Thread: Kyoto: US Only Major Industrialized Nation to meet original Kyoto Goals: without ever passing it!

Here's a nice surprise for all you environmentalists out there: The United States enjoys the unique distinction of being the lone non-signatory to the Kyoto protocol and the only major industrial nation to meet the goals it contained.

This was not accomplished due to the passage of a carbon tax, cap and trade, or any policy favored by environmentalists. It was met (mostly) due to something that many environmentalists opposed: the advent of fracking, which has significantly lowered the price of natural gas. This has resulted in a significant increase in the use of natural gas for the generation of electricity and a decrease in the use of coal.

Since natural gas releases only about half the carbon of coal, as we replace more and more coal fired power plants with natural gas power plants our CO2 emissions go down. That, combined with the economy tanking and continuing to flounder under the Obama administration, has US CO2 emissions at their lowest level since 1994.

USA meets Kyoto protocol goal – without ever embracing it | Watts Up With That?

To bad America can't just build breeder reactors like France and use them to produce hydrogen to be used as natural gas is being used.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

To bad America can't just build breeder reactors like France and use them to produce hydrogen to be used as natural gas is being used.

US emissions have dropped while world emissions have continued to increase:


The US isn't the problem.

Yes, I understand but fossil fuels will run out one day and they pollute but hydrogen is self sustaining and will never run out and does not pollute.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

To bad America can't just build breeder reactors like France and use them to produce hydrogen to be used as natural gas is being used.

I agree with the idea about using nuclear, except France has shut down their breeder reactors. The conventional reactors supply a lot of power to France, but the Socialists who were just elected want to shut them down.

I'm not sure why you want to make hydrogen. It is a poor form of energy storage, being rather bulky and hard to transport.

cosmic
think about timescales
think about the technological changes the species has made in 3 centuries, then think that there are well over 300 years of fossile fuels available.

If you can see the future, What do you see?

Originally Posted by sculptor

cosmic
think about timescales
think about the technological changes the species has made in 3 centuries, then think that there are well over 300 years of fossile fuels available.

If you can see the future, What do you see?

Indeed. Remember all the draconian measures that were being considered to allow the US to meet the Kyoto standards and yet, due to technological advances, we met them without even trying to!

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

To bad America can't just build breeder reactors like France and use them to produce hydrogen to be used as natural gas is being used.

I agree with the idea about using nuclear, except France has shut down their breeder reactors. The conventional reactors supply a lot of power to France, but the Socialists who were just elected want to shut them down.

I'm not sure why you want to make hydrogen. It is a poor form of energy storage, being rather bulky and hard to transport.

I did not know they shut them down, thanks for the information. Then light water reactors then but hydrogen is always going to be self sustaining and non polluting. So what if we need to compress hydrogen in high pressure vessels at least we won't worry about running out of fuel again unless the reactors shit down. Perhaps by then there will be another way to manufacture hydrogen found. They have pressurized tankers that could carry hydrogen as they already carry other types of various gasses under high pressure.

Originally Posted by sculptor

cosmic
think about timescales
think about the technological changes the species has made in 3 centuries, then think that there are well over 300 years of fossile fuels available.

If you can see the future, What do you see?

But those will run out and I'd think by switching to renewable forms of energy, hydrogen, solar and wind we would never run out, what do you see wrong with that plus we won't worry about pollution, oil spills or other catastrophes caused by petro chemicals.

Watts up with site is slightly more credible than the National Inquirer.


Most of the EU has also met the targets.

A severe recession more than any policy decisions are primarily responsible for reaching CO2 emission goals. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/g-gas/index_en.html

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Then light water reactors then but hydrogen is always going to be self sustaining and non polluting. So what if we need to compress hydrogen in high pressure vessels at least we won't worry about running out of fuel again unless the reactors shit down. Perhaps by then there will be another way to manufacture hydrogen found. They have pressurized tankers that could carry hydrogen as they already carry other types of various gasses under high pressure.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is only a means of storing it. For supplying electricity to the grid, it doesn't make much sense to turn electricity into hydrogen, then burn it in a gas turbine to generate electricity. You lose efficiency at each step. For automobiles, I think batteries will be a better option.

The imperative to drastically reduce emissions remains largely unfaced and whilst gas can reduce emissions where it replaces coal it still emits too much to be anything but a short term interim measure; the Kyoto targets were never going to be more than a starting point and meeting them won't represent success. Meeting these deliberately minimal targets by accident is good but nowhere near good enough. Globally exploitation of 'unconventional' fossil fuels like shale and coal seam gas is not replacing coal but is in addition to coal's continuing expansion.

When climate science denial can no longer pretend, by a campaign of lobbying and misinformation, that it has mainstream legitimacy and the absolute need to drastically cut emissions is not merely acknowledged but pursued as essential we are going to be overloaded with gas as well as coal plants that should not be permitted to last until their use by dates.

Until the campaign of denial, doubt and delay to defend and extend the fossil fuel status quo no longer exerts undue influence in energy and environment policy then no solutions, nuclear or renewable, will be pursued with the real determination and vigor - and refusal to accept failure - that is needed.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Then light water reactors then but hydrogen is always going to be self sustaining and non polluting. So what if we need to compress hydrogen in high pressure vessels at least we won't worry about running out of fuel again unless the reactors shit down. Perhaps by then there will be another way to manufacture hydrogen found. They have pressurized tankers that could carry hydrogen as they already carry other types of various gasses under high pressure.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is only a means of storing it. For supplying electricity to the grid, it doesn't make much sense to turn electricity into hydrogen, then burn it in a gas turbine to generate electricity. You lose efficiency at each step. For automobiles, I think batteries will be a better option.

At least hydrogen can be renewed and one day vehicles themselves will be able to produce their own hydrogen for its use so vehicles won't need to stop to "fill er up" in the future as it won't pollute either. Hydrogen would be, if it can be manufactured right as your driving, the best fuel of them all.

before (or instead of) hydrogen powered personal vehicles, I would expect a change to better electric vehicles, or natural gas powered vehicles, or alchohol powered vehicles.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

At least hydrogen can be renewed and one day vehicles themselves will be able to produce their own hydrogen for its use so vehicles won't need to stop to "fill er up" in the future as it won't pollute either. Hydrogen would be, if it can be manufactured right as your driving, the best fuel of them all.

Really? What makes you think vehicles will produce hydrogen on the go? I hope you haven't been reading those crackpot websites where they claim to run a car on only water.

Really? What makes you think vehicles will produce hydrogen on the go? I hope you haven't been reading those crackpot websites where they claim to run a car on only water.

I just think that someone one day will invent a way for a car to use its own electrical system to manufacture hydrogen from water that would be made somehow in a tank in the car.

Making hydrogen from water takes energy - in theory as much as will be released and used when it's burned or run through a fuel cell to drive the vehicle. In reality more than that. You don't get that hydrogen for nothing and every bit of power used to make hydrogen is power not available to drive the vehicle. If it sits in the driveway making hydrogen it would still end up with less hydrogen in the tank, due to inefficiencies of conversion, than you start with. It's a losing proposition unless invoking imaginary above unity (making more energy than it uses) conversion technologies. Imaginary technologies that defy the laws of physics simply don't compare to real ones.

As Harold correctly points out Hydrogen is not a source of energy but an energy carrier. I remain dubious that Hydrogen will be superior to batteries for transport (not so sure about manufactured liquid fuels) but I do think Hydrogen could play a role in stationary storage. Direct solar electrolyser cells have been made that split water into H2 and O2 and onsite commercial and domestic uses complementary to solar PV come to mind that should not require high levels of compression or long term storage of the H2 - like heating, cooling, cooking etc.

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Here's a nice surprise for all you environmentalists out there: The United States enjoys the unique distinction of being the lone non-signatory to the Kyoto protocol and the only major industrial nation to meet the goals it contained.

This was not accomplished due to the passage of a carbon tax, cap and trade, or any policy favored by environmentalists. It was met (mostly) due to something that many environmentalists opposed: the advent of fracking, which has significantly lowered the price of natural gas. This has resulted in a significant increase in the use of natural gas for the generation of electricity and a decrease in the use of coal.

Since natural gas releases only about half the carbon of coal, as we replace more and more coal fired power plants with natural gas power plants our CO2 emissions go down. That, combined with the economy tanking and continuing to flounder under the Obama administration, has US CO2 emissions at their lowest level since 1994.

USA meets Kyoto protocol goal – without ever embracing it | Watts Up With That?

Your thread is nothing but a sneaky manipulation to bash Obama.
Since your talking politics why didn't you post this in the politics section?

And its ironic how you bash democrats in a thread about global warming.

97% of the best climate scientists say "man made global warming is happening."
But the majority of republicans say "man made global warming is a hoax."
Do you know why ??

Its because ExxonMobile pays scientists to say "global warming is not happening", so they can protect their corporate profits.
And then Fox news puts those ExxonMobile paid scientists on the air.
Then all the republicans believe the scientists paid by ExxonMobile.

Do you honestly think we should trust republicans with environmental issues ??



Then you said "the economy is tanking and continuing to flounder under the Obama administration."
But your above statement is not true.
And if you would like to debate this issue, I will show that your above statement is not true.

The politics section is the proper place, to manipulate people and post untrue statements about Obama (not the Environmental Issues section.)



(sources)

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science | Union of Concerned Scientists

Poll: Majority of Republicans believe global warming a hoax - The Hill's E2-Wire

Meet The Climate Denial Machine | Blog | Media Matters for America

At Fox News, Planet Earth Is Sponsored By ExxonMobil | Blog | Media Matters for America

Originally Posted by chad

Your thread is nothing but a sneaky manipulation to bash Obama.
Since your talking politics why didn't you post this in the politics section?

That's completely untrue. I was genuinely surprised to find that the US had met the Kyoto protocol goals and thought it warranted some discussion. As for bashing Obama, well, I just threw that in for fun. While it certainly wasn't meant to be the main thrust of the thread, the poor economy certainly has some bearing on the reduction in CO2 output.

97% of the best climate scientists say "man made global warming is happening."
But the majority of republicans say "man made global warming is a hoax."
Do you know why ??

Its because ExxonMobile pays scientists to say "global warming is not happening", so they can protect their corporate profits.
And then Fox news puts those ExxonMobile paid scientists on the air.
Then all the republicans believe the scientists paid by ExxonMobile.

Do you honestly think we should trust republicans with environmental issues ??

Did I suggest that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax? You are creating a straw man and arguing with him.

Then you said "the economy is tanking and continuing to flounder under the Obama administration."
But your above statement is not true.
And if you would like to debate this issue, I will show that your above statement is not true.

The fact is that a major reason for the reduction in CO2 output worldwide is the crappy economy. Our current "recovery" is the worst ever in the post WW2 period by a large margin and we are teetering on the brink of a double dip recession. I'm not sure which aspect of this you believe not to be true, but this thread is not the place for such a debate. Feel free to start another attempting to prove that the economy is doing well under president Obama.

Originally Posted by chad

... ... ...
Its because ExxonMobile pays scientists to say "global warming is not happening", so they can protect their corporate profits.
And then Fox news puts those ExxonMobile paid scientists on the air.
Then all the republicans believe the scientists paid by ExxonMobile. ...

and
Yet one more conspiracy theory

subtext
("the only honest scientests are the ones that support my position"?)

......................
edit, epimetheus
the high cost of fuel has led many to use less
Since it started costing $100.00+ to fill the trucks fuel tank, I drive less and keep the speed to peak torque---which keeps the fuel economy at it's max.------------and a few long haul guys I know do the same.
A carpenter up the road has bought a small 4 cylinder pickup, and only uses his one ton ford with the big block 390 when he has something really big or heavy to haul.
Everywhere I look, I see more fuel frugality, for transportation and for heating.
Maybe these also add into the lower numbers?

Originally Posted by madanthonywayne

Originally Posted by chad

Your thread is nothing but a sneaky manipulation to bash Obama.
Since your talking politics why didn't you post this in the politics section?

That's completely untrue. I was genuinely surprised to find that the US had met the Kyoto protocol goals and thought it warranted some discussion. As for bashing Obama, well, I just threw that in for fun. While it certainly wasn't meant to be the main thrust of the thread, the poor economy certainly has some bearing on the reduction in CO2 output.

97% of the best climate scientists say "man made global warming is happening."
But the majority of republicans say "man made global warming is a hoax."
Do you know why ??

Its because ExxonMobile pays scientists to say "global warming is not happening", so they can protect their corporate profits.
And then Fox news puts those ExxonMobile paid scientists on the air.
Then all the republicans believe the scientists paid by ExxonMobile.

Do you honestly think we should trust republicans with environmental issues ??

Did I suggest that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax? You are creating a straw man and arguing with him.

Then you said "the economy is tanking and continuing to flounder under the Obama administration."
But your above statement is not true.
And if you would like to debate this issue, I will show that your above statement is not true.

The fact is that a major reason for the reduction in CO2 output worldwide is the crappy economy. Our current "recovery" is the worst ever in the post WW2 period by a large margin and we are teetering on the brink of a double dip recession. I'm not sure which aspect of this you believe not to be true, but this thread is not the place for such a debate. Feel free to start another attempting to prove that the economy is doing well under president Obama.

I apologize for anything I said about you that was not true.

But the fact is Americas financial problems, were caused by republican supply side tax cuts, and a unneeded republican Iraq war.
Clinton had surpluses. GW Bush spent $2.5 trillion on supply side tax cuts, and he spent $800 billion on the unneeded Iraq war. (Obama did nothing to hurt our economy.)

And feel free to start another thread attempting to prove that the economy is doing bad because of president Obama.

Have a good one,
Chad.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by chad

... ... ...
Its because ExxonMobile pays scientists to say "global warming is not happening", so they can protect their corporate profits.
And then Fox news puts those ExxonMobile paid scientists on the air.
Then all the republicans believe the scientists paid by ExxonMobile. ...

and
Yet one more conspiracy theory

subtext
("the only honest scientests are the ones that support my position"?)

......................
edit, epimetheus
the high cost of fuel has led many to use less
Since it started costing $100.00+ to fill the trucks fuel tank, I drive less and keep the speed to peak torque---which keeps the fuel economy at it's max.------------and a few long haul guys I know do the same.
A carpenter up the road has bought a small 4 cylinder pickup, and only uses his one ton ford with the big block 390 when he has something really big or heavy to haul.
Everywhere I look, I see more fuel frugality, for transportation and for heating.
Maybe these also add into the lower numbers?

A conspiracy theory with sources,

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science | Union of Concerned Scientists
9 out of 10 top climate change deniers linked with Exxon Mobil
Report: ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics | Democracy Now!
FAQ | Greenpeace


What's up Sculptor, I hope you are doing well,
Chad.

Originally Posted by chad

I apologize for anything I said about you that was not true.

Thank you.

But the fact is Americas financial problems, were caused by republican supply side tax cuts, and a unneeded republican Iraq war.

That is not true. Revenues have generally increased following tax cuts. The problem is that spending increases even faster.

Clinton had surpluses.

That's true. I would suggest that the Republican congress and the booming economy had at least as much to do with that as president Clinton. But president Clinton did play a role and was much less hostile towards the private sector than the present administration.

GW Bush spent $2.5 trillion on supply side tax cuts, and he spent $800 billion on the unneeded Iraq war.

You are incorrect to refer to the Iraq war as a "Republican" war. It enjoyed broad bipartisan support and passed the Senate with a vote of 77 to 23. As to the tax cuts, let's not forget that Bush had to deal with the twin problems of the popping of the internet bubble and the attacks of September 11. Say what you will, but I'd wager that those tax cuts did a lot more to stimulate the economy than the far larger "stimulus" package passed under president Obama.

(Obama did nothing to hurt our economy.)

Words can not express how much I disagree with that statement. Perhaps this image would help:

Note to Mods: We are getting a bit off topic here, perhaps we could spin off a few of these posts into a splinter thread regarding the economic policies of president Obama.

wild guess madAnthony
you ain't a democrat?

Originally Posted by sculptor

wild guess madAnthonyyou ain't a democrat?

You, sir, are very perceptive. I'm a conservative libertarian.

ok
i'm a libertarian commie (yeh-go figgure)

my ideal presidential dream team ticket would have been Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul