The greenhouse gas emissions of 40 industrialized nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol treaty in 1997 have collectively dropped by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels, the UN reported on Monday
Between 2000 and 2006 emissions actually rose by 2.3 percent, and it’s that recent trend that threatens to undo the previous decline and worries the UN’s climate chief, Yvo de Boer, ahead of the organization’s climate meeting in Poznan Poland next month.
The Kyoto Protocol was signed by 183 nations but rejected by President George W. Bush over concerns it would harm the economy of the U.S., which has been the world’s biggest emitter but is now rivaled by China.
Among industrialized nations, 16 are on target to meet their Kyoto obligations including France, the UK, Greece and Hungary, the UN said.
The UN report said 20 countries were lagging, including Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Spain and the biggest offender, Canada –its emissions rose by 21.3 percent since 1990.
The European countries that were responsible for the dip in emissions in the early 1990’s, also saw their own rise emissions rise on average by 7.4 percent of 1990 levels between 2000 and 2006.
The three nations — among the world’s largest polluters — have not taken part in efforts under the Kyoto Protocol.
The U.S. refused to ratify the treaty, largely because Bush said it would cost the U.S. economy some 5 million jobs and he believed that rapidly developing economies such as India and China should also have to face climate obligations.
But Obama’s green plan would create 5 million jobs….thinking….I do not like it when numbers match precisely in politics…..makes me very suspicious.
This is one of the areas where I agree with Bush. The biggest problem with Kyoto is the exemption that China and India get. I’m looking at this in the long term. They have the largest populations on the planet and thus the potential to create more pollution than the US.
To me, if there was a time to get them on clean technologies, now would be it instead of after they build a high pollution infrastructure. Also, it would put the US in a competitive disadvantage and the last thing we need is to have more jobs sent over there.
This is an excellent comment…and hopefully others will read it and comment…..my problem is the jobs figure….do not believe it is accurate.
The two numbers being the same is probably a coincidence. Bush’s number was probably overstated because although the his reason is sound, he is not a supporter of the “humans are responsible for climate change” theory.
Obama’s number is probably overstated to be able to get additional buy-in for his proposals. To be honest given the current economic situation, I think his proposal will end up saving jobs rather than creating them.
Morning–I think that Obama has to first fix the economy and second he has to do something with Iraq and then his green stuff will be on the agenda. If the economy stays in the tank, he will have to create jobs and programs to inject more cash into it and his green promises just may be the way to do that.