Re: US Steel sues for quotas, Volume 11, Number 10, March 14 - March 20, 2005
Are you not concerned that the cost of compliance [with the Kyoto Protocol] will be too high, relative to the actual benefit to the environment? I mean let's not forget that the objective is to find a solution.
If "establishing a process" is going to be this drawn out, this limited in its scope and effect, and unfortunately, this expensive, then what will the solution look like? If the problem is as dire as we are led to believe by the Birkenstok-clad Greenpeace nutters, then why would you ever want to entrust an EU-style bureaucracy to fix it?
The hope that falling on a knife will show the developing world how serious the problem is seems a bit of a non-starter for me. Their [the US'] number one goal is to wipe out poverty. In other words, all they care about is profits and if the weather gets a bit loopier or London floods, who cares? They will have lifted half the world's population out of poverty.
The politics behind getting Kyoto to come into effect are farcical or sickening depending on your level of cynicism. The Russians come on board because the EU will buy their emissions' credits.
Moral leadership in this case is as useful as a peashooter against a charging rhino, because there is no way to force anyone who is not a signatory to comply.
Who cares about the next round? The US does not need to jump on board now to shape the protocol. All it needs to do is link up with just one big emitter, say China or Japan, and it can drive the process.
21. Mar 2005 at 0:00