Helix,
your EPA chart of pollution in 1995 is definitely interesting. It includes Russia as Eastern Europe though and Russia as well as most of Eastern Europe has signed Kyoto. Therefore these countries will be reducing their pollution to 1990 levels or lower (depends on country). Excellent news. Western Europe is reducing it's levels to 8% below 1990. So more excellent news. Japan is reducing it's levels to pre 1990 levels as well. So the only developed country not actually reducing it's levels is the USA. Which is the biggest polluter (note that it has a larger numnber in 1995 than anyone else. This makes it the biggest polluter)
The 2035 chart by the way is an estimate and completely ignores Kyoto. It is therefore completely outdated as it fails to acknowledge that Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia and Japan cannot be polluting more in 2035, but will actually pollute less that they did in 1990. It does highlight the potential problem if the developing world does not sign up to the second round of reduction though. These are expected to begin in 2012.

Paul.

The reason it's taken so long is because the US has pulled out.

What a load! So the rest of the world can't set an implementation date because the US didn't sign on? Did they lose the date marking pen or something? Solitair that is the a very very weak argument. You could certainly do better than that. They were unable to set a start date? Lol! I also enjoy how in one sentence you say that the problem was caused by the US but you don't blame the US in the next sentence.

That is a classic example of how crippled "international law" is. Lots of talk but they couldn't figure out the simplest of actions like "gee, what day do we start?"

Greywar,
you obviously don't understand the implentation of international treaties. All international treaties do not come intoi force until a majority or quorum have approved them. If you look at any treaty you will see that thye have the treaty signing date and the date the treaty came into force. It's totally standard and normal. You could have realised this with a search in less time than it took you to write your sarcastic reply.

In kyoto's case this required both a majority of countries and enough countries to cover 55% of the pollution. An implementation date could therefore not be set until this 55% of the polluters had signed up. When the US pulled out that shoved this back enforcement of Kyoto by over a year. It was only with Russia signing last month that the treaty can actually come into effect. Again, it's not the US's fault that Brazil cuts down forests, but it's not Kyotos either. Kyoto is designed to protect those forests and earlier enforcement would have.

Paul.

An implementation date could therefore not be set until this 55% of

ummm you realize that the authors of the bill could write any damn thing they wanted into it right? To include any start date. They wrote the bill, they wrote the limits, they bear the responibilty for it. Saying they "couldn't" do this is senseless. Fire up a word processor and change the damn treaty. It isn't brain surgery. But it is a fine example of how toothless international diplomats can be. They were apparently far more attached to the process of approval than they were of actually implementing anything. Tell me again how this is the US's fault? You want to sign a treaty? go ahead. Do it tomorrow. You are the one writing it. Don't blame me because you can't figure out how to change your own treaty language. Wtire a bad treaty and the consequences kill off the things you intended it to protect? Your own damn fault.

No they can't.

The start date cannot be set until a quorum has been met agreeing on the treaty. That's the law. It's how EVERY such international treaty is written.

And yet again may I say that this is NOT the US's fault. It is purely a consequence of the US pulling out.

paul.

That's the law.

as set by who? The people writing the damn treaty! What... do space aliens enforce this deadline law with death rays? If an organization is being hamstrung by it's own frigging rules and they then refuse to change them well heck thats the kind of folks I want to be associated with! sign me up!

EVERY international treaty is NOT written like this. If 3 countries's heads of state want to get together and pen a trety on a cocktail napkin that says they will only allow impotation of pink olives on thursdays starting tomorrow... Guess what? It is valid as can be (provided that these heads of state are granted unilateral authority to sign treaties of course). If "international law" is what is preventing this "international law" from going into effect at the right time then maybe the same folks who penned BOTH should pull their heads out of their asses.

Greywar,
there are structures in place to allow for international agreements (not bilateral or trilateral) to be worked out and agreed upon. You argue that these structures are weak and there may be some truth in that, but the bottom line is that the enforcement date is dependant on the date of ratification of the quorate. It's usually set in the treaty to be 3 or 6 months after the required quorum is reached.

This means that once the required number of countries (and other conditions) are met a treaty will automatically come into force. Your approach would lead to many treaties falling by the wayside because some arbitary date was not met. The only way your approach could work is if the politicians had ratification authority. If that were the case then the Us would be part of Kyoto and none of this would be an issue. Politicians don't in general have such authority thoguh. Remember also that we are talking over 100 countries, with different political structures, who all need to write the required bills, get the required support, pass in their respective parliaments, irrespective of whatever political or natural disasters happen in the meantime. No a fixed deadline is just not workable on such a stage as it does not allow for flexibility. The quorum approach works well, in that once enough countries have ratified, no further action is required as the treaty falls into place automatically. This same approach is used for most international agreements and has always worked.

Yes there are occasional probelms. In Kyoto's case the US changed it's mind and led to over a years of extra discussion before a quorate ratified. This was not forseen at the start of the process and no writing of an arbitary start date would have fixed this. But the quorum system is robust and allows for time to sort these problems and proceed with a majority consensus.

Paul.

Solitair, I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I beleive that Kyoto was poorly crafted at best and that in the long run it will do more harm than good. You argue that this is not the fault of the folks who wrote it and I simply do not agree with that. They didn't look hard or deep at this and now they are reaping the whirlwind. Thank you for the discussion though. (and we never even exchanged derogatory names or profanity...tsk.. I must be losing my touch)

Agreement on the disagreement front then

Paul.

NPR isn't the only one. most of the truth of the world is in the 30 seconds, not the 9:30.

Petr Beckmann Award.

No relation to the Peter Venkman award for paranormal excellence:)

Lets be clear on some point. the US pollutes more gaseous pollutants per person than any major polluter. This includes all the EU countries, Japan, Russia and China. Some oil producing countries are worse per person but their total outputs are much lower than the major polluters. Yes the US gets more GDP per volume of CO2, but this does not make it acceptable. By this logic the US could double the quantity of CO2 it releases so long as it triples production. Why should the rest of the world suffer so that the US can make more money? Thsi arguements fails to accept that CO2 pollution is bad and this is the stumbling block between the US view and the rest of the planet.

It is hard to take what you say seriously when you selectively use per capita and total interchangeably in order to play around with the statistics.

"The US puts more total into the atmosphere".  Well let's see, the US is the world's largest economy by far, so yea, that would make sense wouldn't it?  That's like saying that an adult eats more food than a new born infant. So what?

If you are truly serious about resolving pollution, the best way to do that IMO is to focus on efficiency of use.  I'm not a scientist as you are. I'm an engineer. My training is in solving problems, not researching them. And I'm telling you, if you want to solve problems, you have to focus on "low hanging fruit" first.  And the FACT is that China and India are the ones we need to focus on with such treaties bcause they are quickly rising in total output and they are horribly inefficient in their use of energy.  But Kyoto ignored them entirely.

'clean air', as in low particulate pollutants, is a seperate issue to green house gas pollution and is NOT discussed in Kyoto. Europe does have a significant way to go here and is making progress. But this has nothing to do with Kyoto and this article is about Kyoto. There are other treaties in place to improve this. Feel free to start an article discussing them but using this to justify pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is wrong.

That's precisely my point - Kyoto gets all the attention. It's a smokescreen so that the Europeans can make a lot of noise about CO2 while distracting attention away from the fact that they put out a ton of REAL pollution.

You call CO2 a poison.  Well so is nitrogen. So is oxygen. You increase the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere a bit more and you'll have worldwide super fires engulfing huge chunks of the world.  So don't try to pass on this "in 1000 years we'll have too much CO2 to breath".  That doesn't make it a "pollutant" any more than any other gas. Too much of any gas in the atmosphere would be detrimental to humans.

What we are trying to point out is that:

a) Kyoto encourages behavior that is detrimental to its so-called goals.

The US was right to ignore Kyoto because it was a fundemantally flawed treaty because it ignored the biggest future polluters of CO2 and other forms. And that those who proposed it were quite aware of the economic consquences on the US would be. And lastly that the whole thing is a joke because it totally ignores real pollution that does plenty of demonstratable harm NOW.  It's hard to take Europeans seriously on CO2 pollution when they're pumping LEAD into their air.

I could go on and on about other things that Kyoto failed to take into account such as not measuring how much CO2 different countries take OUT of the atmosphere because of their forests and such (I wonder what the NET CO2 input into the atmosphere is between US and Europe).

Yes the US would have the biggest actualy CO2 reduction, but as a fraction it would NOT be the biggest and therefore as an effect on it's economy it would NOT be the biggest. None of this actually matters though because the US is increasing it's pollution while others are reducing theirs.

We'll see which Kyoto signees actually meet the goal. My prediction: No European country will meet its requirements.

Finally, Kyoto does not encourage deforestation. trying to suggest this is purposely twisting what the protocol does. Carbon sinks (forests) are protected under the protocol. The only reason Brazil can currently cut them down is because the protocol does not come into effect till next year. Once it does then this will stop.

Right..

"The US puts more total into the atmosphere". Well let's see, the US is the world's largest economy by far, so yea, that would make sense wouldn't it? That's like saying that an adult eats more food than a new born infant. So what?

gluttinous adults! of course a larger requirement is no justification!

The US pollutes more per capita or in total. Swapping the two makes no difference. Only per GDP does the US not show as the greatest polluter, and this is just because the US has the largest GDP. It still means the US is the largest polluter of greenhouse gases.

That's like saying that an adult eats more food than a new born infant.

Yes it is. Now imagine there was a shortage of food for the next 50 years. Your arguement is saying that the kid should never be allowed to grow up or eat more. Why should the original adult always be allowed eat more? The arguement put forward by Kyoto is that the adults need to start cutting down immediately and once the kids start turning into teenagers they also need to cut down. But at the moment they are still kids.

Neither Nitrogen or Oxygens are actually poisons. They do not poison the body like CO2 actually does. In 1000 years time CO2 will poison us, no mater what level of O2 or N2 there is. The fact that high levels of O2 make flammable objects exceedingly dangerous does not make it a poison or that high levels of N2 would reduce O2 concentrations and asphyxiate us does not make it a poison. CO2 is however a posion.

Kyoto encourages behavior that is detrimental to its so-called goals

I disagee with this. The situation in Brazil exists because Kyoto is not yet in place. Once in place the forests are actually protected by Kyoto. Read the treaty. Carbon sinks are included.

The US was right to ignore Kyoto because

No because needed. The US has a fundamental right to ignore the treaty for whatever reason it wants. The other 90% of the planet however disagree with your reasons. Doesn't change your right to ignore the treaty, but you are in a small minority in believing this is a bad treaty. It's US versus the entire planet on this issue.

We'll see which Kyoto signees actually meet the goal

Only time will tell, but at least the rest of the planet is trying.

paul.

The situation in Brazil exists because Kyoto is not yet in place.

I think it exists because of the asinine way "international law" is written, implemented, and enforced (read : never). If an organization is so hidebound that they never take actions to support their talking points then all the treaties in the world are meaningless. This one was put into place and soo badly thought through that it is backfiring. The process is the problem here.

But at the moment they are still kids.

     No, they are sovereign nations. Just like we are. They have the ability to pass laws and govern themselves and stop pollution within their borders just like we do. They can stop rampant deforestation on their own if they so choose but the Kyoto protocols implementation here gives Brazil an opporunity to pay lip service to the environment while racking up large profits and simultaneously destroying the veryt things they are paying lip service to. The UN would be proud. This is what happens when you attempt to change things via comittee. It is a big challenge just to get enviro reform in one country much less to try and enforce it through inneffective large groups of nations. Lets let each contry write it's own enviro law and simply use the normal tools of sanctions and so on against nations whose enviro policies we disagree with. Of course other nations are free to do them same right back, but I am pretty sure they need us a lot more than we need their trade bucks. Thats just how the globo-cookie crumbles. 

     While I fully support emission reduction and chemical scrubbing technology I support it as a US citizen and a voter. I do get a say in this, other countries who are not voters don't. Especially with plans as poorly conceived as Kyoto.