Kyoto and Spin 35

[zdas04]

Recently I was talking to a group of engineers in Indonesia and someone said "we can't do that because, unlike the U.S., we have obligations to protect the environment".

That rocked me, and I asked what the heck he was talking about (we were in Jakarta and the air is so nasty that you can't see the next sky scraper). His response was that since the U.S. didn't sign the Kyoto protocols we must just be raping and pillaging the environment.

A Canadian collegue pointed out that the U.S. has been a leader in controlling air emissions for decades and that our air-quality restrictions are far more stringent than the Indonesian restrictions. This shocked the Indonesians.

What I'm wondering is how the international media has gotten to the point where its agenda is just taken on faith with no regard to facts?

David

 

[Schipperus]

What I've always understood from the Dutch media is this:

The USA have not signed the Kyoto-agreement. This because the USA doesn't want their economy to be slowed down by environmental issues. They still work on it, mostly taking the technical way, cleaning the used sources as much as possible. While other countries have statistics of the past and numbers to work to, the USA just has a 'best efford' policy.

IJsbrand

 

[electricpete]

You might want to gather a few more facts before you close the book on your open-and-shut case that US is a global leader in controlling air emissions.

Which country has the highest CO2 emissions? I'm pretty sure that would be the US by far.

How about highest CO2 emissions per Capita? I'm not sure about that but I'm guessing US is right up there.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[corus]

International media obtained its information from GW Bush. He has made it perfectly clear where he stands and the reasons for it. In the UK it is reported that some states have gone it alone as to following the Kyoto agreement, but in general it is not USA policy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1248757.stm

corus

 

[epoisses]

electricpete, I think you are correct -

Nevertheless I think the hypocrisy is on the Indonesian side in the above example, since
1. given the nasty air, Indonesia apparently has bigger fish (e.g. SO2) to catch than CO2
2. I wonder how a developing country like Indonesia can commit to reducing their greenhouse gases or emission trading and keep a straight face while their economy is skyrocketing.

see also...

http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20060926.Q03

Emission trading... with whom?

 

[0707]

Kyoto protocol was ratified by most of the countries with the exception of US and Australia.
Between the non-signer nations are Angola Afghanistan Turkey Taiwan Vatican city and other nations.
Kyoto protocol indications are being followed by most of the European countries. Like all political agreements Kyoto protocol is a badly lesser one.
Kyoto protocol is a good intention process to give money to non-developed countries so that the developed ones can by licences to pollute.

 

[zdas04]

I really didn't mean for this to become a U.S. bashing thread, but should have expected it. The statistics are pretty consistent with the U.S. at around 24% of the world's CO2 emissions. China is the next largest about 12%, but they are climbing rapidly. None of the major signatory nations are doing all that well at maintaining emissions levels let alone reducing them.

Take a look at

http://www.enerdata.fr/enerdatauk/products/demo/yearbook/Pages/co2.pdf

Interesting that in the North America data the U.S. is flat since 1999 and Canada (a signatory) has increased from 117% of 1990 data to 126% in the period from 1999 to 2004.

Electricpete, the statistics that I've looked at this morning support the idea that any other country with the real per capita wealth that the U.S. enjoys would put a lot more junk into the air than the U.S. does. We've had real limits on industrial emissions since the 1970's and this has been the driving force for many technologies that make a real difference to the total emissions across the world.

David

 

[SomeYahoo]

My opinion: CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP is a far better measure. See this link for some data:

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?action=select_countries&theme=3&variable_ID=468

In 2002 (most recent data availabe on the site):
Metric tons of CO2 per million year 1995 US dollars
China: 3135.4
India: 2135.0
US: 626.1

We pollute more because we make more.

 

[electricpete]

I agree with your comments zdas. My point was it's not black and white.... there are two sides.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[toiap]

Someyahoo - excellent point. I felt this would be the case but did not want to state it unless I had the numbers to back it up.

 

[moltenmetal]

The vast majority of Canada's increases are due to vastly increased tarsands-based exports to, you guessed it, the United States. To put it in SomeYahoo's parlance, "We (Canada) make more because WE (Canada AND the US) consume more!"

This prattling proves nothing other than that this is a global problem in need of a global solution. Don't think Kyoto fits the bill? What ELSE do you have to offer? I'd prefer a flawed system of wealth transfers to the "do whatever you feel like" approach advocated by most people who dislike Kyoto.

Personally, I think a sliding scale carbon tax is a far better solution- the only way to reduce emissions is to hit consumers squarely in the pocketbook. People conserve what they can't afford, and waste what they see as cheap! China and India and other developing nations won't play along? No problem- simply slap a tax on the products (and services) they want to export to your country, based on their energy inputs. Adjust the tax based on their energy input per unit export $$$ if you can't find a more accurate measure. That would provide a little bit of motivation I'd imagine!

 

[zdas04]

SomeYahoo,
I saw that data in my search this morning, but I didn't (and still don't) understand why emissions per $ GDP is an important measure. I'm just not seeing it.

Moltenmetal,
Just because I agree with my government in thinking that Koyoto is a bad set of compromises that has approximately the same number of loopholes as any UN project doesn't mean that I (or my government for that matter) believes that doing nothing is a good answer. We've discussed this in many threads many times and that really wasn't my reason for starting this thread. My question is about the perception in various countries of the U.S. attitude toward the environment and how the media is spinning it. I didn't mean to start a "U.S. is a bunch of dirty @#^#%@# that is just crapping on the planet" discussion. I meant to start a "Stinking press has their own agenda discussion". I guess the press has just been too successful at creating a world-wide attitude.

David

 

[ajack1]

The USA is certainly portrayed in a negative way here in the UK with regard to environmental issues.

I guess the hard part for all of us is to know what the truth really is. If you see two political parties in your own country tell you how good or bad anything is they are totally contradictory and both will back this up with facts and figures.

This is with something in our own countries that we probably have a reasonable knowledge about. When you look at a worldwide issue and often involving opinions as well as hard facts what do you believe?

I am sure as with political parties the media spin things to have us all believe what they want us to.

 

[JAE]

What would be curious to me, is how the US compares with other countries in the amount of money spent in cleaning the environment, the amount spent on regulating cars, industry, etc., and the amount of money spent on research for cleaner machines and better fuels. I may be ignorant, but its my perception that a very VERY large amount of money is spent by the US, and by US companies, in this arena. Whether you compare this to total monies spent or money per GDP I bet its in the upper tier of countries...if not the top. But I honestly don't have any facts or links to point to...it would be interesting to compare the efforts.

 

[SnTMan]

Not out to get flamed here or anything, but I've read that if fully implemented Kyoto was projected to reduce warming by something like maybe 0.1 C over a HUNDRED years at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Why bother?

Regards,

Mike

 

[quark]

People conserve what they can't afford, and waste what they see as cheap! China and India and other developing nations won't play along? No problem- simply slap a tax on the products (and services) they want to export to your country, based on their energy inputs

This may be far ahead in future and contrary to the present situation. The present trend indicates a boom in purchase of carbon credits by developed countries from India and China.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1937685.cms

A good choice of spending money rather than putting it into cleaning business? God knows.

 

[corus]

I'm not sure what zdas04 is referring to when they refer to the media, as they give no examples of such bad press coverage. As far as I'm aware the media quote the US government policies and facts corrrectly, and also give examples of where states, such as California are 'side-stepping' their federal government to follow the Kyoto protocol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/5233466.stm

Hats off to Arnie it seems.

corus

 

[Schipperus]

There are always two 'f'-words that are represented by the media:

Direct: F-acts, which can be right or wrong, or just partly present. Thereby releasing a kind of F-eeling at the readers part.

A story containing only facts can make people feel different than they would if having read another story containign the same facts.

In my opinion the press does make us feel like the USA are 'bad guys' in environmental issues. Maybe it's just to make us feel better, maybe it's something against the USA.

As for the real pollution, I'm not sure, but wasn't Kyoto about reducing by percentages?? This would mean a country can be more pollutive compared to the USA, but still realise promises made in the Kyoto contract, while the USA can not.

IJsbrand

 

[epoisses]

someyahoo,


VERY interesting data and a much more meaningful way to measure. This number appears to much better reflect what my nose tells me when visiting certain countries.

Even more interesting still is data from countries more comparable to the US.

US: 626.1
Australia: 694.7
Canada: 699.0
France: 207.9 (I guess thanks to abundant nuclear energy)
Germany: 318.8
UK: 399.2

And to get back to the example:
Indonesia: 1481.1

But some countries are even much worse:
Russian Federation: 3894.3

(all data are from 2002)

This would suggest that there is some room for improvement in energy efficieny in the US vs UK and some other countries, even if expressed per $ GBP. (I'm not trying to bash anyone!)

 

[VeryPicky]

One warning before we all jump into happy conclusion. There still countries in this world where the economy is regulated by the politics of governing party. Those countries produce less GDP because their internal markets do not follow the normal, healthy free market economy. Prices are regulated for ALL products and therefore the GDP may be not what it seems.


Putting Human Factor Back in Engineering