Two Questions.

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….."

11 comments on “Two Questions.

  1. Pingback: Two Inconvenient Truths « House of War

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>