Kyoto Protocols  by Roger King  

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Kyoto Protocol Facts

3. Kyoto's Costs

4. Conclusion

Introduction

Kyoto Protocol Facts

Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths  by Christopher Horner  in Human Events  02/20/2007  The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol’s energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world’s population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate won’t vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto. Gosh.   Link

 EU Status The Californication of the Economy by Alan Caruba  2006 The National Center for Public Policy Research recently noted that, "Despite ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union is on track to miss its Kyoto emissions reduction target of 8% below 1990 levels by 2012. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the CO2 emissions for the l5 original member nations of the EU increased an average of 9% between 2000 and 2004.”   The U.S. received the strongest sanction and was required to cut emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels – nearly 20 percent below current estimates.

Public Disservice: Melting Myths by Patrick J. Michaels July 26, 2006 - Consider the Kyoto Protocol, a "baby step" in the fight against global warming. It "requires" the U.S. to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide to seven percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Requirements vary by a percent or so for most other signatories such as Canada and the EU nations. Yet if every nation of the world met its Kyoto targets, the amount of warming that would be prevented is .07 degrees Celsius per half-century — an amount too small to even measure, as average surface temperatures fluctuate by about twice that much from year to year.  Neither the U.S. nor the EU nor virtually anyone else will be able to fulfill the Kyoto targets. EU emissions rose last year, while U.S. emissions remained unchanged. "Reversing" warming would require reducing carbon-dioxide emissions by 60-80 percent, which is simply impossible. The world economy would implode.

More Than 17,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord  In April 1998, more than 17,000 scientists, two-thirds of whom hold advanced academic degrees, signed a Petition against the Kyoto climate accord. The Petition urged the US government to reject the Accord, which would force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States.  ...  "The treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful."   Link

Global Warming on Steroids by Alan Caruba January 02, 2007  Senate Reject Kyoto Protocols - On July 25, 1997, by a unanimous vote (95-0), the U.S. Senate rejected participation in the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that requires participating nations to greatly reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. At the time, the Senate noted that it “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” Neither the Clinton, nor Bush administration submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.  Link

Destroying America To Save The World  by Dan Gainor -President Bill Clinton signed the treaty, but never sent it to the Senate for ratification because of its strong vocal opposition. The issue appeared dead in the U.S. until George W. Bush resurrected the debate when he was elected president. President Bush pulled back from Kyoto because of the cost and unresolved questions that remained about the science behind it. The networks repeatedly labeled and blamed President Bush as the sole person who wanted to “pull out,” “block” or “kill” Kyoto. Bush was roundly criticized by environmental groups and world leaders for focusing on the impact it would have on the U.S. economy. The networks emphasized that as well. News programs virtually paid no attention to Clinton’s lack of action on the treaty or the Senate’s 95-0 vote opposing it.  ...    In the seven years since Kyoto was tentatively agreed to, there have been several economic surveys about its impact on the U.S. These reports estimate signing the accord would cost the U.S. between $225 billion to more than $400 billion per year. The U.S. Energy Information Administration also predicted Kyoto would cause widespread employment loss nationwide ranging from 1.1 million to 4.9 million jobs. They added that it would cause a major spike in energy prices, predicting an increase of prices that could hit as high as 100 percent if the treaty were signed. These estimates were rarely reported on the five networks news programs we studied.   ...   The networks cited President Bush as blocking or pulling out of Kyoto about one-third of the time (30 percent or 49 stories). That’s only partially true. Bush was only one of many opponents, including the U.S. Senate, which must vote on all treaties. The networks only made that point once in all 165 stories. They blamed Bush for U.S. actions on the treaty 49 times more often than on the one story that discussed how the Senate had voted unanimously 95-0 against Kyoto. That unanimous vote included Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), although that is never discussed in any of the 165 reports.    ...   Dr. S. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, is one of the most well-known and respected opponents of global warming theory. Singer, a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, points out conflicting evidence about whether the earth is indeed warming.  He explained that the U.N. data showing the earth getting warmer disagrees with both data from satellites and weather balloons. Neither of these show any change in global temperature since 1979 when the satellite record began. Singer co-authored an article in August 2004 along with two other warming skeptics, including Patrick J. Michaels, who has recently published a book on the subject. They said: “The odd-record-out turns out to be the U.N.’s hot-surface theory.”  ...    Frederick Seitz, the past president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University circulated a document in 1998 called the “Oregon Petition” that gathered more than 17,000 names from scientists in various fields. According to Seitz, “This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas.”  ...    The broadcast networks treated the pro-Kyoto view on global warming as a given. In other words, they did one of three things: 1) Accepted global warming as a fact; 2) Blamed mankind for the problem; or 3) Both. They did this roughly six times more often than they even admitted there might be some scientific objection. NBC was the worst of all five networks, including cable. It took the pro-Kyoto view in 30 stories (64 percent). It also had the lowest percentage of opposition to this view, only three stories (6 percent). That is a ratio of 10 to 1.
 

Economic suicide for Europe and the US by Paul Driessen  February 6, 2007  At long last, European economic ministers and CEOs are realizing they cannot meet even current Kyoto commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% below 1990 levels, by 2012. They are voicing growing concern that Kyoto will hammer consumers and living standards, and send facilities and jobs to China, India and other nations that aren't required to cut emissions.

Even perfect compliance with Kyoto would keep global temperatures from rising only 0.2 degrees F by 2050 – assuming CO2 really is the culprit, rather than the sun and other natural forces that obviously controlled previous climate shifts.

Gores scientist on effect of we meet Kyoto  Senator Inhofe Exposes Costly Global Warming 'Solutions'  by Marc Morano  October 26, 2007   After the U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Al Gore's own scientist, Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, calculated that Kyoto would reduce emissions by only 0.07 degrees Celsius by the year 2050. 

Destroying America To Save The World   by Dan Gainor   The Russian Academy of Sciences recently agreed that the science of Kyoto is faulty. According to Reuters, the academy said: “The Kyoto Protocol has no scientific foundation,” as one of their conclusions about the treaty. That move didn’t jeopardize Russia’s support for the pact, in part because Russia had to do it to be approved for membership in the World Trade Organization.   

Destroying America To Save The World   by Dan Gainor   Despite extensive scientific opposition, worldwide environmental groups pushed for action that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. The pact required reductions in emissions below 1990 levels for developed nations. The U.S. received the strongest sanction and was required to cut emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels – nearly 20 percent below current estimates.
President Bill Clinton signed the treaty, but never sent it to the Senate for ratification because of its strong vocal opposition. The issue appeared dead in the U.S. until George W. Bush resurrected the debate when he was elected president. President Bush pulled back from Kyoto because of the cost and unresolved questions that remained about the science behind it. The networks repeatedly labeled and blamed President Bush as the sole person who wanted to “pull out,” “block” or “kill” Kyoto. Bush was roundly criticized by environmental groups and world leaders for focusing on the impact it would have on the U.S. economy. The networks emphasized that as well. News programs virtually paid no attention to Clinton’s lack of action on the treaty or the Senate’s 95-0 vote opposing it. 

Briton and German pushed hard to have 1990 used as the starting year.  Germany had just started upgrading East Germanys old power systems and Briton was in the middle of?

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System  by Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service; in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal  ”There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Forget Kyoto - We curb emissions better, so why imitate Europe?  by David Freddoso April 11, 2007

1. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that U.S. carbon-equivalent emissions rose by 1.3 percent between 2000 and 2004. During the same period, the U.S. population grew by 4 percent, and our economy grew by 19.5 percent. 
2. In the 25 European nations reporting under the Kyoto Protocol, carbon equivalent emissions rose by 2.2 percent during the same period (and by 2.4 percent in the 15 Western European nations). The EU-25 population, meanwhile, grew by 1.6 percent and their collective economy grew by just under 7 percent.
3. Between 2000 and 2004, America had more than twice the population and economic growth of Europe and a little more than half of Europe’s growth in carbon emissions. That’s not so bad, is it? Should we really be looking up to Europe? Kyoto Costs.  
4. USA has 5 percent of the world’s population but we produce 25 percent of its wealth. Compared to Europe, we produce more jobs with higher wages, and we enjoy an economy that is 42.5 percent wealthier per person. Year after year, we leave Europe farther behind.

Costs

Copenhagen Consequences at the Heritage Foundation An Energy Information Administration study at the time projected costs of U.S. compliance to be between $100 billion and $397 billion annually.

The real climate change catastrophe  by Paul Driessen   October 21, 2006  Just the current Kyoto Protocol could cost the world up to $1 trillion per year, in regulatory bills, higher energy costs and lost productivity. That’s several times more than the price tag for providing the world with clean drinking water and sanitation – which would prevent millions of deaths annually from intestinal diseases.  Over 2 billion of the Earth’s citizens still do not have electricity, to provide basic necessities like lights, refrigeration and modern hospitals. Instead they breathe polluted smoke from wood and dung fires, and die by the millions from lung diseases. But opposition to fossil fuel power plants, in the name of preventing climate change, ensures that these “indigenous” lifestyles, diseases and deaths will continue.  ...  The average American family of four would pay an extra $2,700 annually for energy and consumer goods, and in US minority communities, the climate treaty would destroy 1.3 million jobs and “substantially affect” standards of living. Link

Keep a Sharp Eye on Warming Zealots  by David Limbaugh   May 29, 2007   One of several damning Department of Energy studies estimates that our Gross Domestic Product would be reduced by at least $77 billion and by as much as $400 billion. A staggering total of possibly $18 trillion by 2050 — and almost 4.9 million jobs would be lost.Add to this the inconvenient truth that reductions in economic productivity are often accompanied by reductions in environmental friendliness.   Link

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics  by Marc Morano   May 15, 2007   Bruno Wiskel a geologist of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997.  Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”  He said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.”    Link

Opposing view: Live with climate change   by Patrick J. Michaels  February 01, 2007             The journal Geophysical Research Letters estimated in 1997 that if every nation on Earth lived up to the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on global warming, it would prevent no more than 0.126 degrees F of warming every 50 years. Global temperature varies by more than that from year to year, so that's not even enough to measure. Climatically, Kyoto would do nothing.  In the past four years, the Senate has voted twice against "cap-and-trade" legislation — sponsored by New Mexico senators Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat, and Pete Domenici, a Republican — that would set quotas on carbon emissions and let companies buy and sell them. If adopted, their cap-and-trade law would reduce emissions by less than the Kyoto Protocol specifies. In other words, the Senate has been loath to even adopt something that does less than nothing.  The stark reality is that if we really want to alter the warming trajectory of the planet significantly, we have to cut emissions by an extremely large amount, and — a truth that everyone must know — we simply do not have the technology to do so. We would fritter away billions in precious investment capital in a futile attempt to curtail warming. Consequently, the best policy is to live with some modest climate change now and encourage economic development, which will generate the capital necessary for investment in the more efficient technologies of the future.   Link

Conclusion