Russia slams Kyoto Protocol

Dec 16, 2011

Russia supports Canada's decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol, says its foreign ministry, reaffirming Friday that Moscow will not take on new commitments.

Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich told Friday's briefing that the treaty does not cover all major polluters, and thus cannot help solve the .

Canada on Monday pulled out of the agreement - initially adopted in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, to cut contributing to global warming. Its move dealt a blow to the treaty, which has not been formally renounced by any other country.

"This is yet another example that the 1997 has lost its effectiveness in the context of the social and economic situation of the 21st century," Lukashevich said, adding that the document does not ensure the participation of all key emitters.

The protocol requires some industrialized countries to slash emissions, but doesn't cover the world's largest polluters, China and the United States.

Canada, Japan and Russia said last year they will not accept new Kyoto commitments.

Explore further: US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

5 /5 (1 vote)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN: Canada still obliged to fight climate change

Dec 13, 2011

The UN climate chief on Tuesday voiced regret over Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and said that the country still had legal obligations to work against global warming.

Canada's Kyoto withdrawal under fire from China

Dec 13, 2011

Canada's historic decision to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol provoked heavy criticism from China on Tuesday, with Beijing saying the move went against international efforts to combat climate change. ...

Back-room negotiations begin on climate intentions

Dec 05, 2011

(AP) -- Back-room negotiations began in earnest Monday on a deal to rescue the only treaty governing greenhouse gas reductions and to launch talks on a broader agreement to include the world's largest polluters: ...

UN climate talks on edge heading into final hours

Dec 09, 2011

(AP) -- The United States, China and India could scuttle attempts to save the only treaty governing global warming, Europe's top negotiator said Friday hours before a 194-nation U.N. climate conference was ...

UN climate chief warns on Kyoto Protocol deadline

Apr 04, 2011

Commitments by most developed countries to cut carbon emissions are likely to expire at the end of next year without a new round of legally binding pledges, the UN's climate chief warned Monday.

Recommended for you

US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

14 hours ago

The United States announced Friday a fresh delay on a final decision regarding a controversial Canada to US oil pipeline, saying more time was needed to carry out a review.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

21 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

User comments : 24

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lucidles
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2011
If any country was truly concerned and had the will they would go ahead and cut emissions unilaterally. I'm afraid while big oil still have one barrel left to sell the planet stands no chance.
LuckyExplorer
3 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2011
The ones never joined the agreement, the others pull out of it. They all are thinking to be intelligent, but, in fact, they are just ignorant, arrogant and selfish idiots without any vision and idea, harmin the others and finally themselves
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2011
The issue is equity. Within 5 years everyone will be on the same page.
rawa1
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2011
The protocol requires some industrialized countries to slash emissions, but doesn't cover the world's largest polluters, China and the United States.
Nevertheless China still protested about withdrawal of Kyoto protocol by Canada...;-)
kaasinees
2.2 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2011
Its not for us people to judge. There are probably intrinsic consequences you and i do not know about. Maybe something among the lines of economical suppression while some parties may benefit from.
Pirouette
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2011
Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich of Russia is a wise man who obviously understands the hypocrisy of the Chinese government and their condemnation of Canada, which has no land mass in warmer latitudes as China and the U.S. have, and obviously requires its own fossil fuels to keep their country running and keep their citizens even moderately comfortable. Lukashevich is no fool and knows China well enough to have seen through the Chinese ploy of declaring itself a "developing nation" like African nations, in order to excuse itself from also limiting its CO2 and other emissions. China can say that they are limiting their emissions, but satellite information and other CO2 detections from other instruments do not lie.
Good going, Russia
plasticpower
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2011
With less than half the population of the US, Russia is still the #3 polluting country in the world. It's a shame they withdrew. Although, arguably, the US produces 3 times more pollutants than Russia with ~3 times less landmass and twice the population. And if we count per-capita, China is actually a "green" country...
Pirouette
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2011
The majority of China's population live in small towns, farms and villages in the countryside, and those are the farmers who provide the food for the rest of the nation. They're not such a source of pollution. But the big source of China's pollution is in the cities like Beijing from big industries, energy plants, cars and other vehicles, etc., etc.
The "green" country of China only occurs in the countryside where the farmers live. The cities are NOT green. . . .just like the very fine particulates in the air in New Delhi, India is not "green".
Another thread tells how the heavily populated New Delhi has such bad air that thousands of Indians in that city are experiencing many lung diseases. . .even the children have bad lungs and are dying. I think that a group of meteorologists and doctors (not climate "scientists") should make the rounds of every major city in each country, testing the air and reporting it immediately. They have to be incorruptible and not accept bribes.
Pirouette
2 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2011
Kind of like Elliot Ness's "Untouchables". They could be funded by the United Nations and would have unlimited access to the cities in each country.
China and other countries can lie about their CO2 emissions, but a group like this would have the ability to find out the truth in person.
Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2011
VendiNutNut says:
The issue is equity. Within 5 years everyone will be on the same page.


And who is going to ENFORCE it, eh? The imperial forces of Kyoto money grubbers? Oh yeah, they'll send a whole division of Chinese Red Army to put down the insurrection because Canada is still using home heating oil and driving around in cars in winter. That would work. :)
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 16, 2011
And if we count per-capita, China is actually a "green" country...

Green means living with dirt floors, a hole in the ground for a toilet and burning dung?
Pirouette
1.5 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2011
LOL. . .that's called "primitive" also. Camping without an RV is like that, but it's usually wood logs and a piece of waxed wood chip blocks to start the fire going. When my wife was living, we and our kids used to go camping up in Vermont and Maine. . .Maine up near Canada. It felt good and I miss doing that since she passed on.
American Indians claim that their primitive way of living before the white man arrived was soooo good. But I produced a link from the Seattle Times that had proof that American Indians practiced cannibalism long ago in the southwest of the U.S.
Nobody else commented after that. :(
Jonseer
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2011
Green = EFFICIENT USE of available resources and various fuel sources.

Green DOES NOT = living primitively.

In the USA the ability to use things without regard to the incredible amount of waste produced while using something is a large part of the pollution we create.

I've never understood the reason why so many businesses keep their sign lights burning during the night long after they are closed.

The energy is not free.

The notion it is a sort of advertising is ludicrous, because the #s who see it are far to few to justify the expense.

Yet keep them on seems to be a divine directive that many businesses hear and obey, and in doing so waste tremendous amounts of energy for basically nothing.
Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2011
I used to go primitive camping. . .very green. . .no oil, gasoline or gas, just a wood fire for cooking and heating water for showers and coffee. But we also had a plastic bag shower system that was laid on a rock to let the sun heat the water. Worked very well too.

The light left on in businesses:
1) identifies the business
2) helps to discourage burglaries
3) identifies the business in case of burglary for the cops to investigate
4) adds to the street lights for security reasons

Newsflash: the U.S. government will not shut down tonight.
Pirouette
1.3 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2011


http://www.youtub...oOfsZgac

And, of course, you must remember this about Al Gore.
Did you know that the Earth's core is millions of degrees?
Hotter than the Sun even.
Pirouette
1.5 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2011
(\___/)
[ . . ] what happens due to global warming :)
(= . =)
("")_("")
eachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2011
The cities are NOT green. . . .just like the very fine particulates in the air in New Delhi, India is not "green".
Another thread tells how the heavily populated New Delhi has such bad air that thousands of Indians in that city are experiencing many lung diseases. . .even the children have bad lungs and are dying. I think that a group of meteorologists and doctors (not climate "scientists") should make the rounds of every major city in each country, testing the air and reporting it immediately. They have to be incorruptible and not accept bribes.


Amen! You may have seen in other posts that I think Kyoto is very flawed, and anyway most global warming threats have been inflated. But air pollution of many types has been killing people since the industrial revolution, and is doing so today. Reducing CO2 to save the elderly from driving around with oxygen tanks would be nice, but climate control that results in people breathing worse air is fundamentally flawed.
eachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2011
The US has done very well over the last few decades at reducing air pollution, especially in cities like Pittsburgh, and Southern California. Reducing CO2 emissions is nice, but a real commitment to doing so is going to require lots of latest generation nuclear plants. (I don't want to go into details here, but condemning the entire nuclear energy due to Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi shows a lack of understanding. There are very different reactors with different types of risks. For example, IF the Fukushima Daiichi problems had occurred in the US, an emergency generator would have been air dropped in, and hooked up, before there was any serious radiation release. Different mindset, and the siting plan should have taken that into account.) Are the new reactors, especially Thorium molten salt reactors safe? Yes, and much less of a spent fuel problem.

The rest of the greenhouse gasses covered by the Kyoto treaty are a distraction and sham. (Methane should be rated like CO2.)
GDM
5 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2011
I agree that the Thorium reactors should be studied/implemented as soon as possible, but I recall (somewhere) that it will take another 20 years to get the technology ready for commercial use. That was the promise of fusion over 50 years ago, and it is still 50 years away. I hope I'm wrong about this. The FLIBE website is quite interesting/persuasive though.
http://flibe-energy.com/
Pirouette
2 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2011
From what I've read about Fukushima, there was quite a bit of a problem with the Japanese tradition of "saving face", from the CEO to the rest of the nuclear power plant management. Too many errors were made due to the "diva" syndrome, which is the "I'm the boss so you can't tell me anything". I agree that nuclear power is still relatively safe, as long as the processes are heavily monitored 24/7 and "fail safe" measures are properly put in place. Our Three Mile Island nuclear plant has been in operation for many years now and is still running well as far as I know. Except for 1 minor problem that was fixed immediately, it's still operational.
But you're right about the mindset. The wrong mindset can be very costly and dangerous.
Pirouette
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2011
I'm not a chemist, but that Fluoride-Lithium-Beryllium combination at FLIBE sounds pretty good. The question is, does it work. They say that it is safe. . .probably a lot safer than conventional nuclear plants. But we can't wait too long, since the supply of oil, gas, and coal is finite and the AGWites are having fits (though still driving their cars and taking plane rides) ::)
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2011
In today's broken and fearful world,

1. World leaders spread fear and claim control over Nature

www.ipa.org.au/pu...c-alarms

2. Precise rest mass measurements on every atom show:

a.) Neutrons attract protons to make stable atoms

b.) Neutrons repel other neutrons;
__Neutron-rich atoms are unstable

c.) Protons repel protons even more strongly;
__Proton-rich atoms are less stable

d.) A benevolent Reality that surrounds and sustains us is in a "Cradle of the Nuclides"

www.amazon.com/Or...06465620

http://dl.dropbox..._Not.pdf

3. The AGW scare will vanish if the public knows that a pulsar produced our elements, gave birth to the Solar System, and still controls our fate today.

http://dl.dropbox...asks.pdf

Best wishes for the Holidays!

Today all is well,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
http://myprofile....anuelo09
omatumr
2 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2011
PS - The greatest danger today is that world leaders are as frightened as everyone else and may act foolishly in frantic desperation to try to preserve their false illusion of control.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2011
I see that the conversation has drifted off course, but I would like to comment anyway.

From an American point of view, we have joined UN agreements and been burned in the past. We have repeatedly given money to various UN programs and later found out that the money had been mis-used and then we get told that we are not welcome to investigate, and the guilty parties go free.

I am not opposed to environmental protection. However, I do not feel that the United Nations is the best choice for the US to do what we need to do. We have already made nearly as much progress as the EU in the past 10 years, through our own EPA and the Clean Air and Water Acts. I don't see how sending money to third world countries will help us to lower our emissions, improve efficiency or reduce consumption. We are smart enough to do these things without the help of the UN.

The way the Kyoto treaty was set up is obviously flawed. Do something, but do something that actually works.

More news stories

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.