Kyoto and reducing emissions

This is in response to the news release I read about on CNN about Kyoto. It turns out that the only reason Kyoto's members are anywhere close to their goals is because of the staggering economic recession in Russia during the 90s (they still have yet to fully recover). In fact, the only countries that have reductions (besides Russia) are Sweden, France, Germany, and the UK. Oh, but it gets far, far worse...

Per capita emissions tell a very interesting story. Populations in Europe are decreasing or stagnant, while the US has population growth (almost entirely from emigration). So, even though France, Germany, and the UK can point to decreases of 2-6% in their emissions, how much of that is actually because of population loss compared to population growth in the rest of the world? Germany loses 0.2% of their population per year. France gains 0.4% per year. The UK comes in with 0.3% growth. Compare this with the 0.9% growth in the US.

So, the important information would be the per capita (in parenthesis is the tonnage of emissions per capita) increase or decrease in green house gas emissions (these numbers are from the IEA and include ALL greenhouse gases, not just CO2), which is as follows:
Luxemberg (22.99-24.9) ..............8.3% increase
Australia (26.17-26.11) ................0.2% decrease
United States (24.37-23.44)..........3.8% DECREASE
Canada (23.4-23.49).....................0.4% increase
New Zealand (18.5-19.44)............5% increase
Germany (12.36-12.33)................0.2% decrease
Denmark (13.15-14.07)................7% increase
France (9.44-9.26).......................1.9% decrease
Japan (10.52-10.49).....................0.3% decrease
Spain (9.32-9.8)...........................5.2% increase
UK (11.1-11.01)..........................0.8% decrease

Those are the numbers between 2000-2003. All of those countries went through an economic recession, but emission rates are not affected much by recession as the numbers are driven mostly by car emissions and home heating and cooling. So, the US is actually reducing emissions, it is just being obscured by population growth. So, as I have said before, regulations are less efficient at reducing emissions than incentives. So, the Bush administration made a good move on that (how'd that happen?!?) - but as usual, Bush is a bumbling idiot and can't explain what his rather brilliant advisors came up with when he is asked. Which brings up the question, "what does he actually do again?" - but that's a whole different topic.

In fact, emissions per capita in the US peaked in 1997 and have been decreasing steadily (with a slight rise in 2003-2004 of 0.18 tons per capita) ever since (2006 = 23.1 tons per capita). I had to run a prediction on the other GHGs to obtain the 2005 and 2006 data, since there was only CO2 information for those two years so far (the margin of error is 5 digits past the significant digits I show).

You might ask, "it doesn't matter, we have a long way to go to catch up with the low levels of those European countries." Well... France has 70% of their electricty coming from Nuclear Power, which I think people in the US would be somewhat opposed to. Moreover, France, the UK, and Spain all have significantly warmer climates than the US. Over 50% of the population of the US live in area with a 5 degree C colder average temperature than France and Spain is even warmer. This obviously does not excuse the gap, but it gives some explanation for how large it is.

But, the truly staggering problem is Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Some numbers that were over looked in the previous list:
Qatar 67.9
UAE 36.1
Kuwait 31.6

Despite the common perception, these are modern countries, with per capita GDPs equal to most Western Countries. Qatar, in fact has the third highest per capita GDP in the world (the US is 8th by the way). If you go with the adjusted, PPP, those three countries sit in the low $20k per capita with most Western European nations.

Then we get to China...
The IEA released another report last month stating that they were changing their predictions, China is now set to pass the US as the greatest contributor of greenhouse gases by the end of this year (2007). China has emissions increases of 9.3% PER YEAR - as in, they have doubled their emissions in the last 5 years. 2006-2007 was a 9.3% increase (China's National Bureau of Statistics). Now, it doesn't take too much effort to see a problem with this trend. If China doubles its emissions in the next 5 years, that will cause a 25% increase in GLOBAL emissions if everywhere else on the planet maintains the same emissions output (which is never going to happen considering countries like India are also increasing their output in a dramatic way as well).
In fact, China's 2005-2006 increase in GHGs was equal to 106% of France's TOTAL yearly output.
So, as nice as it is for France to do its part by reducing their country's emissions, it simply is not going to have any affect globally. The decrease in emissions that the US had in the same period of time was 12 times smaller than China's increase. The modern countries in the world are simply unable to counteract the increases of the developing world.

Hybrids won't help GM, Ford, or Chrysler

Hybrids aren't the answer. If you read research papers on the reasons people buy cars. Hybrids only target a rather small portion of the market. The problem world-wide for America's Big 3 has always been quality. Toyota's rise is directly linked to the significantly lower defect rate on their vehicles. Fuel efficiency tends to be in the middle or near the bottom in the lists of why people buy cars in the research papers I've read (depending on what vehicle category the research is done on). I can't link the research papers because they are on my school's online library, which is only available to students.

I will link some articles that may help you get an idea of why some companies are doing well, while others aren't.

First, quality:

So, who leads in the quality department for cars?
http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=iqs&story=iqsCar&referer=advice&aff=national
How about SUVs, where the American-based companies had staked so much research money?
http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&story=iqsTruck&subject=iqs&referer=advice&aff=national
The defect rates are the most telling though:
http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&story=iqsBrand&subject=iqs&referer=advice&aff=national

Toyota is the leader in almost each vehicle category. They lag in the SUVs and truck sales because power and looks tend to supplant quality for the number one spots (once again, depending on which category). However, Toyota has been working on that recently, so those categories, which tend to be much more profitable than cars, will start to see an erosion of the Big 3's market share in the near future.

The next is cost of production. The cost to build a vehicle for the Big 3 (in the US or outside) is higher than the cost for other companies.
http://www.ford.com/en/company/about/publicPolicy/manufacturing.htm
That's what Ford says about it. Specifically, look at this paragraph:
How much of an extra cost burden do U.S. manufacturers carry?

"The National Association of Manufacturers estimated that, when compared to its nine largest trading partners, the U.S. had a 18.3% cost disadvantage: 5.6% in corporate tax rates, 5.5% in employee benefits including health care and pension costs, 3.2% in litigation costs, 3.5% in pollution abatement costs, and 0.5% in rising natural gas prices. When the higher hourly labor costs of U.S. workers was factored in, the total net cost burden was calculated at 22.4%."

So, why do workers clamor for jobs in Toyota or Honda plants? Job security. They are paid a few dollars less per hour, but they don't care simply because they know they don't have to worry about being laid off next week, next month, or next year. Union negotiators do not work for the good of labor. Their primary focus is wages, because that's where they make their money, to the exclusion of many other issues that are important to the workers. If unions were nationalized, that would change their focus...

An amusing joke...

The coach had put together the perfect team for the Detroit Lions, save a great quarterback. He scouted all the colleges and even the Canadian and European Leagues without success.

Then one night on CNN he sees a war-zone scene in Afghanistan. In the background, he spots a young Afghan Muslim soldier with a truly incredible arm. He threw a hand-grenade straight into a window from 80 yards away. Then he threw another from 50 yards down a chimney, and then hit a passing car going 80 miles per hour.

So, the coach brings the young Afghan to the States and teaches him the great game of football. Sure enough, the Lions win the Super Bowl.

After the bowl, the elated quarterback telephones his mother: "Mom, I just won the Super Bowl!"

"I don't want to talk to you," the old Muslim woman says. "You deserted us. You are not my son!"

"Mother, I don't think you understand," pleads the son, "I've just won the greatest sporting event in the world!"

"No! let me tell you," his mother retorts. "At this very moment there are gunshots all around us. The neighborhood is a pile of rubble. Your two brothers were beaten within an inch of their lives last week, and I have to keep your sister in the house so she doesn't get raped!"

"I will never forgive you for making us move to Detroit".

Oddly, the comedians saw it but the politicians didn’t...

"And if the worst came to the worst, and you didn't get this money... what then?"
"Well, then there would be another market crash. Then I would say to you what people like me always say... that it is not us that will suffer, it is your pension fund."

Scary but true. It really brings up the question... why are we letting these guys run our investments? They take two dollars out of our pocket to give us a dollar and say "look what a good job I did! Better than market average!" That's nice until I want my two dollars back.