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
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).
China is about to undergo more problems with world trade shortly with regards to their blocking of rare earth mineral exports, http://pindanpost.com/2011/05/22/trouble-coming-on-rare-earths/
as long as some country has enough courage to initiate action.
“According to the most comprehensive global figures ever complied”
And we should be surprised by this???? It is blindingly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell that shipping goods half way round the world will increase overall emissions, even if the producing country is as “environmentally friendly” as Western nations are. And we know full well that many parts of China are fast becoming poisoned wastelands, in order to satisfy our government mandated “Low Carbon” lifestyle.
Are there actually any recognised qualifications needed to become a politician?
Contrary to this article, Kyoto has been outstandingly successful in what was meant to be achieved. The entire purpose of the exercise was to deindustrialize Europe and the USA. And like willing ‘useful idiots’ the politicians and greens thundered sheeplike into the pen and are still pushing and shoving to get further in. As this has happened financiers have spent all their time making money by ‘shorting’ economies as they collapsed.
So what has changed? Almost all productive industry has moved to China, India and Indonesia. Another decade or so and the ‘3rd world’ could be Europe and North America.
It seems that no-one apart from the instigators are thinking of the indirect consequential impacts of these treaties, only of their supposed ‘green’ direct impacts. Yet it was the indirect consequences that were planned.
From Roget’s Thesaurus:
Main Entry: green
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: inexperienced
Synonyms: callow, credulous, fresh, gullible, ignorant, immature, inexpert, ingenuous, innocent, naive, new, raw, tenderfoot, unconversant, unpolished, unpracticed, unseasoned, unskillful, unsophisticated, untrained, unversed, wet behind the ears, young, youthful
I think that meaning applies well in this case to anyone who thinks that ‘carbon footprints’ were the reason for Kyoto.
Maybe we should look at the Guardian’s sports section and see how they’re moving the goalposts there. Do they say “Manchester had the high score in the game, but because the teams they played before this game performed poorly, overall they lost the game. No fault of the other teams, Manchester is to blame for it all despite their high score.”
The latest Gallup poll released this morning: click
In the mean time the great oceans of the world say “do what you dig but we aren’t changing our long standing behavior”.
China will reap the rewards created by the West’s co2 idiocy. A doubling of c02 will mean a greener planet and more habitat for wildlife. What is the problem?
The co2 ‘problem’ will be rendred insignificant by technological advances and more efficient energy use by the middle of the century. People used to worry about the horse manure problem for London by the year 2000.
M Simon re: trees
There is this initiative:
http://www.un-redd.org/
But it appears to be more of a wealth transfer scheme than what you’re talking about. It was being worked on at COP-15, but may have been a baby that got thrown out with the bathwater being the failure of that conference.
Funny how all of the carbon finger-waggers never seem to mention relative GDP.
Good for China. Except the imported goods we are getting are worthless. From pencils, to tape, to garbage can liners. And just when did we say that an “insulated mug” doesn’t have to come with insulation in the liner? I cut one up. There was nothing there. No insulation, and no vacuum seal at all (I know that because water was inside the liner). Nothing but crap. What amazes me is the willingness of ordinarily smart people accepting some of the poorest made goods I have ever seen on store shelves.
I don’t know how to fix this. Rich people don’t buy those things. Lower income salary has not kept pace with inflation, so we pinch pennies just to buy this crap.
“There is this initiative:”
http://www.un-redd.org/
This is the money making replacement for Kyoto, cap and trade, and CCX that Strong and Clinton have been pushing. Similar to farmers getting paid NOT to grow crops, this program seeks to have the West pay LDC’s billions not to cut their forests> The idea being the forests will soak up CO2 while the LDC’s soak up money.
The beauty of the program is that the West will pay into the program for 50 years while the trees are growing. Then one year the trees are cut down and sent to market. However, there is no refund given for the money paid in. The next year the trees are replanted, and the West starts paying all over again for the LDC’s not to cut down the trees. Repeat in another 50 years.
Conservation movements like the WWF are buying up huge tracts of forest land around the world hoping to cash in on this program.
“Cuts in carbon emissions by developed countries since 1990 have been cancelled out many times over by increases in imported goods from developing countries such as China, according to the most comprehensive global figures ever compiled.”
What is it with these globocrats? For decades, they have been calling for the ending of tariffs, increased development assistance, and access to our high tech as a way to end poverty in developing nations and as a way to equalize all the world’s economies. Now they are getting it yet they are still complaining?
“Environmental campaigners have long argued that global carbon accounting should be based on consumption rather than production of goods and services. ”
Yeah, we’ve offshored millions of good paying manufacturing jobs economically gutting many of our cities and leaving us close to defenseless if a major war should break out, now they want us to pay more for imported goods from those jobs that we’ve sent away? This to me is just a way to finish us off faster because this is just a way to increase the global redistribution of wealth faster (i.e., make us poorer faster).
“Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said:”
Kyoto is an emissions trading program. What part about “emissions trading” does the IPCC find confusing? Nowhere does the program say “emissions reduction”.
The purpose of Kyoto was to trade emissions from countries with high emissions to countries with low emissions. It has done this. China and India used to have low emissions, now they have high emissions. Mission accomplished Pachauri.
Goals set forth by Warmista have been from LaLa Land. Kyoto is the best example. Kyoto could work only if there is a world government. That is because it is not in the interest of any one government to make sacrifices for the common good so long as there is no requirement on all governments to make similar sacrifices. This the Paradox of the Commons. Warmista and Greens believe that the vision of the common good will be enough to overcome national self-interest. What childish idiots. And Al Gore must be included among this group along with Pachauri. Someday there might be world government. No doubt the Chinese would be quite happy to tell all of us how to live just as they do in Tibet today.
It proves one thing, wealth goes to the producers and countries like China was handed that wealth on a silver platter with the West’s technology, inventions, equipment and procedures. And we are now purchasing the products we should be producing. And they still want to lay a carbon tax on the US.
Well if we all stop buying anything made in China, they’ll have a lower emissions level.
Just say no!
Mind you, it would then suck to be a Walmart greeter.
That’s exactly what REDD is about IMO.
Worthless garbage can liners?
No problem. We were going to throw them away anyway.
The UN has made this abundantly clear – The purpose is to distribute wealth to the developing world.
Once this is accomplished, what would be the next logical step? Wealth transfer from China, Indian, Brazil, etc. to underdeveloped countries?
Love to see how the Chinese react to that!
Gore signing the treaty had as much legal effect as if I had signed the treaty, in other words none.
So “cuts in carbon emissions in developed countries have been cancelled out by increases in imports from developing countries” (seemed kind of obvious).
Australia exports $50 billion of coal to developing countries like China each year. These countries use that coal as energy to make products for exports to the developed countries like the US. The US is the world’s largest economy.
The world is supposed to commit to significant reductions in CO2 emissions and greenies/politicians suggest such a reduction would affect country GDP by only 1-2%.
In what order do we proceed? US reducing imports, China reducing exports, or Australia reducing coal exports?
This is an intractable problem. Of course if we all switched to solar/wind CO2 emissions would drop rapidly as would the world economy (sarc obviously) for a double savings in emissions.
Reading the Guardian article, I’m struck by the claims that the U.S. emissions are effectively higher than the Chinese, after factoring imports/exports. The emissions from China are higher than the U.S., no matter how you want to warp the numbers.
The simple test is if you take all the Chinese imports to the U.S. and subtract the emissions that would have resulted from the domestic U.S. production, the difference is the inefficiency and pollution of Chinese power production. THAT’S not the fault of the U.S.
If China was subject to the same emissions standards, you’d have a level playing field. They’re not, so to add their emissions to U.S. emissions is not equitable. The only real solution to lowering U.S. emissions if this is to be the standard is to lower Chinese imports.
Think the Chinese will go for that?? Of course they’ll like the idea, it’s green.
But, China DID offer to cut CO2 emissions – to the same per-capita level as the United States. With their population approximately 4 times that of the USA (1.2 billion vs 300 million, more or less), then China could emit 4 times the CO2 on a tons per year basis.
Such a deal. Whatever else the Chinese are, they are no dummies.
While boycotting Chinese goods (if you can call them that) sounds great , try finding goods made elsewhere . It ain’t that easy . Even my WUWT mug comes from China .
Why manufacturing move to China :
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/10/killing-manufacturing
I see. Simple solution. The ignorant masses must stop consuming, as well as curtail all driving and electrical uses and a second child, allowing that the permit for the first is approved. The elite will necessarily need a few privileges to continue the good work.
DJ, you’re missing the point of the article, which is to dis the US. For that rag, the basis to any story is that the US is bad, Bad, BAD. All else flows from that assumption, no logic or research required.
Al Gore did not sign the Kyoto Protocol. A low level UN funcionary by the name of Peter Burleigh signed the Kyoto Agreement in Nov of 1998. He was some level of a UN Ambassador from 1997-99. Don’t remember where I found that info, probably here. The treaty was never brought before Congress to ratify. Remember, these were Clinton (demo) years.
“Good for China. Except the imported goods we are getting are worthless.”
I have bought very good Chinese imports.
Bill “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” Clinton was president at the time. I thought HE signed Kyoto. Why would Gore, as VP, sign any treaty, and by what authority?
Some of us would like to know, when, where, and in what capacity (he signed).
Or, was that comment meant in some other vein rather than factual?
.
Jimbo said @ May 22, 2011 at 6:15 am
“People used to worry about the horse manure problem for London by the year 2000.”
Jimbo, you are out by 50 years:
“A classic example of this is a problem that was getting steadily worse about a hundred years ago, so much so that it drove most observers to despair. This was the great horse-manure crisis.
Nineteenth-century cities depended on thousands of horses for their daily functioning. All transport, whether of goods or people, was drawn by horses. London in 1900 had 11,000 cabs, all horse-powered. There were also several thousand buses, each of which required 12 horses per day, a total of more than 50,000 horses. In addition, there were countless carts, drays, and wains, all working constantly to deliver the goods needed by the rapidly growing population of what was then the largest city in the world. Similar figures could be produced for any great city of the time.*
The problem of course was that all these horses produced huge amounts of manure. A horse will on average produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day. Consequently, the streets of nineteenth-century cities were covered by horse manure. This in turn attracted huge numbers of flies, and the dried and ground-up manure was blown everywhere. In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds of horse manure per day, which all had to be swept up and disposed of. (See Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 [New York: Oxford University Press, 1999]).
In 1898 the first international urban-planning conference convened in New York. It was abandoned after three days, instead of the scheduled ten, because none of the delegates could see any solution to the growing crisis posed by urban horses and their output.
The problem did indeed seem intractable. The larger and richer that cities became, the more horses they needed to function. The more horses, the more manure. Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure. Moreover, all these horses had to be stabled, which used up ever-larger areas of increasingly valuable land. And as the number of horses grew, ever-more land had to be devoted to producing hay to feed them (rather than producing food for people), and this had to be brought into cities and distributed—by horse-drawn vehicles. It seemed that urban civilization was doomed.”
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past-the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/
I think this has more to do with energy intensity in the manufacturing sector of the exporting country than much of anything else. China’s total energy intensity in 1990 was about 6 times the US, currently it is about 4 times. As energy intensity declines further carbon emissions will fall per unit of GDP. The UN is jumping on a problem that is self-correcting over the long run. This is largely to counter the emerging Kuznets curves from energy to other resource consumption per unit of GDP and per capita. These data show that capitalism is the force by which input costs are constantly reduced.
earth shaking proposition.
we take some of the mined out open pit mines (and they are some monstrous holes in the ground) that the greenies are continually bitching about and use them for land fill dumps.
oh yeah, cant use them because …………
bah humbug.
C
I watched the entire speech by Dr. Muller. It was interesting and informative. He throws the necessary amount of homage to the warmists so they don’t mark his door, but he also takes on the shoddy aspects of their science (and his body-slams of Hansen were particularly enjoyable.) His main point, to me, is what my bottom line is: Is the amount of warming heading our way enough to change the planet in ways to demand the sacrifice that the warmist politicians demand? He is very upbeat on natural gas usage, as I am. We have it in abundance, it generates 50% less CO2 than other sources, and we need to exploit it.
Pompous Git, Interesting history but railroads had largely eliminated the need for long and medium distance horse transport. If that 1894 conference adjourned early for lack of solutions then the solution was all around them in the form of various modes of transport from Benz to Diesel all occurring years before the conference convened. Lack of imagination…comes to mind….
Keith says:
May 22, 2011 at 2:56 am
[The problem, as I see it, is that the current Labor government does not have a particularly good record producing well rounded legislation —-So, given current ‘performance’ to date; any legislation around ETS or carbon tax is very likely to be full of holes and problems. —
So thats why I’m worried –– Australia is very fortunate ATM to have a working economy on the back of the resource boom]
Lawrie Ayres says:
May 22, 2011 at 3:50 am
Keith,
[I agree with what you say.——— 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.]
————————————————————————
Keith and Laurie: you both right here. Australia is blessed with huge resources that are in demand. But the ETA tax on carbon emissions is totally misguided and is likely to diminish Australia’s productivity and prosperity. The MSM is essentially bereft of what we once knew as investigative journalists. It is just a huge echo chamber echoing what is fed to it – especially from the so called ‘Greens’ of the world. If there is one thing that the Greens and to a lesser extent Labour, are good at is the development and distribution of propaganda. This comes from the so called ‘intellectual’ side of their adherents – the denizens of the universities.
The history of labour administrations in the UK Australia and NZ is one of mismanagement especially of the economy. You just need to look at the record of each. So wake up Aussie cuzzies – too late for we Kiwis I’m afraid.
Regards
Douglas
Australia is exactly the opposite. Not only are we net exporters of energy fuels we are also net exporters of energy intensive goods. I have written a short piece about this and hopefully it will be posted soon. At times like these I wish I had finished my PhD on the subject 🙂
Bulldust: Not only are we net exporters of energy fuels we are also net exporters of energy intensive goods.
If I understand correctly, Australia is also the continent with the highest export of water in the form of goods.
Why not have a go at that too?
It’s a small green social network…
Anybody notice that the author of the Guardian Article – Duncan Clark…
.. is also the 10:10 (No Pressure) Campaigns’ Strategy Director. (not that clear he works for both in his bios)
http://www.1010global.org/uk/about/inside/team/duncan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/duncanclark
a neutral observer, no doubt (sarc off)
The US never promised a 7% cut – that is just plainly a lie. One man did, and he never had the authority to speak for the other 300 million Americans.
To the commenters asking:
1. Al Gore negotiated for the U.S. in Kyoto.
2. The Senate voted unanimously against a Kyoto-like agreement.
3. Al Gore signed the treaty anyway.
4. The Senate did not ratify it, just like they said.
Additionally, not emphasized in the comments so far is that the majority of signatories had no serious obligations. Quite a lot of them had had an economic crash since the 1990 baseline year, so they could increase their emissions and still meet their obligations. Some of them had to reduce emissions, but of course they could simply buy credits from the countries that had it easier. No country made a sharp reduction in emissions due to the Kyoto Protocol.
To contrast, the U.S. and China would have had to make steep sacrifices to comply.
Overall, the Kyoto Protocol is brilliant politics, but it has very little to do with lowering CO2 emissions. That CO2 alarmists fixate on it suggests that their goal is mainly symbolic.