The United States under President George W. Bush has done more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than 75% of Kyoto signees. While the duncehat mainstream media is expected to downplay such accomplishment, one might expect climate organisations such as the IPCC to acknowledge Bush's climate superherodom.If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.American Thinker
* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)
* Maldives, 252%.
* Sudan, 142%.
* China, 55%.
* Luxembourg, 43%
* Iran, 39%.
* Iceland, 29%.
* Norway, 24%.
* Russia, 16%.
* Italy, 16%.
* Finland, 15%.
* Mexico, 11%.
* Japan, 11%.
* Canada, 8.8%.
Bush appears to have picked up support from fellow Anglosphere nations, including Canada and Australia (under the new PM!).
Rather than being isolated, the decision by the United States and Canada to take the lead in international energy and climate diplomacy appears to have galvanized key allies, who are gradually rallying around a much tougher stance vis-a-vis China and India.Source
In Bali, the Anglosphere nations have in effect drawn a red line in the sand: Unless developing countries agree to mandatory emissions cuts themselves, much of the Western world will henceforth reject any unilateral burden imposed by future climate deals.
Believers in Kyoto are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, to be sure. But their tendency to bury their heads in the sand provides a very tempting target for a quick wicked kick! I feel better now.
2 comments:
The American Thinker results are merely driven by the fact that Hoven chose two random, unrepresentative and idiosyncratic years to compare the carbon dioxide emissions levels. What was going on in the years of 1997 and 2004 is not exactly representative of the pre and post Kyoto situations.
I used the SAME table he uses and compare the increase in emissions for a GROUP of years before 1997 and after 1997, and find very different results.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 11.65 percent while emissions from non-signers increased 12.01 percent.
http://unremarkablepolitics.blogspot.com/2007/12/kyoto-protocol-why-us-must-ratify.html
Jags, it appears as if you may have done the same type of thing that AT did--and to no avail.
The problem with Kyoto is not that it is insufficiently strict or enforced. The problem with Kyoto is that it is based upon an incorrect scientific premise.
Until climate science stops being a political/religious movement and becomes an actual scientific field of study, there is no hope for such ill-conceived political bandwagons as Kyoto.
Post a Comment