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.
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