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.
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 @ur momisugly 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.