Transcript Debunking key Kyoto mythologies

Popular Political Claims
About Kyoto:
Truth or Mythology?
Christopher C. Horner
Prague
31st May 2007
This is America’s Kyoto Position
Strange, I don’t see the name Bush anywhere…

The US will not seek Kyoto ratification without China,
India, et al; because otherwise one merely exports
emissions, even further transferring wealth

Well…Guess Who Established this Test?

First, a unanimous US Senate (11th July 1007, 95-0)

Then, none other than Al Gore: “‘As we said from the
very beginning, we will not submit this agreement for
ratification until key developing nations participate in this
effort,’ Gore declared.” CNN, 11th December 1997
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/
Some Legalisms About
US Treaty-making Policy





The President merely signs treaties
The Senate must approve them, by a 2/3 vote
Protocol has it that the President asks the
Senate to sign those signed treaties that he
actually does want to join
Still, there is nothing prohibiting the Senate from
voting on – approving, or rejecting – a signed
treaty without being asked
In short, if the US signed Kyoto, it would be the
Senate responsible for approving or blocking it
We did sign Kyoto.
On 12th November, 1998.
This has nothing to do with George Bush.




Having agreed to the treaty on 11th December
1997, 801 days of the Clinton presidency passed
with no suggestion that the Senate vote on it
The reason: The “Gore Test” was not met
Bush simply continued the Clinton-Gore policy
against seeking Senate ratification
The US didn’t withdraw, as claimed, either but
continued sending huge delegations to the talks
UN Administration
UN Reform
and Budget
Ambassador A. Peter Burleigh
Chargé d'affaires, a.i. of the United States Mission to the United Nations
Statement on Signing of the Protocol to the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol)
November 12, 1998
USUN PRESS RELEASE #206 (98)
November 12, 1998
CHECK TEXT AGAINST DELIVERY
Statement by Ambassador A. Peter Burleigh, Chargé d'affaires, a.i. of the United States Mission to the United Nations, on
Signing of the Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Kyoto Protocol), at the United Nations,
Nov. 12, 1998.
On behalf of the United States, I have just signed the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. By signing the Protocol, the U.S. Government reaffirms its commitment to work with countries from around the world to
meet the challenge of global warming. We are guided by the firm belief that signing will serve our environmental, economic, and
national security goals.
We recognize that further work needs to be done in a number of areas, including participation by key developing countries and
defining the rules and guidelines of measures such as international trading and the clean development mechanism. By signing
the Protocol, we ensure our ability to continue playing a strong role in completing the work in these important areas.
Yesterday in Buenos Aires, Argentina announced that it would voluntarily take on a binding emissions target in the same time
frame as the United States and other developed countries. We applaud Argentina's leadership as the first developing nation to
make such a pledge.
If you have further questions, I would refer you to the delegation in Buenos Aires, headed by Undersecretary of State Stuart
Eizenstat.
Thank you.
*****
The Senate could have ratified Kyoto pre-Bush,
and it could vote on the treaty tomorrow.
It won’t. Ever.

Bush merely acknowledging reality was all that changed, and what led
to the bombastic EU rhetoric, threats of trade wars, etc.

It didn’t help that most journalists are apparently unable or unwilling to
actually look beyond rhetoric and into the facts of the matter.

No president will seek ratification of Kyoto, or a more stringent Kyoto II

And no US Senate will approve such a pact.


Maybe it is time for Europe to come to grips with this, stop
mischaracterizing things, and stop telling its Member States to hold on,
the US will join the misery once that mean Bush leaves office.
This is only leading to the EU unilaterally demanding a continuation of
the failed Kyoto scheme, post-2012. This will prove costly to you.
Now, Europe’s Realities

Since Kyoto was agreed (1997), EU emissions have
risen 6 of the 9 years for which we have figures
(further, it serially revises its 1990 baseline emission level upward, 15 years after the fact!…one assumes
that this is in order to lessen its looming violation)




EU promised emissions would be down and dropping
Instead, EU emissions are up, and rising
The EU now demands a new, post-2012 “Burden
Sharing [sic] Agreement”…by December
This would end the free-ride for most, and it seems
certain that the cuts required will prove politically
untenable, that the demands will cause disruption
“Europe is the World Leader!”
The claim made is actually re: “reducing emissions” (!), not buying credits




…In making that particular claim, absolutely
Since Kyoto was agreed, EU carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions are up, and much faster than the US’s
And the gap is growing: EU CO2 emissions have
grown > 3x as fast as US’s since 2000
Ask the time, get the history of the watch:



“But since 1990…!”
Fine. But promise was made in 1997, and…(see next slide)
In addition to the baseline games, the EU rejected
the effort to make Kyoto “binding and enforceable”
[and the US should decide to join in a treaty to be the only ones bound?]
EU Performance
Here’s what “Global Leadership in Reducing Emissions” Looks Like
Latest Czech Projection to EU
As throughout Central/Eastern Europe, reduction only came via economic collapse
All sectors
120
100
93
92
80
76
75
73
2010
2005
2000
1995
60
1990
GHG emissions (base year=100)
140
Past trends
Projections with existing measures
Kyoto target
Projections with additional measures
Target with sinks
Emissions are Rising throughout the World
The few exceptions are largely those still trying to get their economy moving
Somehow Czechia Projects Massive Emission Reduction
The EU countries with the most historically flawed projections do not even try this anymore
Comparative Rates of Increase
So, Maybe Name-calling and Rhetoric Aren’t Enough?…
“The US is going it alone!”





Absolutely…along with 155 others representing
the majority of the world’s present and future
population, emissions and economic activity
All expressly reject Kyoto’s rationing
These countries are pursuing a technology path
Those who purport to accept Kyoto-style
rationing actually show by their actions that they,
too, reject actual emissions reductions
No Party is reducing emissions since Kyoto
Kyoto Realities: “Pride Goeth Before a Fall…”



No one new has joined, nor will they, barring offers
of even greater wealth transfer which further
exposing the treaty as being only that
With no new Parties “post-2012”, there are few to
no sources from whom Parties may buy “credits”
This forces the EU post-2012 to make actual
emission reductions – both costly and for which
the political will has yet to be found – as
renewables, JI and CDM aren’t enough
'I don't think it's within the power of human beings
to assure that the climate does not change' –
NASA chief Michael Griffin, yesterday





Nothing ever proposed would according to anyone
have, under any scenario or set of assumptions, a
detectable climate impact
Clearly it is promises not performance that matter
So long as restrictions on economic and individual
activity are imposed, that’s fine
In short, this isn’t about climate
If it were, then proposals made in the name of
we-must-act-now would actually rise to the level
of acting, not simply restricting and coercing
Post-2012 all countries expect they will get
special treatment to be spared paying the tab

Addressing the need for a post-2012 “Burden Sharing
Agreement” that assigns real cuts to countries previously
given a free-ride, German Chancellor Angela Merkel
“admitted that tough negotiations are still ahead. The
compromise would be a tough task. The beauty is,
Merkel said smiling, that each member state thinks
they're a special case. ‘That makes us all equal’”.
-- Der Spiegel, 9th March 2007


This increasingly looks like politicians seeking to put off an
embarrassment until a later date when someone else must
admit to it and repair the damage.
This is a game, not responsible policymaking or leadership.
Which Path? It’s Czechia’s Decision
“The EU is presently investing abhorrent sums in
expanding natural gas generating capacity and
the infrastructure. However, the reserves of (nonRussian) natural gas in Europe will be exhausted
within the next 10 years. Thus in 10 years' time
we will be 100% reliant on the dependability of
Russia and North Africa as energy suppliers.”
END
We Must Act Now!
It’s real-bad-here-now-a-moral-issue-we-must-act-now!!!!





Query: although every proposal out there has been
offered in the name of this claim, why has no one
espousing it ever dared offer anything that would under
any scenario, under any set of assumptions, according to
any champion, have a detectable influence on climate?
That is, that would rise to the level of “acting”?
Kyoto is the most aggressive proposal ever tabled
Kyoto’s proponents acknowledge no detectable impact
Clinton Administration said Kyoto would cost US up to 4%
of GDP – 5 times the cost of the Iraq War – every year
What to tell the cynic who says this appears simply to be
about attaining long-held policy goals at best, and wildly
expensive gesture politics at worst?
“Amerikanische Verhältnisse”

The Senate refuses to ratify the Kyoto rationing scheme





New EU line: “Bush’s successor would sign a new treaty!”



1998-2001 Republican controlled: NO
2001-2002 Democrat controlled: NO
2003-2007 Republican Controlled: NO
2007-?
Democrat controlled: Do not hold your breath
Even if true…so? Clinton signed Kyoto…it’s the Senate
In fact, no candidate – Clinton, McCain, or other – support Kyoto,
let alone a more stringent version than that Senate already refused.
“But California has agreed to do this!”


No. California agreed to much less (1990 levels, by 2020), with no
specifics but only telling an agency to “make it so”, with nothing
more to date.
“The law would be accurately labeled the Global Warming Wishlist
Act of 2006”, Prof. David Schoenbrod (frmr. NRDC), Wall Street Journal
5th April 2007
“Amerikanische Verhältnisse”
“Only 5% of the world’s population produces 25% of its (Man-made) GHGs!”




Query: does the US pay 5%, or 25%, of the UN’s budget?
Truth be told about this claim, with 5% of the world’s
population, the US produces somewhere below 25% of its
anthropogenic emissions …and above 25% of its wealth.
Compared to Europe, US produces more jobs with higher
wages, and enjoys an economy that is 42.5 percent
wealthier per person. Year after year, the US leaves Europe
farther behind not just economically but, now, in rate of
C02 increase: EU-15 emissions rising much faster.
While the US continues to emit more CO2 per person than
Europe – partly attributable to economic, geographic,
demographic and climatic differences – per dollar of
economic output, the US is improving much faster.
Press Statement
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC
May 6, 2002
International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
Following is the text of the letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan from Under Secretary of State
for Arms Control and International Security John R. Bolton:
"Dear Mr. Secretary-General:
This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty.
Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31,
2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this
letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty.
Sincerely,
S/John R. Bolton"
Released on May 6, 2002
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm
Signs to look for before leaping on
global warming regulation


The price of beachfront property falls
significantly (markets do work, you know)
Politicians and movie stars stop flying in
helicopters and private jets (Snowball, meet Hell…)
and, finally, when

Environmental activists recommend policy
changes to combat global warming that
they weren’t already in favor of
Czech emissions, from its April
2006 Report to the UNFCCC
Truth: No one wants to join this scheme
It is Europe that is “going it alone”, expensively and futilely
The Four Stages of EU Kyoto Policy Rehabilitation
Anger
Denial
Bargaining
Acceptance
„We are here“, between
Denial and Bargaining
US vs. EU
1990
1997
2000
2004
US
5013.45
5547.9 (+10.6%)
5815.5 (+16%)
5912.21 (+18%)
EU-15
3250.42
3263.13 (+.04%)
3376.41 (+3.9%)
3572.24 (+9.9%)
EU-25*
4132.79
4059.69
4039.57 (-2.3%)
4234.86 (+2.5%)
(-1.8%)
* This figure is less Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
1990
4132.79 + Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (working backward est. at 62Mmt)
1997
4059.69 + 18.11, 8.31, 16.21 (42.63)
2000
4039.57 + 16.15, 7.26, 13.19 (36.6)
2004
4234.86 + 18.23, 8.40, 13.23 (40.46)
Amazing how shutting some cold-weather
temperature stations can heat the planet
Here’s a plan: cool the planet by re-opening them
The Kyoto Emperor Has No Clothes
“Bush Squandered Post-9/11
Goodwill by Rejecting Kyoto!”




Pick your calendar – Julian, Gregorian –March 17
comes before September 11, every year. Including
in 2001.
Bush 43 merely reiterated the Clinton-Gore
position, which received no such lambasting.
This act cannot have somehow, a year later,
squandered the mythical “we’re all Americans now,
mon ami, with you in spirit and purpose!”
This, like so many similar canards, is merely an
excuse for anti-Americanism and certain behavior.
And a pretty poor one at that.
Total EU-15 greenhouse gas emissions in relation to the Kyoto target
(source: European Environment Agency, 2006)
“The Senate already voted Kyoto down”
Invoked to absolve the Senate, and demand Bush create something different





On July 11, 1997, the Senate unanimously
instructed the Clinton-Gore Administration
to not agree to Kyoto or such a pact
This was unsolicited Art. II, Sec. 2 “advice”
On December 11, 1997 the Administration
did so anyway, ignoring the advice
They signed it 11 months later
So, this is a great symbolic vote, but OTBE
Key Kyoto/Climate Change Political Myths
The cognoscente will insist upon fealty to and repentance for the
following truths we simply must confront in a world without Bush.
Instead of me-tooisms and a race to the bottom, a candidate should
embrace this issue, as neither too complex nor politically dangerous:






Bush made such a mess with his radical policy departure
The US “squandered post-9/11 goodwill by rejecting Kyoto”
The US is going it alone, is isolated, a rogue climate state
As climate criminals we are being left behind, we must
follow the lead of our moral superiors in Europe, etc.
“We must re-engage, and restore our image overseas…”
“We must act now, and my proposal does that”