About 10,000 climate experts, diplomats, politicians and groupies met in Montreal over the last two weeks to put in place global policies for ‘climate control’ post the Kyoto agreement which will expire in 2012.
Before the conference, and some way into the second week of the event, Benny Peiser predicted the end of Kyoto-type agreements. The Financial Post published the following opinion on 8 December:
As the UN’s climate convention in Montreal draws to a close, it is becoming apparent that, despite the usual rhetoric, all attempts will fail to extend the Kyoto Treaty beyond its expiration in 2012. No one will be surprised about this outcome. After all, the U.S. administration has insisted time and again that it would not budge.
… The driving-force behind this seismic shift of the political landscape is one man and one man only: Tony Blair.
No other world leader has raised the issue of climate change as high on the international agenda as the British Prime Minister. No other person has tried harder, longer and more doggedly to sway the Bush administration. For years, he was the acclaimed champion of environmental activists throughout the world. No wonder then that Blair stunned incredulous observers and green campaigners by his conversion from advocate of command and control ecology to crusader of a more sensible environmentalism.
Alert political observers had spotted the first signs of a conspicuous change of tone earlier this year. Already in January, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and then even more so at the G8 meeting in Gleneagles, Blair highlighted the key issue of his new line of reasoning: “No-one is going to damage their economy in trying to tackle this problem of the environment. There are ways that we can tackle climate change fully consistent with growing our economies.” He dropped the real bombshell a couple of months ago at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York when the fall-out of Blair’s new thinking blew apart the green consensus: “I don’t think people are going to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto.”
… The reasons for Blair’s radical transformation are not difficult to discern. Europe is in turmoil as an enlarged EU is struggling both politically and economically. Worryingly, there is a growing realization that the Kyoto Protocol, contrary to the assurances of its advocates, is having a deleterious effect on Europe’s already sluggish economy. While the implementation of Kyoto and the myriad of other environmental regulations are strangling Europe’s lethargic economies, the economies of its international competitors (that is the U.S., India and China) are enjoying boom times unrestricted by self-imposed limits of growth. Besides, most European countries have been unable to achieve their Kyoto targets and will be forced to pay huge amounts of corrective payments that are mandated under the Kyoto treaty.
Even a small country like Ireland is currently facing a bill of 300 million pounds to 400 million pounds for failing to meet its Kyoto targets. The cost that Britain will incur by 2050 as a result of its current emission targets are estimated to range from 60 billion pounds to 400 billion pounds.
Benny Peiser is British and a global warming skeptic.
Perhaps, sensing the talk were not going to deliver the type of agreement that so many global warming believers wanted … well an environmental group organised for Bill Clinton to speak.
According to CNN:
Clinton, a champion of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing emissions-controls agreement opposed by the Bush administration, spoke in the final hours of a two-week U.N. climate conference at which Washington has come under heavy criticism for its stand.
“There’s no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, acclerating and caused by human activities,” said Clinton, whose address was interrupted repeatedly by enthusiastic applause.
“We are uncertain about how deep and the time of arrival of the consequences, but we are quite clear they will not be good.”
Canadian officials said the U.S. delegation was displeased with the last-minute scheduling of the Clinton speech.
According to The Courier Mail:
Mr Clinton stoutly defended the Kyoto Protocol, whose framework was approved by his administration in 1997, but which was ditched by Bush in March 2001, in one of his first acts in office.
…To loud cheers from an audience of thousands of delegates and green activists, Mr Clinton said: “I liked the Kyoto Protocol. I helped to write it. And I signed it.”
Mr Clinton was invited by the Canadian branch of the Sierra Club environment group to speak at the final day of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the treaty that oversees Kyoto.
Because it was not an official UNFCCC event, all UN logos and backdrops were carefully removed from the podium.
Negotiations were going to the wire on Friday on how to further greenhouse gas cuts beyond Kyoto’s present commitment, which runs out in 2012.
So what was finally decided? According to ABC Online :
A landmark UN conference agreed on Saturday to extend the life of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and launch a dialogue between Kyoto members and the United States on long-term action on greenhouse gases.
“We have completed our Montreal marathon, although the road before us remains so long. We are going to reconcile humanity with its planet,” Canadian Environment Minister Stephane Dion said as he brought down the gavel on a meeting high on drama, and long on exhaustion.
The meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was tasked with charting the next steps in tackling the emissions from fossil fuel gases that scientists say are trapping heat from the Sun and disrupting Earth’s fragile climate system.
After often-bitter negotiations, members of the Kyoto Protocol agreed to start talks on how to cut their emissions beyond 2012, when the treaty’s present “commitment period” expires.
That agreement was a crucial show of support for a treaty that has been in deep trouble since March 2001 when the United States, the world’s biggest carbon polluter, walked away from it.
Australia is only other industrialised country that has refused to ratify Kyoto.
The accord also gave a powerful boost to the fledgling market in carbon emissions, a key mechanism set up under Kyoto to encourage cuts.
The market has been beset by fears that Kyoto could die after 2012.
“Kyoto is alive and kicking,” declared European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.
It is interesting to ponder that Bill Clinton, an American, apparenlty stole the show, delivered for the global warming believers and socialists, but they will presumably continue hating America.
Where to next for Tony Blair?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Carbon emissions – humans are carbon emitters too you know – if we did not exhale CO2 we would be dead.
Lunatics.
None of the agreements are binding or enforcable, ie they are unsustainable.
Tony Blair can claim victory over GW whilst quietly cranking up the UK coal industry.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/09/news/climate.php
Loius – I am assuming that you are repeating this in the vain hope that if you say it enough someone might believe you.
rog – cranking up the coal industry is not the only method that Blair has. By making legally enforcable target other options have to be considered.
Ender,
are you denying we exhale CO2? Your comment certainly emphasises that.
Totally irrelevant to the topic but anyway that’s never stopped us before – dead and decaying things emit CO2 as well. Also botulism and arsenic are totally natural too .. .. so on Louis’s logic must be good for you ?
Anyway back to any intelligent comments .. ..
Come in spinner…….
Anyway despite the problems with Kyoto obviously the civilised world is still very interested in climate change and still thinks it’s an issue.
We in Australia ought to obviously stop all coal exports, put a limit on car engines to 4 cylinders, and introduce a carbon tax immediately.
Louis – “Now those of us educated during the 1950’s and 60’s in Australia know how to spell, read, and to write. ”
You’ll find there is no apostrophe in 1950s and 1960s.
By my back of envelope calculations, humans exhale about 30 Megatonnes of carbon per year.
Paul,thanks for that – I was going to do a quick calculation too, but you beat me to it.
As far as stopping coal exports – its just not viable in QLD. Better that we mandate (read legislate) mandatory filters on coal stacks, and continue examining C02 reclamation technology. There is still a future in burning organic compounds for energy, although geothermal is a particular attractive other option.
The US EIA notes that humans only produce 2% of all emissions for GHG’s (Apostrophe in the right place Phil?), link here.
There is no need to reduce CO2 emissions from human production, 2% at current rates is 8 ppmv, so double is 16 ppmv, and as Hans Erren has shown, doubling TOTAL CO2 from 380 to say 740 ppmv only causes a 0.22C increase in temp.
The only reason these bizarre solutions are offered is to reap the harvest from the almost unlimited funds of the taxpayers. This is what the whole game is about.
Damm Louis,
All those scientists around the world – they are all part of a giant conspiracy. And you, alone, on this little blog, have put their years of work to waste. You have truly exposed the extent of the conspiracy with your detailed and scientific statistics.
We should all just go home and turn on our airconditioners and heaters at the same time, and teach all those do-gooders a lesson.
alphacoward
I have no time for those who hide behind noms des plumes, they are simply cowards.
No it’s just GHGs !
Apostrophe for possessive or short for “it is” – it’s – well that’s what my old teacher told me.
Anyway Louis just giving you a hard time .. ..
On more important issues:
Dead ends for CO2 ragging – i.e. wrong end of the stick.
(1) it doesn’t work like a glasshouse – so give that one away
(2) water vapour is bigger but have a read at RC (the evil empire!) why CO2 is still important
(3) it may be small in amount but it depends on how often it gets pinged by radiation – how much energy it passes it onto other components of the atmosphere, and how much is re-radiated back to the surface. The saturation argument that you get in the lab with a tube of CO2 doesn’t work in the atmosphere. I gave you the URLs some time ago but you spurned me.
(4) your open state argument doesn’t work otherwise the temperature of the Earth would sink to lunar temperatures at night – and it doesn’t
(5) interesting paper by Erren but have you actually checked what coding is used in GCMs (no apostrophe)- who says there using that formulation?
(6) good to see you’re now advocating there is a warming effect from CO2. You’ve moved position. We’ll have you marching at the front of the demo and on the collective’s general assembly committee very soon.
If you going to argue – argue about what’s actually being modelled and at the right level of physics. Incidentally I suggest it’s not an easy area for many of us mere mortals.
Furthermore you can still get the Aussie met data from BoM if you think all the met analysis is sus. Start there and see if there’s any trends !
QED.
Louis – the generally accepted climate sensitivity is 2 to 4 degrees for a doubling in CO2. Erren’s work is not generally well accepted and was actually found to be not a acceptable way of measuring CO2 climate sensitivity right at the dawn of the debate by Gilbert N. Plass who:
“Yet Plass had proved one central point: it was a mistake to dismiss the greenhouse effect with spectroscopic arguments. He warned that climate change could be “a serious problem to future generations” — although not for several centuries. Following the usual pattern, Plass was mainly interested in the way variations in CO2 might solve the mystery of the ice ages. ”
from http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Hans Errans work is almost exactly this which was proven to be a mistaken method in 1956.
And yes humans did emit 200 megatons of CO2 however plants and the oceans absorbed most of it. You keep saying such ridiculous things over and over despite several people far more qualified than me have pointing out, with references to scietific research, that what you say is wrong.
It is not a question of who emits what. There is a carbon balance where emmissions are balanced by absorbtions. Humans de-forest landscapes, pollute the ocean and then emit CO2 that has been safely sequestered upsetting the carbon cycle. The proof of this imbalance is that measured CO2 has increased from 270ppm to 370ppm. You cannot refute this as it is measured amount from calibrated instruments.
So how about you give it a rest.
but i thought typing QED. ended everything?
Ender – the problem is that you have to read the material. It’s difficult as it’s a non-rhetorical piece.
On a more forward looking note – I thought Clinton made an observation worth pondering that future energy and sequestration technology provides also for economic opportunity in terms of profitable alternative technologies. Science fiction ? Who would have thought 30 years ago that the world’s richest man would sell an intangible product called “software”.
So Ender, can we come up with a future energy mix that delivers enough carbon reductions and gives us a comfortable way of life.
conservatives share a common characetertic with conservationists – their opposition to change, and inability to grasp new ideas.
The greens oppose change and development of the land, the social conservatives within the liberal party oppose social progress.
Does the australian gonverment believe in climate change or not?
Does Ian Macdonald?
Belief or disbelief in climate change is not science but religion. I have settled on the debate at my site in my reaction to Roy Spencer’s observations at Montreal.
What’s Clinton’s game? Is he campaigning for Hillary (Mr President #2) or is he looking at the Kofi’s job at the UN?
Let’s not forget as President he lied under oath.
oooo – lied under oath – let’s compare George & the guys with WMD. And hasn’t it improved the Iraq out of sight too. That Beirut pock marked style looks great. How many young Americans in body bags. For what?
Roy Spencer is still pissed about the satellite warming revelation. So possibly a jaded reviewer.
IMHO after looking at the quality of the debate I think not believing in climate change is about as bad as supporting creationist teaching at schools.
And Louis – I think you’ll find it’s Lysenkoism not Lynsenkoism. And flat earthers – not flat eathers. Perhaps a state school might have been cheaper.
Ender and Phil, won’t you guys every learn?
Do you actually enjoy debating the influence of human breath on global warming (or anything else for that matter) with Louis?
Steve – well Ender and I have money riding on how long he will support a totally illogical position not supported by the most basic science.
We’ve now moved him to actually supporting papers saying there’s a thing called a GHG and it has a warming influence.
Louis – “I have settled on the debate at my site in my reaction to Roy Spencer’s observations at Montreal.”
Yet you are so hesitant about the conclusion that you will not open your site to comments – bit of a one-sided debate.
Steve – there is another reason I do it occasionally. Other people read this blog and the comments. I do not want an unchallenged assertion like Louis’s hanging there as if it is the scientific truth. At least someone has to challenge it with references so that someone reading this that is learning about global warming will at least be able to read both sides of the debate.
Phil and Ender, why not start your own blogs for the debate to continue, or better still something more suited – a group forum on Yahoo or some other neutral ground?
Your choice, of course.
Readers of Jen’s blog might be confused over Phil Done, Ender and Steve. But I am told that there are two Steve’s of a pink complexion criticising me.
As for spilling mustaks, will, sumtymes I youse the Mini-mack and it sims to hev sum sort off spilling kerrecter operayting,
The other excuse is that my typing is too fast.
Sigh being imperfect, copping all the criticism from the perfect beings…………..
Phil, I am not hesitant – AGW is religion, not science.
Find another forum to preach your warmy feeries.
Louis – stevegloor.typepad.com – and unlike you I accept comments.
AGW has nothing to do with religion – thats just one of your methods of trying to discredit the argument – you can’t refute it with science so you resort this.
Well well well, Ender has finally spelt my name correctly.
Ender, okay, your site is then,
Bill Clinton is the perfect role model for climate warmers, his word is his bond.
(I watch too many Starwar movies, me starting to write like Yoda).
But Louis we like you – we want to be your friend. And Ender and I like it here. It’s such a cozy little blog with nice facilities and a gracious host (well some obsequious behaviour stops one getting booted during emotional outbursts). And wouldn’t it be boring if we agreed with yo’all all the dang time.
Admit it – you love us – I bet you spend all day thinking what would get us really angry – and golly some days it works – but we know in the end that in your heart there’s an excited little CO2 molecule just wanting to re-radiate warmth back to us.
And hey I’m only playing with your chain as you were the one who was spruiking about your alledged superior ability to read & write. Whereas us hicks with our public schoolin’ can only do so well.
Rog – Bill may have made love with more than he shouldn’t, but didn’t kill his fellow Americans in some God-foresaken hell hole on false pretences of WMDs and 9/11 paybacks. Choose your greater evil. Besides admit it – I reckon Bill’s a lot more interesting on any topic. He looks good on TV and obviously is popular with the female voters. He’s on personal terms with many I’m told. Given he knows so much about personal warmth he’s probably a whizz on radiative CO2 physics too.
BTW Louis – agree on one thing – all that stuff in Sydney is un-Australian and disgraceful.
Ender – what is thread about again ? remind me – in all the excitement I’ve lost track. Do you think Louis would like us more if he met us – hey he’s on your side of the continent – you could have him round for Chrissy lunch?
See what I mean Phil, what “false pretences” and “paybacks” are you specifically referring to, the proven ones not the opinion of some journalist.
Gee I don’t know Rog – perhaps you can inform us as to why we’re over there then ? Achieving what objectives? (not that this has anything to do with the thread topic – but what the heck.
For one thing enforcing Clintons Iraq Liberation Act.
Plus getting rid of yet another Socialist mass murderer aka Saddam Hussein.
And hasn’t it been such a success for the current administration with a wonderful cost benefit for all involved. I’m sure Iraqis are so grateful.
Anyway you’re telling me all the benefits – go on .. .. don’t stop now.
P.S. I don’t think he was a socialist actually – just your basic tyrannical dictator type – see history for many other examples. Remember left and right form a circle – the joining point is deprivation of liberty and excessive state intervention in the life of individuals.
Basic tyrannical dictator type = socialist.
The Baath Party was a Nationalist Socialist structure much the same as Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China and Stalin’s Russia. Through force power was removed from the people and centralised and through force power was kept in the complete control of one man.
I am still amazed that after all the evidence Saddam still has so many supporters. Iraqis are doing OK, why not ask one or even two?
(despite the increasing ill feeling to the US seven out of 10 Iraqis interviewed feel their lives are going well, and two thirds believe life in Iraq will improve in the next year)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20051212-09571200-bc-iraq-poll.xml
That should read ” I am still amazed that after all the evidence Saddam still has so many supporters in the west”
Yes well I’m sure all those American mothers now without their sons are really grateful. Perhaps we should suggest they slip in Zimbabwe or North Korea or Darfur region while the bloods up – or perhaps there might be a severe lack of a certain black sticky substance.
A not-so-very clever attempt at smear Phil, where is the evidence that it was about oil?
Attitudes do not constitute facts and Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information.
Unlike Iraq the other countries are not in breach of UN directives. You should direct your open ended questions to the UN.
BTW Louis – agree on one thing – all that stuff in Sydney is un-Australian and disgraceful.
Phil, it is the logical outcome of social democratic principles.
If you wish to continue the debate, space has been provided on my blog “Messenger Shooting”.
Perhaps a discussion on Iraq could be carried out somewhere else?
Iraq is a diversion.
Rog – you are just a nasty little redneck baiter – I don’t intend to discuss anything further with you as you’ve descended into the gutter with your post on Louis’s new Messenger Shooting. And if that’s how Louis cares to manage his service – well that’s his business I guess but don’t expect me to indulge it. Your summary of us shows you hold us in contempt so there is no point in further discussion with you. I will desist from further posting on this thread and hope someone might reintroduce the original topic.
Phil, I also do not moderate any comments on messenger shooting. You are free to comment, as always. I have given you and your fellow travellers the forum.
Strange you raise the issue here, and not to Rog’s comment on Messenger shooting, where it should have been posted.
For those interested in understanding some of the above posts, I copy here the offending post:
rog said…
It’s a bit early in the morning for them Louis, cafes are not open yet.
Thursday is a good day, pension day.
Game,set and match to the climate sceptics.
For those that want to both shoot the messenger and control the debate; the title of Jennifer’s Blog is “on politics & the environment”.
It was Phil that originally raised Iraq; it was in response to my observation that the Montreal climate conference was dominated by a perjurer.
Phil takes hysterical umbrage as being referred to as a frequenter of cafes yet quite happily forgives lieing under oath.
The Courier Mail was wrong in saying that Bush dumped Kyoto, Clinton may have “wrote it” but it was the Senate that dumped it, 95-0.
Thats a fact that you can google/Wiki.
Clinton thought he could sign Kyoto and that would be that, done and dusted. The Senate reminded him in no uncertain terms that he could not avoid due process and that he had overstepped the boundaries, again. A unananimous bi-partisan vote of lack of confidence in Slick Willy.
Thats politics.
For those that are unaware Phil Done has frequently criticised Louis for not allowing comments on his blog.
Out of the goodness of his heart Louis specifically created a blog for Phil and friends to comment away. They have yet to make use of this service.
http://messageshooting.blogspot.com/
Rog – I would have happily jumped into a debate on the Iraq war at another location, but I feel Jennifer’s site probably should keep a little closer to the environmental aspects of politics.
Phil’s raising of Iraq seemed pointless in the context of the discussion, and I didn’t like the tone of his later comments, which is why I made my suggestion.
Just my opinion.
Louis – I fail to see how a seperate blog for comments is OK. You have already dimissed any comments at this site with the disclaimer at the top. A person interested in learning would just open their blog to comments. You are not interested in any comments we make as you are not prepared to learn despite the huge body of scientific evidence that contradicts almost everything you say.
Once the rhetoric and personalities have settled down (at Montreal) just what is it that Kyoto ratified countries have achieved?
On the Kyoto-base 1990 levels Canada has seen its emissions rise by 24%; Japan by 18%; Spain up by 42%, Portugal up by 37%, Ireland and Greece up by 26%.
In contrast, the US – has seen its emissions rise by only 13% (and they have fallen 2% under Bush!).
http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2005/12/deconstructing-montreal.html
rog – again this is wrong. This is the Energy Department of the USA
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html
It states that in 2003 carbon emissions were 17.6% above 1990 levels.
Also you have managed to cherry pick the countries that did not perform well to discredit the other countries that did OK.
“Emissions of the gases, widely blamed by scientists for global warming, were down 5.9 percent overall in 2003 from 1990 in 40 rich nations including former Communist states.
That beat a goal of a cut of 5.2 percent by 2008-12 in the UN’s Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to promote cuts in the use of fossil fuel and a shift to clean energy like solar or wind power. ”
The Baltic states did quite well including the ones that have booming economies. Canada’s increase is almost all from the tar sands.
Dont know what you mean Ender, the US EPA say that total GHG emissions rose 13 percent since 1990 (decreasing 0.8 percent since 2000)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR5CZKVE/$File/ghgbrochure.pdf
See Ender, before you accuse people of “cherry picking” you should look to get your own house in order, there is a difference between total GHG and carbon (as a subset of GHG)
Tell me, was the Kyoto based on total GHG or carbon only?
(sound of remote control hitting floor)
Ender,
You have been given a place on my blog to comment.
Learning? from the greenies? Ender you have to be joking, surely.
As for the huge body of scientific evidence contradicting almost everything I say…what evidence?
And you now have the space to show me my errors as rog noted above.
Ender?
Louis – the generally accepted climate sensitivity is 2 to 4 degrees for a doubling in CO2. Erren’s work is not generally well accepted and was actually found to be not a acceptable way of measuring CO2 climate sensitivity right at the dawn of the debate by Gilbert N. Plass who:
What is climate sensitivity?
rog – article 3 of the Kyoto protocol:
“The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.”
Carbon
Equivelent
Change from 1990 (Percent) 17.6% 17.6%
The EPA is more politicised than the Energy Department. Also you must remember the USA is far and away the largest single CO2 source.
So what do you say the the countries including Germany that managed to decrease emissions. Did they all go broke?
Louis – “What is climate sensitivity?” Sorry you need to look that one up yourself.
Wow I have been given a space to comment – how big of you to do that. You have not acknowledged any of the frequent errors you have made in the hundreds of posts here – they are just met with a deafening silence when it gets too hard. You have you very own section of Tim Lamberts blog, who also allows comments, and the distinction of the worst post ever.
I learn from everybody. If you care to read my blog I have a fairly regular climate change skeptic poster that I have learned volumes from. To say that you cannot learn shows that it is you that has the closed mind.
Of course some of the former communist countries like East Germany were huge emitters (and polluters). Shutting down of these facilities began after 1990, so the emissions from them are included in the 1990 emission levels. Makes it quite easy to meet their targets.
Yes, reunification for Germany plus their dwindling economy has made it easy for them to achieve Kyoto goals. The UK has done well; they are more of a service provider than a manufacturer (as anyone who has bought a british car can tell you)
From Forbes;
AFX News Limited
Canada, Japan, Europe failing on Kyoto greenhouse gas targets – UN
11.18.2005, 07:48 AM
PARIS (AFX) – Canada, Japan and the old 15-member European Union are falling short on their commitments to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol, according to a new UN report on global warming.
Canada is among those countries most likely to run into difficulty implementing its commitments, as in 2003 the country had increased its emissions by 24.2% from the base 1990 level, far from its 2012 target of a 6% reduction.
Japan, meanwhile, recorded a 12.8% increase over the 13 years to 2003 and is headed for an increase of 12% by 2010 instead of the intended 6% reduction.
And although the 15-member European Union, which ratified the treaty en bloc in 1997, achieved a reduction of 1.4% in emissions from 1990 to 2003 — it is still a long way from the 8% target in 2012 — most of the 15 countries have seen emissions increasing.
Eleven have reported increases since 1990, with huge rises seen in Spain (41.7%), Portugal (36.7%), Greece (25.8%), Ireland (25.6%), Finland (21.5%) and Austria (16.5%).
Of the industrialised nations, only Britain seems to be having little trouble meeting its commitments, having even surpassed its target of 12.5% by cutting emmissions 13%.
Germany also reduced its emissions impressively, by 18.2% , but was short of its target of 21% , while France (1.9% ), Luxembourg (16% ) and Sweden (2.3% ) also cut emissions.
The report was published ahead of a UN conference, from Nov 28 to December 9 in Montreal, which is expected to draw more than 10,000 delegates to improve global efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions and fight global warming.
The United States and Australia, neither of whom have ratified the agreement, have recorded significant increases in emissions.
The US estimated a 32% increase by 2010 when it rejected the agreement in 2001, while under Kyoto it would have been committed to a reduction of 7% over the same period. In 2003, it had already registered a rise of 13.3% and now accounts for 40% of all emissions from industrialised nations.
Australia, meanwhile, had increased emissions by 23.3% in 2003, well on its way to meeting its own estimate of a 29.3% increase in 2010, compared to a Kyoto allowance of increasing emissions by 8% between 2008 and 2012.
The real question is how did countries make such a mess of Kyoto target setting. The European bloc probably realised they had half a chance given the large geo-political changes in eastern Europe, a partial swicth from coal to gas in the UK, low population growth rates etc, but many countries including some in Europe were always heading to 130-140 percent of 1990 emissions (population and GDP growth) targets of -5 percent or even +8 percent for Australia are politically and economically quite difficult (and probably much more difficult than for the Eroopen bloc). Perhaps the targets of countries like the US should have been 120 percent so as to get more countries abord Kyoyo. A one percent population growth per year over 20 years even without increased emissions per capita could be a politically tough target perhaps we need to get rid of democracy so those that apply tough measures do not get voted out next election.
Why bother trying to get countries on board Kyoto. The horse is dead. Time to stop flogging it.
So Paul does that then logically flow to
(a) increase in atmospheric GHGs are not worth worrying about – there’s nothing going to happen
(b) technology will find a solution
(c) we can adapt to a changed climate OK
Yes