Bush, Kyoto, and the Environment

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That being said; we are wrong. The reason we take the biggest hit is two pronged. First, we are the world's biggest offenders... and we all know it. Second, the reason the other industrial Nations won't be hit as hard is because they've already taken greater steps in the right direction.

Depends on how you define 'offender'. We are the world's largest consumer of energy. However we also have the worlds highest economic output per unit of energy consumed. (BTW the worlds greatest consumers of energy per capita are our very liberal Canadian neighbors to the north.)

The "greater steps in the right direction" the other industrial countries of europe have taken are (1) much higher taxes on gasoline, and (2) much greater use of nuclear power (50% of electrical production vs our 20%). (Moreover Europeans are awash in lots of cheap natural gas from Russoa and Lybia. Our wacko environmentalists resist LNG importation to alleviate our relative shortage of this fuel.) I doubt that you would advocate we take these steps.

[

Your doubt is misplaced. I've advocated a $5 per gallon tax on gasoline since Ross Perot first proposed it as a solution to our gargantuan dept. We don't have a lack of technology to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels... we have a strong lobby who opposes the reduction. Some of our power plants are beyond disgusting, and there is NO EXCUSE for this.

Whether some scientists are over the top on their doomsday predictions or not is largely immaterial. Pollution, to a large degree, is the byproduct of apathy. I am 100% behind taxing fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate until production of "Green Energy" is the cheaper, more cost effective solution.
Our current position is simply, flat out, irresponsible.

How should Bush have handled Kyoto?

Was he right or wrong, and why?

How should Kerry handle Kyoto if he is elected?

How has Bush been doing with regards to the environment?

What needs to happen globally, if anything?

Found this article while doing some preliminary research, looks very interesting:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996494

(Extension of discussion from a debate thread.)

I don't think that either Kerry or any Democrat has or would ever advocate a $5/gal tax on gasoline. At least they are certainly not doing that now. (Contemplate the immediate effects on the economy.)

You are correct that we do have a technology to significantly reduce our dependence on some fossil fuels. The most important and promising of these is called nuclear power. The United States uses relatively far less of this source than nearly all developed nations. Do you advocate we use more of it?

Quote:

Whether some scientists are over the top on their doomsday predictions or not is largely immaterial. Pollution, to a large degree, is the byproduct of apathy. I am 100% behind taxing fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate until production of "Green Energy" is the cheaper, more cost effective solution.
Our current position is simply, flat out, irresponsible.

That is at least a self-consistent position. I believe it is unrealistic, both politically and economically.

It runs the risk of killing the economic goose needed for laying the golden technological eggs you seek. Indeed there is no guarantee that science will ever yield cleaner, more cost effective power sources.

We have some very good partial solutions immediately available - (1) Incentives for upgrading old coal fired power plants (producing roughly half of our electrical power); (2) Implementinf the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada and taking other steps to encouraging the development of more nuclear power plants in the country; (3) encouraging the construction of LNG terminals to suplement our supply of natural gas, The problem is that Kerry and the Democrats oppose all of these.

I guess you are left with fantasies about wind and solar power and hyrogen fuelled vehicles.

I guess you are left with fantasies about wind and solar power and hyrogen fuelled vehicles.

How should Bush have handled Kyoto?

Was he right or wrong, and why?

How should Kerry handle Kyoto if he is elected?

How has Bush been doing with regards to the environment?

What needs to happen globally, if anything?

Nonsense. We have the technology to develop alternative energy right now. The harder we try, the more cost efficient it will become. Plus, I don't think you've factored in the damage we are currently doing into your economic equation.

...This is where you lose me in rhetoric. Wind and Solar are not fantasies. In some locations, they are reasonable alternative sources of power. Why scoff? Personally, I think the greatest innovation will come from Hydropower… think about the Hoover Damn… and then consider the awesome power of the world's oceans. Ethanol isn't that inferior to gasoline and could easily be used more widely, true or false? Some of the improvements we are not currently making because of "economic excuses", just don't hold up to scrutiny.

Nuclear Power is immediately available, and, because it produces zero emissions, and consumes only slightly more capital over the life of the plant than alternatives, is enormously beneficial compared to all the alternatives. There are two generations of nuclear plant designs that have been perfected since the last plant was licensed in this country in 1979.

Wind and solar power now constitute less than 2% of our electrical power. Their operation is not as cost efficient as competing technologies and they both require lots of land, and present their own environmental side effects that are only rarely discussed. The most optimistic forecasts I have seen suggest they may double in output over the next decade. Hardly a significant contribution.

The U.S. has nearly exhausted its available sources of hydropower. Right now our dams produce about 6% of our electrical power and many of them are under attack by various environmentalists for their direct environmental side effects and effects on some fish species. We will be lucky to even hold this source at its present levels.

Hydropower is the most efficient way to generate electricity. Modern hydro turbines can convert as much as 90% of the available energy into electricity. The best fossil fuel plants are only about 50% efficient. (1)
In the U.S., hydropower is produced for an average of 0.85 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh). This is about 50% the cost of nuclear, 40% the cost of fossil fuel, and 25% the cost of using natural gas.

Recent data shows that in Wisconsin hydropower is produced for less than one cent per kwh. This is about one-half the cost of nuclear and one-third the cost of fossil fuel. (2)
Hydropower does not experience rising or unstable fuel costs. From 1985 to 1990 the cost of operating a hydropower plant grew at less than the rate of inflation. (1)
Only 2,400 of the nation's 80,000 existing dams are used to generate power. Installing turbines in existing dams presents a promising and cost-effective power source. However, in the last 10 years the Department of Energy has spent $1.2 billion on research and development for other renewable sources like wind, solar, and geothermal, but only $10 million on hydropower. (1)

Environment
· Hydropower is clean. It prevents the burning of 22 billion gallons of oil or 120 million tons of coal each year. (1)
· Hydropower does not produce greenhouse gasses or other air pollution. (1)
· Hydropower leaves behind no waste. (1)
· Reservoirs formed by hydropower projects in Wisconsin have expanded water-based recreation resources, and they support diverse, healthy, and productive fisheries. In fact, catch rates for gamefish like walleye and smallmouth bass are substantially higher on hydropower reservoirs than natural lakes.

Ethanol requires agriculture which itself consumes energy. The net environmental benefit is positive, but less than generally advertised. A substantial subsidy is required to make it acceptable. Where does the money come from and how much energy is consumed in producing it?

Nuclear Power is immediately available, and, because it produces zero emissions, and consumes only slightly more capital over the life of the plant than alternatives, is enormously beneficial compared to all the alternatives. There are two generations of nuclear plant designs that have been perfected since the last plant was licensed in this country in 1979. Simply raising our use of this power source to that of the UK would meet the goals of Kyoto. Why does Kerry oppose it?

Sozobe wrote:

How should Kerry handle Kyoto if he is elected?

When Kerry is elected, he should do what Bill Clinton did: Sign it, file it without sending it to Congress, but be polite about it to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, I expect that this is not what he'll actually do. I think he will actually push it in an effort to earn goodwill of the world before he asks for support in Iraq.

Sozobe wrote:

How has Bush been doing with regards to the environment?

I haven't followed his policies very closely, except for the Kyoto part. Judging by the accounts of people I trust, his environmental policies are similar to his policies on everything else. Strictly on principle, there's a good case for them -- especially for his "cap and trade" approach to reducing all kinds of harmful emissions. But he screws them up in practice, and he covers the screw-ups with ficticious advertizing. But as I said, I haven't looked at his "Clear Skies", "Healthy Forests", etc initiatives myself, so I don't actually know if these names are as Orwellian as they sound.

Quote:

What needs to happen globally, if anything?

"Don't just do something, sit there!" (Milton Friedman).

Most emissions, such as SO2, lead, and smut, are national, not international problems. The two global problems are Fluoro-Chloro-Hydrocarbons and CO2. For Fluoro-Chloro-Hydrocarbons, which are damaging the Ozon layer, current treaties are working quite well to reduce emissions). On CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, nothing should be done because while global warming is a problem, it isn't worth fixing given the cost of fixing it.

Can you explain a little more about the Kyoto Treaty to us Americans? I sort of thought it didn't really have much impact until Russia agreed to ratify it a few weeks ago. Until then, it didn't have much power behind the paper, kwim?

And maybe Bush was even right to walk away if he had nothing he thought would convince Russia to sign, but of course, that wasn't the reason he walked away from the treaty, was it? It was for what it meant to American interests, wasn't it?

Polluting countries can buy part of the percentage of poorer or conserving countries, but if (let's say Ghana) were to sell a polluter their excess polluting factor, eventually they would maybe have earned enough to want to pollute up to their own maximum, right? (Maybe I don;t quite understand how it works, but that's sorta kinda how, right?) It's all to put a cap on world emissions, right?