Koyoto Accord

Wiki Entry



Under the Protocol, 37 countries ("Annex I countries") commit themselves to a reduction of four greenhouse gases (GHG) (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by them, and all member countries give general commitments. Annex I countries agreed to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 level. Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and shipping, but are in addition to the industrial gases, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which are dealt with under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

.
.
.
The only remaining signatory not to have ratified the protocol is the United States



Top-ten emitters

What follows is a ranking of the world's top ten emitters of GHGs for 2005 (MNP, 2007).[26] The first figure is the country's or region's emissions as a percentage of the global total. The second figure is the country's/region's per-capita emissions, in units of tons of GHG per-capita:

1. China1 – 17%, 5.8
2. United States3 – 16%, 24.1
3. European Union-273 – 11%, 10.6
4. Indonesia2 – 6%, 12.9
5. India – 5%, 2.1
6. Russia3 – 5%, 14.9
7. Brazil – 4%, 10.0
8. Japan3 – 3%, 10.6
9. Canada3 – 2%, 23.2
10. Mexico – 2%, 6.4



So. Why is canada so high , at 2% world emmissions but 23.2 rating for per capita ?

Because the whole measurement is slanted. It's including cow farts (no joke !) and biomass emissions (tree's rotting in the forest). The actual contribution by industry , the only part we can control ... is pretty slim.

It's also ridiculous that they're trying to control "natural emissions" (tree's rotting) in addition to industrial ones. And agricultural ones. You want people to stop farming ? Stop eating ?

Too many contradictions.

And on top of it all , we're right beside the worlds biggest industrial polluter and they refuse to sign the agreement anyways. And the stated reason is that it would hurt their economy to enforce pollution standards (ie: you go enforce it and cripple your economies, that's good for us)


This agreement sounds seriously broken . I doubt it's even particularly scientific.