Kyoto and Global Terrorism

Nothing is more indicative of the present anti-American trend in global politics than the Kyoto Treaty. That Europeans would attempt to use the environment in such a Machiavellian fashion reveals the depths to which they have sunk.

Not only does this treaty not even remotely hold the promise of reducing greenhouse gases, it almost guarantees that greenhouse gases will increase. This document is nothing more than a global mugging of the United States. I could suggest that US officials revert to shaming Europeans but that would assume that you can shame them or that there is another country that isn't aware of or a potential beneficiary of the shameless horse trading that makes up the core of Kyoto.

Number one, most of the worst polluters in the world are not even covered by Kyoto. All third world countries, including China, are exempt. Is it possible that the most simple mind cannot conceive of industries in the US moving wholesale to the third world where there is no accountability (or where for a bribe reports can be changed)? Not only will this add to transportation costs (and pollution from transportation), it will mean a higher amount of pollution produced per unit of production because third world countries are not as efficient as US industry. There is no other way, people. If you want to help the global environment, the treaty has to be global.

Number two, the restrictions placed on the US and Europe are highly contrived. Countries are told to stay below their 1990 levels which is highly beneficial to the old Eastern bloc, which just before the collapse of communism was producing record levels of pollution. Why allow Russia to pollute more in 2005 just because they were a bad global citizen in 1990? Of course, when there was a threat to lower Russia's allowance, the Kremlin quickly rattled the sabers and declared that they'd be better off with a warmer world, what with Siberia becoming like Southern California. What we ought to be concerned with is per unit pollution or efficiency. We ought to reward those countries which develop pollution reduction technology and punish those that insist on doing things the old way. (There is some credit earning available but only for helping the third world. Yet another payoff to get the hoards to sign up).

Number three, exemptions were handed out to every country that complained, except the US. Australia got a 6% allowance because they thought the 1990 levels unfair. Japan made a case for exemption because they are overpopulated. When the US actually proposed an exemption for those countries with carbon sinks, that is where greenhouse gases are actually absorbed, there was no go with the European negotiators.

Lastly, in light of the way that the UN has no ability to deal with global lawbreakers, how in the world does anyone propose to punish anyone under Kyoto? Enforcement is the 800 lb gorilla. Of course, we all know that the US could not escape a proper accounting unlike most other countries in the world.

The only way to fight this lunacy is with truth. The US has to call the bluff of the Europeans. They must insist on no exemptions, that all countries participate. They must insist on per unit pollution accounting. They must insist that countries that create greenspace (that absorb greenhouse gases) should be rewarded. What we are looking for and must insist on is a total, global accounting....at which point, without bribes, without the promise of spreading the wealth of the US, the whole treaty will collapse.

And oh yeah, by the way, since Europeans are so concerned over air pollution, let's put in a clause which restricts their smoking in front of Americans when we visit their countries. They shouldn't mind us saving their lives from cancer, should they?