Kyoto - How are the Europeans REALLY doing?

[Keepitsimple]

The Europeans have accomplished almost nothing since 1997. Check out this graph from the IPCC – actually the UNFCCC but it’s the same organization.

Graph: http://unfccc.int/files/inc/graphics/image...grahp2_2006.gif

Kyoto was signed in 1997 but the clever Europeans chose 1990 as their "base" year to calculate whether their emissions were going up or going down. Many of us already know that this year was not pulled out of a hat - it was chosen so that Europeans could take advantage of the fall of communism, the closing of many state-run "dirty" factories and the rapid conversion from coal to gas that was already in progress. The Europeans were giving themselves a head start with decisions that had already been made outside of Kyoto. To give themselves even more of an advantage, they grouped 15 countries together, calling it the EU15 and established one target for the bunch of them. This meant that the majority of them could ride on the coat tails of these same pre-Kyoto advantages. So then really, what have these countries accomplished since they actually signed Kyoto in 1997? The answer is next to nothing. Canada was hoodwinked. In the next round of Kyoto talks, lets stop the games with the self-serving use of 1990 - it's what we do from now on that matters.

Here's the Homepage from where the graph originated: http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/items/3800.php

[Shakeyhands]

well that seals it. I'm going outside to start burning all my garbage right in the middle of my lawn, going to turn on ALL of my lights on the way too. No where did I put those spraycans with the cfc's

[jbg]

Kyoto was signed in 1997 but the clever Europeans chose 1990 as their "base" year to calculate whether their emissions were going up or going down. Many of us already know that this year was not pulled out of a hat - it was chosen so that Europeans could take advantage of the fall of communism, the closing of many state-run "dirty" factories and the rapid conversion from coal to gas that was already in progress.

****

Canada was hoodwinked. In the next round of Kyoto talks, lets stop the games with the self-serving use of 1990 - it's what we do from now on that matters.

It's worse than that.

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. Any government actually proposing to lower living standards to try to change the weather would be laughed out of office.

Seeking to add insult to injury, apparently (or to ensure that at least some countries would vote to ratify the treaty), the Kyoto sponsors are so serious about the environment </ sarcasm> that they granted Iceland a free pass to emit more GHG's. Clearly, Kyoto's a tilted deck that has nothing to do with science, climate or environmental betterment, and made an exception for Iceland (link), specifically, some aluminum smelters it wanted badly to develop. Excerpts below:

February 4, 2007

Smokestacks in a White Wilderness Divide Iceland

By SARAH LYALL

NORTH OF VATNAJOKULL GLACIER, Iceland —

*snip*

This is the $3 billion Karahnjukar Hydropower Project, a sprawling enterprise to harness the rivers for electricity that will be used for a single purpose: to fuel a new aluminum smelter owned by Alcoa, the world’s largest aluminum company. It has been the focus of the angriest and most divisive battle in recent Icelandic history.

*snip*

They are also allowed to pollute:

another Kyoto exception gave power-intensive industries that use renewable energy in Iceland the right to emit an extra 1.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year until 2012.

[B. Max]

Kyoto would destroy both the US and Canada. Bush and Harper should tell Europe to shove kyoto.

http://mises.org/story/2591

[hiti]

I hear that Harper's "new" government will be providing us all with hip waders to combat global warming.

Neat eh?

[jbg]

I hear that Harper's "new" government will be providing us all with hip waders to combat global warming.

Neat eh?

Panic is not a substitute for thought on any issue, including "climate change".

[Topaz]

Harper has been against anything that harms the oil industry and its there that he and Bush are connceted. Having said that, Texas does have their own wind projects and I was surprised to see all the wind turbines outside of Austin. Common sense says, if we keep polluting the world we are going to pay for it by our health. Harper knew that when he became PM he would have this problem. We only ratifed it in 2002 and became law 2005. Depending were you live, people will have to conserve because living expenses will be pushed to endless limits. I think provinces will probably take this on and bring down the pollutions but the provinces along the East coast will have a tougher time with the pollution coming up from the US, especially during the summer and the smog gets worse.

[speaker]

Another thing the Europeans are doing, similar to Canadian and American strategies, is to import more of their manufactured goods from countries not currently subject to Kyoto protocols.. Kudos to all our political and business leaders for once again figuring out how to avoid responsibility and shift blame onto someone else. I know, just for a change lets all vote the same guys in next time too.

[Argus]

I hear that Harper's "new" government will be providing us all with hip waders to combat global warming.

Neat eh?

Yes, I saw that advertisement - very amateurishly done, if I may say so. It appears based on the notoriously silly claim made by Al Gore in his misnamed"An inconvenient truth" that waters would rise 20 feet. Scientists say it will be more like a couple of inches.

[speaker]

Kyoto was signed in 1997 but the clever Europeans chose 1990 as their "base" year to calculate whether their emissions were going up or going down. Many of us already know that this year was not pulled out of a hat - it was chosen so that Europeans could take advantage of the fall of communism, the closing of many state-run "dirty" factories and the rapid conversion from coal to gas that was already in progress. The Europeans were giving themselves a head start with decisions that had already been made outside of Kyoto.

I don't think that Kyoto was pulled out of a hat, nor do I think it was chosen so that the Europeans could take advantage of the fall of communism to get a head start. A head start on who? the name of the game here is not one of international diplomatic oneupmanship. If the Europeans are thinking that way, which I doubt, given the serious attrempts being made over there, but if they are, well here's a flying raspberry for them.

1990 was chosen as a base year to start doing something about global warming. going back on that agreement will be what minimizes the gains that we might make in the effort.

[Argus]

Kyoto was signed in 1997 but the clever Europeans chose 1990 as their "base" year to calculate whether their emissions were going up or going down. Many of us already know that this year was not pulled out of a hat - it was chosen so that Europeans could take advantage of the fall of communism, the closing of many state-run "dirty" factories and the rapid conversion from coal to gas that was already in progress. The Europeans were giving themselves a head start with decisions that had already been made outside of Kyoto.

I don't think that Kyoto was pulled out of a hat, nor do I think it was chosen so that the Europeans could take advantage of the fall of communism to get a head start. A head start on who?

That would be north American, mainly the Americans, their economic competitors. The corelation is that in 1990, north American was still in a recession, just starting to stir, to come out of it. Production was down across the board, mass unemployment, factories closed or working half shifts. By 1997 the economy was booming, production had increased, people were back at work. When Kyoto was signed the Europeans were already well below their 1990 emissions, while we and the Americans were already well above our 1990 emissions.

[fellowtraveller]

Canada was hoodwinked

If only the reality was so benign.

The hoodwinking was done by the Canadian government to the Canadian people. Our government negotiated and agreed to Kyoto in the full knowledge and understanding that it would be completely impossible to meet the targets.

So, it was signed purely for political gain...... and this is truly Chretiens legacy.

[speaker]

Argus, the europeans were clever enough to throw their whole economies into chaos and regression by accepting Poland, E Germany, the Czechs and the Slovaks, etc. in order to get their ghg emissions down in order to suck North America into a battle over who could be more environmentally friendly. Wow. with that kind of deviousness it's no wonder our leaders have been a little confused on what we should be doing about global warming. Have I mentioned that I don't put much faith in this batch of liberalsandconservatives?

[Argus]

Argus, the europeans were clever enough to throw their whole economies into chaos and regression by accepting Poland, E Germany, the Czechs and the Slovaks, etc. in order to get their ghg emissions down

I'm not sure where you think the cause and affect are here. The Europeans interaction with the newly capitalist, newly democratic nations of Eastern Europe was inevitable and not something done with any eye on GHG emissions or global warming. The EU wanted to absorb these nations into itself because like all entitities the EU seeks to grow, and because they saw in the east a large market for the goods western Europe produced, and comparatively cheap labour.

That being said, the Europeans certainly took advantage of this when they set about setting the time frame for the base year of GHG comparisons. Or do you think that's simply too complicated for their simple minds? That it's beyond them to have selected the base year which would make it easier for them to make themselves look good?

[jbg]

Argus, the europeans were clever enough to throw their whole economies into chaos and regression by accepting Poland, E Germany, the Czechs and the Slovaks, etc. in order to get their ghg emissions down

I'm not sure where you think the cause and affect are here. The Europeans interaction with the newly capitalist, newly democratic nations of Eastern Europe was inevitable and not something done with any eye on GHG emissions or global warming. The EU wanted to absorb these nations into itself because like all entitities the EU seeks to grow, and because they saw in the east a large market for the goods western Europe produced, and comparatively cheap labour.

That being said, the Europeans certainly took advantage of this when they set about setting the time frame for the base year of GHG comparisons. Or do you think that's simply too complicated for their simple minds? That it's beyond them to have selected the base year which would make it easier for them to make themselves look good?

Argus, I think you have the better of the argument here. Any manufacturer or retailer understands the manipulation of historical "base years" for advantage.

For example, and off-topic, the US had two (price-control created) gasoline shortages:

1. From roughly April 1973 (before the embargo) through approximately March 1974, with the more intense parts being from December 1973 through March 1974; and
   
2. From roughly February through August 1979 (with some spot products of certain products starting as early as December 1978).
   

Even gas station operators, back in the day people with, at most, a high school education knew enough to make an issue of the "base year" for allocations during the shortages. In general, the station operators in stable to shrinking areas of the Northeast and Midwest lobbied for either a 1972 base year for allocations (the year used during the 1973-4 shortages) or a choice of 1972 and 1978. The operators in the growing parts of the South and West lobbied, successfully, for a 1978 base year.

So don't tel me that the highly educated and motivated European negotiators didn't know what they were doing by obtaining a 1990 base year. As I pointed out, 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.

Why doesn't Canada and the US (if it ratified) get similar leeway in the choice of targets? Perhaps, get to use 1997? Maybe, just maybe, that choice was deliberate.

[speaker]

I'm not sure where you think the cause and affect are here. The Europeans interaction with the newly capitalist, newly democratic nations of Eastern Europe was inevitable and not something done with any eye on GHG emissions or global warming.

That being said, the Europeans certainly took advantage of this when they set about setting the time frame for the base year of GHG comparisons. Or do you think that's simply too complicated for their simple minds? That it's beyond them to have selected the base year which would make it easier for them to make themselves look good?

I was beginning to wonder where you saw cause and effect beginning to. But then I didn't know that the Europeans set up the Kyoto deal by themselves.

[Argus]

I'm not sure where you think the cause and affect are here. The Europeans interaction with the newly capitalist, newly democratic nations of Eastern Europe was inevitable and not something done with any eye on GHG emissions or global warming.

That being said, the Europeans certainly took advantage of this when they set about setting the time frame for the base year of GHG comparisons. Or do you think that's simply too complicated for their simple minds? That it's beyond them to have selected the base year which would make it easier for them to make themselves look good?

I was beginning to wonder where you saw cause and effect beginning to. But then I didn't know that the Europeans set up the Kyoto deal by themselves.

You can add that to the long, long list of other things you apparently know little about.

[speaker]

Whereas you have a deep understanding that the agreement reached in Kyoto to combat Anthropogenic Global Warming wasn't an agreement, but was a con foisted upon all the other nations of the world by the Europeans who were simply trying to get an advantage over their North American cousins in the ongoing trade wars. aaallllrrrighty then.

Perhaps this will help you get over your conspiracy theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto...col_signatories

Here's an interesting point of view that I enjoyed.

http://ldesign.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/gl...-and-paralysis/

[Keepitsimple]

Whereas you have a deep understanding that the agreement reached in Kyoto to combat Anthropogenic Global Warming wasn't an agreement, but was a con foisted upon all the other nations of the world by the Europeans who were simply trying to get an advantage over their North American cousins in the ongoing trade wars. aaallllrrrighty then.

Perhaps this will help you get over your conspiracy theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto...col_signatories

Here's an interesting point of view that I enjoyed.

http://ldesign.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/gl...-and-paralysis/

This thread is starting to take a direction that misses the point. I originally posted this subject - with a graph prepared by the IPCC - that showed that little or no progress has been made by the European countries since 1997. The proof is in the pudding - almost all their "reductions" came prior to actually signing on to Kyoto. If that amounts to a conspiracy in some people's minds, so be it. I suppose one could say it was good politics. My main point is that we should abandon the base year of 1990 - whatever the reasons for selecting it in the first place - it serves no purpose today except to give false credit to the European Union. The real issue is where do we all go from here - and that's all of us - the US, India, China.

[jbg]

I'm not sure where you think the cause and affect are here. The Europeans interaction with the newly capitalist, newly democratic nations of Eastern Europe was inevitable and not something done with any eye on GHG emissions or global warming.

That being said, the Europeans certainly took advantage of this when they set about setting the time frame for the base year of GHG comparisons. Or do you think that's simply too complicated for their simple minds? That it's beyond them to have selected the base year which would make it easier for them to make themselves look good?

I was beginning to wonder where you saw cause and effect beginning to. But then I didn't know that the Europeans set up the Kyoto deal by themselves.

You can blame the deficiencies on Al Gore, who defied the Byrd-Hagel Amendment by not insisting on inclusion of India and China, and on the overal atmosphere of political correctness. Can you hear the howls in the press if the American, Australian, British and Canadian ministers had scuttled the Kyoto signing ceremony.

[gc1765]

You can blame the deficiencies on Al Gore, who defied the Byrd-Hagel Amendment by not insisting on inclusion of India and China, and on the overal atmosphere of political correctness. Can you hear the howls in the press if the American, Australian, British and Canadian ministers had scuttled the Kyoto signing ceremony.

Link

[BC_chick]

The best highlight of the summit, IMO, was how Harper, despite his previous statements about Kyoto being a "socialist money-sucking scheme," and his more recent admission that he will not be trying to meet its targets, decided to use our domestic partisan bickering as his excuse for the world to see instead of standing by his words and principals in front of those European backers of the "socialist money-sucking scheme."

Now that's what I call a leader!

[speaker]

lololol

[Argus]

The best highlight of the summit, IMO, was how Harper, despite his previous statements about Kyoto being a "socialist money-sucking scheme," and his more recent admission that he will not be trying to meet the Kyoto targets, decided to use our domestic partisan bickering as his excuse for the world to see instead of standing by his words and principals in front of those European backers of the "socialist money-sucking scheme."

Now that's what I call a leader!

As compared to Stephan Dion, who fought against any efforts to comply with Kyoto at the cabinet table, then outside in public smiled, praised Kyoto, and named his dog after it.

[speaker]

socialist money sucking scheme, ya gotta love it. and comparing him to Dion is like comparing two peas in pea soup. both look washed out and devoid of nutrient.