European Moral Outrage?

To the editor,

I have been watching the furor over the Kyoto Treaty for some time now, but the debate is getting a little ridiculous. Europeans (and some Americans) are outraged that President Bush could "dare" to discard the treaty. They claim the United States is insulting its allies and ensuring the environmental destruction of the world.

Give me a break.

The problem with the Kyoto Treaty is NOT its goals; we all want a cleaner environment! The problem is that it can't possibly work the way it is written. The United States proposed a number of rational and realistic modifications that would have ensured the reduction in greenhouse gases worldwide while minimizing economic impacts, but they were blithely rejected by European nations who prefer to moralistically take "the high road".

In fact, most of the European countries that are so outraged at Bush's decision to ignore the treaty can't possibly meet the Treaty's targets themselves without torpedoing their own economies. Bush simply gave them a target at which to vent their moral outrage, while also providing them a "legitimate" reason to ignore the treaty themselves, much to their relief. None of them had ratified the treaty!

Once again the United States is being vilified for doing what everyone knew needed to be done. The Europeans will rant and rave for a few months about the "environmental catastrophe" the world faces. After that we can sit down and draw up a more realistic agreement that won't destroy our economies, but will benefit the environment in the long run.

Sincerely,

---

Transferring pollution to Developing Countries

To the editor:

There is a great deal of moral outrage over the decision by President Bush to opt out of the Kyoto Treaty. This seems odd to me, since the Treaty's flaws are obvious. For some reason no one has bothered to think about the horrific long-term effect it would have on developing countries. 

One of the basic underpinnings of the treaty is only the U.S. and other developed countries will be required to cut back on greenhouse gases. Underdeveloped countries, like China, have free reign to "poison themselves to prosperity;" they have no limits at all on their greenhouse gas emissions. Has anyone considered the long-term impact of this policy?

Could someone please explain how this benefits the environment?

The Kyoto Treaty would do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases, but it IS a serious threat to the environment of the world's poorest countries. We need a new treaty that will reduce pollution and greenhouse gases worldwide, not just in selected countries. Simply transferring our poisons from developed countries to lungs in the world's poorest is simply reprehensible.

Sincerely,

---

Unfair Trade

To the editor: 

While there are number of excellent reasons why it was a good move by President Bush to dump the flawed Kyoto Treaty, perhaps the strongest is in terms of fair trade. 

Already many industries are fleeing the United States to go to countries with weaker unions, lower wages, and a plentiful workforce. The Kyoto Treaty would have dramatically raised the cost of manufacturing in developed countries, making American firms even less competitive and putting American workers on the unemployment line.

Under the terms of the Treaty, companies based in developing countries would be able to utilize their inexpensive labor to produce cheaper goods than American companies, while enjoying a complete lack of restrictions and regulations on their levels of greenhouse gas emissions. This situation would harm American companies, the American economy, and even the global warming situation. It makes no sense.

Greenhouse gases should be on the international agenda, global warming is something we cannot ignore. But the Kyoto Treaty contained flaws that would have ensured that American firms would not be able to compete in the global economy, and consequently that the greenhouse gases levels would actually increase as a result in the shift of manufacturing to developing countries. Let's come up with a better plan that will reduce greenhouse gases worldwide, but doesn't hand the worst polluters unfair trade advantages on a silver platter. 

Sincerely,

---

Economic Devastation

To the editor: 

With our economy in what appears to be a structural slowdown, now is not the time to be playing with economic landmines like the Kyoto Treaty. We need to recognize that this Treaty would have seriously impaired our economy; just at a time it is facing a slowdown. The results would have been catastrophic.

Under the Kyoto Treaty the costs of reducing our greenhouse gas production would have been horrendous. While no model is perfect, a number of studies have indicated that U.S. GDP would fall by between 2 and 4 percent per year as a result of the Treaty. In dollar terms, we are talking between $100 billion and $400 billion - that is not chump change even for the U.S. economy. 

Even more shocking is that studies indicated that under the Kyoto Treaty the United States alone would be paying for two-thirds of the worldwide costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While it is important that the United States actively participate in solving the global warming problem, the costs should be spread around so that the largest economy in the world is not undermined by unfair burdens.


We do need to reduce greenhouse gases, that much is clear. But strong economies are needed as well to be able to cover the costs involved in reducing pollution levels. The Kyoto Treaty needs to be redrafted in ways that allow more flexibility and market-friendly solutions. Reducing greenhouse gases is important, but there are better ways to do it than decimating the American economy.

Sincerely,

---

Improving Kyoto?

To the editor:

President Bush's decision to withdraw the United States from the Kyoto Treaty has all but ended the Treaty as an effective instrument of controlling greenhouse gases. But in truth, the treaty was of marginal environmental utility, and due to inherent flaws would have caused disproportional economic misery. We need to come up with a Kyoto "sequel", one that corrects the fatal flaws of the original.

First and foremost, we need to look at the real economic cost; this was obviously the Kyoto Treaty's greatest failing. Yes, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we cannot cripple the worldwide economy doing it. Realistic target levels and gradual timetables would allow companies to plan their adjustments well in advance. Mandated reductions on short notice are unnecessarily expensive and harmful. They also result in countries like the United States backing out.

Finally, the sequel to the Kyoto Treaty needs to apply to all countries fairly. In the current Treaty, developing countries have license to spew greenhouse gases at will. With the sequel, developing countries have an inherent advantage since they pollute less per person, and often have large tracts of undamaged forestland. But they are handled under the same rules as developed countries. Therefore a carefully designed pollution credit scheme would favor less developed countries and provide critical development funds for actually preserving their most beautiful areas.

The Kyoto Treaty suffered from fatal flaws, but, unlike movies, President Bush can make a better sequel.

Sincerely, 

---