NYC Letter: Global Air Biscuits

Early this year (02.16.05) the Kyoto Protocol ("KP") goes into effect, largely because Mr. Putin signed onto M. Chirac's multipolar welcome wagon.

On 18 November 2004, Russia deposited its instrument of ratification with the United Nations. This marked the start of the ninety day count down to the entry in force of the Kyoto Protocol, an international and legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gases emissions world wide.

However, there had been notorious disagreement in his government.

[Andrey Illarionov, Economic Adviser to President Putin,] stressed that government agencies had to make responsible decisions based on scientific knowledge, not on faith. “We have received no single argument in favor of this document except political pressure. No link has been established between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. No other objective facts have been presented in recent time. The IPCC’s reports in 1990 and 1995 show it clearly.”

Economic reasoning provided by the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol is also untenable because, according to Mr. Illarionov, Russia will exceed limits established by the document, not later than in 2010. “If we develop at the same rate as over the past five years, we will exceed this level in 2009. If we develop at a rate necessary to double the GDP within ten years – a goal set by President Vladimir Putin, - we will reach this level in 2008,” the Economic Adviser said.

“We are close to a consensus that the Kyoto Protocol does huge economic, political, social and ecological damage to the Russian Federation. In addition, it certainly violates the rights and freedoms of Russian citizens, and well as the rights and freedoms of citizens in those countries which … signed and ratified it,” he stressed. (See Update, below.)

But things change. Mr. Putin gambles little -- KP Article 27§1.2 bailout provisions commit no party to more than a 4-yr. trial -- and gains much because of KP Article 6, which allows for selling 10% of any reserve below a party's emission quota.

Russia may net $1 billion to $3 billion by selling quotas of releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere allowed to it by the Kyoto protocol, Vsevolod Gavrilov, deputy director of the Economic Development Ministry's Material and Land Relations and Nature Use Economics Department, told Interfax on Monday.

Actually the whole of the KP is an amazing hodge-podge of jury-rigged workarounds all conveniently available for purchase. It was while reading about one such clean development mechanism ("CDM") scheme that we were alerted to some of the most prodigious, iniquitous, and unapologetically persistent world polluters, who, needless to say, have no intention of signing on to the KP. Not now, not ever.

We are talking about cows:

Each cow emits 200 to 400 quarts of methane gas per day, or 50 million metric tons per year

(See second article here) “One desperate study, done in Manitoba and posted on ManureNet, suggests that cattle should take drugs to stop farting. According to this study, dairy cows that had an additive called monensin mixed into their diets farted up to 28 percent less, according to scientists, who claim to have actually measured. Trouble is, "the impact has not been (as) long lasting," as scientists had hoped. Other ideas suggested by scientists include pumping cattle full of anti-farting hormones, such as Bovine somatotropin, which cut down on methane emissions by nine percent. But even the most ardent anti-farting scientists on the Kyoto payroll are skeptical about jacking up cattle on hormones, just to make them more polite."

Pigs:

(From CFP article, above) "Ottawa's high-stakes race to solve the problem of musical cattle--reminiscent of the grandeur of John Kennedy's Apollo project, or the search for the polio vaccine--has electrified the country. It has also polarized the electorate, with both pro-and anti-farting factions making themselves heard.

"On the anti-farting side proudly stands Environmental Defence Canada, an eco-activist group dedicated to fart-free living. In October 2002, they released a scathing 37-page report called It's Hitting the Fan--pointing out that cattle and pigs nearly outnumber people in Canada, and all of those animals are farting--creating "foul odours", "toxic vapours" and even cause "headaches". Who could argue with that?"

And termites:

Termites release an estimated 176 billion pounds of "greenhouse gas" [scil., methane] per year.

Of course we make fun. But we make fun because the KP is an easy object of fun with its hysterical science and its empty enforcement and its "gas be gone" wand wave. The complaint of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ("UNFCCC") is with a 0.6° C (33.08° F) increase since the late 1800s, yet it only aspires to restore the world to 1990 emission levels, minus a 5% reduction. If the UNFCCC's forecast is accurate -- another 1.4° to 5.8° C (34.52°-42.44° F) increase by the year 2100 -- then the KP is underambitious by a factor of what? Ten? And for all its straining science, the UNFCCC assures us global warming is not a scientific problem:

Global warming is a "modern" problem -- complicated, involving the entire world, tangled up with difficult issues such as poverty, economic development, and population growth.

This is a heads up to expect world-scale wand waves for poverty, economic development, and population growth from this huddle of internationalists. We recall the internationalists were the same folk who in the 80s warned us about imminent global cooling.

The KP is supposed to be the "teeth" fitted to the original "toothless" UNFCCC, but the KP itself has been kitted out with a series of dentures: the Buenos Aires Plan of Action; the Bonn Agreements on the Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action; and the Marrakesh Accords. This is quite a dental work-up.

And what is the result of all this dentation? This:

In the case of compliance with emission targets, Annex I Parties are granted 100 days after the expert review of their final annual emissions inventory has finished to make up any shortfall in compliance (e.g. by acquiring AAUs, CERs, ERUs or RMUs through emissions trading). [The UNFCCC is rife with acronyms.] If, at the end of this period, a Party’s emissions are still greater than its assigned amount, it must make up the difference in the second commitment period, plus a penalty of 30%. It will also be barred from "selling" under emissions trading and, within three months, it must develop a compliance action plan detailing the action it will take to make sure that its target is met in the next commitment period.

Oh, ouch. Yes, if some poor Annex I Party is having trouble achieving its emissions target, well, obviously piling on the difficulty will get the job done.

Is the stewardship of Earth an obligation on nations? Yes. But this ginned up crank treaty is not good stewardship. It is a lot of self-fascinating motion.

UPDATE 01.03.05:

Andrei Illarionov, who last week said the Kremlin efforts to censure the public would eventually spark mass protests, was stripped of his responsibilities as Russia's envoy to the Group of 8 industrial nations, the Kremlin said.

Illarionov called last month's Kremlin-orchestrated auction of Yukos' main production unit the "fraud of the year" and said the government's actions "have inflicted a colossal damage to the country."

He also is a longtime critic of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, which Russia ratified this fall.

Posted by Damian at January 3, 2005 07:11 AM