Kyoto fail – CO2 emissions still going up

Per capita anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissi...

CO2 per capita - Image via Wikipedia

From the European Commission Joint Research Centre

Steep increase in global CO2 emissions despite reductions by industrialized countries

Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main cause of global warming – increased by 45 % between 1990 and 2010, and reached an all-time high of 33 billion tonnes in 2010. Increased energy efficiency, nuclear energy and the growing contribution of renewable energy are not compensating for the globally increasing demand for power and transport, which is strongest in developing countries.

This increase took place despite emission reductions in industrialised countries during the same period. Even though different countries show widely variable emission trends, industrialised countries are likely to meet the collective Kyoto target of a 5.2 % reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 as a group, partly thanks to large emission reductions from economies in transition in the early nineties and more recent reductions due to the 2008-2009 recession. These figures were published today in the report “Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions,” prepared by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

The report, which is based on recent results from the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) and latest statistics for energy use and other activities, shows large national differences between industrialised countries. Over the period 1990-2010, in the EU-27 and Russia CO2 emissions decreased by 7% and 28% respectively, while the USA’s emissions increased by 5% and the Japanese emissions remained more or less constant. The industrialised countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (so called ‘ratifying Annex 1 countries’) and the USA, in 1990 caused about two-thirds of global CO2 emissions. Their share of global emissions has now fallen to less than half the global total.

Continued growth in the developing countries and emerging economies and economic recovery by the industrialised countries are the main reasons for a record breaking 5.8% increase in global CO2 emissions between 2009 and 2010. Most major economies contributed to this increase, led by China, USA, India and EU-27 with increases of 10%, 4%, 9% and 3% respectively. The increase is significant even when compared to 2008, when global CO2 emissions were at their highest before the global financial crisis. It can be noted that in EU-27, CO2 emissions remain lower in absolute terms than they were before the crisis (4.0 billion tonnes in 2010 as compared to 4.2 billion tonnes in 2007).

At present, the USA emits 16.9 tonnes CO2 per capita per year, over twice as much as the EU-27 with 8.1 tonnes. By comparison, Chinese per capita CO2 emissions of 6.8 tonnes are still below the EU-27 average, but now equal those of Italy. It should be noted that the average figures for China and EU-27 hide significant regional differences.

Long term global growth in CO2 emissions continues to be driven by power generation and road transport, both in industrial and developing countries. Globally, they account for about 40% and 15% respectively of the current total and both have consistent long-term annual growth rates of between 2.5% and 5%.

Throughout the Kyoto Protocol period, industrialised countries have made efforts to change their energy sources mix. Between 1990 and 2010 they reduced their dependence on coal (from 25% to 20% of total energy production) and oil (from 38% to 36.5%), and shifted towards natural gas (which increased from 23% to 27 %), nuclear energy (from 8% to 9%) and renewable energy (from 6.5% to 8%). In addition they made progress in energy savings, for example by insulation of buildings, more energy-efficient end-use devices and higher fuel efficiencies.

The report shows that the current efforts to change the mix of energy sources cannot yet compensate for the ever increasing global demand for power and transport. This needs to be considered in future years in all efforts to mitigate the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions, as desired by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Bali Action Plan and the Cancún agreements.

###

The full report can be downloaded from: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php or http://www.pbl.nl/en

About the Joint Research Centre (JRC):

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is the European Commission’s in-house science service. Its mission is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of European Union policies.

The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) project uses the latest scientific information and data from international statistics on energy production and consumption, industrial manufacturing, agricultural production, waste treatment/disposal and the burning of biomass in order to model emissions for all countries of the world in a comparable and consistent manner. EDGAR is also unique in its provision of historical emission data for 20 years prior to 1990, the reference year for the Kyoto protocol.

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency:

PBL is the national institute for strategic policy analysis in the field of environment, nature and spatial planning in The Netherlands and contributes to improving the quality of political and administrative decision-making by conducting outlook studies, analyses and evaluations in which an integrated approach is considered paramount. Policy relevance is the prime concern in PBL studies, for which independent and sound research is conducted.

The Kyoto Protocol: Annex I Parties:

The industrialised countries listed in this annex to the Convention committed to return their greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. They have also accepted emissions targets for the period 2008-12. They include the 24 original OECD members, the European Union, and 14 countries with economies in transition.

Non-Annex I Parties:

Refers to countries that have ratified or acceded to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that are not included in Annex I of the Convention.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
oldseadog

“CO2 – the main cause of global warming….”.
Proof, please.
Not to mention, what global warming?

“the main cause of global warming”
So, when did you stop beating your wife?

Russ Brittlegill

“Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main cause of global warming – …”
I’m getting just a bit bored with assertions like this being rammed down our throats.

Bob Diaz

I think a good YouTube video on the failure of CO2 reductions is this one:

Dr, Muller shows how all of our cuts in CO2 are pointless, because China will increase their output even more.

RockyRoad

I for one am glad–GLAD, I tell you, that Kyoto has failed.
I for one am glad–GLAD, I tell you, that CO2 is on the rise. (My plant friends are happy, too!)
I for one am glad–GLAD, I tell you, that there may be just an itsy bitsy ray of hope in averting the next Ice Age–but it probably will have nothing to do with CO2.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

OMG we’re all gonna die. I love how the climate reality project has triggered a trotting-out of dismal forecasts, all in lockstep with a separate reality. They didn’t really think that China was going to stop growing to satisfy their little target, did they?

Only and idiot or someone living in a fantasy world (is there any difference?) could have expected anything different.
Certainly, at least for anyone who was paying even the slightests attention, the evidence of what was going on in India and China should have warned them that the Kyoto targets were not based on any realistic evaluation of the potential numbers.

Gore added that the world had a choice – it could go back to carbon based fuels or put people to work to make the transition back to a low carbon economy. But one step was needed to make this happen – a price had to be put on carbon.
“India and China have just announced a CO2 tax.”

Did I miss something ? When did India and China announce a CO2 tax ?

Tom in indy

I don’t believe China. How are these numbers verified?

RobW

“India and China have just announced a CO2 tax.”
I guess this is another example of “emotional truth” then

Martin M

Love the ‘per-capita’ tag on the map. I suppose if the USA had over a billion citizens it would be green and happy just like Communist China and India.

Kelvin Vaughan

Dont worry there is no Infra red at 4.8 microns below 6000 meters above sea level coming from the sun. (Wikipedia) told me. Therefor it can’t be scattered by CO2.
Where did the radiation come from that the earth emits to space? It has no absorbtion bands.

Latitude

Does this mean Gates will start saying 45% now, instead of 40%……..
..45% of nothing is still nothing

Rhoda Ramirez

The whole ‘per-capita’ nonsense is just a tool to bludgeon the Australia voters into its carbon tax. Just a meaninless statistic. Per GDP would be better if you must use a comparator.

Curiousgeorge

Well at least all that extra weight of CO2 has weighed down the oceans, which has allowed Obama to fulfill one of his many promises. See Climate Depot for details

Latitude says: September 21, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Latitude: Gates hasn’t said anything yet (today anyway). Why not wait until he says it before piling on?

jono

Now which figures am i going to believe, Switzerland announcing that its energy creation/consumption went up 9% last year due to the cold or that he quotes a 12.5% INCREASE in nuclear capacity (“from 8 to 9 percent ) in the industrialised world, that doesnt include England does it ? or Germany, or CH or USA or … so maybe its france thats expanded by some 100% or so. trust EDGAR !!!!!!!!!
I did my bit by installing a really big wood burning stove to help, we are told its “CO2 neutral” hence excluded from the figures so its a super CO2 reduction (isnt it ?)
I need an Asprin.

Amazing to say, but the scientific brilliance of the European Commission is matched by its economic brilliance, as individual freedom has been identified as the cause of the financial crisis.

intrepid_wanders

“Most major economies contributed to this increase, led by China, USA, India and EU-27 with increases of 10%, 4%, 9% and 3% respectively. The increase is significant even when compared to 2008, when global CO2 emissions were at their highest before the global financial crisis. It can be noted that in EU-27, CO2 emissions remain lower in absolute terms than they were before the crisis (4.0 billion tonnes in 2010 as compared to 4.2 billion tonnes in 2007).”
Check out page 13 figure 3.2:
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef_19sept.pdf
So, they are talking about million tonnes/person, okay so lets compare some numbers:
United States – (million tonnes/person)
1990 – 19.7
2000 – 20.8
2010 – 16.9
[Hmmm 16.9 used to be lower than 19.7….]
EU-27 – (million tonnes/person)
1990 – 9.2
2000 – 8.5
2010 – 8.1
China – (million tonnes/person)
1990 – 2.2
2000 – 2.9
2010 – 6.8
South Korea – (million tonnes/person)
1990 – 5.9
2000 – 9.7
2010 – 12
These numbers make no sense to the Conclusion/Analysis. According to the “numbers” it looks as though the United States and the EU-27 made their 10-10 goals (without the US trying). South Korea really missed their goal (really wasn’t trying), oh yeah, who is the Secretary-General of the UN? What country is he from? Let’s review the head man of the IPCC’s country:
India – (million tonnes/person)
1990 – 0.8
2000 – 1.0
2010 – 1.5
Does anyone have a clue of what these “goals” were supposed to be (other than the obvious wealth redistribution)? I got similar results using Oakridge data.
Warmist trolls, anyone???

led by China, USA, India and EU-27 with increases of 10%, 4%, 9% and 3% respectively. —– let me move this around a bit……
China 10%, India 9%, U.S.A. 4%, EU-27 3%…….
I can’t figure this out, we’re recovering? I showed a couple of brief comparisonsshowing unemployment and CO2 emissions for the U.S.
If the U.S. and the EU-27 wish to really recover, we need to start pumping energy. 4% won’t cut it.

ldd

So dumb question here; but when they measure these ’emissions’ how do they tell the volcanic contributions from the human ones?

the main cause?
The observed warming is clearly mostly due to natural processes
e.g. see
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
and some additional warming (on top of the natural warming) is caused by increased vegetation
Limiting CO2 (a natural non-poisonous gas) in the atmosphere is stupid

Latitude

Robert E. Phelan says:
September 21, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Latitude: Gates hasn’t said anything yet (today anyway). Why not wait until he says it before piling on?
==================================================
Piling on??
…so how long have you been humor challenged Robert?
Gates is a big boy, he’s perfectly capable of laughing on his own and doesn’t need your permission.

Don E

It has already been mentioned, but how can it be determined how much is from human activity and how much from natural sources?
[REPLY: There is actually quite an extensive discussion of that issue invovling CO2 isotope ratios. A google search might prove enlightening. -REP, mod]

SSam

Neo says:
September 21, 2011 at 12:55 pm
‘“India and China have just announced a CO2 tax.”
Did I miss something ? When did India and China announce a CO2 tax ?’
That’s not the part that catches my eye.
“Gore added that the world had a choice.., [inane B/S] …put people to work …”
I couldn’t expect less from this lazy fat [expletive deleted] slob.

ldd says:
September 21, 2011 at 2:01 pm
So dumb question here; but when they measure these ‘emissions’ how do they tell the volcanic contributions from the human ones?
===================================================
I believe they are estimating based on our energy and fuel use as opposed to any CO2 measurements. For instance, if X amount of coal was burnt, then that = Y amount of CO2 emissions. Same for gasoline….etc.

DirkH

Don E says:
September 21, 2011 at 2:19 pm
“It has already been mentioned, but how can it be determined how much is from human activity and how much from natural sources?”
“CO2 is not driving the Bus, Climate is driving the bus, and CO2 sits in the back of the bus.”
Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources
2nd Aug 2011 speaking Murry Salby (ex IPCC Reviewer)
Podcast 46min
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/
Natural variation of CO2 emissions is not included in climate models! (Satellite observations were not available when they started coding the models)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/#comment-712838
jo nova
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/
Roy Spencer:
“1. The interannual relationship between SST and dCO2/dt is more than enough to explain the long term increase in CO2 since 1958. I’m not claiming that ALL of the Mauna Loa increase is all natural…some of it HAS to be anthropogenic…. but this evidence suggests that SST-related effects could be a big part of the CO2 increase.
2. NEW RESULTS: I’ve been analyzing the C13/C12 ratio data from Mauna Loa. Just as others have found, the decrease in that ratio with time (over the 1990-2005 period anyway) is almost exactly what is expected from the depleted C13 source of fossil fuels. But guess what? If you detrend the data, then the annual cycle and interannual variability shows the EXACT SAME SIGNATURE. So, how can decreasing C13/C12 ratio be the signal of HUMAN emissions, when the NATURAL emissions have the same signal???
-Roy”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
HTH

Nuke Nemesis

Those who don’t look at the world through green-colored lenses know that so far, “green jobs” are nothing but tax-payer funded boondoggles and developing countries are the least able to afford most of the green technology being developed.
If you want to replace fossil fuels, develop energy sources that are just as reliable and no more expensive. Don’t artificially raise the costs of using conventional fuels. Make something that’s better and people will beat a path to your door to buy it.

Rosco

Here in Australia we have the “world’s best practice” example of AGW lunacy.
The current Government is intent on a carbon tax leading to an emissions trading scheme. Its stated policy is that we will reduce emissions to ~ 50% of some level and use international “carbon credits” to cover the rest of our problems thus exporting billions of dollars from us to who really knows where.
Political commentators on the ABC and other AGW friendly media sites are trying to argue that it doesn’t really matter where the reductions occur as long as there are reductions – OK that seems a little odd but if reductions are called for then they’re right – it doesn’t matter where they occur the issue is that they do.
There is, however, one little piece of insanity that seems to escape comment – it is also Government policy to at least DOUBLE Australia’s output of COAL in the same time frame.
This will completely negate by several times any benefit Australia makes by cutting emissions and purchasing “credits” offshore. Already our coal exports amount to more than domestic consumption.
I am confused – if emissions need to come down lets stop digging it up.

Mark

In the rather temperate North Bay (SF)- Sonoma county reported their (MT CO2e/person) recently as 9.1. Most of which comes from the transportation sector (67%).
Sonoma County Carbon Budget and Economic Impact for 2010
Presented May 26, 2011 -http://www.sctainfo.org/pdf/carbon_budget_and_economic_impact_2010.pdf

Scarface

CO2-levels follow warming, as we know fo a while.
Even when the world cools the coming years, CO2-levels may keep rising for another 800 years.
(Source: Vostok Ice Cores)

Kaboom

I think Gore and the warmists need to step up their game now or forever be considered pansies and failures. Protest for 24 days instead of 24 hours and on Tian’anmen square instead of the Interwebs. China won’t be able but to curb their CO2 terrorism in the face of such action!

Louis

Rosco says: “I am confused – if emissions need to come down lets stop digging it up.”
Don’t you understand? They need to “DOUBLE Australia’s output of COAL” to pay for the carbon indulgences. That doesn’t make sense if you believe that lowering emissions is their mail goal in all of this. But it isn’t. It’s just a convenient excuse.

Louis says:
September 21, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Rosco says: “I am confused – if emissions need to come down lets stop digging it up.”
Don’t you understand? They need to “DOUBLE Australia’s output of COAL” to pay for the carbon indulgences. ………………………
=================================================
Everyone knows coal burnt in China produces the nice CO2, not like the evil CO2 that countries like Australia and the U.S. emit when they burn the same coal!! Why can’t you deniers understand this simple stuff???

mhklein

Well! I never thought I’d see the day when WUWT admits that AGW is real!
Best wishes for your further enlightenment!

Philip Bradley

What they won’t admit is that Kyoto was the direct cause of a large proportion of the CO2 increase.
This is because Kyoto forced energy intensive industries like Steel, Aluminium and Cement out of energy efficient developed countries and into energy inefficient developing countries.
It takes about 50% more energy to make a ton of steel in China compared to Germany or Japan. Add the additional energy used to transport the bulky raw materials and finished products increased distances and you are approaching a doubling of CO2 emissions for the same amount of Steel/Aluminium/Cement.

CO2 is just the narrative for the agenda:

“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG3

Some interesting charts that relate to this subject:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Despite the demonization of “carbon”, more CO2 is a good thing. It is still a tiny trace gas. No one has been able to falsify the statement that more CO2 is harmless and beneficial. As Edenhofer candidly admits, the “carbon” scare is intended to bring about redistribution of wealth – with the UN in the middle, always taking its hefty cut.

LazyTeenager

Kelvin Vaughan says:
September 21, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Dont worry there is no Infra red at 4.8 microns below 6000 meters above sea level coming from the sun. (Wikipedia) told me. Therefor it can’t be scattered by CO2.
Where did the radiation come from that the earth emits to space? It has no absorbtion bands.
————
Look at a photo of the earth from space. It has colour therefore it has absorption bands.
Go outside look at the colour of the earth, the plants, the oceans. They all have colour therefore they have absorption bands.
Plants are green because their absorption band is optimal to collect energy from the sun.
So many wrong debating points, so little time.

mhklein says:
September 21, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Well! I never thought I’d see the day when WUWT admits that AGW is real!
Best wishes for your further enlightenment!
=========================================================
Only an alarmist could possibly interpret this thread as a confirmation of AGW. That must be some amazing colors of the sky where you live. But many, if not most, at WUWT acknowledge AGW and have for years, but, just not in the way some reality denying lunatics believe.

LazyTeenager

Rhoda Ramirez says:
September 21, 2011 at 1:30 pm
The whole ‘per-capita’ nonsense is just a tool to bludgeon the Australia voters into its carbon tax. Just a meaninless statistic. Per GDP would be better if you must use a comparator.
———–
No there is a fairness argument in play here.
Most people think that if something is a common resource and it is not being shared equally then that is not fair.

pat

given most of the world is yet to develop, it is evident to anyone but a CAGW fantasist that emissions will continue to increase, which means the alleged remedies have nothing to do with reality or science.
more proof CAGW is just a name for turning CO2 into a commodity:
20 Sept: Big Pond: Abbott vows to scrap carbon scheme
As debate continues on the carbon pricing legislation in parliament, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has vowed to seize emissions permits bought by business…
‘During the fixed-price phase of the carbon tax (from 2012 to 2015) I think we can close it down, and we will close it down without incurring the billions in liabilities that the (government) is talking about,’ Mr Abbott told Macquarie Radio…
As debate continued in parliament on the clean energy legislation, a member of Mr Abbott’s coalition team on Tuesday argued against the science of climate change.
Former scientist Dennis Jensen, a Liberal MP, told parliament the planet was not warming and it was wrong for the government to use a ‘benign scientific theory’ as a basis to legislate for a carbon tax.
‘To put it simply, the carbon tax with all its regulatory machinations is built on quicksand,’ Dr Jensen said.
‘Take away the dodgy science and the need for a carbon tax becomes void.’…
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2011/09/20/Abbott_vows_to_scrap_carbon_scheme_663977.html
what a difference a day makes, and what a duplicitous bunch the Opposition Coalition Party prove themselves to be. Greg Hunt seems positively upset the carbon dioxide market is being delayed:
21 Sept: Herald Sun: AAP: Australia wants UN climate treaty by 2015
AUSTRALIA now believes a legally-binding global agreement on cutting carbon emissions should not be signed until 2015 – and the Federal Opposition says it is happy to work to that timetable.
In the interim, in a joint submission with Norway to the United Nations, Australia says countries should work towards establishing “a common international framework for mitigation targets and actions”.
“Common rules will provide transparency, promote a global carbon market and ensure the environmental integrity of any binding climate agreement,” the joint submission states.
“An important part of the outcome in Durban (in November) should be to establish rules and frameworks for accounting.
Opposition climate action spokesman Greg Hunt says the coalition is happy to work towards a 2015 binding agreement.
But he noted today things were moving much slower than originally anticipated.
“We would like to have an international agreement,” Mr Hunt said in Canberra.
“But what the submission notes is that there’s no realistic prospect before 2015 – six years after Copenhagen.”…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-wants-un-climate-treaty-by-2015/story-e6frf7jx-1226142775730

Smokey says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm
CO2 is just the narrative for the agenda:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG3
………
====================================================
I’m just wondering at what point will the impoverishment be satisfied? Clearly, CO2 emissions correlate with economic growth. For those Malthusian, communist, greens in the U.S., any compromise in the entitlement system of the U.S. is laid a their feet. Hope they’re happy with Grams going hungry during the winter to pay for heating.

Lazy says:
“Most people think that if something is a common resource and it is not being shared equally then that is not fair.”
What “common” resource would that be? And who decides what is “fair”? Sounds like two coyotes and a rabbit voting on fairness. [Hint: you are not one of the coyotes, according to Herr Edenhofer.]

Owen

@James Sexton
I thought most of the argument here was that the majority of OBSERVED warming was natural variability with only a minor component man made (thus AGW). Of course we discuss the amount of each component rather vociferously, but don’t shout anyone down like some other sites.
If you were to say most of us say the temperature has fairly steadily increased since the LIA, then I think we (mostly) all are in general agreement with some quibbles over exact numbers (and whether those numbers mean anything). After that I think the “consensus” around here is the issue is unproven and not even close to explained. (i.e much more science is needed to form a conclusion) with as many pet theories to chase down as commenters on the board. That is one of the things I love about this site. Everyone comes at the problem from a slightly different background and perspective. I always learn something here.

TomRude

From Pielke Sr blog:
3. Do you agree that continuing on our current business-as-usual emissions path presents an unacceptable (in your opinion) risk to the biosphere and to human society in general within the next century?
Pileke Sr. reply: “Of course. The emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, and its continued accumulation in the atmosphere is changing the climate.”
Man O man, what utter Bull!

“Over the period 1990-2010, in the EU-27 and Russia CO2 emissions decreased by 7% and 28% respectively, while the USA’s emissions increased by 5% and the Japanese emissions remained more or less constant.”
Stunning stuff. The old Eastern bloc shut down its inefficient and polluting industry, Russia did the same, the Japanese have a highly developed nation with a stable population and the USA had a non moribund economy for most of the period. The Euros also exported their “pollution” (CO2 is not pollution)production capability to China. Wow!

Interstellar Bill

Who besides the scammers themselves
isn’t sick beyond words
of the CO2 scam?

pat says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Pat,
Greg Hunt is from the warmist, bleeding heart branch of the Liberal Party. He’s also a tool and a fool and hopefully will be relegated to the back bench of the next government.
I think the Libs know the international community will never get its act together so it is just noise for the consumption of “boganis australis vulgaris”.

John Whitman

Going back to square one.
Human beings will, from very primative human forms until today, change the environment of Earth and significantly so.
Is that bad as long as it benefits humans?
That is the question. Don’t beat around the philosophical/theological bush. Confront it head on. That is the deciding issue.
Be brave my fellow rational beings.
John

Andrew30

I guess Canada is in a good position with the ongoing cooling (economic and thremal).
It will be interesting to see what happens to the rest of you in comming years.
We have decided to use our energy to keep warm stay comfortable and to be productive.
Canadas Prime Minister sums it up…
“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.”
“This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa, but ordinary Canadians from coast to coast will not put up with what this will do to their economy and lifestyle”
“As economic policy, the Kyoto Accord is a disaster. As environmental policy it is a fraud”
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada