|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject: Why the Kyoto Protocol is Doable |
 |
|
| Quote: |
UK: New figures reveal scale of industry's impact on climate
Five biggest polluters in UK produce more CO2 than all motorists combined
David Adam and Rob Evans
Tuesday May 16, 2006
The Guardian
Five companies in Britain produce more carbon dioxide pollution together than all the motorists on UK roads combined, according to new figures which reveal heavy industry's contribution to climate change.
A league table compiled by the Guardian identifies EON UK, the electricity generator that owns Powergen, as Britain's biggest corporate emitter of greenhouse gases. It produced 26.4m tonnes of carbon dioxide last year - slightly more than Croatia did.
The figures, which have prompted new calls for tighter restrictions on corporate pollution, show that efforts by individuals and households to cut their carbon footprints will make little difference unless accompanied by greater action by industry. A 1% increase in the efficiency of the giant Drax power station in North Yorkshire - the largest in Europe and the single biggest polluting site in the UK - would save the typical carbon emissions of 21,000 households. Drax alone produced 20.8m tonnes of carbon dioxide last year.
The top five companies (EON UK, RWE Npower, Drax, Corus, and EDF) produced between them more than 100m tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2005. On average, the country's 26m private cars produce 91m tonnes each year.
The carbon dioxide emissions of more than 700 industrial sites across Britain are contained in figures released yesterday by the European commission. They detail the UK's participation in the first phase of a Europe-wide scheme intended to tackle climate change by capping the amount of carbon the heaviest polluters can emit. Companies failing to hit a target - applying to emissions from onsite activities such as combustion only - must buy permits to pollute from rivals that have successfully cut emissions. Critics said the first phase of the trading scheme has made global warming worse by giving European companies more permits than needed.
Britain was an exception, however. Its participating companies, which had lobbied for laxer targets, produced together more than 242m tonnes of carbon dioxide - they had permits to emit only 209m. Germany negotiated to produce 495m tonnes of carbon dioxide, but its companies emitted only 474m. France produced 131m tonnes, but had permits for 151m.
A spokeswoman for EON said: "We are one of the leading green generators and invest more per customer in green energy than any other major supplier in the UK." A spokesman for RWE Npower said: "We're one of the UK's biggest power generators, so of course we're going to have more emissions than, say, a single power station somewhere. The test of 'green-ness' is how much you are changing."
Hundreds of UK companies are excluded from the scheme - because they are not classed as big polluters or because they participate in a parallel system run by the government. Figures from these firms have been obtained by the Guardian under freedom of information laws. They show that dozens of household names produce more than many small countries.
British sites operated by Tesco, Walkers, Ford, Unilever, Kellogg's, Allied Bakeries, Nestle and Cadbury Trebor Bassett are among those that emitted more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2 in 2004 - more than that of Vanuatu, the Pacific state where 100 people became the first official climate refugees when they were moved from their coastal village in December. |
I'm not knocking these companies for producing greenhouse gases, nor am I picking on the UK. They simply illustrate that much, if not most, of the work to be done to reduce global warming will happen simply by changing the engineering and management practices of a few large companies. On a national scale, Kyoto is not only do-able, but easily do-able.
And in most cases, the costs of retrofitting these plants and companies can be written off as a corporate tax deduction, which means the cost to these companies of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is essentially zero. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
capebretoncanadian
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Kyoto protocol is not worth the paper it's printed on. Two of the worlds largest polluters are not held accountable in it. Also it's goals are much too modest to be effective in the long term |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure! 
Prove it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess those who have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol are SOOOO out of touch with the rest of the world, aren't they: 
Kyoto Protocol Participation Map - 2005
 [/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its doable, but the political will isn't there.
Also Carbon levels have started to jump off the scale every year as never before, so we've probably reached the point of no return anyway.
The only thing that will enforce the Kyoto protocol is nature itself:
...one day the cost of damage from hurricanes, flooding, avalanches, landslides, mudslides, rising sea levels, soaring temperatures, failed crops, desertification, spreading diseases and epidemics, related warfare and dwindling resources..
---will be too much for humans to continue on as we are doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
capebretoncanadian
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at this point is probably enough to affect climate for hundreds of years even if we completely cut off the flow of gases TODAY. Study the greenhouse effect. Those gases don't just go away. They can stay up there for centuries..acting together as a nice little insulator for our planet. Letting sunlight and heat in....but giving it a more difficult time of getting out.
The protocol calls for reductions...back to 1990 levels. Back to a time where we were still polluting like hell and damaging the Earth. Besides, so many countries have gone so far beyond their 1990 levels. Countries that if they were to limit production of CO2 and the like, would suffer economic hardship beyond the liking of it's citizens. See Canada for an example of this. We are pretty serious polluters dontcha know? See Stephen Harper's comments on Kyoto lately? Not too promising language.In fact there hasn't been a whole lot of promising talk surrounding this protocol.
Check this out..... here 50% of the worlds pollution trying to get around Kyoto. Even Japan hahaha! 
Not to mention the worlds largest polluter by a longshot failed to ratify the treaty. It's a farce.[url][/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
didn't realize the Australian government (yet again) knew more than the rest of the world.
its not that the treaty isn't a good idea.. its that isn't not technically feasible.
Did Australia have a national law much like the U.S. that said it must honor treaties? If they did, then it makes sense why they didn't sign.
Everywhere in the world, none of which did anything legally, just sign to sign to say they are 'cool' with the times.. but you can be certain none of them had any intention whatsoever to change anything legally within their country's legal system.
Once upon a time I actually read the treaty.. and the general newspaper concepts are great (reduce emissions).. but the actually treaty itself is filled with so much garbage than anyone in their right mind (legal mindset) couldn't possibly sign it.
Hence anyone with any legal jurisdiction or actual enforcement didn't sign it.. and those who didn't have to legally enforce it (did sign it).. hence 99.99% of the world signed it and doesn't do anything whatsoever in any form, shape, or manner.
The hypocrisy sucks much worse in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
