Europe misses Kyoto targets

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Here is the link to the treaty.

The last page (annex B) shows the "quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment".

It shows the countries listed in the post above with an asterisk next to them. The asterisk footnote says:

"countries that are undergoing the transition to a market economy".

Here is a list (since we are so fond of GDP ) of GDP's from the 2002 CIA world factbook for each asterisked country:

Bulgaria purchasing power parity - $50.6 billion (2002 est.) - $6,600 per capita (2002 est.)
Croatia purchasing power parity - $38.9 billion (2002 est.) - $8,800 per capita (2002 est.)
Czech Republic purchasing power parity - $155.9 billion (2002 est.) - $15,300 per capita (2002 est.)
Estonia purchasing power parity - $15.2 billion (2002 est.) - $10,900 per capita (2002 est.)
Hungary purchasing power parity - $134.7 billion (2002 est.) - $13,300 per capita (2002 est.)
Latvia purchasing power parity - $20 billion (2002 est.) - $8,300 per capita (2002 est.)
Lithuania purchasing power parity - $29.2 billion (2002 est.) - $8,400 per captia (2002 est.)
Poland purchasing power parity - $368.1 billion (2002 est.) - $9,500 per capita (2002 est.)
Romania purchasing power parity - $152.7 billion (2001 est.) - $6,800 per capita (2001 est.)
Russian Federation purchasing power parity - $1.27 trillion (2002 est.) - $8,800 per capita (2002 est.)
Slovakia purchasing power parity - $66 billion (2002 est.) -$12,200 per capita (2002 est.)
Slovenia purchasing power parity - $36 billion (2002 est.) - $18,000 per captia (2002 est.)
Ukraine - $205 billion (2001 est.) - $4,200 per capita (2001 est.)

For a comparison, here is the US and UK:

US purchasing power parity - $10.082 trillion (2001 est.) - $36,300 per capita (2001 est.)
UK purchasing power parity - $1.52 trillion (2002 est.) - $25,300 (2002 est.)

The countries in bold are those with transitioning economies (recovering from decades of communism/dictatorship) who have chosen Kyoto baseline dates other than 1990. I'll let you do the maths on the combined GDP of those countries. The questions in this debate continues to be not so much:

"what is expected of us is wrong" but more "what is expected of others is not fair" and "it's not critical enough of a problem (if a problem at all) to bother spending money on".

Cheers,

Andy

Am I to get away with this comment? Any counter arguements to this point?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[ElFenix]

i think purchasing power parity is a really stupid theory becuase it doesn't even exist within national boundaries. you go to NYC then you go to houston and then tell me that a dollar is worth the same in both

 

[ElFenix]

oh, and for those who hate seeing job flight in the US, entering into the kyoto treaty (for the first time, since we never agreed to it in the first place) would send plenty of jobs over to china and india as they would be comparatively cheaper

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i think purchasing power parity is a really stupid theory becuase it doesn't even exist within national boundaries. you go to NYC then you go to houston and then tell me that a dollar is worth the same in both

I was giving the reason why "the deck was stacked" for some countries (as outlined in Iwentsouth's post and my following ones). How can you effectively compare the economic state of different countries if you don't use GDP based methods? (I would really like to know because as you point out there it is not always the ideal indicator)/

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
oh, and for those who hate seeing job flight in the US, entering into the kyoto treaty (for the first time, since we never agreed to it in the first place) would send plenty of jobs over to china and india as they would be comparatively cheaper

This discussion has talked about the fact that the US was a signatory and did not choose to ratify. No one (well myself at least!) is argueing that they entered into a done deal and then withdrew. With regard to the jobs flight - that may happen - but they are "comparitively cheaper" in my mind now - so why aren't most jobs there already? Has anyone done any modelling of the numbers they believe would leave?

I would really like to see an arguement as to how the emissions will be tackled, given the (if you're particularly skeptical) significant probability that human influenced climate change is occuring and the result thereof could have dire consequences.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[etech]

Bush - State of the Union Address.

In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: etech
Bush - State of the Union Address.

In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

That's all well and good and should be applauded. It does however imply that nothing substantial to change emissions will actually be done in the near future and then only if Hydrogen vehicles become commercially viable (I think Honda's new hydrogen vehicle costs ~ 2 million dollars).

Cheers,

Andy

 

[etech]

I know Fencer, it doesn't matter what the US does, you'll be here to bash it by saying it isn't enough, it won't work etc.

I give you an A for consistency.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: etech
I know Fencer, it doesn't matter what the US does, you'll be here to bash it by saying it isn't enough, it won't work etc.

I give you an A for consistency.

Did I "bash" for the announced research? No. Did I say it wouldn't work? No. Is it enough. No. You were right on that one.

What I continually go on about is that something should be done now and nothing is. Everyone gets so defensive when their arguement reaches it's limits. If the US said it was going to set an emission target and aim to reduce by investment - (cleaner plants, alternative energy, lower engine sizes, etc.) because actual change costs money - I would be the first to congratulate them. Trouble is most of those who advocate doing nothing don't just say it because it may cost something - they say it because secretly (or sometimes not so) they believe that climate change isn't our problem. Thing is, the jury's out on that one and it just may be that we're actually going through the motions of screwing up the lives of lots of people at some point in the near future.

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

our efforts are not enough, we need to sign onto treaties that gurantee half the wrolds population don't have to do ANYTHING, great logic...

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
our efforts are not enough, we need to sign onto treaties that gurantee half the wrolds population don't have to do ANYTHING, great logic...

You need to read the "why's" to understand the whole position. There are good reason's for most of what has been presented in this thread so far. Look at "Iwentsouth's" arguement for example. He didn't look to closely at the "why's".

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Why are the 2 largest populations exempt?
Why are the biggest possible polluters from the EU exempt?
Why did they "pick" their lowest levels as a starting point to measure positive change?
Why did they water down an already inneffectice proposal?
Why couldn't they even make their handpicked quotas?

You can get a reasonably priced car here in America that gets over 70 miles to the gallon BTW...

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Why are the 2 largest populations exempt?
Why are the biggest possible polluters from the EU exempt?
Why did they "pick" their lowest levels as a starting point to measure positive change?
Why did they water down an already inneffectice proposal?
Why couldn't they even make their handpicked quotas?

You can get a reasonably priced car here in America that gets over 70 miles to the gallon BTW...

To answer most of your questions - please read my replies to "Iwentsouth's" post. As for the others, they watered down the proposal because they could. Politics at work. They shouldn't have and I am disgusted for the underhandedness of it all - but what other international treaties are on the table right now? One's that actually commit to a cut in emissions?

Some of them are making their handpicked quotas. Criticism is good - but I would like to see all such views backed up with solid suggestions for how real changes can be made to emissions in the short term.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Kyoto was the chance to do just that, and what we found is collectively the world's industrial nations are not going to comply, don't want to comply, or be able to comply to it's even watered down quotas.

What is this obsession with an "international" approach? What is wrong with each country handling their own problems with emissions, each case is unique.

What good are blanket international solutions that exempt the majority of the world?
So what if the EU lowers it's emissions by 1%, what if china and india raise theirs 25%? Overall what would have more of an effect on climate?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Kyoto was the chance to do just that, and what we found is collectively the world's industrial nations are not going to comply, don't want to comply, or be able to comply to it's even watered down quotas.

That is an egxaggeration. Some of them are not on course to meet their targets - meaning there is a very good chance they will not meet them. Some are on course to meet theirs.

What is this obsession with an "international" approach? What is wrong with each country handling their own problems with emissions, each case is unique.

The "obsession" with internationalism (I know that many in the US see that as a dirty word) is that climate change is an international problem. More than that some countries - namely those less well off - do not have the same resources available as those rich countries with which to implement change. The result is that the global emission levels must be managed by more than just "each country tackling it's own". Otherwise we may well see poorer countries holding back their basic economic development for the sake of meeting their quota. Fine if you have the basic necessities freely to hand in your society - but not if you're struggling.

What good are blanket international solutions that exempt the majority of the world?

See my reasoning above. We could argue the list of countries exempt - I see arguements over India and China, but I don't see how anyone could argue that the Sudan has money for emission reductions.

So what if the EU lowers it's emissions by 1%, what if china and india raise theirs 25%? Overall what would have more of an effect on climate?

I'd have to see the numbers on that one. I don't know how much emissions each are putting out.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

"That is an egxaggeration. Some of them are not on course to meet their targets - meaning there is a very good chance they will not meet them. Some are on course to meet theirs."

Most would not ratify until the level required to drop was lowered by 2/3. The sheer fact that out of the amount needed to ratify among industrialized nations (Sudna?) 1/3 were made exempt of even this lowered level should tell you how ineffective OVERALL the effect would be. Why did they pick their LOWEST levels instead of their highest or latest to gauge their reduction by?

Let me know what China and India put out annualy?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i think purchasing power parity is a really stupid theory becuase it doesn't even exist within national boundaries. you go to NYC then you go to houston and then tell me that a dollar is worth the same in both

I was giving the reason why "the deck was stacked" for some countries (as outlined in Iwentsouth's post and my following ones). How can you effectively compare the economic state of different countries if you don't use GDP based methods? (I would really like to know because as you point out there it is not always the ideal indicator)/

Cheers,

Andy

i just think theres better ways to convert the value of a good/service in other countries to $ than using PPP. GDP has nothing to do with quality improvements, either.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: ElFenix
oh, and for those who hate seeing job flight in the US, entering into the kyoto treaty (for the first time, since we never agreed to it in the first place) would send plenty of jobs over to china and india as they would be comparatively cheaper

This discussion has talked about the fact that the US was a signatory and did not choose to ratify. No one (well myself at least!) is argueing that they entered into a done deal and then withdrew. With regard to the jobs flight - that may happen - but they are "comparitively cheaper" in my mind now - so why aren't most jobs there already? Has anyone done any modelling of the numbers they believe would leave?

I would really like to see an arguement as to how the emissions will be tackled, given the (if you're particularly skeptical) significant probability that human influenced climate change is occuring and the result thereof could have dire consequences.

Cheers,

Andy

lots of people, not necessarily you, have said that we withdrew from the treaty.
they would be comparatively cheaper vis-a-vis the today levels. so, in addition to the jobs that have already been lost there, more would leave.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: rchiu

These countries have huge military spending, China has the largest army in the world...Pakistan and India are entering a nuclear arms race...and Vietnam is well Vietnam. If these countries spent less on arms races and building up a huge military for no reason that they could funnel this over into Nader Power....

You gotta be kidding me, who can compare to USA in terms of military spending?? see following stat:

-On the military in general, the USA spends more than the rest of the G7 countries combined
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2003 is $396.1 billion
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2002 was $343.2 billion.
-The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2001 was $305 billion And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
-This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.
-The US military budget is more than six times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
-The US military budget is more than twenty six times as large as the combined spending of the seven "rogue" states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria).
-It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty five nations.
-The United States and its close allies (NATO countries, Australia Japan and South Korea) spend more than the rest of the world combined
-This accounts for two thirds of all military spending.
-Together they spend approximately 40 times more than the seven rogue states.
-The seven potential "enemies," Russia and China together spend $117 billion, less than 30% of the U.S. military budget.
-Global military spending has declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $809 billion in 1998. During that time the U.S. share of total military spending rose from 31% to 36% in Fiscal Year 1999.
-In 1997 alone, half of USA's aid was related to military aid/trade -- and most of that was to countries that are already wealthy, like Israel, or Turkey (which has often been one of the largest recipients of US military aid and has often been criticized for its human rights violations and crackdowns). Compare that to very poor countries like Sub-Saharan African nations that received very little aid.
-During his election campaign, President George Bush had promised an an additional 45 billion dollars over nine years to the military budget. Yet, that increase was seen in just the Fiscal Year 2003 request alone. This large increase is attributed to the "War on Terror".

Oh and US is the single largest producer of world pollution. Maybe US government should think about spending less in military and do more in environment?

Who spends more? NK spends 1/3 of their $$$$ while their children starve and then they have the nerve to restart a nuclear reactor claiming they "are next in the US's pre-emptive policy" in order to get us to the table for what???? TO BEG FOR MORE FOOD FOR THEIR PEOPLE. We pay for our own military protection, unlike Canada, who relies on us, and we still have enough left over to help aholes like NK who do nothing but add to the BS about the US so bite me pal.

People are starving in India and China as well, remember what happened to Russia when they tried to keep pace with US military spending? So because we CAN afford to spedn what we do, while others cannot, we are to blame and should be required to pick up their slack and feed their people. What do you suggest? Should we spend less on our own military so we can give more aid to nk, enabling them to spend more on their own military? Or should we eliminate alot of the time and just give them the weapons they spend their money on instead of food for their poeple so they can buy their own food?

Kyoto is a JOKE, watered down reductions, handpicked quotas, and full of exemtpions just to get it to pass and it STILL failed. If China, India, and the top 15 polluters in the EU can be totaly exempt, the US should be too, add that and we will ratify, just as those 17 nations required exemption before ratification.

 

[Alistar7]

?There is no better time for Congress to be considering multi-pollutant legislation. President Bush has indicated that Clear Skies is his top environmental priority,?

The proposed Clear Skies legislation would create a mandatory program that would dramatically reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury by setting a national cap on each pollutant.

Clear Skies was proposed in response to a growing need for an emission reduction plan that will protect the environment while providing regulatory certainty in the industry. The program was submitted as proposed legislation in the US House of Representatives on July 26, 2002 and in the US Senate on July 28, 2002. The program was reintroduced in the US House of Representatives (HR 999) and the US Senate (S. 485) as the Clear Skies Act of 2003 on February 27, 2003

 

[Fencer128]

I've seen some interesting views on the clear skies act.

Be sure to check out the last paragraph:

"The Bush administration plan ignores global warming".

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

"The proposed Clear Skies legislation would create a mandatory program that would dramatically reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury by setting a national cap on each pollutant."

according to your source it would lead to higer emissions, so which one is correct?


CTA.... Clear The Air, what is their agenda?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"The proposed Clear Skies legislation would create a mandatory program that would dramatically reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury by setting a national cap on each pollutant."

according to your source it would lead to higer emissions, so which one is correct?


CTA.... Clear The Air, what is their agenda?

I'm looking for the act itself. Once I've read it I'll give you my opinion.

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"The proposed Clear Skies legislation would create a mandatory program that would dramatically reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury by setting a national cap on each pollutant."

according to your source it would lead to higer emissions, so which one is correct?


CTA.... Clear The Air, what is their agenda?

Here is more info on the comparison between current environmental legislation and the new one.

With regard to "agendas" - I have one I think could be pertinent too. Conflict of interest. I'm sure you see where I'm going with that.

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Same source though, lol....


Are you even sure the numbers they are claiming are real?