I’m not too familiar with U.S./China politics, but have a pretty good grasp on the climate problems and dilemmas that both the United States and China face in the upcoming Copenhagen meeting. In fact, my current research is on the influence of China’s emissions on U.S. ozone levels, and I want to learn as much as I can about China. Since the U.S. and China will be the “two gorillas in the room” at this conference, I figured a thread to talk about it all together would be helpful.
The conference is scheduled to be completed in December 18th, exactly six months from today. I don’t expect a whole lot of discussion right now, but I’ll try to include articles as I find them. As the conference approaches, I imagine we’ll have a whole lot more to talk about. A link about the meeting is included here, although I haven’t looked around it in detail yet.
quote: Yet neither country has really committed to the kinds of reductions that are needed. A House committee bill that seeks a mandatory 80 percent cut in America’s emissions by midcentury has barely begun its journey through Congress. The Chinese, meanwhile, are not even thinking about mandatory limits; they have said they will try to limit “carbon intensity” — the amount of energy emitted per unit of gross domestic product — which is another way of saying emissions will be allowed to rise.
quote: For months the United States and China, by far the world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, have been warily circling each other in hopes of breaking a long impasse on global warming policy. They are, as President Obama’s chief climate negotiator puts it, “the two gorillas in the room,” and if they do not reach some sort of truce, there is no chance of forging a meaningful international treaty in Copenhagen later this year to restrict emissions. . . . Without the full participation of the United States and China, most negotiators believe that any agreement is doomed to fail. Congress and two American presidents refused to accept the Kyoto accord, which expires in 2012, because it imposed no pollution limits on China or other developing countries. The American refusal to ratify the treaty and the lack of participation by China and other developing nations have left the pact all but toothless. “China may not be the alpha and omega of the international negotiations, but it is close,” said Todd D. Stern, the top American climate negotiator at the three-day talks in Beijing. “Certainly no deal will be possible if we don’t find a way forward with China.”
I’m torn between my worry for the global climate system and my worry for the large Chinese population (and other developing nations’ populations) that want and need to develop more. I think that there needs to be some pretty serious restraints put on unchecked industrialization (New Coal Plants once per week) for China, but I don’t think that the United States can or should or will demand binding limits.
This last semester I had a dinner with Stephen Schneider, who was visiting for a Climate Change Controversies seminar here. Just that week, he had dinner with Stephen Chu, Obama’s Energy Secretary. From what Stephen told us at the dinner, Obama understands that our (human) business-as-usual trajectory leads us to very bad places and that limits of both our own emissions and the emissions of other nations in the world need to be checked, limited, and controlled. But they also cannot go into the Copenhagen meeting with their environmental guns blazing, both because the U.S. really doesn’t want (or cannot) afford to limit their emissions by any great degree and because the only way to get other countries in the world on board is by starting small and gradually ramping up.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
We cut emissions any more, we may never see summer again.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Thank you, Lisa, for your contribution.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've gotten very pessimistic about this. From what I can, absent some very dramatic, very hard to dispute examples of GCC, the best we're going to get is small reductions in carbon emissions. I don't see the ramping up happening.
The U.S. is not going to make the sacrifices for it and China definitely isn't going to. And we've got India coming along as well as the other emerging economies.
As I can see it, our best bet is going to be developing alternative energy sources that rival the economy of fossil fuel based energy. This was one of the big promises of the Obama administration that I was sad to see (understandably) kind of fall by the way side.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It's all bunk.
If AGW was really happening, more of the its advocates would be pushing nuclear power since it's the greenest power around.
Of course, they won't do that because they're the same movement that stirred up all the panic about nukes in the first place. If it hadn't been for the environmental movement we would probably have a much larger percentage of our power coming from clean, carbon neutral nuclear. Like France does.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Thank you, Pixiest, for your contribution.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
From what I understood about what Stephen was telling me, the current goal of the administration is to get some sort of actual, legally binding target. It will almost certainly be a target that is very easy to achieve, probably just slightly below business-as-usual. But if there can be some agreement like that, then later on it can be amped up.
There would need to be some serious alternative energy economy to rival one coal plant per month. Something that's never been seen before. There are a few wind energy farms cropping up here in New York, and I've heard of proposals for some off the coast of Cleveland, in Lake Erie, but these will have minuscule, negligible impacts on their own. Or something that addresses major portions of U.S. transportation, like public transportation in big urban centers. I've seen some very nice public transportation systems, and if they can built in more places, they will be used more often, by more people.
But these changes would happen very slowly, if at all.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted (AND THEN EDITED BY THE WHITE WHALE TO EXPRESS HOW HE SEES THE SITUATION) by The Pixiest: If it hadn't been for the environmental movement we would probably have a much larger percentage of our power coming from nuclear and tons and tons and tons of barrels of nuclear waste that would virtually last forever and that nobody knows what to do with. Like France does.
Nuclear power looks great if you're thinking 20 or 30 years ahead, like many corporations are doing, but the farther you look into the future, the worse nuclear power looks.
[ June 18, 2009, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: The White Whale ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It will almost certainly be a target that is very easy to achieve, probably just slightly below business-as-usual. But if there can be some agreement like that, then later on it can be amped up.
And that would be great. I just pessimistic about it happening, especially about it being sustained over multiple iterations of our political leadership.
And I don't see China or India or most of the other emerging economies caring that much about it, especially if the US is taking only little piddly steps.
I don't think that alternative energy sources is a good bet, just that it is our best one that I can see. I think that it is unlikely but that without it we're pretty much doomed to experience significant warming in the next 150 years or so because we're not going to do much to stop it from happening.
But I'm interested to see if something comes out of Copenhagen that gives hope for a different outcome.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Whale: Nuclear waste can be recycled like it is in France. The ultimate product decays in decades, not eons. You're just regurgitating the fear tactics environmentalists have been spouting for decades.
If the problem gets solved, the panic, power and contributions dry up. So they invent problems with any solution to their invented problem.
btw, it's incredibly unethical to quote what I say and change it within the quotes. Yes, you bolded your changes and that's good, but your propaganda could still be misinterpreted to be something I said. Please fix it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The Pixiest, Claiming that Global Climate Change is bunk because people don't support Nuclear just shows you aren't knowledgeable on either subject. You should be aware that many scientist and environmentalists concerned about Global Climate Change do in fact support Nuclear Power. Others are more hesitant because of the problems associated with Nuclear Power.
Nuclear energy has a role to play but it is not the panacea you suggest.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:The director of the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA) at the Marcoule facility, Loic Martin-Deidier, recalls the enthusiasm for quickly launching civil and military nuclear programs. At the time, he says, "they weren't thinking 40 years ahead."
. . .
The 350-acre site is like an above-ground Yucca Mountain. Construction cranes hover above a hundred bunker-like cement blocks already filled with barrels encased in concrete. In 60 years, the cranes' job will be done, the 400-bunker facility will be full, and the entire facility will be covered with a concrete lid. What then?
The Soulaines-Dhuys site will enter a 300-year surveillance phase. After that, the plan is to observe the site until the stored waste loses its radioactivity.
The initial 300 years is just the beginning. Even moderately radioactive plutonium retains hazardous for 24,000 years. Skeptics wonder if future generations will follow the plan -- or even remember where the site is located.
quote:And the truth is that all of France, even though it gets most of its electricity from nuclear power, is still somewhat uncomfortable with it. In a poll by the European Union, only one out of five residents said they were in favor of nuclear power. One in three opposed it.
Nuclear power may be one solution to the problem of global warming, but it doesn't have a huge fan base, even in France.
Nuclear power has it's problems.
And Pixiest, I did not intend on being unethical. And really, propaganda?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You're right rabbit. Obviously we should keep burning coal.
I'm well aware of the growing nuclear movement amongst environmentalists. Maybe they're true believers. But far far too many play the fear card whenever nuclear comes up.
Too often environmentalists will decry *any* solution. Even wind and solar aren't immune. Wind gets accused of killing birds and congressional environmentalists recently went after a solar farm that ate up "pristine" desert.
It's not about saving the earth. The only Green in the Green movement is $$$.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Whale: I know you didn't intend to be unethical, you intended to be witty. It's ok.
But once again you're playing the fear card. Your NPR story isn't about the dangers of Nuclear, it's about the Fear of nuclear. A fear that has been nurtured by environmentalists since The China Syndrome.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Pixiest, first, what made you so bitter against 'environmentalists'?
Second, that's quite a broad stroke there, "Too often, environmentalists will decry *any* solution." Sure, some do, and many don't. Many have devoted their lives to make sure that the decisions that are made regarding energy and emission solutions aren't worse than the original problem.
Third, is that not the definition of straw man? You funnel "environmentalists" into people who only care about birds and pristine desert.
Fourth, "The only Green in the Green movement is $$$" sounds a heck of a lot more like regurgitated propaganda to me.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: But once again you're playing the fear card.
And I feel like you're ignoring the very real hazards of nuclear waste.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'll keep adding them as I find them.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
$1 trillion used to be staggering, now its like the US deficit for one year Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
China is actually making efforts to reduce emissions because technologies to reduce emissions also increase efficiency which China wants to ramp up to reduce their rate of oil and coal consumption etc because it is in their long term national interests to do so.
Its also in the US interests to do likewise, unfortunately you have powerful lobbies that prevent this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Pixiest, first, what made you so bitter against 'environmentalists'?
Libertarianism.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
so if the US wants to stop global warming, what should be its immediate course of action? whats a realistic short-term solution and a feasible long-term solution?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Pixiest, first, what made you so bitter against 'environmentalists'?
Libertarianism.
thats unlikely. any other guesses?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Either you really have been here for a month, in which case how would you know, or you're someone's alt. Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Either you really have been here for a month, in which case how would you know, or you're someone's alt.
i dont know which post youre referring to. how would i know what?
i have libertarian views and im not bitter against environmentalists.
i dont see an easy connection between libertarian ideology and bitterness toward environmentalism.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i dont see an easy connection between libertarian ideology and bitterness toward environmentalism.
I have a hard time thinking of easier connections.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i dont see an easy connection between libertarian ideology and bitterness toward environmentalism.
I have a hard time thinking of easier connections.
do you have a hard time expressing those thoughts and connections in words and sharing them with the forum?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Libertarianism.
thats unlikely. any other guesses?
It's not unlikely, and it's not a guess.
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i dont see an easy connection between libertarian ideology and bitterness toward environmentalism.
Nearly all of the libertarians in the world have an intense dislike for environmentalism and the regulations that environmentalists want to impose on trade, business, commerce, etc. to the extent that it is nearly impossible to miss their monolithic and practically polar opposition to the statist regulation that it demands.
If you've actually managed to miss that, then, congratulations. I didn't even know it was possible.
But I guess I can fill you in on it.
DID YOU KNOW: An astoundingly large mega-super-majority of libertarians really dislike environmentalism. They also have a lot of trouble believing that anthropogenic global warming exists, despite the massive quantities of overwhelming evidence. How about you?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
There is a rather nice post by Bill Becker (Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project) over on Climate Progress that runs through what the administration has already done with respect to climate policy. I'll summarize them here, but there's much more detail (and supporting links to follow) in the link:
EPA declares greenhouse gas emissions a threat to public health, allowing them to be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
The economic stimulus bill includes tens of billions of dollars for clean energy technologies. It is the "biggest energy bill every passed by Congress."
Ken Salazer, the Interior Secretary, created the Climate Change Response Council, which holds jurisdiction over public lands, and Salazar is moving to establish renewable energy on public lands.
The EPA and the DOT have taken steps to increase fuel efficiency by 40% between 2012 and 2016.
The G-20 "endorsed Obama’s proposal to eliminate fossil energy subsidies totaling about $300 billion annually."
Some of the fossil energy tax breaks are being reviewed and may be repealed (allowing their prices to better match their actual costs), making renewable energy look more appealing.
Obama removed the "gag and schackles from federal climate scientists."
The administration is working on increasing efficiencies of federal agencies (reduce fuel use by vehicle fleet, sustainable buildings, etc.)
The administration is working with other countries to try and make the Copenhagen meeting successful.
The environment is the one area of Obama's presidency that I'm actually largely satisfied with thus far.
I think the climate change bill will pass, but I don't think it will pass until after Copenhagen. Honestly I don't see why they can't either postpone Copenhagen or hold some special session afterward. I know the world doesn't revolve around the United States, but this legislation has actual world wide implications. It might be a good idea to wait for it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Fence-sitting Senators. NY Times lists (by my count) 30 solid yeses, 13 probable yeses, 24 fence sitters, 11 probable nos, and 22 solid nos. The fence sitters are primarily Democrats (although there are also several Republicans) from states with agricultural and industrial interests which likely by damaged by any climate legislation.
Also, Levitt and Dubner have been catchingheat for a chapter in their new 'Superfreakonomics' book in which they (evidently) take issue with some elements of current perception of climate science, particularly as relates to policy positions. I haven't read the excerpts or the chapter in question, but (again, evidently) they push for study of geo-engineering climate solutions. See their rebuttal here.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Yeah, Levitt and Dubner, once their first book (Freakonomics) got looked at, took some heat for shoddy methodology and assertion. Which is too bad — I really liked that book.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Me too, I find the above disappointing.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Nearly all of the libertarians in the world have an intense dislike for environmentalism and the regulations that environmentalists want to impose on trade, business, commerce, etc. to the extent that it is nearly impossible to miss their monolithic and practically polar opposition to the statist regulation that it demands.
If you've actually managed to miss that, then, congratulations. I didn't even know it was possible.
But I guess I can fill you in on it.
DID YOU KNOW: An astoundingly large mega-super-majority of libertarians really dislike environmentalism. They also have a lot of trouble believing that anthropogenic global warming exists, despite the massive quantities of overwhelming evidence. How about you?
unless theyre hardline anarchist libertarians, libertarians in general believe that some government, despite its numerous undesirable qualities, is preferable to the complete absence of government. its a necessary evil of the society we live in. the goal of libertarianism to to maximize individual freedoms and property rights. the power and scope of the government is where the debate happens. thats nothing new; its classic left vs right.
those whos opinions differ from climate change proponents, libertarians included, take issue with mans alleged responsibility for the climate change and the proposed "solutions". i think you would have us believe that there are no environmentally conscious libertarians and that any proponent of the free market soulution is a planet-hating monster. i know liberals who dont march lockstep with the liberal army and who also "have a lot of trouble believing that anthropogenic global warming exists" theyre also skeptical that the course if action these "environmentalist" want to take will lead to significant reductions in global warming, especially given the cost in money and freedoms. unfortunately these liberals dont have a highly publicized blog from which to voice their opinon.
the political ideology of this country is not yet so polarized as to make meaningful progress impossible. no one should willfully or unwillfully portray the country as such.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
i havent yet read the most recent levitt and dubner book and im interested to see if the negative criticism theyre receiving is justified. freakonomics is very insightful. interestingly enough, some of its highly unpopular and criticized claims are spot on. im hopefully expecting this book be equally insightful, despite what the liberal blogs claim.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"Despite what the liberal blogs claim?"
Dude, most of the objection to freakonomics was either
1. bipartisan, based on objective criteria of study, or
2. massive conservative objection to the chapter that claimed that abortion was responsible for curing endemic crime in major cities
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also
quote: i think you would have us believe that there are no environmentally conscious libertarians and that any proponent of the free market soulution is a planet-hating monster
Well, that would be you cramming words desperately into my mouth.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also
quote: i think you would have us believe that there are no environmentally conscious libertarians and that any proponent of the free market soulution is a planet-hating monster
Well, that would be you cramming words desperately into my mouth.
desperately? ha ha. whatever. you shouldnt find what i said so remarkable. judging from your posts, youre very familiar with hyperbole.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "Despite what the liberal blogs claim?"
Dude, most of the objection to freakonomics was either
1. bipartisan, based on objective criteria of study, or
2. massive conservative objection to the chapter that claimed that abortion was responsible for curing endemic crime in major cities
i was speaking of the above referenced criticisms of superfreakonomics. specifically, nate silver of fivethirtyeight and paul krugman. show me the credentials of either to speak on global warming.
your assertions regarding the criticisms of freakonomics are somewhat true. but it was (still is) the liberals who were indignant about the claim that it was mostly young, black, impoverished girls who were having abortions which resulted in the reduction of crime, specifically violent crime, in major cities.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
correlation is not causation, the point was that it was statistically interesting and alot of evidence correlates it, but he never claimed outright that it is or should be the reason.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
wrong thread.
[ October 22, 2009, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also
quote: i think you would have us believe that there are no environmentally conscious libertarians and that any proponent of the free market soulution is a planet-hating monster
Well, that would be you cramming words desperately into my mouth.
desperately? ha ha. whatever. you shouldnt find what i said so remarkable. judging from your posts, youre very familiar with hyperbole.
No, it's really more that when you analyze what I said, it's not what you 'think' I said at all.
I mean, if you want to stand by a plainly obtuse re-reading of my actual words, you're welcome to it. I don't hold out much hope that you'll do something like realize that claiming absolutes on my part (e.g. 'you must think there are no environmentally conscious libertarians') is stupid, because it means that you are strawmanning in a testable manner. You are perfectly allowed to sacrifice your own credibility.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One change I'd like to see that would help deal with inequities between developing and developed nations is to count emissions against the country where products are sold rather than the country where they are produced.
That change would fix a lot of the problem that we had with Kyoto. Developed nations could no longer reduce their emissions by moving production in a developing nation. It would also shed important light on the emission balance between the developed world and developing nations like China seeing that a great deal of China's emissions come from producing products that are ultimately purchased not by Chinese but by North Americans and Europeans.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the climate change bill will pass, but I don't think it will pass until after Copenhagen. Honestly I don't see why they can't either postpone Copenhagen or hold some special session afterward. I know the world doesn't revolve around the United States, but this legislation has actual world wide implications. It might be a good idea to wait for it.
quote:The United States and many other major pollutant-emitting countries have concluded that it is more useful to take incremental but important steps toward a global agreement rather than to try to jam through a treaty that is either too weak to address the problem or too onerous to be ratified and enforced.
. . .
Among the chief barriers to a comprehensive deal in Copenhagen is Congress’s inability to enact climate and energy legislation that sets binding targets on greenhouse gases in the United States. Without such a commitment, other nations are loath to make their own pledges.
The chief American climate negotiator, Todd Stern, has said that he will not go beyond what Congress is willing to endorse. His deputy, Jonathan Pershing, affirmed this last week at a negotiators’ meeting in Bangkok. “We are not going to be part of an agreement we cannot meet,” Mr. Pershing said.
Instead, representatives at the Copenhagen meeting are likely to announce a number of interim steps and agree to keep talking next year.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: One change I'd like to see that would help deal with inequities between developing and developed nations is to count emissions against the country where products are sold rather than the country where they are produced.
That change would fix a lot of the problem that we had with Kyoto. Developed nations could no longer reduce their emissions by moving production in a developing nation. It would also shed important light on the emission balance between the developed world and developing nations like China seeing that a great deal of China's emissions come from producing products that are ultimately purchased not by Chinese but by North Americans and Europeans.
That's an interesting idea. If the environmental cost of production were added to the cost to purchase something, I could see that having a real effect on reducing the environmental effect.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That's an interesting idea. If the environmental cost of production were added to the cost to purchase something, I could see that having a real effect on reducing the environmental effect.
]
Even more than that, it would put consumption rather that production at the heart of the international debate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: [*]The economic stimulus bill includes tens of billions of dollars for clean energy technologies. It is the "biggest energy bill every passed by Congress."
A bit of a breakdown
quote:What would a national strategy look like? The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 invests $112 billion in green technologies, and earmarks $2 billion for renewable energy research. President Obama proposes to add another $15 billion annually in renewable energy research, to be funded by the cap-and-trade system proposed in the American Clean Energy and Security Act.
Meanwhile, China is spending $221 billion of its $586 billion 2009 stimulus package on renewable energy and other clean technologies, and is poised to overtake Germany and Japan to become the world’s largest alternative energy producer. Another spur to development is a 2007 policy requiring large utilities to produce 3 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2010 and 8 percent by 2020, excluding hydroelectric (20 percent by 2020 is proposed in the Clean Energy and Security Act). China’s five-year plan that starts in 2011 will include even higher standards and subsidies to support clean energy development.
link Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Well, I guess that's a good step. But it feels like the bar has been set so low it's rolling on the ground.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Sorry for letting this thread lag. I didn't take into account final exams. From here on out, I plan on posting the news from the conference the morning after. I'm getting my news from all over the place, but looking closely at the daily summaries put out by Earth Negotiations Bulletin (Link here to the main site). I'm going to include what I think is interesting, what seems to be big news, and the details that aren't boring.
But, the two papers that published it in the US omitted something that seems important:
quote:Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required [on climate change] until the U.S. Congress has done so.
and omit "and must" from this sentence:
quote:But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty.
On Monday, the major hubbub was in regards to the "Climategate" email "scandal". Some countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) demanded an independent investigation. Others called it a "tempest in a teacup", and still others were more concerned with tracking down and punishing the hacker who actually broke the law.
And I'll just list what I found interesting:
This conferences president Connie Hedegaard notes that there are 194 parties at this conference, and calling for a "truly universal agreement."
Rajendra Pachanr, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that for global warming to be limited to 2.0 to 2.4 C, emissions need to peak no later than 2015.
Yvo de Boer (UNFCCC Executive Secretary) calls for a "start-up finance" of US$10 billion per year to help mitigation and adaptation
AOSIS (representing 43 low-lying island states) calls for a limit of 2 degree warming and CO2 leveling out to 350 ppb. If this does not happen, they will "have to consider our options"
Australia (representing the UMBRELLA group) calls for a 2 degree limit and a 50% reduction in emissions by 2050.
The EU proposes a €5-7 billion yearly start up fund, growing to €100 billion by 2020 to be used for adaptation and mitigation.
The US reiterates its new proposed commitment to emissions reductions of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and a trajectory for 42% reductions by 2030, and 83% reductions by 2050.
Russia reiterates its commitment to 20-25% reductions from 1990 levels by 2020
The EU proposes a global emission peak at 2020, and a 50% global reduction of emissions by 2050
I'm curious about what each country is willing to commit to in terms of emissions reductions, both the percent and the year, compared to what they declare here at the beginning. I'll try to include any changes that I may find. And if you see errors, I'll fix 'em. There is a lot of numbers and sources to sort through.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
On Tuesday, it seemed to be more administrative. There didn't seem to be a whole lot going on, but here's what I could find:
Sudan, representing G-77/China, laments the fact that developed nations are not meeting their commitments.
Some developing nations working on capacity building and development note that there are insufficient funds
The World Meteorological Organization makes an estimate of $2.1 billion per year for a Global Climate Observation System (GCOS)
Outside of the official proceedings, the big story was the Leak of the Danish "Copenhagen Agreement under the UNFCCC" (Guardian UK Article). The text outlines an agreement in which developed nations do not commit to specific reductions, and put the brunt of the emissions reductions on developing nations. It is essentially a reversal of the Kyoto Protocol, which forces more responsibility onto the developed nations. Naturally, many developing nations object. Some from developed nations seem unimpressed, stating that they have already seen an earlier published draft, and this one is not significantly different.
Additional news is in regards to the US EPA declaring CO2 a human health hazard, and thus able to be regulated under the Clean Air Act (Link to Article). Some think it will provide momentum and give some credibility to the US position. Others think it will mean nothing unless the Congress takes action.
[ December 11, 2009, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: The White Whale ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
conspiracy websites see this as a conspiracy theory to take away US sovereignty. Hilarious.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Wednesday had increasing tensions between groups supporting the conference and groups of climate change skeptics. (Guardian UK Article).
Tuvalu (I had to look it up) proposes a "New Copenhagen Protocol" (link) that would not replace, but compliment the expected amendments to the Kyoto Protocol. It follows the Bali Action Plan (BAP) and sets a goal for 1.5 C warming, and greenhouse gas stabilization at 350 ppm. They emphasize that this will not replace the Kyoto Amendments, but parallel and compliment the Amendments. The COP and COP/MOP portions of the conference were suspended. Many nations, especially those in the low-lying island nations, Latin American nations, and African nations, backed Tuvalu's call, while other developing nations (India and China) opposed the proposal. They argued that the focus should be on making meaningful amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, rather than starting from scratch.
The YOUTH NGOs state that $0.25 per person per day in Annex I countries would be sufficient to fund much of what needs to be done, and that wealthy nations should create a US$100 billion per year fully transparent and democratic fund for adaptation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given the "bindingness" of the Kyoto protocol was "not at all binding in practice", I fail to see how this could be much worse. The only thing the developing nations have "worse" under the new agreement is, some of them aren't going to be handed certain money unless they meet certain goals. I fail to see how that's a terribly onerous thing. If they don't want the money more than the restrictions necessary to meet the goals, just don't make the restrictions.
The White Whale: "Just" 25 cents per person per day? You mean a "mere" 28 billion US dollars a year, just from the US? That's 1% of all federal revenue! I think things must become much more expensive, but treating it as a small amount when it is not at all a small amount is blatantly dishonest.
Also, the number is almost certainly too low. They generally are, in these estimates.
As for a "fully transparent and democratic fund" (which would, at best, be voted upon by representatives of countries, probably not even in proportion to population, making it not democratic), if the allocations of money are managed like that and not tied to actual emissions cuts, I can guarantee you it will become nothing more than another one of the bribes we've handed over to developing regimes to allocate almost entirely for political effect.
The "New Copenhagen Protocol" proposal you cite is just an attempt at a money grab.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: [*]Sudan, representing G-77/China, laments the fact that developing nations are not meeting their commitments.
Probably meant developed countries here.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The White Whale: "Just" 25 cents per person per day? You mean a "mere" 28 billion US dollars a year, just from the US? That's 1% of all federal revenue! I think things must become much more expensive, but treating it as a small amount when it is not at all a small amount is blatantly dishonest. ...
On the other hand, I think the foreign aid target that the US has set for itself is 0.7% of GDP while only reaching 0.2% currently IIRC. So that should be a shortfall of 71 billion which should cover it without being too onerous* and without any "new" commitments.
* For example, the Huffington Post reports that AIG's bailout alone is 144 billion which doubles even that
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The US foreign aid target is not pre-allocated. There is no set-aside set of funds to use "instead" of taking the money from somewhere else. Additionally, that we have provided extraordinary amounts in other situations (and AIG's is putatively a loan -- I doubt they'll pay it all back, but we might get back the equivalent of 30 cents on the dollar) does not mean the amount mentioned is not an extraordinary amount.
And anyways, as I point out above, the idea that the $100 billion fund in the proposal, if run as proposed, would actually lead the developing world to reduce emissions by anywhere close to $100 billion worth is farcical.
I'm fine with handing over that much money, provided reduction targets that meet previously selected goals (and are estimated to cost a bit less than the aid) are met on schedule (there can even be a portion of the fund as money to start the projects before the reduction begins).
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
fugu, I never said "just." I was repeating what the "YOUTH NGOs" had said. I would say that their proposal is idealistic and unreasonable, for now at least. $0.25 per person per day? And funneled into an actually democratic, transparent fund. I'm idealistic, but not to the point where I can believe this is possible.
Mucus, no, I did mean developed (from the bulletin):
quote:Sudan, for the G-77/CHINA, expressed concern over lack of progress on capacity building under the Convention and the Protocol, and drew attention to financial and technical constraints related to non-Annex I communications. He lamented the failure by developed countries to meet their commitments.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Democratic? You're imagining the entire population of the world (or just the developing countries) voting on it?
As for being transparent, even if that happens, it won't be going for efficient sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Money that we make available to national governments in the developing world is mostly spent on rent-seeking and political aims, not the intended goals. It is mostly viewed as necessary bribes to the regimes to allow the more targeted, restricted aid to flow into the country.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'm saying that the ideal case would be one where the money gets put into a fund that has non-partial, I guess referees, that would distribute the money without bias or political favors, and that the money goes to actual mitigation and adaptation. I'm not saying it's plausible or even remotely possible.
The words 'democratic' and 'transparent' come directly from the statements of the YOUTH NGOs. While I like the ideal they are striving for, I do not believe that it is possible in the world we live in.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
One of the many sticking points is that there are no non-partial referees
I would like the ideal they were striving for if it wasn't obviously at least one of the following:
1) Stupidly ignorant
2) Not in good faith
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The US foreign aid target is not pre-allocated.
I never said it was pre-allocated. I just said that the target has already been set and by the US itself. Kill two birds with one stone sorta.
quote: Additionally, that we have provided extraordinary amounts in other situations (and AIG's is putatively a loan -- I doubt they'll pay it all back, but we might get back the equivalent of 30 cents on the dollar) does not mean the amount mentioned is not an extraordinary amount.
Meh. Its a matter of perspective.
I'd say the AIG amount isn't all that much anymore. Maybe TARP as a whole or the stimulus plan (plans?) are extraordinary.
Anyways, even if you get back 30 cents on the dollar, that would be a cost of 100 billion which would still be enough to pay three times the recommendation. Doesn't sound that bad. I'd make that trade.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: ... Mucus, no, I did mean developed ...
Yeah I know, you typed "developing" up in the original post. *shrug*
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I am trying to capture some of the main points of discussion. I apologize if I miss something.
On Thursday, another "leak" (it is called a leak but it seems that the paper was distributed to many nations earlier in the week) of a "Copenhagen Accord" (Link to Article) that essentially calls for the opposite action from the leaked Danish proposal on Tuesday. It calls for developed countries to bare the primary responsibility of emissions reductions, and calls for a 2 C limit on warming, with reductions made mostly within the developed countries, without resorting to purchasing offsets from developing nations.
There was further discussion about a amendment to Kyoto versus a new Copenhagen Protocol. Australia stated that they want more than a protocol amendment. The EU stated that they want to safeguard the Kyoto Protocol's main elements. Japan stated that a simple amendment would not be effective for after 2012.
When looking at each nations emissions to date, there was debate over how to treat the past emissions from developed countries. Boliva states that developed countreis have "expropriated more than their fair share of the earth's environmental space" and that developed nations need to repay this "climate debt." Meanwhile, Todd Stern (the chief US negotiator) outright rejects the idea of "climate debt" (Link to brief article). The Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance declared that 2 C warming is a "death sentence" for Africa, and accuses rich nations of taking more than their fair share of the shared atmospheric space, and that the adaptation funds being proposed would be insufficient even for "buying their coffins."
There was debate over how to assign caps to emissions and how to issue and regulate surplus Assigned Amount Units (AAUs). New Zealand proposes using actual emissions, and EU and Australia state that this would reward countries that overshot their first commitment period targets.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Mucus, oh goodness. Sorry. Thanks for the catch.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
The talks are in 'chaos' and are suspended. I'm busy today but hope to read more and include links later today. G77, representing over 100 developing countries, has suspended the talks.
Relating to the Canada issue that I touched upon earlier, Ontario and Quebec are "assailing" the federal government's goals
quote:The environment ministers of Ontario and Quebec used a press conference to declare Canada's emission-reduction targets inadequate and wholly unambitious compared with the two provinces' own targets. “It's absolutely imperative that Canada take a tougher position regarding greenhouse-gas emissions,” Ontario's John Gerretsen said.
Quebec, which is rich in clean hydro power, recently set an emissions target at 20 per cent below 1990's level by 2020 and slapped a carbon tax on fossil fuels. Ontario, which wants to promote itself as a clean-technology centre as traditional manufacturing gets walloped by the recession and the high dollar, has a target of 15 per cent below 1990's level.
The federal target is 3 per cent below 1990's level by 2020, equivalent to 20 per cent less than 2006's level. The government has made it abundantly clear it will not alter the target even though it is far less than the one it agreed to seven years ago, when it signed the Kyoto Protocol.
quote: An African delegate said developing countries decided to block the negotiations at a meeting hours before the conference was to resume. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was held behind closed doors. He said applause broke out every time China, India or another country supported the proposal to stall the talks.
There are two primary documents being drafted and discussed, and I've created a list of acronyms to help me out. The big debates are split into two working groups:
AWG-KP: Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I parties under the Kyoto Protocol
AWG-LCA: Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Actiopn under the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change)
Over the weekend, there didn't seem to be anything terribly exiting. The Ad Hoc Working Groups were meeting and working on their drafts. Developing nations were pushing for binding action from the Annex I nations. There were between 30,000 (police estimate) and 100,000 (demonstrators' estimate) protesters and demonstrators outside the conference (Boston Globe Article).
And today, the G-77 Group (Including India and China) have temporarily walked-out, stalling the negotiations (NYT Article):
quote:Jairam Ramesh, the chief negotiator for India, said that the Group of 77 developing countries had staged the temporary walkout because their representatives had grown frustrated with how conference leaders had been conducting negotiations. Mr. Ramesh said those countries were worried that Connie Hedegaard, the Dane who is serving as president of the conference, was pushing to abandon negotiations using the Kyoto Protocol, under which developing countries do not face limits on their emissions, to promote another form of treaty that could introduce restrictions.
So, as I am seeing it, the developed nations are pushing to put the brunt of the cost on the developing nations, while the developing nations are pushing for most of the cost to be carried by the developed nations. I guess this is how negotiations like this are supposed to go, right? This politicking and grand-standing is well outside of what I claim to understand, but I'm hoping at some point they actually will make concessions, and at least try to form some compromise. (Or is that too hopeful?)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:So, as I am seeing it, the developed nations are pushing to put the brunt of the cost on the developing nations, while the developing nations are pushing for most of the cost to be carried by the developed nations. I guess this is how negotiations like this are supposed to go, right? This politicking and grand-standing is well outside of what I claim to understand, but I'm hoping at some point they actually will make concessions, and at least try to form some compromise. (Or is that too hopeful?)
Depends entirely on whether the delegates are truly concerned about the issue at hand or money/their careers.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You are seeing it incorrectly. The developing nations simply don't have enough emissions per capita to bear the brunt of the costs. The brunt of the costs will be born by the developed nations if there is any significant effort on reducing the effects of climate change.
Right now, the developing nations are not required to make any reductions (even in rate of increase). Some reduction in rate of increase by developing nations will be required to reduce the effects of climate change. They are being asked to bear some of the costs, versus the status quo of none. This is not at all the same as being asked to bear most of the cost.
This is not to say that either side's proposal is particularly good or fair, but it is not at all the case that developed countries are asking developed countries to bear most of the costs for reducing the effects of climate change.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: ... Boliva states that developed countreis have "expropriated more than their fair share of the earth's environmental space" and that developed nations need to repay this "climate debt." ...
An interesting visual of this argument BBC graphic from here
Personally, I prefer the per-capita measurement to the two others even though it would put Canada in the doghouse.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I like that graph. It shows the complexity of the issue. I think that there are arguments for all three methods to be used for determining emission inventories.
1) The 1751 - 2006 method would be good for a straight-forward accounting, where every emission ever done by any emission would be counted. This seems to show most clearly the "developed vs. developing" differentiation, with the US and the EU as the clear leaders. I can see China and India pushing this method.
2) The 2007 graph would make sense if we ignored all past emissions and started right now. I think this is what Todd Stern is pushing for when he denies outright any claim of a "carbon debt" owed by the US. I think this method ignores a lot of the reality of the situation, but does show who the largest emitters are right now.
3) The per-capita one makes sense, but why is it only for 2007? I'd like to see a 1751 - 2006 per-capita graph.
Of all three, I'd pick the 1751-2006 cumulative emissions. But there would have to be some way to figure out how far back to go. I'd say up to the early 1900s, the emissions should be ignored. I think the emissions back then can be forgiven, both because no one knew their impact, and because the populations were so small that even if they knew, their populations were so low that they could almost ignore their impacts.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Sigh...In the 1960's and 1970's environmentalists were freaking out about "Global Cooling" and how bad humans were for the environment. They said that the overall world temperature had dropped an entire degree!
Fast forward to the 1990's - Present. Now those same environmentalists are freaking out about "Global Warming" and how bad humans are for the environment. The world's temperature has gone up an entire degree! OMG! (Wouldn't that mean it is a net of 0?)
I am all for taking care of our planet and keeping it clean. But I believe it is an individual responsibility, not a governmental one. To me, this conference is nothing but a power and money grab.
Once government is involved, things start to get regulated. Once things become regulated, prices start to go up. You can buy certain products the government dictates are safe for the environment, and those that are not as safe cost more. Watch what happens to the meat and dairy markets if the government starts a climate change program.
I hate how environmentalist groups say that 60% of annual greenhouse gas emissions come from human related activity. They don't tell you what those human related activities are. Look a little closer and you see what is included in that. Cattle produce between 80-100 million tons of emissions a year, and this is all included in the "human related activity" number. As if cattle would not belch and release flatulence if humans were not around.
Rice fields? Between 50-100 million tons. Termites alone contribute 20 million tons of methane a year, yet it is a human activity because we kill them using pesticides.
You can find all of these figures on the EPA's website.
My point is this: Do humans contribute to greenhouse gas emissions? Of course. Do they actually contribute as much as people say? Hell no. I am all for keeping our planet a nice place to live but stop telling me that I am going to cause a global apocalypse if I don't stop driving my car or using hairspray.
The entire global warming movement is a huge scam. Go look up what the carbon footprint of that conference in Copenhagen is and tell me that everyone that attends that really believes what they are telling the rest of the world. To be fair, they DID have 4 (Yes, FOUR) Hybrid vehicles at the conference. Everyone else arrived in limos and on private jets. They estimate that this conference alone will release about 40,000 metric tons of greenhouse gasses.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Wow, Geraine. You've walked through pretty much every single climate-denier media buzz-phrase there is.
You're disappointed that in the past 50 years, science has made some new discoveries? I'm sorry that you feel that way.
You're upset that prices are most likely going to rise? I'm upset that the prices on these things are artificially kept low. Corn and oil, for example, are economic bastardizations. There is virtually no reality in their price structures at all.
I'm sorry that you hate a flimsy statistic and back it up with a flimsy claim that "they" don't tell you what these activities are. I'm sorry that you ignore the plethora of information out there to justify you're ridiculous claims.
I'm sorry that you think it's a scam. It's not, and if you actually looked at the information, and now what talking heads tell you, you'd know this.
You bring up the carbon footprint of the Copenhagen conference? It's an absurd argument. You're crying out that people who are working on fixing the broken system haven't miraculously overcome the broken system? I'm sorry. It's just absurd.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As if cattle would not belch and release flatulence if humans were not around.
Interestingly, my wife has spent the last ten years of her life researching ways to improve cattle feed to reduce emissions without impacting milk output.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Oh, and there certainly wouldn't be as many cattle around to belch and fart if humans didn't devour them in large quantities.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Probably a 1751-2006 per capita graph would only exaggerate the 1751-2006 one even more, with China and India pretty much dropping off and the US moving more ahead from EU.
Personally, I don't think the climate debt thing is going to go anywhere. It is also a bit easy to game since one could simply move to a country with historically low emissions and live like a king. That said, the per country 2007 is even easier to game, simply live in a small country and you can pollute like gangbusters.
So if I was world dictator, I would say that there should be legally binding targets on nations above the EU in per capita emissions to reach the EU level ASAP. Good faith pledges on countries roughly around the EU in emissions to reduce their emissions further. And legally binding caps on developing countries at the EU level.
Well, in addition to other dictatorial stuff I may want to do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Sigh...In the 1960's and 1970's environmentalists were freaking out about "Global Cooling" and how bad humans were for the environment. They said that the overall world temperature had dropped an entire degree!
Fast forward to the 1990's - Present. Now those same environmentalists are freaking out about "Global Warming" and how bad humans are for the environment. The world's temperature has gone up an entire degree! OMG! (Wouldn't that mean it is a net of 0?)
geraine, read this.
quote:The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
quote:A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.
quote:Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Article: pp. 1325–1337
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
quote:“In the 1970s, all the scientists were saying an ice age was coming.” This seems to be a popular sentiment echoed in blogs and novels aimed at challenging the consensus views regarding future climate change. It was even a key theme in Michael Crichton’s State of Fear , when a character suggests that scientists only jumped on the global warming bandwagon in a bid to secure funding.
But a new article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society challenges the idea of a 'global cooling ' consensus. Thomas Peterson of NOAA teamed with William Connolley of the British Antarctic survey and science reporter John Fleck to create a survey of peer-reviewed climate literature from the 1970s. Looking at every paper that dealt with climate change projections or an aspect of climate forcing from 1965 to 1979, they were able to assess the ‘trends’ in the literature. They found that only 7 of the 71 total papers surveyed predicted global cooling. The vast majority (44) actually predicted that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming.
The group went even farther, and pulled up some of the most referenced news articles on climate. What they found may be the earliest example of climate whiplash journalism . In 1975, the New York Times published two articles by W Sullivan with the contradictory (partial) titles “major cooling may be ahead” and “warming trend seen in climate.”
Of course, there was a small group of scientists in a new field pointing to the inevitability of the coming ice age – the newly minted palaeoclimatologists. However, as Peterson and colleagues point out, they were speaking on timescales of tens of thousands of years, rather than anything that could occur in a child or grandchild’s lifetime. And in their seminal 1976 paper on the pacemaker of the ice ages, James Hays and colleagues warned that anthropogenic emissions may affect these long term future climate trends more strongly that solar forcing.
Overall, Peterson, Connolley and Fleck have shown that the scientific consensus has actually changed very little since the 1970s. More surprisingly (at least to the sceptics) they show that global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has always been a concern, even during the infancy of modern climate science. Anyone care to pass the final nail for the coffin of ‘global cooling’?
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Wow, Geraine. You've walked through pretty much every single climate-denier media buzz-phrase there is.
I don't think the issue is so much that of 'buzz-phrases' so much as it is the issue of pervasive concepts used for arguing against the IPCC that, upon closer review, seem crafted by desperation, yet still successfully passed along via the major body of global warming deniers.
examples abound.
1. "I am all for keeping our planet a nice place to live but stop telling me that I am going to cause a global apocalypse if I don't stop driving my car or using hairspray." Look at the framing. Look at the claims it makes. Geraine is being told to stop driving his/her car, or we will have 'global apocalypse.' An argument that is remarkably nonpresent on the part of both the IPCC as well as the regulators of our age (Steven Chu, etc) as well as our major scientific publications and periodicals. It's being asserted on the part of the world's bodies of climatological science, in order to reinforce the notion that the global warming 'scare' is ludicrous. The second part is even more telling. Hairspray? Hairspray was a separate issue entirely — that of CFC's and their rapid degeneration of ozone high in the atmosphere. The ozone hole issue is separate from greenhouse gas emissions entirely, and it's worth noting that the ban on CFC's actually did save us from negative anthropogenic influences that would have had a much more catastrophic influence had not there been a consensus passed on regulating the cause.
2. The notion used to prop up the assertion that global warming is a huge 'scam' is to note that an international conference where multiple heads of state and other important world leaders, dignitaries, and high-level officials are traveling to attend a matter of major regulatory policy from across the world are traveling there in a way that releases greenhouse gases. Ah, yes? I hardly think they were going to sail there on wooden catamarans. The statement "Everyone else arrived in limos and on private jets" is made despite that being a clear falsehood; I'd estimate less than ten or even five percent of the conference attendants used private jets, for instance, and even fewer were traveling to Copenhagen via limo. Besides, the conceptual counter-argument wherein someone essentially says "you claim to care about emissions, but you commit to emissions yourself" is remarkably popular given how little bearing it actually has on the validity of the science. To date, it seems to have none at all.
3. A complete misapprehension of why cattle production of methane might want to be factored into human related activity.
4. The notion that environmental regulation should be an 'individual responsiblity' despite how untenable this notion ultimately is. Individual initiative to preserve the environment is noble but ultimately useless if there is no overarching regulation. If fish stocks were regulated via 'individual responsibility,' it would take a mere fraction of private entities looking to cash out in this generation to crash the ready supply of seafood. Entire counties could be extremely polluted by a handful of individuals or companies who opt out of the 'individual' call to environmental regulation. This doesn't even go into the issue of individual regulation of the preservation of endangered habitats or species.
5. 'i hate <x>, this is nothing but a <y>' — visceral interpretation. It denotes entrenched distrust, of the sort that leads one to doubt if rational review and fact-correction would have any effect.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh by the way, I love the news today. It's a bunch of "DATELINE, COPENHAGEN: IT ENDS IN FIRE AND TEARS. ALL IS LOST."
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Sam,
In point 3 you mentioned the science, and the science is what I have a problem with. Where are the facts? Computer simulations don't cut it for me. I want actual, measurable data on how humans are affecting climate change. I want it easily accessible and available to me. I don't want to just be TOLD that it exists and that I need to get in line.
Sam, if you go look up who went to the conference and how they arrived, you can see that yes, most of them did travel in private jets, and yes, most of them took limos, including our friend Al Gore. To put some perspective on it, the carbon footprint of that one conference, over 40,000 tons of it, is more than 2300 homes put out in a year.
For those of you that still think that hypocrisy does not exist in the global warming argument, you might want to read this article in business week, although it is documented in many other places:
I also have trouble believing any polls. I did a quick google search and found dozens of polls out there, and all of them were drastically different. One showed that while 97% of scientists believed that Global Warming does exist, only 35% of them believe it is primarily caused by man. Others show that 75% of Scientists believe it is primarily man made. So which is it?
I want to see hard facts to support global warming is primarily man made and not a natural cycle before I buy into it. Show me the cold, hard facts, and I'll go out and buy some carbon credits.
I guess without man the earth would always just stay the same temperature and never fluctuate. It was probably those damn people in Atlantis that caused the last ice age. They should have watched their carbon footprint.
Look, if it is every PROVEN that man plays as big of a role in global warming as some say it does, I will admit it and jump on board. Right now I feel there is not enough evidence for me to start drinking the Kool Aid (I'm sorry, 100% pure organic juice!) and praise Al Gore as being the real life Captain Planet.
Right now however I see this as one big ploy for the UN to play Robin Hood and take from developed countries and pump it into underdeveloped countries to help them fight global warming, even though in the past it has been shown that the money is usually used for things other than that. George Soros thinks $100 billion should do the trick:
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I like that graph. It shows the complexity of the issue. I think that there are arguments for all three methods to be used for determining emission inventories.
1) The 1751 - 2006 method would be good for a straight-forward accounting, where every emission ever done by any emission would be counted. This seems to show most clearly the "developed vs. developing" differentiation, with the US and the EU as the clear leaders. I can see China and India pushing this method.
2) The 2007 graph would make sense if we ignored all past emissions and started right now. I think this is what Todd Stern is pushing for when he denies outright any claim of a "carbon debt" owed by the US. I think this method ignores a lot of the reality of the situation, but does show who the largest emitters are right now.
3) The per-capita one makes sense, but why is it only for 2007? I'd like to see a 1751 - 2006 per-capita graph.
Of all three, I'd pick the 1751-2006 cumulative emissions. But there would have to be some way to figure out how far back to go. I'd say up to the early 1900s, the emissions should be ignored. I think the emissions back then can be forgiven, both because no one knew their impact, and because the populations were so small that even if they knew, their populations were so low that they could almost ignore their impacts.
A couple thoughts about the graphs and their implications: 1- Using current emissions growth projections, China's cumulative emissions will outstrip the EU's in about 15 years and the US's in about 20 (India would do so about 15-20 years later). So does it make sense to start imposing caps on those countries now, or should we wait, or what?
2- (related to (1)) Probably the most widespread solution mechanism in classic feedback systems control is the "PID" controller, (p=proportional, i=integral, d=derivative). The graphs provided measure proportional (i.e. current) and integral (i.e. cumulative) emissions, but not derivitive emissions (i.e. the current increase/decrease in emissions). In control theory, the absence of derivative control leads to significantly suboptimal response time and robustness. Were I a world dictator, I wouldn't set an arbitrary threshold on absolute emissions (either per capita or per country), but set prices/taxes based on cumulative emissions, current emissions, and change in emissions.
3- The question of per nation vs. per capita is really at heart one over the federalist/democratic structure of the international political space.
4- Using the per capita metrics rewards countries with high wealth disparity. Simply keep the rural poor in energy poverty and the industrial magnates can pollute to their hearts' content. This is similar to Mucus's perceived problems with focusing solely on national proportional or cumulative emissions (i.e. simply move industrial operations to a country with historically low emissions and emit to your heart's content).
<edit> I should say (4) is the problem with any "pooled" emissions regime, in which countries, whether measured by absolute emissions or per capita emissions, are the fundamental entities in imposing emissions standards</edit>
[ December 14, 2009, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Geraine, you're building an army of Straw Men armed with misinterpretations and fallacies.
First, I respect Al Gore, but wouldn't use him as an example of a great carbon footprint. In fact, any president or vice-president is sure to have a ginormous carbon footprint. Especially if they are campaigning internationally for a cause they really believe in. Again, I'm sure that if he could fight for his cause without flying to the places he needs to go, he wouldn't. But he can't; the system he is trying to fix is the only system that exists now.
Also:
quote:I also have trouble believing any polls. I did a quick google search and found dozens of polls out there, and all of them were drastically different. One showed that while 97% of scientists believed that Global Warming does exist, only 35% of them believe it is primarily caused by man. Others show that 75% of Scientists believe it is primarily man made. So which is it?
The answers are in the polls. Look more closely at the phrasing of the questions, of the time of the polls, of the people polled. The discrepancies are almost certainly in there. You cannot state those poll numbers without citations, and say "They're different! I reject the data!"
Next:
quote:I guess without man the earth would always just stay the same temperature and never fluctuate.
This shows your tunnel-visioned argument. I don't recall anyone here claiming that the earth's climate is stable, and there's a good reason why. Because it is not stable. It fluctuates naturally. However, the problem lies in the changes to this natural fluctuation that humans have caused. We have measurements of the CO2 in the atmosphere, that we know we emitted. We have experiments and measurements that show the change in radiative forcing that these anthropogenic chemicals have. We have models to extrapolate between the observations.
The theory is that all of these factors lead to anthropogenic warming in addition to the natural climate cycle. There is evidence to support this. There is scientific theory behind the theory. There are observations that show this.
The IPCC has stated that we have "very high confidence" (which translates to a 9 out of 10 chance) that the anthropogenic impact is one of warming. This is a scientific conclusion.
Are you waiting for 100% proof? Do you buy insurance only if you know with 100% certainty that you're going to need it? Do you quit smoking only if you know with 100% confidence that it will kill you?
The argument for anthropogenic warming is strong, although you may not want to admit it.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I want to see hard facts to support global warming is primarily man made and not a natural cycle before I buy into it. Show me the cold, hard facts, and I'll go out and buy some carbon credits.
The cold hard facts are
1) We have taken a hell of a lot of carbon, in the form of coal and oil out of the ground, where it's been sequestered for millions of years, and burned it, turning it into CO2, and added all that CO2 to the atmosphere over the course of a couple hundred years.
1) CO2 in the atmosphere holds in heat. This is basic physics.
1+1 = 2.
Denialists seem to insist that there just has to be some magical third term in there that will balance out those cold hard facts, but they can't even produce the cold hard facts proving that their magic element exists. Increase solar radiation does not explain it. Simply waving water vapor around doesn't do it either.
So maybe you ought to demand that the denialists show the cold hard facts proving that adding lots and lots of a known greenhouse gas won't have a significant effect on the climate.
quote:Look, if it is ever PROVEN that man plays as big of a role in global warming as some say it does, I will admit it and jump on board.
That the earth is round is not PROVEN to many people. Same with Obama being born in the US.
If we wait for everyone to be convinced that slightly difficult things need to be done, we will wait forever.
Really, the thing that PROVES the case is the raw data. Experts who understand the raw data have long since drawn their conclusions, and they are all in pretty near perfect agreement.
If someone were to send you a hundred-page Excel sheet with temperature data going back 80 years, and raw bristlecone and ice core data, would you be ale to use that data to PROVE anything?
quote:Right now I feel there is not enough evidence for me to start drinking the Kool Aid (I'm sorry, 100% pure organic juice!) and praise Al Gore as being the real life Captain Planet.
Okay, give us a feel for how much evidence you know of.
How many peer-reviewed journal articles have you read on the topic of the climate?
How many such papers do you think the, say, world's top 1000 experts have each read, on average?
It's a reasonable question, I'm sure a reasonable person like yourself can answer it in a timely manner.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I also have trouble believing any polls. I did a quick google search and found dozens of polls out there, and all of them were drastically different. One showed that while 97% of scientists believed that Global Warming does exist, only 35% of them believe it is primarily caused by man. Others show that 75% of Scientists believe it is primarily man made. So which is it?
I sincerely hope you can be given at least a vague conceptualization of exactly how blatantly fallacious this rationalization is.
By applying the exact same principles towards denial of plate tectonics, I could say "hey I did a google search, and found two polls on plate tectonics' consensus validity which do not say the same thing. Therefore, I do not trust polls on plate tectonics."
I could do this for evolution. I could do this for atomic theory. I could do this for germ theory. You're mining a casual source to present a contradiction which, in your mind, justifies dismissal of extant and actionable data.
If you're prone to relying on thought like this, then it is wholly unsurprising that you have trouble trusting any polls on the subject. You disbelieve the anthropogenic global warming theory, and actively want to find ways to rationalize dissonant information, such as the remarkably high consensus of climate scientists.
quote:Sam, if you go look up who went to the conference and how they arrived, you can see that yes, most of them did travel in private jets, and yes, most of them took limos, including our friend Al Gore.
I took a look at it and was, indeed, correct. Your assertion that most of the people attending the conference arrived by private jet is, in fact, false. If I'm lucky, it might even turn out that head national representatives offer the only majority-private-jet-travel for attendees. So, you're wrong. Perhaps you've been mixed up by language?
quote:To put some perspective on it, the carbon footprint of that one conference, over 40,000 tons of it, is more than 2300 homes put out in a year.
For those of you that still think that hypocrisy does not exist in the global warming argument, you might want to read this article in business week, although it is documented in many other places:
"Al Gore's Carbon Footprint is Big"
Geraine, do you recall where in my prior post, I stated this: "the conceptual counter-argument wherein someone essentially says "you claim to care about emissions, but you commit to emissions yourself" is remarkably popular given how little bearing it actually has on the validity of the science. To date, it seems to have none at all."
Let me try to be helpful, and refine that for you. It's me pointing out that you're relying on a red herring. It's attacking the issue of global warming by attempting to manufacture an issue of hypocrisy on the part of those who are attempting to change people's minds on it. Unfortunately, there's two things working against it: one, the science of global warming becomes no more or less factually accurate whether Al Gore produces zero tons of carbon, or eight billion tons of carbon. Secondly, high profile individuals may elect to spend more carbon because their individual philosophies on global warming do not necessarily entail that they are being hypocritical if they are generating large amounts of carbon with their wealth. Gore, himself, states that he is more than willing to submit to legislation that would tax his emissions. Unless he's saying "nobody should be allowed to travel by private jet because it's so wasteful" and as long as he applies a progressive curve of impact based on socioeconomic status, he's not being hypocritical. Seriously, people are relying on the same logic by pointing out that Obama uses a private jet, so, somehow, this should remark upon him as a hypocrisy. It's not. He's the president of the united states. There's ample reason for him to have a private jet. Sad to say, this is just a dead end.
A special bonus third reason why this issue falls flat: If Al Gore is successful on his world Global Warming tours by ensuring that in some way he helps dramatically increase action on global warming within the next few decades, then his personal expenditure of carbon becomes circumstantially offset by the result of his goals.
-
-
quote:I guess without man the earth would always just stay the same temperature and never fluctuate.
This is a massive strawman. This is an epic, towering, preening strawman. It is valiantly assaulting an argument that has not been made by anyone here, nor has it been made by the IPCC or the world climatological bodies or any university. I am fine when people have a healthy skepticism of things, even greatly evidenced things. This is not healthy skepticism. This is incurious denial. The methods you use to assert your position reveal only flaws in the mentality you used to come to these 'more sensible' conclusions.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think it is articles like this one: CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming which seem to make sense and would make people doubt about the evils of CO2. It does seem very convienent that controlling CO2 means controlling the populace.
quote: The Alleged Errors Highlighted by High Court Judge Michael Burton:
1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)
2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.")
3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future…")
4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.")
5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.")
6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)
7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.")
8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.")
9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.")
[ December 15, 2009, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Nearly 200 more arrests were made overnight as protesters, angered by the lack of progress in negotiations, , set fire to makeshift barricades in Copenhagen’s Christiania neighborhood. For the first time since the two-week conference began, law enforcement officers used tear gas to disperse crowds of rioters, who were reportedly lobbing small firebombs, a police spokesman said Tuesday.
quote:The former United States vice president Al Gore was scheduled to address the conference on Tuesday afternoon. In an appearance here Monday, Mr. Gore cited new research suggesting that changes in the climate could render the Arctic virtually ice-free as early as 2014, although American government scientists place that outcome on a longer time frame.
I don't understand the protests as they get more violent. Although, admittedly, I am not paying attention to and news about the protests specifically.
It looks like Gore may have overstated the conclusions to the study. (Boston Article) (Scathing Times Online UK Article) And it is not clear whether he will be making a speech today. He's still on the schedule, but I've seen some claims that he's canceled his appearance.
quote:"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,’’ Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations.
Asked for comment, one US government scientist questioned what he called this “aggressive’’ projection.
“It’s possible but not likely,’’ said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. “We’re sticking with 2030.’’(From the Boston Article)
The conference center is filled to overcapacity, and it looks to get tighter as the week proceeds (Earth Negotiations Bulletin):
quote:Due to the large number of participants, limits will be placed on the amount of observers allowed to access the Bella Center from Tuesday onwards. With the high-level segment set to begin on Wednesday, increasingly strict restrictions will be introduced throughout the week and, according to unconfirmed reports, only 90 observers will be allowed in the conference center on Friday.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Right now I feel there is not enough evidence for me to start drinking the Kool Aid (I'm sorry, 100% pure organic juice!)
The oft stated conservative Kool-Aid phrase coupled with a jab at consuming organic foods. They're getting more clever every month.
It's a shame we're losing "dithering" in regards to Obama's decision to send troops to Afghanistan. I need to tune in and find out what the latest catch phrases are these days.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: It does seem very convienent that controlling CO2 means controlling the populace.
Boy, that's conspiratorial. Regulating any substance means controlling the populace. Regulating chlorofluorocarbons means controlling the populace. Regulating cyanide heap leaching means controlling the populace. it's regulation. Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Al Gore did give a speech yesterday, and I must say I liked his tone (Guardian UK Article):
quote:He scolded rich countries for demanding the developing world offer evidence of emissions cuts while at the same time trying to inflate the funds they were prepared to offer poor countries to deal with climate change. "This issue of transparency should also be applied to financial pledges of developed countries," he said. "How many times has same money been pledged two, three or even four times?"
But Gore also reprimanded rapidly emerging economies for balking at the idea of an international monitoring regime for emissions cuts. He advised them to be sensitive to fears that China and India could use climate change to gain competitive economic advantage.
. . .
Gore was just as tough on activists who have embraced him as a hero, demanding they set aside their pride and their principles and embrace a deal – no matter how imperfect.
He said he recognised their frustration with the glacial pace of negotiations. He agreed that cap-and-trade schemes to cut carbon emissions were an imperfect solution – Gore confessed to favouring a carbon tax – but the current efforts for a deal were the best prospect of avoiding catastrophic climate change.
And there was no trace of sympathy for opponents of action on climate change. Gore began with a brief run-through of the latest science on melting of the Arctic ice cap, evidence he said "only reckless fools would ignore".
I was listening to an NPR Democracy Now nterview this morning with Indian Environmentalist Sunita Narain (Link to audio/video). It was a bitter interview. She talked about Obama compared with Bush, comparing their climate change stance, and stated that (paraphrased from memory) "Bush was in kindergarten, and Obama is in first grade," meaning that Bush often denied climate change, and while Obama recognizes it he is actually doing little to produce action. She also expressed the opinion that no deal would be better than a weak/faulty deal. Jim Hansen, a well known climate scientist, expressed the same idea before the conference started (UPI Article):
quote:"The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation," James Hansen, one of the world's most respected climate scientists, told British daily The Guardian. "If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing then (people) will spend years trying to determine exactly what that means.
"I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track because it's a disaster track," added Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
I don't know what to expect over the next few days, but don't expect much. I enjoy a good speech, but they lose their luster if they are all speech and no action.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
This morning, the US (through Hilary Clinton) pledges to help raise $100 billion per year by 2020 for aid to the developing world to fight climate change (Globe and Mail)(Climate Progress). She says that it will be a mix of public and private money. There are conditions: first, there needs to be an agreement reached tomorrow by the major players. Second, all countries must agree to be transparent and allow MRV (monitoring, reporting, and verification) from outside agencies. China is especially reluctant.
Some are calling this announcement a bombshell. If China refuses the MRV conditions, that'll be a dealbreaker. Again, on NPR this morning I heard another interview with an angry representative from a developing country (I needed to catch my bus and didn't catch who was being interviewed). And Obama is scheduled to speak tomorrow.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not sure I understand the proposal. I've previously read that both China and the US already compromised on not expecting any of these funds to go to China.
As in
quote:As the talks entered their critical final week, He Yafei, Chinese vice-foreign minister, said financing from rich countries should be directed to poorer countries.
“Financial resources for the efforts of developing countries [to combat climate change are] a legal obligation,” he said. “That does not mean China will take a share – probably not.
“We do not expect money will flow from the US, UK [and others] to China.”
quote: Stern vowed that the United States would help some developing countries pay for cutting greenhouse gases — but not China.
“I don’t envision public funds — certainly not from the United States — going to China,” Stern said. “That’s just life and the real world.”
The spat marks an open explosion in a previously more diplomatic standoff between two of the world’s greatest powers — and biggest polluters. Whether the Copenhagen conference results in any kind of political agreement, environmental activists say, largely hinges on the success of America and China reaching a private deal.
So with that in mind, isn't this new proposal actually a pullback?
As in, "Not only will you(China) not get any of these funds, but if you don't allow inspectors, all these other countries won't get it either." I'm not seeing China randomly letting in inspectors just for the benefit of other countries (or is this proposal meant to fail?).
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'm not sure. I don't think these conditions are going to be met, so it feels like the US is just saying "We're good! China's bad!" without actually committing.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)