Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tchocky
That's a sticky point of Kyoto, the basis of which is that developing countries are not responsible to neary the same extent for the current situation as developed countries are (illustration here), and they are usually substantially below developed countries in per capita emissions.
The third reason, usually quoted, is that Kyoto is just a first step. I think the overall failure and resistance to enforce it invalidates this point, making action on China/India necessary. |
Yeah, but the flaw in that is that 85% of new emissions coming online will come from these developing nations during the coming decade. Not the developed world. See the flaw there? Basically most of these agreements are transfers of money, from developed nations to developing nations. They call it buying credits. I call it punishing or slowing economic growth using a false made-up tragedy to push it. Kyoto will not solve nor address what they claim they want solved or addressed. But they will tax or slow economic growth as a means to "solve" a non-existent problem.
Let's look at an example from last year. Japan, Italy and Spain all collectively owe $33 billion in fines for failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And why did they fail to meet the requirements? Because they underestimated economic growth and future emissions from factories and utilities. In other words ... their economies grew better than they expected, and therefore, they were punished for it. So now Spain must pass 40% of the cost for extra emissions on to those successful businesses that helped its economy grow. The other 60% will come directly from taxes. The businesses, of course, will pass their fines on to the consumers of whatever it is they provide or produce. In Italy, the taxpayers will pay 75% of the bill for extra permits just to fit into the Kyoto Protocol. And Japanese taxpayers must pay for two-thirds of the nation's excess. See the problem here? Do you see emission reduction vs. economic output being addressed as a means to reduce CO2 output? Ain't happening as a first step, second step or third. And it's not even addressed if it's necessary at all, especially since CO2 output apparently is having little to no effect on warming, as we have seen.
In one more case, taxpayers in Ireland will shell out more than 270 million so that Ireland can "buy its way" into meeting the Kyoto agreement.
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...d-1231853.html
Here's another hint. Warming stopped a decade ago.
Over the past three years it has actually become cooler. Yet, we have increasing CO2 levels. And yet, there are people trying to punish economic growth, push the USA into this redistribution scheme, and still cannot explain the inconsistincies of these theories.