The Kyoto treaty and meaning what you say!

[CerberusIV]

I found this interesting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2996219.stm

After all the condemnation of GWB for refusing to sign the treaty it seems that most of the European countries who supported Kyoto have little or no chance of actually complying.

I liked the line about the Russians thinking global warming might benefit them (they should play CTP2 if they want to terraform tundra).

The last paragraph sums it up rather well.

[TheStinger]

Ah yes but it must be the Yanks fault they mad us miss the targets by making us pump out the stuff. We always do what the US wants they are evil and we are powerless to stop them.

[CerberusIV]

Actually it seems that the UK might be one of the few to reach their targets so we can be righteous.

I wonder if there is a correlation between their degree of opposition to war with Iraq and how far some countries will fall short of Kyoto.

[TheStinger]

Its similar to the EU, we moan and moan and then implement the directives far more strictly then evryone else, although 1/2 of them couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery so its not that surprising.

[Spiffor]

I didn't really understand the article... First it says Germany, France and the UK have raised their CO2 emissions most between 2001 and 2002.
Then it says these same countries have a chance to reach their objectives by 2012.
Then the 'Poly Brits boast at how much superior they are

More seriously, I think it was pretty stupid of the EU to make a promise on behalf of all member-states, if it didn't intend to give clear objectives, tools and funding to achieve this promise If the EU becomes serious about Kyoto, the smaller member-states will manage to lower their emissions too

[TheStinger]

I wasn't saying how superior we are i was saying how stupid we are

[Spec]

First , kyoto is really not what we need right now. Kyoto is adressed mostly to big companies and oil refineries. It's goal is to reduce the pollution emitted by those companies by 70% atleast....but how is this supposed to help or case when WE, the people, produce over 72% of the overall pollution. It is we that the kyoto has to aim. What we should change first is how cars burn petrolium, how we waste water, how we dispose of garbage and so on. Kyoto has nothing to do with that...So IMO, kyoto is aiming at the wrong dear.

I the Kyoto treaty can be abolished and replaced by something that will REALLY help human kind, I'm all for it.

Spec.

[CerberusIV]

I posted the link because I smell some hypocrisy on the part of assorted politicians across Europe.

From what I have read elsewhere the UK will struggle to actually meet its target but probably won't be as far short as many other countries.

I think it shows that whenever action on global warming is mentioned it is best to disbelieve at least 50% of what is said.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I think it shows that whenever action on global warming is mentioned it is best to disbelieve at least 50% of what is said.

A wise advice

[Dauphin]

I still think it better to have targets, be they Kyoto bound or not, and fail than to have no targets at all.

[Dauphin]

It [Luxembourg] is on course to keep its Kyoto promise, as are Germany, Sweden and the UK. France looks at present likely to fail by a very narrow margin

Germany, UK and France are on target. As these make up the bulk of the EU greenhouse emissions I would say that things can't be that bad.

[Japher]

Its all fine and dandy to try and reduse emitions, but to set limits is a less efficient way to go about, then say, finding a way to reduce emitions without reducing overall effectiveness.

They really should be throwing their money at inventions that do this, more so than throwing their money at regulating existing technologies.

Apart from fuel cells (hydrogen power), or increasing alternative forms of energy, they could also be throwing their money at increasing the efficiency of the plants that create most of these emmisions.

One good place to start is with something like this. A company that has created a catalyst that reduces the temperature of combustion, thus reducing the amount of harmful emitions. I am sure there are many more solutions.

IMO ppl are generally more proned to whine about issues, hesitate, and then make poor decisions. Ussually, these decisions are the easiest way out, for the short term, and are generally more detremental. Instead of addressing the problem with such vigor, it seems it be more logical to address the solution with the same amount of enthusiasm.

[rah]

I wonder what the current numbers are for the US.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spec
First , kyoto is really not what we need right now. Kyoto is adressed mostly to big companies and oil refineries. It's goal is to reduce the pollution emitted by those companies by 70% atleast....but how is this supposed to help or case when WE, the people, produce over 72% of the overall pollution. It is we that the kyoto has to aim. What we should change first is how cars burn petrolium, how we waste water, how we dispose of garbage and so on. Kyoto has nothing to do with that...So IMO, kyoto is aiming at the wrong dear.

I the Kyoto treaty can be abolished and replaced by something that will REALLY help human kind, I'm all for it.

Spec.

I think Canada ought to impose a $10/gallon tax on gasoline. That will get the Kyoto point home to the average Canadian.

Gore proposed a $5 a gallon tax in the US. He refused to talk about his proposal in the 2000 debates. I wonder why?

Russia is showing common sense. Countries all across the North are going to benefit from global warming, if it happens. The US will benefit as well.

[Dinner]

I imagine much of the rust belt has lower numbers now then 10 years ago. After all those closed industrial plants used to put out CO2, however, the country's over all trend has to be up.