| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Europe fails to cut greenhouse gas emissions |
| 2005-06-18 |
| More on the SloMo Kyoto train wreck. Europe is failing to tackle climate change, putting further pressure on Tony Blair to come up with a fresh initiative at the G8 summit and embarrassing the European commission, which is floundering over budget cuts and the constitution treaty. The latest figures for Europe's greenhouse gas emissions, seen by the Guardian but not due to be released until next week, show that the 15 countries who were EU members in 2003 increased their overall emissions by 1.1% in the year up to 2004. Under the Kyoto agreement, which came into force earlier this year, EU countries must reduce emissions by 8% by 2012 - something which looks increasingly unlikely. Figures from the European Environment Agency show that only France, Germany, Sweden and the UK have any hope of cutting their energy use in time to meet their targets and that most countries are now falling well behind. They also show that Britain increased its total emissions more than all other EU countries except Italy and Finland in 2003/4. The 1.3% increase, equivalent to 7.4m tonnes of carbon, was mainly because people drove more. Britain is expected to only just fulfil its Kyoto obligations but not the government's more ambitious target of a 20% cut in emissions by 2010. In the EU only Ireland and Portugal have cut their emissions. But both are expected to exceed their future targets following years of economic expansion. Finland, Denmark and Austria burned more fossil fuels than in previous years. Yesterday, the commission played down the figures, blaming a harsh winter for the increases. "It was very cold across Europe. The number of days that people needed to hear their homes was much higher," said a spokeswoman. Let me get this straight, you failed to reach your targets to stop climate warming because the climate was too cold. But the figures are embarrassing for Britain, which is chairing the G8's discussions on climate change and assumes the presidency of the EU in less than two weeks. The statistics may weaken Britain's negotiating hand with the US by suggesting that wealthy countries' policies to curb the use of fossil fuels are not working. One reason the US gave for not joining the Kyoto treaty was because the US administration said it would not deliver the cuts needed to avoid serious climate change. Looks like they were right! Chris Green, the Lib Dems' environment spokesman in the European parliament, said: "The upward trend in European emissions is very worrying. These figures put in doubt the EU's commitment to fighting climate change. "The commission must seize the initiative and give a stronger lead." Catherine Pearce, global climate change spokeswoman for Friends of the Earth, said: "If Britain and the rest of Europe cannot get it right, then how can anyone expect the US or developing countries to?" One of the most sensible things I have ever heard a radical Green say. Leaked papers showed yesterday that the Bush administration officials working behind the scenes in advance of the G8 summit have weakened key sections of a proposal for joint climate change action by the G8. In the past few weeks, negotiators have deleted language which set ambitious targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions and stricter environmental standards for World Bank-funded power projects. Next week the government's Sustainable Development Commission will propose radical new vehicle and aviation taxes, greater household energy efficiency and a carbon neutral public sector (I have no idea what that means, but its a triumph of Burecratic gobbledegook) to save at least 10m tonnes of carbon. The UK's emissions are increasing mainly because rising traffic levels are eliminating the small gains being made in fuel efficiency. Or put another way legally mandated energy reductions are a spectacularly bad idea that don't work and tend to produce the opposite effect. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #13 They may demand, Joseph, but what they get is "You pretend to pay us, and we'll pretend to work." So everybody loses, which is exactly what's happening in the most socialist European countries. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-06-18 22:39 |
| #12 Socialist govts in general demand their economic units work more regardless of the merits so that the State can take more - for me Kyoto is just a feel-good, PC alibi for Socialist Govts to raise tax burdens while making sure no one gets wealthy, since wealth = competition against Big Govt. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-06-18 21:57 |
| #11 A flu pandemic will cut supply by millions of barells. You better hope it doesn't come in the northern winter. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-06-18 21:35 |
| #10 Don't be such a pessimist Phil, the comming Flu epidemic is going to cut oil use by 2 to 3 million barrels a day. :> |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-18 20:17 |
| #9 anon1, your Saudi link nails one thing, which is that we don't have visibility on supply (or reserves). This makes us vulnerable to oil price shocks, which we seem to be on the verge of. If oil goes higher Monday/Tuesday next week, we won't see $58/b oil again for quite a while. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-06-18 17:50 |
| #8 While the US may be the greatest emitter there is now considerable evidence that the US is an overall greenhouse gas sink. On the other hand Europe with its high population densities far exceeds the United States in terms of net emissions per square kilometre. That can change if the people in charge here don't get a handle on illegal immigration... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-18 12:00 |
| #7 "Next week the government's Sustainable Development Commission will propose radical new vehicle and aviation taxes, greater household energy efficiency and a carbon neutral public sector" (I have no idea what that means, but its a triumph of Burecratic gobbledegook) It means fewer poorer people will be able to afford to own and use cars, and low cost air travel will become a thing of the past. The government intends to price the less priviliged off the road and out of the planes. A good bit of old style socialism from New Labour. Nice, eh? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-06-18 09:48 |
| #6 Read an article years ago,that said Israli's were using co2 in greenhouse' and had cut productin of fruits a veggies from 1/3 to 1/2 the time. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-06-18 08:51 |
| #5 Saudi oil may be running out kind of related if you're interested in energy: http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/CSIS.pdf |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-06-18 08:36 |
| #4 Whopping effect of Kyoto Protocol a load of hot air Here is the conclusion of a long, boring scientific paper discussing the effect of Kyoto at its highest and best, assuming US and Australian ratification: -------- We find that implementing the Kyoto Protocol until 2012 has only an effect of 2 ppmv on CO2 concentration and several hundredth of a degree Celsius in 2012, its implementation and reductions after 2012 enable reaching a maximum CO2 concentration level by 2050 that is by the order of 20 ppmv or two tenths of a degree Celsius lower than not implementing the Kyoto Protocol for reference: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:ZzPDuX9-lWIJ:www.stabilisation2005.com/posters/Hohne_Niklas.pdf+impact+effect+%22kyoto%22&hl=en |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-06-18 06:48 |
| #3 According to a very Pro-Kyoto Canadian website, this is their estimate of the difference Kyoto will make - and it ain't much. Actually I read elsewhere it is more like a delay of Global Warming (not necessarily a bad thing) by 3 months. But here is their figure: Without the Protocol, scientists estimate mean temperatures will rise by about 1°C by 2050, and 2.5°C by 2100. With the Protocol, the expected rate of temperature rise is http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/environment/kyoto/07.html The worst thing about the Kyoto myth is it encourages people to see carbon dioxide as a pollutant when it is a benign gas necessary for all life on earth. Increasing C02 levels lead to lusher plant growth: they IMPROVE the biodiversity of plants. But instead the alternative is nuclear power which releases deadly toxic pollutants that nobody wants to store anywhere near their backyard. But the nuclear industry is the big winner out of the Kyoto Fraud. And what a great world it will be when every tinpot dictatorship has access to plutonium because they "need" a reactor for "energy". And dumps their N-waste in the nearest river or desert where it will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years long after the warning signs (if there are any) come down. So much for limiting nukes to the developed world. |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-06-18 06:29 |
| #2 Check this out: -- Kyoto advocates mislead us all by focusing on emissions per head instead on net emissions per square kilometre of governed territory. This has a remarkable effect on priorities and targets. A focus on net emissions recognizes that any nation both generates anthropogenic green house gases and absorbs them. Generally, urban areas create greenhouse gas emissions while rural areas absorb them. Hence net emissions relate to population density. While the US may be the greatest emitter there is now considerable evidence that the US is an overall greenhouse gas sink. On the other hand Europe with its high population densities far exceeds the United States in terms of net emissions per square kilometre. This is the "US is the great polluter" fraud. --- Great article, read it all, debunking Kyoto fraud at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1034067/posts |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-06-18 06:07 |
| #1 Oops, please move to P3. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-06-18 05:50 |