Kyoto Protocol - is it dead?

iBrian

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,572
Reaction score
85
Points
48
Location
Scotland
Is the Kyoto agreement dead?

Have the Russians really pulled out of it?

Or is it simply a blackmailing tactic for European money?

Simply a sad state of affairs, really - but not as sad as the richest country in the world (the world's biggest CO2 polluter) claimnig that it could not afford to ratify the treaty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3288683.stm

excerpt:
Russia says it has not yet reached a decision on whether to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the global climate treaty.

It has effectively disowned an official who said on Tuesday that Russia would not ratify, and it is still in the process of coming to a decision.

The official, Andrei Illarionov, said Russia would not back Kyoto in its present form, citing economic reasons.

The treaty cannot acquire the force of international law unless Russia, one of the world's big polluters, ratifies it.

Mr Illarionov, President Putin's chief adviser on economic issues, said in Moscow: "Of course, in its present form, this protocol cannot be ratified. It is impossible to undertake responsibilities that place serious limits on the country's growth."

But Russia's deputy economy minister, Mukhamed Tsikhanov, said the country was moving towards the treaty.

He said: "There are no decisions about ratification apart from the fact that we are moving towards ratification. "I cannot comment on Illarionov, but we do not have any information in the government about the fact that a decision has been made."

Asked what Russia's final decision depended on, Mr Tsikhanov replied: "You should put this question to Japan and the European Union, about when they will start to speak to us in economic language."

He said the decision on ratification could be put to the Duma (lower house of parliament) next year.
Click to expand...
 
Namaste...

but really.. is this a "good" treaty?

if a country can sell it's pollution allotments... how is this actually going to decrease the amount of pollutants? the rich countries will simply buy the poorer countries allotments that they don't use.. would you think?

if i were Russia, why would i not buy all the allotments from, say... Moldavia, and then not have to actually cut my pollution output?

the whole international political scene is a strange thing to me... i don't really understand much of the reasons behind some of the bizzare policies of nations..

eh... maybe i'm not supposed to "get it".
 
International Treaties are certainly never intended to be perfect - merely workable on the international stage. And, what is ironic, is that my understanding is that the trading pollutants was devised to help keep the USA in the protocol.
 
Actually, there was a really interesting read in New Scientist this week - apparently there's a general consensus that Kyoto was negotiated to death, and that what is left is simply an unworkable short-term "fix" - and that something "new" is under the negotiating table which removes the USA's primary objections. More later. :)

And welcome to CR, starmetal. :)
 
Zdrastvuitsye, hola, shalom, salaam, Dia dhuit, namastar ji, hej, konnichiwa, squeak, meow, :wave:, starmetal.

Actually, because of the hoopla going on in the Former Soviet Union, it is difficult for them to be able to really do things politically that they used to. Heck, they're having trouble just collecting taxes! I wish this one gentleman I know offline would subscribe to the forum since he can give a Russian POV firsthand (both political and personal religious.)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
 
Well do any international treaties ever stand?

The UN and similar organizations have no real authority and power over any nations (except those that the powerful nations want to scupper in any means they can, because they can and want to enforce legislation) and in doing so they cannot make any real progress.

The Kyoto Protocol was all good in theory, but it was basically a new way for the west to dump all of it's waste in foreign lands and as such was and is probably even worse than the problem it set out to resolve.

As such no real progress is likely and everyone is continuing to produce as much waste, pollution and harmful chemical releasing as they did before to profit temporarily but the environmental consequences will manifest in years to come and then there'll be another complaint from nations that they never new the consequences it could have and that it wasn't their fault...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top