Slashdot Mirror
Europe Slips on Kyoto Greenhouse Targets
covertlaw writes "Emissions of greenhouse gases from the European Union increased in 2001 for the second year running. According to the unratified Kyoto Treaty, the EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012."
under the kyoto agreement what happens is that we'll pay financially for failing to reduce our emissions. so it's fine if we don't hit our targets - it's just expensive.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Who would you pay the fine too ?
I mean you break a city law, you pay a fine to the city government, you break a state law, you pay a fine to the state government...
What is the group that you would pay for breaking a "global law". Or do we just have a country go and invade you to shutdown your polluting industry
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
The other question is who is responsible for measuring the gas output of various things like everybodies lawnmower, fireplace, car, etc.
Kinda glad the US didn't get into this mess, who knows how to enforce it, or even measure compliance
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
There are now doubts about the willingness of Russia to do so, because some of its prominent scientists apparently believe climate change could be beneficial to the country.
:-P
I love it. A little more arid land IN SOVIET RUSSIA!
Oh God, I feel dirty, I said "in soviet russia" in all caps. I think I need a shower. Atleast I didn't say something along the lines of ISR does you...
The EEA says the main reasons for the 2001 increase in all six gases were a colder winter in most EU countries, which meant householders burnt more heating fuel.
I love how its now called global climate change now, instead of global warming. If it were truly global warming they couldn't have used that statement.
Don't worry though, my karma burning will cause global warming now.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
I really hate to say this as a left-thinking, American-bashing European bigot.
But if the choice is between declining to join Kyoto, and joining it and then totally ignoring it - it seems the US did the right thing.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
According to the unratified Kyoto Treaty
Is this the same treaty that has been ratified by more than 100 countries?
The point is the gassess and emissions in question remain in the atmosphere for some time. No one needs to "meter" your vehicles or lawnmower because they are able to detect these emissions in aggregate.
Local metering may or may not be conducted by individual agencies to help identify local sources of pollution, but this is no different than the process several US states undergo to detect vehicles with unusually high emissions today.
So the answer is, the meterologists know how to enfoce it, and measure compliance, and that the US is already "in this mess" via the road and factory emissions compliance they already have in place.
The only difference is, those who signed Kyoto now have a deterrent to increase pollution. The US is free to continue to pollute itself as it wishes.
Well, for the first thing, you don't have the forest fire story right. There were two effects running in parallel: first, the government policy of stopping forest fires ASAP, and second, the logging companies' habit of only cutting down the largest trees (most profitable). That is what resulted in the large amount of kindling.
Also, the pollution from a forest fire is a lot less toxic than many of the industrial pollutions. You don't hear about ground water being poisoned by a forest fire, do you? Or about tree smoke concentrating in the bodies of whales? There is a big problem with perchlorate poisoning ground water in California. Concentrations of around 10PPB (billion) are a major problem. It doens't take very much of that chemical to produce a problem for thousands of people.
Your premise B needs revising. Obviously, everyone needs food, and logging and mining are necessary. BUT, the approach must be a sustainable method. One hundred years ago, a standard method to mine gold involved using huge amounts of mercury. If I have to explain why that is bad to you then you need a huge amount of education.
As for the comment on saving owls and so on, well, how do you want to protect endangered species? If it doesn't taste good, let it die off?
You need to think your approach thru a bit more. You give too much credit to the compromise process. You know why the compromise is flawed? For the same reason that democracy in the US is flawed: the people with the influence to solve the problem have incentives to ignore the problem.
If I could, I would make the executives of companies that dump toxic waste have to live with their families in the areas that were poisoned. I'm sure that would quickly straighten out a lot of the problems.
Basically, a dog is smarter than collective humanity - a dog won't shit on its food or bed.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Future generations. Governments invest such fines in Certificates of Deposit due to mature over a term greater than any constituent lifespans.
There are a lot of good arguments against the USA using so much oil, and producing such a large fraction of humanity's excess CO2. However, the "over-consuming society" argument is logical junk. If the USA consumed 50% of the world's human-handled energy but produced it all from solar and wind, the "mass consumption" claim would still be true! That just goes to show how little sense it makes. Find another argument.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
True, but we're talking about greenhouse gas emissions here. Soot is not a greenhouse gas, but rather a smog agent. Being a particulate, its pretty bad for the lungs, too. But in terms of global warming, it has no effect, and therefore is not an issue with respect to Kyoto.
There are several different types of gaseous polutants, and these tend to get confused. The big ones that get talked about are CFCs, particulates, unburned hydrocarbons, and greenhouse gasses. CFCs are the culprits behind the ozone hole (CFCs are not an evil of the internal combustion engine, but rather from ACs, refrigerators, fire supresssion systems, and aerosol sprays). Particulates are bad for your lungs. Unburned hydrocarbons contribute to ozone polution (ozone is good high in the atmosphere, but bad to breath). And greenhouse gasses tend to absorb thermal IR, preventing the Earth from radiating heat back into space at night, thus causing the global warming. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas. This means that a car which has no particulate emissions, and no unburned hydrocarbons, is considered to be clean, but anything which burns hydrocarbons converts them to CO2 and water, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This happens regardless of how 'clean' the burning process is. Fuel cell cars will emmit as much C02 per gallon as a two stroke.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
The big problem here is that Kyoto is ALREADY a compromise between your two extremes. A cut of like 10% in emissions is hardly returning to a pre-industrial state; you've been spending too much time watching FoxNews.