There's
troubling news (FT subscription reqd, alternate copy
here)
coming from Japan, where the Kyoto protocol on Greenhouse Emissions was born in 1997. It seems that the Japanese aren't going to be able to meet their emissions targets specified in the agreement in time. Indeed, unless they buy a "large quantity" of emissions credits from other countries, they're not going to be able to meet their commitment at all.
Taishi Sugiyama, a climate expert at the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry in Japan, said emissions were rising 1 per cent a year due to a larger-than-expected impact from vehicles and households. That made it impossible to cut real domestic emissions by the required 16 per cent within a few years, he said.
Is this the last nail in the coffin for the Kyoto protocol? And if so, which way do we go when it's buried? Was GWB right to pull out, and where will John Kerry take us, in either case?
While the Bush administration was roundly criticized for their retraction from and refusal to abide by the Kyoto agreement, this latest news makes it clear that the agreement does, in fact, set its sights too high. While admirable in it's goals, it has proven much less than achievable in its ends, and not just for the Japanese. So, while the Bush Administration has been justified at some level, in their skepticism about the Kyoto agreement, it's clear, even to
lifelong Republicans, that the Bush administration's environmental policy is
driven by much more than just honest skepticism.
Russell Train, who headed the EPA under Presidents Nixon and Ford, called the Bush administration's environmental record over the past four years appalling and filled with paybacks to special interests.
[...]
Bush's domestic policies favour voluntary reductions by industry and moves to cleaner fuels and fuel-burning technologies.
Now consider John Kerry - his views on Climate Change are expressed in a
recent interview
with Nature Magazine. John Kerry won't be signing up for the Kyoto Protocol either, he has long recognized that the short-term goals are unfeasible, and
voted for
the Interior Dept's funding bill (HR 4578) in 2000 which forbade any funds to be used to implement the Kyoto protocols. Yet, Kerry will be looking for an alternative with achievable targets. He'll
resume the international negotiations,
with a more reasonable and pragmatic approach, and he's promised to match the efforts of other countries to cut emissions.
While both candidates have recognized the Kyoto protocol as unreachable, opposition to Environmental issues is clearly not a "badge of honor" for John Kerry, as it is for many, many Republican members of congress - and the Bush administration itself. The reasonable and pragmatic approach for John Kerry may not include Kyoto, but probably won't continue to trust Big Industy to do the right thing voluntarily, either.