Reading an article from REUTERS news agency about how wealthy nations may undertake a CO2 market without including developing nations, in a bid to set an example. It's common knowledge that the Kyoto treaty failed mainly due America's pettiness in arguing that nations such as India and China are large emission producers and where not subject to parts of the agreement.
This was a very jaded argument as the facts portrayed by the government and the media where very scewed, whilst it is true the combined emissions of India and China are greater than the US the disparity lies in the population of the countries. The US has a population of around 300 million and India and China combined somewhere in the region of 2100-2300 million people. The US produces around 5900 million tons of CO2, Indo-China around 7300 million tons.
A little basic math tells you the average citizen of the US is responsible for almost 20 tons of CO2 per year. A citizen in China,5 tons of CO2 and an Indian is responsible for 1.7 tons of CO2. Now you would think that the ''Greatest'' country in the world could set an example to the rest of the world instead of trying to hinder development and protection of the environment.
What the figures don't take into account is the American corporations that are profiteering and polluting in the developing world. A corporation may be a heavier polluter as there are less environmental laws in the country they operate, exporting the countries resources and profit back to America and leaving the country in a much worst state. Resource poor and high emissions.
Maybe the new agreement will be productive in helping to usher in a new era of greenness but I'm a cynic. Any agreement needs to include all nations and heavy concessions need to be made by the wealthy nations. Not only are they the biggest polluters but have been for the past hundred years.
emission statistics from Wikipedia
More Double Speak in the Media ?
Friday, June 12, 2009
|
email this
|
digg it
1 Responded To This Post
I judge from one of your earlier posts here that you are brand new to the world of blogging - welcome! I've been blogging for two years and actually have two: one on faith and family (http://mwrhodes.blogspot.com) and one on politics (http://onemanspolitics.blogspot.com).
The reason I popped by is that I saw through Twitter that you had posted this and were asking for comments. The whole green issue is a new one for me, although I spent 10 years working in Congress and now am dealing with cap-and-trade and environmental issues as part of my private sector job. Having read the Waxman-Markey bill several times, I have great concerns about the government giving themselves oversight over this issue (and I fear that depending on the steps taken independently by the EPA, "oversight" will be putting it mildly). I don't have an issue with the U.S. taking a leadership issue on this matter, and I respect the fact that you've taken the time to research the statistics - I can't say the same about some folks. However, as long as China, Russia and India refuse to take part in any international agreements, no amount of effort on the part of the U.S. is going to alleviate the problem. Additionally, there are issues about increasing electric fees, rising unemployment, a border adjustment program that will institute a great deal of protectionist policies beginning in 2025, and uncertainty about the effectiveness of any allocation program that make all of this a difficult area.
I look forward to reading further posts here; I also commend my post yesterday on carbon footprints to you in case you're interested: http://onemanspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/06/following-trail-of-carbon-footprints.html.
Leave A Reply