Kyoto Schmyoto

[GaryC 7]

Randall Hoven

One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.

And one would be wrong.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.

Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.

Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.

Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

Maldives, 252%.

Sudan, 142%.

China, 55%.

Luxembourg, 43%

Iran, 39%.

Iceland, 29%.

Norway, 24%.

Russia, 16%.

Italy, 16%.

Finland, 15%.

Mexico, 11%.

Japan, 11%.

Canada, 8.8%.

World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/1...o_schmyoto.html

[mawilson 2,133]

Sudan, 142%.

We should definitely bomb these f*ckers now.

[GaryC 7]

I find it interesting that those that signed the treaty have increased their emmissions much more than us.

[HAL 9000 96]

"Much more"

?

With 5% of the world population and more than 25% of the CO2 emmissions for the entire planet, you sure you don't want to normalize for actual consumption vs a rate? I think this has been explained before to you.

[GaryC 7]

"Much more"

?

With 5% of the world population and more than 25% of the CO2 emmissions for the entire planet, you sure you don't want to normalize for actual consumption vs a rate? I think this has been explained before to you.

How about these guys?

China, 55%

Russia, 16%

[HAL 9000 96]

"Much more"

?

With 5% of the world population and more than 25% of the CO2 emmissions for the entire planet, you sure you don't want to normalize for actual consumption vs a rate? I think this has been explained before to you.

How about these guys?

China, 55%

Russia, 16%

Compared to ?

[GaryC 7]

"Much more"

?

With 5% of the world population and more than 25% of the CO2 emmissions for the entire planet, you sure you don't want to normalize for actual consumption vs a rate? I think this has been explained before to you.

How about these guys?

China, 55%

Russia, 16%

Compared to ?

Having reading problems?

"Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. "

[HAL 9000 96]

"Much more"

?

With 5% of the world population and more than 25% of the CO2 emmissions for the entire planet, you sure you don't want to normalize for actual consumption vs a rate? I think this has been explained before to you.

How about these guys?

China, 55%

Russia, 16%

Compared to ?

Having reading problems?

"Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. "

Yeah, the same reading problems that clearly state, if you've actually read the Kyoto Protocol:

China nor Russia are not required to meet numerical emissions for CO2.

Do I agree with the protocol's failure to bind its members? No. Do I agree it is a step in the right direction? Yes. Do I agree that it should be revisited to increase binding by member nations that ratify in each nation's legislatures as binding? I hope so.

Again... a simple mathematical concern... have you normalized the US CO2 consumption index (consumption divided by population) vs, say, China's? (With Russia added in for that matter?)... try.

still

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"Much more"

?

With 5% of the world population and more than 25% of the CO2 emmissions for the entire planet, you sure you don't want to normalize for actual consumption vs a rate? I think this has been explained before to you.

How about these guys?

China, 55%

Russia, 16%

Compared to ?

Having reading problems?

"Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. "

Yeah, the same reading problems that clearly state, if you've actually read the Kyoto Protocol:

China nor Russia are not required to meet numerical emissions for CO2.

Do I agree with the protocol's failure to bind its members? No. Do I agree it is a step in the right direction? Yes. Do I agree that it should be revisited to increase binding by member nations that ratify in each nation's legislatures as binding? I hope so.

Again... a simple mathematical concern... have you normalized the US CO2 consumption index (consumption divided by population) vs, say, China's? (With Russia added in for that matter?)... try.

still

Stop making sense. It's devastating to Gary's argument.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Normalization is not a complicated concept

[HAL 9000 96]

Denial is also not just a river in Egypt...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Let's try this table to put the US' 6.6% into perspective:

Of course, it's always easier to compare the US to developing or third world countries to make it look better. I think the US ought to stand the comparison to those nations it shares the degree of development with. In that comparison, the US looks awefully bad. Which, I suspect, is why this flat earth society member didn't make that comparison but rather compared apples and oranges.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

You guys ever heard of pollution outsourcing? That's why the US is so high on the list. The rest of the world outsourced pollution to the US for nearly a century, in the form of manufacturing and production. Sorry, numbers don't begin to tell the whole story.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You guys ever heard of pollution outsourcing? That's why the US is so high on the list. The rest of the world outsourced pollution to the US for nearly a century, in the form of manufacturing and production. Sorry, numbers don't begin to tell the whole story.

And here I thought the US was outsourcing manufacturing and production left, right and center. Silly me.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

You guys ever heard of pollution outsourcing? That's why the US is so high on the list. The rest of the world outsourced pollution to the US for nearly a century, in the form of manufacturing and production. Sorry, numbers don't begin to tell the whole story.

And here I thought the US was outsourcing manufacturing and production left, right and center. Silly me.

Great, so 15 years of outsourcing growth and we just ignore 100 years of industrialization? Big picture.

Edited December 20, 2007 by AnewKINDofFEELIN