NPR and The Kyoto Protocols

Sometimes they don't proofread their own stuff.

Published on December 14, 2004 By greywar In Politics

The other day on the way in to work at around 0430L I caught an interesting little piece NPR was doing on Brazil and it's implementation of the Kyoto Environmental Protocols. The pice was about 10 minutes long with 9 miuntes and 30 seconds devoted to the lionization of Brazil for it's "progressive move towards using cane alchohol as fuels for their vehicles. Cane fules they explained produce virtually no emissions when compared to gasoline and was cheaper to boot! "Well ain't that grand?" thought I.

I was even thinking to myself for a few minutes that maybe Kyoto really had something going for it when the closed with the important bit of news in this whole ten minute spiel. In the last 30 secinds they revealed that adoption of Kyoto had led to a huge demnad for cane fields which hjad led to deforestation and land speculation on a scale never seen before. In fact the amount of forest land lost to cane fields (forests are the most important air scrubbers on the planet) far offset any reduction in emissions! Way to go enviro-tards!

9:30 spend telling us how great Kyoto is and 30 seconds on telling us the actual truth. NPR never dissapoints!

Comments (Page 4)

Solitair

on Dec 16, 2004

Brad,
the US is the largest emitter of CO2, CH4 and N2O on the planet. No amount of accusations about European air quality changes that fact. Yes Europe needs to reduce it's emissions and that is exactly what is is going to do. No amount of excuses from the US changes the fact that it is the biggest polluter and that it has no intention of every changing from that.
The suggestion that the EU 'fixed' the date at 1990 as it suited them the best is laughable. That's an awful excuse without one shread of evidence. This is a worldwide document and despite the EU having a strong voice the date for base year was agreed among all nations. the US had as much input at this stage as every other nation and also agree on this date.
Your arguements about China and India are dealt with in my reply to Guy above. Yes China and India do need to start comntrolling emissions, and yes they have agreed to that for a second round. In the meantime issues such as accurately measuring emissions and putting the framework in place to make industry reduce emission have been agreed and are to be implemented as part of Kyoto. Come round 2 China and India will be set targets.
Kyoto was not designed to punish the US industry capacity, but to make a start towards controlling the quantity of industrial gases we emit into the atmosphere. The US is not being asked to go any further than other industrialised nations, but if you wish to feel victimised and remain alone then that is your choice. Do not be surprised though is round 2 of Kyoto adds trade tariffs to any country not meeting emission targets.

Kyoto required tough action by all industrialised nations and a change in outlook. The US has failed to join this crusade for the environment but it will go ahead without the US. The rest of the world will start putting the environment into our decisions and reduce our emissions even at the cost of productivity. We believe that is important and we will care for the planet without you if need be.

Paul.

mismos

on Dec 16, 2004

You see any attempt whatsoever as better than no attempt..and theoretically that would be correct..but the problem has to be in the fine print. Sometimes the fine print will hang you.

For me, it is about a mentality that needs to be spread. It's not about attempting a cleanup at any cost but merely about starting the cleanup. Because it is only begining of course it is not going to be completely efficent. But that does mean we give up before we start, we modify and improve our reproach. What I am hearing is that since its not perfect "why bother". It has, in my mind, nothing to do with what's on paper but developing an urrgence in people to realize that something desperately needs to be done.

If the US has to lower its emissions by 200,000 pcm and the EU only 159,000 pcm..which one is cleaning up, more? I guess that's nitpicking, but..

This goes beyond nitpicking. I personally don't care about the numbers as they are meaningless in a pragmatic sense. How is the enviroment declining? What can we do to prevent it? These are REAL and IMPORTANT question that go beyond the level of politicals and enters into the realm of life and death. Also the attitude that "Johnny doesn't have to why do I" is beyond childish.

I have mixed feelings for both sides of the arguement. While I understand Solitair's position, I also hear the "If you don't agree we will punish you" in the message.
I agree with Draginol's position and I hear the "If we agree you're going to hamstring us" in his message. Neither method will help the atmosphere we all breathe or reduce the amount of ozone we inhale on a daily basis out of ignorance.

I don't see this at all, but I guess people can read into things what they want. There definetly should be a punishment for over polluting, don't you think?

Where are the animal loving activists? I was expecting to hear from them how deforesting Brazil is bad..

Of course it is bad!?! But what does that have to do with the validity of the Kyoto accord? This could and does happen with or without Kyoto. Bad things happen under EVERY type of system, not just so called 'bad' ones.

messybuu

on Dec 16, 2004

What does it have to do with Kyoto? It's the fact that it's Kyoto's blind policies that promote these kind of environment-friendly acts of deforestation. Hell, you said it yourself:

I don't see how reducing pollution in any way can be bad.

So, reducing pollution can't be bad, even at the cost of tons of wildlife and forest?

Dr Guy

on Dec 16, 2004

This is sort of my point. I know that the earth will survive after we are all gone - sorry, the future of MAN. For me it is a matter of trying to keep our race - and life in general - on the planet for as long as possible before the pollution hides the sun and were are unable to breathe the air - you know, the little stuff. But by all means concern yourself more with the size of your GDP or whatever.

And we have. The US has been cleaning up their air for decades, and the Europeans are just starting. yes, we put out more pollutants, but not on a per capita basis. So this is a good start for Europe to get serious, but it is bad when there are so many loop holes that it defeats the purpose. And that is why it is bad law.

Dr Guy

on Dec 16, 2004

Kyoto targets greenhouse gas emissions and not pollutants. This is because it is designed to focus on climate issues and these are felt to be a major problem. it's nto a bad law because it doesn't deal with these, just a single law in what eventually needs to be a much bigger package. It's a start and a good start.

No, itis not a good start. besides, as demonstrated by Nasa, the computer models are flawed that these greenhouse gasses are even warming the planet. All of them predicted a much warmer planet, and it did not materialize. Instead of worryabout greenhouse (which just 30 years ago was ice age) gasses, lets try to get the harmful pollutants out of the air. And the US has. CO2, as you correctly stated is heavier than O2, so it sinks, and if that is the case it cant be a green house gas as they have to rise to keep in the heat.

In the end, if the world adopted our environmental laws, it would do a lot more than Kyoto ever will. Kyoto is flawed and bad. itis time to throw the baby out with the bath water and start over. And this time stop worrying about scaremongers and do what is good and healthy, not politically correct.

drmiler

on Dec 16, 2004

You want to get technical? Who needs the Kyoto protocols anyway? Iamheather posted this on a different blog. I just hope she/he doesn't mind a repost.

By iamheather
Posted Thursday, December 16, 2004 on Call Me Crazzy!!!
Discussion: Politics

Environmentalists love to talk about the Bush administration's assault on the environment. They claim Bush has the worst environmental policies than any president in US history. He is cited as the equivilent of a terrorist on our air and Mother Earth.

A recent report by the EPA may actually refute these accusations. The report finds that particle pollution has dropped 10% under Bush's watch.

"LOS ANGELES A new Environmental Protection Agency report says concentrations of dangerous air pollutants have declined in Southern California in the last five years.

The amount of fine-particle pollution in 2003 dropped 10 percent from 1999, and reached the lowest recorded levels since monitoring began in that year. The trend holds true for most of the country... " ~Associated Press

Here is the actual EPA report findings:

Air Quality Improvements

- Particulate matter (PM) air quality has been improving nationwide, both for PM2.5 and PM10.

-PM2.5 concentrations in 2003 were the lowest since nationwide monitoring

began in 1999 have decreased 10% since 1999 are about 30% lower than EPA estimates they

were 25 years ago.

- PM10 concentrations in 2003 were the second lowest since nationwide

monitoring began in 1988 have declined 7% since 1999

have declined 31% since 1988.

- In 2003, 62 million people lived in 97 U.S. counties with monitors showing particle pollution levels

higher than the PM2.5 air quality standards, the PM10 standards, or both.

- Monitored levels of both PM2.5 and PM10 generally decreased the most in areas with the highest

concentrations. For example, PM2.5 levels decreased 20% in the Southeast from 1999 to 2003. The

Northwest showed a 39% decrease in PM10 levels from 1988 to 2003.

Sources and Emissions

- Sulfates, nitrates, and carbon compounds are the major constituents of fine particle pollution.

Sulfates and nitrates form from atmospheric transformation of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide

gases. Carbon compounds can be directly emitted, or they can form in the atmosphere from organic

vapors.

- Approximately one-third of the PM2.5 improvement observed in the eastern half of the country can be

attributed to reduced sulfates; a large portion of the remaining PM2.5 improvement is attributable to

reductions in carbon-containing particles, especially in the Industrial Midwest and the Southeast.

- Power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide dropped 33% from 1990 to 2003, largely as a result of EPA¡¯s

Acid Rain program. These reductions yielded significant regional reductions in sulfate concentrations,

reducing acid deposition and improving visibility.

- Nationwide, reductions in industrial and highway vehicle emissions of fine particles and volatile

organic compounds appear to have contributed to the improvement in PM2.5.

- In the eastern half of the country regional pollution accounts for more than half of

the measured PM2.5. This regional pollution comes from a variety of sources, including power

plants, and can be transported hundreds of miles. Sulfates account for 25% to 55% of PM2.5 levels.

Sulfate levels are similar in urban and nearby rural areas. Power plants are the largest contributor to

this sulfate formation.

- In the Industrial Midwest, Northeast, and southern California, nitrates make up a large portion of

PM2.5, especially in winter. Average nitrate concentrations in urban areas are generally higher than

nearby rural levels. Power plants and highway vehicle emissions are large contributors to nitrate

formation.

- EPA and states have put in place a number of control programs that will continue to reduce

particle-forming emissions. EPA¡¯s 2004 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule will significantly reduce

emissions from nonroad diesel equipment across the country. EPA¡¯s proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule

(proposed December 2003) will reduce PMforming emissions from power plants in the eastern

United States.

Solitair

on Dec 17, 2004

I also hear the "If you don't agree we will punish you" in the message

Such a message is not yet being given, but the last two annual climate control conference proceedings have had calls from delegates for trade tariffs to be linked to Kyoto target achievement. The WTO does allow for such tariffs. I don't expect any such action to occur for years though and hopefully the US will become part of the process long before any such risk. It is a risk though, but only in round 2 when ALL countries (including the developing ones) are set reduction targets. If the US still decides to nto take part at that stage (probably 5 years hence) then I would not be surprised to see countries which take a productivity hit to look after the environment apply trade tariffs to even the playing field.

Paul.

Solitair

on Dec 17, 2004

we put out more pollutants, but not on a per capita basis.

per capita is a very misleading term.

Does the US pollute more in total volume? Yes!
Does the US pollute more per person? Yes!

Does the US pollute more per capita GDP? No. What this means is that the US gets more production out of every volume of CO2 it releases. It still releases more than anyone else per population though. Why though should the US be allowed pollute more just because it gets more work out of it's pollution? Per capita GDP is not a good measurement of pollution control though. It's like saying what's my pollution per car. Having efficient cars is good but if one country has 2 million cars and another only has 100k cars why should the first country be allowed pollute 20 times more?

If every country followed the US model and was allowed pollute the same amount so long as they were as 'efficient' in their pollution, the world would be doomed from CO2 poisoning. It would definitely not be a better place to live. All scientists agree that too much CO2 heats the atmosphere and that even low levels of CO2 cause poisoning. The only disagreement is how much of the warming effect is manmade and where it will go. So scientists agree there is a problem, just not the scale of it. That's not a good enough reason to ignore it.

Paul.

Solitair

on Dec 17, 2004

Messybau,
the kyoto accords do protect the forests. These are defined as carbon sinks and are carefully monitored. Destruction of these counts heavily against a country in emissions. Protection of these can be used to generate income from rich countries without large carbon sinks of their own. This is exactly what you desire and it is exactly what Kyoto gives.

Your problem is that Kyoto is not yet in force and hence Brazil can currently cut down it's forests. This will change come February. Critizing Kyoto for actions that occur before it is in place is unfair.

Paul.

drmiler

on Dec 17, 2004

Reply #57 By: Solitair - 12/17/2004 4:57:40 AM
we put out more pollutants, but not on a per capita basis.

per capita is a very misleading term.

Does the US pollute more in total volume? Yes!
Does the US pollute more per person? Yes!

Does the US pollute more per capita GDP? No. What this means is that the US gets more production out of every volume of CO2 it releases. It still releases more than anyone else per population though. Why though should the US be allowed pollute more just because it gets more work out of it's pollution? Per capita GDP is not a good measurement of pollution control though. It's like saying what's my pollution per car. Having efficient cars is good but if one country has 2 million cars and another only has 100k cars why should the first country be allowed pollute 20 times more?

First go read the EPA report I posted. Secondly CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's a greenhouse gas, BIG difference!

Solitair

on Dec 17, 2004

drmiller,
what do you think Kyoto is about? It's about climate control and hence green house gases. These are the pollutants kyoto talks about not particles which are a totally different type of pollutant. You're comparing apples and oranges. There are already agreed targets for particular emissions and air quality. No one disagrees that the US does a good job of reducing these particular pollutants. Kyoto focusses on a seperate problem entirely. No amount of reading EPA reports changes this.

Paul.

drmiler

on Dec 17, 2004

Reply #60 By: Solitair - 12/17/2004 5:20:25 AM
drmiller,
what do you think Kyoto is about? It's about climate control and hence green house gases. These are the pollutants kyoto talks about not particles which are a totally different type of pollutant. You're comparing apples and oranges

Your the one comparing apples and oranges here. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's a naturally appearing gas. Just try to stop breathing.Everytime you exhale you put out CO2.

Solitair

on Dec 17, 2004

Helix,
you completely ignore the biological factors to humand and animals of increased CO2 levels. CO2 is a poison. We can argue the science another day if you'd like, but animal lifeforms cannot survive even on 4% CO2. So what if the trees survive when we all die? The fact of the matter is that we are pumping unsustainable levels of CO2 into the atmosphere which will eventually kill us irrespective of any change to global warming. The majority scientific opinion is that we must do something now and that something is better than nothing. because of this the world is acting (except that 10% which the US represents).

Paul.

Solitair

on Dec 17, 2004

Drmiller,
the vast majority of pollutants (Ch4, SO2, NO2, CO2) are naturally occuring gases. Even the CFC and HFC gases can occur naturally at low levels. The reason they are pollutants is because we pump them into the atmosphere in larger concentrations than they naturally occur. This makes CO2 a pollutant. To suggest that CO2 is not a pollutant is to suggest that carbon monoxide, methane, or sulphur dioxide are not pollutants. yet we know these cause acid rain and are well accepted industrial pollutants. Thsi is just trying to use semantics to hide the fact that we are pouring vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (above and beyond natural levels) and need to do somthing about it.
And as for me comparing apples and oranges, I'm not the one who introduced a report on particle pollutants into an article discussing gaseous pollutants (which is what Kyoto is about).

paul.

greywar

on Dec 17, 2004

To suggest that CO2 is not a pollutant

and so killing the trees that scrub this stuff out of the atmosphere thusly raising the levels of it is good in brazil how? The whole point here is that Kyoto was so poorly thought out that it is actually raising the level of pollution by eliminating the things that can scrub it away. It is this sort of knee-jerk "international law" that keeps the US from participating globally. If the world community didn't think dumb ass ideas like this were the cat's meow maybe we wouldn't be ashamed to be seen in public with them?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!