Delegates at U.N. climate talks in Bali are discussing whether rich nations should be guided by a need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020 below 1990 levels.
The range is in a draft text that lays out a “roadmap” for what the United Nations hopes will be two years or negotiations on a new treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.
The United States says that it’s wrong to include such a range, even if it’s non-binding, arguing the whole point of two years of negotiations is to decide on the details (…and President George W. Bush will leave the White House halfway through in January 2009, so he may not have to take the hard decisions).
And, judging by far from stellar performances by most parties to the Kyoto Protocol (which requires 5 percent cuts below 1990 by 2008-12), a cut of 25 to 40 percent by 2020 sounds wildly optimistic.
Is it?
Trackback
16 comments so far
Global Warming Effort Destroys Economy? Bull!
Why do we listen to this bull about the effort to reduce global warming as a destroyer of jobs? It seems to me that the opposite would be true - developing new technologies, manufacturing, distributing, and servicing comprise a whole new sector of the economy.
- Posted by bobgilRemember our fears in the late 80’s and early 90’s about computers taking the place of humans and causing mass unemployement? Instead we got a massive new industrial sector employing millions worldwide. The same thing would happen here.
Stopping global warming should be embraced as the great new economic engine.
It is very unlikely that mankind will cut their emissions so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming is avoided. The IEA estimated that emissions would grow more than 50% by 2030. In particular, Asia (which is home to over half the people in the world) has a very low per capita carbon footprint already, and is expected to continue rapidly growing both their economies and their emissions. Also, by 2030 it is estimated that nature will reduce the amount of CO2 it removes from the air by 1/3.
Instead, any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing the CO2 from the air-I suggest the low cost method of “biosequestration,” although there is a practical mechancial method of removing CO2 from sea water.
- Posted by Brad Arnoldbobgil said:
“Global Warming Effort Destroys Economy? Bull!
Why do we listen to this bull about the effort to reduce global warming as a destroyer of jobs? It seems to me that the opposite would be true - developing new technologies, manufacturing, distributing, and servicing comprise a whole new sector of the economy.
Remember our fears in the late 80’s and early 90’s about computers taking the place of humans and causing mass unemployement? Instead we got a massive new industrial sector employing millions worldwide. The same thing would happen here.
Stopping global warming should be embraced as the great new economic engine.”
————————
I just read today an official in Briton said that “ALL” of Great Britain’s electricty could be produced with wind-generating mills of the coast.
But what happens then, when the winds don’t blow and the sun don’t shine?
Do we all go home and sit in our cold dark homes?
Maybe if we all stopped breathing, it would be a solution to the worlds over-population?
Let’s cut the hyperbolizing.
.
- Posted by KTWhy can’t anyone (except China), realize that 90% of our planet’s problems, are caused by ONE thing…OVERPOPULATION!
- Posted by JCIf we would start TODAY, to reduce this planet’s population, generations of the future, may have a chance.
Instead, all I hear and see, are the exact opposite! Example: Everytime I hear a Politician speak, I get the same old song and dance!
“I want to help FAMILIES! I want to do more to help FAMILIES in America”! Translation: I want to help the people, who are putting the MOST burdon, on the system, at the expense of the people, who are putting the LEAST burdon on the system!!
You NEVER hear a Politician say, I want to help Single, Working-Class People, with NO CHILDREN!
Why is that? Because they know, if they help “FAMILIES”, they’re going to get TWO votes on Election Day! If they help Single, Working-Class People, with NO CHILDREN, they’re only going to get ONE vote!
The US has no reason or cause to listen to what the UN wants. They don’t govern us.
- Posted by MarkI have an idea, why doesn’t the USA lead by example for something other than war? I truly believe that if the USA and its allies would lead by example, other nations would follow. We have the technology to cut emmissions, what we have to do is get rid of the damn lobbyist and maybe some work can get done. Americans will have to also sacrifice, and I don’t mean downgrading on from a 52 inch to a 48 inch screen tv.
- Posted by Abel“Global Warming Effort Destroys Economy? Bull!
Well the problem is that a graph of GDP growth and Fossil fuel use shows that the two are joined at the hip. It is the holy grail, to achieve one without the other, so far the World hasn’t found a way and there is no gaurantee that there is one. Certainly not in a way we can transition to from where we are now without a global slump first, nor in any timescale that can save the world.
“I just read today an official in Briton said that “ALL” of Great Britain’s electricty could be produced with wind-generating mills of the coast.
But what happens then, when the winds don’t blow and the sun don’t shine?”
People seem to make this argument as a way of saying there is no point in having wind power because you will still need the gas fired power stations. It is just the same as having a car but USING it much less, wind power is a very real part of the solution to our emmissions problem. The only real argument against windmills is that some people don’t like the look of them, the alternatives however are far worse. They are allowed their opinion of course, I wish they wouldn’t try to dress it up as something else other than nimbyism.
Tim..
- Posted by Tim“Do we all go home and sit in our cold dark homes?
Maybe if we all stopped breathing, it would be a solution to the worlds over-population?”
I used to worry a great deal about this when looking over and over at my carbon footprint…you inevitably conclude that the only way is to die but then if you look at the amount of energy the Sun provides you soon realise that, and I am 100% certain of this, the planet CAN support us all (although population growth cannot go on forever) but we must learn to live SUSTAINABLY.
Don’t get depressed and think it’s all pointless just live sustainably and help others to do so too.
- Posted by TimEnough of the naive anti-american cynicism! The USA is not the problem. While an attempt to drastically reduce CO2 emissions may or may not be an economy-wrecker, and whether or not there is a surfeit of humanity on earth, the fact is that simple water vapor, i.e. clouds, is by far the most abundant “greenhouse gas”. CO2 and particulates are a tiny and insignificant fraction of the greenhouse gasses, and the vast majority of it is naturally occurring. Let’s be real: a program to reduce fossil fuel usage would not benefit the climate - it would however, benefit the nuclear power industry, the ethanol producers, solar panel manufacturers, and so on, not to mention the big government bureaucracies which would be put in place to regulate and oversee us. Climate change is naturally cyclical, and there is no incontrovertible proof whatsoever that human activity is having any effect on it. whatsoever on it. America will not be led by the nose down this path of folly.
- Posted by CristiThere is no incontravertible truth that there isn’t a teapot orbiting the sun inside the asteroid belt either, but it is about as likely as your story.
Tim.
- Posted by timA teapot in outer space is scarcely analogous to my statements of incontrovertible scientific fact. It is perhaps more so with regard to the highly flawed projections and speculative arguments put forth by the climate change alarmists and their True Believers. CO2 levels are driven by global temperature (with a lag of approximately 800 years) and not the other way around, as asserted by Al Gore and some others. This has been shown by ice core samples. May I also point out that Greenlands ice sheet, which appears to be melting gradually at this time, did not exist 1000 years ago. This has been shown by both the historical and archaeological records. The ice mass which carved Yosemite Valley, just a few miles from my home, vanished during a global warming phase millenia ago. Facts, not speculation about teapots.
- Posted by CristiFortune-CNN Money recently reported on eleven new companies planning to offer highway-capable electric vehicles (EVs) in the US within a few years.
EVs can reduce US air pollution by 40%, free us from Mid-east oil and let us drive trouble-free for three cents per mile.
I find it humorous that most corporate news groups still cannot seem to pick up on EVs. Even the environmental groups’ attention seems to be diverted from EVs’ virtues by massive corporate sponsorship.
I am a member of the Florida chapter of the Electric Auto Association and mantain an informational guest blog on EVWorld.com.
- Posted by Hugh E WebberRechargeable battery powered vehicles are far too expensive, inefficient and wasteful to be practical, and are not “pollution free”, as they depend upon electricity generated primarily by fossil fuels, which are used far more efficiently by internal-combustion powered vehicles. In addition to their inherent inefficiency, the very expensive batteries themselves are evironmentally toxic and need replacing every year or so, which fact is merely glossed over by EV proponents. Unless and until clean and relatively cheap nuclear power is exploited in the US, EV’s will remain science fiction, and even then the battery toxicity problem remains to be solved.
- Posted by CristiThe USA is moving in all the right directions. Every year, more and more hybrid cars will come on the market; more and more non-hybrid cars that are ULEVs or PZEVs are being made; more and more energy will be produced by renewable methods; more and more people will do the small things like using compact fluorescent bulbs that add up to big CO2 reductions. It’s China, India, and the rest of the developing world that we have to worry about.
- Posted by chris ferroChina, India and the rest of the developing world is to worry about?
Do you realize US has one of the highest CO2 footprint by citizen in the world? And is not willing to help on the CO2 reduction!?
Is it a birth-US-right to pollute? Why can’t China, India and other developing countries pollute as much as US do, so they raise their GDP? Get real… you used to run the world economics, not anymore! Weak dollar, weak economy and unsustainable growth, expensive oil dependence. Can you add up?
Sitting in the top of the world, “H”-eating it like obese children, and pushing others away from the cake. Sounds hypocrite and selfish.
And Cristi I truly doubt your “scientifically” research. By far, the changes seen in the last years - droughts, desertification, ice melting, hurricanes, temperature rising - don’t fit regular and natural climate change patterns, and mostly don’t allow a natural adaptation for species. So take another master in science, to figure out the new variable in the system - Human activity: High emissions, Low concerns.
EU keeps pushing for harder targets, taking the lead and at the same time, developing new tech and resources. Creating jobs, awakening awareness and turning it in environmental and economic profit.
Will US be the last in this race? Can you compete with countries, using half the energy to put out the same ice-cream cone? And investing and using renewable and increasingly cheaper energy, compared to the $100 and rising, oil? Even though the €/$ makes it cheaper for Europe (1Eur=$1,47535)!!
About the EV’s, your questions fail, since you assume it as to be “fed” by gas, coal or oil driven power plants. Again disregarding alternatives resources: Wind, Sun, Hidro, Geothermal, organic generate gas, sea generate power.
As an example, Europe is developing new glass and carbon compounds and structures, to produce e.g. a bus, that weights less 2 metric tonnes than a regular one. This bus will be cheaper to produce, more efficient in the consumption, lighter and therefore, less polluting. If you operated a bus fleet back in the US or any place in the world, and could cut the gas bill by 12%, would you buy the US more expensive, less efficient and heavier and more polluting version, or the European, cheaper, more efficient, lighter and less polluting version? Where will the Economic-Ecological profits and jobs go to? Go figure.
In the last 8 years, the billions invested in a stupid, meaningless war, with tragic human results and yet to solve growing issues, that created a huge pre-nuclear Xiit region, doesn’t this makes you guys humble?
Can’t you realize you’re fighting the wrong war? Environment, welfare, job creation, healthier money distribution, starvation, human rights, Education…
Keep the pace, set new goals! It’s a challenge an opportunity, not a threat, like the moon or mars, but more earthly and close to you!
Take care and be aware!
- Posted by ricardoRicardo
I been thinking more about the idea around more people doing more of their job at their homes in America , and it just makes awesome good Sense as a Alternative to driving to a job site everyday , if they did not have to , because alot of what some people do at a work site could be done at their homes !!!!
There are so many people that could do the same things at their home as what they do at a Corporate headquarters , or at least part of their work week could be done at home , so this trend would take a large amount of the drivers off the roads more during the weeks , that this would cut gas consumption down so big that it would give you and the Government the needed Effects to bring gas prices down overall, cut emissions way down , make people a whole bunch happier .
Take a Look at the Internet program by Microsoft called Go-to-Meeting . I am sure you have heard of it , bt just Imagine how this type of tool could be used more for Corporate functions to take place with the same people that are at their homes rather than at the Corporate headquarters everyday of the work week ??? the more of this type of practice going on , the less driving to work people do , and the less gas is consumed , and the less car Expense a Person is going to have overall , this could sve people 500 dollars a Month just in gas costs , let alone the life of the cars Tires , and all the parts . It just makes good sense .
Also it makes the idea of trying to pay for Mass Transit less of a worry , because it won’t be needed as rapidly , so thats a good thing too . More Money left in peoples pockets , so they can pay bills , afford healthcare , , healthcare will going down because people will be driving less and do less stressful harm on their bodies , because of Road Rage , everyone will be more productive overall , and actually I bet people will end up being more creative and more innovation will be developed and advance quality of Life as a result of such a program . , I bet the Money I will save in my gas Bill on it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Why not America work from Home , with all the Technology out there in Encrypted secured server technologies , and the advancement in this field of Enterprise , barrack , think of the Benefits this would unleash , to the Environment alone it would be HUGE !!!!!!!!!!!!! , take all those people that drive to work everyday , I bet you could cut the Movement in half , certainly if technology plays into this trend , and puts the Virtual sense of Corporate Function , together with how people interact with security measures being a part of the overall function to be able to predict the process , so that Solvency could be maintained , but it certainly could work if properly implemented . What great Importance to Climate change , this could have as you actually reduce the Movement of transportation , and everyone would Love the Concept , I don’t know anyone who would not like the idea of Getting up to go to work in the other part of the house rather than a hour commute ??? Think about this , it would be good for moral , better work performance would be achieved , the tax payers money would be better served to the benefit of all if this trend was developed , The Corporate World will benefit , with these types of trends , they will not need to house the Workforce , and stand all the costs and liabilities , think how this will effect the Futures markets of tomorrow ????
The time is now for this kind of Change . and people can still have there freedoms to do the Things that matter , be with family more . What if you could shift 20-30 percent of the people into this type of a position ?? do the math on Fuel consumption alone , 30 million cars consuming 6 gallons of fuel a day , that’s better than 10 % fuel use reduction a day , and everyone effected will be happy for the change to boot , Do we have a President ready to lead this idea forward or what man ?!?!?!?! , man and if Technology can advance on this concept , you might even be able to see up to 40 or even 50 % of the work force shift to a Work from centers closer to their homes as a result of not really needing to be ” On Site ” to do work for a Industry .
This trend could be used around the world as well , and slow the demand on Energy as a whole too . The Independent concept of this could also be a benefiting factor in how , Alternative energy could be brought into the homes of the worker working out of the their homes as independent Employees and the tax benefits associated with such a idea to help a Worker put in cost cutting Energy technologies to help run their office and home , this would be a Awesome way to advance the energy grind , and Corporate structure to be able to provide a greater benefit of wealth redistribution , because of the dynamic this trend would provide .
- Posted by TonyThis trend of changing the way people move to and from work , along with the other methods if adopted by the nations of the world could alter the us of fossil fuels tremendously in a relatively short period of time , especially with the altering of workers that commute to and from work , if they can do their jobs from the home more even in a 3 days out of the work week senario .
The Work from Home theory works good for the single parents , and Tax credits to Companies that promote these businesses to adopt such practice to lower carbon emissions is good business for the environment , and good for oil prices , and… National Security , , and don’t forget the rest of the world could divert portions of their work force to adopt a flexible strategy like this too , to lower the fuel usage , and emissions , and make better a single parent child care issues , or double income families , there are I bet one of the parents job duties that could be done at home on a large scale that would put more children back in the care of at least one of the parents .