http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=261959792114753 Climate Change: The cracking sound you hear up north isn't the last of winter's ice breaking up, but the mighty "Kyoto consensus" falling apart. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It wasn't long ago that Canada's politicians were cursing the U.S. for its failure to go along with Kyoto's mandate of steep reductions in the emission of greenhouses gases. Now, they're having second thoughts.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Instead of Kyoto, Canada will join the U.S.-led Asian-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate — whose members also include Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea. The so-called AP6 was launched in mid-2005 to make voluntary cuts in greenhouse gases. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's an appealing alternative to Kyoto's draconian, economy-crushing rules. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In case you're wondering, this all but dooms Kyoto — if it wasn't doomed before. Even before Canada's announcement, the formation of the AP6 had pretty much killed the deal. Global warming advocates just didn't realize it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If this bothers you, it shouldn't. Kyoto was a bad deal all along, a giant ball of twine meant to tie down the giant U.S. economy while the Lilliputians caught up. It was explicitly crafted to sock America's economy with massive new costs that would slow growth to a crawl and all but kill its decade-long productivity boom. Wisely, we didn't buy in. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yet shockingly, the U.S., which is under no treaty obligation to cut greenhouse gases, has actually done a better job of it than Europe's holier-than-thou green bureaucrats. From 2000 to 2004, average carbon emissions rose by 1.3% in the U.S., but by 2.2% in the 25 nations of the European Union. That, despite the fact the U.S. economy grew 2 1/2 times faster. For all the hot air emanating from Kyoto's Euro-defenders, the fact is the Green Grinch — George W. Bush — has been quietly effective when it comes to global warming.
Can you quote me the aggregate amount of carbon emissions of the US compared to the countries of the European Union? Oh don't bother, I found it myself: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions US: 5,844,042,000 metric tonnes (24.3% of the world) EU: 3,682,755,000 metric tonnes (15.3% of the world) So despite that fact that you quote some random percentages and assuming your numbers are even true, the EU still releases less carbon emissions than the US does. 1.3% of the US 5,844,042,000 metric tonnes is 75,972,546. 2.2% of the EU 3,682,755,000 metric tonnes is 81,020,610. Wow, so the EU gained on the US by 5 million metric tonnes. 2.2 billion more to go, EU!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Edit: In addition, the Canadian Conservative government has always been an opponent of Kyoto, because they represent the people in the prarie provinces where all of Canada's oil sands are. Because the Conservative government is basically pro-business, they would not support Kyoto even if there is DEFINITIVE proof that carbon emissions are killing people. The Conservative government cares only about one thing: money for itself and money for big business. Everything else means nothing.
terryoh and your numbers are reliable? And if you read the post it talks about the rise of carbon emissions, it seem that the U.S. is slowing its emissions, and Europe isn't, and that is with a economy that is growing twice as fast. From 2000 to 2004, average carbon emissions rose by 1.3% in the U.S., but by 2.2% in the 25 nations of the European Union. That, despite the fact the U.S. economy grew 2 1/2 times faster.
I have a link to my numbers that states where I got them from: the UN statistics division. In that editorial, the guy is just quoting random numbers without any indications of the source. He could've made those numbers up if he wanted to. Which brings me to the most damning part of the editorial: The writer of the editorial gets a quote from a Professor Patrick J. Michaels. Read about that professor here: FACTSHEET: Patrick J. Michaels In other words, that article is shoddy and sloppy, in the nicest sense. Wild accusations and a shady source who is known to be funded by Western energy companies. Nice article Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
terryoh And the U.N. don't have a political agenda? wouldn't fudge the numbers for monetary or political reasons?, remember they are a governmental body to, and have a long list of scandals over money and policy. No you don't, provide proof that the studies are flawed, this bull of dismissing a source with out proving that it isn't true because you say he was funded by Western energy companies, well the U.N. has a monetary stake in what they are putting out to, and a political agenda on top of that.
We have just 32 million people in a country almost as big as Russia(I.e 2nd largest land area in the world). Kyoto just *doesn't* work for us. We are actually a developing country. It's just the average person is wealthy compared to other countries' average person. Most of our pollution comes from the US of A and they didn't sign kyoto. Basically Cretin fuked up when he signed it.
nietzschefan, I thought that Kyoto was suppose to be for everybody, regardless of your national economic status, or are you admitting that it was designed to take money from the rich countries and give it to the poor, and destroy everybody's economy to a point of equality.
terry---China will surpass the US in carbon emissions in two years. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/b...1f15db49d2b390&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Without China and India accepting some cuts, global caps on carbon emissions won't mean much.
The Kyoto Protocol was about holding levels of CO2 emmisions down, I believe to 1990 levels. It's pretty ironic that the US, a nonsignatory, is doing a better job of that than the EU. Switching to absolute numbers is just distorting the facts. The rate of change is what's important here.
Precisely! It's the rate that matters. What most Europeans fail to acknowledge (because it's rather embarrassing) is that in many ways they are much like third-world developing nations. Not quite that bad, of course, but still very much behind the US in terms of technology, production and moving into the 21st century. Yes, they have things like Airbus (the US has Boeing) and their mass transport is WAY ahead of the US overall on average. (But they pay for that through very high taxation on motor fuel.) They pride themselves on their history and their quaint historical towns with tiny little streets and older buildings. And they are right to to be proud of that. But their infrastructure for manufacturing, distribution network, etc. is also just as old and archaic. And there are certainly exceptions here and there. France is one because the biggest majority of it's electrical power comes from nuclear power plants. But by and large, they are still playing catch-up and that's precisely WHY their carbon emissions are increasing. They certainly aren't as bad as China or India but they're on a very similar path as they work to move forward.
No, except in the OZ world of political theater. In the world of physics and effects, the absolute amount of CO2 released every year from fossil fuel combustion is the controlling variable. The US releases far more than anyone else. The fact that the US is still increasing its carbon release at all, let alone by a percentage that would double its output in 50 years, is not good news. That China looms is worse news. The US is not on in a steep part of the rate increase for a couple of reasons: its economy is not "growing" in the ordinary sense of the word - meaning expanding manufacturing base, larger export markets, higher wages and more prosperous citizenry, etc - and it has already almost maxed out on several important areas of release such as automobile transport. The problem with Kyoto was not that it would tie down the US economy - a trillion dollars of war debt, ballooning medical costs, and underperforming schools will accomplish that quite well without help - but that its implementation would require industry regulation, gas mileage restrictions on US cars, and conservation measures in electrical generation as well as home heating combustion.
iceaura As usual you try to cherry pick the information, Europe is increasing their carbon emission at almost twice the rate of the U.S., that is a fact, and though it is going up in the U.S. as of now, we have reduced the rates of increase and continue to do so. And as for Kyoto, it ties down all of the economies of the first world not only the U.S. and Europe is no exception, your Tax Rates are what is holding back your economies, and that money sent to your government for redistribution through the Tax Extortion System, isn't then available for reinvestment in new technology that would help your business upgrade their manufacturing systems, Kyoto in the end would have us all at the third world level economies, and then what happens to the carbon emission levels? and how many people start to die because we can no longer feed, house, provide medical, clean water, and Foreign Aid or any other thing that is done on a global scale to day, because all of our economies are in the tank.
