some statistics on Kyoto treaty compliance ...
(snip)"Next month, the greatest athletes in the world will visit Beijing for the Olympic Games. Undoubtedly they’ll set new records in plenty of sports.
But after the stars go home, China (which has cut back industrial production in an effort to clear the air ahead of the Olympics) will go back to setting a dubious record of its own: It’s the greatest emitter of carbon dioxide on earth.
China’s CO2 emissions rose 8 percent last year, after jumping more than 11 percent in each of the two previous years. According to a Dutch study, China alone accounted for two-thirds of the growth in global greenhouse-gas emissions in 2007, and its current lead over the United States in such emissions is only expected to grow.
Contrast that with our environmental record.
The U.S. government estimates that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions increased by just 1.6 percent in 2007, after dropping 1.5 percent the year before. The growth in our emissions is less than the growth of our Gross Domestic Product, meaning we’ve improved the economy while reducing the growth in our emissions.
And we’re doing that without being part of the Kyoto treaty.
That 1997 agreement requires the 37 countries that signed it to slash emissions by a combined 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But the treaty is a pipe dream. Instead of falling, the U.N. reported that such emissions are nearing “an all-time high.” Greenhouse gas emissions from the Kyoto signers increased 2.6 percent between 2000 and 2005.
Signing Kyoto may allow a country to claim it’s a good “global citizen,” but many of those citizens aren’t keeping their promises. The U.N. reports Kyoto signers Austria, New Zealand and Canada have all increased their emissions over 1990 levels -- by 14, 23 and 54 percent, respectively.
In fact, the U.N. admits that the only reason the world might meet Kyoto’s goal (a 5 percent reduction from 1990 emissions levels by 2012) is because the economies of so many Eastern European economies collapsed when the Iron Curtain fell. In other words, only a domestic recession will allow the planet to hit Kyoto’s target.
Lawmakers understand this point, too.
The Senate recently considered the Lieberman-Warner climate-change bill, which would have set a limit on the emissions of greenhouse gases, mostly CO2 from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. The bill would have mandated that emissions freeze at 2005 levels in 2012, then plunge. It demanded an unreasonable -- and probably impossible -- 70 percent reduction by 2050.
As energy analyst Ben Lieberman -- no relation to the author of the bill -- noted, “It is hard to think of any economic activity that does not involve energy, and there is not one that would not be made more expensive by Lieberman-Warner.” An assessment of the bill by Heritage Foundation experts showed it would slash our national GDP by at least $1.7 trillion by the year 2030.
Killing the economy for an -- at best -- 0.07 degrees Celsius reduction in global temperatures by 2050 (what Kyoto promises) makes no sense. Economic growth has lifted millions of people out of poverty. That’s why developing countries, including China and India, are scrambling to increase their growth rates, not diminish them. The U.S. can’t afford to cut our growth, either.
The United Nations is pressing all countries to approve a new Kyoto agreement. That pact is supposed to be signed in Denmark next year. But what’s the point of a new Kyoto, when the old one is useless?
Instead of making vague promises, we should focus on proven policies.
We can reduce pollution by generating growth. No one wants to live on a dirty planet, but only people with high enough standards of living have the leisure time to worry about the environment. We also need to build more nuclear power plants, to generate electricity with zero CO2 emissions.
The world doesn’t need a new Kyoto -- the treaty that accomplished nothing but takes the gold medal for uselessness and hypocrisy. "(snip)
from
Re: some statistics on Kyoto treaty compliance ...
I always find your posts extremely informative and well researched but I disagree with this post. The fact is that a carbon tax is going to change the balance of power, the way we do business and the implications are so large that there are many lobbies which have vested interests to try to ensure that Kyoto should not succeed.
Each Protocol when it has been implemented has eventually done a lot of good. Two examples which spring to mind, there was Montreal in 1996 which prevented the use of halons and CFCs and it has made a difference to the hole in the ozone layer. There was Basel which stopped countries for shipping hazardous wastes to third world countries and catalysed the advent of cleaner production.
The 0.07 degrees does not seem an accurate figure but if we can keep the temperature from rising and stay where we are today I think we have done a really great job. I think the prediction is a minimum five degree rise by 2050 if we continue to do things the same way. The biggest concerns relate to a couple of things which may not function as efficiently on this fragile planet if the temperature rises by even five degrees. For one, the oceans are huge carbon sinks and the solubility of carbon dioxide reduces as the temperature of a liquid increases. This means that the seas could start to give up carbon dioxide currently dissolved further exacerbating the problem. Secondly, the oceans and the major currents which allow the planet to operate such as the Gulf Stream all depend on the temperature differential. The temperature differential has a huge influence on the high pressure and low pressure zones and all sorts of things such as rain and wind. If the rain starts to fall in the wrong places as we have experienced recently in Australia our crops don’t grow too well and we will struggle to feed the planet.
1 billion plus Chinese and 1 billion plus Indians are looking to get the basic amenities that we have taken for granted. A fridge, a car, an air conditioner a TV etc and then you have most of the worlds manufacturing base being shifted to these countries. Of course the carbon emissions are going to go up because these products are being manufactured here to supply the rest of the world. Further, the ability of these countries to continue to supply some of the EU countries is limited if they did not sign Kyoto as they faced embargoes and economic sanctions. IMO, signing Kyoto had no discernable commercial advantage to either nation. India are planning to introduce the Indica which will sell for $3000 making a car affordable to every family. This is going to do nothing to alleviate the situation.
There is a very dated book I once read called "Our Common Future" which was pulled together by Gro Bruntland (then Premier of Norway). It was a stocktake of the planet as we knew it in 1992. The book was really good as it gave a really good snapshot of the interdependent nature that we have with the rest of the species on this planet. It also highlighted the speed at which we were wiping out intergenerational equity such as species, arable land, potable water and air to breathe. Whilst the book is clear that the trends show that the planet is being raped to an extent that it may not be able to recover, there will be many instances where it can. Where it cannot right itself, the cost of being wrong is too high a gamble.
I think our role is to encourage better and more efficient ways for these countries to progress by setting the example with cleaner and more sustainable technologies.
If you have not seen Al Gore’s "An Inconvenient Truth", I think it is well worth seeing.
Re: some statistics on Kyoto treaty compliance ...
^^^^^^^^^^were manmade carbons the problem when it warmed up so that Britain could develop more agriculture on its lands that were once to 'cold'. That was 500-600 years or so ago.
It's all cyclical.
In the 70's/ 80's, it was global cooling that was the threat.
Re: some statistics on Kyoto treaty compliance ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Luke34
I always find your posts extremely informative and well researched but I disagree with this post. The fact is that a carbon tax is going to change the balance of power, the way we do business and the implications are so large that there are many lobbies which have vested interests to try to ensure that Kyoto should not succeed.
Each Protocol when it has been implemented has eventually done a lot of good. Two examples which spring to mind, there was Montreal in 1996 which prevented the use of halons and CFCs and it has made a difference to the hole in the ozone layer. There was Basel which stopped countries for shipping hazardous wastes to third world countries and catalysed the advent of cleaner production.
The 0.07 degrees does not seem an accurate figure but if we can keep the temperature from rising and stay where we are today I think we have done a really great job. I think the prediction is a minimum five degree rise by 2050 if we continue to do things the same way. The biggest concerns relate to a couple of things which may not function as efficiently on this fragile planet if the temperature rises by even five degrees. For one, the oceans are huge carbon sinks and the solubility of carbon dioxide reduces as the temperature of a liquid increases. This means that the seas could start to give up carbon dioxide currently dissolved further exacerbating the problem. Secondly, the oceans and the major currents which allow the planet to operate such as the Gulf Stream all depend on the temperature differential. The temperature differential has a huge influence on the high pressure and low pressure zones and all sorts of things such as rain and wind. If the rain starts to fall in the wrong places as we have experienced recently in Australia our crops don’t grow too well and we will struggle to feed the planet.
1 billion plus Chinese and 1 billion plus Indians are looking to get the basic amenities that we have taken for granted. A fridge, a car, an air conditioner a TV etc and then you have most of the worlds manufacturing base being shifted to these countries. Of course the carbon emissions are going to go up because these products are being manufactured here to supply the rest of the world. Further, the ability of these countries to continue to supply some of the EU countries is limited if they did not sign Kyoto as they faced embargoes and economic sanctions. IMO, signing Kyoto had no discernable commercial advantage to either nation. India are planning to introduce the Indica which will sell for $3000 making a car affordable to every family. This is going to do nothing to alleviate the situation.
There is a very dated book I once read called "Our Common Future" which was pulled together by Gro Bruntland (then Premier of Norway). It was a stocktake of the planet as we knew it in 1992. The book was really good as it gave a really good snapshot of the interdependent nature that we have with the rest of the species on this planet. It also highlighted the speed at which we were wiping out intergenerational equity such as species, arable land, potable water and air to breathe. Whilst the book is clear that the trends show that the planet is being raped to an extent that it may not be able to recover, there will be many instances where it can. Where it cannot right itself, the cost of being wrong is too high a gamble.
I think our role is to encourage better and more efficient ways for these countries to progress by setting the example with cleaner and more sustainable technologies.
If you have not seen Al Gore’s "An Inconvenient Truth", I think it is well worth seeing.
One set of facts for everybody. The Earth's temperature has DECLINED since 1998. A NASA expedition to the North Pole to monitor the effects of so-called global warming was postponed three times and eventually cancelled because of unusually extreme cold weather- 100 degrees below zero.
Re: some statistics on Kyoto treaty compliance ...
^^^ again, astute assessments, but they miss the point of my original post .... which was that signing the Kyoto treaty and/or paying a 'carbon tax' have little to do with actual reductions in CO2 emissions. Obviously, with the 'developing country' exception in the current treaty, countries like China and India are free to belch out as much CO2 as they want to.
But in the 'developed countries', i.e. Canada and Austria and New Zealand as provided in the link, signing the Kyoto treaty and actually complying with the treaty's CO2 reduction requirements are two very different things. For example, Canada's total CO2 emissions are UP 54% since they signed the Kyoto treaty, despite Canadians now paying higher energy prices due to a 'carbon tax' being in effect in some provinces ! We really have yet to see the consequences to the Canadian economy that results from the 'carbon tax', but the 'pressure' is building i.e. Canadian exporters no longer being internationally competitive.
Re: some statistics on Kyoto treaty compliance ...
Is it just me or does anyone else think the whole "global warming" thing is just a subterfuge to impose additional taxes i.e. the carbon tax. The number of scientists TRAINED and EXPERIENCED in pertinent fields backtracking ( or humming "I told you so" ) on the "CO2 is affecting climate" THEORY is becoming a stampede. Note I distinguish between scientists trained and experienced in climatology; meteorology; PHYSICS etc. and the U.N. idea of "scientists" which included healthy contingents of gynecologists and psychologists on the panel charged with vetting the scientific ( sic.) data.
Just in the last year they've had to admit that the Earth has NOT warmed up in the last 10 years; that hurricanes have NOT increased in either number or intensity ( the effects have been enhanced by wetland destruction and over-development in seaside areas); that the Southern Hemisphere is COOLING while the Arctic is stabilizing etc. To try and minimize the egg on their faces they don't say "Global Warming" anymore. Now it's "Climate Change". WTF is more CHANGEABLE than the blasted weather for Pete's sake ? ! Every time somebody actually throws some facts at these twerps; they try to change the terms of the discussion.
We've let a jerk like Al Gore make millions off this fraudulent farce as he drives his SUV; flies in private jets and lives in a huge mansion. Has anyone figured out just HOW Gore gets to be "carbon neutral" while using so much energy ? I've listened to him explain it on "Meet The Press" and elsewhere and still can't figure out just how this nonsense is supposed to work. All that's clear is that he continues to use as much energy as he wants.
We've paid attention as Sheryl Crow tells us to just use one square of T.P. ! No wonder she looks so constipated.
Why is it that nobody ever seems to bother to total up the costs of shifting to so-called "alternatives" and comparing it to current costs. To listen to a jack-ass like RFK, Jr. one would think all we need to do is snap our fingers and we'd all have clean energy. And , btw, NOW it's his concern for a few dozen Nantucket fisherman that is behind his opposition to the wind farm that will just happen to
affect the views of his Uncle Ted and "Uncle Walter" ( Cronkite).
Is anyone as sick and fed up with the blatant hypocrisy of some of these assholes as I am ?
Re: some statistics on Kyoto treaty compliance ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Is it just me or does anyone else think the whole "global warming" thing is just a subterfuge to impose additional taxes i.e. the carbon tax.
A way to get the 'left' agenda pushed on us because we won't vote them in.
Re: some statistics on Kyoto treaty compliance ...
^^^ the 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that it goes well beyond being just a new source of tax revenue - it also grants unprecedented de-facto gov't powers to 'meddle' with private industry (via selective tax exemptions / credits, selective subsidies etc.)
Re: some statistics on Kyoto treaty compliance ...
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas...r-senate-vote/
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
Re: some statistics on Kyoto treaty compliance ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ the 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that it goes well beyond being just a new source of tax revenue - it also grants unprecedented de-facto gov't powers to 'meddle' with private industry (via selective tax exemptions / credits, selective subsidies etc.)
Yes, and it's an amazing coincidence( I'm sure) that Gore and many other "Climate Change" movers and shakers just happen to be perfectly situated ( invested) to benefit directly from a lot of this governmental picking and choosing.