And its you who miss the point.  You are bitching about the chinese, when the US are even worse culprits. Start cleaning your own backyard, then you can bitch about others.  Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree ...

THE EU is doing more than the US, definately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto36-2005.png

Clearly we see that Kyoto protocol is indeed working.

Read again:

Look here (at figure 79):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html

US emmissions increases 4 time as much as the european - and the US has already by far exceed any european country in the per capita emmissions.

These are OECD data posted at a US government site. Your statistics are propagandist bullshit.

The link I was posted was published in 2007. There are no more recent global statistics that can be used to compare different countries.

Clear facts shows that the US emissions grows 3-4 times as fast as those of Europe,
and the US keeps on with an attitude to climate change similar to that to be expected from a thirld world country.

Source your statistics. They appear to be pure bullshit.

Source your bullshit statistics ...

Here is the one everyone else is using, however it does not look very flattering for the US.
Again the US comes up almost on top as the main polluter and as the worst per-capita polluter.

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/

At the same time your moronic "President" actively tries to undermine other countries efforts by badmouthing the Kyoto agreement.

The only reason the US didnt ratify Kyoto, was that your administrations is just as selfish, ignorant and evil as you are, dickhead ...

You are really quite redicolous you know ....

And are you really serious about stating month-to-month numbers (that you so far failed to source)
when talking about greenhouse gases - then you are really lacking the very most basic understanding of the climate issues. At least you seems to stand behind your corrupt goverment - rofl:

In recent official statements, Washington has indicated it might be looking for a compromise during negotiations in Bali for a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. But sources say the White House is discreetly searching for partners in Beijing and Dehli to derail the prospects for any binding agreements to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,521153,00.html

Sleeping with the Enemy, huh ?

Of course you can draw erroneous conclusions if you focus on just one outlier in the statistics.

US report you linked:
http://engineers.ihs.com/news/eia-greenhouse-gas.htm
Emissions of CO2 from energy consumption and industrial processes, which had risen at an average annual rate of 1.2% per year from 1990 to 2005, declined by 1.8% in 2006. The decline in CO2 emissions from 2005 to 2006 can be attributed to a one-half percent decline in overall energy demand and a decrease in the carbon intensity of electricity generation, said EIA.


You just by chance forgot to mention that the Co2 emmisions have been steady growing with and average 1.2% since 1990. The reduction in energy demand is due to that the banana-republic economy of the US is collapsing and not because of changes in energy policy, dumbass.

The European reports states that the European growth has been an average 0.4 %.

This is completely consistent with the figures I posted before.

Again the US does not only emit 4-5 times CO2 more per capita than the EU, but also has also during the last 15-20 years sported 3 time faster growth.

See, the European energy policy is working and the absence of a us Energy policy is not.

And i'm not angry - I havent had this much fun since reading Ahknatens posts on the "Japanese invasion of Tibet" ....

Energy-policy wise the US is a third world country, give it another year you will also be there economically ... rofl ...

Silly, nonsense of a response.  The fact is that few (any?) of the Kyoto signatory countries have brought down emissions.  In fact, the EU is INCREASING their greenhouse gas emissions despite their commitments, pledges and agreements to make reductions based on the 1990 levels.  The US, on the other hand, without binding itself to Kyoto, has in fact, through its efforts DECREASED its emissions.  That is undeniable, and in fact, you concede that point.  Your only remaining point is based on per capita emissions.  So what?  That's not what I was arguing.  My argument is that the US efforts are successful in the absence of a Kyoto framework - while people the Kyoto countries continue to fail and INCREASE their emissions.  That is hypocritical.

Again, you fail to rebut anything that I've said.  I'm not making a statement one way or the other on past pollution or per capita emissions.  I'm stating that the US emissions are decreasing and EU emissions are increasing - all in light of Kyoto.  You've failed to reply to that point, well, because you can't.  It's true.

You still are cute when you fume though.  It's comical, really.  But thanks for playing along.  You've been a good sport.

By the way here is what Greenpeace has to say about the US energy policy:

I hope you are enjoying your position together with countries like Ethiopia and Zimbabwe as the only industrialized countries failing to ratify Kyoto 


US trying to destroy international efforts to save the climate
Posted by tracy on 13 December 2007.

Our colleagues have been leaked information from a meeting in Bali tonight – the US is trying to destroy international efforts to tackle climate change. They are trying to insert text into the Kyoto Protocol that would make emissions cuts voluntary – as opposed to the current mandatory cuts.

The proposed US text includes the words ‘as appropriate’ and ‘may’ in reference to emissions cuts and is being presented to a meeting of the Friends of the President in Bali tonight. Here it is:

(b) enhanced action on mitigation of climate change, and the means to recognise such action, in the context of sustainable development, including, inter alia, consideration of:

(i) effective, measurable and reportable domestic mitigation actions, [depending on the level of economic development and significance] [ depending on the level of economic development and GHG contributions][depending on the level of economic development and energy utilisation][in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and responsive capabilities]:

(a) including, as appropriate, quantified national emission limitation and reduction objectives, taking into account national circumstances and relative level of efforts;

(b) including, as appropriate, domestic plans and measures that may include binding, market-based and sectoral programs; and

(c) supported, as appropriate, by external technology, financing and capacity building.

If the United States succeeds tonight, the post-2012 agreement will allow any nation to opt out and continue to pollute with abandon.

As Al Gore said today at the Bali meeting: "My own country, the United States is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali. We all know that. But my country is not the only one that can take steps to ensure that we move forward from Bali with progress and with hope."

If they get this text through the conference then the next treaty won’t be worth the paper it’s written on because it will give a free pass to any nation that wants to keep polluting. It is time for all other nations in Bali to ignore attempts by the US to dismantle efforts to save the climate.

No I don't need another go. Your point has already been thrashed ...

Here is another set of statistics showing that the US are worst polluters in the world:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2008_data.htm#fig2