Friday, December 09, 2005

How did America plot to stop Kyoto deal

The Independent A detailed and disturbing strategy document has revealed an extraordinary American plan to destroy Europe's support for the Kyoto treaty on climate change.




The ambitious, behind-the-scenes plan was passed to The Independent this week, just as 189 countries are painfully trying to agree the second stage of Kyoto at the UN climate conference in Montreal. It was pitched to companies such as Ford Europe, Lufthansa and the German utility giant RWE.

Put together by a lobbyist who is a senior official at a group partly funded by ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company and a fierce opponent of anti-global warming measures, the plan seeks to draw together major international companies, academics, think-tanks, commentators, journalists and lobbyists from across Europe into a powerful grouping to destroy further EU support for the treaty.

It details just how the so-called "European Sound Climate Policy Coalition" would work. Based in Brussels, the plan would have anti-Kyoto position papers, expert spokesmen, detailed advice and networking instantly available to any politician or company who wanted to question the wisdom of proceeding with Kyoto and its demanding cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.

It has been drawn up by Chris Horner, a senior official with the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute and a veteran campaigner against Kyoto and against the evidence of climate change. One of his colleagues ­ who describes himself as an adviser to President George Bush ­ was the subject of a censure motion by the Commons last year after he attacked the Government's chief scientist.

Mr Horner, whose CEI group has received almost $1.5m (£865,000) from ExxonMobil, is convinced that Europe could be successfully influenced by such a policy coalition just as the US government has been.

He thinks Europe's weakening economies are likely to be increasingly ill at ease with the costs of meeting Kyoto. And in particular, he has spotted something he thinks most of Europe has not yet woken up to. Most of the original 15 EU Kyoto signatories ­ Britain is an exception ­ are on course to miss their 2010 CO2 reduction targets. But under the terms of the treaty, they will face large fines for doing so, in terms of much bigger reduction targets in any second phase.

These will prove unacceptably costly to their economies, Mr Horner believes, even if they try to buy their way out by buying up "spare" emissions for cash from countries such as Russia. Mr Horner believes the moment for his coalition is at hand and has been seeking support for it from multinational companies. In his pitch to one major company, he wrote: " In the US an informal coalition has helped successfully to avert adoption of a Kyoto-style programme by maintaining a rational voice for civil society and ensuring a legitimate debate over climate economics, science and politics. This model should be emulated... to guide similar efforts in Europe."

Elsewhere he claimed: "A coalition addressing the economic and social impacts of the EU climate agenda must be broad-based (cross industry) and rooted in the member states. Other companies (including Lufthansa, Exxon, Ford) have already indicated their interest!"

Last night green groups hit out. Kert Davies, Greenpeace's climate campaign co-ordinator, which initially obtained the documents, said: "These are the hitmen for the Bush administration and the likes of Exxon. They are behind the scenes doing the dirty work. They are extending efforts to Europe where they are trying to undermine the momentum to solve global warming."

Read more at the Source

Oh the pressures of standing alone , against science , against reason and against the entire world . I have to admit it take incredible guts or incredible stupidity to take the view the United States holds , now which is it :-)

31 Comments:

Blogger Hype said...

being good to the environment is bad for the bottom line.

well at least in their short view of things it is.

-Hype

December 09, 2005 9:34 pm  
Anonymous somethingsphishy said...

Kind of makes you wonder what went on during Cheney's closed door energy policy meetings.

December 10, 2005 4:18 am  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

You could also type this post out titled:

What America did to save its economy from the Cult of Environmentalist.

If you think I am wrong... wait until a Dem President, who holds that support of the greens gets into power... they will back out to.

No President will ever want to be the one to go into the books as the one who saved a lot of trees, but sank the US's dominance in world economics.

Oh, and a side note:
Why are China and India "exempt" from Kyoto? They produce more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined.

December 10, 2005 1:35 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

G on your side note why is china exempt , they are not entrely exempt , but they are currently exempt from the effect of because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change.

in other words it is our mess

as for you comment on "They produce more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined. " this is fiction G , I dont know where you got this information but it simply incorrect

the United States is by far the worst culprit on the planet , nobody even comes close

it may make you feel better to think that china is worse but the US is way out in front , even more scary considering the population of china compared to your own

as for "What America did to save its economy from the Cult of Environmentalist." the only cult is your own G , you cant call 95 % of the planet a cult , surely the little part of the world that is you is the cult

December 10, 2005 9:34 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3143798.stm

December 10, 2005 9:37 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

"Why are China and India "exempt" from Kyoto? They produce more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined."

Why did you thing anyone would fall for this? Honestly.

December 11, 2005 2:19 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

Because they want to fall for it , the right are increasingly desperate for any snippet they can find to justify the thoughts in their heads compared to what can be seen with their own eyes

There a hundreds of examples of this kind of thing ,

you know the stuff , "NEW EVIDENCE , we have spoken to the dog of someone who went to school with saddam and the dog has informed us that Saddam was spotted as a child drawing pictures of an Aeroplane exploding , so there you have it , saddam WAS linked to 9/11 , we are not sheep who were foolish enough to fall for such obvious lies , we were corrrect"

As you know there are hundreds of web sites that post trash like that and then in their desperate search for 'facts' to justify their faith in the vision of the world they have ,t he right pick these stories up and post them everywhere.

I think the majority 'genuinly' believe these silly rumours and on the example above i can assure you that posting the actual data in reply will not make the slightest bit of difference to G's beliefs . He will be able to search his sources and find some 'Oil money' funded research that debunks the whole thing as it was raining on the day that the scientists went to the shops to by the pen's that they used for their calculations

December 11, 2005 5:39 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

When oil production hits peak in the next couple of years, it will be interesting to see "NEW EVDENCE" they present that oil prices are actually lower than before, and "NEW EVIDENCE" showing that their agricultural system is not threatening them with starvation as it collapses.

At any rate, "g," that was not a rhetorical question. I want to know why you thought anyone would fall for that.

December 12, 2005 3:34 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

Helloooooo?

December 13, 2005 1:34 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

LOL Djeb , you are a very well informed person who can shread someones irrational argument in seconds , so let me ask you a question

do you think G is going to come and reply to 'this' post ?

of course not

I did leave a message on his site with a link to this thread and he has popped in and left a comment on my top post (currrent as i type)

He openly said to me today in reply to a similar question from m

"H,
Honestly, I just dont have time to find a link for everything. I dont keep them on hand (as I know you do). I read and listen to a ton of media sources and outlets all day long at work, but rarely have the chance to stop and document everything I hear and/or read"

in short , he doesnt have sources to factual information

he does have opinions though :-)

December 13, 2005 5:10 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

"do you think G is going to come and reply to 'this' post ?"

He has to for his cred. He claims to be a marine. You know, honor, courage, blah, blah. Marines are supposed to have the integrity to admit mistakes (being men of high character, supposedly), but run away? A cowardly marine? Who on Earth ever heard of such a thing?

"he doesnt have sources to factual information"

He doesn't need them; the facts have already been provided by you. The factual information is not the point. The point was that I wanted to know who he thought he could fool with that ridiculous claim. The claim itself is not the point.

December 13, 2005 8:55 am  
Blogger Hype said...

looks like Gump had his shirt handed to him again...

Has Gump fixed his blog yet?

-Hype

December 13, 2005 5:53 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

How many roving smog clouds that kill crops do you see in the US? Out of those roving smog clouds (there arent any), how many travel to the neighbors and kill their crops? China does! "Other Asian countries, such as Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, and the Philippines have all reported acid rain problems originating from China's coal burning pollution."

China's
death rate related to COPD deaths, is five time higher in China than in the United States. "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [is] linked to exposure to fine particulates, SO2, and cigarette smoke among other factors,accounted for 26% of all deaths in China in 1988".

Satellite data has revealed that the city is one of the worst environmental victims of China's spectacular economic growth, which has brought with it air pollution levels that are blamed for more than 400,000 premature deaths a year. According to the European Space Agency, Beijing and its neighbouring north-east Chinese provinces have the planet's worst levels of nitrogen dioxide, which can cause fatal damage to the lungs.

"An explosive increase in car ownership is blamed for a sharp rise in unhealthy emissions. In the past five years the number of vehicles clogging the capital's streets has more than doubled to nearly 2.5m. It is expected to top the 3m mark by the start of the Olympics in 2008."

Now, if you take into account how many cars are hitting the markets in China, and how fast that number is growing, China will drown out everyone with their pollution levels in 10 years. Industrial pollution (the main target of Kyoto) is only only worse than consumer household items in levels of emitted pollutents. The worst by far is road vehicles, emitting roughly 3,000 tones of various pollutents per day. Second is non-road vehicles at approximately 1,500 tons per day, and then way down the list comes Buisness and Industry, at about 641 tons a day.

So, now that we have established the gayness of me having to cite sources for stuff that is readily available, can we cut the "creditability" crap and get down to brass tacks?

You guys want to believe that China being "exempt" from Kyoto has anything to do with their pollution levels, or that it is because they are "developing", you can keep drinking your mirage wine. If you'd like to see the real goal of the Kyoto, it is to cripple established and powerful economies, trying to level the playing field to match someone else's idea of "fair".

If Kyoto was actually inteneded on finding something to stop the "global warming", it would A.) Acutally prove that we are causing it, not rely on other's inconclusive data, and B.) Attack the dependancy on internal combustion engines burning gasoline, since they are the biggest contributor to air pollution.

What a crock of shit. You guys are on loopy heaven. I dont have time to come up with an obscure link for every bullshit statment I want to make, some shit is just true without a "link" to back it up. Quite skirting the issue behind the vield of "what is your resource".

December 13, 2005 7:35 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

G

I would love to reply to that (and i will), but i will wait for DJEB to respond to you as he asked you the question .

December 13, 2005 7:58 pm  
Blogger Hype said...

"internal combustion engines burning gasoline, since they are the biggest contributor to air pollution"

Gump doesn't know what he is talking about.

As usual.

Cars and trucks make up about 22%.

Power plants - 33%
Major transportation (Planes) 33 %

-Hype

December 13, 2005 8:10 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

First off, I'm still waiting to have my question answered. Here it is yet again: Why did you thing anyone would fall for your claim?

A reply to the series of "loopy" non sequiturs topped off with a strawman fallacy is forthcoming. I'm readying for work and cannot get to it now.

December 13, 2005 11:25 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

I just gave you numbers, real numbers... including quoted sources from outside the US talking about China being the leading polluter... but, shocker, I got no actual response... just Hype's "talk a lot without saying much", and now it appears djeb's attempt to deflect what I threw out there.

I honestly dont have time to keep it up back and forth. I am not going to change your mind, but at least aknoledge that I did give you what you asked for and quit the snide crap. If you want to cling to your hot air balloon theory that the US is killing the world, fine... but dont expect anyone with out blue (or green?) tinted glasses on to accept it.

December 14, 2005 4:02 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

wow , not so fast G , thats called running away , i know you have time to check my site once a day , as does DJEB , he has spotted your reply and clearly says

reply to the series of "loopy" non sequiturs topped off with a strawman fallacy is forthcoming.


he is not in your time zone so just check tomorrow , we waited 3 days for your reply , but you wont wait even 12 hours for his

give me a break , you have time to check tomorrow , your sounding chicken

December 14, 2005 4:15 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

" we waited 3 days for your reply , but you wont wait even 12 hours for his "

It's called hypocrisy, _H_.



As I said, I had to go off to work. But, as is apparent, you are not good at reading.

Your post, g, was such a non sequitur that I enterained the notion that it was not written in response to my question. It seems to be attempting to defend to initial "bullshit statment" (your words) that China "produce[s] more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined." Of note, this was in reference to Kyoto, which, of course, deals with greenhouse gases. Assuming this is the case, let us look at the defence offered in standard form:

Since there "roving smog clouds that kill crops" in China

And there are acid rain problems in other countries from China's pollution (partially counter-balanced by China's growing desertification problem)

And China's air pollution causes "more than 400,000 premature deaths a year"

And there has been an"explosive increase in car ownership" in China

And China's pollution will become much worse in 10 years as the problem is growing exponentially
_______________________________________
Therefore, China "produce[s] more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined."


Now, I'm not sure just how it is you believe a syllogism works, I can assure you that this is a non sequitur. As such, you were quite accurate when you called it a "bullshit statment."

Now that this has been established, we can return to the "brass tacks." Again, regarding your statement that China creates more pollution than Canada, Mexico and the United States of America combined, Why did you thing anyone would fall for this statement?

December 14, 2005 4:19 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

That particular statement was meant as a figurative theme, not quite the exact factual statement you are trying to tie me to. Please forgive me if I assumed you understood this, and were asking me more to back up the claim of China being a terrible polluter.

Now, as for the charge of me being a bit hasty… I’m not entirely sure where you presumed I was complaining about your response time (as I stated nothing to the effect). I simply was saying I wouldn’t keep up a ridiculous diatribe that consists of you attacking me, while I defend facts… stupid really.

On to the larger picture as a whole, why is you have neither addressed the facts put forth, nor the evidence. I assume by your absence of debate and or counter evidence that you accept this. This would lead me (and most) to the conclusion that you either don’t understand what I said, or by default believe it. Either way, the bottom line still stands that I have put forth very convincing information that would suggest a potential flaw in the “righteous curtain” that the world’s environmental elite attempt to operate behind (think Wizard of Oz).

Now to the grammatically bs. Since my statement was a figurative measure to try and express a point, it really doesn’t fall into the syllogism arena, instead, more of an exaggerated metaphor maybe… jury is out there. But I neither tried to “logic” from a broad view down to a specific view, nor did I try to bring you down a “A + B = C, thus C – B = A” reasoning.

I simply linked and quoted resources that plainly say “China is the world’s leader”… that’s about as clear cut as we can get.

December 14, 2005 5:32 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

So you are prone to making silly statements then trying to back them up with fallacious arguments. I see.

Next, you vs. you:
"shocker, I got no actual response... djeb's attempt to deflect what I threw out there." (This after I clearly stated that I was not through.)

vs.

"Now, as for the charge of me being a bit hasty… I’m not entirely sure where you presumed I was complaining about your response time (as I stated nothing to the effect). I simply was saying I wouldn’t keep up a ridiculous diatribe that consists of you attacking me, while I defend facts… stupid really."



"On to the larger picture as a whole, why is you have neither addressed the facts put forth, nor the evidence. I assume by your absence of debate and or counter evidence that you accept this."


What fact would that be? Your "figurative measure" AKA "bullshit statement"? That has been shown to be empty. If it is the statements regarding pollution in China on its own and not in comparison to other nations, I never challenged them, did I. If fact, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I asked, does it.

I simply linked and quoted resources that plainly say “China is the world’s leader”… that’s about as clear cut as we can get.

This you did in reponse to my question as to why you thought anyone would fall for your original asinine claim, leading me, as I said, to assume that you meant to defend the original claim. You have explained yourself now, though. You are prone to making asinine statements as a "figurative measure." Now I know never to take anything you say seriously. Fine enough.

December 14, 2005 5:56 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

H, you said I would get debate from this guy, not lines of fancy rhetoric and condescension. What I do find amazing is the twist and turns he had to take to actually use my words to make a non-point.(or “non-sequitur”) as he’d like to put it.

I guess that leaves us where? DJEB says he will no longer take me seriously (did he used to?), but he concedes that everything I said/quoted was true.

I’ll leave it there then that he would also concede that Kyoto is a tool used to level economic playing fields (much like WTO) instead of an actual environmental tool.
If it is the statements regarding pollution in China on its own and not in comparison to other nations, I never challenged them, did I.

Thanks for the agreement DJEB, it was great.

December 15, 2005 7:21 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

More "bullshit statement[s]" and "figurative measure[s]."

What I do find amazing is the twist and turns he had to take to actually use my words to make a non-point.(or “non-sequitur”) as he’d like to put it.

An empty charge. Be more specific. I am guilty of continually sticking to my original question whilst you were insistent on offering non sequiturs as though spewing out enough information would somehow deal with the issue at hand.

Not challenging supporting premises (I was genuinely disinterested in them) does not equal supporting a given conclusion. Let's try standard form again:

Because DJEB did not challenge the assertion that there "roving smog clouds that kill crops" in China

Or that there are acid rain problems in other countries from China's pollution (partially counter-balanced by China's growing desertification problem)

Or that China's air pollution causes "more than 400,000 premature deaths a year"

Or that there has been an"explosive increase in car ownership" in China

Or that China's pollution will become much worse in 10 years as the problem is growing exponentially
_______________________________
Therefore DJEB would agree that "Kyoto is a tool used to level economic playing fields"


Agreemnent? No, that would make another non sequitur, which you seem to be quite good at making. If you are serious about the issue of unfair advantage in international development economics, then I suggest that you'd better read Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away The Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective.

Until then, you might leave off the "bullshit statement[s]" and "figurative measure[s]."

December 16, 2005 2:20 am  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

Ok, one more time for the slow guy: (NOTE: All numbers are sources from Pew Center on Global Climate Change unless otherwise specified)

Type of fuel used is an important factor in emissions because fuels have significantly different ratios of CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumed. Coal produces 21 percent more CO2 than oil and 76 percent more CO2 than natural gas per unit of energy consumption.

Worldwide Energy Supply by Fuel Type:
Oil 36%, Coal 23%, Gas 20%
Hydroelectric, Nuclear, Renewable combined make up the other 21%

(EIA) The People's Republic of China (China) is the world's most populous country and the second largest energy consumer (after the United States). Production and consumption of coal, its dominant fuel, is the highest in the world.
Coal Production (2003E): 1.63 billion short tons
Coal Consumption (2003E): 1.53 billion short tons

Here is the “syllogism” you were looking for. China uses more coal than anyone in the world. Coal produces 21% more CO2 Than fossil fuels. CO2 are the largest contributor to global warming (if you believe it is man made). China contributes more than anyone else. But wait, we’re not done!

World wide CO2 emissions from 1860 to 1997 show a different pattern that you would choose to portray. A steady growth from about none, to 1,000 MMTC is registered until around 1940, at which point global emissions rates spiked up to approximately 6,300 MMTC in 1997. But guess what region is the world leader? Asia. That’s right, Asia, not the ALM, who only produces about 4,300 MMTC. (MMTC = million metric tons of carbon equivalents)

Still going though. If you want to look at “Per capita” pollution levels, most of the industrialized world beats out China. But this forgets the fact that 73% of their nation lives out in rural undeveloped “hinter lands”. In 1997, China was running a close second to the US in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and land-use changes (1,490 MMTC to 914). But that is not counting their recent growth (as the number is almost 10 years old), and more specifically, the SOURCE of those emissions.

Watch out, here comes another “syllogism”. If cars are the largest source of CO2 (NRDC: Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually in the US), and the US has more cars than anywhere else in the world, cars are the reason the US has higher emissions of CO2 than anyone else. If China is a close second, but has a fraction of the automobiles, and they use coal at their major source of fuel (which produces 21% more CO2 than fossil fuels), then China is producing more CO2 than anyone else in the world, if we ignore automobiles.

(Gasp! Another syllogism and a sequitur) Kyoto seeks to attack global warming by impacting CO2 emissions from nations industrial activities. Kyoto does not try to impede, impact, or change automobile activity. Kyoto is not an effective measure against the suspected sources of global warming, and in fact ignores the most dangerous emitter of these suspect sources.

Now, please quit with the dance around game. At this point you’ve pretty much lost my interest as you have nothing add to any real debate.

December 16, 2005 2:44 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

Oh, and yes, the NRDC link does quote as saying cars are the second leading source... but that is because they are only behind..... you guessed it: Coal!

Kyoto is a joke. You want to fight the good fight, quit supporting it, and get behind someone trying to create alternative fuels.

December 16, 2005 2:49 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

Again I find it hard to believe that your posts are a response to what I have said. The problem here is you refuse to look at what I have written. What I stated was stated several times in easy to understand language. Your latest response is to provide more data which I can only guess is to back up your original "bullshit statement" or "figurative measure," which _H_ took care of on December 10 at 9:37 PM.

December 16, 2005 10:20 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3143798.stm

December 18, 2005 4:19 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

Just to recap, you haven't proven that China "produce[s] more polution than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined," or that "Kyoto is a tool used to level economic playing fields."

December 19, 2005 9:36 am  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

Your that one in class that tried to argue with the math teacher about 1+1=2....

December 19, 2005 9:17 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

Fallacy: diversionary humor.

So, you still have not proven that China "produce[s] more polution [sic] than Canada, Mexico, and the US combined," or that "Kyoto is a tool used to level economic playing fields."

December 20, 2005 12:25 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

Oops. I almost forgot "condescension."

December 20, 2005 12:31 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home