Kruse Kronicle

Kyoto Schmyoto

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

American Thinker: Kyoto Schmyoto (HT: Scott Gilbreath)

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998.  A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government.  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.

  • 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%

Comments

7 responses to “Kyoto Schmyoto”

  1. phil_style Avatar
    phil_style

    Unfortunately the environment is no respecter of national boarders at least as far as global issues (climate change) are concerned. Therefore national % increases are misleading and I’m surprised you’ve chosen to display the stats that you have (unlkess you’re being deliberately selective).
    The climate is sensitive to total volume increse globally. So the apparent “failure” of the likes of the Maldives and Sudan has negligable effect. The 6.6 % increse by the US is a significant problem when one considers the total global volumetric contribution that this number represents. This does pale in comparison to China, whose contribution to the global increase was around 40%.
    The environment shouldn’t been seen as an opportunity for statistical and political point scoring. Effects are the important factor. Activity -> Receptor -> Effect.

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Hi Phil. The article does include a link to a table that shows the actual increase for each nation. Since the US generates somewhere close to 25% of human CO2, a 6.6% increase is big.
    However, since the US is so much bigger, the amount of reduction (or reduced growth) in emissions is a bigger challenge than for smaller nations. How is that the US kept its growth to 6.6% while signers working with much smaller bases grew at 21%? (China, which isn’t even part of the package grew at 55%.) So we want the US to sign and become more like the signers (go from 6.6 to 21)? The logic escapes me.
    It is my position that ten years ago the US Congress and Bill Clinton (not George Bush) were right not to pursue Kyoto and it should be rejected now.

    Reply
  3. phil_style Avatar
    phil_style

    “However, since the US is so much bigger, the amount of reduction (or reduced growth) in emissions is a bigger challenge than for smaller nations”
    Dooesn’t this depend on on the geographic interdependacy of individual emission points? Surely it’s just as easy for a $US1m / year turnover busniness in the US to go low carbon emission as it is for a $US1m / year turnover buniess in Germany to do the same? Just becasue there are 5 times more (or whatever the accurate multiplier is) businesses in one country than in another does not mean that that should make it any harder for an indivudal source to change its production/ emissions. Of course, the legislative environment plays a big part in this, as not all businesses operate in the same conditions. However nations like Germany have shown that developed economies can achieve static carbon emission rates. Whether or not this is a casue or result of their rather stagnant overall economic situation for the past 5 or so years is beyond my analytical ability.
    Personally I’m not a big fan of Kyoto either, partly for the same reasons as yourself I would suspect. One of the reasons I think this issue is prominent is beacue it is global, and global issues can be hijacked for global marketing purposes. Other environmental issues are still being largely ignored (water quality, biodiversity) because they generally have local or regional impact, and regional or local issues don’t make global headlines!

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Helpful observations Phil.
    Here is my prioritization. Once people get beyond a certain basic level of subsistance, they become more and more concerned about their environment as their income grows. They also develop the infrastructure that makes clean water accessible and limits deforestation (among other things.) Less infringement on habitats becomes possible thus protecting biodiversity. (The planet has been both warmer and cooler in the past and I don’t think warming is the driving threat with biodiversity. Human encroachment is.)
    Clean water delivery, combating malaria, curing AIDS, finding alternatives to fossil fuels, and expanding truly free trade (which includes less protectionism by West). These are the areas where I’d plop down the money.
    Dramatic CO2 reduction is premised on catastrophic projections of increased C02. I’m not persuaded of catastrophy but prudence is a virtue. 🙂 I think inordinate attention to CO2 relative to the items I mentioned above is a bad choice.

    Reply
  5. Jags Avatar
    Jags

    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.
    For more, please visit,
    http://unremarkablepolitics.blogspot.com/2007/12/kyoto-protocol-why-us-must-ratify.html

    Reply
  6. Jags Avatar
    Jags

    unremarkablepolitics.blogspot.com

    Reply
  7. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Thanks Jags
    The article is making the point that the Kyoto Accords were signed in 1997 and the most recent year he has was 2004. The dates are not arbitrary.
    “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),…”
    The issue is the impact of the Kyoto Accord. What happened prior to that time is irrelevant to the point of the article.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading