EU can't meet it's Kyoto targets...
That won't stop them from looking down at the US...
Emission limits proposed by the European Commission for new cars sold by 2012 are too high to help the union meet its bold set of targets to fight global warming, according to a study said.
The study, commissioned by the European Greens, said carbon dioxide emissions from new passenger cars must fall to no more than 120 grams per kilometre by 2012 and 80 grams per kilometre by 2020 if the EU is to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% from 1990 levels in the next 13 years.
That target was set by EU governments in March, after the EU executive proposed emission limits of 130 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre for new cars in the 27-nation bloc by 2012.
posted by GayandRight @ 9:43 AM
11 Comments:
Your title is TOTALLY WRONG.
The E.U. is already PAST its Kyoto 2012 targets. The targets that are mentioned in this article are the E.U.'s own new 2020 targets, not their Kyoto targets, which they've already met. They're done with Kyoto, they succeeded, and they've moved on to their next set of targets (which are also ambitious, though the Greens are saying here that they aren't doing enough to meet them).
This isn't about Kyoto at all, it's about the E.U.'s POST-Kyoto targets, as they've moved on, having already met their Kyoto numbers (as a group... some of the countries didn't hit their internal targets, but enough of the countries (like the U.K.) exceeded their Kyoto targets by a large enough margin to make up the difference for the E.U. as a whole, who signed on for one Kyoto target and then divided the work amongst themselves, on their own).
do you have any reference to support the claim that they have met their targets? (which seems odd, given that it is the period between 2008-2012 that the success/failure of the targets was to be measured).
Canada could have met the targets too if it farmed out all it's mfg to other countries, like the EU, didn't have a booming oil industry and hadn't increased it's population by 17%.
I seem to recall that the EU used a huge credit which they gave themselves for converting from coal in the past ... it was basically a smoke and mirrors credit.
Both Brian & Wilson are correct, but that said this also ignores the climate facts. Virtually everyone in Canada needs to heat their homes in winter (and i could argue a lot need to air condition in the summer). A large part of the EU can survive quite nicely with only intermittent or no heating & A/C. Likewise distances & transportation needs are far different. Europe is blessed with an extensive and efficient rail & canal system and dense population. We on the other hand are spread across almost 4000 miles in a nation that doesn't really suit either mode. Finally, we're still growing in population whereas the EU is essentially static.
not to mention, lord kitchener's own, that if they 'met' their targets, it merely means they paid enough 'guilty conscience' money to China, which means ACTUAL reductions were not achieved in the EU, only some very very modest ones, with the difference made up in carbon credits.
Now, did you know that in creating refridgerants in China, there are generally two main GHG's (with several dozen times the potency of C02) that are created as by products. One is easily prevented, and the other is only produced in small quantities.
Chinese (and other) businesses, have started allowing the easily prevented one to be produced in large quantities, primarily because it is extremely easy to capture and destroy after being produced. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1/ton of CO2 equivilant. The get paid, what....$20-40/ton of CO2 equivilant destroyed/sequestered? Sounds like a good deal to me. But the effect is that they are simply producing MORE pollution that's easy to destroy, while the EU can produce MORE CO2 and just pay someone else to reduce their emissions in repentance. Net result.....jack squat....just money transfers.
Certainly arguments can be made around HOW the E.U. met it's targets, but they met them. I think that point needs to be made is all. What relevance that has to Canada's commitment is a matter of debate, but it's unfair to say that the E.U. can't meet their targets when they most certainly will, using mechanisms within the protocol. Are Canada's targets more aggressive, and harder for us to meet? Maybe so. However it's disingenuous to suggest that we should break an international treaty on the grounds that the E.U. is going to break the treaty, when the E.U. is going to comply with the treaty. Argue that we should break the treaty because it's unrealistic for US. Pretending other nations are also failing en masse doesn't bolster the argument (especially since it's not true).
Also, while iceman_aragon is correct that it is the period between 2008-2012 that will be averaged to determine if signatories have met the Kyoto Protocol targets, the point is that the E.U. is below that target NOW, and CONTINUING to reduce emissions. So, while it's theoretically possible that the E.U. could still fail to meet their Kyoto targets (if they allow their emmissions to go UP SIGNIFICANTLY between 2008-2012) that's just not going to happen. (Iceman, this article is a few years old now but for most countries they're doing BETTER today, not worse. There are probably better links out there. This was my second Google hit, and I didn't think people here would appreciate the first from Dr. Suzuki.) So, the EU's emissions are below their Kyoto targets now (on aggregate) and they're working to force them DOWN FURTHER. The likelihood of them going up between 2008-2012 is pretty slim imho (and those nations that haven't hit their national targets will, perhaps, be shamed into being more aggressive by those E.U. nations that exceeded their targets and picked up the slack, so they may still exceed their Kyoto targets by even more).
Anyway, the main point though is that this article is not even about the Kyoto targets, so it's wrong to title it "EU can't meet it's Kyoto targets...".
Thank you for the link. Most impressive, and good for them. I can certainly applaud the effort to reduce emissions where it is readily possible to do so (industry, etc, as the link mentions)...I suppose they never had motivation in the past.
However, I'd rather it be focused on pollutants and toxins rather than CO2, which is generally beneficial to flora... I'd rather see a more substantive cut in what I would call concrete pollutants with direct health effects.
I also agree the author's original title seems to be mistaken.
However with regards to your point that about other countries failing to reduce emissions... I applaud, as I said, the EU's efforts.... but given that the USA and China EACH dwarf the whole EU... I'd rather put support behind the initiative that includes them as signatories.
Of course while I agree with many of your points (and i retract statements inferring that the EU may not be meeting their targets primarily through emissions reductions), it's worth keeping in mind that these are not reductions to global CO2 levels, merely to the rate of increase of CO2 levels.
While some of the emission reducing effects are good, the reason and cause are things I am critical of, as even with world-wide participation in the Kyoto accord, the projected benefits in the reduction of the computer-projected temperature increase over 100 years is a mere 5%....an amount so small that current technology could not reliable measure the difference.
This of course, is assuming that CO2 plays a greater role than water, clouds, and the sun. From what I have researched, there has not been any alarming or unprecedented warming in the last century. I refer, of course, to research well beyond the "hockey stick", which was made by adding filters and smoothing to flatten a long and very variable temperature record (ie the medieval warm period and Little Ice Age) except, of course, for the last 30-60 years which couldn't be smoothed in the same way, and thus stayed unsmoothed, resulting in, conveniently, an upswing.
Mann has since been discredited. (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2004, i believe).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Here are a couple of more links for you:
http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2007/09/patrick-moore-on-european-emissions.html
http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2007/09/co2-emissions-still-rising.html
What could be more disingenuous than stating that you have reached and met your targets (on paper..) when in reality, you still have the same problem, but majically, through a Ponsi money transfer scheme can have father China or monsignor India absolve you of your sins?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home