Defending Good Science

February, 2005

The Kyoto Protocol is Dead

“Toast.”  “Done like Dinner.”  “Expired.”  “No longer among us.” 

Use any expression you want except “dearly departed.”  The Kyoto protocol is about to be read its last rites and sized for a casket.  And not a day too soon. 

It’s one thing to ‘commit’ to lowering levels.  Regulatory authorities around the world are quickly discovering that it’s another thing entirely to doing something about it.  Officials are slowly starting to waken to the fact that Kyoto is costly, burdensome, and more importantly, completely ineffective.

The Canadians are looking at buying pollution credits to cover their emissions, rather than force their industries to comply with the term of the agreement.  Apparently, it’s easier to regulate and then spend tax dollars than force compliance.  It’s a move which has led some international observers to predict that Canada (along with Japan and Russia) will drop out.

Canadians aren’t the only ones having issues forcing a reduction in greenhouse gasses.  While the outward goals of the Kyoto protocol may or may not have been laudable, actual execution is proving to be nothing more than a pipe dream.   

The USA has never signed unto the agreement, saying it won’t put their industry at risk.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has long opposed the Kyoto protocol.  China and India – two of the largest polluters on earth, are exempt, but both on record as opposing future greenhouse gas emissions caps.

The government of Italy has broken ranks with the rest of the European nations and announced it will not renew their Kyoto commitments when renewals are due in 2012 – believing the international agreement is useless.  The defection of Italy came as a shock to the unanimous resolve of the other European Union nations. 

The number of countries backing the protocol is dropping off the roster like leaves in autumn.  If Kyoto was based on good science, the countries willing to pay the price is shrinking.  But now, even the science backing the protocol is under attack itself… for good reason. 

The international scientific community has been thrust into a debate on the merits of the science itself.  The controversy lies over the “Hockey Stick Model” which claims to plot global temperatures back 1,000 years. The line is more or less flat until about 1900, when it starts to curve sharply upward, forming the blade of the hockey stick – and the core justification for the Kyoto Protocol.   

But scientists (and "Defending Good Science" subscribers) Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre have proven that the mathematical model was flawed.  Their case proving that the hockey stick is nothing more than junk science has been published in “Geophysical Research” – a well respected scientific journal – giving researchers a legitimate platform to debunk the original Kyoto model. 

What’s likely to happen to the Kyoto protocol?  Not much, at least right away. The global economy will continue to grow.  But, one day a number of key bureaucrats will wake up and decide to focus on the next junk science issue rather than the Kyoto protocol. 

Junk science issues never run away – they sneak away quietly in the night.  Let’s hope this time that while it’s slinking away that it falls into the open grave awaiting it.

Link of the Month

Junk Science & Bureaucracy

What do you do when the group you represent is threatened by a comprehensive, science based study?  Apparently, you attack the government organization examining the results

Barb Mikkelson over at Snopes gives a great summary of the issue - The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is concerned over a study examining long term effects of pesticides.

Rather than debate the science, the OCA is attacking the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before the study even comes out - by claiming that the EPA will be paying low-income families to willingly expose their children to pesticides!

In reality, as Snopes so eloquently points out, anyone living in the particular study zone is going to get the same amount of exposure whether the EPA studies them or not.  But apparently, that doesn't faze the Consumer's Association, who continue to maintain the fight.

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Talk To Us!

Bad things can happen to good companies.
When it happens, the smart companies call Checkmate Public Affairs.

Checkmate Public Affairs specializes in ‘Defending Good Science.’  We manage issues.  And we deliver results, because we love what we do, and are fanatic believers in mind-blowing customer service.   

Checkmate is dedicated to assisting corporations with science-based risk & crisis communications and issues management.   We are a small firm with a niche practice – which means we aren’t loaded with the overhead and complicated structures of many big agencies.

Visit the "Defending Good Science" blog, for a light-hearted look at junk science issues throughout the month...

Jeff Chatterton, President
Checkmate Public Affairs

Phone (519) 342-0025
Tollfree (877) 284-7952
Fax (519) 342-1221

Sign up for the "Defending Good Science" newsletter by clicking here.