What would it take the US to sign a protocol?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Schrodinger's Dog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sign
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions under which the United States might sign a protocol to combat climate change, similar to the Kyoto Protocol. Participants explore various factors influencing this decision, including political, economic, and environmental considerations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that a change in political leadership is necessary for the US to ratify any climate protocol.
  • There is a recurring argument that the US should not ratify any protocol until major developing countries like China and India also commit to emissions reductions.
  • Others argue that existing treaties are ineffective and merely allow countries like China to continue polluting without significant restrictions.
  • Some participants express that the current protocols unfairly penalize developed nations while allowing developing nations to increase emissions.
  • A viewpoint is presented that the protocols do not adequately address the ongoing increase in global emissions and may not lead to meaningful reductions.
  • Questions are raised about the relevance of per capita CO2 production in determining responsibilities under such protocols.
  • Some argue that the focus should be on cumulative emissions rather than current rates, suggesting that this approach would better reflect historical contributions to global warming.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the effectiveness and fairness of existing climate protocols. There is no consensus on whether the US should sign a protocol or what conditions would make such a decision viable.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the current protocols, including their focus on historical emissions rather than addressing future contributions to climate change. There is also mention of the economic implications of signing such treaties.

  • #31
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Some additional info courtesy of wikipedia: I think per capita emissions is more pertinent than actual overall emissions. Although they both have relevance obviously.

Note China and Indias per capita output is tiny compared to the US's too. In 109 and 85 out of 182 countries with the US not first but in 7th.

I think we are agreed that the US cannot stand by it's policy of non reduction? You can say China 'til your blue in the face and kyoto does nothing too, but there should at least be a will to cut emissions even if there is no will to sign, I really can't understand how anyone with a clear conscience can get behind US policy on this.

At least under Kyoto, further cuts and more drastic measures are an option so it is a dynamic treaty with potentially greater benefits as time goes by. I think the US should never say never to that too. Kyoto's not perfect but what the US is doing isn't even rational, let's not even get into the moral implications of economics. There is mounting internal pressure on the government I hear but will it be enough?

I was wrong about the EU it's roughly 2.2 billion tonnes of CO2 more, which is even more worrying. About 296 million population US to 456 million population EU :eek:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
russ_watters said:
I don't think the US has made any attempts to change the treaty since then. What would be the point? - it has already been written and signed, and unlikely to be changed after that. The time for negotiations is when the treaty is being drafted.
I thought there was provision for subsequent revisions, particularly with respect to the countries that should belong in Annex I.

A second review of subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall take place not later than 31 December 1998, and thereafter at regular intervals determined by the Conference of the Parties, until the objective of the Convention is met.

And let me rephrase an earlier question.

Many years after implementing a "Russ Climate Control Protocol", which of the two cases below do you see as closer to the steady state picture :

(i) All developed/developing countries emit at roughly the same gross rate, irrespective of size,

(ii) All developed/developing regions emit are roughly the same per capita rate.

PS : Going by current trends on emissions and GDP, by the time China reaches the gross emission rate of the US, it will have more than twice the US GDP.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
12K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
12K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K