Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

On Truthfulness and Kyoto

Expand Messages
  • Eric Britton
    From: Stephen Plowden [mailto:stephenplowden@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 7:37 AM The most effective way to reduce emissions from road
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 7, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      From: Stephen Plowden [mailto:stephenplowden@...]
      Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 7:37 AM


      The most effective way to reduce emissions from road transport is
      through lower speed limits and more modest vehicle design.

      1. Set worldwide maximum road speed limit of 90 km/h

      2. Build cars with a top speed closely related to that and with much
      reduced powers of acceleration. (A London taxi takes about 24 seconds to

      accelerate from 0 to 60mph but can do all the manouvres, such as joining

      a motorway, for which a relatively high acceleration is required.) This
      requires regulation.

      3. Set a maximum weight for cars of each given carrying capacity and tax

      cars at the top of the range more highly than lighter ones of the same
      carrying capacity.

      These measures would be justified if there were no such thing as global
      warming, because of reductions in the number and severity of crashes
      and savings in non- renewable resources (also reduced noise etc).

      The benefits would come about in two ways: lower costs per mile and
      lower mileage because of the traffic-suppressing effects of reducing
      speeds and thereby increasing travel times. So the (alleged) need for
      road building would be reduced..

      Both developed and developing countries would benefit, but developing
      countries most, because of their huge and growing road safety problem
      and also because of the drain on their foreign exchange of buying
      vehicles and fuel.

      Can someone who is going to Montreal please put these points there?



      Paul Metz wrote:

      >1. TRUTHFULNESS
      >
      >Gabriel Roth makes a good point. It is, however, also fair to add the
      >perspective of that (in)famous 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution, which was
      passed
      >6 months before the Kyoto Summit. It is only in hindsight interpreted
      as a
      >rejection of the Protocol. The text clearly bases a rejection on the
      >assumption that participation in the Protocol would seriously harm the
      US
      >economy. The resolution failed to include a fair comparison with the
      costs
      >of non-action, aka business-as-usual.
      >
      >Today, we know that the Kyoto Protocol includes a planned participation
      of
      >developing countries by 2010 and we know much more about the costs of
      BAU
      >(oil scarcity, hurricanes, floods, .. see reports of Reinsurers) and
      >benefits of alternatives.
      >
      >An American government specialised in preemptive policies and
      programmes
      >would be very well positioned to convince Congress that Byrd-Hagel were
      >(perhaps) right in 1997, but that their resolution no longer is in the
      >national interest. Many research institutes have presented peer
      reviewed
      >economic impact studies that convince everyone else ...
      >
      >Many Parties now go to Montreal with the sincere intention to design an
      >attractive way for developing countries to accept responsibilities by
      2010 -
      >beyond the CDM-peanuts. Then the US will no longer have reasons to hide
      >behind China + G77.
      >
      >
      >Note - full text Byrd-Hagel, July 27, 1997: "Resolved, That it is the
      sense
      >of the Senate that--
      >
      >(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or
      other
      >agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
      >Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or
      thereafter,
      >which would--
      >
      >(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions
      for
      >the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also
      mandates
      >new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas
      >emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance
      period,
      >or
      >
      >(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States;
      and
      >
      >(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice
      and
      >consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a
      detailed
      >explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be
      required to
      >implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be
      accompanied by
      >an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the
      economy
      >of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of
      the
      >protocol or other agreement."
      >
      >
      >2. TECHNOLOGY or KYOTO ?
      >
      >For those of us going to the World Technology Summit this remark may
      help
      >them. The Kyoto Protocol is challenged by industry sectors and some
      >governments arguing that "Technologies will save the climate, not
      >Protocols". This is a good example of comparing pigs and diamonds. It
      is the
      >design objective of Kyoto to stimulate innovation and boost the use of
      the
      >many existing carbonefficient technologies by giving greenhouse gases a
      >price that reflects their emission scarcity. In Kyoto the EU proposed
      >policies & measures to achieve this, the US proposed a cap & trade
      approach.
      >You all know the outcome and many may share my surprise if a choice for
      >"technologies instead of emission trade" would be made for any other
      reason
      >than delay and sabotage. All proactive business leaders know that
      things
      >only change under pressure and fundamental changes affect
      competitiveness
      >and will never be made voluntarily - by individual companies nor
      countries.
      >Everyone agrees that "global problems require global solutions" and
      that "we
      >need a level-playing-field". We then have to accept that a global
      >level-playing-field can only be constructed under the UN. If not, we
      are not
      >honest and will not create the best conditions for business and
      citizens.
      >
      >Paul Metz
      >www.integer-consult.com
      >
      >
      >-----Original Message-----
      >From: Kyoto2020@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Kyoto2020@yahoogroups.com]
      >Sent: zaterdag 5 november 2005 12:13
      >To: Kyoto2020@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [Kyoto2020] Digest Number 58
      >
      >
      >_______________________________________________________________________
      _
      >_______________________________________________________________________
      _
      >
      >Message: 1
      > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 18:51:01 -0500
      > From: Gabriel Roth <roths@...>
      >Subject: Re: On Truthfulness and Kyoto
      >
      >The writer might have added that, although the
      >Kyoto treaty was not presented by President
      >Clinton to the US Senate for ratification, a vote
      >on it was in fact held there. Ninety five
      >senators voted not to approve that treaty and not
      >one member, Republican or Democrat, voted in
      >support. So it is not truthful to assign only to
      >President Bush the odium of opposing this treaty.
      >
      >
      >_________________________________________________________
      >The Kyoto 20/20 Cities Challenge: http://kyotocities.org
      >A single ambitious environmental objective for your city:
      >*** A 20% improvement in 20 months, and within budget. ***
      >
      >Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
      >(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
      >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
      -
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
      -
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >_________________________________________________________
      >The Kyoto 20/20 Cities Challenge: http://kyotocities.org
      >A single ambitious environmental objective for your city:
      >*** A 20% improvement in 20 months, and within budget. ***
      >
      >Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
      >(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.