Europe misses Kyoto targets

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 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)

yes yes i understand completely about auctioning of pollution credits, it happens all the time and is a pretty efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. its still ricockulous.

as for china and india whoever it was that they paid off to get themselves excluded from the treaty should be tarred and feathered. late start in the industrial revolution my ass, they can buy the same modern cleaner technology as the US and europe. its not like they have to go through old coal boiler systems first on their way to modernity.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

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

no, because the senate clearly has the constitutional jusrisdiction to ratify treaties, while the relationship of where the use of military force is granted is far muddier since the pres is commander in chief and the congress has the right to declare war. over the years the courts have pretty much upheld that because of the cinc position the president can send troops into battle pretty much anywhere and anytime he pleases.

 

[ElFenix]

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...

it was an authorization of the use of the military against iraq from late last year

 

[Fencer128]

yes yes i understand completely about auctioning of pollution credits, it happens all the time and is a pretty efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. its still ricockulous.

as for china and india whoever it was that they paid off to get themselves excluded from the treaty should be tarred and feathered. late state in the industrial revolution my ass, they can buy the same modern cleaner technology as the US and europe. its not like they have to go through old coal boiler systems first on their way to modernity.

I don't know too much about the standard of living in India - compared to the US for example, but I do know that a good proportion of the population live below the poverty line. The question you have to ask yourself is:

"how poor does a country have to be in order that it is allowed to save money it would otherwise have to spend cleaining up, to increase the standard of living of it's citizens?"

Cheers,

Andy

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
yes yes i understand completely about auctioning of pollution credits, it happens all the time and is a pretty efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. its still ricockulous.

as for china and india whoever it was that they paid off to get themselves excluded from the treaty should be tarred and feathered. late start in the industrial revolution my ass, they can buy the same modern cleaner technology as the US and europe. its not like they have to go through old coal boiler systems first on their way to modernity.

Although they don't have to use the old coal boiler system, we and the rest of the western world did, and they claimed that what has historically contributed to the current greenhouse effect and overall world polution... their argument has some merit even though I think it's as impossible to measure as the idea of slavery compensation for african-american...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: cpumaster

Although they don't have to use the old coal boiler system, we and the rest of the western world did, and they claimed that what has historically contributed to the current greenhouse effect and overall world polution... their argument has some merit even though I think it's as impossible to measure as the idea of slavery compensation for african-american...

interesting that all that stuff from the past is making it warmer now since in the 1970s we were afraid of global cooling since that was the trend then.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

yes yes i understand completely about auctioning of pollution credits, it happens all the time and is a pretty efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. its still ricockulous.

as for china and india whoever it was that they paid off to get themselves excluded from the treaty should be tarred and feathered. late state in the industrial revolution my ass, they can buy the same modern cleaner technology as the US and europe. its not like they have to go through old coal boiler systems first on their way to modernity.

I don't know too much about the standard of living in India - compared to the US for example, but I do know that a good proportion of the population live below the poverty line. The question you have to ask yourself is:

"how poor does a country have to be in order that it is allowed to save money it would otherwise have to spend cleaining up, to increase the standard of living of it's citizens?"

Cheers,

Andy

with 1 billion citizens and the fact that they could just build their plants with the clean tech that is basically the only manufactured solution on the market right now anyway, i'd have to say that any such savings would be completely insignificant to the life of the average indian citizen if spread out in an equal fashion.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fencer128

yes yes i understand completely about auctioning of pollution credits, it happens all the time and is a pretty efficient way to achieve a desired outcome. its still ricockulous.

as for china and india whoever it was that they paid off to get themselves excluded from the treaty should be tarred and feathered. late state in the industrial revolution my ass, they can buy the same modern cleaner technology as the US and europe. its not like they have to go through old coal boiler systems first on their way to modernity.

I don't know too much about the standard of living in India - compared to the US for example, but I do know that a good proportion of the population live below the poverty line. The question you have to ask yourself is:

"how poor does a country have to be in order that it is allowed to save money it would otherwise have to spend cleaining up, to increase the standard of living of it's citizens?"

Cheers,

Andy

with 1 billion citizens and the fact that they could just build their plants with the clean tech that is basically the only manufactured solution on the market right now anyway, i'd have to say that any such savings would be completely insignificant to the life of the average indian citizen if spread out in an equal fashion.

So, if clean technology is about the same price and ubiquitous - why are they going for coal boilers? (is India rich in coal - is it cheaper from a fuel point of view?)

Cheers,

Andy

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: 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.

No problem. I'm glad we won out also, despite the evil "stacked deck".

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: 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.

No problem. I'm glad we won out also, despite the evil "stacked deck".

Thera, you have already proven that you don't know anything nor wish to lean anything about this subject. Your statement is based on your ignorance of the subject. If you are not aware of how the deck was stacked than why do you make comments about it?

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: 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.

No problem. I'm glad we won out also, despite the evil "stacked deck".

Thera, you have already proven that you don't know anything nor wish to lean anything about this subject. Your statement is based on your ignorance of the subject. If you are not aware of how the deck was stacked than why do you make comments about it?

I'm not sure what part of a question mark you don't understand. It's interesting that you take my questions as "not wanting to learn". I'd hate to see what you do if your kid asks you a question. As for proof that I don't want to learn I'd really like to see that also.

Anyway... I did a google search for "Kyoto stacked deck" and just found stuff relating to media slant in global warming debates. Nothing regarding actual policy or how it effects our industries. Since this thread is about implimenting the Kyoto protocols and not media bias I'd like to know how the deck was stacked. I'm still in the dark and I'd love to know what you guys are talking about.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: 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."

This isnt a issue of "haha told you so europe!", our Nation should be example setter for the rest of the world. Right now we arent setting a very good example.

We withdrew from a global warming treaty and then basically said "it was flawed anyway", instead of working to make it right. When the biggest global player and polluter withdraws from this international treaty... do you think rest of the world is going to take it less seriously or more seriously?

Right now we are putting out a inordinate amount of poison in our breathing air thats having a very lasting global impact for the worse. We are making the situation worse by not cooperating with the rest of the world on the issue.

 

[Alistar7]

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.

There is a 15 member "bubble" of EU countires that do not even have to comply, nor do "developing" nations such as China and India. These exclusions are the only reason they even agreed to sign, because they don't even have to abide by the requirements.

Just look at the facts at hand, their now watered down goal was at least a 1% reduction over early 1990 levels, they failed, While the US did not participate, did our levels drop below our 1990 levels or did they rise as the EU's did? Notice the reductions they finally agreed upon for kyoto were very similar to the ones Clinton proposed he would accept.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

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.

There is a 15 member "bubble" of EU countires that do not even have to comply, nor do "developing" nations such as China and India. These exclusions are the only reason they even agreed to sign, because they don't even have to abide by the requirements.

Just look at the facts at hand, their now watered down goal was at least a 1% reduction over early 1990 levels, they failed, While the US did not participate, did our levels drop below our 1990 levels or did they rise as the EU's did? Notice the reductions they finally agreed upon for kyoto were very similar to the ones Clinton proposed he would accept.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong. But I thought that:

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.

meant that the US has increased emissions by 11.9% over 1990 levels - not "drop below our 1990 levels" as you state above?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

While the US did not participate, did our levels drop below our 1990 levels or did they rise as the EU's did?

It was a question, not a statement, thank you for answering that. There were major reductions made to kyoto that were almost identical to what Clinton said he would agree to sign, most notably, the % drop from 3% to 1%. Bush dismissed Kyoto after it became obvious it was not a sincere or realistic effort. China, India, and 15 of the top polluters in the EU do not have to comply in ANY WAY. At least we have been upfront about our position. They act as if they are playing fairly while they gave themsevles special exemtpions, reminds me of sanctioning Iraq on one hand while dealing them illegal arms with the other.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
While the US did not participate, did our levels drop below our 1990 levels or did they rise as the EU's did?

It was a question, not a statement, thank you for answering that. There were major reductions made to kyoto that were almost identical to what Clinton said he would agree to sign, most notably, the % drop for 3% to 1%. Bush dismissed Kyoto after it became obvious it was not a sincere or realistic effort. China, India, and 15 of the top polluters in the EU do not have to comply in ANY WAY. At least we have been upfront about our position. They act as if they are playing failry while they gave themsevles special exemtpions, reminds me of sanctioning Iraq on one hand while dealing them illegal arms with the other.

Be careful how you use the term "EU".

From the article:

Luxembourg showed the biggest reduction of all, cutting emissions by 44% between 1990 and 2001.

It 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.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

They chose the blanket term EU, I did not.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: 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.

No problem. I'm glad we won out also, despite the evil "stacked deck".

Thera, you have already proven that you don't know anything nor wish to lean anything about this subject. Your statement is based on your ignorance of the subject. If you are not aware of how the deck was stacked than why do you make comments about it?

I'm not sure what part of a question mark you don't understand. It's interesting that you take my questions as "not wanting to learn". I'd hate to see what you do if your kid asks you a question. As for proof that I don't want to learn I'd really like to see that also.

Anyway... I did a google search for "Kyoto stacked deck" and just found stuff relating to media slant in global warming debates. Nothing regarding actual policy or how it effects our industries. Since this thread is about implimenting the Kyoto protocols and not media bias I'd like to know how the deck was stacked. I'm still in the dark and I'd love to know what you guys are talking about.

Let's refresh your memory with what you said earlier...

-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?

So what you are saying in answer to all those questions is that you don't know nor do you care to find out. Last time I checked when someone says they don't know nor do they care it means they don't presently know the answer and don't care to find it out. Isn't that the same thing as not wanting to learn?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
While the US did not participate, did our levels drop below our 1990 levels or did they rise as the EU's did?

It was a question, not a statement, thank you for answering that. There were major reductions made to kyoto that were almost identical to what Clinton said he would agree to sign, most notably, the % drop from 3% to 1%. Bush dismissed Kyoto after it became obvious it was not a sincere or realistic effort. China, India, and 15 of the top polluters in the EU do not have to comply in ANY WAY. At least we have been upfront about our position. They act as if they are playing fairly while they gave themsevles special exemtpions, reminds me of sanctioning Iraq on one hand while dealing them illegal arms with the other.

The part in bold is a point I disagree with you over. IMHO Bush dismissed Kyoto not because of other parties - but because it would cost the economy. It worries me that he is making that decision given the obvious links to petrol consumption and the oil related connections of many of his own family and advisors. Given what I can see of the way the US political system works (lobbying) I have grave concerns over "conflicts of interest".

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

You cynicism is probably well founded in those regards. But Kyoto itself is not going to make effective changes by exempting half the world's population, India and China.

I never understood the "save the earth" crowd, don't they realize the Earth will continue even if we alter the enviornment to the point WE can't.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: 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.

No problem. I'm glad we won out also, despite the evil "stacked deck".

Thera, you have already proven that you don't know anything nor wish to lean anything about this subject. Your statement is based on your ignorance of the subject. If you are not aware of how the deck was stacked than why do you make comments about it?

I'm not sure what part of a question mark you don't understand. It's interesting that you take my questions as "not wanting to learn". I'd hate to see what you do if your kid asks you a question. As for proof that I don't want to learn I'd really like to see that also.

Anyway... I did a google search for "Kyoto stacked deck" and just found stuff relating to media slant in global warming debates. Nothing regarding actual policy or how it effects our industries. Since this thread is about implimenting the Kyoto protocols and not media bias I'd like to know how the deck was stacked. I'm still in the dark and I'd love to know what you guys are talking about.

Let's refresh your memory with what you said earlier...

-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?

So what you are saying in answer to all those questions is that you don't know nor do you care to find out. Last time I checked when someone says they don't know nor do they care it means they don't presently know the answer and don't care to find it out. Isn't that the same thing as not wanting to learn?

I said "who cares?" because I don't see how it effects the treaty or America. In all honesty I want to know who really cares about these items as it relates to our position and Kyoto. Who (what person or organization) cares (has interests in or tied to)?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
While the US did not participate, did our levels drop below our 1990 levels or did they rise as the EU's did?

It was a question, not a statement, thank you for answering that. There were major reductions made to kyoto that were almost identical to what Clinton said he would agree to sign, most notably, the % drop from 3% to 1%. Bush dismissed Kyoto after it became obvious it was not a sincere or realistic effort. China, India, and 15 of the top polluters in the EU do not have to comply in ANY WAY. At least we have been upfront about our position. They act as if they are playing fairly while they gave themsevles special exemtpions, reminds me of sanctioning Iraq on one hand while dealing them illegal arms with the other.

The part in bold is a point I disagree with you over. IMHO Bush dismissed Kyoto not because of other parties - but because it would cost the economy. It worries me that he is making that decision given the obvious links to petrol consumption and the oil related connections of many of his own family and advisors. Given what I can see of the way the US political system works (lobbying) I have grave concerns over "conflicts of interest".

Cheers,

Andy

IT was the senate in 1997 that rejected Kyoto 99-0. It is amazing how Bush is blamed for this rejection and he was not even in office.

 

[Fencer128]

IT was the senate in 1997 that rejected Kyoto 99-0. It is amazing how Bush is blamed for this rejection and he was not even in office.

So what was I watching a while back (2001/2002?) when the US negitiator got pelted with eggs (or was it cake?) and half the world's diplomats were up all night (including the deput prime minister) trying to push a deal? That wasn't 1997.

Cheers,

Andy

EDIT: It was March 2001 if my memory serves correctly.

EDIT 2: Here is the link

From the BBC website:

"After the US pulled out in March 2001, the treaty was left shattered. A compromise was reached four months later, with nearly 180 nations opting for a scaled-down version of the treaty, but President Bush has stated that the US will never sign it."

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

IT was the senate in 1997 that rejected Kyoto 99-0. It is amazing how Bush is blamed for this rejection and he was not even in office.

So what was I watching a while back (2001/2002?) when the US negitiator got pelted with eggs (or was it cake?) and half the world's diplomats were up all night (including the deput prime minister) trying to push a deal? That wasn't 1997.

Cheers,

Andy

I dont know what you watched, but thisis what happened.

You can fault Bush for not pushing Kyoto, but considering the previous admin failed with a 95-0 senate vote to adopt it, it seems to be a dead issue.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: shinerburke


-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?

So what you are saying in answer to all those questions is that you don't know nor do you care to find out. Last time I checked when someone says they don't know nor do they care it means they don't presently know the answer and don't care to find it out. Isn't that the same thing as not wanting to learn?

I said "who cares?" because I don't see how it effects the treaty or America. In all honesty I want to know who really cares about these items as it relates to our position and Kyoto. Who (what person or organization) cares (has interests in or tied to)?

You don't see how it effects the treaty because you are completely unaware of the answers to the questions he asked. It's quite simple, the EU picked a year in which their emissions were maximized to allow their targets to be easily attainable without economic impact. They gave no such consideration to the US. That is called stacking the deck and what you orginally protested had not happened and then rejected any desire to learn about the actual treaty. You choose not to participate in the discussion because it was too much work. I suggest you continue with that path and don't let the door hit you on the way out.