LAST GASPS

On Newsnight yesterday Kirsty Wark introduced an item on the latest environmental summit with a throwaway reference to the "famous or infamous" Kyoto Treaty. For a moment, I thought she meant the BBC was about to start re-thinking its house policy. But no. In today's Times, on the other hand, Bronwen Maddox - an analyst who sees both sides of the argument - adds another obituary to the pile published elsewhere:

The best way forward now is not a "successor" to Kyoto, which covers the years until 2012. Another treaty that attempted to set fixed targets for cutting emisssions could be economically very damaging — in the unlikely event that countries ever reached agreement.

The better answer is in the plethora of bargains between a handful of rich and poor countries, which some are already exploring. It is also in the development of new technology to combat global warming, and in deals to spread these quickly to poorer countries.

Although the FT hasn't given up on the Treaty just yet (The jury is still out...) Philip Stott is definitely looking forward to the funeral:

At Montreal, there will be an enormous amount of cynical hot air expended in 'praising' the long-moribund Kyoto corpse. Nevertheless, the Kyoto Protocol will be buried as surely as Caesar... and it is most unlikely that a Son of Kyoto will rise, ghost-like from the chilly grave. Indeed, the sooner we put a stone cap over this coffin, the better (now that's what I call "capping" emissions).

Roger Simon, once a card-carrying member of the Sierra Club, sheds no tears either.

SHOCK HORROR UPDATE: A Canadian mauls Kyoto as well! (And I don't mean Mark Steyn.)

Plus an interesting aside in this BBC guide to the Montreal conference:

Although the US and Australia have pulled out of the Kyoto process, their emissions have risen less than some nations which remain within the treaty.

Comments

[drtony]

How could the US pull out of a treaty that it never ratified to begin with.

[Clive D]

Well, I suppose "process" is a looser term than "treaty".

[Rob "Cynic" Read]

When Kyoto falls apart more publically, do you think we shall see the MSM praising the Clinton regime's foresight?

Or is that just TOO cynical?

[AST]

The economic effects of a crash program to cut CO2 emissions are too dire to allow that to happen.

That's the dirty secret that no environmentalists want to admit. The Kyoto treaty wouldn't affect the worst polluters but it would hurt the developed nations and product little or no change in the CO2 levels.

Whether we like it or not, we're in the midst of a big experiment with our climate, but remember that the earth has been through it all before. People adapt. Our prosperity may be destroyed by rising sea levels, but whatever happens, we will survive. I predict that we'll figure out how to tap the methane hydrates on the ocean bottoms for fuel. If we don't they'll eventually be released into the atmosphere.

I'd be more impressed by the claims of global warming if they were based on actual, physical models rather than computer ones, but so far physical models like the Biosphere haven't shown that we know that much.