Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Kyoto signatories GHG emissions up 21%
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, May 01, 2008

Neat little chart I found over at Willisms (it is based on the latest Index of Leading Environmental Indicators [pdf]) - it is particularly for those who continue to claim we're not doing our share of cleaning up the environment.

...during the last decade the United States has had the best record among industrialized nations in restraining GHG emissions. Between 1997 and 2004, the last year for which comparative data are available: —global GHG emissions increased 18 percent; —emissions from Kyoto Protocol participants increased 21.1 percent; —emissions from non-Kyoto nations increased 10 percent; —emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent.
I say to the rest of the world - and especially the Kyoto signatories - clean up your act first before demanding we do anything (of course I don't think we need to do anything, but I do love to rub such numbers ... well you get the idea).
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Please, the reason the Kyoto signatories are constantly harping on the lack of US participation is obvious now. They need us to bring their horrible average back down.
 
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
oh, man, that’s BRILLIANT
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
So, that graph basically says FUATHYRIO to the rest of the industrialized world (meaning "...and the horse you rode in on").
 
Written By: CR
URL: http://
I blame Bush for not doing anything to conform to the Kyoto Accords.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Now, in fairness, the Kyoto signatories bar includes those signatories that had absolutely no requirements placed upon them.

...Which kinda shows the stupidity of the whole thing, doesn’t it?
 
Written By: Mariner
URL: http://
...Which kinda shows the stupidity of the whole thing, doesn’t it?
Heh ... well yeah, but it was supposed to be the great panacea, yes?

But it is interesting how it breaks down - the whole world is doing better than Kyoto, non-Kyoto is doing better than the world as a whole and the US is doing better than non-Kyoto. Talk about bass-akwards.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
But it is interesting how it breaks down - the whole world is doing better than Kyoto, non-Kyoto is doing better than the world as a whole and the US is doing better than non-Kyoto. Talk about bass-akwards.
AND it’s getting cooler - don’t forget that.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
But it is interesting how it breaks down - the whole world is doing better than Kyoto, non-Kyoto is doing better than the world as a whole and the US is doing better than non-Kyoto. Talk about bass-akwards.
AND it’s getting cooler - don’t forget that.
See? The treaty worked!
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
That graph is hugely misleading. I’m no fan of Kyoto but this graph is just stupid. Most of the countries in the pact could increase admission by 10 times what they were at the start and still not be in the neighborhood of our levels of emissions. The fact is until the U.S. hits the point of negative growth rates or reductions we shouldn’t be acting as if we didn’t worth noting.

 
Written By: Chance Haywood
URL: http://www.libertyordeath.com
I’m reading the entire 87 page report and find it fascinating so far. One of my favorite quotes is -
These findings suggest that the environmental
concerns of antiglobalization protesters
have been overblown, and that the pollution
reduction achieved by U.S. manufacturing will
be replicable by other countries in the future.
Chance writes -
The fact is until the U.S. hits the point of negative growth rates or reductions we shouldn’t be acting as if we didn’t worth noting.
Mayhap he should read the report as well, as it states early on -
U.S.GHG emissions fell by 1.5 percent in 2006, the first time U.S. GHG emissions have fallen in a non-recessionary year. It is likely that the United States is the only industrialized nation where GHG emissions fell in 2006. (Emissions data for other nations for 2006 are not yet available.)
So does that meet your criteria Chance???
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
With the exception of Chance, you are a bunch of self congratulating m*r*ns. US citizens produce 24% of the world’s greenhouse gases. US citizens consume more per capita electricity and water than any other country in the world and US citizens housing is among, if not, the most inefficient housing in the world. Of course, most US citizens do not care about any of this because they are so stupid they are convinced this is all god’s will. With a little luck Christ will finally make it back and rid us of all this m*r*ns once and for all.
 
Written By: Can’tStandUSMorons
URL: http://
With the exception of Chance, you are a bunch of self congratulating m*r*ns. US citizens produce 24% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
Which is irrelevant to the point of the post and the graph, but hey, when you can’t argue facts, change the subject and call people names - it always reflects so well you the one doing it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Which is irrelevant to the point of the post and the graph, but hey, when you can’t argue facts, change the subject and call people names - it always reflects so well you the one doing it.

Yes, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Keep patting your self in the back. That will for sure solve it.
 
Written By: Can’tStandUSMorons
URL: http://
Brilliant comeback (cough, cough)

Thanks for making it easy to ignore you.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Hey Lesser-Can’t...

Tell you what...why don’t you and your Kyoto-loving cohorts everywhere but in the US stop the whining and just lead the way?

YOU develop the necessary technologies...and we’ll buy them If you can make them inexpensive enough.

YOU turn YOUR GHG emissions to negative with those technologies...and we will gladly adopt them.

Just stop whining and LEAD THE WAY...hopefully this time we won’t have to bail you slackers out of the problems you get yourselves into like the petulant children that you are.

We are just as tired of it as you are...

 
Written By: Can’tStandNon-USMorons
URL: http://
About the author’s previous forays into "science journalism" - "Dr. Steven Hayward, senior fellow in Environmental Studies at the Pacific Research Institute, takes on Mr. Gore, Hollywood, the media, and the environmental extremists by sorting out the sense and the nonsense on global warming." And if you believe that, you need not read any farther.

It looks like the Pacific Research Institute is an ally of the American Enterprise Institute - at any rate that is where he draws his salary. The guy who runs the AEI is from the White House Writer’s Group which counts the Carslyle Group as its major customer. Hayward is a PhD in "American Studies" and is not an economist or climatologist. He is the author of four books, including, most recently, Greatness: Reagan, Churchill, and the Making of Extraordinary Leaders (CrownForum) and The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order, 1964–1980 (PrimaForum)

You may remember that Exxon passed money to Steven Milloy and the AEI. So while it is possible that rigorous scholarship could come out of the Pacific Research Institute, it is improbable.

The graph is based on statistics that claim to be percentage increases in output. It is a rate of increase (not a measure of output per capita) in terms of percentage for a group of countries that by and large had very small emissions to begin with as a baseline. They all knew they were going to be putting power plants online and building up their industrial capacity over the next twenty years. In particular Russia had experienced a huge drop in emissions and knew they were going to increase output. So the rate of increase was entirely expected and is no surprise to anyone.

The whole paper is an advertisement for how great everything is so that some politician can pull it out of his pocket when he needs to support something ExxonMobil or the Carlyle Group wants from Washington.

Last but not least, framing a discussion with the "Kyoto signatories" as an opposing group is ridiculous. When you think of Kyoto signatories, think "the rest of the people on the planet."
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://dysplastic-brain.blogspot.com
Ah, the old "funded by the oil companies" ploy (aka when you have nothing with which to refute the message, attack the messenger).

Yeesh.
The graph is based on statistics that claim to be percentage increases in output.
From a baseline - yes.
It is a rate of increase (not a measure of output per capita) in terms of percentage for a group of countries that by and large had very small emissions to begin with as a baseline.
But badly exceed their Kyoto targets.

Tell me - wasn’t the purpose of Kyoto to prevent that?

You seem to forget that if the US had signed Kyoto it too would have had a baseline number. This graph is relative to the baseline for all of them.

Seems the US has managed, without Kyoto, to outdo those who signed it. I know that’s heresy and deeply disturbing to the pro-Kyoto faction but there you go.

If you’ve got something to refute the graph’s portrayal of the situation, we’re all ears - or I guess in this case, all eyes.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Mr. Chance,

The way I read this chart is that the non-Kyoto countries as a whole increased emissions by 10% compared to 6.6% for the US.

Since China and India are in the non-Kyoto batch and China alone is now a bigger emitter of GHGs, it would follow that the increase from the US is SMALLER in absolute magnitude than the increase from China and other non-Kyoto countries.

Of course, that assumes that China is a typical non-Kyoto emitter. I suspect that to be true and it is quite plausible that China is above average in the non-Kyoto group. Ergo, China is the problem (such as it is), not the US.
 
Written By: Whitehall
URL: http://
The Kyoto target emissions were self-generated by the member signatories. The figures indicate lack of knowledge of their own output as much as anything.
But badly exceed their Kyoto targets.
You have percentages, not tonage figures so not one of us can say "badly" because the actual tonnages are trivial compared to industrialized nations.

My point is that people yelling (ie the paper) about Kyoto in any way shape of form is silly. Kyoto is a political process that is in its infancy that we would do well to shepherd rather than reject out of hand.

The purpose of the Kyoto agreement was to enshrine standards in domestic law - not international law. Having done that, the governments accept being painted as failing to meet self-set targets.

My "ad hominem attack" is justified to the extent that there are things that you shouldn’t bother wasting you time on. The organization is poisoned by ideologic bias that has been demonstrated numerous times. So why bother listening?

Take this statement for instance: "Do you agree with the statement that Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection has flaws and that teachers have a positive responsibility to present differing scientific theories to students?" The previous sentence is merely a way of making a moronic proposition and cloaking as a reasonable opinion.

The article in question bears a resemblance to the arguments of the Discovery Institute in that it is a huge mass of densely argued crap designed to take ages to read, examine, and refute. If Marc Morano doesn’t use it to bolster one of Inhoffe’s speeches in the next few months, I’m a monkey’s uncle. (Going to the store for bananas just in case.)

In closing, if you you refer to the "old funded by oil companies ploy" you may be taking about global warming denial. Since it turned out to be true, what does that mean? Fool me twice, I’m special?

For those readers who are not familiar with the documentation on this, the Royal Society (Britain’s version of AAAS) posted their written correspondence with the company online. For some unknown reason, Exxon admitted their complicity in paying Milloy and others to create doubt and then lied about stopping it, forcing the body of scientists to out them.
 
Written By: Bob Calder
URL: http://dysplastic-brain.blogspot.com
Bob, re: "In closing, if you you refer to the "old funded by oil companies ploy" you may be taking about global warming denial. Since it turned out to be true, what does that mean? Fool me twice, I’m special?"

Think about this while you’re at it.

There are hundreds of "climate scientists" (whatever that is!) who now have their reputations on the line because they’ve been tying "global warming" to CO2 emissions.

We now know that, historically, CO2 increases FOLLOW warming, not the other way around. We now know that the SUN most certainly DOES have a huge role in the climate (DUH!).

And now we’ve been through one of the longest and coldest winters on record, with snow in places that haven’t seen it in 100 years, following a 10-year long cooling, that just happens to coincide with a near-complete lack of sunspots.

A new climate model is now telling us that we will have a decade-long period before warming kicks in again (funny how that just happens to coincide with the solar cycle, huh?).

What we have here, Bob, is a gang of people whose reputations AND their billions in research grants are in severe jeopardy.

I other words, they are HIGHLY MOTIVATED to keep the AGW "threat" going for as long as they can get away with it.

This is a hoax, Bob. It’s people who want all that money being dished out by governments all over the world to keep flowing in.

What "oil companies" might pay out to this or that organization is sheer chickenfeed compared to what the "scientists" are getting for research grants.

WHO is motivated to do WHAT?

Be honest for a change!


 
Written By: mamapajamas
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider