Hey Pot? This is Kettle, about that Kyoto Protocol...

[Spino]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060622/sc_afp/environmentclimateeu_060622134212;_ylt=AogwrwdrrzssABJpmlSK5Sus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-


EU way off course for meeting Kyoto targets: latest figures by Richard Ingham
Thu Jun 22, 9:42 AM ET

PARIS (AFP) - New data has shown that the European Union (EU) remains embarrassingly off track for meeting its pledges under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN climate-change pact it championed after a US walkout.

Instead of falling, EU greenhouse-gas pollution actually rose in the latest year of monitoring, adding to the task of meeting the Kyoto goals, according to figures released by the European Environment Agency (EAA) in Copenhagen.

"Despite the various policy initiatives, this report highlights that the trend is still going in the wrong direction," declared EAA Executive Director Jacqueline McGlade.

"Europe must implement all planned policies and measures relating to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions," said McGlade.

She warned that EU members needed to take "ambitious" steps when crafting the next phase of their Emissions Trading System (ETS), a Kyoto mechanism designed to reduce pollution by big industry.

The EU-15 has pledged to reduce emissions by eight percent by 2012 as compared with a benchmark of 1990.

But between 2003 and 2004, emissions rose by 0.3 percent, or 11.5 million tonnes, marking the second annual year of increase, the EAA said in its annual report.

Emissions in 2004 were just 0.6 percent lower than the base year of 1990 -- more than four percentage points adrift of where they should have been by that time.

For the EU-25, after the "Big Bang" membership enlargement, the increase was 0.4 percent in 2004, or 18 million tonnes, over 2003.

"An increase of 0.4 percent may appear small; however, the magnitude of GHG (greenhouse-gas emissions) is such that the actual increase is significant," said McGlade.

"(It) is comparable to the amount of CO2 emissions released by three million people if they were to drive their cars around the world."

The EU saved Kyoto from collapse after the United States abandoned the treaty, then still in draft form, in March 2001 in one of President George W. Bush's first acts in office.

The pact requires industrialised countries that have ratified it to trim outputs of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases that trap solar heat and could wreak havoc with the planet's delicate climate system.

Making these cuts can carry a significant cost, in making equipment more fuel-efficient and cleaner or in weaning an economy away from dirty fossil fuels and converting it to renewable sources, which is why Bush walked out.

The EAA report makes these points:

-- Road transport contributed most to the increase, accounting for a rise of 12 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) among the EU-15. Iron and steel makers were also culprits, upping their CO2 pollution by eight million tonnes.

-- Spain and Italy had the biggest GHG rise, with 4.8 and 0.9 percent respectively. Spain switched to fossil fuels after the 2003 drought hit power from hydro. Italy emitted more through oil refining and road transport.

-- Germany, Denmark and Finland did best, seeing reductions of GHGs of 0.9 percent, 8.1 percent and 4.9 percent respectively. Germany offset a rise from the iron and steel sector by big reductions in CO2 in households and services. Denmark and Finland made further moves to switch from fossils to hydro in electricity production.

Friends of the Earth Europe reacted bitterly.

"Europes governments make grand statements about their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas pollution," it said.

"Yet economy and industry ministers continue to block or water down policy measures to switch to renewable energies, reduce energy waste or introduce fuel consumption standards for cars."

The report is the second bad jolt for the EU's Kyoto ambitions in less than two months.

In April, the ETS, a "carbon market" where companies buy and sell quotas of CO2 under the EU's cap-and-trade system, went into a tailspin. It emerged that some national governments had been hugely over-generous in allocating these firms pollution quotas in the first phase of the scheme.

The EAA report is sent to Kyoto's parent body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), under clauses requiring signatories to provide an annual inventory of man-made GHGs.

Its sources are national governments, although the data is also reviewed by the European Commission and the EAA.

[doc_bean]

Kyoto was way too ambitious for most european countries. Bare in mind that teh golas were said by politicians, not by scientists or business men. Most of our industry is FAR less polluting than similar industry in the US.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU countries are so used to signing up to agreements that they never have any intention of adhering to they;ve taken the same line with this one.

But before bringing the EU too much to task, what's emissions from China and USA done in this period?

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

But before bringing the EU too much to task, what's emissions from China and USA done in this period?

~:smoking:The USA didnt ratify Kyoto. Our congress had the sense that Clinton apparently lacked.

[Devastatin Dave]

The USA didnt ratify Kyoto. Our congress had the sense that Clinton apparently lacked.
Not only that, this thread is about European hypocrisy, so take your bitter pill and leave the USA and China out of the discussion because that's not the issue at hand. Nice try though rory and doc.:laugh4:

[doc_bean]

Not only that, this thread is about European hypocrisy, so take your bitter pill and leave the USA and China out of the discussion because that's not the issue at hand. Nice try though rory and doc.:laugh4:

We try to reduce our emiisions, a lot of laws are passed to do this, influence everyone. New building laws are recently in place. New restrictions on emissions by cars are planned every few years.

We've already reached about the maximum possible amount of emission reduction from industry, now we're handling transportation and private use, energy is a next step we are also working on. Belgium has plans for an off shore windmill park, germany already has a huge one.

It's not a lack of commitment that is stopping us from attaining these goals, they were simply set too high.
Where's the hipocrisy ?

[Xiahou]

It's not a lack of commitment that is stopping us from attaining these goals, they were simply set too high.
Where's the hipocrisy ?It's obvious- they signed and agreed to a treaty that they apparently had not intention of keeping.

The US Congress said the US could not and would not agree to Kyoto and was and is widely criticized by the same states that did sign Kyoto with no intention of following it. That's not hypocrisy?

[doc_bean]

The US Congress said the US could not and would not agree to Kyoto and was and is widely criticized by the same states that did sign Kyoto with no intention of following it. That's not hypocrisy?

Actually, the intention is still there afaik, we'll probably end a bit short of the goals (I and a few other people predict) but there is still political will, it's not like we just brushed it aside, it gets mentioned regularly by politicians and regurlay new laws are made to reduce emissions.

[Devastatin Dave]

It's not a lack of commitment that is stopping us from attaining these goals, they were simply set too high.
Where's the hipocrisy ?
OK, maybe hypocrisy is not the right word. I guess its more along the lines of words like "failure", "breaking a commitment", and possibly "lied". Sorry, I'll try to better my writing skills to satisfy your standards.
Again, instead of worrying about countries that didn't sign this dumb treaty, maybe the countries that signed should work harder on being responsible for what they said they would do and maybe the people of these countries should criticize their own countries instead of trying to divert the discussion to uninvolved countries. "Well the US and China didn't even sign" isn't a valid arguement on the failure of those that have signed up for this and sounds more like my son explaining why he's not eating his veggies because, "Nanna' no eat hewr bwokwie". Is it so hard to take criticism, apparently thicker skin is in order for our friends across the pond.

[Spino]

The EU countries are so used to signing up to agreements that they never have any intention of adhering to they;ve taken the same line with this one.

But before bringing the EU too much to task, what's emissions from China and USA done in this period?

~:smoking:

That's a very good question. With regard to the US probably about as bad as the EU if not somewhat worse. I'm certain China's emissions over the same period of time have been much worse.

[doc_bean]

OK, maybe hypocrisy is not the right word. I guess its more along the lines of words like "failure", "breaking a commitment", and possibly "lied".

Failure at most, still we aren't at the end yet. The problem with reducing emissions is that it takes a long time. Energy saving measures for houses are only gradually implemented, when people build new houses, so they don't have an immediate effect. Energy plants are build with a lifespan of decades in mind, they can't be closed down easily, without it being a major financial problem.



Again, instead of worrying about countries that didn't sign this dumb treaty, maybe the countries that signed should work harder on being responsible for what they said they would do and maybe the people of these countries should criticize their own countries instead of trying to divert the discussion to uninvolved countries

I've heard more complaints about the EU and it's problems with reaching the goals than about the US. Most people now seem to believe in "leading by example", kinda like Bush had in mind for Iraq in the Middle east (err...maybe not the best analogy)



"Well the US and China didn't even sign" isn't a valid arguement on the failure of those that have signed up for this and sounds more like my son explaining why he's not eating his veggies because, "Nanna' no eat hewr bwokwie". Is it so hard to take criticism, apparently thicker skin is in order for our friends across the pond.

Well, imagine someone wanting to lead a better live, say an alcoholic wanting to get sober, now imagine he's workign on it and he has a tough time dealing with and he realizes this, now imagine his old drinking buddies making fun of him for even trying to be a better person.
That's pretty much the situation here, Europe is trying to improve its use of natural resources, and hopefully improve the environment, maybe reduce global warming, if that's possible, etc. so if the US than comments on how we're not really succeeding, it can piss us off. Our energy use per capita is far lower than that of the US, our factories have far less harmful emissions and our cars and cleaner and more fuel efficient. Sure we realize it's not perfect, but it's better than what you've done :wall:

[makkyo]

Actually, the intention is still there afaik, we'll probably end a bit short of the goals.
Are you kidding? The emissions actualy went up!


so if the US than comments on how we're not really succeeding, it can piss us off.
And Europe gladly returns the favor day after day.

[Avicenna]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025574.000-kyoto-promises-are-nothing-but-hot-air.html

An article by a SCIENCE magazine might be a little helpful. ~;)

According to a documentary I saw recently, major problem is aviation, and air travel getting cheaper. This will just lead to more people travelling overseas and yet more pushing down of prices, and all this carbon waste is accumulated and ever increasing.

[Vladimir]

But before bringing the EU too much to task, what's emissions from China and USA done in this period?

~:smoking:

You missed the report I posted a while back about the U.S. cutting its emissions while Canada, a Kyoto signatory, had theirs increase. You guys just don't get it do you? No matter how bad others screw up you always think you can use the U.S. as a scapegoat. How long before you’re shouting “Death to America.”?

[Vladimir]

But before bringing the EU too much to task, what's emissions from China and USA done in this period?

~:smoking:

You missed the report I posted a while back about the U.S. cutting its emissions while Canada, a Kyoto signatory, had theirs increase. You guys just don't get it do you? No matter how bad you or others screw up you always think you can use the U.S. as a scapegoat. How long before you’re shouting “Death to America.”?

[doc_bean]

You missed the report I posted a while back about the U.S. cutting its emissions while Canada, a Kyoto signatory, had theirs increase. You guys just don't get it do you? No matter how bad others screw up you always think you can use the U.S. as a scapegoat. How long before you’re shouting “Death to America.”?

Of course, cutting emissions often means more efficient energy use, which has become much more profitable since the oil prices sky rocketed. Most of these articles talk about emission reduction, but then you have to consider the original level, the US was way behind the rest of the world.

[rory_20_uk]

I did ask what America's emissions were. I did not state that they had defintely risen.

The US isn't a scapegoat. It is the main cause of Greenhouse gases.

Oh, and you missed my criticism of the Eu too, did you?

~:smoking:

[Joker85]

I'm curious, what are the total levels for the entire EU vs the US? I know there have been reports that Cherry pick countries, but the US doesn't exactly get to leave out our most polluting states when we are blamed for ommissions.

I really don't have the answer to this by the way, so I'm not being contentious. Does anyone know the pollusion levels of the EU (every member nation added up) and how it stacks up against the US?

[Husar]

OK, maybe hypocrisy is not the right word. I guess its more along the lines of words like "failure", "breaking a commitment", and possibly "lied". Sorry, I'll try to better my writing skills to satisfy your standards.
Again, instead of worrying about countries that didn't sign this dumb treaty, maybe the countries that signed should work harder on being responsible for what they said they would do and maybe the people of these countries should criticize their own countries instead of trying to divert the discussion to uninvolved countries. "Well the US and China didn't even sign" isn't a valid arguement on the failure of those that have signed up for this and sounds more like my son explaining why he's not eating his veggies because, "Nanna' no eat hewr bwokwie". Is it so hard to take criticism, apparently thicker skin is in order for our friends across the pond.
Maybe our failure hurts your fragile american minds, but your american emissions hurt my european health and the world climate and that´s what makes me a lot more upset. You just took the easy way out. One could also say we europeans had at least the balls to try to do something...:2thumbsup:

[English assassin]

Not only that, this thread is about European hypocrisy, so take your bitter pill and leave the USA and China out of the discussion because that's not the issue at hand.

Yeah, we failed to meet the targets. That's bad of us. No bitching, no excuses. We should have done better and we didn't.

See? Its not so hard to do. Could fellow Euroweenies just apologise and move on? Anything else is just giving Dave the horn.

[spmetla]

This isn't the kettle calling the pot black.
If the US had signed the Kyoto protocol and was also failing to meet the standards but stilling getting flak for it it would be.

All this shows is that the US was right about the Kyoto protocol setting unrealistic goals and that the lack of India or China included in it are still wrong. I wish that such ambitious goals hadn't been set but as pointed out before at least the signatory nations are TRYING to reduce emissions. Yes, in some places emissions increased but that's in certain areas while in others it was reduced.

And the US is trying to lower pollution as well, not being a signatory to the Kyoto protocol doesn't mean that no action is being done to reduce pollution. Unfortunately though the US is relying more on business to reduce it's own pollution than set some goals for them.

Use California as an example, it has some of the strongest measures being put forth to reduce pollution and waste of natural resources but it's still one of the most polluting states around. Although they are still big polluters imagine how much worse it would be if those regulations and such hadn't been put in place.

So stop pointing fingers at each other.

[Marcellus]

I'm curious, what are the total levels for the entire EU vs the US? I know there have been reports that Cherry pick countries, but the US doesn't exactly get to leave out our most polluting states when we are blamed for ommissions.

I really don't have the answer to this by the way, so I'm not being contentious. Does anyone know the pollusion levels of the EU (every member nation added up) and how it stacks up against the US?

Wikipedia has data on 2002 CO2 emissions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Some highlights:

(excludes emissions from overseas territories, etc)

US 5,844,042,000 tonnes (24.3% of total)
EU* 3,682,755,000 tonnes (15.3%)
China 3,513,103,000 tonnes (14.5%)

*Since these data are from 2002, this figure would not include the ten new countries. However, these countries generally have smaller populations and economies than those of the major polluters of the EU.


Just a minor nitpick on the article: not all EU countries are failing to meet their targets. I believe several countries (including the UK) are on track to meet their Kyoto targets, so it's a little unfair to portray all the EU failing. However, the majority of EU members are behind their targets, so the EU as a whole is not on track to meet the targets.

[doc_bean]

Just a minor nitpick on the article: not all EU countries are failing to meet their targets. I believe several countries (including the UK) are on track to meet their Kyoto targets, so it's a little unfair to portray all the EU failing. However, the majority of EU members are behind their targets, so the EU as a whole is not on track to meet the targets.

If we're going to start like that, Belgium's targets were far harder to reach than those of most countries, since a reduction against a certain year is the goal and a lot of countries already had reduced their emissions by the time they signed (so they picked a year where the emissions maxed to compare their progress to), Belgiums emissions had risen between the comparison year and the starting year, so we have to make a bigger reduction than most...

Also, the differences due to po^pulation aren't taken into account enough in my opinion...