Do you agree with Kyoto - or not?

Saturn · January 21, 2007

The principle of Kyoto, buying, selling, free markets, is a good one. But before we can buy and sell anything, we have to define ownership. Kyoto gave ownership of the environment to everyone but the US. And then Kyoto said to the US, "You want to use it? Buy it."

WTF are you talking about? You want ownership? You figure you should own twice as much of the atmosphere than a Norwegian or a Russian guy should and 10 times more than a Chinese guy should. And then you whine that you didn't get enough. Shut up! The only fair way to define ownership is to divide it equally among the earth's population. You already got far more than just about everybody else out there. So shut up and be thankful for it. Geez, whiny retards! Nothing's ever good enough for you. You make me want to puke!

Riverwind · January 21, 2007

No matter how you slice it, Canada's emissions are roughly double that of European countries and Russia.

Once again you abuse statistics. The correct numbers for total GHG emissions are here.

United States 24.3 %

European Union 15.3 %

China 14.5 %

Russia 5.9 %

India 5.1 %

Japan 5.0 %

Germany 3.3 %

United Kingdom 2.3 %

Canada 2.1 %

As you can see Russia and India emit 2.5 times the emissions of Canada. China emits 7 times the amount.

No matter how you slice it Canada is not a big GHG contributor. Any reduction that we achieve will be swamped by the increases in GHGs coming from countries like China and India. That is why it makes no sense for Canada to make big sacrifices to meet Kyoto targets if our neighbor and biggest trading partner is not willing to do the same.

Saturn · January 21, 2007

No matter how you slice it, Canada's emissions are roughly double that of European countries and Russia.
Once again you abuse statistics. The correct numbers for total GHG emissions are here.
United States 24.3 %

European Union 15.3 %

China 14.5 %

Russia 5.9 %

India 5.1 %

Japan 5.0 %

Germany 3.3 %

United Kingdom 2.3 %

Canada 2.1 %

As you can see Russia and India emit 2.5 times the emissions of Canada. China emits 7 times the amount.

No matter how you slice it Canada is not a big GHG contributor. Any reduction that we achieve will be swamped by the increases in GHGs coming from countries like China and India. That is why it makes no sense for Canada to make big sacrifices to meet Kyoto targets if our neighbor and biggest trading partner is not willing to do the same.

Dumb!

Riverwind · January 21, 2007

As you can see Russia and India emit 2.5 times the emissions of Canada. China emits 7 times the amount.
Dumb!

The numbers speak for themselves. The atmosphere only cares about total GHG emissions - per capita emissions don't mean much. Especially when you consider that a large chunk of our GHGs are emitted so we can export products that the world needs like oil.

jbg · January 21, 2007

The purpose of the exercice is to reduce worldwide GHG emissions from a 1990 baseline, arbitrarily drawn. If one country manages to reduce its emissions, then it means another country can have higher emissions without overall global emissions increasing.

1990 was hardly arbitrary. It is a baseline year that is grievously unfair to the US, Canada and Australia, since that was a recession year for us. By contrast, Europe was at a peak, and immediately after end of 1990 Germany was re-unified, closing many factories in the former East Germany. Similarly, without subsidies, many factories in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic closed, placing Europe immediately well under the 1990 baseline. Also, some countries have base years other than 1990. Countries with base-years other than 1990 are Hungary (average 1985-1987), Poland (1988) and Slovenia (1986) (link). I cannot believe that those variations give these countries more ambitious targets. If a year such as 2000 were picked as the US's base, it would be a fairer treaty. There's also not a chance in h*ll that European countries would have ratified such a treaty.

Further demonstrating Kyoto's cynical nature, a new aluminum smelter then planned, now constructed in Iceland (link) was excluded from Kyoto's coverage. This treaty is cynical and unfair.

Germany isn't getting rich either because any reductions in emissions there are achieved by investing in efficient technologies and spending money. So the Germans have spent a lot of dough to reduce their emissions and they deserve some financial reward for it.

Imploding half their countries' industrial base is hardly "investing in efficient technologies".

Saturn · January 21, 2007

By contrast, Europe was at a peak, and immediately after end of 1990 Germany was re-unified, closing many factories in the former East Germany. Similarly, without subsidies, many factories in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic closed, placing Europe immediately well under the 1990 baseline. Also, some countries have base years other than 1990 (link).. I cannot believe that those variations give these countries more ambitious targets.

Your bullshit never ends. Europe had a recession in the early 90s, just like North America did. Eastern Europe fell below the 1990 levels because it had a deep and prolonged depression. The earlier years for some eastern european countries were picked because the depression had already started. Depressions don't last forever and picking a date when your economy is 30% down is not representative of a country's economic situation. On top of that those countries hit their peak in the early 80s and by 85-89 their emissions had already gone down substantially. Finally, those countries' emissions were far lower than Canada's throughout the 80s and the 90s, so their targets are far lower than ours anyway. What the hell else do you want? You want them to start whining that they should have targets as high as ours?

jbg · January 21, 2007

Your bullshit never ends.

Gerry (the suspended poster I presume you to be), why the personal attack?

Europe had a recession in the early 90s, just like North America did. Eastern Europe fell below the 1990 levels because it had a deep and prolonged depression. The earlier years for some eastern european countries were picked because the depression had already started. Depressions don't last forever and picking a date when your economy is 30% down is not representative of a country's economic situation.

Ditto the US for 1990. Exactly my point.

Saturn · January 21, 2007

Gerry (the suspended poster I presume you to be), why the personal attack?

I don't like spinners and liars.

Europe had a recession in the early 90s, just like North America did. Eastern Europe fell below the 1990 levels because it had a deep and prolonged depression. The earlier years for some eastern european countries were picked because the depression had already started. Depressions don't last forever and picking a date when your economy is 30% down is not representative of a country's economic situation.

Ditto the US for 1990. Exactly my point.

The US didn't lose even 1% of its economic output in 1990. There is no comparison between a slowdown with flat output and a depression where output falls by a third. Your point is bull!

Ricki Bobbi · January 21, 2007

No matter how you slice it, Canada's emissions are roughly double that of European countries and Russia.

Let's look at the absolute numbers.

List of countries by emissions. (metric tonnes)
United States 5,844,042

China 3,263,103

Russia 1,432,513

India 1,220.926

Japan 1,203,535

Germany 804,701

UK 543,633

Canada 517,157

Here's the link.

Hmmm, by slicing it that way Canada is behind a couple European countries and Russia.

The self-evidential nature of your facts are simply wrong and open to interpretation.

Saturn · January 21, 2007

No matter how you slice it, Canada's emissions are roughly double that of European countries and Russia.

Let's look at the absolute numbers.

Hmmm, by slicing it that way Canada is behind a couple European countries and Russia.

The self-evidential nature of your facts are simply wrong and open to interpretation.

And your whole family has as much brains as Bush's dog.

Ricki Bobbi · January 21, 2007

And your whole family has as much brains as Bush's dog.

Which one Barney, Spot or Millie? :lol:

jbg · January 21, 2007