‘The Kyoto Protocol and its future’
with: |
|
|
Moderator: Welcome to the globalwarming.org live chat. Remember to REFRESH THE PAGE to see the questions and answers as the hour progresses.
Question: Zeke in Arkansas asks:
Many people say the Kyoto protocol is flawed, particularly in that it exempts developing countries. If it is important to reduce the emissions of these gasses that cause global warming/climate change then what kind of treaty would you propose instead of the Kyoto Protocol?
Murray answers: This is an interesting question because it presupposes that it is important to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.
I don’t accept that emitting greenhouse gases will be catastrophically bad for the Earth. Indeed, one team of economists has determined that moderate warming caused by greenhouse gases will be beneficial to the Earth.
That’s backed up by better information that suggests that the Earth isn’t warming as much as the alarmists say it is.
James Hansen of NASA now suggests that we’ll only be facing a 1 degree F rise by 2050 even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases.
So I’m not sure we need anything to replace the Kyoto protocol. Perhaps we might need to do something in 50 years time, but it’s likely that the world will be a very different place then and it’s possible technology will have solved the problem for us without needing to put restrictions
on energy use.
Question: Mary from Orlando asks –
I’m confused — I thought that Russia had said that under no circumstances would they ratify the Kyoto Protocol. But recently they seem to have said that they will, in a supposed deal with the EU to support their entry into the World Trade Organization.
What’s the story?
Murray answers: Russian officials have been saying since November that they would need to decide whether Kyoto was beneficial or not for Russia before ratifying.
Some officials, such as Andrei Illarionov, President Putin’s chief economic adviser, have said that they think it’s a bad idea, but they’ve never said explicitly that Russia will not ratify.
Essentially, president Putin repeated his officials’ line last Friday. Russia is moving towards ratification, but there are still some concerns about downsides for Russia and anyway, it’s the Duma’s (Parliament’s) decision.
Russian accession to the WTO needed Europe’s support, but it also needs the support of other countries, like the US.
I expect there’s a lot of horse trading to go on before any firm action is taken on either treaty.
Question: Jim in Virginia asks –
What is going on with the Kyoto Protocol in Australia? Will Howard ultimately sign on?
Murray answers: John Howard stated again this week that he will not ratify Kyoto.
However, it is looking more and more likely that his Liberal Party may not win the upcoming election. If the opposition Labour Party win, Australia will probably ratify.
It is also possible that Howard – already weakened by Iraq – might lose the support of his MPs and someone else will become Liberal leader. Whoever does might have a different stance on Kyoto.
Question: Liz in Washington, DC asks –
Will Russia’s promise to ratify the Kyoto Protocol affect U.S. business interests, and/or the presidential election?
Murray answers: If Russia ratifies, then the Kyoto protocol will come into effect globally. Any American business interest in a country affected by Kyoto, like Western Europe or Russia, will be subject to the Kyoto restrictions.
This means that businesses in those countries will have to restrict greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or buy permits to allow them to emit.
Those permits will be openly traded and will become a big part of some companies’ business. Enron was a big fan of such permits.
As long as the US stays outside of Kyoto, domestic operations should not be affected. However, it is possible that the protocol could be extended to the US by legal action, as “customary international law.” That is more likely while America’s signature remains on the treaty. Despite President Bush withdrawing from the process, he has not “unsigned” the Kyoto Treaty
Murray continues: As for the Presidential election, Sen. Kerry is on record as doubting whether Kyoto is good for America. It is likely to lead to fewer jobs and higher energy prices, two things he’s been campaigning on.
I don’t think Sen. Kerry will be too keen to bring up the issue. It could cost him and Democrats votes in areas like West Virginia. I don’t expect the issue will be raised unless Ralph Nader looks like taking too many “green” votes away in key states.
Question: Kristina in Maryland asks —
Will the recent expansion of the European Union effect the EU’s position on Kyoto? Does Eastern Europe think differently than Western Europe on global warming?
Murray answers: Eastern Europe stands to benefit from Kyoto as the protocol was designed to give Eastern European countries credit for the smokestack industries closed down after the collapse of communism there. They will be able to sell those credits to western european countries like Germany who need them.
As their economies recover, however, they will have fewer credits to sell. It is possible that Kyoto might become burdensome on them, at which point there may be some friction within Europe over the issue.
Question: Patrick in Louisiana asks —
Are Sens. McCain and Lieberman or anyone else in Congress planning to introduce more pro-Kyoto or similar legislation this year?
Murray answers: Yes, Sens. McCain and Lieberman are reintroducing S.139, their Kyoto-lite measure that failed on the Senate floor this time.
It is unlikely to come to the floor unless Sen. McCain engages in political horse-trading with Majority leader Frist, as it does not have the votes to get out of Committee.
There is a parallel bill in the House, but that is very unlikely to come to the floor.
Question: DeWitt in Tennessee wants to know —
You were rather dismissive in a column not too long ago of the theory that variations in cosmic ray flux affect the climate in the short term and are more important to climate change than greenhouse gasses. Are you not aware that the solar wind, which varies with the decadal sunspot cycle and not just galactic rotation over millions of years, affects the cosmic ray flux to the earth?
Murray responds: I was dismissive because I thought that the research, with its million-year timescale, was unable to tell us about changes in the last 30 years or so with precision. I have no doubt that the solar wind and other cosmic phenomena affect climate, but I don’t think this particular research is precise enough to say that the temperature rises since 1970 were due mostly to cosmic ray flux.
Murray revisits an earlier question: I want to add something to my answer to Kristina about Europe above. Many of the central European countries have areas dependent on coal. Thus Germany is seeking exemptions from Kyoto obligations to protect its brown coal industry. Poland’s province of Silesia, I believe, is still coal-centric. This could be an issue.
Question: Joel from California asks —
Isn’t it true that the fact that the US refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is used by Europeans to show the country is isolationist? Do you think that President Bush will give in on this to try to win some goodwill?
Murray answers: There are two things that are always advanced to demonstrate that the US is “out of step” with the rest of the world. Kyoto is one and the International Criminal Court is the other.
I know that the President is being lobbied heavily on the issue by his chief ally, British PM Tony Blair. However, given the almost certain effect Kyoto would have on American jobs, energy prices and the economy as a whole, I don’t think President Bush will cave on the issue. It is noticeable that Sen. Kerry and even Gov. Howard Dean have questioned whether Kyoto is good for America.
However, if Kyoto dies as a result of Russian non-ratification, I can see America participating in something less stringent designed to replace it, to win international goodwill.
Question: Blaine in Maryland asks —
Didn’t the US sign the Kyoto Protocol? Doesn’t that mean we have some obligations already?
Murray answers: As I mentioned, the US did sign in 1998. However, we withdrew from the decision-making process, which exempts us from having to take action. It is, however, possible that the signature could be used in the courts to force America to abide by “customary international law.” The signature therefore represents a hostage to fortune. President Bush “unsigned” the treaty about the International Criminal Court. It is mystifying that he hasn’t doen the same with Kyoto.
Question: John in California asks —
What do you think the ultimate effect of this “Day After Tomorrow” movie will be in the political debate on climate change?
Murray answers: From the reviews I’ve seen so far, like that in the New York Times today, it looks like people will remember it as much for its clumsy dialogue and ham-fisted politics as for its spectacular special effects, so I think those who see it won’t be affected either way. I’ve got tickets to see it tomorrow morning so I’ll have a better idea then.
But the movie is certainly giving the issue a higher profile among the public at large. I think there will be a small surge of interest in the environment as a political issue, but gas prices and terrorism will keep in the public’s mind longer than the movie.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the DVD release timed to coincide with the Presidential election, though.
Question: Kimberly in Texas writes –
When you say that technology will probably solve the problems of emissions by 2050, doesn’t that mean that if we support such things as solar, biomass, etc. we would be better off?
Murray answers: Not necessarily. Perhaps those things will become cheaper and therefore as cost-effective as hydrocarbons. The International Energy Agency doesn’t think so, though. I think it’s more likely that technology will increase fuel-efficiency and lead to fewer emissions from traditional energy sources.
Murray continues: I should add that there are other considerations that could cause problems. For instance, in Europe the authorities want car manufacturers to reduce emissions, which they can do by reducing the car’s weight so that it only needs a small engine. However, they also want cars to be safer to passengers, for instance, which normally increases the weight and requires a more powerful engine. There are trade-offs involved in all these decisions.
Moderator: This will be the final question —
Ron in the US asks:
Is there any change in the ratio of scientists [in Russia] for or against the Kyoto agreement?
Murray answers: There are no definitive figures either way on what “scientists” think about Kyoto, which is at heart an economic issue. Most scientists agree that it will do little to reduce forecast temperature rises (temperatures will be 0.15 degrees C lower than they would be without Kyoto in 2100).
However, the Russian Academy of Sciences issued a report last week which noted noted the “absence of scientific substantiation of the Kyoto Protocol and its low effectiveness for reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as is envisaged by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change,” and stated that, “the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol are of a discriminatory character, and its mechanisms involve economic risks for Russia.”
Moderator: Thanks to Mr. Murray and all of our questioners. Be sure to tune in next Thursday at the same time for a live chat with top climatologist Dr. James J. O’Brien on the “science” portrayed in the upcoming film The Day After Tomorrow, and other issues.