WHY #COP15 Danish Accord FAILED? TRANSPARENCY PART 3

http://bit.ly/7XwAG

WHY #COP15 Danish Accord FAILED? The devil was in the details.

PART 3 TRANSPARENCY

Comparing the DANISH ACCORD with the OBAMA BASIC Deal

MANIPULATING EMISSION TRANSPARENCY.


THE KYOTO PACT

Twelve years ago in 1997 the Kyoto Deal at the 3rd COP conference was enacted under pressure from environmentalists by economists and scientists who obviously did not understand too much of how to control it or even measure it. The flaws of the Kyoto pact have been already discussed in detail in our extremely popular presentations at Slide Share during October 2009
COP15 : Gassing 15 Years on Carbon Economy http://bit.ly/4kzzIz .

One of the primary reasons why the U.S. has not signed the treaty is because the oil and coal lobbies within the U.S. who designed the details of Cap and Trade the principal mechanism of curbing emissions in the Kyoto pact had designed it as a booby trap for the environmentalists and regulators. Most of the very learned men, who have not worked in the energy sector directly, the economists and the scientists who swear by Cap and Trade even today are not aware of how difficult it is to control and monitor carbon emissions from thousands of independent small sources strewn across the country side as they do not have any practical industry experience.

It is only after 12 years of development that the EU is realising that it has burnt its fingers with the faulty EU ETS scheme (modified thrice), and is struggling with the ballooning Cap and trade frauds . It is also realising that its Carbon Cap solutions are failing and it has invested huge amounts of the tax-payers money into a complex architecture that has entrapped it instead of liberating it from emissions.. But instead of graciously admitting the problems of implementation and missed carbon emission targets, they are hurriedly trying to dump the Kyoto pact, and talk of controlling GHG Emissions, an issue well beyond their understanding and technological capability.

Carbon was the easiest of the gasses to monitor and control and the G7 had more than a decade (1997-2009) to study and control Carbon emissions.
Without achieving success on that front the G7 today wants to focus on GHG emission control which comprises of many gasses and is far more complex and cannot be measured or controlled effectively with the available technology How transparent would that be ? Let us examine why are we stating that the EU ETS Scheme for carbon emission reduction was neither successful nor transparent :


WHY EU COULD NOT CONTROL CARBON EMISSIONS AS PER KYOTO


INADEQUACY OF EU ETS SCHEME

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) was the worlds first International trading system for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and was designed to help EU meet its obligation under the Kyoto Protocol. It covered more than 10,000 energy intensive facilities mostly utilities, steel plants and other high emission industries producing energy over 20 MW. It involved the creation of an very elaborate mechanism to spread out across the 27 EU Member countries across the length and breath of Europe. However its principal drawback is that it still covered entities that account for only about 45% of the EU’s carbon dioxide emissions. leaving more than half the emissions untouched and unaccounted for. So even if Europe had achieved a drop of 5 % in emissions as per Kyoto in the measured emissions, the overall emissions during 1997 – 2020 could have actually gone up. Hence EU-ETS emission capping scheme as per Kyoto was inadequate. It was at best a less than half hearted attempts at controlling emission. However EU was not transparent about this inadequacy and claimed that it was doing its best to reduce emissions. This detail is buried well and truly in the Government documents like http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/change_energy/tackling_clima/emissions/eu_ets/phase_II/phase_II.aspx

EMISSIONS RISE IN MAJOR EU INDUSTRIAL POWERS

Most of the major EU nations like Britain, Germany, France, Finland, Belgium and Switzerland actually saw a sharp rise in emissions during the period 1990-2007 .. Only Norway, Spain and Portugal were the nations who took emission control seriously and invested large amounts of resources to developing renewable energy.The details of countrywise emission as per the Norwegian institute of Science and Technology shows that the Pole positions in per capita Emission as well as emission rise were taken by U.S. Australia and Canada folowed by these EU nations.http://bit.ly/XUrUd

This increase in emission rise would have made the EU look far worse than todays figures had not the East European powers joined EU at a later date.The Joining of the failed East block economies was a boon in disguise for the EU .

While Countries like Bulgaria were alloted 67.6 MMT CO2 E and Czech Republic were allocated 101.7 MMT Co2 units by the UNFCC as per Kyoto the EU showed it had reduced these quotas to 40.6 and 82.4 respectively, when the reason for emission drop was the industry collapse in East Europe. That surely was no transperancy

There is no doubt that it is important that China must be transparent on emission measurement, but the question is will it given the record of other nations and lack of accurate measurement and control technology of over 50,000 units in China and India geographically spread out and not modernised to enough incorporate the same