Optimists' concerns about kyoto protocol (Russia)

[The Straight Story]

OPTIMISTS' CONCERNS ABOUT KYOTO PROTOCOL

MOSCOW (RIA Novosti commentator Tatyana Sinitsina) - Russia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol did not end the pointed discussion about the important international document, but rather added new twists and accents to it. The critics, the most consistent among whom is presidential economic adviser Andrei Illarionov, continue to harp on the immense risks and insist that minimizing the consequences for Russia should be concentrated on. Interestingly, the optimists also focus on the risks. For example, they already agree with pessimists that Russia is unlikely to earn much money by selling exotic goods like greenhouse gas quotas.

Russia received this new natural resource from a provision in the Kyoto Protocol. Even though this protocol was drafted in 1997, when Russia's industry was in a crisis, 1990, the last year the Soviet Union's powerful industry functioned, was chosen as the upper limit for greenhouse gas emissions. However, this advantage is increasingly loosing its value to Russia and has the potential of becoming meaningless because of the depreciation of "hot air" quotas.

The Europeans have said that there is no significant demand for Russian quotas in Europe and offered 3-4 euros per metric tons of CO2. "Quotas cannot be sold at this price," said Sergei Kurayev, an employee of the Russian Regional Environmental Center and a drafter and an active supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. In his opinion, a reasonable price range for the quotas is $20-$ 30 per metric ton, because otherwise it would be better to save the surpluses for Russia's industry. Alexander Bedritsky, chief of the Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Monitoring of the Environment, said, "we should not sell quotas, but care about our atmosphere."

Generally, the market for Kyoto Protocol quotas is not what the optimists expected. They hoped the profits from the sale of quotas could be used to modernize domestic production facilities, about 80% of which are obsolete. Now industrial facilities will most likely have to rely mainly on their own resources. Spending on new technologies and the introduction of new environmental standards will make production, and consequently, the prime cost of goods, more expensive.

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5219646&startrow=1&date=2004-12-16&do_alert=0

[Muzzle Tough]

1. Ah! Making money from emissions trading!

Most people don't know this, but Enron has always been a huge supporter of the Kyoto Treaty, because they would make giant profits from emissions trading.

And as your article seems to imply, isn't that the real purpose of the treaty?

All the computer models show that the treaty won't even have any significant effect on global temperatures. It's all about the profits from emissions trading.

Burning fossil fuels is soooooo 19th century. We need more nuclear power plants instead. France gets 80% of its eletricity from nucleaer power plants. And these plants are standardized designs that were actually designed and built in the USA. They are very safe and clean.

Sadly, most supporters of the Kytoto Treaty seem to be against nucleaer power. Again, it's all about the profits from emissions trading. If they really wanted to protect the environment, they would be in favor of nuclear power. Build enough new nuclear power plants, and the Kyoto Treaty would be rendered redudnant, and we wouldn't need emissions trading or the big Enron profits that would go with it.

More people are killed from coal emissions in just one year than have ever died from nuclear power plants in the entire history of their existence.