Kruse Kronicle

Jesus’ Kyoto Accords Parable

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

And Jesus said,

"What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, 'Son, go and sign the Kyoto Accords to reduce CO2 Emissions.'  He answered, 'I will not'; but later he changed his mind and between 1997-2004 he kept his emission growth to 6.6%. The father went to the second son and said the same; and he answered, 'I will sign the Kyoto Accords, sir'; but he let his emissions grow 21.1%. Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." (Matthew 21:28-31, loosely translated)

(Emission increases 1997-2004: Worldwide = 18%; Kyoto Signers = 21.1%; Kyoto non-Signers = 10%; U.S. = 6.6%)

Comments

13 responses to “Jesus’ Kyoto Accords Parable”

  1. Brad Cooper Avatar
    Brad Cooper

    Michael,
    I love the use of this parable to make the point. Bingo! 🙂 It really does matter what we do and not what we say we are going to do.

    Reply
  2. Denis Hancock Avatar
    Denis Hancock

    Nuclear power looks better and better, doesn’t it? In fact, I have heard rumblings that the traditional anti-nuclear activists are starting to shift a little in their positions.
    That is one thing I would like to see in tabular form — a comparison of the effects of nuclear generation on the numbers that we have been seeing.
    The spreadsheet that the American Thinker linked to showed the US with what seemed to be a disproportionate number of metric tons of CO2 emissions, but failed to show a per capita amount. I suspect the US would be a little high there, as well, but it will get around the geographical disparities that we see using percent increase as the benchmark.
    Even so, the comparison of Kyoto/non-Kyoto countries that the American Thinker showed was impressive. And for the US to be below industrialized countries that DID sign Kyoto says a great deal.

    Reply
  3. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Thanks Brad. I’m sure not all my readers share my sense of humor. 🙂
    Denis, it is ironic that Margaret Thatcher dumped money into global warming science back in the 1980s because she wanted to make the case for going nuclear. The Greens were blocking her efforts. Now because the Greens have totally embraced global warming, we are about to go nuclear. It is a strange world.
    I loved this artile about Green Nuclear from April 2006 New Age Nuclear. I think there is some promise in nuclear energy.

    Reply
  4. Rob Decker Avatar
    Rob Decker

    Michael:
    These are interesting numbers. It would be interesting to compare them to the Kyoto targets.
    Do you know what the target was for the US, and for other nations? I know it wasn’t the same for all nations.
    Did any nation meet their target? Are there consequences?
    It was disappointing to hear the rhetoric coming from the Bali conference, not only from attendees, but also from news outlets. I get very concerned when I see this kind of demonization coming from anywhere, as it often is the first step onto a slippery slope of authoritarianism. And that’s true whether it’s the “right” or the “left.”
    Rob

    Reply
  5. Rob Decker Avatar
    Rob Decker

    Michael:
    On the American Thinker site that you linked to, they provide a link to the US Census number for 1980 to 2004 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s1317.xls).
    But, these numbers don’t add up to only 6% increase for the US carbon emissions.
    Based on those numbers:
    US Carbon Emmisions (Millions of Tons)
    1980 = 1,297;
    2004 = 1,612;
    Growth 1980 to 2004 = 24.3%
    Were the 1997 numbers that different?
    Am I doing something wrong with my math?
    There may be a problem in quoting their numbers.

    Reply
  6. Rob Decker Avatar
    Rob Decker

    Who was it who said there are lies, damned lies, and statistics?
    The UN numbers on greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 – 2004 are here:
    http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/ghg_table_06.pdf
    They tell a different picture, with the US up 15%. And I’d really be interested to see where American Thinker got their numbers, since I’ve seen it around the web a fair amount in the last week. But the chart on their site isn’t consistent with the numbers.
    Hmmmmmmm.

    Reply
  7. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Rob, I don’t have any article that tabulates how other nations have done compared to targets. Since the US was not a part of the agreement I don’t know that there was a target. I think the general idea was to get global emissions below 1990 levels. I have seen press reports over the last couple of years with nation after nation reporting they would not meet their goals. I’d have to do some digging to be more specific.
    The American Thinker article and my parable use 1997, not 1980, as the baseline. 1997 was when the accord was signed. The idea is to evaluate what impact the accords had. Thus, the numbers are right for 1997-2004.

    Reply
  8. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    A third comment sneaked in while I was commenting. I went back to the American Thinker chart and all the numbers are consistent:
    1980-2004 = 24.3%
    1990-2004 = 18%
    1997-2004 = 6.6%

    Reply
  9. Rodger Sellers Avatar
    Rodger Sellers

    I can’t speak to the stats… and not even sure that I’d want to since I share Rob’s thinking above. But instead of the stats, I’m curious about the “parable” itself, particularly: “He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and between 1997-2004 he kept his emission growth to 6.6%.”
    Here’s my question, since “we” are (I suppose) this first son: HAVE we REALLY “changed our minds?” Not sure I see that. Not sure at all.
    Granted, analogies can only go so far, but the parable assumes a whole lot more than I see in our government (or population as a whole.)

    Reply
  10. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Rodger, I’m mostly reacting to the characterization in the press that because the US has not signed the accord they are by inference kicking out CO2 at unrestrained levels. Not true. My point is less about the US than about the those doing the finger pointing. Maybe I should have used the “take the log out of your own eye” parable. 🙂
    As you probably know, I’m not persuaded that CO2 is that big a threat but I go along with taking prudent actions. Could the US be doing more? Certainly. That is tradeoff question between other priorities. Is the US doing enough? Maybe not. But it is true that the US is doing as well or better than most of the rest of the world and signing the accord is no magic solution as we have seen with other nations who have already signed.
    A little less demonizing and whole lot more problem solving would be much better IMO.

    Reply
  11. Rodger Sellers Avatar
    Rodger Sellers

    Take all the CO2 out of your own eye before you come after the log of our coal power plants?
    Yeah, that one might preach! 🙂 (Especially in Mandarin!) I’m ready to hear your version of it!
    RPS

    Reply
  12. Jason Barr Avatar
    Jason Barr

    That’s a pretty interesting parable.
    I don’t want to overanalyze it, after all it’s a rather simple statement and could easily be distorted or taken as a more absolute statement than it seems to me that it is, but it is worth mentioning that citing percentages without reference to the absolute numbers can easily provide a very misleading picture. 6.6% of 1,000,000 is quite a bit more than 21% of 1000, for example (numbers only for example’s sake, not taken from any actual, empirical study).
    But the point is well-taken.
    Having written several papers for courses on the science of the greenhouse effect and the effects of human CO2 contributions to atmospheric conditions I’m pretty firmly convinced that it is a threat (all that’s really necessary is for us to produce enough to tip the balance in favor of a positive feedback effect). However, I am not convinced that the threat from human carbon production is equal to the threat of the potential for authoritarian policies to come from these conferences. It seems to me to be fundamentally a matter of which faction will be in control of the authoritarian system – the “left” or the “right” (I recognize neither term is really sufficient to describe what’s going on, but for the sake of brevity I’m drastically oversimplifying).

    Reply
  13. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    LOL. Rodger, don’t get me going on parable rewrites. I think I’m already in danger of a few lightening bolts headed my way. 🙂
    Thanks Jason. It is that 6.6% increase on top of large amount but it is also true that holding growth to 6.6% while others could only hold their growth to 21% is significant achievement.
    I too share your concerns about authoritarian opportunism.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading