Is there any point in EU emissions reductions if the rest of the planet does not make reductions?

Question

If the fires of Borneo out-weigh the UK CO2 production, what point is there in trying to reduce emissions at all in the EU, with China and other countries unlikely to make changes?

Answer 1

Each and every emission reduction helps. The other countries or regions may follow.

"The grape sees the grape and ripes" is a saying.

Answer 2

I see your point, the EU reduces while everyone else pollutes like crazy. It is understandable that one would say the heck with it if they are gonna pollute we might as well. But you have to look at the big picture. The EU is not a developing countries. They are developed and have the technology to reduce emissions. Someone has to be the world leader and so far the EU is that leader and other countries will follow suit. The thing is with china and india they are JUST becoming industrialized so they are using old technology, dirty technology to get to where the EU is. IF China and India had scrubbers in their smoke stacks sulfur levels would be much lower.... So EU has to continue to reduce in all areas so that the rest of the world will follow suit. It may take time but in the end the reductions EU make now will help in the future...

Hope that helps

Answer 3

There are really two ways of looking at it. On one hand, any reduction in CO2 emissions is that much less that is going into the atmosphere. Additionally, developing and implementing ways to reduce emissions will lead to better control technologies and (ideally) positive lifestyle changes within a society. On the other hand, on a practical level, any reductions made by post-industrial societies are likely to be negated by increased emissions from developing nations, most of which are exempt from provisions of international emissions agreements, anyway. Many people argue that these exempt countries are entitled to economic development, just as the post-industrial societies are, which is correct. However, we have a great deal of technology to deal with the environmental impacts of rapid industrialization that we did not have during the industrial revolution. We also have much more knowledge about the effects of emissions, discharge effluent, and other by-products of industrialization that were simply not thought about in the past.

Personally, I think in the long run, efforts to reduce air emissions of all substances (not just so-called greenhouse gases) are beneficial, so long as they are done intelligently, rationally, and reasonably, and in a manner that will not unduly or disproportionately affect the economy of the country in question. International agreements should implement more market-based incentives, such as emissions trading and/or a credit-based system. The difficulty, in any case, is enforcement. Ultimately, though, fuels conserved will be consumed, and the volume of emissions saved at one point will eventually find its way into the atmosphere unless we, as the entire human race, decide to drastically change our lifestyle, which will be difficult.

Answer 4

The true target it that each country will be GHG neutral (emissions and green surface balance). UK, and EU in general, cann t have green surface enough to balance its emissions, therefore their target is reduction on pollution. China, India and most developing countries need growing industry to erase poverty and starvation, so, it is the opposite situation than developed areas, they can pollute a lot (China does, true) but they are focussed on preserving and enhancing their green surface to be GHG neutral, and they are doing it.

Emissions per habitant in those countries are just a very small part of emissions from USA and EU.

They have same right to a car than european or american citizens. They are doing much more than people in some developed countries with less money and while thay still have a urgent problem: get food for today.

I think it is more than reasonable what they are doing, i wish all developed countries would show same generous attitude than what they are showing.

I am proud to be european, i am proud that EU is doing its best, i wish that we would do even more, regardless of what other areas do.

Answer 5

There is none , but u are chasing the wrong problem. When I went to school the teacher taught about photosynthesis . Mother nature introduced plants a few million years ago. The plants take in CO2 and jeep's the C and gives us back the O2. Where do u think our original fossil fuels came from. That little plant holds the secrete in that C that it kept. This CO2 accelerates the growth of the plants as the process provides more food for the plant's. Then winter comes and the leaves fall off and wash down to the delta,where it decomposes into Gas, Oil ,and Coal.

Answer 6

There are a couple of sides to this.
1) The government has to be seen to be doing something about bad emmissions.
2) Not really no. Even if most of the world does stop emmissions, the damage has already been done and it has been generally accepted by scientists that whatever we do now is too little too late.
The same is of the white fish populatiions in the North sea. They will never recover whatever we do.
A bit sombre really.

Answer 7

Of course it makes a difference. There is the old adage that every little bit helps. If they can cut down 2% of the overall greenhouse gases it would be noticeable.

At the same time they can be a positive example to other countries. Maybe it will be a sign to other countries that it is their turn to pitch in.

Answer 8

Well as they say every little helps. It's a step in the right direction at least and it's an example to the others that we at least are taking some responsibility before it's too late.

Answer 9

It's a start, a small step in the right direction. We can't go about lecturing everyone else if we're not doing our bit, even if we are only responsible for 2% of the problem.

Answer 10

To be honest, no. unless our actions persuade people like China and America to do something!