Theos-Talk Archives (September 2001 Message tt00307)

> > According to the United Nations, the US is the world's single biggest
> > polluter when it comes to greenhouse gases.
>
> According to the United Nations, KKK'ers are Zionists.
>
> Bart Lidofsky

Bart,

I've been too busy to get back to you but I didn't want to let your somewhat
cynical comments go without a response. As far as I am aware through
following this issue, the US government has not questioned the UN figures on
pollution. This is probably because each country provides the figures for
its own region and it is these which are then compared with other regions.
No doubt there is some extra verification involved. Even your own Senator
Lieberman who was at the Kyoto Summit expresses the same sentiment in the
Fox News Interview:

"on global warming . . . we are the major source of the problem because
we're the most developed nation in the world. . . . In fairness, I think the
first step has to be taken by the developing nations, of which we are the
largest -- 4 percent of the [world] population, 25 percent of the greenhouse
gases emitted in the world that are creating this problem. That's the
morally responsible thing to do."

( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,30206,00.html )


More importantly, have a look at the statistics and statements from the US
Government's official "ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION."
http://eia.doe.gov/ Look at the figures for Carbon emissions (greenhouse
gases). Maybe they were not aware of your illuminating comments about
Zionists and the KKK when they compiled these figures. Also look at what
this official Administration says the US Government had agreed to under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and under the Kyoto
Protocol - in the section, "Status in Climate Change Negotiations." See if
their statement fits with yours:

> The United States never ratified the treaty,
> and therefore officially never made any agreement
> to go back on.

The other countries in the world feel the US did make agreements which they
later 'walked out' on (under Bush). As confirmed by Senator Lieberman,
there are no longer any US representatives on the Kyoto Treaty negotiations.

I have quoted a few statements from the US EIA report below. We might keep
in mind the US has only 4 percent of the worlds population:

ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Christie Whitman

TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION (2000E): 98.8 quadrillion Btu (25% of world total
energy consumption)

ENERGY-RELATED CARBON EMISSIONS (1999E): 1,519 million metric tons of carbon
(24.7% of world total carbon emissions)

STATUS IN CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS: Annex I country under the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (ratified October 15th,
1992). Under the negotiated Kyoto Protocol (signed on November 12th, 1998 -
not yet ratified), the United States has agreed to reduce greenhouse gases
7% below 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 commitment period.

( the above information can be found at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html )

Bart, the situation is far more complex than you present it. The increase
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (and hence global warming and damage
to the ozone layer) is the result of Industrialisation - eg burning of
fossil fuels, emissions from transport/factories, agricultural and
industrial waste. The more industrialised a country is the more greenhouse
gases that country emits into the atmosphere. Hence the most developed
industrialised nations in the world are the biggest polluters.

When the *developing* countries in the world agree to keep their greenhouse
gas emissions down to 5 percent of the levels they were in 1990, this
effectively prevents them from developing the same kinds as industrial
economies as the major world powers.

Its a bit like two neighbours, one has a company with thousands of diesel
engine trucks, the other has a couple of motorcycles. Both obviously
produce greenhouse gases though one obviously does more than the other.
Because pollution affects the whole world and not just the company (country)
that produces it, they agree to reduce the level of their emissions. The
big company agrees to reduce by 7 percent, the small developing company by 5
percent - both in respect of their emissions 10 years ago (1990). Its
understandable that the large company feels it is doing the lion's share.
But from the developing company's point of view, its agreement effectively
prevents it from moving on from the stage of motorcycle engine to diesel
engine truck, because as soon as it does so it will have gone above its
agreed levels of emissions.

So you / we may think the developing countries have little to do and so can
happily sign the treaty because they are not affected, but they believe that
by agreeing to this treaty they are restricting their own economic growth -
a growth that the US and Europe have greatly benefited from for the last few
hundred years while polluting the entire world in the process.


regards,

...Peter