Author Topic: Interesting Kyoto treaty info, Gore supporters please read below  (Read 170 times)

Trauma-san

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16639
  • Karma: -231
Interesting Kyoto treaty info, Gore supporters please read below
« on: December 20, 2007, 09:04:48 AM »
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s1317.xls

That's a spreadsheet provided by the U.S. government (who you can right now dispute this whole article by calling the spreadsheet bunk, if you'd like since it comes from the government).... the spreadsheet documents carbon dioxide emissions by the consumption of fossil fuels in countries around the world.  If you compare emissions standards from 1997 when Kyoto was introduced, to 2004, the last year info is available, you find the following.

Since the Kyoto treaty was introduced, and since the United States chose not to sign it, Worldwide Emissions have increased by 18.0%.  So the Kyoto treaty has been ineffective at stopping polution, although you could argue that it would have been even worse without the treaty.

Next, emissions from the countries that actually SIGNED the Kyoto treaty, agreeing to cut emissions, have increased by 21.1%!  What happened there?  Well, apparently the only people that signed it were the people that had a beneficial reason TO sign it, and they didn't adjust any of their emissions... and so they have a higher than average increase in emissions than the average of all the countries listed in the report.

Now, the interesting part is, emissions from countries that DID NOT SIGN the treaty.... only increased by 10.0%.  What's up with that??? ... most of the countries that agreed not to sign the treaty did so because of unfair punishments on western world countries, i.e. Australia, America, etc.... while countries like China would be allowed to polute as much as they want with no ill effect globally.  So those that didn't sign it, on average, had emissions grow slower than those that DID sign the treaty.

Finally, where is the U.S. in all this?  Al Gore has been flying, in a jumbo jet, all around the world calling the U.S. the worst polluter in the world, blah blah fucking blah, when since Kyoto was introduced the U.S. has increased carbon emissions by 6.6%.  Far below the average of those who signed, or did not sign the treaty. 

So, in the end, the U.S. has been far more effective in cutting carbon emissions than the average of every single country that signed the treaty!  What the FUCK?  I'm not saying that the U.S. has the lowest amount of Carbon emisssions, I'm saying that comparitively, they are doing a great job at working to reduce those emissions.  Nobody can see that though for the amount of political and financial based bullshit you hear in the news. 
 

J @ M @ L

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1630
  • Karma: -115
Re: Interesting Kyoto treaty info, Gore supporters please read below
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2007, 10:19:05 AM »
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s1317.xls

That's a spreadsheet provided by the U.S. government (who you can right now dispute this whole article by calling the spreadsheet bunk, if you'd like since it comes from the government).... the spreadsheet documents carbon dioxide emissions by the consumption of fossil fuels in countries around the world.  If you compare emissions standards from 1997 when Kyoto was introduced, to 2004, the last year info is available, you find the following.

Since the Kyoto treaty was introduced, and since the United States chose not to sign it, Worldwide Emissions have increased by 18.0%.  So the Kyoto treaty has been ineffective at stopping polution, although you could argue that it would have been even worse without the treaty.

Next, emissions from the countries that actually SIGNED the Kyoto treaty, agreeing to cut emissions, have increased by 21.1%!  What happened there?  Well, apparently the only people that signed it were the people that had a beneficial reason TO sign it, and they didn't adjust any of their emissions... and so they have a higher than average increase in emissions than the average of all the countries listed in the report.

Now, the interesting part is, emissions from countries that DID NOT SIGN the treaty.... only increased by 10.0%.  What's up with that??? ... most of the countries that agreed not to sign the treaty did so because of unfair punishments on western world countries, i.e. Australia, America, etc.... while countries like China would be allowed to polute as much as they want with no ill effect globally.  So those that didn't sign it, on average, had emissions grow slower than those that DID sign the treaty.

Finally, where is the U.S. in all this?  Al Gore has been flying, in a jumbo jet, all around the world calling the U.S. the worst polluter in the world, blah blah fucking blah, when since Kyoto was introduced the U.S. has increased carbon emissions by 6.6%.  Far below the average of those who signed, or did not sign the treaty. 

So, in the end, the U.S. has been far more effective in cutting carbon emissions than the average of every single country that signed the treaty!  What the FUCK?  I'm not saying that the U.S. has the lowest amount of Carbon emisssions, I'm saying that comparitively, they are doing a great job at working to reduce those emissions.  Nobody can see that though for the amount of political and financial based bullshit you hear in the news. 

I don't have a lot of background knowledge on the topic, but just to speak and expand on the statistics you provided:

1. "Since the Kyoto treaty was introduced, and since the United States chose not to sign it, Worldwide Emissions have increased by 18.0%."
- I'm assuming worldwide emissions have always been increasing (generally speaking in regards to a long-term trend... I'm sure there could be short-term deviations at certain times for whatever reason), so is 18% relatively high or low? Also, maybe this 18% would've been lower had those countries signed it. And like you said, it could've been higher without the treaty.

2. "Emissions from countries who did not sign increased 10%... emissions from those that signed increased 21.1%... U.S. increase = 6.6%"
- As I said before, due to a lot of countries going through mass industrialization in the relatively recent past (i.e. China), they're bound to witness increased emissions... aiding to the worldwide increase. These percentage changes don't really say much because they say nothing about the aggregate.
Just an analogy/hypothetical example: comparing a 21.1% increase from 10 to 12.1   vs.  a 10% increase from 20 to 22
If countries already have high emissions, their rates of increase/decrease aren't going to fluctuate by as much as countries who are barely joining the race. (think economic growth rates). And with the U.S. at the top, their rate is bound to be lower.

I mean I'm not saying anything that isn't already evident and simple common sense, but they're important considerations nonetheless.




« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 10:30:11 AM by J @ M @ L »
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.

LOL @ this fudgepacker
 

Don Rizzle

  • Capo Di Tutti Capi
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: -4
Re: Interesting Kyoto treaty info, Gore supporters please read below
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2007, 07:54:00 PM »
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s1317.xls
Finally, where is the U.S. in all this?  Al Gore has been flying, in a jumbo jet, all around the world calling the U.S. the worst polluter in the world, blah blah fucking blah, when since Kyoto was introduced the U.S. has increased carbon emissions by 6.6%.  Far below the average of those who signed, or did not sign the treaty. 

So, in the end, the U.S. has been far more effective in cutting carbon emissions than the average of every single country that signed the treaty!  What the FUCK?  I'm not saying that the U.S. has the lowest amount of Carbon emisssions, I'm saying that comparitively, they are doing a great job at working to reduce those emissions.  Nobody can see that though for the amount of political and financial based bullshit you hear in the news. 
if that is not spin i don't know what the fuck is how can an INCREASE be called a CUT?

but it is also true most kyoto coutries have been struggling to meet their targets, but I wouldn't expect a linear reduction curve the nature of politics n stuff means if they are likely to meet the targets most work will happen towards the end of the treaty and ur data is 3 years out of date and we still have another 4 years to go in the treaty.

iraq would just get annexed by iran


That would be a great solution.  If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
 

Trauma-san

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16639
  • Karma: -231
Re: Interesting Kyoto treaty info, Gore supporters please read below
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2007, 06:50:14 AM »
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s1317.xls
Finally, where is the U.S. in all this?  Al Gore has been flying, in a jumbo jet, all around the world calling the U.S. the worst polluter in the world, blah blah fucking blah, when since Kyoto was introduced the U.S. has increased carbon emissions by 6.6%.  Far below the average of those who signed, or did not sign the treaty. 

So, in the end, the U.S. has been far more effective in cutting carbon emissions than the average of every single country that signed the treaty!  What the FUCK?  I'm not saying that the U.S. has the lowest amount of Carbon emisssions, I'm saying that comparitively, they are doing a great job at working to reduce those emissions.  Nobody can see that though for the amount of political and financial based bullshit you hear in the news. 
if that is not spin i don't know what the fuck is how can an INCREASE be called a CUT?


A cut in an increase.  If you go to the store and everytime you go, a 6 pack of beer costs 100% more, the time you go and the 6 pack only costs 50% more you're gonna be glad they cut their planned price increases.