DEMAND FOR AIR-CONDITIONING RISES IN NOME
Straight from the "Gee, Now How Could That Possibly Have Happened" Files, we learn from Reuters that "Industrialized nations' emissions of greenhouse gases edged up to the highest level in more than a decade in 2004" despite the Kyoto Accord and other measures to fight global warming.Now I'm no environmental expert, so I'll leave the analysis here to those who know something about the science & the geopolitics behind this data. But I will note that the United States -- the third most populated nation on earth, and the clear leader in industrial output -- is not a signatory to the Kyoto Accord.
But we all know that, right.
Well, neither is Australia. And, despite signing the Accord, China & India (those would numbers one & two in population, for those scoring at home, as well as two of the fastest growing economies in the world) are not required to reduce carbon emissions!
Seems to me the shock shouldn't come from the 1.6% increase in greenhouse gases, but from the fact that the numbers aren't worse.
posted by Mike at 9:14 AM
15 Comments:
Yet.
That's my objection to Kyoto. The fact that China and India are exempt is bollocks! Both countries have burgeoning, energy hungry economies and over a billion people each and yet they don't have to comply. China has the 4th largest economy (I may be off on their exact position) in the world, yet for some reason they get lumped in with the 3rd world nations. Doesn't make sense.
Politicking, I'd guess. Same sort of crap that allowed the US to avoid joining the rest of the world in protecting the world.
I'm really little more than a dillettante when it comes to this sort of thing though, so I really hope you or others throw some thoughts out.
http://tinyurl.com/q9pvg
http://tinyurl.com/rw5ud
Thanks, Mort. That first link (the one to the Roanoke Times) expresses a set of concerns I've never heard before.
That's quite shocking.
Truthout has a series of articles about global warming. In essence, methane is twenty times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. "We have no way of dealing with it."
Sorry, it was Energy Bulletin. Scary stuff. Yeah, we have a hundred years to act. Here you go:
http://tinyurl.com/zbvey
Here is something I wrote, in case you missed it.
http://tinyurl.com/gk97n
Check out the link provided by Anon. about how the EPA is trying to cover up the facts, scary.
Ded,
Certainly China has one of the world's largest economies. But it is still third world and it rightly expects to have to consume fossil fuels and emit co2 to bring the blessing of modernity to its people.
The third world sees it as "their turn." I understand why American see that as "flawed," but I think W-3 has a point.
WFTA-
Can't China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, and the other extremely populated "emerging" nations develop industry with an eye towards responsible emissions standards?
Mike,
I haven't read the Kyoto treaty, but if trading of emission credits is involved, I think the emerging economies would find considerable opportunity and incentive to adopt more expensive and less emitting technologies.
Have a great holiday.
No. China is not 3rd world. This is a myth that's gone on for far too long. I don't disagree that a nation has the right to bring modernity to its people. I welcome it. But to give a nation preferential treatment based on 25 year old economic data is wrong.
To China's credit, they are actively pursuing a strong nuclear energy program, hopefully they'll opt for the pebble bed reactor approach instead of traditional designs.
Ded,
I'll meet you part way: Shanghai is not third world. Beiging may not be third world. But rural China, the China where thousands perish in floods or typhoons, where they barely eke out a living and do away with the occasional daughter to make space for the occasional son, remains third world.
Fair enough. I'm willing to say there are two China's. But the 3rd world version doesn't excuse the other half from its environmental responsibility.
Post a Comment
<< Home