Slashdot Mirror

the protocol

This October 2001 analysis updates and replaces an earlier NRDC report showing that China's greenhouse gas emissions fell dramatically in the late 1990s, even as the country's economy grew rapidly. The earlier report was based on U.S. government analyses, which were later questioned in a Washington Post article that prompted NRDC to redo its analysis. Even after using new, more conservative statistics, NRDC has found that the original conclusion still holds true -- China's emissions reductions are real. By comparison, U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide over the same time period actually rose about 5 percent. This demonstrates that it's possible to achieve economic growth without a corresponding jump in global warming pollution, even in developing countries.

China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). China has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade. The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".

Er, in the text of the Kyoto Protocol available from the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change webpage*, the phrase "developing country" or "developing countries" appears 9 times. The text of the Convention itself, which is referenced in the Protocol, uses these phrases over two dozen times. You are correct, however, that China does not appear by name once.

* I would kill for the domain name 31337.int ...

Er, in the text of the Kyoto Protocol available from the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change webpage*, the phrase "developing country" or "developing countries" appears 9 times. The text of the Convention itself, which is referenced in the Protocol, uses these phrases over two dozen times. You are correct, however, that China does not appear by name once.

* I would kill for the domain name 31337.int ...

Er, in the text of the Kyoto Protocol available from the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change webpage*, the phrase "developing country" or "developing countries" appears 9 times. The text of the Convention itself, which is referenced in the Protocol, uses these phrases over two dozen times. You are correct, however, that China does not appear by name once.

* I would kill for the domain name 31337.int ...

1. The protocol is defined too arbitrarily.
   That's the way it is with most government. For example, the penalty for a rape crime is pretty arbitrary. If you weren't aware of how penalty for rape was decided, will you be opposed to laws against rape? You can't just object to protocols by saying that it's questionable, you have to point out where you think it went wrong, and we could start from there. In the case of Kyoto it's possible that scientists and economists came up with values that they thought would be most effective and practical. But that's not the main point. The UN isn't going to sit everyone down and make us scientists and mathematicians so each of us can understand the calculations.
2. I'm too lazy so I'm going to ask a bunch of questions and hopefully someone will answer them.
   It almost sounds like this is your main objective, I only list this as a possibility of what you're trying to say because I'm not too sure what else you're trying to say.
3. The protocol is too hard to comprehend.
   Really? Twenty pages is really too much? Is this really your main point? You said: 2. What constitutes an "Emission" ? For starters, you might check the line that you just quoted: 'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.' You can get a start with the part where I bolded. Look practically anywhere else and you can find out exactly what those six gases are. Since we're talking about the Kyoto Protocol, you might want to check out what UNFCCC says. Just start reading the framework convention and bam right in the beginning is a list of definitions only a page or two long. It's defined there. "Sinks" are a part of the Kyoto protocol, which is when greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere, so it's not just reducing emissions. I happened to be doing a little research on this a few day ago, so here's a list that may be useful in gathering info:
   • document lists
   • framework convention | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol statistics | pdf | html
   • Wikipedia

1. The protocol is defined too arbitrarily.
   That's the way it is with most government. For example, the penalty for a rape crime is pretty arbitrary. If you weren't aware of how penalty for rape was decided, will you be opposed to laws against rape? You can't just object to protocols by saying that it's questionable, you have to point out where you think it went wrong, and we could start from there. In the case of Kyoto it's possible that scientists and economists came up with values that they thought would be most effective and practical. But that's not the main point. The UN isn't going to sit everyone down and make us scientists and mathematicians so each of us can understand the calculations.
2. I'm too lazy so I'm going to ask a bunch of questions and hopefully someone will answer them.
   It almost sounds like this is your main objective, I only list this as a possibility of what you're trying to say because I'm not too sure what else you're trying to say.
3. The protocol is too hard to comprehend.
   Really? Twenty pages is really too much? Is this really your main point? You said: 2. What constitutes an "Emission" ? For starters, you might check the line that you just quoted: 'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.' You can get a start with the part where I bolded. Look practically anywhere else and you can find out exactly what those six gases are. Since we're talking about the Kyoto Protocol, you might want to check out what UNFCCC says. Just start reading the framework convention and bam right in the beginning is a list of definitions only a page or two long. It's defined there. "Sinks" are a part of the Kyoto protocol, which is when greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere, so it's not just reducing emissions. I happened to be doing a little research on this a few day ago, so here's a list that may be useful in gathering info:
   • document lists
   • framework convention | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol statistics | pdf | html
   • Wikipedia

1. The protocol is defined too arbitrarily.
   That's the way it is with most government. For example, the penalty for a rape crime is pretty arbitrary. If you weren't aware of how penalty for rape was decided, will you be opposed to laws against rape? You can't just object to protocols by saying that it's questionable, you have to point out where you think it went wrong, and we could start from there. In the case of Kyoto it's possible that scientists and economists came up with values that they thought would be most effective and practical. But that's not the main point. The UN isn't going to sit everyone down and make us scientists and mathematicians so each of us can understand the calculations.
2. I'm too lazy so I'm going to ask a bunch of questions and hopefully someone will answer them.
   It almost sounds like this is your main objective, I only list this as a possibility of what you're trying to say because I'm not too sure what else you're trying to say.
3. The protocol is too hard to comprehend.
   Really? Twenty pages is really too much? Is this really your main point? You said: 2. What constitutes an "Emission" ? For starters, you might check the line that you just quoted: 'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.' You can get a start with the part where I bolded. Look practically anywhere else and you can find out exactly what those six gases are. Since we're talking about the Kyoto Protocol, you might want to check out what UNFCCC says. Just start reading the framework convention and bam right in the beginning is a list of definitions only a page or two long. It's defined there. "Sinks" are a part of the Kyoto protocol, which is when greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere, so it's not just reducing emissions. I happened to be doing a little research on this a few day ago, so here's a list that may be useful in gathering info:
   • document lists
   • framework convention | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol statistics | pdf | html
   • Wikipedia

1. The protocol is defined too arbitrarily.
   That's the way it is with most government. For example, the penalty for a rape crime is pretty arbitrary. If you weren't aware of how penalty for rape was decided, will you be opposed to laws against rape? You can't just object to protocols by saying that it's questionable, you have to point out where you think it went wrong, and we could start from there. In the case of Kyoto it's possible that scientists and economists came up with values that they thought would be most effective and practical. But that's not the main point. The UN isn't going to sit everyone down and make us scientists and mathematicians so each of us can understand the calculations.
2. I'm too lazy so I'm going to ask a bunch of questions and hopefully someone will answer them.
   It almost sounds like this is your main objective, I only list this as a possibility of what you're trying to say because I'm not too sure what else you're trying to say.
3. The protocol is too hard to comprehend.
   Really? Twenty pages is really too much? Is this really your main point? You said: 2. What constitutes an "Emission" ? For starters, you might check the line that you just quoted: 'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.' You can get a start with the part where I bolded. Look practically anywhere else and you can find out exactly what those six gases are. Since we're talking about the Kyoto Protocol, you might want to check out what UNFCCC says. Just start reading the framework convention and bam right in the beginning is a list of definitions only a page or two long. It's defined there. "Sinks" are a part of the Kyoto protocol, which is when greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere, so it's not just reducing emissions. I happened to be doing a little research on this a few day ago, so here's a list that may be useful in gathering info:
   • document lists
   • framework convention | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol statistics | pdf | html
   • Wikipedia

1. The protocol is defined too arbitrarily.
   That's the way it is with most government. For example, the penalty for a rape crime is pretty arbitrary. If you weren't aware of how penalty for rape was decided, will you be opposed to laws against rape? You can't just object to protocols by saying that it's questionable, you have to point out where you think it went wrong, and we could start from there. In the case of Kyoto it's possible that scientists and economists came up with values that they thought would be most effective and practical. But that's not the main point. The UN isn't going to sit everyone down and make us scientists and mathematicians so each of us can understand the calculations.
2. I'm too lazy so I'm going to ask a bunch of questions and hopefully someone will answer them.
   It almost sounds like this is your main objective, I only list this as a possibility of what you're trying to say because I'm not too sure what else you're trying to say.
3. The protocol is too hard to comprehend.
   Really? Twenty pages is really too much? Is this really your main point? You said: 2. What constitutes an "Emission" ? For starters, you might check the line that you just quoted: 'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.' You can get a start with the part where I bolded. Look practically anywhere else and you can find out exactly what those six gases are. Since we're talking about the Kyoto Protocol, you might want to check out what UNFCCC says. Just start reading the framework convention and bam right in the beginning is a list of definitions only a page or two long. It's defined there. "Sinks" are a part of the Kyoto protocol, which is when greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere, so it's not just reducing emissions. I happened to be doing a little research on this a few day ago, so here's a list that may be useful in gathering info:
   • document lists
   • framework convention | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol statistics | pdf | html
   • Wikipedia

1. The protocol is defined too arbitrarily.
   That's the way it is with most government. For example, the penalty for a rape crime is pretty arbitrary. If you weren't aware of how penalty for rape was decided, will you be opposed to laws against rape? You can't just object to protocols by saying that it's questionable, you have to point out where you think it went wrong, and we could start from there. In the case of Kyoto it's possible that scientists and economists came up with values that they thought would be most effective and practical. But that's not the main point. The UN isn't going to sit everyone down and make us scientists and mathematicians so each of us can understand the calculations.
2. I'm too lazy so I'm going to ask a bunch of questions and hopefully someone will answer them.
   It almost sounds like this is your main objective, I only list this as a possibility of what you're trying to say because I'm not too sure what else you're trying to say.
3. The protocol is too hard to comprehend.
   Really? Twenty pages is really too much? Is this really your main point? You said: 2. What constitutes an "Emission" ? For starters, you might check the line that you just quoted: 'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.' You can get a start with the part where I bolded. Look practically anywhere else and you can find out exactly what those six gases are. Since we're talking about the Kyoto Protocol, you might want to check out what UNFCCC says. Just start reading the framework convention and bam right in the beginning is a list of definitions only a page or two long. It's defined there. "Sinks" are a part of the Kyoto protocol, which is when greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere, so it's not just reducing emissions. I happened to be doing a little research on this a few day ago, so here's a list that may be useful in gathering info:
   • document lists
   • framework convention | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol statistics | pdf | html
   • Wikipedia

1. The protocol is defined too arbitrarily.
   That's the way it is with most government. For example, the penalty for a rape crime is pretty arbitrary. If you weren't aware of how penalty for rape was decided, will you be opposed to laws against rape? You can't just object to protocols by saying that it's questionable, you have to point out where you think it went wrong, and we could start from there. In the case of Kyoto it's possible that scientists and economists came up with values that they thought would be most effective and practical. But that's not the main point. The UN isn't going to sit everyone down and make us scientists and mathematicians so each of us can understand the calculations.
2. I'm too lazy so I'm going to ask a bunch of questions and hopefully someone will answer them.
   It almost sounds like this is your main objective, I only list this as a possibility of what you're trying to say because I'm not too sure what else you're trying to say.
3. The protocol is too hard to comprehend.
   Really? Twenty pages is really too much? Is this really your main point? You said: 2. What constitutes an "Emission" ? For starters, you might check the line that you just quoted: 'Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level.' You can get a start with the part where I bolded. Look practically anywhere else and you can find out exactly what those six gases are. Since we're talking about the Kyoto Protocol, you might want to check out what UNFCCC says. Just start reading the framework convention and bam right in the beginning is a list of definitions only a page or two long. It's defined there. "Sinks" are a part of the Kyoto protocol, which is when greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere, so it's not just reducing emissions. I happened to be doing a little research on this a few day ago, so here's a list that may be useful in gathering info:
   • document lists
   • framework convention | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol | pdf | html
   • kyoto protocol statistics | pdf | html
   • Wikipedia

1) Check here to see if your country is "industrialized" or "transitioning".

2) "Emissions" means the release of greenhouse gases and/or their precursors into the atmosphere over a specified area and period of time. [source]

3) The six gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride) were presumably chosen because they make up the bulk of human-produced greenhouse gases.

4,5) Because having a quantifiable goal is nice. The choice of the year 1990 makes sense because the further back you go, the less the numbers bear any resemblance to the situation of the country today. If you go back too far, there aren't even useful numbers to work with. 1990 says, in effect, "You were performing at this level fairly recently. Try to shoot for that."

Why that particular percentage was chosen is a mystery, except that every country that signed Kyoto believed it was attainable. Will it be enough? Doubtful. But we have to start somewhere.

You might be interested in looking at a U.N. history of the Kyoto Protocol (including the actual text). The groundwork for the treaty was laid in 1995, and continued through 1997. In 1998, despite significant misgivings about the treaty by the (then) Clinton administration, the administration presented the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. It was rejected by the Senate on a vote of 98-0.

Hate Bush all you want--believe all the wacko conspiracy theories you like. But the U.S. rejected Kyoto while he was governor of Texas.

Since the US is the largest contributer of greenhouse gasses, it seems a touch disingenous to defer because "other countries won't have to cut down". No one will have to cut down their emissions of greenhouse gasses as much as the US will, because no one contributes them at the rates we do.

JUST SIGN THE CONVENTION OF KYOTO!!
http://unfccc.int/
(Are you UN or not?)

Almost every goverment of the UN has a difficult job by following the rules of this convention, while some other countries still have to find out everybody knows...

http://www.google.nl/search?q=influence+windpower+ environment

...as well as it demands money and technology from developed nations to be given to other nations. Many "other nations" seem to support the UNFCCC.

Silly me. I keep hearing all this hubbub about countries like India and China not being held to the same standard as others.

Some people seem to forget that the US government signed the treaty and is now backing off. In recent years, the world has learned that the US is making and braking promises to the international community whatever suits their own internal politics best.

You're entitled to think what you like. Being right is a different matter entirely.

In response to your points:

1. The US population is a fraction under 300 million people (source: CIA World Factbook). The world population is around 6.3 billion people (source: CIA World Factbook). The US population is therefore around 3% of the world population which, in my book at least, makes it a relatively small fraction - consider that India and China between them account for 2.3 billion people - over a third of the worlds population!

2. You are right, it is not only the US. If you look at the figures for CO2 emissions, you will find that the US accounts for around 36% of all emissions (source: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) - far higher than their 3% of the population would attest to. In fact, it is double what the next largest polluting nation (Russia) emits. You will find that the figures for other pollutants are similar.

3. The US currently has a huge budget deficit. According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the deficit for goods (i.e. tangible things rather than services) was:$150.8 billion (source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis). Contrary to your comment, this would suggest that the US imports far more than it exports.

The text protocol can be found here
And you're right, the quote is nonsense.

As can be seen on http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_proto col/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php
China and India have at approved or accessed of the kyoto protocol (accessed means entered after the treaty had entered into force). This has the effect that these states accept to be bound by the treaty. See http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp for a definition of these terms.
I'm afraid we will need an extra planet for the USA who seem no longer willing to accept reality or take note of what happens outside.

...waste product that cannot be controlled and is simply released into the atmosphere?

you're making it yourself too simple, my friend. although the world's (by far) largest producer of carbon dioxine has chosen to ignore it, the world's been busy controlling CO2 output.

either way, the world will be different by 2020: it has turned into a desert, or it is radioactively polluted.

so let's hope the "new" US administration will help fighting the greenhouse effect.
like they did before.
oh, wait...

I'd rather they sign and ratify the Kyoto agreement like 166 odd other states, and work on means of transportation that consume less energy and don't pollute our environment as much, because THAT'S what we really need (IMHO).

--
Try Nuggets , the mobile search engine. We answer your questions via SMS, across the UK.

"Somehow I can't take a guy named "Joke" as someone that has a serious opinion."

I do not think that word means what you think it means (thanks Inigo).
Ms. Waller-Hunter is Dutch. In her language, "Joke" means "First Name", while "grap" means "jest".

It seems like you are being sarcastic, or at least sardonic, about Russia making money from joining an international pollution control club. It is worth celebrating their "going legit". Perhaps that can help persuade the US to follow suit. Otherwise we'll be spending a lot more than $2.8B on cleaning up the mess from the incessantly increasing pollution spewing from Russia's CO2 industry.

Finger pointing is not going to help the world's problems. At the moment it is rather the US which seems to be interested in neo-colonialism and imperialism. For example the US defence budget represents 50% of the world's total expenditure on defense, see Figures for 2004.

If you agree that neo-colonialism and imperialism was wrong for the European countries, then why would it be any different for the US?

Bin laden and his gang have an issue with the US because it maintains military bases in Saudi Arabia and other neighbouring Arab countries. They saw it as desecrating their Holy Land. Militarily supporting Israel is not seen as a positive point either.

Regarding the Kyoto protocol, *all* of the countries in the EU have ratified the Kyoto protocol and are implementing it. In fact the Kyoto protocol has force of directive in the EU, and this means every member country must adopt it. Some countries have lowered their CO2 emission below 1990 levels already.

I don't see why the long-term goal of reducing emission would be detrimental to the economy. On the contrary. It seems that the US is spending a huge amount of resources (see above) to maintain access to the current way of producing energy (oil). If in 20 years time the Europeans and other nations have become good at using renewable energy sources but the US haven't and are still fighting in the Middle East, I'd say this wouldn't constitute a sound investment.

Finally it would be crazy of the Europeans to try and destroy the American economy. This is was drives the world. An ailing American economy is not good news anywhere around the world.

Less paranoia and more rational thinking would do a world of good.

One link: Kyoto Protocol

> Actually, the US does have vast streches of forests (that are growing, not shrinking), though I wouldn't call them secret.

Over the last century the US has almost exactly 300 million hectar of forests. The US claimed in 2000 that their forests absorbs 310 million metric tons of CO2. In 1996, the US emitted 5.000 million metric tons of CO2. Hardly a net minus.

> One of the things the US wanted in Kyoto, but didn't get, was credit for CO2 absorbtion.

The Kyoto Protocol Article 3.3 gives credit for "afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990".
And the fact that a (non-growing) forest absorbs CO2 seems to be a temporary effect. They can only puffer an additional amount of CO2.

You talk about the wrongness of the US boycotting the Kyoto Accord, but you don't mention that while we didn't sign it, neither did a single other country.

A huge amount of countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol and most of them have even ratified the Protocol. Even the US (by Pres. Clinton) have signed the treaty, but Clinton knew that congress would not ratify it and did it just before leaving office as a symbolic act.

Without the US on-board, the Kyoto Protocol is not legally binding without Russia, while Russia has lately used the Bush administration's line as an excuse for not signing up (lead by example). The reason Russia has gained importance, is because: The protocol would have entered into force when 55 signatories had ratified it, including industrialised countries responsible for 55% of the developed world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 1990.

Things are rarely, if ever, as black-and-white as you've described.

Why don't you explain that to mr. "Evil axis" guy instead of the parent post, which seems very reflected.

You think those explosions in the Australian outback are a coincidence? That ain't a fractionator mate, it's a launch tower! Those weren't gas explosions, they were rocket fuel!!! Think Dubya is being a mongrel by not signing Kyoto? It's not that he doesn't like it, just that it is irrelevant, 'cause he won't be here!!! Is he a bastard for tearing up the ABM treaty? He needs that gone so he can get his launch vehicles away! Dick's affilation with big business is just a front for the collection of global fatcats who will be riding the rocketship to freedom, away from environmental disaster.

Up until now the only bit we haven't been able to figure out has been the destination. Now we know! It's Mars!!! First stop will be the moon, from where Dubya and friends will move onto their new Martian Utopia while the rest of us fry back here on earth!!!

As I write this, I'm boucing through the outback, in a ute with my comrades, tinfoil akubra on my head. Our objective is to save civilisation from this menace . It's a tough mission, but someone's gotta do it. Wish us well and pray for us as we roll towards our destiny...

Don't forget that the costs of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol include large amounts of money which a few countries must pay to others. Look at the text of the UNFCCC and search for "new funds".

There are dozens of countries which have ratified kyoto (implemented it as national law), including the entire EU and japan.

See the ratification status document for more info.

It really is the US and Russia stopping kyoto from entering into action. If either ratifies it, kyoto will be doable (and thank god for that, since it only advocates keeping pollution at the same levels, not actually reducing it).

Hint: try reality, it's refreshing.

No Bush had no influence in this. In July 1997, the U.S. Senate voted on a resolution that declared the United States would not ratify the Kyoto Treaty...and that was when Clinton, who was more in favor of the treaty than GWB, was President.

The Kyoto protocol was finalised on the 11th of December of that year. How exactly does the Senate vote against a treaty that doesn't exist?

A few years ago the Rush Limbaugh show began promoting the idea that the Senate had "Voted against" Kyoto and done so many years previous. The "July 1997" date was bandied around and, as happens with many memes that particular show introduces, the "fact" was repeated ad-nausium throughout the rightwing press, and then throughout the less partisan press. Few people bothered to check sources, those who did were rapidly shouted down by a media happy to promote a right wing legend.

The idea the Senate had voted down Kyoto never made sense. We'd have heard about it at the time. It would have been a big vote, it'd have been the talk of the press for months, you'd have had environmentalists on one side and industry/energy on the others pushing ads in papers and on TV. It would have been a huge event.

The Senate has never had the Kyoto treaty put before it. Never.

Well, start by having the USA sign the Kyoto Protocol, then the USA has to pay Latin America to deal with the results of climate change. Obviously developing and paying additional costs for new fuels is due to climate change.

New funding by developed countries is required in Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the UNFCC, the parent of the Kyoto Protocol.

Actually, right now a fuel switching project in Chile is being considered for funding with money from developed countries.

Well, start by having the USA sign the Kyoto Protocol, then the USA has to pay Latin America to deal with the results of climate change. Obviously developing and paying additional costs for new fuels is due to climate change.

New funding by developed countries is required in Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the UNFCC, the parent of the Kyoto Protocol.

Actually, right now a fuel switching project in Chile is being considered for funding with money from developed countries.

Well, start by having the USA sign the Kyoto Protocol, then the USA has to pay Latin America to deal with the results of climate change. Obviously developing and paying additional costs for new fuels is due to climate change.

New funding by developed countries is required in Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the UNFCC, the parent of the Kyoto Protocol.

Actually, right now a fuel switching project in Chile is being considered for funding with money from developed countries.

I think you made a typo. I could give you a list of every country in the EU which has ratified Kyoto, but that would just be a list of every country in the EU. It's EU law that every member must ratify Kyoto.

As seen in this document 117 countries have ratified (not just signed) kyoto, of which 32 are annex I countries (i.e. major polluters), comprising a total of 44 percent of the world's emmissions. All that's needed for Kyoto to work (the countries that ratified it are already executing it) is for Russia to ratify, and they have expressed interest in doing so. Russia wouldn't actually need to clean up much, because the collapse of the USSR has dramatically reduced industry there, leading to an automatic reduction in emmisions. They would actually financially benefit, because they could sell off their surplus "clean air" to nations that pollute too much. This is also why the US didn't want to join. They knew they'd never get their industry to clean up, and the alternative was paying for the right to pollute the planet. Most countries when offered the choice between paying a lot of money to get nothing, and just getting nothing, will opt to keep their money. So I understand the US position, I just think it's fatally flawed because cleaning up the planet isn't optional.

The reason those countries you listed were to be exempt is because it's unfair to expect them to do an equal effort in cleaning up the world when they're not the ones who polluted it in the first place and when they don't have the economic means of both becoming first-world countries and enacting kyoto-like emmissions standards at the same time.

Eventually, when they can afford it, they will be expected to enact the same emmissions standards too. Remember, the poorer you are, the higher the required investment to clean up your technology, because only high-tech can be made clean, and you need to have high-tech first.

The one thing that bothers me most about the US position regarding Kyoto is that Kyoto was a compromise to suit the US. The rest of the world was willing to go that extra mile, but because the US said they would only ratify it if it wasn't too radical they compromised. And then the US came back and said "well, we're not even going to ratify the compromise, so nyaaaahhh!" If the US had been upfront and said they weren't going to be part of Kyoto whichever way it was formulated the protocol would actually be more effective. Now it's just a good first step.

I disagree.

Canada (greatest country on earth) was the second country in the world with the power to make Nukes.

Yet We Are still Nuclear Free.

We canadians actually value life....150,000 people is a fucking lot, do not belittle them.

The US could/Should have Fired a Warning shots first, (Let the first 1 or 2 off in the ocean).

The Use of nukes had something to do with ending the war early (about 6 months), and something to do with the US Beating its chest like a gorilla to warn the Russians that they mean buisness.

as for countries that would use them
I have to believe your right most countries would have, Rusia would have, Japan Would have, Germany would have used them, But I don't think Britan would have, not that late in the war.

There citizans acutally knew what war was ....and I don't think they liked it much.

any way....

ignore the rest of my ramble ..can you tell I'm bitter at the US over a lot of things, ..

mostly its tendancy to break treaties and when ever the hell they feel like it.
Specifically:
Kyoto
NAFTA


Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treat

Look here, dumbass...

This is simply incorrect. I'd suggest you look up the difference between `sign' and `ratify', and then go back and read your own article. 73 nations have signed the treaty, but far, far fewer have ratified it.
*Sigh* You know, you're rather amusingly wrong. Not only do I know the difference between ratifying and signing, I was correct: 73 nations have ratified the treaty. 84 have actually signed it. (Source.) It certainly makes your statement about almost no one having signed it look a bit stupid.

has no legal impact until they do so and enough other nations to make up 55% of the world's emissions do so
Which should be a formality, since Russia seems almost certain to sign it.

In comparison, many less developed nations, such as China, which make up a huge percentage of the world's emissions, are not even restricted by the treaty.
The US alone produces >36% of the world's CO2 emissions. China produces about half of that, and that's in absolute terms, not per capita. Obviously developing countries, since they produce a tiny percentage of the world's emissions are going to get more leeway under the treaty.

This article [jewishworldreview.com] is a good place to start.
Didn't read anything on that link about CO2 emissons. The fact remains that the US, by any reasonable measurement, is by far the world's biggest polluter.

Get your facts right. The US alone is responsible for 37% of the climate pollution in the world, and so far has been very non-cooperative to do anything about it. See the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Haag just this month for the exact figures.

______________