let's first look at the way it's measures - carbon dioxide emissions. according to the collins student world atlas, published in 2005 so we may assume it's up-to-date, the worst offenders based on the raw, unadulterated data for 2002 are usa, china, russia and japan. eleventh down the list is australia. yet round the world the kyoto greenies decry australia's massive pollution output and how we're (yes, i'm an aussie) failing the world with our dirty blue skies and fluffy white clouds and air so fresh you could gag.
so how do the more poluting nations get away with their 'clean, green' image? i'll let you in on their dirty little secret. they get to pay their way out of industrial reform. they buy their absolution. it's called carbon credits. overpoluting this year? buy you way out of enviro-trouble and keep the shine on that greasy smile.
they also get to hide behind the statistical fairytale known as 'per capita'. 'percentage wise' or 'proportionally' you can breathe the air in tokyo, japan and it tastes sweeter than sydney, australia. just don't try it without a gas mask.
statistics, as any cynic or mathemation will tell you, can prove anything.
interesting and also contributing to the joke that is kyoto is the list of greenhouse gases as stated in the 1997 protocol.
lets have a look at what is on it and what IS NOT on the list;
CARBON DIOXIDE. every animal on earth breathes it out, and so does every plant when it's sickly or in the dark (night, for example). heard of carbon sinks? the pumping and sealing of carbon dioxide artificially and conveniently burying it somewhere. one **slight** problem everyone seems to have overlooked. it has TWO OXYGEN ATOMS!! we happen to need that if we want to continue living.
METHANE. ok, farting is out. so is organic decomposition of any kind, so don't use the toilet either. you are contributing to the greenhouse effect. naughty you. also don't die, it'll only make things worse. forget composting, it may be good for the soil, but again methane is released and that's a big no-no.
HYDROFLOUROCARBONS. this one was brought out to replace CFCs, even though, if it is just a hydrogen, flourine, carbon mocule as the name suggests, as a much lighter molecule they would have to be able to drift upwards into the atmosphere higher. want to know what is in your child's asthma inhaler and nebuliser? you're looking at it. they are also used in refrigerants, blowing foam plastics and aerosols.
a more sensible replacement would have been HYDROCHOLOFLOUROCABONS. but everyone **knows** that chloride is the bad guy. don't they?... by the way, nobody come back and pretend to me that HCFCs are a new discovery.
now for what is NOT ON THE LIST:
the scapegoat of the 1980's, chloroflourocarbons. what, now it's got nothing to do with it? in **theory** it couldn't get off the ground anyway. as a molecule it's just too heavy.
and for the last little mystery - hydrocarbons. light, fluffy, found in areosol cans around the world AND KNOWN TO CAUSE PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG. they definitely get up into the atmosphere.
heres something else about the 1997 protocol you may not have heard about -
have a proposal and don't want some insignificant pacific nation protesting? form a subcommittee and don't invite them. of course there is a "provision" for them to respond when the (favourable) research is presented, but since they weren't involved in the research, and couldnt fund to challenge the findings anyway with their own investigation, how can they present any environmental, social or economic impact studies anyway. "mutatis mutandis" is latin for "don't like it? wear it."
