Europe misses Kyoto targets

[charrison]

linkage

The European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates they were 1% greater than in 2000.

The EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012.

On present trends, it appears to stand almost no chance of keeping its promise.

The prominent UK global warming sceptic Professor Philip Stott commented: "One of the most galling things about the whole climate change debate has been European duplicity.

"While lecturing everybody else, especially America, on the morality of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it has been abundantly clear from the start that most European countries didn't have a snowflake in hell's chance of meeting their own Kyoto targets."

 

[SuperTool]

good. It's too cold over here in CA. Gotta get them greenhouse gases going. Looks like I will be going to Taco Bell tonite

 

[etech]

Amazing, even after stacking deck so much in their favour they couldn't even meet the targets.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: etech
Amazing, even after stacking deck so much in their favour they couldn't even meet the targets.

You'll have that when the largest pollution producing nation doesn't even acknowledge global warming.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: etech
Amazing, even after stacking deck so much in their favour they couldn't even meet the targets.

You'll have that when the largest pollution producing nation doesn't even acknowledge global warming.

You'll have what, the Europeans stacking the deck greatly in their favour? I can agree with that.

 

[43st]

Stacked deck? How so? Are we somehow following the treaty? I was unaware of that.

I was talking about meeting targets. It's hard to meet a goal when one player, not only doesn't play but, actually contributes the largest percentage to the problem.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Thera
Stacked deck? How so? Are we somehow following the treaty? I was unaware of that.

I was talking about meeting targets. It's hard to meet a goal when one player, not only doesn't play but, actually contributes the largest percentage to the problem.

That makes absouletly no sense. Europe could meet it's goals no matter what the US did.

Don't you know how Europe stacked the deck? If not, let me know and I'll dig it out again. I don't want to take the time to go through it all over again if you are aware.

edit/

I'll give you a couple of hints.
What year was the baseline for kyoto set?
What year did England move from coal to nat. gas for the majority of it's electrical generation?
What year did the two Germany's reunite and what was the shape of W. Germany's infrastructure and what did the use for fuel?

 

[43st]

I fail to see how this effects the US. We're not a part of it so why do you care?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Thera
I fail to see how this effects the US. We're not a part of it so why do you care?

See this * ? It's the point you are missing.

Concentrate real hard and maybe you'll figure it out.

 

[charrison]

linkage

Because of the high growth in energy consumption during the 1990s, Canada's emissions are currently 18.5 per cent above the 1990 base year. Meeting the Kyoto goal will still be hard, despite the progress in 2001, the latest year for which figures are available.

"We're still way, way above 1990. We've got a lot of work to do," said Matthew Bramley, a climate change expert at the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank.

Environment Canada also released figures yesterday showing that the United States' greenhouse-gas emissions fell 1.2 per cent in 2001, nearly as much as Canada's, because of near recessionary business conditions and lower production of coal-fired electricity.

Although U.S. President George W. Bush has angered much of the world by refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the United States has done a better job of controlling its greenhouse-gas emissions than Canada since 1990. The U.S. total is up only 11.9 per cent.

 

[43st]

Ahhh... ok. So now we just need to have a depression for the next 50 years and all will be fine. Thanks for the article by the way.

shinerburke... I still don't know what you're talking about. Someone said something about a stacked deck, that makes it look like we've lost something. How have we lost?

-What year was the baseline for kyoto set? I don't know... who cares?
-What year did England move from coal to nat. gas for the majority of it's electrical generation? I don't know... who cares?
-What year did the two Germany's reunite and what was the shape of W. Germany's infrastructure and what did the use for fuel? 1990... who cares?

The US won guys. We're doing what we want, that's good. What am I not getting besides the "*?" type comments?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Thera
Ahhh... ok. So now we just need to have a depression for the next 50 years and all will be fine. Thanks for the article by the way.

shinerburke... I still don't know what you're talking about. Someone said something about a stacked deck, that makes it look like we've lost something. How have we lost?

-What year was the baseline for kyoto set? I don't know... who cares?
-What year did England move from coal to nat. gas for the majority of it's electrical generation? I don't know... who cares?
-What year did the two Germany's reunite and what was the shape of W. Germany's infrastructure and what did the use for fuel? 1990... who cares?

The US won guys. We're doing what we want, that's good. What am I not getting besides the "*?" type comments?

Sorry, I thought if you were going to get into the discussion you would either already be informed on the details or wish to become informed. My mistake.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: etech
Amazing, even after stacking deck so much in their favour they couldn't even meet the targets.

You'll have that when the largest pollution producing nation doesn't even acknowledge global warming.

dude... it says that the europeans can't meet their own targets for greenhouse gas emissions... US emissions have nothing to do with european ability to meet or not meet emissions targets. so no, you won't necessarily have the europeans unable to meet their own goals. the comment about the stacked deck is that 1990 was before the euros switched to cleaner sources of power in terms of greenhouse emissions. the treaty was hammered out in what, 1997? why didn't they pick 1996? or 1995? its because they had already switched and it would prove much harder to improve upon the levels of greenhouse emissions of those years.

 

[freegeeks]

The EU countries that mis their target can buy "clean air" from countries that have a surplus.

The EU still has a couple of years (the target is 2008 - 2012) and according to the EEA (European Environment Agency), additional measues are under discussion to meet the target.

There is a problem but the EU still has at least 5 years to meet the target.

If the EU doesn't meet its target in 2008, start a thread and I will participate with the eurobashing.

link

 

[ElFenix]

how do you buy clean air? thats ricockulous.

 

[cpumaster]

there's a differences between trying but miss with flat out rejection
but maybe Bush has a point here, the treaty is unenforcable, especially if China and India is given blank check in term of controlling their own pollution.
But Bush need to come out with something instead of flat out rejection of this well-intention (if not flaw) treaty, and he hasn't come out with any alternative proposal since then, where is the EPA and Whittman? too busy cozying with the big oil companies no doubt

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
there's a differences between trying but miss with flat out rejection
but maybe Bush has a point here, the treaty is unenforcable, especially if China and India is given blank check in term of controlling their own pollution.
But Bush need to come out with something instead of flat out rejection of this well-intention (if not flaw) treaty, and he hasn't come out with any alternative proposal since then, where is the EPA and Whittman? too busy cozying with the big oil companies no doubt

bush doesn't have the authority to enter into treaties. i might remind you that clinton didn't try to enter it either.

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
how do you buy clean air? thats ricockulous.

you don't actually buy the clean air itself, you either pullute less (than your quota) and sell your clean air credit (similar to monetary concept) to other country that will buy the right to pollute the air more than their quota. The problem is we claim our quota is too small, especially with the success of SUV here and the discovery of oil in Iraq
plus China and India successfully argue against putting quota on them until much later (to compensate for their late start in industrial revolution)

 

[Fencer128]

The EU has fudged the protocol and is missing its targets. The US has put aside the protocol (ie not participated) and from the posts above seems to have only achieved a slight slow down (over Canada) in its rate of increase of emissions by the side effect of a slow down in the industrial sector.

Here's the point "is it ok to stoop to someone else's level in order to justify your own actions?"

ie Because the EU has made a pigs ear of the Kyoto protocol does that excuse the US for doing nothing?

That seems to be the crux of this thread so far.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: cpumaster
there's a differences between trying but miss with flat out rejection
but maybe Bush has a point here, the treaty is unenforcable, especially if China and India is given blank check in term of controlling their own pollution.
But Bush need to come out with something instead of flat out rejection of this well-intention (if not flaw) treaty, and he hasn't come out with any alternative proposal since then, where is the EPA and Whittman? too busy cozying with the big oil companies no doubt

bush doesn't have the authority to enter into treaties. i might remind you that clinton didn't try to enter it either.

correct he doesn't, US Congress has the final say, but the president has the implicit executive authority of first hand negotiating, review and submitting treaties to Congress for ratification (plus behind the scene the president has a lot of influence of having a treaty passed by Congress). Yet Bush doesn't even want Congress and American people to have a chance of debating and vote for the treaty by not even introduce it to Congress for ratification...

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: cpumaster
there's a differences between trying but miss with flat out rejection
but maybe Bush has a point here, the treaty is unenforcable, especially if China and India is given blank check in term of controlling their own pollution.
But Bush need to come out with something instead of flat out rejection of this well-intention (if not flaw) treaty, and he hasn't come out with any alternative proposal since then, where is the EPA and Whittman? too busy cozying with the big oil companies no doubt

bush doesn't have the authority to enter into treaties. i might remind you that clinton didn't try to enter it either.

But you can start he can start a war without explicit consent? Whichever side of this you're on - it must be obvious that if he wanted to get involved - he could have set the US down that path very easily.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[freegeeks]

you don't actually buy the clean air itself, you either pullute less (than your quota) and sell your clean air credit (similar to monetary concept) to other country that will buy the right to pollute the air more than their quota. The problem is we claim our quota is too small, especially with the success of SUV here and the discovery of oil in Iraq

Yip,

example: Luxembourg is well on track and can beat its emission rate by an extra 4%. They can "sell" that surplus to another EU country that failed to meet its obligation.

In my opinion the EU member states will do everything they can to meet their obligations because it can cost them hundreds of millions OR they can make a lot of money by meeting their goal and selling their surplus.

Like I said before, the EU still has at least 5 years to get it right, we'll see

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
But you can start he can start a war without explicit consent? Whichever side of this you're on - it must be obvious that if he wanted to get involved - he could have set the US down that path very easily.

Cheers,

Andy

safe your breath Andy, the right wingers will just claim that Bush has actually gained the consent of Congress via the authorization of war on terrorism,
of course the declaration is so broad and vague that it could mean anything as long as it's against "terrorist", that's why there's this whole WMDs thing and trying to find (or create imaginary) link between Saddam secular regime with Al-Qaeda islamic terrorists...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: cpumaster

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: cpumaster
there's a differences between trying but miss with flat out rejection
but maybe Bush has a point here, the treaty is unenforcable, especially if China and India is given blank check in term of controlling their own pollution.
But Bush need to come out with something instead of flat out rejection of this well-intention (if not flaw) treaty, and he hasn't come out with any alternative proposal since then, where is the EPA and Whittman? too busy cozying with the big oil companies no doubt

bush doesn't have the authority to enter into treaties. i might remind you that clinton didn't try to enter it either.

correct he doesn't, US Congress has the final say, but the president has the implicit executive authority of first hand negotiating, review and submitting treaties to Congress for ratification (plus behind the scene the president has a lot of influence of having a treaty passed by Congress). Yet Bush doesn't even want Congress and American people to have a chance of debating and vote for the treaty by not even introduce it to Congress for ratification...

thats because he, and clinton, both know it wouldn't even get out of committee

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: cpumaster

Originally posted by: Fencer128
But you can start he can start a war without explicit consent? Whichever side of this you're on - it must be obvious that if he wanted to get involved - he could have set the US down that path very easily.

Cheers,

Andy

safe your breath Andy, the right wingers will just claim that Bush has actually gained the consent of Congress via the authorization of war on terrorism,
of course the declaration is so broad and vague that it could mean anything as long as it's against "terrorist", that's why there's this whole WMDs thing and trying to find (or create imaginary) link between Saddam secular regime with Al-Qaeda islamic terrorists...

I wasn't meaning that he absolutely did not have the authority to start the war - I was just trying to point out that if he could do that - he could surely get the US involved with Kyoto?

Cheers,

Andy