Jason's Rationale: Environment

The Kyoto Protocol will NOT do us any good. article

In a nut-shell: The Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce carbon emissions to 7% below the levels it was in 1990, by the year 2010. It will result in:
• Nearly double energy and electricity prices, and raise gasoline prices an additional 65 cents per gallon.
• Cost 2.4 million US jobs and reduce US total output $300 billion (1992$) annually, 3.2% below baseline GDP projections, an amount greater than the total expenditure on primary and secondary education.
• Harm U.S. competitiveness, as developing countries will not need to raise energy prices (or product prices) to meet mandatory greenhouse gas targets.
• Reduce the average annual household income by nearly $2700, at a time when the cost of all goods, particularly food and basic necessities, would rise sharply.
• State tax revenues would be reduced by $93.1 billion due to job and output losses attributed to lost US competitiveness in the global market and higher energy costs

It is a noble goal, but the problem is that it is binding on only 36 of the world’s 191 nations. That means the first world countries would be greatly constrained and negatively affected by the Kyoto Protocol, while the other 155 countries can belch as much black smoke from crudely refined, leaded gas while giving vocal and moral support for the treaty. The last I heard, the atmosphere above a country does not stay there indefinitely due partly because of the naturally-occurring Coriolis Effect.

That is why George Bush is against the Kyoto Protocol. I agree with him. John Kerry used to agree with Bush, but yet again, he has flip flopped. On July 25, 1997, he joined 94 other senators who voted for Senate Resolution 98, which says that the U.S. should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol if: 1) it did not impose restrictions on developing countries, and 2) it would "would result in serious harm to the economy." Kerry now supports the Kyoto Treaty. Oh. It's just a criterion of his "Global Test."

In addition, in order to achieve the protocol's objective – to stop the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – all nations would have to reduce emission by nearly 80 percent below 1990 levels, not 7% as it currently calls for. The reduction of energy use required to meet this objective would change the way we live beyond recognition. I would completely support the Kyoto Protocol, IF there was a reasonable way to adequately sustain ourselves with energy independent from oil. I am very interested in free-energy devices. If you are interested, let me know! Maybe the Deaf can actually give something very significant back to society if we invent a practical free energy method.

It simply does not make sense if India or China signs on to the Kyoto Protocol, and is not bound by its requirements to reduce emissions, while America is. That means America would be subject to the U.N.’s determination of how much energy we can use. John Kerry supporst the Kyoto Protocol, and that means our sovereignty will be subject to UN administration. When economies expand, they consume more fuel, as a result of increased production. We would be restricted from expanding, while India and China would not. Be careful!

In addition, the Kyoto Protocol has a touted “emissions trading” scheme. It allows countries to sell “unused” blocks of allotted energy levels, for example, Russia could sell their “emissions credits” (they are producing below their assigned target, because their industries are in shambles, a common occurrence in 3rd world countries). Because so many countries is NOT ABLE to produce as much emissions they could theoretically make, and America reaches its maximum levels, that means our businesses will have to pay extra “taxes” for the sanctions the global body would impose on us for violating the limits. A lot of ideas sound very good on paper, but you just have to be careful for “Trojan horses.”

Australia has not ratified this treaty, nor has Russia. They probably have a lot of expansion left in their economies. Think about it. How many other countries, industrialized countries, can really expand? Most of the first world countries are in Europe, and they have reached their limits. They cannot expand, while Russia, Australia, America has the resources and land size to do so. To do so naturally uses up more resources, not less. I am against “taxing” natural growth. So is President Bush.

[+/-] show/hide this post