power
My “Club” is bigger than yoursIf you don’t like it I’ll take my ball
invade your country
and make you a democracyNuk-u-lar weapons and all
peace unto us all
as long as I sayR
Posted by R.B.Green on Mar 3, 2005 at 11:21 AM Hello skip,
First, I wouldn’t vote Rep on a bet. Too much influence by endtimers, and that’s just for starters.
As for the administration citing Africa or whatever, I think I made it clear that my own major concerns are China and India. If you throw in the former Soviet republics like Kazakhstan et al, you have an even bigger problem that Kyoto doesn’t sufficiently address.
Obviously, the single country that contributes a full quarter of the atmosphere-wrecking gasses each year must reign it in, but in my view the pressure to successfully bring that about would most likely come from the EU and others who trade with the US linking trade agreements to US emission reduction. That means they have to be willing to take an economic hit on the issue, because it will cost them. For that matter, the only way the growing polluter-nations (mainly in Asia) will cut emissions is if they perceive it in their economic interest. As I’m sure you know, few people appear to have the imagination to think ahead far enough in the future to really worry about climate instability. Not until the problem is in their face (too late) OR there’s an economic incentive they can comprehend and sell to constituencies will they clean up their act.
I would also mention the US public; unless they’re willing to also take a hit in terms of lifestyle and unhook from the energy addiction, where will the impetus come from to change America’s pollutant profile? A treaty?
Hasn’t the American government already made it clear it will ignore treaties it doesn’t find convenient to comply with? Do not all governments base treaty compliance or neglect on what they see as expedient? I didn’t invent this and I don’t endorse it, it’s just there.
Sorry, but I simply have no confidence in the Kyoto Protocol as a way to forestall atmospheric destruction.
Allow me to clarify: I actually do think that a major reduction of atmospheric degradation is marginally possible. But it will need concerted future-oriented thinking and realization of what’s really at stake if no changes (or only symbolic changes) are made, as well as real action, among the richest countries. Perhaps by accepting the cost of limiting their trade with America, and making it clear to their own citizens that reducing energy addiction is necessary and right. It will also require their coordinated assistance to developing countries to help them gain the things they’re after by way of their own (environmentally disastrous) industrialization.
Otherwise, no way. Then the Maldives and Bangladesh really are sunk. And that’s just for starters.
Pointing out a central flaw in the Protocol isn’t endorsing Bush admin environmental policy, doesn’t make one a ‘sheep’. Actually, bandwagons come in many types, comrade. The way money is spent and, if you’re lucky, the way votes are cast, that’s what makes things change. Easily evaded treaties (that wouldn’t really do the job even if they were adhered to 100%) that can’t be truly enforced don’t.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty comes to mind.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 3, 2005 at 3:20 PM OK, you’re not as sheepish as I though, I apologize. And you’re right the US is the most responsible, but doesn’t it make sence to join the damn thing in hopes that our influence (we still are the largest economy in the world even with the chimp in the W.H.) will get those nations to think about it. India and China have low lying coastal areas that will be the first to go under when the ice caps melt, so it’s in their best interest to go along with a Kyoto-esque program. But with G.W. saying it won’t do anything, so we won’t join sets a bad example for the other nations.
The US was allowed to industrialize at a time when we didn’t know these things would hurt the Earth, but we know now. Maybe we should fund alternative energy sources, but we’re not. We should be presuring China to slow down, but we’re not. Why? Because all of our little plastic, disposable things that make our life so great are produced IN CHINA. They hold our most favored trading nation status, even with their violations of human rights and environmental disasters. The yellow river is the most poluted in the world, It is yellow. Maybe W should use his kick ass and take names attitude and use it for something more productive than taking out non christian states because one of them made his daddy look bad.
Kyoto isn’t perfect, our even that effective, but how many nations have retified it, they realize that something needs to be done, everything starts out small. The civil rights movements, abolitionism, the space program, the SALT treaties, the dictatorship of G. W.,I can go on, but I don’t think there’ll be enogh room.
In conclusion I apologize for making statements that were unfair. I’m an idiot. Maybe I should run for president.
Posted by skip on Mar 3, 2005 at 7:06 PM I read this last post and I agree with the bulk of what you say, perhaps we see things more similarly than first glance would suggest.
As for running for president, if you can do so without selling your soul or becoming a shill for infragovernmental power-brokers, more power to you! Hell, maybe I’ll even vote for you.
We really do need to get our shit together as an industrialized species, skip, only the willfully blind can’t see that. I just have no confidence in rhetoric and diminishing confidence in law (regional or international) any more, too many times let down.
Sorry for the snide backlash in the Russian article’s thread. Intelligent conversation is better, it’s why I bother to check this site in the first place.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 4, 2005 at 1:19 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Brian Cook
- Watching The Watchers
Mass Observation returns for the Obama inauguration. - Won’t Get Fooled Again
(Well … maybe just one more time.) - Ban the Cluster Bomb
More than 100 countries have agreed to stop using them. Guess which one hasn't - Sleepwalking Through Seattle
- Unholy Allies
- Five Years on the Hotel Picket Line
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
