Why is US reducing emissions bettewr than the EU when the EU signed the Kyoto BS protocol?

Question

in 2006, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell 1.5 percent -- and the intensity of those gases fell 4.2 percent -- without an international pact.

By contrast, the European Union, which is loudly proud of signing on to the Kyoto Protocol, increased greenhouse gas emissions 0.4 percent.

The decrease in U.S. emissions is attributed to a greater use of natural gas in electricity production, declines in agricultural and industrial methane output and better land-use and forestry practices, among other things.

That's some good news and might have started the conferees thinking about the effectiveness of voluntary, market-based solutions to global warming.

Answer 1

You use "cherry picking" meaning you take the data from a single year, the one which fits your views.

Let me just give you much more figures:

--------------------------------------...

emissions per capita:

US: 19t CO2

EU: 9t CO2

GDP per CO2 emitted:

US: $1,936/tCO2

EU: $4,200/tCO2

FYI: Sweden : $6591/tCO2

As such the CO2 intensity in the US is SO high that the decrease is the result to a simple adjustment to the increased energy prices on international markets

--------------------------------------...

Absolute evolution of emissions compared to the 1990 baseline:

countries not trying to reach a Kyoto target saw their emisssions grow:

US: +16% Canada: +30%

EU countries: -0.8 (-8% target for 2012)

--------------------------------------...

The market approach

If you want a "voluntary market based solution" what you are imagining is a "voluntary tax or fee to pay" (I want the same for my taxes). Any serious economist will tell you that a price for CO2 can´t exist without a cap in emissions, just like money has a value because there is a limited quantity of it corresponding to a limited quantity of wealth you can exchange it to.