Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by IntheNet, Dec 22, 2008.
Either that or he's McOwen's sock
The hysteria over global warming does seemed to have cooled off lately. I haven't read an article saying that civilization only has 10 years left in a good 3 months.
Maybe it's because you let your subscription to Strawman Digest lapse.
No, it's because Drudge hasn't had a story like that in a while.
He must be slacking for the holidays.
At Poznan, the EU committed to huge huge cuts in carbon reduction: reduce emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, with a view to considering a reduction to 30% below 1990 levels if a sufficient agreement is reached in Copanhagen next year. China proposed a massive $600B "green infrastructure" investment. Indonesia and Brazil have proposed a substantial program to curb deforestation.
The one country that the world is now looking at before making further commitments is, of course, the US. You can expect the Obama administration to be very very busy domestically and internationally in the first six months of his presidency.
And to those Republicans (not saying this to you necessarily Danny) that love to tout this as a partisan issue, I ask you to wake up, be objective, read the real science (not junk or corporate science) and realize that climate change is about as partisan as gravity.
By the way...to be accurate, the correct term is "climate change" not "global warming" because since overall global temps are rising, local conditions can be widely variable..drought, floods, cold, heat, etc. In fact most climate models predict that "wierd weather" is a typical outcome in a +1 C world (i.e. today).
He's not McOwen's sock.
I know, McOwen would rather be tarred and feathered than hang around these parts.
Fact: The earth's temperature increased by .6 degrees C over the 20th Century (IPCC).
Fact: We have very little understanding as to how much we've contributed to the climate change.
Fact: Given our lack of knowledge, it would be better to error on the side of caution.
Erring on the side of caution actually means working to curb carbon emissions etc.
The "greenhouse gas" effect is actually a relatively old (mid-1800's) concept that is easily re-created in laboratory settings. Since CO2 levels are fairly straightforward to monitor, some would say we actually have a great deal confidence that carbon emissions have pushed up global temperatures. And by looking at projected population growth and economic expansion it's also not a huge leap to then connect atmospheric carbon with projected temperature increases.
It's the details that get fuzzy: will Tanzania get more rain or turn into the Sahara? Will the methane stored in arctic soils be released at +3C or +6C? Will reducing carbon emissions by 50% by 2050 stop the train we have unleashed or just slow it down?
Of course, the EU is being accused of not taking a leadership role. It's all fine and dandy to have taken such a role during the Kyoto Accord. Of course, they had to accept nations into the fold that will be the EU's main focus, even if the orginal members haven't cleaned up their own acts.
As for China, Indonesia, and Brazil, they need to actually show that they are willing to commit to such acts. Not just to pay lip service.
All true. Now comes the hard part.
But the kinds of goals layed out at Poznan are far more ambitious than Kyoto which, I think, shows increased understanding of the scope of the problem at the highest levels of government.
Kyoto's goals were themselves considered to be ambitious. Especially considering that the goals would fall on industrialized countries. The resistance was that in the early stages was over that countries such as Mexico and China were exempt. Hardly gave the view that this was a broad international consensus.
The EU was in a better position to meet its targets thanks to Nuclear power, on which it wasn't as squeamish as the US or Canada was. The Eastern European countries and Russia came to their goals because of economic restructuring, not on actual cutbacks. Now, you have new members in the EU that rely more on coal than the west does. This has been the main sticking point for the EU in their negotiations. It would be even more difficult now since the EU will have to spend billions more, and now without the nuclear guarantee. Lithuania recently decided to keep open one of it's Soviet-era generators, even though they told the EU it would be decommissioned.
You also have to deal with unexpected domestic issues. The Liberal government signed onto Kyoto and, no later the ink was dry, began giving billions in tax breaks to develop the oil sands. They made excuses and tried to find shortcuts such as "carbon sinks" and "clean energy credits" in order to meet their goals. Even the carbon trading scheme is full of holes. Yet, we'll see more of this horse trading going on and nothing will likely be achieved. It's easy to do things as a large group when you ignore the necessary individual state matters.
The only likely result for North America is not Kyoto or Kyoto2 but a North American solution. It has already been done with Acid Rain so it can be done with greenhouse gasses as well.
Reading comprehension is not your strength, is it?
ITN appears to be the Bigsoccer version of that Twilight Zone episode "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street."
He makes 1 post and the responses are 33 and counting...