Kyoto Update

[Skeptic]

Canada, the good, eco-friendly, concerned country which signed Kyoto, had agreed to reduce greenhouse gases emission by 6% of its 1990 figure by 2008. In actual fact, by 2003 Canada's greenhouse emissions were up 24% from 1990. Other signatories of Kyoto are also failing to remotely meet what they agreed to do.

Canada's rise in greenhouse gas emissions, incidentally, is significantly higher than the rise on the other side of the border, in polluting, evil, stupid texan-ruled Jesusland. Gee, perhaps the idiot Bush was right in thinking that Kyoto is a public relations affair that would do very little to actually reduce greenhouse gas emission.

But the Kyoto signators meant well, so that's all that matters.

[Ed]

Reference?

[WildCat]

Reference?
Right here. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051128.wxemissions28/BNStory/National/)

In fact, the only places that managed to reduce their emissions are in former Soviet bloc countries, which had a big decline in heavy industry after the breakup.

And Kyoto was supposed to be only a start, not nearly enough to stave off global warming... will there be another, feel-good do-nothing treaty after this miserable failure?

[Skeptic]

Right here. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051128.wxemissions28/BNStory/National/)

In fact, the only places that managed to reduce their emissions are in former Soviet bloc countries, which had a big decline in heavy industry after the breakup.

And Kyoto was supposed to be only a start, not nearly enough to stave off global warming... will there be another, feel-good do-nothing treaty after this miserable failure?

Depends if they could find a way to blame the USA for not joining it.

Oh wait, they always can.

Yes, there will be another feel-good do-nothing treaty after Kyoto.

[Ed]

I didn't doubt it just was curious about details.

So, the critisism of the US consists of ...what?

[Manny]

I didn't doubt it just was curious about details.

So, the critisism of the US consists of ...what?BUSHITLERLIEDH4LL13UR70N!!!!!eleventy!!!

In fact, the only places that managed to reduce their emissions are in former Soviet bloc countries, which had a big decline in heavy industry after the breakup.In fairness, in addition to shutdowns many FSU and former bloc countries also made great strides in cleaning up facilities which remained open. Way back when I was involved with a couple of companies which traded their environmental and production technologies for raw material.

[rikzilla]

Canada, the good, eco-friendly, concerned country which signed Kyoto, had agreed to reduce greenhouse gases emission by 6% of its 1990 figure by 2008. In actual fact, by 2003 Canada's greenhouse emissions were up 24% from 1990. Other signatories of Kyoto are also failing to remotely meet what they agreed to do.

Canada's rise in greenhouse gas emissions, incidentally, is significantly higher than the rise on the other side of the border, in polluting, evil, stupid texan-ruled Jesusland. Gee, perhaps the idiot Bush was right in thinking that Kyoto is a public relations affair that would do very little to actually reduce greenhouse gas emission.

But the Kyoto signators meant well, so that's all that matters.

:D :D :D

I'm e-mailing Bobby Kennedy Jr!!! I can't wait to hear his next editorial blaming Hurricane Katrina on those hosers to the north!

:D :D :D

[Jorghnassen]

I blame half of it on Alberta!

/half of the other half goes to Bush, for no particular reason. And a quarter of what's left on that dignitary's SUV driver who kept his motor running in record high 17C weather to stay warm while that climate conference is going on in Montreal...

[Charlie Monoxide]

With cancellation of the NHL hockey season last year, a lot of Canadians were busy and not watching TV, drinking beer, etc thusly creating more pollution.

Things should be fine now ....

Charlie (go Sens go) Monoxide

[Perforatu]

In fact, the only places that managed to reduce their emissions are in former Soviet bloc countries, which had a big decline in heavy industry after the breakup.
Not entirely true... The article you linked mentions that Germany and Britain also had significant emissions reductions, much more than the average 5.2 percent cut required by Kyoto. So the protocol isn't completely unachievable for some modern, western nations. I'd be interested to see where this discrepancy comes from.

[The Don]

Not entirely true... The article you linked mentions that Germany and Britain also had significant emissions reductions, much more than the average 5.2 percent cut required by Kyoto. So the protocol isn't completely unachievable for some modern, western nations. I'd be interested to see where this discrepancy comes from.
Again this could be due to the fact that in both countries the manufacturing base is allegedly eroding. As a result, energy requirements may be reducing.

[Perforatu]

Again this could be due to the fact that in both countries the manufacturing base is allegedly eroding. As a result, energy requirements may be reducing.
I agree, that has probably had a positive influence on the emissions. I wonder how much, though? And what about other western european countries where the manufacturing base is eroding but emissions are on the rise?

[geni]

Again this could be due to the fact that in both countries the manufacturing base is allegedly eroding. As a result, energy requirements may be reducing.

Oh nothing as reasonable as that. The UK reduction is almost completely due to the dash for gas which is not remotely sustainable in the long term.

[a_unique_person]

Dr Watson attacked moves by the European Union to mandate deep cuts in greenhouse emissions in the future, saying they would devastate the US economy. He also gave a spirited defence of the Bush Administration's record in reducing greenhouse gases, saying it had reduced emissions more than the EU and claiming that it was spending $US5 billion ($A6.8 billion) a year on science and technology.
"Look at the data," he said. "The United States has done better in the first three years of the Bush Administration in addressing greenhouse gas emissions than the EU … the UK, France, Germany."
The latest United Nations figures show that the US has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by 13 per cent over the 1990 baseline levels, while EU emissions have decreased by 1.4 per cent.



http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-dampens-british-hopes-for-climate-change-deal/2005/11/30/1133311105803.html

[Perforatu]

Oh nothing as reasonable as that. The UK reduction is almost completely due to the dash for gas which is not remotely sustainable in the long term.
Too bad, I was hoping there was something more to it. What about the German reduction, though - gas dash as well?

[geni]

Too bad, I was hoping there was something more to it. What about the German reduction, though - gas dash as well?

I doubt it. Probably the loss/cleaning up of east german industries. It looks like the uk may once again be heading towards nuclear power so I supose the reductions might be sustainable.

[Kerberos]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-dampens-british-hopes-for-climate-change-deal/2005/11/30/1133311105803.html
The data in the article doesn't rebute the claim Watson makes, it might very well be false, but showing that EU has done better in the last 15 years doesn't prove that US hasn't done better in first 3 years of the Bush administration.

[WildCat]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-dampens-british-hopes-for-climate-change-deal/2005/11/30/1133311105803.html
It's been shown that the EU reductions were almost entirely the result of the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Few western European countries managed to reduce their emissions, unless you count Germany which absorbed the former E. Germany. The western European countries that did reduce their emissions? My guess is it's the result of a static economy and little population growth. Much harder to reduce emissions when the economy (and population) is growing.

Country Per cent
Spain +41.7
Monaco +37.8
Portugal +36.7
Greece +25.8
Ireland +25.6
Canada +24.2
Australia +23.3
New Zealand +22.5
Finland +21.5
Austria +16.5
United States +13.3
Japan +12.8
Italy +11.5
Norway +9.3
Denmark +6.8
Liechtenstein +5.3
Netherlands +1.5
Belgium +1.3
Switzerland -0.4
European Union -1.4
Slovenia -1.9
France -1.9
Sweden -2.3
Croatia -6.0
Iceland -8.2
Britain -13.0
Luxembourg -16.1
Germany -18.2
Czech Republic -24.2
Slovakia -28.3
Hungary -31.9
Poland -34.4
Russian Federation -38.5
Belarus -44.4
Romania -46.1
Ukraine -46.2
Bulgaria -50.0
Estonia -50.8
Latvia -58.5
Lithuania -66.2

SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS

Funny how China was left off that list.

[Skeptic]

Luxembourg -16.1

See? SEE???? Kyoto was worth it after all!!!

[a_unique_person]

Celebrating an environmental crises. Priceless.

[Skeptic]

No, what we're really celebrating is that, now that it is clear that the USA / Bush / Halliburton / neo-cons cannot be blamed for the "enviormental crisis", you, like most of those "concerned" about it, will simply lose interest.

It's the same modus operandi you have about most bad things in the world, after all: human rights abuses, for example, are terribly important to you if they happen in the USA or by westerners, but of marginal interest if they happen in some country that is unconnected to it.

[a_unique_person]

You are making things up again.

[Kerberos]

No, what we're really celebrating is that, now that it is clear that the USA / Bush / Halliburton / neo-cons cannot be blamed for the "enviormental crisis", you, like most of those "concerned" about it, will simply lose interest.

It's the same modus operandi you have about most bad things in the world, after all: human rights abuses, for example, are terribly important to you if they happen in the USA or by westerners, but of marginal interest if they happen in some country that is unconnected to it.
It's also the same about most good things in the world, or most things that are neither good nor evil, but merely interesting, or about most things that are bad, but not your fault. Everything is more interesting the closer it is to you. Closer being measured more in terms of culture than geography. Hardly the evidence of a huge anti-american conspiracy.

[Skeptic]

Everything is more interesting the closer it is to you. Closer being measured more in terms of culture than geography. Hardly the evidence of a huge anti-american conspiracy.

Of course I am not claiming there is any conspiracy. I am claiming there is hypocracy: every time people like AUP feel like blaming the USA for something, they rant how the USA's evil actions will "effect the whole world", or that they criticize the USA's actions out of concern for "universal human rights", etc.

But in fact, their actions show they are lying: when other countries' actions affect the world far more than the US's actions, as in the case of Kyoto, they suddenly don't care; and when other countries violate universal human rights far more than the US, they suddenly don't care, either.

So it isn't "universalism" and "globalism" that they care about--that's just an excuse to blame the mean ol' USA for whatever is the "real" trouble with the world today.

Celebrating an environmental crises. Priceless.

Well, I AM sorry I'm making fun of your tin God du jour, AUP, (i.e., "enviormentalism") but, experience shows, you'll have some other "end of the world will come soon unless the EVIL USA will IMMEDIATELY DO something-or-other" guru to worthip soon.

It's no more fun for you to think about the end of the world or impending disaster than it is for most people; so, like most people, you only do so if you can get some psychological payment out of it--in your case, payment in the form of righetous indignation at the evil ol' USA.

Once (as I think is proven) you can't get that out of it since it turns out the evil ol' USA is no more to blame than Canada, you'll stop thinking about the enviorment, or at least do so far less.

[a_unique_person]

You are making things up again.

[Mycroft]

You are making things up again.

Is that it? Don't you want to tell him where and how he's wrong?

[3point14]

Of course I am not claiming there is any conspiracy. I am claiming there is hypocracy: every time people like AUP feel like blaming the USA for something, they rant how the USA's evil actions will "effect the whole world", or that they criticize the USA's actions out of concern for "universal human rights", etc.

But in fact, their actions show they are lying: when other countries' actions affect the world far more than the US's actions, as in the case of Kyoto, they suddenly don't care; and when other countries violate universal human rights far more than the US, they suddenly don't care, either.

So it isn't "universalism" and "globalism" that they care about--that's just an excuse to blame the mean ol' USA for whatever is the "real" trouble with the world today.

Celebrating an environmental crises. Priceless.

Well, I AM sorry I'm making fun of your tin God du jour, AUP, (i.e., "enviormentalism") but, experience shows, you'll have some other "end of the world will come soon unless the EVIL USA will IMMEDIATELY DO something-or-other" guru to worthip soon.

It's no more fun for you to think about the end of the world or impending disaster than it is for most people; so, like most people, you only do so if you can get some psychological payment out of it--in your case, payment in the form of righetous indignation at the evil ol' USA.

Once (as I think is proven) you can't get that out of it since it turns out the evil ol' USA is no more to blame than Canada, you'll stop thinking about the enviorment, or at least do so far less.


Wow! you are patriotic, aren't you?

[Skeptic]

Wow! you are patriotic, aren't you?

Note the use of "patriotic" as a prejorative term, folks.

I suppose you aren't stupid and bigoted enough to be patriotic.

You put your faith, instead, in those wonderful mutinational organizations dedicated to the brotherhood of man, such as the antisemitic dictators' debating club known as the UN...

[3point14]

Well, I've never really 'got' patriotism. Maybe I'm missing a gene.

But it wasn't really meant to be derogatory, apologies if it came across that way, I just was in awe of someone so very willing to defend their country when wronged, as I am not prepared to do so for mine.

[Mycroft]

Well, I've never really 'got' patriotism. Maybe I'm missing a gene.

But it wasn't really meant to be derogatory, apologies if it came across that way, I just was in awe of someone so very willing to defend their country when wronged, as I am not prepared to do so for mine.

How interesting.

Why would anyone have trouble understanding defending anything that was wronged?

[3point14]

How interesting.

Why would anyone have trouble understanding defending anything that was wronged?


Not so much the defending, but the vitriol that suprised me.

We all fail to defend things that are wronged every day. Or none of us would get anything done.