SOUNDING OFF:Treaty not environmental solution

On Feb. 6, the City Council reviewed a U.S. Conference of Mayors agreement that essentially endorses the Kyoto Treaty.

I opposed the agenda bill, as the Kyoto Treaty is deeply flawed. It is very hard to understand that emissions from developing countries such as China and India are exempt from the Kyoto Treaty.

The Al Gore movie [“An Inconvenient Truth”] states that 30% of CO2 emissions come from the burning of wood. The populations of China and India totaled 2.4 billion people in 2006, or 37% of the world’s population. They have a tremendous amount of people living in appalling poverty. As they prosper, burning wood, deforestation and population growth should decline.

However, if the City Council members believe the dire predictions of “An Inconvenient Truth,” they should do much more:

The City Council might also consider not heating or air conditioning city facilities unless absolutely necessary. They might also consider planning how to protect Laguna Beach if there is a substantial increase in the ocean’s sea level.

Regarding the Kyoto Treaty: On Nov. 6, 2004, the Washington Post wrote an editorial that included: “The United States would find compliance with the [Kyoto] treaty extremely expensive. Meeting the targets … almost certainly [would] reduce economic growth.

Yet even advocates concede that the treaty will have virtually no effect on global warming. It makes no sense to sign a mostly symbolic treaty, to pay a huge economic cost and to get only a negligible environmental gain in return.”