Japanese taxpayers stuck with Kyoto bill

IT HAS BEEN APPARENT for some time that the Japanese bought a flawed bill of goods in the Kyoto Protocol: It exempts China and India altogether, is based on the absurd premise that nations stop the growth clock at 1990 (populations didn’t stop growing), seems designed to economically hobble the developed world, and wouldn’t ameliorate the condition it was designed to prevent to begin with.

There has been a flood of research since the Protocol’s formulation showing it was based on junk science, that global warming is natural and cyclical, and that environmentalists have deliberately misled the public to exaggerate the risks of global warming.

The latter alone is enough to make a neutral observer suspicious; if it were such an open-and-shut case, environmentalists wouldn’t have to fudge the figures. Suspicions also are aroused by the environmentalists’ hysterical demonization of doubters.

Further, people tend to overlook the fact that global warming modeling is based as much on projections of economic activity–notoriously unreliable over the long term–as it is on the alleged science. The modeling also assumes that no technological advances will be made in the meantime.

Canada is starting to back away from its commitment. The legislature in that country ratified the treaty despite the calculations by a newspaper at the time that compliance would require the country to enact measures equivalent to the elimination of all domestic aircraft travel. (The statistics they used were those from the Canadian government itself.)

Japan and most of its public has bought into the environmentalists’ position, perhaps because there has been little in the way of public debate on the issue here compared to the Anglosphere. Now, as this Bloomberg report indicates, they’re going to have to pay for what they bought.

Japan, Italy and Spain face payments of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.
The three countries are the worst performers among 36 nations that agreed to curb carbon dioxide gases that cause climate change.

How much is Japan’s bill?

Italy and Japan each may owe about $13 billion, based on estimates by their governments and the current price for permits.

How did it happen?

Japan is missing milestones because road-transport emissions jumped 23 percent since 1990, and power and heat production gained almost as much, the Paris-based International Energy Agency data shows.

Also:

“They were all too optimistic about mitigation measures,” Milo Sjardin, a senior associate at London-based New Carbon Finance, an emissions research firm, said in an interview.”

Who’s going to pay?

Japanese taxpayers will pay for two-thirds of that nation’s excess, New Carbon Finance estimated, based on the current sharing between state funding and industry. The government of Japan has begun buying credits. It may consider introducing daylight saving time and emissions trading.

Despite its wealth, other factors will force Japan to face some hard economic choices. Its gross debt exceeded 170% of GDP in 2006. It has a rapidly aging population, with roughly 20% of the people aged 65 or older. The number of people paying for pension and health-care benefits is declining while the number of people receiving those benefits is rising, which is not an economically viable proposition.

Now you know why Japanese politicians are talking about when–not if–to boost the consumption tax. The misallocation of resources to satisfy the pointless conditions of the Kyoto Protocol will only make problems worse.

The Japanese government and public swallowed whole some very tenuous environmental claims, and now they’re stuck with the bill. Have they made the connection? Perhaps not:

Capping carbon emissions will be the focus of next week’s climate change conference on the Indonesia island of Bali, where delegates from 190 nations will gather to start talks on a new treaty after the Kyoto accord ends in 2012.

What’s going to stop them from buying into it again?

Endnotes: The Bloomberg article has a classic example of media disinformation.

U.S. President George W. Bush rejected the treaty.

Incorrect in essence and utterly irrelevant. This site is about Japan and not the U.S., but it’s worth examining the facts.

1. Former President Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol.
2. His signature was meaningless. It’s an international treaty and therefore requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate for American ratification.
3. Mr. Clinton knew the Senate would never ratify it, so he didn’t bother submitting it to them for their consideration. He signed it merely for the photo op and bloviating rights.
4. The U.S. Senate was not inclined to let sleeping dogs lie. It took up the issue of the Kyoto Protocol anyway by passing a resolution against it. The vote was 95-0. (The Senate has 100 members.)
5. Zero is a long way from the 67 votes needed to pass.
6. One of the Senators who voted against it was John Kerry. He later changed his mind during the 2004 presidential campaign.
7. In other words, Mr. Bush “rejected” a treaty that the U.S. was not a party to, and would not be a party to even if he supported it.

The Senate is still unlikely to approve the Kyoto Protocol or a new treaty even if the Democrats do well in next year’s elections. The media will have found a new whipping boy by then.

In the meantime, the U.S. is generally outperforming Europe, Japan, and Canada in limiting emissions, despite ignoring the Kyoto Protocol and posting stronger economic growth.

Also: Here’s more information debunking the “climate crisis”, with a .pdf file showing references and calcuations. Here’s a previous post with links to those who think the global warming problem is not a problem.

Finally, James Lileks wields some razor-sharp satire to point out how physically unattractive it is for environmentalist emperors to wander about without any clothes. “Now,” Lileks notes, “darkness is a sign of enlightenment.”