Ten Years After: A Post-Mortem
(Updated below) (Update II)
No, the title of this entry does not allude to the rock band of Woodstock fame.
Rather, this entry aims at a post-mortem analysis of the Kyoto Protocol, agreed upon in December 11, 1997, and which was effectively interred after the last G8 summit of this month of June, 2007 - thanks in large part to the continued (neo)con games and double-talk of the Bush (a.k.a. The Leader) administration and the Harper (a.k.a. The Mini Leader) government - grand tall-tales which I previously wrote about here, here, here and here.
The original objective of the Kyoto Accords was the stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG's) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) interference with the climate system. To do so, the signing countries committed themselves to reducing their collective emissions of GHG's by at least 5% (with individual emissions target variations according to specific countries: 7% for the USA and 6% for Canada, for example), each country’s emissions target having to be achieved by the period 2008-2012 and thus "returning below" average 1990 emissions levels. To this effect, countries were given a certain degree of flexibility in how they would make and measure their emissions reductions - especially with the establishment of an international "emissions trading" regime to allow industrialized countries to buy and sell emissions credits amongst themselves. Hence, both developed and developing countries agreed to take measures to limit emissions and promote adaptation to future climate change impacts, with the Protocols being subjected to periodic review so as to better adapt and readjust its implementation according to further developments (scientific, economic, etc.).
Provided, of course, that the signing countries actually implemented the Accords ... something the USA and Canada (and neocon-led Australia as well) never did.
In the US, Kyoto was not ratified. Climate change denialism and economic scare tactic-driven arguments have been holding sway. Like a good neocon, Bush double-talks: "global warming is real but not man-made". His Clear Skies Act of 2003 was an obvious fraud - although very much approved by Big Oil and Big Corporation interests - and its "improved", somewhat less laughable 2005 version remains in legislative limbo. In an obvious attempt at rendering the Kyoto process moot, Bush and his Bushies promoted the downward redefinition of the ways to reduce climate change outside of Kyoto, without any reinforcement measures but with much "voluntary measures" - winkwink. On top of all of this, the Bush administration established and enacted a policy of systematic censoring, re-writing, controlling, falsifying, fund cutting, hiding, lying and spinning the de facto science underlying the reality of climate change.
Although Canada ratified Kyoto in 2002, and several initiatives and billions of federal monies having been invested to work toward achieving Kyoto targets, everything was scuttled by Canadian neoconservatives - especially by Harper and his Harpies, when they came to power in 2006. Indeed, and just as in the US, typical neocon pro-Big Oil and pro-Big Business scare tactic-driven, false and hypothetical arguments were used to belittle Kyoto, including outright disinformation and the promotion of climate change denialism (one more example here). Going outside of the Kyoto process was even floated, in an obvious attempt at following in the footsteps of The Leader. Even environmental funding designed to meet the Kyoto standards was cut, including programs aimed at monitoring industries. Furthermore, outright scaling back of funding for climate science and adaptation programs was enacted by The Mini Leader's government - again, obviously in order to follow the "lead" of The Leader. The last nail in the coffin of Canada's commitment to Kyoto was hammered in when former Harpie Environment Minster (Rona Ambrose) flat out announced that Canada would not meet its targets under the Kyoto accords. In the end, the current Harpie Environment Minister (John Baird) came up with what I have come to call Kyoto-Ultra Light - which was such a fraud that it underwent extensive re-writing ... and which is most likely to remain lettre morte in the end (i.e. dead-on-arrival legislation - hopefully, this may result in the dismissal of the Mini Leader's minority government).
In any event, what we have here in the US and Canada is stalling and disassembling, the new neocon tactics to avoid dealing with climate change - in other words, they chose to "ignore it and hope it will go away", using hypocritical double-talk like their Big-Oil and Big Corporation masters (another example here).
The problem is that GHG's emissions drastically increased nonetheless in both the US and Canada (see also here for both countries and others) - with no regression in sight.
And of course, the Earth has been warming further as a consequence. With potential disastrous results down the line.
Then came the frenzied posturings of the neocon Bushies and Harpies prior to the June 2007 G8 summit in Germany - just as both Canada and the US deservedly ranked last among the G8 nations in tackling climate change.
On the one hand, The Leader rejected draft proposals for the official G8 communiqué on climate change, which stated that G8 members agreed on tough measures in GHG's. This went as far as to strike out entire sentences and significantly reduce the certainty with which the communiqué addressed climate change. Then, Bush attempted to throw into confusion international efforts to control world climate change, with a proposal which would work outside of a planned UN process - again, he peddled his cherished "voluntary measures" and "no enforcement measures" grand ideas (that's Mr. Accountability for you). Last, but not least, The Leader outright rejected the pre-G8 proposal of committing to cutting emissions by 50% by 2050, to increase fuel efficiency by 20% and to limit the world's temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius.
Not surprisingly, world experts were not impressed by The Leader/Commander Guy.
On the other hand, and at the same time, The Mini Leader continued to lie his way into blaming his predecessors for Canada's failure to meet Kyoto's targets, while touting the example-making leadership quality of his Kyoto-Ultra Light Plan. Still gripped by the same extensive fit of self-delusion, he went as far as to claim that his plan was tougher than the pre-G8 proposal. Harper also, of course, double-talked: "Canada won't meet its Kyoto targets to lower greenhouse gas emissions, but can be a world leader in battling climate change". The equally "credible" Environment Minister Baird went even further by positioning Canada as a "consensus builder" between the EU and the US - thus once again playing stoogie/apologist for Bush. And just to be on the safe side, Harper started playing the excuse card of developing countries by advancing the idea that each country is unique and that "there's no one set solution for everybody" - thus effectively aligning himself with Bush's proposal of individualized voluntary measures for each country and without reinforcement measures. In the meantime, Harper and his Harpies raised the limits on pesticide residues for better harmonization with those of the US (making me wonder again who exactly is the Harper government serving: us Canadians or the US?).
Suffice it to say, in turn, the world's experts rolled their eyes with incredulity and disbelief at The Mini Leader.
Thus the table was set for the G8 summit - and thanks to all the confusing hypocritical double-talk and sleight-of-hand posturing of our Canadian and American neocons, this was the result:
No, the title of this entry does not allude to the rock band of Woodstock fame.
Rather, this entry aims at a post-mortem analysis of the Kyoto Protocol, agreed upon in December 11, 1997, and which was effectively interred after the last G8 summit of this month of June, 2007 - thanks in large part to the continued (neo)con games and double-talk of the Bush (a.k.a. The Leader) administration and the Harper (a.k.a. The Mini Leader) government - grand tall-tales which I previously wrote about here, here, here and here.
The original objective of the Kyoto Accords was the stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG's) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) interference with the climate system. To do so, the signing countries committed themselves to reducing their collective emissions of GHG's by at least 5% (with individual emissions target variations according to specific countries: 7% for the USA and 6% for Canada, for example), each country’s emissions target having to be achieved by the period 2008-2012 and thus "returning below" average 1990 emissions levels. To this effect, countries were given a certain degree of flexibility in how they would make and measure their emissions reductions - especially with the establishment of an international "emissions trading" regime to allow industrialized countries to buy and sell emissions credits amongst themselves. Hence, both developed and developing countries agreed to take measures to limit emissions and promote adaptation to future climate change impacts, with the Protocols being subjected to periodic review so as to better adapt and readjust its implementation according to further developments (scientific, economic, etc.).
Provided, of course, that the signing countries actually implemented the Accords ... something the USA and Canada (and neocon-led Australia as well) never did.
In the US, Kyoto was not ratified. Climate change denialism and economic scare tactic-driven arguments have been holding sway. Like a good neocon, Bush double-talks: "global warming is real but not man-made". His Clear Skies Act of 2003 was an obvious fraud - although very much approved by Big Oil and Big Corporation interests - and its "improved", somewhat less laughable 2005 version remains in legislative limbo. In an obvious attempt at rendering the Kyoto process moot, Bush and his Bushies promoted the downward redefinition of the ways to reduce climate change outside of Kyoto, without any reinforcement measures but with much "voluntary measures" - winkwink. On top of all of this, the Bush administration established and enacted a policy of systematic censoring, re-writing, controlling, falsifying, fund cutting, hiding, lying and spinning the de facto science underlying the reality of climate change.
Although Canada ratified Kyoto in 2002, and several initiatives and billions of federal monies having been invested to work toward achieving Kyoto targets, everything was scuttled by Canadian neoconservatives - especially by Harper and his Harpies, when they came to power in 2006. Indeed, and just as in the US, typical neocon pro-Big Oil and pro-Big Business scare tactic-driven, false and hypothetical arguments were used to belittle Kyoto, including outright disinformation and the promotion of climate change denialism (one more example here). Going outside of the Kyoto process was even floated, in an obvious attempt at following in the footsteps of The Leader. Even environmental funding designed to meet the Kyoto standards was cut, including programs aimed at monitoring industries. Furthermore, outright scaling back of funding for climate science and adaptation programs was enacted by The Mini Leader's government - again, obviously in order to follow the "lead" of The Leader. The last nail in the coffin of Canada's commitment to Kyoto was hammered in when former Harpie Environment Minster (Rona Ambrose) flat out announced that Canada would not meet its targets under the Kyoto accords. In the end, the current Harpie Environment Minister (John Baird) came up with what I have come to call Kyoto-Ultra Light - which was such a fraud that it underwent extensive re-writing ... and which is most likely to remain lettre morte in the end (i.e. dead-on-arrival legislation - hopefully, this may result in the dismissal of the Mini Leader's minority government).
In any event, what we have here in the US and Canada is stalling and disassembling, the new neocon tactics to avoid dealing with climate change - in other words, they chose to "ignore it and hope it will go away", using hypocritical double-talk like their Big-Oil and Big Corporation masters (another example here).
The problem is that GHG's emissions drastically increased nonetheless in both the US and Canada (see also here for both countries and others) - with no regression in sight.
And of course, the Earth has been warming further as a consequence. With potential disastrous results down the line.
Then came the frenzied posturings of the neocon Bushies and Harpies prior to the June 2007 G8 summit in Germany - just as both Canada and the US deservedly ranked last among the G8 nations in tackling climate change.
On the one hand, The Leader rejected draft proposals for the official G8 communiqué on climate change, which stated that G8 members agreed on tough measures in GHG's. This went as far as to strike out entire sentences and significantly reduce the certainty with which the communiqué addressed climate change. Then, Bush attempted to throw into confusion international efforts to control world climate change, with a proposal which would work outside of a planned UN process - again, he peddled his cherished "voluntary measures" and "no enforcement measures" grand ideas (that's Mr. Accountability for you). Last, but not least, The Leader outright rejected the pre-G8 proposal of committing to cutting emissions by 50% by 2050, to increase fuel efficiency by 20% and to limit the world's temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius.
Not surprisingly, world experts were not impressed by The Leader/Commander Guy.
On the other hand, and at the same time, The Mini Leader continued to lie his way into blaming his predecessors for Canada's failure to meet Kyoto's targets, while touting the example-making leadership quality of his Kyoto-Ultra Light Plan. Still gripped by the same extensive fit of self-delusion, he went as far as to claim that his plan was tougher than the pre-G8 proposal. Harper also, of course, double-talked: "Canada won't meet its Kyoto targets to lower greenhouse gas emissions, but can be a world leader in battling climate change". The equally "credible" Environment Minister Baird went even further by positioning Canada as a "consensus builder" between the EU and the US - thus once again playing stoogie/apologist for Bush. And just to be on the safe side, Harper started playing the excuse card of developing countries by advancing the idea that each country is unique and that "there's no one set solution for everybody" - thus effectively aligning himself with Bush's proposal of individualized voluntary measures for each country and without reinforcement measures. In the meantime, Harper and his Harpies raised the limits on pesticide residues for better harmonization with those of the US (making me wonder again who exactly is the Harper government serving: us Canadians or the US?).
Suffice it to say, in turn, the world's experts rolled their eyes with incredulity and disbelief at The Mini Leader.
Thus the table was set for the G8 summit - and thanks to all the confusing hypocritical double-talk and sleight-of-hand posturing of our Canadian and American neocons, this was the result:
(Excerpt from the official G8 communiqué, June 2007 - link for pdf full version here)
- Fighting Climate Change:
We face serious challenges in tackling climate change and achieving sustainable development globally. We reaffirm our commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and to its objective through both mitigation and adaptation in accordance with our common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. On this basis and taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, we remain committed to contribute our fair share to tackle climate change in order to stabilize green house gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. To this end we need a flexible, fair and effective global framework and concerted international action. We underline the crucial role of economic incentives, in particular by carbon markets, for the necessary investments in climate friendly technologies at large scale. The adaptation to climate change will be a major challenge for all countries, in particular for developing countries , and means for adaptation need to be included in a future agreement along with enhanced technology cooperation and financing. We call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the negotiations on a comprehensive agreement at the UNFCCC Conference in Indonesia in December 2007.
Translation: no more Kyoto protocols, no commitments to any targets, let's move the goalpost further ahead, and let's agree to disagree but promise to talk more about actually doing something in the years to come.
Outside of the communiqué, which was touted as a "substantial" agreement, the G8 members publicly acknowledged that what they specifically agreed upon was to "seriously consider decreasing greenhouse gases by 50 percent by 2050". While this may look as a severe blow to Bush, the fact is that this agreement is much closer to The Leader's initial proposal than that of the EU's. To this effect, The Mini Leader was very proud and satisfied of what came out of this G8 summit.
The more optimistic analysts have called this agreement "Progress made. Could do better." Others, more cynical, have likened this agreement with the following analogy: "Imagine that after years of dating, you finally decide to ask your girlfriend the big question. You purchase a pricey engagement ring and find the perfect romantic spot. Down on one knee you ask her to marry you. She responds, 'I will seriously consider it.' Would you celebrate?"
"To seriously consider" indeed ... especially since we all know how "efficient" the neocons and climate change denialists can be at "seriously considering" anything.
Case in point: now the talking points about climate change have begun to shift away from denigrating the science, in order to focus on improved strawman, scare tactic-driven arguments against set target emissions, or Kyoto, or any other similar agreement to come, such as:
Climate change is beyond our control - why risk economic hardship at fighting it?
Canada is still growing in population - that is why it lags in reducing GHG's;
Yes, bad things will happen - but no one can really predict the costs of the impacts of climate change anyways;
Going green means going in the red;
Regardless, the Earth will adapt and do fine;
(etc.)
And thanks (in good part) to the utter absence of leadership from the US and Canada on fighting climate change, we are now hearing the most ludicrous of arguments from developing countries against adhering to emissions caps, such as:
"India will not curb its greenhouse gas emissions as long as the West continues to treat it as a 'second class global citizen' with less right to pollute than the developed world".
Right to pollute. And so it goes ...
In conclusion, I say "R.I.P. Kyoto Protocol - we hardly (in fact: never) knew you".
Meanwhile, we better brace ourselves to face the consequences of our failures to act on GHG's emissions reductions - hell, even the Australian-Neocon-In-Charge had no choice in the matter when climate change-caused "bad things" started hiting his country. Same thing with China.
Our turn will come all too soon enough.
Then what?
Update: 06/18/2007 - The (non-neocon) Ontario government announced today an aggressive greenhouse gas reduction strategy that should see Ontario come close to meeting targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol (by 2014 instead of 2012). This is in step with the plan announced and enacted by the (also non-neocon) Québec government, some two months ago. Looks like individual, provincial Kyoto-in-stepping plans are becoming the way to go, in lieu of the neocon incompetence holding sway in Ottawa. The same phenomenon is occuring in the US, whereby individual states have brushed aside the Bushies and begun to enact Kyoto-like or Kyoto-close measures. Such things are way better than nothing - but country-wide consensus will have to occur soon in both the US and Canada. Otherwise, a lack of national policies will only lead to what the Leader (and the Mini Leader) have always wanted: "anything (if actually something there is) goes".
Update II: 06/19/2007 - Via Political Psychols: China has overtaken the US in GHG's emissions ... Need I say that this does not look good, especially without anything like Kyoto or even better, world-wide? (Sigh)
(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q, at Diatribune, at Progressive Historians, and at Progressive Bloggers)
In my opinion, those nations of the wold who are willing to seriously take on climate change, with or without the nations that refuse to comply. Furthermore, they should boycott the exports of all nations that refuse to comply.
ReplyDeleteHear, hear!
ReplyDeleteIt will take me a while to get through this post. Thanks for it.
ReplyDeleteAgree, TC. It may seem so, but we are not powerless. We can boycott products from non-complying countries. Certainly our individual efforts aren't as effective, but they have the added benefit of developing and focusing our activism. A post with specific info of products would be very valuable.
Thank you, mentarch for adding Liberally Mirth to your blogroll. You'll be on our come Sunday.
Mirth, I fully agree. There are several companies whose products i refuse to buy for a variety of reasons. For example, I will not shop at Wal-Fart.
ReplyDeleteMentarch, on your Parliament (and our Congress), we could reduce our dependency of foreign oil and greenhouse gasses emissions by recovering the wasted energy in all that hot air.
The pleasure's all mine, Mirth! ;-)
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I thought I'd let folks here know that the DKos diary version of this entry was highlighted as a "rescued diary" yesterday.
That's the second one under a month for me (the previous one was "Caesar crosse the Rubicon: the sequel?" - the "rescued" DKos diary version can be found here) ...
Who knows? Maybe an actual "recommended" one next time around?
(I can wish, can I?) ;-)
TC: now *that's* a splendid idea! ;-)
ReplyDelete:-)
ReplyDelete