The chart below is a chart of CO2 emissions vs. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Many in Europe falsely accuse George W. Bush of "killing" the Kyoto accords. In actuality, the Kyoto accords died in the United States in 1998.  They don't have a chance to pass in the United States no matter who is President because the Kyoto accords are, basically, a joke.

Now, if you're not familiar with the Kyoto accords (most Americans who argue for it probably have never looked at it) let me give you a primer: The accords are designed so that countries will reduce the amount of green house gas to be 5% less than they were in 1990 (which I've highlighted).

Data Source: IEA CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion
Data Provider: International Energy Agency
 

The first issue Americans have is the arbitrary choice of year -- 1990.  In 1990, the United States was in the midst of an economic boom while many nations in Europe (notably France) were suffering a relative economic slowdown.  Why 1990?

The second problem has to do with reporting. How accurate are reportings on CO2 emissions? I suspect they are very accurate in most western European nations, Japan, and the United States.  But look at the countries that they have. How do they measure Angola?

The third problem has to do with the one size fits all solution. It's a helluva lot easier for say France to lower its emissions. Just tighter controls on its remaining factories.  The United States, however, is a relatively sparsely populated nation spanning a continent. Much of the CO2 emissions in the United States are from cars. How exactly is the US supposed to solve that? Smaller cars? Small cars are nice in urban environments. But most of the driving takes place outside the cities in the suburbs and changing that reality isn't doable or practical or even necessarily desirable. And people driving significant distances to work are not likely to tolerate doing it in tiny cars to satisfy some European politicans who have decided that CO2 emissions are going to cause global warming (when I was a kid, it was global cooling that was all the rage).

The fourth problem is related to the third, different industries have different requirements and difficulties to reduce CO2 emissions.  The American power production grid is largely coal based. France's, being controlled by the government, is largely nuclear. I would love to see the US move to nuclear power for power generation but the same people who want Kyoto are usually the same people protesting against nuclear power plants.  And France is transitioned to being a post-industrial nation. Do they still have factories in Paris?

The biggest problem, however, has to do with economics. If times are good, emissions go up. Many Americans see the Kyoto accords as a cynical attempt to try to slow down the US economy.

What Bush and many Americans have supported is the idea of trying to tie emissions to GDP.  That is, become more efficient at power generation.

Interpreting the table

There's a lot of countries on that table so let's get to the bottom line here.

The United States went from 1191 (1972) to 650 (1999).  So the United States has greatly improved its efficiency in power.  Instead of tarring and feathering the United States, people should be pleased that the US (and the world in general) has gotten so much better at using energy more efficiently.

Other countries who are roughly the same as the United States (or worse) include Canada, Romania, Australia, China, Cuba, Poland, (heck pretty much all of eastern Europe).

The former Soviet Union is at 1530.5.  Think about that. That's worse than the United States was in 1972. Anyone who's visited Moscow can tell you the air conditions there.

The worst country, btw, was Iraq at 2816. You'd think that the Euroleft would be glad to see the US take out the world's worst polluter per GDP.

But really, the numbers show another trend - countries that produce energy have high emissions. Hence, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. have high emissions. And it's not commonly known but do you know which country produces the most energy each year? It's not Saudi Arabia. It's the United States. It's just that we consume so much that we still have to import. But think about that, despite producing more energy each year than any of the countries in the middle east we still have a remarkably low emissions per GDP.

If you have any doubt about the correlation between energy production (oil refining) and emissions, Egypt, which is quite close to Saudi Arabia, has an emissions ratio of 529. That's less than one fifth that of most of the oil producing states in the middle east.

And btw, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, and others who produce virtually no energy are not significantly better than the United States. The USA is around 650, Germany is at 444. That's 200 units difference. When you take into account that they are relatively small countries that don't have the massive automobile use of the US and Canada and don't refine their own fuel, they are actually remarkably inefficient. They should actually be much lower than that considering their relatively ideal conditions. And don't forget the emissions in the United States from having to transport goods across the continent (such as the food many Europeans eat).

BTW, Ethiopia is at only 75.9. Are they who we should be striving to emulate?

To all but the most hard headed, it should be clear why the Kyoto accords were always unworkable. It was a simplistic solution to a complex problem. And besides, that, it's really hard to take France and Belgium and other Europeans terribly seriously about environmental issues when they are just now phasing out leaded gasoline (want to talk really nasty stuff).

The US senate, in 1998, did the right thing by voting a resolution (unanimously) making it clear that these flawed, simplistic protocols would never be welcome here. On top of all this, there's the basic issue that odds are, Kyoto is meaningless when it comes to the environment. CO2 emissions going back to 1990 levels may (and in my opinion would) do nothing to affect the weather either way. The in the 70s climate models showed global cooling. Now we hear about global warming. In reality, we don't know and we also don't really know whether we produce enough CO2 to make that kind of effect. But that's a different discussion enitrely.

When Kyoto's advocates are ready for taking a stab at serious environment resolutions the US will be waiting. But having Europeans trying to take the high ground on environmental issues is like having a vegetarian chain smoker trying to take the high ground on health issues over a non-smoker who happens to eat red meat.