Kyoto promises are nothing but hot air

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025574.000-kyoto-promises-are-nothing-but-hot-air.html

MANY governments, including some that claim to be leading the fight against global warming, are harbouring a dirty little secret. These countries are emitting far more greenhouse gas than they say they are, a fact that threatens to undermine not only the shaky Kyoto protocol but also the new multibillion-dollar market in carbon trading.

Under Kyoto, each government calculates how much carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide its country emits by adding together estimated emissions from individual sources. These so-called "bottom-up" estimates have long been accepted by atmospheric scientists, even though they have never been independently audited.

Now two teams that have monitored concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere say they have convincing evidence that the figures reported by many countries are wrong, especially for methane. Among the worst offenders are the UK, which may be emitting 92 per cent more methane than it declares under the Kyoto protocol, and France, which may be emitting 47 per cent more.
“The worst offenders are the UK and France, which may be emitting far more methane than they declare under Kyoto”

Peter Bergamaschi of the European Commission Joint Research Centre at Ispra, Italy, used an alternative "top-down" technique to study emissions across Europe. His technique is to measure in detail how concentrations of greenhouse gases vary across the globe. Levels are generally higher near major sources such as industrial centres, and when weather conditions trap the pollution. They are lower near natural "sinks" such as cold areas of ocean. Concentrations can also vary widely depending on factors such as the weather. Over London, for example, methane levels vary from 1800 parts per billion (ppb), the global background level, on windy days to upwards of 3000 ppb when local emissions from landfills and gas pipelines are trapped by cold night air.

Talk is cheap.

Action is not.

Peace.

Kyoto was never going to do anything, it's success was just getting countries to admit there was a problem (which the US didn't do). I viewed it as just a very small step forward with no impact on CO2 emissions globally whatsoever.

Look at it this way, it was doomed to failure, so maybe now when everyone see that, the next step can be taken that might have even a little impact.

then the next step, and so on.

who would be allowed to continue polluting because of their lower standard of living. Developed countries would have to reduce emissions but not developing countries. therefore, if the goal is to reduce overall emissions it doesn't seem to be a solution whatsoever.

1. Make a goal of tons of carbon per year

2. Figure out how many people there are on the planet

3. Divide. (gets you a per capita tonnage)

4. Set limits based on (population of country x per capita tonnage)

So... if you are already lower than 4 then why would you have to lower? And, if higher than 4 then how would lowering to meet 4 not be a solution?

I am sure you are well meaning but frankly, what you are stating is right wing blather designed to give their a clueless xenophobic base a reason to not support the measures.

The thing is, the Kyoto Protocol is an ongoing process, and provisions are in place for developing countries to be capped later, after......

Article 11
The richer countries will provide funds and technology to developing countries to help them better advance towards GHG reduction.

This is already being done in China with their collaboration with Scandinavia and their experience of carbon sequestering.

Article 12
Richer (Annexe 1) countries can help developing countries to achieve sustainable development and limit GHG increases and then claim some emission reduction for their own targets.

but I believe that there is around a 10 degree range and we are only 3 degrees above the bottom which occurred around 1700. We are not even halfway to what it was in 1100 AD, when Greenland was really "green" and they grew wine grapes in England. Remember that the Viking founded a colony in Greenland around 1000 AD and had to leave by 1300, when it got too cold. I see no evidence that Greenland is yet warm enough now to support the kind of colony the Vikings would have had.

The difference is that our own warming is more of a spike than the warming in the 10th century. Changes that would take a few decades to show up are just getting underway. The warming in the 10th century was also a spell of all-around mild weather; our weather is more chaotic because the heating is happening so quickly. The Younger-Dryas Epoch may be a better model than the Medieval Warm Spell.

However, several warming spikes in previous eras have been studied; in one case, the spike was 59F and lasted less than a decade.

Individual pieces of evidence are not very helpful in our current situation; that's how the RW tried to use "strong science" to "debunk" anthropogenic global warming. Appropriating the authority -- the mojo -- of Science worked very well to slow study down for much of the 1990s. But prospects are pretty sobering. If we are on the edge of a return to the Ice Age, as many scientists suspect we may well be, we'll see a series of decadal "oscillations" before the onset of the Long Winter. A complete "runaway greenhouse" scenario is highly unlikely, but the lesser impacts of a series of warm and/or cold spells leading into a new period of super-glaciation is bad enough.

--p!

It really depends on which temperature record you use. There is strong evidence that it is hotter now than anytime in the last 300 years. There is good evidence that it is hotter now than anytime in the last 1000 years. The farther back in time you go the more uncertainy exists.

How do we get people to match their actions to their words?

He defanged the whole thing.

Decades from now when the whole world's suffering from global warming they're going to look back at whent they could have done something about it and there's going to be a big fat bullseye on George W. Bush.

passed. There were problems with it in the '90s.

* was opposed to it, but that doesn't mean it would have passed or the problems had gone away.

Moreover, the amount of global warming that the Kyoto treaty was predicted to eliminate was trivial. But everybody patted their backs saying how wonderful it was. The useless was the enemy of the good. But the good wouldn't have been acceptable to many countries that would have needed to sign on.

Even in Europe, they're playing games and not actually reducing carbon emission as much as was expected. Russia sells carbon credits that it already had, as a result of when the starting point was set. Most countries have simply exported their carbon emissions, even in Europe.

Kyoto's good politics, but after you win, all you've got is a victory. Victories should mean something.