This is just sooo ironic! :lmao:

Japan's emissions to rise: report

Wed Aug 8, 2007

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 0.9 percent in the fiscal year ending in March 2011 from levels in 1990, clouding its prospects of meeting its Kyoto Protocol target, a newspaper said on Wednesday.
While emissions from industry are expected to fall by 9 percent, those from households are likely to rise 13-16 percent and from offices by 29-31 percent, the Nikkei business daily said, citing a government report due out this week.
The figures mean Japan's emissions are likely to rise 0.9-2.1 percent from 1990, requiring it to cut emissions by more than an additional 20 million tons to meet its Kyoto Protocol target, the newspaper said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUST9027220070808?rpc=92

This is just sooo ironic! :lmao:


By that you mean?

It was apparent a couple years ago that Japan would likely (not definitely) miss their targets based on domestic action alone. That miss was one of the uncertainties in CDM prices and availability. That's not really news.

It does make for cheap theatrics, though.

... I would think it is becasue Kyoto is in Japan.

Kaneeshiwaa

... I would think it is becasue Kyoto is in Japan.

Kaneeshiwaa

I'm hoping it's something funny involving Dion's dog but, yes, it is likely just the city thing. Dare to hope?

... I would think it is becasue Kyoto is in Japan.

Kaneeshiwaa

Bingo!

This is just sooo ironic! :lmao:

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 0.9 percent in the fiscal year ending in March 2011 from levels in 1990,
I wonder what by how much Alberta has increased its output... I'm sure that because of the oil sands "we" put most countries to shame by how much we are missing our targets...

I wonder what by how much Alberta has increased its output... I'm sure that because of the oil sands "we" put most countries to shame by how much we are missing our targets...

Matters not. At least "we" are honest enough to admit the impossible is impossible. "They" are just finding that out. ;)

Our efforts really matter not, unless everyone is on the same side.

Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?ex=1307678400en=e9ac1f6255a24fd8e i=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss)

Visible Earth: Eastern China Pollution (http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=1036)

We're worried about cleaning up gum wrappers while our neighbours are pumping raw sewage into the streets. May we shine by example! Sheesh!

Our efforts really matter not, unless everyone is on the same side.

Why does anyone think like this? It's like feeling justified stealing because you know others are doing the same. What a crock. Of course there's no use trying to reduce emissions to a target if we can't meet it...:rolleyes: What bullshit.

Our efforts really matter not, unless everyone is on the same side.

Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?ex=1307678400en=e9ac1f6255a24fd8e i=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss)

Visible Earth: Eastern China Pollution (http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=1036)

would be a great excuse to NOT allow Chinese made goods into Canada

perhaps those that join Kyoto could also agree to not purchase from those that don't join Kyoto and must meet some sort of benchmarks

i bet the board of directors of Wal*Mart don't like that idea...

i bet the board of directors of Wal*Mart don't like that idea...With the number of Wal Mart shoppers makes you wonder if people really care, either that or they blantently ignorant to what they do to manufacture their products.

Valorin, it's simple math, 4 billion people vs 36 million. If we miss our targets by a few years it's not going to make a difference, there is no use in us drastically affecting our economy to meet Kyoto. Doesn't mean we should stop trying, but maybe we should put more emphasis on recruitment.

Gee, I hope the people talking about global warming weren't using NASA date because they found a Y2K bug in the data.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.

DailyTech - Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm)

Gee, I hope the people talking about global warming weren't using NASA date because they found a Y2K bug in the data.



DailyTech - Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm)


So 1998 moves to second spot...
Unlike climate change deniers, some are ready to fix their errors...

The big picture does not change.