06-05-2003 19:34									#1
	The Kyoto treaty and meaning what you say! Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I found this interesting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2996219.stm

After all the condemnation of GWB for refusing to sign the treaty it seems that most of the European countries who supported Kyoto have little or no chance of actually complying.

I liked the line about the Russians thinking global warming might benefit them (they should play CTP2 if they want to terraform tundra).

The last paragraph sums it up rather well.

	06-05-2003 19:39									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Ah yes but it must be the Yanks fault they mad us miss the targets by making us pump out the stuff. We always do what the US wants they are evil and we are powerless to stop them.

	06-05-2003 19:43									#3
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Actually it seems that the UK might be one of the few to reach their targets so we can be righteous.

I wonder if there is a correlation between their degree of opposition to war with Iraq and how far some countries will fall short of Kyoto.

	06-05-2003 19:45									#4
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Its similar to the EU, we moan and moan and then implement the directives far more strictly then evryone else, although 1/2 of them couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery so its not that surprising.

	06-05-2003 20:12									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I didn't really understand the article... First it says Germany, France and the UK have raised their CO2 emissions most between 2001 and 2002.
Then it says these same countries have a chance to reach their objectives by 2012.
Then the 'Poly Brits boast at how much superior they are

More seriously, I think it was pretty stupid of the EU to make a promise on behalf of all member-states, if it didn't intend to give clear objectives, tools and funding to achieve this promise If the EU becomes serious about Kyoto, the smaller member-states will manage to lower their emissions too

	06-05-2003 20:13									#6
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I wasn't saying how superior we are i was saying how stupid we are

	06-05-2003 20:17									#7
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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.

	06-05-2003 20:19									#8
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I posted the link because I smell some hypocrisy on the part of assorted politicians across Europe.

From what I have read elsewhere the UK will struggle to actually meet its target but probably won't be as far short as many other countries.

I think it shows that whenever action on global warming is mentioned it is best to disbelieve at least 50% of what is said.

	06-05-2003 20:22									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV I think it shows that whenever action on global warming is mentioned it is best to disbelieve at least 50% of what is said.

A wise advice

	06-05-2003 20:31									#10
	Put an end to popups!

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

	06-05-2003 20:36									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: It [Luxembourg] 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

Germany, UK and France are on target. As these make up the bulk of the EU greenhouse emissions I would say that things can't be that bad.

	06-05-2003 20:40									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Its all fine and dandy to try and reduse emitions, but to set limits is a less efficient way to go about, then say, finding a way to reduce emitions without reducing overall effectiveness.

They really should be throwing their money at inventions that do this, more so than throwing their money at regulating existing technologies.

Apart from fuel cells (hydrogen power), or increasing alternative forms of energy, they could also be throwing their money at increasing the efficiency of the plants that create most of these emmisions.

One good place to start is with something like this. A company that has created a catalyst that reduces the temperature of combustion, thus reducing the amount of harmful emitions. I am sure there are many more solutions.

IMO ppl are generally more proned to whine about issues, hesitate, and then make poor decisions. Ussually, these decisions are the easiest way out, for the short term, and are generally more detremental. Instead of addressing the problem with such vigor, it seems it be more logical to address the solution with the same amount of enthusiasm.

	06-05-2003 20:40									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I wonder what the current numbers are for the US.

	06-05-2003 20:47									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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.

I think Canada ought to impose a $10/gallon tax on gasoline. That will get the Kyoto point home to the average Canadian.

Gore proposed a $5 a gallon tax in the US. He refused to talk about his proposal in the 2000 debates. I wonder why?

Russia is showing common sense. Countries all across the North are going to benefit from global warming, if it happens. The US will benefit as well.

	06-05-2003 20:53									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I imagine much of the rust belt has lower numbers now then 10 years ago. After all those closed industrial plants used to put out CO2, however, the country's over all trend has to be up.

	06-05-2003 21:02									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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)

	06-05-2003 21:06									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

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?

	06-05-2003 21:13									#18
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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.

	06-05-2003 22:01									#19
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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?

	06-05-2003 22:03									#20
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 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.

	06-05-2003 22:18									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	06-05-2003 23:07									#22
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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/gg...mary/index.html

quote: 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.

	07-05-2003 00:28									#23
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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

	07-05-2003 00:30									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

	07-05-2003 01:03									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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.

	07-05-2003 01:17									#26
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	07-05-2003 01:27									#27
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

	07-05-2003 01:28									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	07-05-2003 01:40									#29
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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

	07-05-2003 01:41									#30
	Tired of ads?

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