The Kyoto treaty and meaning what you say!

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Ned
Countries all across the North are going to benefit from global warming, if it happens. The US will benefit as well.

I fully expect to see this line in someone's sig within a day or two.

AFAIK, global warming doesn't mean Russia gets weather like Florida. The usual dire warnings typically describe senarios where the average temperature increases by only a couple of degrees. Ice caps melt and and then flood your home town, Ned.

While much of the nation will cheer as the eastern and western coastal cities of America are lost to sea, still I would be hard pressed to call this a benefit.

(edit for bad grammar)

[Japher]

Yup, it looks like we have managed to reduce our emmisions in the last decade thanks to EPA regulations.

link
And here is a good analysis from 2001

Looks to me like the EPA is actually doing something.

The EPA has a lot a resources on this matter.

I guess that is why we don't need Kyoto?

[Sava]

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

I agree. Kyoto is crap and we should figure something out that would be effective.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Japher
Yup, it looks like we have managed to reduce our emmisions in the last decade thanks to EPA regulations.

Looks to me like the EPA is actually doing something.

The EPA has a lot a resources on this matter.

I guess that is why we don't need Kyoto?

So assuming the EPA results are true, then the US could have met the Kyoto targets without destroying the economy. So why exactly did the US refuse to sign a treaty that they could have fulfilled?

[Tingkai]

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

Exactly. Maybe the Kyoto nations will meet the targets, maybe they won't.

But the most important thing about Kyoto is that for the first time, an attempt is being made to create international goals for reducing pollution.

Kyoto also creates a market for "trading" pollution which creates incentives for countries to reduce pollution below the Kyoto levels.

The market is something that can be achieved by the selfish countries that want to go it alone.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Tingkai

But the most important thing about Kyoto is that for the first time, an attempt is being made to create international goals for reducing pollution.

Good point. The dialogue at least is useful just so that the media will have a reason to focus on the issue.

Kyoto also creates a market for "trading" pollution which creates incentives for countries to reduce pollution below the Kyoto levels.

The market is something that can be achieved by the selfish countries that want to go it alone.

But it's a false market. A command economy dictated by a central planning board. An artificial market is inevitably accompanied by a black market.

[gsmoove23]

You gave a link talking about methane emissions in the US. The apropriate link would be this one which states that GREENHOUSE GAS emissions increased by 11.2% since 1990. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggr...ary/index.html

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.

Kyoto is aimed at the big companies that produce the products WE, the people use to create greenhouse gases. It offers incentives for research into environmentally friendly products to assist us in choosing economically feasible environmentally friendly products. It also offers incentives for technologies that reduce industrial pollution.

This article shows that the major greenhouse gas producers in Europe, the ones that have been the major moralizers, are on track. Other countries have fallen short, big whoop. Won't be the first time governments have fallen short of guidelines they've set for themselves.

Kyoto's not perfect but its the best thing we've got.

[el freako]

Originally posted by rah
I wonder what the current numbers are for the US.

Here is the breakdown on Co2 growth since 1990 (the base year) and the Kyoto target's:

Country, Growth to 2000, Kyoto Target in 2012, Co2 produced per person in 2000

United States: +11%, -7%, 20.6 tonnes
Japan: +10%, -6%, 9.1 tonnes
European Union: -4%, -8%, 8.4 tonnes

Germany: -19%, -21%, 10.1 tonnes
France: -2%, 0%, 6.2 tonnes
Britian: -13%, -12%, 8.9 tonnes
Italy: +4%, -6%, 7.4 tonnes

Full data can be had here

[Dauphin]

And we wonder why the US didn't sign up.

Even with gargantuan effort they'd be lucky to get close to a zero % increase on 1990 levels, let alone a reduction on it.

[Japher]

gsmoove, thanks

that eurostat link doesn't make any sense to me; why do they call it greenhouse gases emissions, yet base it only off of CO2 equivalents? What does that mean?

Also, why is CO2 the only gas that has been targeted?

Big Crunch: If you read gsmoove's link it shows that the US has actually managed to reduce their emissions for the year of 2001.

Another thing; why are there different targets per country? I don't see any logic in why they selected the countries to have the targets they have.

All I have to say is kudos to Denmark, who appears to be the only ones attempting to stick to their word... Maybe that is why the US didn't sign it; they knew it was impossible.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Japher
Also, why is CO2 the only gas that has been targeted?

Because (H2O aside) it is far and away the biggest contributer to the greenhouse effect.

Big Crunch: If you read gsmoove's link it shows that the US has actually managed to reduce their emissions for the year of 2001.

So? Who cares about yearly variations? What matters is the long term trend. The US is way off its proposed target.

Another thing; why are there different targets per country? I don't see any logic in why they selected the countries to have the targets they have.

From what I know its a mixture of responsibility (i.e bigger polluters need to make bigger cuts), wealth (i.e ability to pay for the implementation the changes), economy make-up (i.e are they naturally moving away from high polluting industry), and a few other negotiated factors.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gunkulator


I fully expect to see this line in someone's sig within a day or two.

AFAIK, global warming doesn't mean Russia gets weather like Florida. The usual dire warnings typically describe senarios where the average temperature increases by only a couple of degrees. Ice caps melt and and then flood your home town, Ned.

While much of the nation will cheer as the eastern and western coastal cities of America are lost to sea, still I would be hard pressed to call this a benefit.

(edit for bad grammar)

Hey gunkulator, I see that you too have been fooled by the environmental wacko's. Melting sea ice does not raise sealevels. The glaciers on Greenland and the Antarctic have a 50,000 year response time to changes in temperature. There is literally nothing we could do in the short term to raise sealevels substantially.

You have been watching too many Waterwold movies and have been talking too much to the uniformed.

[Japher]

I assume that they measure these emissions at their source... Cultivated land is able to absorb some of that. I sure hope that they took that into consideration when determining those limits... Doesn't look like it to me.

[gsmoove23]

Ned, glaciers are retreating all across the globe. Melting ice caps are only one of the indicators of global warming. http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming..../glaciers.html

[gsmoove23]

I believe they do take into account attempts at reforestation and such.