Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Europe Slips on Kyoto Greenhouse Targets 57

Posted by michael from the smog dept.
covertlaw writes "Emissions of greenhouse gases from the European Union increased in 2001 for the second year running. According to the unratified Kyoto Treaty, the EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Europe Slips on Kyoto Greenhouse Targets More

Europe Slips on Kyoto Greenhouse Targets

Comments Filter:
  • I haven't seen any major new discoveries regarding factory effiecentcy for industy, or any new pollution control technologies. At the same time, Europe is almost certainly producing more and more, and hence more and more pollution.

    Anyone else wonder why it took so long to collect data? I'm always surprised that the FBI releases statistics for 2 years in the past. Perhaps the EU doesn't want a mass hysteria caused by reports of massive pollution.

    • The problem does not require major advancements to have major gains in pollution efficiency. In most regulatory regimes, old plants are grandfatherred until they are modified/upgraded at which point pollution controls have to be upgraded too. The practical effect is that people work very hard at keeping the old, very polluting plants running because the new pollution controls are so expensive.

      A similar thing happens with cars with old beaters creating the majority of pollution and pollution control tech ma

  • Hasn't Europe all ready met their Kyoto targets ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MerlynEmrys67 ( 583469 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @03:55PM (#5894987)
    My understanding was with the economic contraction in Europe between 1990 and 2000 they had all ready met their Kyoto protocol targets (and then some)... So the fact that their emissions going up isn't a big deal.

    The other question is who is responsible for measuring the gas output of various things like everybodies lawnmower, fireplace, car, etc.

    Kinda glad the US didn't get into this mess, who knows how to enforce it, or even measure compliance

    • who is responsible for measuring the gas output of various things like everybodies lawnmower, fireplace, car, etc

      Don't be so petty.

      Lawnmowers are pretty insignificant. So are fireplaces; in the UK at least, most cities have by-laws banning the burning of wood or coal; as result, houses are generally heated by electricity or gas.

      As for cars, governments have a pretty good idea of how many cars there are on the road at any one time and they can make fair estimates of emissions from those figures.

      The rema
      • Interesting... Lawnmowers (which most in the US at least use a very dirty 2 stroke engine) pollute as much in 30 minutes whacking down the grass as the average commuter puts in their car over the week driving too and from work (driving for 20 minutes each day)... So I am not being petty with the lawnmower comment.

        I don't know how things are over in Europe, but most homes/apts here in the US have a fireplace of somekinds, most being gas, but the higher end houses having wood burning fireplaces, this would

        • This highlights the cultural and lifestyle differences between the US and Europe.

          My specific experience is with the UK rather than Europe, but I'd wager the differences are not great.

          Lawnmowers (I presume we're talking domestic) tend to be electric nowadays. Our lawns are generally smaller than yours so we don't have a problem plugging in a lawnmower with a long electric cable.

          As I said, cities (and even small towns) here don't allow the use of coal or wood fires to heat homes; that's been the case for y
    • The point is the gassess and emissions in question remain in the atmosphere for some time. No one needs to "meter" your vehicles or lawnmower because they are able to detect these emissions in aggregate.

      Local metering may or may not be conducted by individual agencies to help identify local sources of pollution, but this is no different than the process several US states undergo to detect vehicles with unusually high emissions today.

      So the answer is, the meterologists know how to enfoce it, and measure c
      • Fine, I will accept that a meterologist can guess fairly well how much CO2 is in the atmosphere today. I fail to see how they could detect where the CO2 came from, was it Canada, the US, China, or Europe that put it there ?

        Now we get into local monitoring. Many things that emit greenhouse gasses aren't monitored at all, "cow emmissions" was often laughed at, and I laughed too, remembering driving by pastures with a few cows in them in my youth. I recently drove by a cattle "farm" west of LA that had pr

        • I fail to see how they could detect where the CO2 came from, was it Canada, the US, China, or Europe that put it there ?

          It's so simple, I can spell it out in two points:

          1. In chemical reactions, chemical elements are conserved. This means that the carbon added to the atmosphere is the same carbon that was in the fuel consumed.
          2. Due to records of production, shipment and sales, we know how much fuel was consumed.

          So there you have it. And here's a whetstone, you can put an edge on that dull intellect with a

          • Ah yes, the simple solution...

            Not all chemicals that are used in the reaction end up in the atmosphere, some are handled by scrubbers, polution reduction devices (ever hear of a catalytic converter), and other technologies. Also simple things make a huge difference in polution output... So where you can say carbon goes in carbon goes out, that wouldn't satisfy the requirements, because the carabon going out may end up as a solid, may end up as a gas, may end up as a second reaction

            Handing you back your

            • Think you should have hung onto that whetstone..

              Catalytic converters - wrt carbon - catalyse unburnt fuel to CO2 and CO to CO2. These rections would have happened in any case (but over hours to weeks instead of milleseconds), but the net CO2 effect is zero.

              Carbon ending up solid is pretty much zero from any reasonable effecient engine or power station; you notice that your engine does not fill up with the stuff.

              Do you have any 'Second reactions' in mind?
        • Well, they can tell by following weather patterns. This isn't new technology - this kind of monitoring has been going on since before the US/Canada acid rain proposals.

          Local, individual testing is done by individual governments, and obviously done only where something can be done to correct an issue - it doesn't make sense to measure methane output of cattle unless you actually can *do* something about it, for example.

          A buch of people far smarter than you or I sat down and came up with excellent ways to g

    • I'd assummed that the estimates of greenhouse gas output were simply based on raw fuel consumption figures for the country - doesn't burning a litre of petrol produce pretty much the same amount of CO2 at the end of the day whether it is used in a 2 stroke petrol lawn mower or the most modern of 'clean' cars? (I don't know the answer to this, in an inefficient/badly tuned engine what sort of percentage of the carbon ends up as soot or something else rather than CO2?)

      Really large fuel consumers may take st

      • A two stroke engine pollutes far more. The main reason being that it is a terribly inefficient engine. Lots of unburned fuel enters the atmosphere in a two stroke motor.
        • True, but we're talking about greenhouse gas emissions here. Soot is not a greenhouse gas, but rather a smog agent. Being a particulate, its pretty bad for the lungs, too. But in terms of global warming, it has no effect, and therefore is not an issue with respect to Kyoto.

          There are several different types of gaseous polutants, and these tend to get confused. The big ones that get talked about are CFCs, particulates, unburned hydrocarbons, and greenhouse gasses. CFCs are the culprits behind the ozone

  • Best part... (Score:2, Funny)

    by FroMan ( 111520 )
    There are now doubts about the willingness of Russia to do so, because some of its prominent scientists apparently believe climate change could be beneficial to the country.

    I love it. A little more arid land IN SOVIET RUSSIA!

    Oh God, I feel dirty, I said "in soviet russia" in all caps. I think I need a shower. Atleast I didn't say something along the lines of ISR does you...

    The EEA says the main reasons for the 2001 increase in all six gases were a colder winter in most EU countries, which meant hous
    • What Russia is probably hoping for is for their northern ports to not be ice locked in the winter months. Historically speaking, warm-water ports have been a sort of holy grail for Russia.
    • doubts about the willingness of Russia to do so, because some of its prominent scientists apparently believe climate change could be beneficial to the country.

      Siberian Gulag's could become great vacation resorts :-) People will then WANT to get "sent away".
  • "The European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates they were 1% greater than in 2000"

    But how much would they have increased if they had not signed the Kyoto treaty?

    Its interesting to compare US trends from the EPA [epa.gov] which claims for 2001 "Emissions declined for the first time since the base year 1990".

    • Its interesting to compare US trends from the EPA which claims for 2001 "Emissions declined for the first time since the base year 1990".
      Because of the recession and a mild winter. The same sort of thing happened after the Asian financial crisis; emissions from the Pacific Rim took a dive because industry shut down and nobody had the money for fuel for other things either. I saw unleaded premium for under a buck a gallon due to the world oil glut.

  • Seems the US got it right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Scarblac ( 122480 ) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @04:20PM (#5895230) Homepage

    I really hate to say this as a left-thinking, American-bashing European bigot.

    But if the choice is between declining to join Kyoto, and joining it and then totally ignoring it - it seems the US did the right thing.

    • Re:Seems the US got it right (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tune ( 17738 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @04:37AM (#5899588)
      ... And then again...

      The USA would have ratified Kyoto automatically if only they would have been driving European cars.

      Yes, Kyoto is "unfair" in the sense that exceeding levels can be traded with third world countries. Kyoto is "unfair" in that it starts from emission/surface instead of emission/population.

      But ratifying Kyoto might at least have shown the USA's intention to do something about its mass consumption. It might have shown they feel responsible for burning over 25% of worldwide resources, while constitutin less than 10% of its population/surface. And, ultimately, it might have led to some form of responsible and respectful behaviour - or it migh have not...

      • Not that tired old nonsense again... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Spamalamadingdong ( 323207 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2003 @11:18AM (#5901821) Homepage Journal
        But ratifying Kyoto might at least have shown the USA's intention to do something about its mass consumption. It might have shown they feel responsible for burning over 25% of worldwide resources, while constitutin less than 10% of its population/surface.
        You might have missed this point, but the US also pays for the resources it gets from other countries. It returns value in the forms of goods and services.

        There are a lot of good arguments against the USA using so much oil, and producing such a large fraction of humanity's excess CO2. However, the "over-consuming society" argument is logical junk. If the USA consumed 50% of the world's human-handled energy but produced it all from solar and wind, the "mass consumption" claim would still be true! That just goes to show how little sense it makes. Find another argument.

        • The trouble is that the USA does not necessarily pay for damage caused to other countries by burning fossil fuels. If increased CO2 output causes some Pacific islands to disappear, the countries responsible have no obligation to pay the islanders. Nor do the islanders have any right to be consulted before the CO2 is produced. Of course all countries are affected by global warming, just some more than others and the islands worse than most.

          (s/USA/other industrialized country/ as appropriate)

          You are quit
      • But ratifying Kyoto might at least have shown the USA's intention to do something about its mass consumption. It might have shown they feel responsible for burning over 25% of worldwide resources...

        Yes! It would have let us say one thing, and do another!

        Why do I have 'A Little Bit Country, a Little Bit Rock&Roll' going through my head right now?
      • oh geez ---- can't you eco nutzis get anything right? Using your "logic" should we also be producing 25% of the earth's pollutions as well? We aren't, in case no one told you. Also, there are an amazing number of studies that show the earth cools and heats without any help from humans at all!

  • Unratified!? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pentagram ( 40862 ) on Tuesday May 06, 2003 @04:26PM (#5895276) Homepage
    According to the unratified Kyoto Treaty

    Is this the same treaty that has been ratified by more than 100 countries? [google.com]
  • --ya know, I think people would take projects/agreements like the kyoto treaty a little more seriously once we see UN fatcats and various national and corporate "leaders" jets gathering cobwebs someplace and black limosines being scrapped and turned into mopeds, and see these fatcat goons driving them, and we see more "scientists" and enviro org "leaders" living in tents full time and not travelling all over the world for *very important conferences*. It's this stance of "ooooh, you are a bad human! You are

    • A correction or two: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by chriso11 ( 254041 )
      Well, for the first thing, you don't have the forest fire story right. There were two effects running in parallel: first, the government policy of stopping forest fires ASAP, and second, the logging companies' habit of only cutting down the largest trees (most profitable). That is what resulted in the large amount of kindling.

      Also, the pollution from a forest fire is a lot less toxic than many of the industrial pollutions. You don't hear about ground water being poisoned by a forest fire, do you? Or about
      • I AGREE with you on several levels, I just think it's swung way too far in the opposite direction, to follow a pendulum analogy, and that also there are some veryhigh level fake outs going on. The fires in a lot of cases were not put out in an efficient or timely manner, politics definetly came into play, and it is suspicious to me following the rural ethnic cleansing agendas. Example, firebreaks needed cutting, and pronto, private concerns had some very large cats ready and willing to rock. ORDERED to not
        • Well, I am not sure about which fire you are referring to, but as long as too many people didn't die or too much private property wasn't lost, I'm not going to get too worked up about it. The forest probably will be healthier in a few years/decades due to the fire.

          I won't always attribute junk science to letting the fires burn. I think that there is a realization that the original approach of surpressing fires as much as possible wasn't consistent with environmental realities.

          As for not letting burnt timb
          • read that one before, some interesting premises. I like the easter island story. I think part of why they did it was because they were stuck on a relatively small island. Pretty easy for some nut job "leader" to take over with his bully boys and insist on his particular views on life, which following the patterns of most "leaders" are centered around megalomania, meaning all the other decisions had no default basis in rationality. and all of them always seem to fixate on "I have the vision! And everyone els
      • Basically, a dog is smarter than collective humanity - a dog won't shit on its food or bed.

        Hmm. Not sure what dogs you've been hanging around with. Dogs might not shit directly on their food, but they will eat their own shit, which has the same effect.

        the logging companies' habit of only cutting down the largest trees (most profitable) [contributes to increased severity of forest fires]

        It sounds like you're refering to selective harvesting, which is not the most profitable harvesting method. The most
    • The big problem here is that Kyoto is ALREADY a compromise between your two extremes. A cut of like 10% in emissions is hardly returning to a pre-industrial state; you've been spending too much time watching FoxNews.
      • Fox news is just as much propaganda as any other junk science source. I'dclass the bulk of the profit media as being mostly "junk science"qand sensationbalism, and I don't worship at the gaia shrine of the united nations, either, just for your clarification. My reasons would take days to type, so I ain't gonna. And for that matter I don't hardly watch television. I flick it on to see weather radar maps, that's about it, very occassionaly watch a tape on the vcr.

        Kyoto is an attempt to deal with a set of
        • I'd be curious, then, to hear how you propose to do anything about emissions of CO2 without the participation of the corrupt, inefficient, big governments; (which, by the way, somehow managed to do it right when it came to CFCs).

          This type of moaning about how we can't trust government to fix a problem is basically a red herring - they are the only ones who CAN. Saying that we shouldn't use them as tools here is giving in to those who actually prefer to do nothing.

          • CFC's became totally e-vile when the patent ran out. It sure wasn't all altrusim. CO2 I am not gonna worry about, I plant a lot of trees and plants, and try to never be forced into harvesting live ones except as absolutely necessary. that's what I personally do about it. I keep my machinery tuned as good as possible, and try to use hand tools whenever possible. I try to only drive when I absiolutely have to, I use little fuel really. I shiver in the winter some and I'm sitting here sweating now, keep the he
            • It all clarifies that you try to live with a small footprint. That's wonderful. I try to do that too.

              But two people living with a small footprint in a regulatory regime which favors people who live with large footprints doesn't do anything but penalize the people who want to do the right thing and join those two.

              It's the old libertarian blind-spot again: the tragedy of the commons. Without emissions taxes, it economically benefits me to be as dirty as possible (because it's almost always cheaper than be

              • Living with the small footprint is in itself such a wonderful personal reward. I am happy with that, and I can show people that even with a small footprint, you can still take large strides.

                political and economic aikido
                • And meanwhile, your lack of will to engage in the collective process might mean that the homestead you deed to your children will no longer be able to be sustainable due to the climate change that could not be stopped because too many people abdicated their common responsibilities.

                  Not much of a reward, by my way of thinking.

                  • Perhaps,the scientific jury is out on that, and I am not so convinced that it might not be from natural cataclysmic change as gradual and man made. Frankly, man made is easier to deal with, especially on smaller scales, again, see my various postinhgs above. larger scales-no, I sincerely doubt any international agreements that don't somehow down in the fine print still benefit the large konzerns will be written. I am, as always, skeptical. it may *look* good, sound good, have all the appropriate buzzwords,
                    • Show me the money with any other large scale treaty being actually useful and not corrupted,

                      I already mentioned one: the CFC treaty.

  • Ahhh Kyoto. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by /dev/trash ( 182850 )
    The same protocol that says Country A can sell it's excess credits to country B who is in need of credits.

    Kyoto isn't about cleaning the air, it's about creating a trading market.
    • > The same protocol that says Country A can sell it's excess credits to country B who is in need of credits.
      >
      > Kyoto isn't about cleaning the air, it's about creating a trading market.

      But not a free market.

      Kyoto is about wealth transfer, not pollution transfer.

      Let me clarify: Kyoto isn't about cleaning the air or creating a trading market. It's about creating an artificial imposition on economies that will ensure a continual drain of wealth from the 5-10 countries in group "B" to the 10

      • Why is it that we never see the full calculations for the costs of Kyoto, just lots of shrills claiming it'll cost the entire GDP of the planet for a century or something like that.

        Would you like to tell me what high oil prices do to western economies? What the spiralling prices of US natural gas (as a result of depletion) are doing to US fertiliser, cement et al industries right now? What you'll do when the revolution comes in Saudi Arabia?

        Fossil fuels also carry a price tag; just because the economi

  • It should come as no surprise that Europe is following this trend. Because fuel prices are up to 4 times of what they are in the U.S., European drivers are more or less forced to drive diesel-powered vehicles. Even the "cleanest" diesel engines spew out a great deal more of particulate emissions than their gasoline counterparts. Not only that, but NOX and other greenhouse gas emissions are also much higher from diesel engines, thanks to the fact that the exhaust is not hot enough to properly activate any c
  • I notice that the "diplomatically deft" will say, "sure, I'll do it!", but then flake over time. You tend to get less lumps if you slowly flounder than if you say, "Sorry, I don't like the terms and won't do it". The US acted like a nerd-out-of-college by bailing out up front. We should have signed it, and then flaked at the same rate as everybody else. Then we would not be "unalateralists". We would be flaking in tandem.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close