Kyoto second commitment period

November 12th, 2012 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has defended the Government’s decision not to sign on for the second stage of the Protocol, saying the country is playing its part in combating .

The climate change treaty’s first commitment period expires at the end of the year and New Zealand expects to slightly exceed its target.

The treaty aims to curb international greenhouse gas emissions through binding national commitments but some countries have questioned its effectiveness.

Oh Kyoto is almost totally ineffective. The first commitment period excluded the major emitters and the second period would cover at best 15% of total emissions.

I support an international agreement to reduce emissions, but any agreement without China, India and the United States is worthless.

Here;s what the impact of Kyoto on global temperatures would be:

The first scenario looked at what would happen if, after the protocol expires, the Annex B countries continued to abide by Kyoto’s limits but did not make any new commitments to further cut emissions for the rest of the century.

This “constant compliance” scenario would shave 0.11 to 0.21 degrees Celsius (0.20–0.38 degrees Fahrenheit) off global average temperatures by 2100. Stated another way, instead of heating up by 2.5°C (4.5°F), a midpoint in the range of projections of global warming, Earth would warm approximately 6% less.

So after 100 years the increase in global temperatures may be 0.2 degrees less. It’s ridiculous.

Again, any credible agreement needs the big emitters in there, The top 10 emitters are:

  1. China 16.4%
  2. US 15.7%
  3. Brazil 6.5%
  4. Indonesia 4.6%
  5. Russia 4.6%
  6. India 4.3%
  7. Japan 3.2%
  8. Germany 2.3%
  9. Canada 1.9%
  10. UK 1.6%

Now the only countries in that top 10 who are in Kyoto are Japan, Germany and the UK.  NZ by the way is at 0.2%.

 

Tags: ,

41 Responses to “Kyoto second commitment period”

  1. Matthew Hooton (128 comments) says:

    Japan has announced it will not be signing up to Kyoto 2. Of your list, only Germany and the UK are continuing. Both are Kyoto “winners” because Kyoto is based on a 1990 base year. For the UK, it has become less coal dependent since then (for reasons unrelated to Kyoto) and it is largely a services economy now. Germany gains because the smoke-stack socialist factories in East Germany closed soon after 1990. Of course, if no one else is in Kyoto 2, neither can actually gain from being in it – which is exactly where things are heading. So there is nothing for John Key to “defend”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    Nick Smith should be run out of the party.

    He has imposed a costly and unproductive bureaucratic regime upon NZ industry for no good reason at all.

    He and his Blue-Green faction should be told to take a hike, as they are mostly responsible for this costly idiotic farce.

    Its not as if they were not told.

    The whole idea behind “climate change” is to form a progressive framework for bigger government and higher taxes and greater distribution of wealth.

    That the Nat’s apparently don’t understand a fact that is so obvious to anyone with a brain is yet another sign of how ineffective they are as a political force.

    Long past time they returned to their non-interventionist founding principles, an event that would give them renewed political vigour and a united focus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. queenstfarmer (770 comments) says:

    So after 100 years the increase in global temperatures may be 0.2 degrees less. It’s ridiculous.

    True, if one assumes that those advocating for Kyoto 2 actually want reduced global temperatures as their primary goal…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    The sooner NZ gets out of this farce, the better.

    It should be accompanied by the National Party expelling the Greenie Nick Smith from its ranks, and seeking answers to why Key was swindled by his advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. thedavincimode (6,612 comments) says:

    Manolo

    Key wasn’t swindled. We were.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    I love CO2. Makes greens grow, and makes Greens mad. A win-win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ross12 (1,383 comments) says:

    Redbaiter –I stand to be corrected but I think issue National had when it got in was that it potentially faced a massive court case with the forestry guys if it did not go ahead with the ETS ( becuase of Kyoto commitments previously entered into.)
    So Nick Smith probably got what personally wanted. But those “obligations” to the forestry guys have now been paid for
    ( via our power bills) so there is not legally a reason for us to continue in the scheme.

    What I find amazing is since the US elections have finalised there have been banking people and economists opening suggesting the US will put in a “carbon” tax to raise massive revenues to help their deficit issues and none of the believers in having an ETS or similar scheme to supposedly reduce emmissions have questioned these suggestions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Key is our man (871 comments) says:

    Thank God, finally the con scheme has been kicked out. Good on you John Key. For 0.2%, the Greens have made such a noise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Grizz (591 comments) says:

    I am not sure if all countries measure carbon emmissions equally. For instance, NZ measure agriculture but other countries signed up to kyoto in a big way make no mention of it at all. Technically wetlands are big emitters of methane gas. That means Russia with vast swathes of waterlogged siberia will be big emitters of carbon. On the other hand, as we have drained 90% of naturally occurring wetlands our emissions are a little less (or replaced by gaseous emissions of ruminants).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Well Dodgy Roger Dickey might have some explaining to do by the looks of it.

    Warning of mass deforestation after govt’s Kyoto pull-out

    Monday, 12, Nov, 2012 5:07AM

    A warning of mass deforestation, now that the Government is walking away from the Kyoto Protocol.

    Climate Change Minister Tim Groser says as of next year New Zealand will align climate change efforts with countries that are collectively responsible for 85 percent of global emissions.

    Kyoto Forestry Association spokesman Roger Dickie says that decision will lead to foresters cutting down trees and looking at the use of their land for a better return.

    “The sad thing is that the forest industry will soon surpass tourism, (will) be our second biggest export industry and yet there will be massive deforestation. So it’s totally against what the government themselves said when they came into power.”

    Mr Dickie says the Government had promised that foresters would get their carbon credits and on that basis people invested in forestry.

    “Some people have invested large amounts in carbon forests, based on the government policy and what they were saying. For some people they’ll lose tens of millions I would think. Everybody feels totally let down by the government’s decision.”

    Roger Dickie says the Emissions Trading Scheme now has no muscle and will disappear down the gurgler.

    http://www.telstraclear.co.nz/news/news-story.cfm?content_id=844081

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. DRHILL (121 comments) says:

    What was Australia’s emissions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Ross12 (1,383 comments) says:

    Viking 2

    I have absolutely no sympathy for Dickie and his mates. He is effectively saying that their business relied for viability on tax payer subsidies. Tough bickies if that subsidy is removed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. wat dabney (3,758 comments) says:

    The effectivenes of Kyoto is surely proven by the 16 years of absolutely no warming whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RightNow (6,968 comments) says:

    Absolutely wat, between Kyoto stopping the warming and Obama stopping the rise of the oceans, it’s a job well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RF (1,368 comments) says:

    Now that the Kyoto leech has sucked its last dollar can we expect to see fuel prices drop. You know the ones that were increased when Kyoto was a buzz word.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. emmess (1,420 comments) says:

    There are effectively only two signatories, the EU and Australia
    You can be as sure as shit, the Aussies will drop when Abbott wins the election next year.

    Leaving only the EU which is not 27 individual nations who happen to be acting in consensus to ‘save the planet’.
    Any European countries that otherwise would be objectors are paid off to keep there mouths shut.
    If the EU wants bribe New Zealand to stay in, I would be more than happy for us to at least consider the offer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (8,318 comments) says:

    I have absolutely no sympathy for Dickie and his mates. He is effectively saying that their business relied for viability on tax payer subsidies. Tough bickies if that subsidy is removed.

    Anyone who goes into business with government, and is later negatively affected by policy change, has no right to complain.

    If they were half business people, rather than cronyists, they would not go into business with government (and thereby politicians, lower on the public trust scale than used car salesmen) ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. trout (933 comments) says:

    Maori will be jumping up and down (again). They forced the govt. to include their forests (pre 1990) in the scheme anticipating large windfall profits from the sale of carbon credits. Carbon Credits are now virtually worthless. But hey, Maori now say it was part of a Waitangi Treaty settlement (which it wasn’t) so expect to get paid anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    wat dabney (2,052) Says:
    November 12th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
    “The effectiveness of Kyoto is surely proven by the 16 years of absolutely no warming whatsoever.”

    Cant help your self can you Wat

    You are a blatant liar “absolutely no warming whatsoever” is a definitive statement prove it

    Wat goes Butbutbutbutbutbutbutbut ONLY A LITTLE LIE…. EH……
    There was warming But I can play with statistics There is a small chance that the temperature has not risen

    Just ignore that the RECORD temperature Of 1998 Hottest since we started making records in 1820

    IS NOW NORMAL Happens every five years this century

    Go to school Wat and learn about critical thinking

    Only a real dipshit repeats stories that they know are false

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    NZ is a green country our emissions are a third of the USA and Aus only slightly above china
    The international market has collapsed for carbon the cost of appearing to do our bit is negligible.
    DPF’s suggestion of introducing agriculture is a good idea it would cost little
    Probably a recoverable expenditure when we could take the high ground in more scientifically literate markets, it
    also negates carbon miles.
    We should also attack the cost of getting projects past the RMA so wind, Geo, and hydro become easier to build. It is ‘Green’ to invest in renewables. The greens would take a hiding if they opposed it :lol: If we can wind it back a little on the environment thing its a lot easier to dismantle it more. Slippery slope ‘fallacy’ ?
    Think blue green not red with a green skin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. RightNow (6,968 comments) says:

    “Only a real dipshit repeats stories that they know are false”
    “True or not who cares” – griff, 2012

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bringbackdemocracy (423 comments) says:

    Now get rid of the ETS and bring some honesty back into science and government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. pq (728 comments) says:

    we don’t need kyoto politic, china burn fire coal,
    we don’t need a Green coalition next Government,
    I am committed to a NZ First coalition with NZ Nat,
    laugh,
    see what happens when we get a good leader for superannuation people and grey power peiple,
    see what happens to capital tax

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    The last thing we want after the next election is a government that is even more skewed towards the oldies than the youngies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    When Russell and whatever David take over in 2014 it will all be academic. We will sign up and the people will be screwed for the cost of their vanity (Russell and whatever Davids vanity that is) ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    A government by the oldies, for the oldies and forking out for the oldies is OK by this oldie Milkey! :)

    Time you young whippersnappers paid your dues! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    You’re not one of those old codgers clogging up the luxury seat on the Airport Flyer between 9 and 3 for the free wi-fi are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Sorry, no milkey. My flyers usually have rotary wings and generally are taking me to places where only EPIRBS have coverage! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wat dabney (3,758 comments) says:

    Ah Griff.

    There was warming But I can play with statistics

    In case anyone doesn’t know, in order to try to “win” his argument Griff is reduced to asserting here that the concept of statistical significance is completely meaningless.

    If you’re thinking that that is the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard or read on the Internet you’d be right.

    Such is the alarmist case.

    Get back to us when they cover the topic as school, eh Griff?

    Meantime, if anyone here thinks that pharmaceutical companies should bother themselves about such non-issues as statistical significance when it comes to evaluating the effects of their products on humans, Griff has a bone to pick with you. It’s just “playing with statistics” you see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    “A free helicopter for every pensioner.” Winnie’s slogan for 2014.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Do you know that for a fact milkey or are you talking shit as usual?

    I’ll vote for the wizened little prick if it’s true! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    RightNow (4,506) Says:
    November 12th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
    “Only a real dipshit repeats stories that they know are false”
    “True or not who cares” – griff, 2012

    You go to web sites that have the stolen climate emails and claim that they prove that scientist commit fraud
    The stolen emails were released timed to overshadow the Copenhagen conference by the denial echo chamber. considerable effort was made to quote out of context snippets of exchanges to make out the scientist were dishonest
    the accusations of the denial blogs prompted nine reviews of the affair from a range of body’s University’s ,government departments and science society’s. Not one of these reviews found that the scientist had been dishonest.

    Then there was heartlands documents fraudulently obtained by a pro science blogger.
    I published them on this blog as they were released The CEO of heartland made a claim that only one of the documents was false. Right now despite belonging to a group demanding 9 reviews of the scientist was positive that the COE was telling the truth From the start

    my “True or not who cares” Has been taken out of context by right now. It was a dig at his pathetic gullibility in believing in climate denial blog sites with out question.

    Again we have someone displaying poor critical thinking skills. After nine reviews he can not accept the truth that the scientist are not telling lies. After one statement he is ready to accept a CEO is telling the truth.

    “Only a real dipshit repeats stories that they know are false

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RightNow (6,968 comments) says:

    Gergis

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    In case anyone doesn’t know, in order to try to “win” his argument Griff is reduced to asserting here that the concept of statistical significance is completely meaningless.

    Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/category/met-office-in-the-media/
    The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.
    As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/content_root/CC%20SkepticsvRealists_500.gif
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Griff will go to he grave defending AGW and the higher taxes associated with the scam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    Higher taxes
    How much extra tax?
    Think of it as insurance It has been reduced to a minimal amount carbon per person cost is $24 a year

    Who knows just maybe all those universality and scientist and all the research is bogus and the proprietors of the denial net works really are the best place to get science from. Maybe it is a war against the Global left wing consprwhacy the scientist are in cohorts with the left wing and the one world government :wink: With the next respected scientist you target for your smear campaign just more collateral damage.

    Sounds like some of you are having fantasy sessions from some Joe 90 left wing TV propaganda you watched as kids :lol:
    Did you all do acid ?

    :lol:

    Learn critical thinking

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    The majority of the big polluting industry’s are held offshore. It would be and effective tax on offshore investment; Its not a direct tax it will push some liability to those horrible slant eyes and kola f**kers :lol: Should make all you xenophobics smile

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RightNow (6,968 comments) says:

    “cost is $24 a year”

    Do I have to pay the same as attendees to climate conferences? They have a much bigger carbon footprint than me, surely I should get a discount.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Griff (7,343 comments) says:

    Are you really that silly You do not know how the ETS works ? :lol:

    Some one on here once claimed that people flying first class should pay the same for co2 as cattle class Poor sod could not work out why if you used more plane you should pay more. remember? :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. axeman (251 comments) says:

    Watch out wat, RightNow. Poor old fatalistic Gwiff will soon be sobbing to you with “But but but if you are wrong, will you apologise to my grandchildren?” :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RightNow (6,968 comments) says:

    “You do not know how the ETS works ? ”

    I didn’t even know it worked. I guess that explains the lack of warming. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.