1) Which major industrial country has not endorsed the Kyoto Treaty?
2) Which major industrial country reduced total emissions last year?
Answers here.
Complete the sentence: "The Kyoto Treaty is vital because….."
Two Questions.
November 30th, 2007 · 11 Comments
Tags: climate change
11 responses so far ↓
1 AntiCitizenOne // Nov 30, 2007 at 12:44 pm
“The Kyoto Treaty is vital because how else will we keep our phoney baloney jobs?”
2 Kay Tie // Nov 30, 2007 at 1:45 pm
“The Kyoto Treaty is vital because Something Must Be Done”
3 JuliaM // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:27 pm
….we must Think Of The Children!!!
4 Two Inconvenient Truths « House of War // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:30 pm
[…] Inconvenient Truths 1. As Tim Worstall notes, there is one major industrial country that didn’t ratify the Kyoto Protocoll, and one […]
5 embutler // Nov 30, 2007 at 5:54 pm
of course ,kyoto is vital
it makes libs(US definition) feel good
6 Matthew // Nov 30, 2007 at 6:24 pm
And has its economy been destroyed?
I found this line of argument very strange. The Kyoto Treaty is apparently “not fit for purpose” because a country that didn’t sign it saw its greenhouse gas emissions fall. That makes no logical sense. Either you believe there is a point to cutting these emissions or not. If you think there is you must believe that over a number of years not one. Hence why not sign the an international Agreement limiting them?
7 Recusant // Nov 30, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Mathew
Of course you don’t find the line of argument strange: you just find it inconvenient.
You would have much more preferred that there emissions had shot up and all those good signers emissions had gone down, to create a nice black/white Manichean distinction between good and evil.
8 Recusant // Nov 30, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Oh, and apologies for my homonym problems with ‘there’, ‘their’.
9 Matthew // Nov 30, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Oh yes, that’s the point. I forgot it was because I hate the Evil USA.
10 Philip Thomas // Dec 1, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Matthew, you can think emissions are bad without agreeing with the Kyoto protocol’s proposals for limiting them. The “inconvenient truth” mentioned by Tim highlights that Kyoto is not vital for the reduction of greenhouse gas production, though one could still argue Kyoto is an assist. I probably wouldn’t, but you could.
11 Chris H // Dec 1, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Kyoto has actually increased emissions while reducing economic growth by causing comparatively low emission production to relocate to less efficient China and India! How’s that for anti-effective treaty: make us poorer and less able to deal with problems in the future, while making those problems worse!
Leave a Comment