Kyoto is almost over. How did everyone do?

Question

Kyoto required a tiny GHG reduction over 10 years. Various countries tried different approaches over that period, including applying taxes, energy conservation, technology changes, and penalties. As the U.S. considers implementing far more stringent controls and goals, we can learn a lot from other countries' successes and their failures under Kyoto.

Which countries will meet their Kyoto targets, which will fail?

Which strategies and tactics were most successful?

Which strategies and tactics failed?

Were any economic effects discernible (positive or negative)?

What actions were most cost effective?

Most importantly:

What was the overall reduction in global greenhouse gases achieved?

What were the ecological and economic benefits?

I don't expect anyone to have all the answers, but if you have seen any analysis of Kyoto's outcome I'd be curious to see what the conclusions have been so far.

Answer 1

Kyoto was a joke.

Even Bill Clinton turned it down as dangerous and stupid.

The countries that agreed to it didn't abide by any of the rules, so what was the point?

Can we all just admit it was socialist ploy that failed?  Every socialist idea throughout history has failed a million times over, so no one was really surprised that Kyoto would fail.

Answer 2

Control, Taxes and Penalties is what it is all about!  I love the theme of robbing from the rich and giving to the stupid...  That makes total sense!  It is like a running toilet...  Companies pay more, so they have to produce more, so they can pay more, then have to produce more.... Oh but wait, the middle man is what actually gets screwed in this deal with lower wages and higher taxes....  I get it....

Answer 3

Which countries will meet their Kyoto targets

sweden are doing very well, they have set their own target much lower and are on track to meet it.

which will fail?

u.k. definitely.

Which strategies and tactics were most successful?

feed in tarrifs in germany and now many other eu countries.

the renewables obligations on power companies; they are paying top dollar to those few people and companies who have gone for renewables despite the tiny grants.



e.g.; max £2500 for a domestic solar pv array, you have to get your wall cavities filled before you can even apply; in germany there is a 'feed in tarrif' but our gov just voted one down again depite a back bench uprising

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...

the so called grants for commercial wave and tidal projects were so difficult to apply for and so piddling that NOT ONE COMPANY applied for them in 5 years. there are dozens of small companies doing the research and pilot projects but none have bothered with the grants. how many would there have been by now if there had been proper support?

Which strategies and tactics failed?

boifuels obviously.

the caps were set far too high, the only good thing the uk gov has done in the whole sorry affair was to be honest about the uk industry baseline, everyone else cheated shamefully.

nearly all the c&t money went to people producing replacements for cfcs ffs! the whole thing has been a joke.

the uk gov. love the The Clean Development Mechanism thing, they are going to buy their way out of doing anything.

Were any economic effects discernible (positive or negative)?

a few big companies made a mint.

What actions were most cost effective?

probably the CDF offset projects, those that were not a scam.

What was the overall reduction in global greenhouse gases achieved?

probably none at all. if you count in the rainforest and peatland destruction, probably negative.

What were the ecological and economic benefits?

see above.

random links, too angry to search for the ones i read;

http://environment.newscientist.com/arti...

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2008/080131...

it all looks so good on paper;

http://www.carboncapital.com/kyoto_and_c...

what i have been touting from the very beginning is the Contraction and Convergence plan, but its far too fair, the western governments and their liege companies will never agree.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4994...