Shocked, Shocked To Hear That Kyoto Signatories Are Likely Underestimating Their Greenhouse Gas Emissions

|

The New Scientist reports that a team of European climate scientists find many Kyoto Protocol signatories are underreporting their greenhouse gas emissions. To wit:

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.

And here's another shocker: "Ironically, the best monitoring is done by the US and Australia, which are both in denial over Kyoto."

Whole thing here.

Advertisement

NEXT: We Also Believe He Stockpiled Exploding Clowns on Unicycles

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes, yes, yes, so the Kyoto Protocol is useless and ineffective and largely symbolic.

    But come now, Ron, you know what the real issue here is: How much stock in Exxon and Haliburton do you own? Hmmmm?

  2. He’s admitted a little to Exxon, don’t know about Haliburton. Though I sense you are being faciecious…

    Aside form that.

    No climate change control mechanism will work unless corruption is ended in much more of the world than today; for there will always be cheaters.

    Best idea I have for resolving that is to require all imported goods to have thrid party proof that an item has had it’s whatever emmission taken care of to whatever degree was agreed upon…or even just labeled as much for all products, and let consumers decide.

  3. The Kyoto Treaty is simply a ” feel-good” gesture – another attempt by the parasite intelligentsia to feel powerful and relevant.

    Its own backers admit that if every motor and factory in the developed world were stopped today, the ” cooling ” effect would be about a hundredth of a degree, and that over a number of years.

    And even the UN’s monitoring shows the signatory countries don’t meet their ” reduction” quotas- except Russia and France, whose economies are stagnant or imploding. ANd that’s using the old, less accurate methods that the New Scientist complains of.

    Lastly, since India and China, the world’s fastest-developing economies, are not required to do anything about ‘global warning’, the whole Kyoto treaty is a joke.

    The US Senate, sensible for once, decided to let the joke be on somebody else’s economy and somebody else’s taxpayers.

  4. But come now, Ron, you know what the real issue here is: How much stock in Exxon and Haliburton do you own? Hmmmm?

    Pffft. That’s not an issue. The real issue is that Ron Bailey has written for Tech Central Station before. That means that he’s automatically lying about everything relating to climate change. In this instance, it means that the European countries are actually meticulously counting every ounce, every gram of greenhouse gas they’re emitting, while the US and Australia are lackadaisically emitting waaaaay more than they’re admitting to. Because Ron Bailey wrote for TCS.

  5. For the children!
    For the children!
    For the children!

    Now that we’ve removed the need for intelligent debate, I’m going to run for congress as a Democrat. That phrase seems to be enough to get me in, as far as I can tell.

  6. In other news, RealClimate has a review of the Good and Bad of the latest NAS report on historical reconstructions of temperature records…

    http://tinyurl.com/oexml

  7. A question: How much credit under Kyoto does a Canada or Russia — or the US were they a participant — get for the carbon sinks embodied in their forests and other lands.

  8. On the other hand, Ireland and Finland may be overestimating emissions from peat bogs.

    Perhaps Reason could have Peter Bagge do a feature on those.

  9. Ron, or anyone else who has survived the movie:

    What is Gore’s solution? Does he take the angle that Kyoto is insufficient even if fully implemented, or does he gloss efficacy of reductions on actual temperature?

  10. Martin,

    Can you quote a source for the 1/100th of a degree statement?

  11. >>”Ironically, the best monitoring is done by the US and Australia, which are both in denial over Kyoto.”

    In denial? That’s a curious turn of phrase. What are they trying to say? The US and Australia don’t accept that the Kyoto agreement exists?

  12. How much stock in Exxon and Haliburton do you own? Hmmmm?

    Aside from being some evil corporation in which Dick Cheney is entwined… what is Haliburton? What do they do? How do they make their money?

  13. I always found it funny that the bulk of Kyoto’s focus is on greenhouse gasses like CO2 & methane, it imposes few on no controls on particulates. As a result of that, combined with the developing countries exemptions, the populace of China (and to a lesser degree India) get to continue increasing their already large use of coal as the primary industrial/commercial/residential heating source. Think about the soot/acid rain problems they will be facing by the time they become a “developed” nation!

  14. Reading these threads is like dropping in on the Flat Earth Society.

    Right down to the little game of figuring out how every story either proves the earth is flat, or proves that the people who say it’s round are lying.

  15. “Reading these threads is like dropping in on the Flat Earth Society.

    Right down to the little game of figuring out how every story either proves the earth is flat, or proves that the people who say it’s round are lying.”

    Joe, prior to the development of the theory on global warming, the environmentalist vanguard had a batting average of about .100. Since they were wrong on so many counts – predictions on famines, predictions on food supplies in general, predictions on when we would be running out of any number of resources, and since in light of these failed predictions they stubbornly stuck to their position, would it be fair to liken them to a ‘flat earth society.’? Hand in hand with these predictions, there was often an underlying assumption that top down command and control policies were the best way of dealing with any one of these societal problems. Knowing the failure of their record, and the failure of top down command and control policies in the 20th century, some in very catastrophic ways, to not be skeptical of global warming (at least in the beginning) and the in general top down proposals for dealing with it, would be naive at the very least. Bailey deserves kudos for having the courage to go against the grain and then to admit he was wrong. How many popular environmentalists do you see doing the same – and they have been proven to be wrong so many times before. It’s an extremely rare case for someone like Bjorn Lomborg to come around, admit that his opinions were wrong, and then to face the utter hostility of the enviromentalist community, one that he had formerly held in deep embrace. He’s still an environmentalist, whether recognized by the community or not, just that he doesn’t religiously genuflect to their opinions or reflexively accept “all” of their top down proposals.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.