It seems the US is to blame…
Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said: “The 7% increase in emissions of developed countries since 1990 is a deviation from what the IPCC fourth assessment report had assessed as the most cost-effective trajectory for limiting emissions … if [that rate] is to continue then not only would we encounter more serious impacts of climate change over time, but mitigation actions undertaken later to reduce emissions would prove far more costly.”
Much of the increase in emissions in the developed world is due to the US, which promised a 7% cut under Kyoto but then did not to ratify the protocol. Emissions within its borders increased by 17% between 1990 and 2008 – and by 25% when imports and exports are factored in.
In the same period, UK emissions fell by 28 million tonnes, but when imports and exports are taken into account, the domestic footprint has risen by more than 100 million tonnes. Europe achieved a 6% cut in CO2 emissions, but when outsourcing is considered that is reduced to 1%.
…I think the Guardian overlooked the fact that Gore signed Kyoto without authority, and nobody much wanted anything to do with it in the US after that. The promise was Gore’s, not the representatives of the people.
Full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Much of the increase in emissions in the developed world is due to the US, which promised a 7% cut under Kyoto but then did not to ratify the protocol
Nice word usements they structure ;).
In the same period, UK emissions fell by 28 million tonnes, but when imports and exports are taken into account, the domestic footprint has risen by more than 100 million tonnes. Europe achieved a 6% cut in CO2 emissions, but when outsourcing is considered that is reduced to 1%.
Wonderful mixing of measurements here… note how there’s no reference frame for the UK, just numbers?
The Guardian at its best. I’m so proud to be British.
/sarc
Just look at the first part of the video where Richard Muller, Professor, Dept. of Physics, UC Berkeley makes a clear cut case that even if the US does a major cut in CO2 emissions, it makes no difference.
This raises the question, “What is the point of our reducing our carbon footprint?”
That pretty well outlines it, Mr., er, Dr, Er….Guru Pachauri, time to just shut down the world economy, because everybody is guilty. No borrowing carbon from Peter to gas Paul for you. ( /sarc, just in case)
It is said everyone on Earth is related by six degrees of separation, but CAGW closes the gap: uniting us with one degree of foolishness.
Yes Gore may have signed the treaty, but an oten reported fact is that not one Senator voted for the treaty, not even ONE Democrat.
Someone may correct me but as I recall the vote was 97 to zero against ratifying the Treaty.
This was never brought up again during the Clinton Administration, and it was not until Bush blew it off that the main stream media and the Democrats began to criticize Bush for not pushing for the Treaty.
It’s just like the media now, while criticizing Bush constantly for the Iraq war, they totally support the war on Libya and the surge in Afghanistan. As I recall 77 Senators voted for the Iraq war including many Senators.
Same with the idiot Green idea in Australiato decrease the amount of coal we export.
This will only mean that lower quality coals are mined elsewhere, with an almost certain INCREASE in CO2 emmissions.
Just like the Carbon Tax would drive production of high energy commodities overseas, where production is probably less efficient and certainly less pollution controlled, hence leading to an increase in overall energy usage, not to mention the the extra energy used for transporting raw material etc.
The total short-sightedness of nearly EVERY Green agenda, astounds me.
“What is the point of our reducing our carbon footprint?”
Nothing but a futile gesture.
The West has been played for suckers by other means, while it busied itself with matters that had no basis in reality. The con men were themselves conned, knowing thier own great dishonor.
Andy G55 says: May 21, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Same with the idiot Green idea in Australiato decrease the amount of coal we export.
The total short-sightedness of nearly EVERY Green agenda, astounds me.
————————————————————————
Well Andy G55 Did you read the comments section of the Duncan Clark Guardian article? The myopia expressed there is even more astounding. These ijits actually believe this crap.
When our jobs here in the USA were outsourced so was are CO2 production, so do not blame us for it. If the jobs would have stayed there would be less CO2 produced because of EPA regulations on any and everything!
Personally I find the Greens and unintended consequences go together like Mork and Mindy; except M&M were less dangerous.
BTW if you want to see the level of intellectual thinking by the Greens in Australia – see the FB group for Say Yes Australia. Either they have had very good media training, don’t want to know the truth or the points go right over their heads..
Australia is in a very risky position; the NSW liberal landslide has put the current Federal government on red alert, but they are between a rock and hard place in the deal they did with the Green party and the independents.
Kyoto ? whats a Kyoto ? Sounds like another Asian hybrid. Just what the world needs (not).
Is Al Gore the fabled Manchurian Candidate? Destroying western industry to allow China to flourish?
Neil;
More like the Munchkin Candidate. But fatter.
It beggars belief that people haven’t realised that the reason the Chinese are all too happy to stoke up the global warming hysteria, is that it has decimated western industry and sent all the jobs to China. Of course, they are none too keen if it is suggested that they cut CO2 emissions … but if your major economic enemies want to take on some religious cult that says that half your economy has to be outsourced to your enemy, then what general wouldn’t start praising that religion?
There are 2 main reasons for these numbers and it is telling that they are not even mentioned:
– Europe’s slower increase is mainly due to the industrial collapse of the Soviet Block after 1990.
– America’s increase is mainly due to massive population growth due to immigration.
Keith says:
May 21, 2011 at 10:45 pm
[Personally I find the Greens and unintended consequences go together like Mork and Mindy; except M&M were less dangerous.——-Australia is in a very risky position; the NSW liberal landslide has put the current Federal government on red alert, but they are between a rock and hard place in the deal they did with the Green party and the independents.
———————————————————————————-
Keith. I have always had a high regard for the hard headedness of our Aussie cuzzies. (as opposed to we Kiwis (I hate to admit). The NSW result confirmed that for me. They seem to have a good nose for BS and call it for what it is. Surely they haven’t lost it at this stage?
Douglas
I’m of the opinion that CAGW is non-sense. And yet I’m willing to compromise. I could accept tree planting as a means of “mitigation”. It might even be profitable. And yet this is not allowed. Why? Well North America is a net carbon sink if you count the vegetation.
But China could benefit from trees as a means to at least slow desertification. A twofer.
My guess as to why nothing is to be done along these lines? Well it would not hurt the US. We are dealing with watermelons. Green on the outside red on the inside.
Is Al Gore the fabled Manchurian Candidate?
No. The Manchurian Candidate’s real name is Teh Won.
Hmmn perhaps the answer is produce goods in the country of consumption, employ people on good wages and conditions, with adequate holidays and recreational time,this will automatically increase the price of goods, but stimulate those economies, then you impose increasing tarrifs on imported energy, exotic woods to discourage wasteful consumption of these finite resources using well known supply and demand and market forces. No more pollution by giant container ships and transports criss crossing the world and multiple handling of resources.
Then defund all those international gab fests and cut flights by 80 percent…..Oh Thell is this back to the future or some such clockwork orange economic adventure. Well I suppose its marginally better than sending dirty industries to third world countries, exploiting their poorly paid workforces, enriching their dictators and enriching a select group of investors while screaming save the world for the future.
I don’t know lest just scrap the taxes, cut costs, and help like we used to every time there is some natural disaster in the world and never ever listen to economists!! they took over from the used car guys!! Caveat Emptor!
Manfred says:
May 22, 2011 at 1:18 am
“There are 2 main reasons for these numbers and it is telling that they are not even mentioned:
– Europe’s slower increase is mainly due to the industrial collapse of the Soviet Block after 1990.
– America’s increase is mainly due to massive population growth due to immigration.”
The Kyoto treaty was designed by the German Bundestag.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/secret-history-climate-alarmism?page=1
Hi Douglas,
The problem, as I see it, is that the current Labor government does not have a particularly good record producing well rounded legislation – rather the basic idea is in the right ballpark but often ends up ‘ill conceived’. For instance the Pink Batts scheme that basically needs every roof space checking to make sure the fly by night contractors didn’t install a death trap (unfortunately some have paid the ultimate price). Or the ‘stimulus package’ of school building that ends up with contractors under contractors under contractors building very expensive buildings that didn’t meet the needs of the local community. For example my local school had a 2.2M AUD hall built; a good local builder reckons he could have done the same for just shy of 800k and had a good profit; the local community was not consulted – for instance you cannot do racket sports in it, its just a simple hall.
So, given current ‘performance’ to date; any legislation around ETS or carbon tax is very likely to be full of holes and problems. Therefore totally failing on delivering on what it was brought into existence to do (regardless of whether that in itself would do anything).
So thats why I’m worried – the Labor government is essentially having to bend over backwards to accommodate the greens and the independents – when it had a hard enough job trying to stand up on its own!
Australia is very fortunate ATM to have a working economy on the back of the resource boom – anything that the government does which effects that is going to bring the good times to an end. yes, NSW is showing the way – but we have two federal election cycles to go yet before we will see real change at that level.
A Grauniad article blames the US for something.
Once again I am struggling to convey the enormity of my surprise…
Keith,
I agree with what you say. The Sunday Telegraph has a piece by David Penberthy in which he states his “belief” in climate change and then goes on to bad mouth a few sceptics in the press. I have written him and sent a sound piece by William Harper of Princeton U. The problem is not just with the pollies but with the MSM. It is obvious that most journalists are scientifically ignorant. They certainly are not asking hard questions of the alarmists and tend to publish any outlandish claim as gospel. Strangely they don’t allow the same space to sceptical scientists no matter how well qualified they may be.
The figures are a distraction, you might as well count the number of fairies on the head of a pin.
The whole issue is bo****s and Pachuari should dragged through the streets for his attempts to turn the world into a socialist comune.
In the UK one former Environmental minister has just been jailed and the current one is not so far away from the same future and the Canadian politicians are laughing their socks off at the rest of the world. The times are a changing, Australians will air their grievences and then it’s up to America to let Obama now where you stand.
Five to ten years and this will be the scenario that will be taught to political wannabees.
Be aware that those that lobby the loudest usually have the largest agenda.
Anthony,
The world power base is changing.
Not by wars, but by economic circumstances and bad decisions.
Ambition of whoever is in power has made a real mess that will bankrupt many governments that cannot repay the debt that they are in.
The future looks extremely brutal considering all the regulations in place to try to compete with the Chinese economic machine(very little regulations).