Well, whaddaya know?

Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:19:23 GMT

After watching the State of the Union adress it would appear as if George and I (and Bill O'Reilly) are on the same page when it comes to the environment and our seemingly hopeless oil addiction. Just for the record, I wrote my last entry about a week before the SOU address, before I even knew it was coming up, and had no idea Bush would be addressing the oil issue (since I didn't know the speech was coming I guess it only makes sense that I wouldn't know what he was going to be talking about, huh...).

Well, I won't gloat, but I do want to say that there's something to all this oil stuff- Mark my word!!!

The Kyoto Accord (Good Lookin' Out, G.W.)

Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:29:28 GMT

Kyoto, Choice, and the U.S. Government

Bill O'Reilly says "The United States is heading down the road to disaster in this world because we are using too much energy. 25% of all energy is used by America. We use too much. We don't conserve enough." (The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, Friday, January 27, 2006) He went on to discuss this matter from the context that because we buy so much oil from South America and the Middle East we are undermining our own economy, as well as our National Security as a result of the funding given to socialist and militant governments through oil purchases. While his motivation for the conversation was political, he brings to light a relevant point. As long as Americans choose to use oil the government (who, in one way or another, controls big business) will find a way to get that oil to them. Drilling in ANWR can be used as a means to cease the continued funding of anti-American governments, like that of Venezuela, through the purchase of their oil. In fact, Venezuela has all but forced all foreign (American and European) oil companies to enter into a joint-venture partnership by threatening them with the loss of their oil field concessions in that country if they refuse. This means the socialist government (socialism, as in Joseph Stalin, sister to communism) gains some control over American companies, hence American Oil, meaning they gain control over Americans, applying their socialist influence wherever possible (news.bbc.co.uk, December 20, 2005). Anyway you look at it, this seems like a bad deal. At the time this story went to press, Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total had already signed contracts with the government of Venezuela, agreeing to their demands. Only ExxonMobil was continuing to hold out.

Now, don't let me lead you to believe that I think drilling in ANWR, or any other place in America, is the answer to this problem. The problem lies in something I stated previously. As long as Americans continue to choose to use oil our government will continue to appease our selfish desires. That said, while many government leaders, most of whom are Democrats (stated for clarity, not to point fingers), claim to want to reduce emissions and monitor greenhouse gases, etc... none of them are willing to put the ball in the court of big business, namely auto makers and oil companies. Politicians thrive off the "donations" of companies such as these, and none of them are willing to put aside their personal desires, shun this money, and force these companies to adopt higher standards. Our government holds the power to demand that newly manufactured autos have a specified fuel efficiency, say 30 mpg, minimum. Our government has the ability to offer huge tax incentives to companies who produce environment-friendly only products, such as electric cars, fuel cells, etc... Our government also has the ability to offer tax credits, money straight off the bottom line, to individuals purchasing alternative fuel vehicles. However, what politician is pushing for these measures with the force they could? What politician is willing to give up his chauffer driven limo or town car in exchange for a Prius he/she has to drive themselves? And what politician is willing to sacrifice their personal comfort in the name of change? I'm not familiar with any, but then, I don't know everyone. At the end of the day it's about choice. Unfortunately, the choices we, as a whole, are making, are likely to lead us into an economically weak and bleak situation.

"Kyoto's ridiculous, it exempts China and India from all pollution measures because they are considered developing economies" (The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, January 27, 2006). Bill made this statement today, as well, which quite possibly clarifies the main reason why we (G.W. and those he represents, i.e. Americans) have rejected the Kyoto accord. The increase in oil purchases by developing countries, China especially, is one of the main reasons America's prices have increased as of late. China is experiencing an economic boom via tech-industries, which means an increase in per-capita income, which means an increase in ammenities and luxuries, i.e. cars, electricity usage, heat, etc... India is experiencing a similar change in economic viability, as well. Allowing these two countries to progress without having to adhere to the same standards as the rest of the world is a self-defeating endeavour in many ways. First, as their growth rate continues to increase, so will the amount of pollution they produce, adding to what we already have. Why should they be allowed to continue to pollute in the name of profit? No one has forced communism upon the Chinese people except China herself. Second, whose best interest is served by allowing a Communist government to increase economic viability in ways other nations cannot compete against, which translates into security threats through strengthened military power and action? Certainly not the interests of America (or the rest of the world, for that matter), as we will be the ones fighting another war when China decides to team up with North Korea and attack Japan, or move south through Tibet into Nepal, heading towards India. We will be the ones to pay the price, so any accord which affords China with an economic advantage should not be signed by America, as the cost to America will far outweigh any advantages seen.

I say no, don't drill in ANWR, leave it alone, let the moose and bear live happy and unbothered. We don't need more oil, we don't need more gas, we don't need anything!! Further, I say no, we don't need Kyoto. We don't need to allow China or India special exemptions to the standard every other comparable country is willing to adhere to. Why do we need to sign an accord that says we will do the right thing? Why can't we just do it? Consider who will foot the bill for the monitoring and ensuring of procedural process around the world. Is France or Norway going to cover the bill for an international monitoring agency? I doubt it. Is China going to kick over a share of its newly aquired wealth to improve the atmospheric conditions around the world? Don't count on it. America, however, will shell out the dough hand over fist, like we always do, in order to keep it going. So, no, we don't need Kyoto, we just need to be Americans, you know, the folks who do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, despite the sacrifices we must make personally. Like most other actions America takes, despite the views of her critics (both in and out of the country), it's not about us, it's about the good of the whole- in this case, the whole world.

I decided to dig a little deeper into the Kyoto Accord, just to make sure I wasn't taking anything for granted. Here's what I found: According to an article in the Washington Times on April 22, 1998, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution by a vote of 95-0 to turn down any Kyoto agreement that placed the economy of the U.S. in danger while exempting a number of other nations from equal regulations (www.sepp.org , 2006). Unless I'm mistaken, Clinton was President then, and Al Gore (the supposed environmentalist champion) was the V.P. Yet, despite their support, the Senate, who supposedly represents their constituents, voted against Kyoto. Perhaps Bush and his personal interests in oil aren't solely to blame, after all.

Further, the article states, resolutions have been passed at various levels, including state legislatures, labor unions, and consumer groups who are all opposed to the Kyoto accord primarily on reasons of economics. These people are concerned with a decreased rate of economic growth, job losses incurred as a result of higher energy costs, and the ever-rising price of gasoline. Another objection shared by many is that under the Kyoto accord the U.S. may lose national sovereignity by way of U.N. monitoring and imposition of fines. The U.N. would gain access and control over businesses, cities, and the United States Military (www.sepp.org , 2006). I've got to say, I'm not too keen on the idea of having the U.N. monitor our military for any reason, energy use control or other.

The article also states that there exists a petition against the Kyoto accord signed by over 15,000 American scientists, of which over 10,000 hold advanced degrees (www.sepp.org , 2006). Out of 15,000 scientists, surely they're not all Bush supporters?

One more point of interest is that of the Heidelberg appeal. This was signed by over 4,000 scientists in 1992 as an appeal to the heads of states attending a meeting in Rio de Janeiro with the intention of passing the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Contained in the appeal was a warning that there was not a sufficient scientific data base to support a global treaty of this kind, including Kyoto (www.sepp.org , 2006).

More research led me to discover that, while the Kyoto accord was put into effect in mid-February of last year, several of the countries who pledged the accord are uncertain they will be able to meet the demands called for. Both Japan and Canada admit the task they are facing is an extremely menacing one. Canada was one of the first nations to sign the accord, and rightfully so as their emissions have increased 20% since 1990. Yet, during the seven years needed to fully ratify the Kyoto accord into law, Canada was unable to even develop a plan for meeting their goals set by the accord, let alone take any action ahead of time (news.bbc.co.uk, 2006).

All this simply points to more reason why the Kyoto accord is simply a paper doll, nice to look at but flimsy when handled. After all, what will be the end recourse if several of the committed nations, semi-powerful and developed nations such as Canada and Japan, are unable to meet their goals by the established deadlines? Will the U.N. impose fines or sanctions against the better part of the economic world? Unlikely. More feasible will be extensions, new goals, relaxed monitoring, and eventual collapse of the accord altogether. This is not to say that positive results are impossible, only that as far as International Law goes, the details of this accord seem a bit fuzzy.

Still not satisfied that I had explored far enough outside the walls of Bushdom, I looked to Canada, and I think you'll be surprised at what I found. As you may or may not no, Canada and the U.S., while friendly neighbors, don't see eye-to-eye on many political issues. Gay marriage and our presence in the Middle East come to mind, along with social security and state-funded health care. Yet, it seems, Canada and the U.S. have found a starting point in Kyoto. Stephen Harper, who on January 24 of this year was elected Prime Minister of Canada, says the smart move is to abandon the Kyoto accord, that the goals set forth are impossible to meet, and that without the participation of the U.S., China, and India, it is pointless (www.cbc.ca , 2006). While big of him to admit the impossibility of the goals, it is his last point that is most interesting.

At the time Bush withdrew from the Kyoto accord in 2001 he stated the absence of restrictions on China and India as a determining factor (www.sepp.org , 2006). Now, Canadian Prime Minister Harper agrees, and keep in mind that had China and India been held to equal standards the U.S. may have signed up. Harper also remarks of Canada's liberal government signing the accord "The result is that the government was incapable, and remains incapable, of meeting it's obligations" (www.cbc.ca ,2006). Again, perhaps 'ol G.W. simply didn't want to commit to something that couldn't be achieved?

One more quick note. According to Kyoto, by 2012 Canada is called, actually ordered by law, to cut emissions to a rate 6% lower than they were in 1990. However, keep in mind that emissions have risen 24% in Canada in that same time. According to the math, this means they have to reduce their emissions by 30%, over one-fourth their total, in the next 6 years (www.cbc.ca , 2006). This truly is an impossible task, unless Canadians are willing to halt their way of life, suffer unheard of economic burdens, and revert to lifestyles reflecting those of a century ago, not to mention the imposition this will bring to the rest of the world.

Oh, and by the way, Canada has since surpassed the U.S. in its rate of increase of emissions of greenhouse gasses (www.cbc.ca , 2006). In other words, without the Kyoto accord, the United States has made more progress at control and reduction of greenhouse gases than our neighbor to the North has been able to do with the help of their paper doll.

References

Retrieved January 27, 2006. www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/13/harper-kyoto060113.html

Retrieved January 27, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4267425.stm

Retrieved January 27, 2006. www.sepp.org/glwarm/petition.html

Retrieved January 27, 2006. www.billoreilly.com (must be a member to listen to radio broadcasts)

Retrieved January 27, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4544390.stm, updated December 20, 2005, 7:52 GMT.

--
“Thoughts must flow, like a river, in order to survive. Knowledge conserved is knowledge wasted.”

Micah Cantley

"People like to think that if you disagree with someone's opinion you are attacking them. That is just dumb."
Bill O'Reilly. 2003. Who's Looking Out for You?

My View, From Peru: News and politics

Well, whaddaya know?

The Kyoto Accord (Good Lookin' Out, G.W.)