Well that list is growing.
Canada is among those countries most likely to run into difficulty implementing its commitments, as in 2003 the country had increased its emissions by 24.2 pct from the base 1990 level, far from its 2012 target of a 6 pct reduction.
Japan, meanwhile, recorded a 12.8 pct increase over the 13 years to 2003 and is headed for an increase of 12 pct by 2010 instead of the intended 6 pct reduction.
And although the 15-member European Union, which ratified the treaty en bloc in 1997, achieved a reduction of 1.4 pct in emissions from 1990 to 2003 -- it is still a long way from the 8 pct target in 2012 -- most of the 15 countries have seen emissions increasing.
Now this measures the Emissions in their countries... not whats in the atmosphere but what they put out. Now ee know ALGORE called this one of the great tragedies of our time and it does seem to be....... just not for those of us who didn't want the treaty ratified.
For us in the camp of enviroskepticism this seems a proof we were indeed right.
but why has all this happened here is a thought
On Tuesday, Inhofe issued a statement from Capitol Hill that noted how scientists with independent views don't get on too well with the IPCC. Witness Chris Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who resigned from the IPCC this year because he believed an IPCC top hurricane scientist wrongly linked severe hurricanes to global warming; as a result, he wrote, "the IPCC process has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost."
Neutrality I think is more of a phantasm