Talk:Kyoto Protocol/Archive 3

Archives
	October 2004 — March 2005; April 2005 — December 2005; January 2006 — May 2006; ;

This is an archive of past discussions about Kyoto Protocol. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

→

Canada

I must second that comment and further the discusion. I propose that any relevant information be included within the main article. In particular we should include information on Canada's failure to ratify a plan on time (I believe the dead line was supposed to be february 2005). For example, a well sourced version of this information should be included under Kyoto Protocol#Current positions of Governments#Position of Canada. Not only is this important because it gives the current situations, but I believe it creates an excellent "sensationalist" topic leaning towards another possible hot canadian political "scandal" (kind of like our gun registry). This issue, I believe, should be included in the main article. I also believe this is "the question" that will make me decide on what "party" should have my vote this comming federal elections (in 19 days or so). (ie.: a little self gratification here on an article I wrote: It talks lightly about some situation regarding buses being overused and waste of municipal government money : [[1]]) --CylePat 14:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The current information listed about the status of Canada is flawed and has a strong bias. The Conservative Government has been in power for 4 months and should be given a chance to see what they actually do. The previous Government was in power for 13 years, and we have little to show for it. Some claim that the cuts to the Kyoto that are projected are for something other than admitting we have failed and need to set aside money to pay the fines. Many have said that the EnerGuide program was shut down and now people will have to buy ineffiecient appliances. If those people had not upgraded over the last decade when the program was in force, what evidence is there that they would now. All the rhetoric about evil Alberta is getting tired. Alberta produces most of the petroleum and coal that the rest of Canada uses, so who is at fault, Alberta for producing it or the rest of Canada for using most of it. The govenment of Alberta has spent some of the royalties from the petroleum industry to build the largest wind power generation site in Canada. Ontario who is the biggest power consumer uses power from petroleum, coal, nuclear power and hydro-generation. Ontario needs more power and wants to build more nuclear power plants, how "clean" is that. From the little bit of information that has come out so far about the new Environmental plan, is that firm goals will be set for industries to meet, and there will be penalties if they are not met, not much else is known yet. The current government is not scrapping Kyoto, but have admitted that due to previous inaction, Canada can not meet the goals that were set, but is willing to negotiate our position at the upcomming meetings. Since all the facts are not in, I did not feel it was prudent to update the Status info, but would encourage some other unbiased person who knows more to make the changes.

Mess

This thing got into a bit of a mess. I think a pile of refs got lost; I've restored them. I hope. William M. Connolley 16:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060519.wxkyoto20/BNStory/National/home

Ottawa now wants Kyoto deal scrapped

This is going to be a major change and could cause the whole agreement to collapse.

Opposition and Cost-benefit analysis

I've expanded on these sections a bit, as they seemed a bit sparse to me. Jackson744 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there any exact numbers for cost to the United States? Just saying that it will cost more than the benifits are worth means nothing to me.

Status Section

I added a sentence on countries which ratified the treaty, but are not required to reduce emissions. Lucid-dream 04:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Kyoto Protocol

Is there is a reason why there is a hyper-link called "Opposition to Kyoto Protocol" in that section that just redirects to the same page? Is there an actual Wiki-article called this? If not I will go ahead and remove the link. Lucid-dream 19:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There used to be an article. I'll rm the link, beating you to it :-) ... William M. Connolley 20:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Singapore

Might be of interest - Singapore Accedes To The Kyoto Protocol __earth ^(Talk) 06:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This page and the list of signatories has been updated. The UN's official list was updated yesterday. --Spiffy sperry 16:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese CO2 production

A bit ago I posted that China may suprass US CO2 emissions in 5-10 years.

Seems I was a bit optimistic.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html

New coal plants bury 'Kyoto'

New greenhouse-gas emissions from China, India, and the US will swamp cuts from the Kyoto treaty.

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

So much for Kyoto.

The official treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions hasn't gone into effect yet and already three countries are planning to build nearly 850 new coal-fired plants, which would pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce.

The magnitude of that imbalance is staggering. Environmentalists have long called the treaty a symbolic rather than practical victory in the fight against global warming. But even many of them do not appear aware of the coming tidal wave of greenhouse-gas emissions by nations not under Kyoto restrictions.

By 2012, the plants in three key countries - China, India, and the United States - are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a Monitor analysis of power-plant construction data. In contrast, Kyoto countries by that year are supposed to have cut their CO2 emissions by some 483 million tons.

The findings suggest that critics of the treaty, including the Bush administration, may be correct when they claim the treaty is hopelessly flawed because it doesn't limit emissions from the developing world. But they also suggest that the world is on the cusp of creating a huge new infrastructure that will pump out enormous amounts of CO2 for the next six decades.

But what the hey, Kyoto never was about the enviornment anyway.

Now Stephan has stated that China is on the way to becoming an Annex 1 country. But near as I can tell, the only way an Annex II country can become an Annex I country is if they petition the UN to do so. This rather destroys the financial incentives for any Annex II country. It ain't happened yet and I see no reason why China would petition to become an Annex I country. That is, unless China cares about the enviornment, anyone want to bet money that they do?

BTW, previous research shows that China has some out of control coal fires that are pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the enviornment. Luckily, Chinese CO2 is benign, unlike American CO2.

64.172.115.2 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

More on the coal fires. I don't see that the CO2 emitted is being counted in Kyoto BTW.

http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro4p4.asp

[...]

"This symposium is dedicated to disclosing the severity of the coal fires problem," Stracher said, noting that some of the fires have been burning for centuries with few people aware of the problem.

Concern and action is needed, he said, because of the environmental impact -- especially of mega-fires burning in India, China and elsewhere in Asia. One coal fire in northern China, for instance, is burning over an area more than 3,000 miles wide and almost 450 miles long.

"The direct and indirect economic losses from coal fires are huge," said Paul M. van Dijk, a Dutch scientist who is tracking the Chinese blazes via satellite.

He estimated that the Chinese fires alone consume 120 million tons of coal annually. That's almost as much as the annual coal production in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois combined.

The Chinese fires also make a big, hidden contribution to global warming through the greenhouse effect, scientists said. Each year they release 360 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as much as all the cars and light trucks in the United States.

Soot from the fires in China, India and other Asian countries are a source of the "Asian Brown Haze." It's a 2-mile thick cloud of soot, acid droplets and other material that sometimes stretches across South Asia from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka.

[...]

As I said, luckily for global warming Chinese CO2 is benign.

64.172.115.2 15:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

So because someone is incontinent we should all piss into the pool?--Stephan Schulz 18:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how you defend the massive release of CO2 in countries that you call undeveloped. Let's face it, you say China and India can piss in the pool all they want, till the pool is yellow and overflowing. It's not like you oppose pissing in the pool on principle or anything. 64.172.115.2 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Indeed I do. So let's stop what we can. We might be a good example for the rest.--Stephan Schulz 23:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Germany's Recycling

And some cursory reseach into Germany's recycling casts doubts on your claims.

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=50413-german-recycling-scheme

German recycling scheme costs Rexam

05/03/2004 - UK packaging group Rexam has blamed Germany’s recycling system for a dramatic loss of business in the country. The system, which requires customers to pay a deposit on cans and bottles used only once, has meant that capacity in Germany’s beverage can market has been halved.

“We lost 1.5 billion cans in Germany last year, and this impacted our profit by £18 million,” said group communications director Per Erlandsson. “The recycling scheme in Germany has created chaos, and has hit cans more than any other form of packaging.”

Germany's recycling scheme was introduced on 1 January 2003. It stipulates that one-way containers must be returned for a deposit of between 25 and 50 cents. This is part of the country's strategy to achieve EU recycling targets, something that Germany is obliged to reach.

I'm having some trouble finding information on the new program after the green dot program went bankrupt. But what I am finding is that they tax the hell out of the consumers to pay for the costs of the programs. It's a cost to everyone. And guess what, if you do manage to return the containers for the deposit, you at best break even. If you sold the can for the value of the aluminum, you could at least pay for the gas it took to return the container, but as it is, you take a guranteed loss. What these deposits are in fact is a tax on consumption. The good state of California charges sales tax on the deposit as well. They not only take you to the cleaners, but they scrub extra hard. The way things are set up, you can't even break even.

64.172.115.2 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Well, it's probably a surprise to Duales System Deutschland that they are bankrupt. Recycling of one-way beverage containers via the green dot system was unsatisfactory. Hence an extra (admittedly fucked-up) system for those was instituted. It's in the process of being overhauled at the moment and will hopefully become reasonable. What this has to do with paper recycling is another questen... --Stephan Schulz 23:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

WRT the DSD, let's review some history.

http://www.epe.be/workbooks/sourcebook/3.14.html

Near bancruptcy

Many things didn't work out as expected. For example, the plastics packaging collected far superseded expectations and there was no capacity to recycle plastics. DSD has calculated that in 1992 some 100,000 would be collected and were totally unprepared for the 400,000 which came instead. There wasn't enough recycling capacity in the entire world to take in so much plastic waste (WW 10/93).

DSD's costs soon soared upwards as they had to pay for expensive warehouses to store the plastic waste and generously pay the recycling companies which were willing to take their waste; up to USD 1000 per ton in some cases. Another unexpected cost factor was the sorting-out of waste without the green dot which had landed in the yellow bin; the cost of 'wrong throws'. Finally, many companies (50%) did not pay their license fees or paid them late.

Since these costs had not been budgeted DSD got into a major financial crisis by the end of 1993, costs having increased from 1,07 billion USD in 1992 to 2,1 billion in 1993 (WW 10/93). With a 250 million USD deficit by the of 1993 it was officially announced that DSD was about to go bankrupt. Only with direct intervention from the Government and a reform of the shareholder structure and board of directors an agreement was made between all partners to provide 614 million USD in credit and to allow DSD to claim license fees in advance.

and also...

Criticism

The Ordinance and DSD have been criticised from all sides of the political spectrum, both in Germany and abroad. On a fundamental level the system is blamed for placing too much emphasis on recycling and not enough on waste avoidance. For this reason, some critics have called on consumers to boycott plastic packaging or have proposed a ban on unnecessary sales packaging, such as cartons encasing cognac bottles. The green dot is seen as misleading consumers to believe that it signifies environmental friendliness.

Other critics said that the high material recycling targets are premature, especially for plastics and composites for which processing capacity does not exist.

On an international level, especially in Europe, cheap or subsidised exports of glass, paper and plastics are seriously jeopardising the economics of domestic collection and recycling schemes. Prices for cullet, certain waste paper grades and waste plastics have dropped dramatically or even become negative, for example, in France and Switzerland. This has led to calls for import bans or tariffs.

Green dot export scandals

At the start-up of DSD Germany had no capacity nor any useful experience with material recycling of plastics. Therefore, in the first years it had to export a large share of packaging waste

Exports to China, Pakistan and Indonesia were officially listed as "recycling" although as NGOs later found out this was hardly the case. These receiver countries receive these plastics unsorted and not cleaned. The head of Greenpeace's waste campaign Andreas Bernstorff set out on a world tour and discovered that green dot waste was being illegally dumped in Indonesia, Rumania, in the oceans and even in France instead of being recycled. Until 1994 50% of plastics were thus "recycled" by exporting them, in 1995 this has come down to 30%. DSD has long term contracts with China. The "Spiegel", a leading weekly magazine, sarcastically suggested DSD use the motto "local consumption, global recycling".

Since then, DSD has become stricter in selecting it's recycling partners and has the TÜV (official environmental assesment agency) verify that the recycling capacities which these recyclers claim to have actually do exist. This still doesn't mean that the green dot waste doesn't get illegally dumped. But with watch dogs like Greenpeace it has become a bit more difficult.

Yep, recycling has a marvelous track record.

64.172.115.2 16:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

So I see you agree that DSD is, indeed, not bankrupt. And your article is 13 years old, too...--Stephan Schulz 18:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

DSD was bankrupt and bailed out by the government and industry. Seems that they were the direct cause of quite a bit of pollution as well. I guess pollution in the name of recycling is good pollution, in the same fashion as greenhouse gasses from undeveloped countries like China not causing global warming.

64.172.115.2 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Fact is, they are not and never were bankrupt. They might have failed, but then they migh have not if the packing industry had acutally paid what they owed.--Stephan Schulz 23:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. Have it your way. The government and industry bailed DSD out (to the tune of about 600M Euros) because DSD was in fine shape and had no financial problems. Are you in the market for any more bridges? 64.172.115.2 23:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Well, bankrupt has a legal definition. They were not bankrupt. Indeed, they did suffer from a number of problems (most coming from the fact that they were created not to actually succeed, but to deflect extra legislation), but now they seem to do ok. And they are by far not the only company doing recycling in Germany.--Stephan Schulz 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple Questions

After we have come from the simple question why some countries are exempt from some obligations of the Kyoto treaty to the financial and ethical performance of a German recycling company (all while staying focussed!), I'm a bit confused. Help me out: Which of the following describes your position best?

There is no global warming
There is global warming, but it is not primarily caused by carbon dioxide
There is global warming, it is caused by CO2, but there is nothing we can do
There is global warming, it is caused by CO2, but there is nothing we should do
There is global warming, it is caused by CO2, but the Chinese should fix it for us

--Stephan Schulz 18:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How about....

Global warming is caused by the emissions from developed countries. Greenhouse gasses from undeveloped countries like China and India have no effect on the environment (even when in excess of the emissions from developed countries).

Well, that statement is about as factual as the rest of your verbiage. Hower, the POV seems to be different, so I assume its a joke. Ha Ha I'm laughing.--Stephan Schulz 23:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's your POV, is it not? Chinese and Indian CO2 just do not count with you. ::67.170.245.1 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Absolutely not.I'm all in favour of them reducing their emissions, too. However, I recognize both the moral and the practical responsibility of the first-world countries.

That is, responsibilities that everyone else in the world simply does not have. What the first sentence gives, the rest you write takes away.

The west is responsible for the vast majority of anthropogenic CO2 currently in the atmosphere.

Really? Give me the numbers then and their source. I think you just made this up.

In fact, we are still out-emitting everybody else per-capita,

So you say. The per-capita metric has absolutely no relevance to GW. It's an irrelevant number you apparently think you can use for shaming purposes. I don't buy it.

and probably on a total base as well (it's easier to quibble about definitons there). So it's primarily our responsibility to do something.

See, you don't care about Chinese and Indian CO2, or the enviornment. You only care about placing the blame. This is why Kyoto is such a travesty.

Moreover, it's easier to cut the same absolute amount from a larger amount than from a smaller amount.

Say what? Is this supposed to mean something?

The CO2 emission per person in the US is about 20 tonnes per year. Doing short distances by bicycle or foot,

That won't get me to work and it won't transport groceries home for my family.

replacing the Hummer with a Smart car,

Contrary to your stereotypes, not everyone in America owns a hummer or SUV. And while hybrids do better for freeway driving, they don't do well at all in the city.

using reasonable building codes for insulation and switching the aircon to a reasonable level (or even off ;-)

Tell you what, I'll buy one just so that I can switch it off and make you happy.

in summer can probably bring it down to European levels (10 tonnes per year).

Other than your unbelievable stereotypes about life in America (are you really that gullible?), what makes you think so?

Well, I've actually lived in the US for some time, teaching at the University of Miami (I've also been to other parts on about 10-15 occasions). The stereotypes exists for a reason. Of course not all correspond to them, but a lot do. When I lived in Miami, I shared a house with three students. One had a Camaro, one an SUV, and the third a midsize car. Aircon was typically so high (low) that people were freezing. At UM, half the professors had shoved cardboard into the air ducts to keep the cold air in. There is an enourmous potential for saving energy without any drop in the standard of living. --Stephan Schulz 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You have to shoot 4 Chinese (at 2.4 tonnes per year) to achieve the same result.

Only if you believe the UN data. I contest it. Show me that they account for the wood, gas, propane or butane burned to cook for example. I suggest that a billion stoves or wood pits or whatever must emit lots of CO2, but I don't see it accounted for anywhere. And that's just one item.

Wood is part of the natural carbon cycle and hence (to a reasonably good approximation) irrelevant (it grows back and fixes the same amount of CO2 - and without burning, it would give up the CO2 while decomposing). Yes, gas burners and the like are counted - indeed, for CO2 accounting, one typically looks at the amount of fossil fuels produced. --Stephan Schulz 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And they are likely to object... --Stephan Schulz 23:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Those at Tiananmen Square certainly did, but only once. I suggest that the Chinese people have real issues of this kind, but they do not derive from America. 64.172.115.2 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

And we do have the resources to actually do this.

You're from Germany are you not? It's nice to know that you guys are so rich. Over here we're knee deep in debt.

Nope, you're not. The net worth of any western country is incredible. National debt is high (in both the US and the Germany), but compared to GNP it's rather small.--Stephan Schulz 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Europe will likely meet its Kyoto targets,

Odd, that's not what I read.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2996219.stm

Emissions of greenhouse gases from the European Union increased in 2001 for the second year running.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates they were 1% greater than in 2000.

The EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012.

On present trends, it appears to stand almost no chance of keeping its promise.

And we have a rather large population increase driving things as well. No, Americans are not breeding like rabbits, the American population has leveled off. They are coming across the border at night in droves. It's not really possible to reduce consumption when the population is growing in such a fashion and at such a rate.

Of course it is. Population growth (legal and illegal) is small compared to plain wastage.--Stephan Schulz 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

and I cannot say that our quality of life has been negatively affected in any way.

As compared to what? How can you make a valid comparison?

Reducing consumption of fossil fuels is a no-brainer anyways, given that they are a finite and expensive resource...--Stephan Schulz 14:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the things you don't or won't think about that you've probably got wrong. Sacred cows are like that.

64.172.115.2 23:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

And running 2 fleets of garbage trucks (one for garbage, one for recycling) doubles the emissions (not to mention the particulates). It's not that difficult. Two such fleets for every municipality in the US causes a substantial increase in CO2 emissions, at the very least. Two such fleets for every municipality in the US, Canada, and the EU are emitting far far more CO2. I thought you guys were against CO2.

Explain that math to me. The garbage either goes to a recycling plant or to a dump. It only has to be transported once anyways.--Stephan Schulz 23:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It ain't the same truck Stephan. They have one fleet of trucks for recyclables and one fleet for the dump. You'll never believe the rare and expensive fuel they use in these fleets. And all these recycling programs are paid for by subsidy or direct taxation, they don't operate on revenues from the materials they are supposed to be recycling, but often do not.

Nonsense. It may happen if there is a lousy organization, but that's not an inherent problem. Here, the same truck takes normal garbage on even week, recyclable material on odd ones. Everyone has two bins. No problem. --Stephan Schulz 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's from a local (one county away) county.

http://www.union-city.ca.us/recycle/garbage_pickup.htm

9. Why do we have one company for garbage and another company for recycling/yard waste?

The City of Union City choose to use two different companies, one for garbage (Allied Waste) and one for recycling/yard waste (Tri-CED).

I don't imagine that this kind of setup is at all uncommon. Does your count tally 2 now? Or do you claim that 2 garbage trucks don't generate twice as much CO2? Maybe I'm misreading your response, but you seem in denial. 64.172.115.2 18:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

If they use two companies, each company will serve a larger area with the same truck. Simple capitalistic greed ensures that the trucks are operated at or near capacity. The amount of garbage does not change, and so he amount of garbage to be moved does not change. --Stephan Schulz 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also Annex II countries have zero obligations under Kyoto. They are exempt from all obligations, not "some" obligations.

Well, "some" is your choice of words, not mine... ---Stephan Schulz 23:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"After we have come from the simple question why some countries are exempt from some obligations of the Kyoto treaty..."

These do appear to be your words. Did "some"one else sign your name?

64.172.115.2 23:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Opps. I thought you were the same as the original author, who asked "So why are some countries exempt from parts of the Kyoto Protocol?". Sorry for the mixup. --Stephan Schulz 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You've been confused about that for a long time, I did not write the original question. But you've still claimed that Annex II countries are under "some" obligations. Perhaps you could be so good as to name one? 67.170.245.1 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Indeed I have been. Sorry about that. And no, I have not claimed than Annex II countries are under "some" obligations. I have claimed that they are excempt from certain parts of the protocol, which is not a statement about the rest at all. But they are under some obligatin (!= part), too. See e.g. articles 10 and 11, which e.g. oblige them to honour older commitments. Anyways, this is technical quibbling and not a useful discussion.--Stephan Schulz 14:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Annex II countries are mentioned twice in the protocol, here's an example...

3. The developed country Parties and other developed Parties in Annex II to the Convention may also provide, and developing country Parties avail themselves of, financial resources for the implementation of Article 10, through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels.

That is, they are mentioned as the recipiants of money and technology from the so-called developed nations. This is an obligation on the part of Annex II nations in your book? Astounding. 64.172.115.2 23:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Well, as you have noticed, I'm in Germany, where it is 2 am now. So just some short remarks. Yes, Annex II nations are not mentioned to often. But you should also look at the unqualified term "Parties". Those are relevant for Annex I and Annex II countries. --Stephan Schulz 23:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that almost of the uses of "Parties" is in a context where it can only refer to Annex I parties, for example...

10. Any emission reduction units, or any part of an assigned amount, which a Party acquires from another Party in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 or of Article 17 shall be added to the assigned amount for the acquiring Party.

Since Annex II parties cannot trade emission credits, this cannot apply to Annex II parties. 64.172.115.2 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Common but differentiated responsibility

In other words, China, India, and other developing countries were exempt from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change.

This part seems like a belief system to me.

I've never seen any research proving this.

Unless someone can document this, I think the words "it is believed" should be added to the text above.

64.172.115.2 15:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

See e.g. here. It's a secondary source, but they cite a primary one, so you can dig it out if you are really interested. All the rest of the world combined is now just about even in current emissions with the OECD countries. But CO2 (unlike Methane) has a long atmospheric lifetime (at least hundreds of years for "small" pertubations, some newer research suggests tens of thousands of years for parts of larger pertubations). So you have to look at the integral of emissions, i.e. the different areas in the figure provided. It's easy to see that the industrialized countries win out handily.--Stephan Schulz 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Worldwide Energy-Related CO2 Emissions

This source does not measure man-made greenhouse gas emissions, not at all, just a subset of it. This says nothing about the greenhouse gas contributions of China (or anyplace else) through burning (for cooking, production of goods such as pots and ironmaking), or that produced by rice farming, which is a major activity which has been sustained for centuries and longer. And this is not an exhaustive list.

Of course it does address most of that. Cooking is "energy-related",

I don't believe this is correct. In the context of Kyoto, "energy-related" means related to the production of energy (but seems to include transportation), and refers to the burning of coal, natural gas, and petroleum products for the production of electricity and the like. I'm looking into this.

and so is the "production of goods".

Your web-page does not address production of goods.

As I mentioned above, burning of wood is CO2 neutral (to a good approximation).

There seems to be some disagreement on this issue. I assert that if the burning is of deadwood, you may be right, but if it is the result of deforestation (as in the Amazon) it is not. I have read that China's increased energy need is resulting in deforestation (not only in China, but in neighboring countries where it acquires resources).

Methan is not covered, indeed. It is non-negligible, but much less relevant than CO2, especially in the long term.

According to this web page it's about 10% of the warming.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

Indeed, this also explains what energy-relarted means.

What Are the Sources of Greenhouse Gases?

In the U.S., our greenhouse gas emissions come mostly from energy use. These are driven largely by economic growth, fuel used for electricity generation, and weather patterns affecting heating and cooling needs. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, resulting from petroleum and natural gas, represent 82 percent of total U.S. human-made greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 3). The connection between energy use and carbon dioxide emissions is explored in the box on the reverse side (Figure 4).

Now I've read that methane is 21x stronger as a greenhouse gas as compared to CO2, and rice farming surprisingly enough produces a considerable amount of it. Regardless of it's half-life, it's production has been continuous, so also will be it's warming effect as it will not have time to settle out or react out of the enviornment.

Correct. But due to its short lifetime, with constant methane production, the level in the atmosphere will be constant.

Who says's it's production is constant? Are you asserting that as much rice is grown today as was 100 years ago, and 500 years ago, and 1000 years ago, and 5000 years ago?

With constant CO2 production, its atmospheric concentration will be increasing. Also, the carbon in most methane (and all methane from agriculture) is part of the natural carbon cycle. --Stephan Schulz 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the issue is anthropogenic emissions, i.e., emissions due to human activity, and farming is a human activity, how do you figure? Rice farming, for example, seems unnaturally prone to methane production.

The claim made is about "contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions", not energy related CO2 emissions. So your citation does not address the claim made in the article. And GW, such as it derives from human activity, is not restricted to those gases caused by energy production. All human activity that causes greenhouse gas emissions should be culpable, even though we refuse to look at such activity in other parts of the world.

Fallacy. Breathing creates CO2.

Which neither creates or delineates a fallacy.

But again, this is part of the normal carbon cycle.

But the burning of coal, natural gas, and petroleum products is not, and these items are the bulk of what are considered Energy-Related CO2 Emissions. Are these also not what you rail against?

The carbon you and I breathe out has been fixed by some plant from atmospheric CO2 not to long ago. Only fossil fuel burning (and cement production) introduces new carbon into the biosphere. If you do not understand that, further discussion is probably useless. --Stephan Schulz 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how you jump from Energy-Related CO2 Emissions to here.

It seems somewhat dishonest to look only at the greenhouse gasses produced by industry, then claim that industry is the prime cause.

What other sources fo you want to look at?--Stephan Schulz 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All of them. And look "for", not 'at'.

Actually I don't see that most really care about the greenhouse emissions from China or India, which really brings me to question the numbers we are being given today.

And the black helicopters are using mind-control rays to influence congress! --Stephan Schulz 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally, something we can agree on.

Assuming that the basis of Kyoto is true (for the sake of argument) you need to determine the greenhouse gas emissions from all countries for the period in question before you can know what is happening. I don't see any such assesment has been attempted, or that anyone is taking a critical look at claims made in this regard.

I suggest you read the IPCC report, which is the scientific sumary of the state of knowledge. It discusses exactly these questions (among others).--Stephan Schulz 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And this I contest. For example...

From Richard Lindzen.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

It appears that some research is acceptable, and some is not. If, by happenstance it manages to get funding and punlished, it will be shouted down.

FYI, an article in last years Scientific American was interesting, as it states that GW started not with the appearance of industry, but with the start of agriculture. Now I ask you, where did agriculture start and where was it most prevalant?

And SA is such an reliable, peer-recviewed publication. But actually, I doubt they wrote that. Give a full reference, and we can discuss. --Stephan Schulz 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

SA may not be a peer reviewed journal, but most of their articles are by researchers describing their peer-reviewed work. The original article can be found here. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ED75C-D366-1212-8F3983414B7F0000

Unfortuantly, the full article is no longer available unless you pay for it.

The author's name is William Ruddiman, and here's a review of his work from nature.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040209/pf/427582a_pf.html

Warm reception

Since Ruddiman described his theory in December at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco and in the journal Climatic Change1, some climate scientists have been warming to the idea. "I have been thinking more and more that he may be on to something," says geologist Thomas Crowley of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Many of those who spoke to Nature said that they might have dismissed the idea out of hand had it come from another source. But Ruddiman has a reputation for careful work. "He doesn't lay an idea out before he's really, really ready," says former graduate student Maureen Raymo, now a palaeoclimatologist at Boston University. And he has bucked conventional wisdom before. In 1989, he was the first to propose that the rise of the Himalayas 40 million years ago altered the climate of Asia2, an idea considered outlandish at the time but now generally regarded as correct.

But for other climate scientists, sizeable doubts remain. They stress that, so far, the idea is based only on correlations, and that Ruddiman has yet to present hard data. The prehistoric rise in greenhouse gases could easily be the result of other factors, they say, such as subtle changes in Earth's orbit or the release of carbon by the oceans.

Funny how this anthropogenic warming is being contested.

64.172.115.2 21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

64.172.115.2 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

The fact is, the greenhouse effect does not care whether the CO2 comes from Europe, US, China, or India. Kyoto is fundamentally flawed until large contributors like China and India are included under provisions that restrict CO2 emmissions. Leaving a huge loophole like that will just drive more manufacturing to those countries and will actually increase world-wide CO2 since China and India rely upon very CO2 intense methods of energy production (i.e. coal). Also, since this loophole would drive more manufacturing to China and India, other countries, like the US and Austrlia, will not ratify the protocol until they are included. Lucid-dream 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is cooking with wood environmentally neutral?

I was trying to research chinese cooking and I did discover several things, but the only information I could find that looked like it talked about the fuels used for cooking in China were pay sites.

With that in mind, it appears that, roughly speaking, from various sources, that perhaps half the cooking in China is done with wood. There is much talk of fuel scarcity, and no mention of replanting (from any source) so it looks like a solid bet that the wood used in Chinese cooking does not meet any definition of Carbon neutral that I've run across.

That being said, the other common cooking fuels seem to be Coal (washed and unwashed), kerosene, agricultural residue (stalks), charcoal, LPG, coal gas, biomass and natural gas. I have no clear information on which is more prevalant, but it appears that kerosene had been the primary fuel since about 1870 and has just recently been displaced due to the following...

http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/webenerg.htm

All Rural Chinese To Have Fuel Efficient Stoves by 2000

45. By the year 2000, all Chinese rural household will have energy-saving stoves. Forty percent of rural households will burn coal while the number of households using methane will increase by 2.5 million. These conservation measures will boost the average combustion efficiency of domestic fuels to 22.2 percent. These conservation measures will cost over 5 billion RMB since energy conserving stoves cost 50 RMB each, energy conserving coal burning stove costs 50 RMB each, and building a methane generating pit costs 400 RMB each. These expensive projects, however, will achieve in the year 2000 an energy saving of several tens of millions of tons of coal-equivalent. Calculations are made on the basis of per capita domestic effective calorie consumption in the year 2000.

Note, it appears that the reason for this is not GW, but the inability of China to supply cooking fuel to most of it's people.

So coal appears to be the new primary cooking fuel.

Now that being said, I also found the following WRT the carbon neutrality of wood stoves.

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/no_CO2.html

table cut and pasted

Electricity generation - CO2 emissions in g/ kWh (life cycle analysis)

coal 800 to 1050

gas turbines 430

nuclear 6

hydraulic 4

wood 1500 without replantation

photovoltaïc 60 to 150 (*)

wind generation 3 to 22 (**)

From Jean-Pierre BOURDIER, La Jaune et La Rouge de Mai 2000

(*) The CO2 mainly comes from the manufacturing of the solar panel, but also of the battery that stores the electricity at night. Depending on the fact that these panels are manufactured in Denmark (electricity mostly coal produced) or in Switzerland (electricity mostly nuclear and hydro produced), the "CO2 content" of the panel is very different. The paying off is done in 20 to 30 years. But if "CO2 free" energies were used all along the cycle (manufacturing, transport, etc), and with "sober" technologies for the production (like thin layers) we would probably get to much lower values.

(**) same remark as above for the production country.

It appears that burning wood without replacement releases more CO2 than burning coal. And I suggest that for wood used for cooking, very little is replanted.

Also there is this...

http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=1970&language=1

Cooking with wood 'contributes to climate change'

Stoves used in South Asia release large quantities of soot

Eva Tallaksen

7 March 2005

Source: SciDev.Net

Changing the way food is cooked in households across South Asia could help tackle climate change, according to a study published in the latest edition of Science.

The research shows that 'biofuels' such as wood, agricultural waste and dried animal manure, which are widely used in the region, are a significant source of pollution in the form of soot.

Soot particles absorb light, leading to increased temperatures in the atmosphere and decreased temperatures on land. These changes could have profound impacts on rainfall patterns, potentially making floods and droughts more intense.

and this...

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.741

Annual Review of Energy and the Environment

Vol. 25: 741-763 (Volume publication date November 2000)

(doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.741)

GREENHOUSE IMPLICATIONS OF HOUSEHOLD STOVES: An Analysis for India

It is commonly assumed that biomass fuel cycles based on renewable harvesting of wood or agricultural wastes are greenhouse-gas (GHG) neutral because the combusted carbon in the form of CO2 is soon taken up by regrowing vegetation. Thus, the two fifths or more of the world's households relying on such fuels are generally not thought to play a significant role in GHG emissions, except where the wood or other biomass they use is not harvested renewably. This review examines this assumption using an emissions database of CO2, CO, CH4, NMHC, N2O, and total suspended particulate emissions from a range of household stoves in common use in India using six biomass fuels, kerosene, liquefied petroleum gas, and biogas. Because typical biomass stoves are thermally inefficient and divert substantial fuel carbon to products of incomplete combustion, their global warming commitment (GWC) per meal is high. Depending on time horizons and which GHGs are measured, the GWC of a meal cooked on a biomass stove can actually exceed that of the fossil fuels, even if based on renewably harvested fuel.

That is, there is evidence that biomass fuels used in cooking are not enviornmentally neutral, even assuming replanting (and this assumption would seem unsupportable in most cases).

64.172.115.2 17:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Rich