Quote:
Originally Posted by NCB
Yeah, we can't do that. We have skew the data to make the US look like that the pollution it creates is causing asthma for the Creator himself. After all, this is about punishing the USA.
|
How would the kyoto protocol 'punish' the USA. It would be bound to reducing emissions by 7% from what they were in 1990. All other industialised countries are reducing by an average of 5.2%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
(National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland.)
|
full text:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol
Why aren't developing countries included in this reduction of emissions?
1. Even after the reduction of emissions by the industrialised countries the developing countries emissions per capita will still be much lower.
2. If an emissions per capita system were in place the developing world could sell carbon credits to the industrialised world. This would lead to either no reductions anywhere (and huge profit for the developing world) or reductions in the industrialised countries (to reduce the cost of buying carbon credits) and reductions in the developing countries (to increase their profit from selling carbon credits). Either way, in such a system, the industrialised countries will be 'punished' by having to buy carbon credits from the developing countries. Hence such a system isn't in place.
3. An increase of emissions is required to to escape poverty more rapidly.
Including developing countries in the '1990 emission system' would be unfair as outlined in points 1. and 2. above.
There is alot of poverty in India and China (particularly in the rural areas) that is why they are developing countries.
China is on rank 94 in the HDI (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDI ) while India is on rank 127.
2004 HDI report:
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2.../hdr04_HDI.pdf