EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Must Pass Climate Laws Ahead of Copenhagen, Danish Minister Warns
The US needs to set an example to developing countries if significant progress is to be made at the Copenhagen summit, Denmark's climate minister warns
Connie Hedegaard said Obama must move from promises to action and push through global warming legislation ahead of the climate change summit in Copenhagen this December. Without that she said it would be hard for the US to exercise a credible leadership role at the summit.
Connie Hedegaard Minister for Climate and Energy of Denmark during the opening of World Future Energy Summit 2009 (WFES) in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates on 19 January 2009. (Photograph: Ali Haider/EPA/Corbis) "We can postpone anything but we have been postponing things for many years. We must come from this era where we talk about what to do and instead come to the era where we actually do things. We must come to that now," Hedegaard told the Guardian.
"The deadline set — 2009 — is actually set also by the former Bush administration. It is not just Denmark or Europe or somebody who set that deadline. It is set also by the United States. We must deliver on that deadline and I can see no better alternative than having cap and trade."
Hedegaard was the most forceful among a group of visiting foreign dignitaries in Washington this week who have been trying to build momentum ahead of the Copenhagen talks.
Also in Washington were Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, Jim Prentice, Canada's environment minister, Yvo de Boer, the UN's environment minister and Tony Blair. The EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, is due to visit Washington next week.
Blair said it was important for America to show the developing world it was serious about enacting measures at home on climate change — but stopped short of saying it needed to introduce a carbon cap and trade regime.
"People have to know that America is committed. Whether it is necessary to have that done legislatively — I don't know," he said.
Hedegaard, in remarks to Congress on Tuesday, returned to her theme that much preparation remained for the Copenhagen talks to make progress.
"We all have a load of homework before Copenhagen but the world is looking towards the United States to provide leadership," she said.
She said: "We know what we are going to do. We will have to set targets. We will have to come up with financial means. We will have to find ways and means to disseminate technologies faster and to help the least developed countries adapt to the climate change they are already experiencing. Those are the major issues on the table."
The visiting officials broadly see Obama as a positive force for climate change negotiations — a sea change from George Bush who had refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement, which the Copenhagen meeting will seek to replace.
Obama, who campaigned on a promise to green America's economy, added to those expectations by investing $100bn in environmental measures in his economic recovery plan earlier this month.
But Hedegaard said that move had to be followed up by climate change legislation. That could be difficult for Obama. An attempt last year to put a cap on carbon struggled to get even Democratic support before it was defeated.
Todd Stern, the state department's lead climate negotiator, agreed that the prospects for a successful outcome at Copenhagen would be improved if the US could pass climate legislation in advance.
"The optimum would be legislation that is signed, sealed and delivered," he said. "I think nothing would give a more powerful signal to other countries in the world than to see a significant, major, mandatory American plan."
However, he admitted that may not happen — although Democrats in Congress say they will take up legislation by the summer.
Some Democrats are pushing for Congress to take up other energy issues, such as mandating greater use of wind and solar power, before dealing with carbon caps.
But Hedegaard said that such actions would not be considered effective substitutes.
"Could we just put some taxes and things? Well then you will not be sure that we actually reduce the level of emissions and that is important if we are going to stick to what science tells us."
The US was also facing pressure to set interim targets — as a stepping stone towards reducing emissions by 80% in 2050.
But Stern told Congress, that America would not meet the short-term target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40% by 2020.
"I don't think it's necessary, and I do know it's not possible," he said.
The European Union committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 late last year. But it said it would increase the cut if other industrialised states get on board. Obama has committed to reducing emissions by 20% on 2005 levels by 2020.
Hedegaard and others believe that interim targets are essential.
"It's always easy for politicians to set targets that are 41 years away," she said. "We also need ambitious action by the United States in the short- to medium-term."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
12 Comments so far
Show AllCap and trade scheme is not meeting with positive analyses - carbon tax sounds like the most effective path.
Yep. Cap and Trade is just a large tax on the consumer.
Carbon tax on all usage of energy derived from carbonaceous compounds including coal fired electricity is better. A large tax will alter behaviour while an energy dividend can be paid back to the population. That's what we've done in British Columbia.
The real problem with cap and trade is the trade part, which seems rife for corporate exploitation.
Actually the choice between cap-and-trade and carbon tax is not so black and white.
For immediate results, especially for countries that have been lagging in meeting their GHG reduction (or Kyoto treaty) obligations, capping their total emissions first, then capping for each sector of their economy will force changes more quickly. Trading of emissions is only an incentive or reward for companies/industries that have taken major steps in reducing their emissions and a temporary reprieve for those who cannot bring about major changes immediately - but still meet their obligations by buying 'credits' - while the total emissions for the sector and the country are reduced.
Carbon tax will also have an effect at reducing the emissions across the board, and may have to be put in place ultimately. In the near term, though, it may have some adverse effects if alternatives are not in place and some costs do get passed on to the consumer. After all, we know that we don't always get real competition among companies - often there is some kind of a cartel, and if not a monopoly, there is a duopoly or just a handful of companies. The success of a carbon-tax-only policy assumes that market competition will kick in - but it's not guaranteed everywhere. Just as a $145/barrel oil, with predictions of $200/barrel, did not bring about any major changes, except an increase in certain prices, it's likely that carbon tax may not bring about an immediate effect. Of course, if this tax can be channeled into public transportation and such, we may begin to see some change - but for that, the tax collection has to be really huge.
So, some people suggest an easing into a gradually increasing carbon tax - which seems like a more practical thing to do, but the effects will not be as quick as in capping the emissions. Unfortunately, this debate, when politicized, has the effect of misleading the public by pitting one against the other. That would be absurd, because they are simply different policy options, and there is no reason not to use both.
On the other hand, where the choice does look black & white is in absolute reduction of emissions vs. intensity-based reduction. Intensity-based targets has so many loopholes and can be so misleading, and there is no guarantee that total emissions will decrease (which is the real objective).
My fear is that this debate too could get hijacked by politicians who may throw around arguments that can be misleading. NGOs with expertise must really step into the picture and fight to prevent politicians and media pundits from drowning us in misleading arguments while stalling real action.
"American leadership on climate change will be undermined..."
Um, excuse me, but WHAT American leadership on climate change? One cannot undermine something that has no foundation to begin with.
"I don't think it's necessary, and I do know it's not possible,"
- Todd Stern, the state department's lead climate negotiator, claiming that America would not meet the short-term target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40% by 2020.
------------------------------
Todd Stern is the best person we can find for this job?
>>>"I don't think it's necessary, and I do know it's not possible,"
- Todd Stern, the state department's lead climate negotiator, claiming that America would not meet the short-term target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40% by 2020.
Shameful! Obama has to educate himself about how far ahead the Europeans are, both in terms of the awareness of the challenge, and in taking actual, substantial action. Until he really knows about where the US stands in comparison, all talk of 'leadership', 'yes we can' and all that nonsense is just bull&%it! Sure, the US can continue to be the leader of the rogue pack when it comes to emissions and using up more than its share of the earth's resources, if that's what he means by 'leadership'.
Europeans are not ahead of anyone. Even on the Kyoto accord numbers they agreed to only Britain and France are close to or meeting theirs. Signing up is not the same thing as producing.
Aside from that, till the day global warming is scientifivcally proven and proven to be caused by man,. its still a political choice of belief. Climate change is another subject altogether.
>>>Thomas More wrote: Europeans are not ahead of anyone. Even on the Kyoto accord numbers they agreed to only Britain and France are close to or meeting theirs. Signing up is not the same thing as producing.
Wrong. Among the EU-15 (the original 15 EU countries), all but three (Denmark, Italy, Spain) are expected to reach their Kyoto targets by 2010, 2 years ahead of the 2012 deadline (to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below the 1990 levels). Of course, it helped that Germany alone contributed about 75% of this reduction - having committed to reduce its emission by 21% below 1990 levels, it has already cut over 19% below 1990 levels. Some countries such as Ireland will meet their targets by purchasing carbon credits. Under the terms called "common but differentiated responsibilities," Sweden was actually allowed an increase of 4% above its 1990 levels, but it still went ahead and cut down its emissions by 9 percent compared to 1990 levels - while its economy actually grew 44% since 1990. Even among the recent entrants to the enlarged EU (the so-called EU-12), 10 of them are on course to meeting their targets. Even among these, only Slovenia may resort to meeting its targets through purchase of carbon credits, while the rest may achieve actual reductions. The other two, viz., Cyprus and Malta, do not have Kyoto targets.
When the dust settles, we will see that some of the European countries have nicely positioned themselves by investing in new technologies, infrastructure, cleaner environment, less dependence on fossil fuels, and most important of all, a citizenry that has woken up to the new reality and the collective responsibilities, while some in the rest of the world will be stuck in denial, inefficiency and debt. You are right - signing up is not the same thing as producing. Case in point: Canada - which has not only signed on, but their parliament even ratified the treaty. The USA, signed on, but not ratified, nor walked out either. Australia, which ratified the treaty by December 2007 - less than a month after Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister, may barely meet its target - though it's not a good example, since Australia benefits from a special interpretation of the so-called 'baseline' which allows it to start from a higher level of emissions.
I find it sad that you still happen to think that global warming is "a political choice of belief". Well, when it's a matter of belief for you, I have nothing to say on that matter.
The largest CO2 emitter and all developing countries are exempt.
Between 1997 and 2004, carbon dioxide emissions rose as follows:
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%;
Emissions from countries that ratified the protocol increased 21.1%;
Emissions from non-ratifiers of the protocol increased 10.0%;
Emissions from the US (a non-ratifier) increased 6.6%;
Emissions from the US increased less than 75% of ratifying countries.
With respect to the last point, the following are the percentage rises in emissions for a list of selected countries which have ratified the protocol (or which were exempted from targets): Maldives, 252%; China, 55%; Luxembourg, 43%; Iran, 39%; Norway, 24%; Russia, 16%; Italy, 16%; Finland, 15%; Mexico, 11%; Japan, 11%; Canada, 8.8%.
It is a convenient date, 1990. That was the time Eastern Europe were 3rd world nations under the Soviet Bloc. So when East Germany became part of Germany, it's 1990 levels were extremely high, and as East Germany began to modernize at West Germanies expense, CO2 naturally was reduced as East Germany began using cleaner available fuels. France of course gets 80% of it's electricity from nuclear and the UK had already shifted from coal to natural gas.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/how_effective_is_the_kyoto_pro.html
"The "core" EU countries, those that were members before the fall of Communism in 1990 showed an increase in CO2 output of 11.3%, about 1.5% per year, and almost three quarters of their rates of economic growth. Only the inclusion of the former communist countries, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, make the EU look like a good world citizen.
The EU, including the former Eastern European countries, saw its CO2 emissions rise just 4.2% from 1997 to 2004. CO2 production in all of the new EU members was distinctly negative over that period (-6.4%). Among the "core" EU members, only Denmark produced less CO2 in 2004 than in 1997. The US CO2 output rose by about 6.6%, less than one percent annually and about one fourth the rate of US economic growth in that period."
We are at a disadvantage since we do not have any dirty states to absorb, unless China becomes part of the US. While it's true we do import a lot from China, so does Europe, although somewhat less than the US because they tend to protect their markets with bizarre product safety regulations.
>>>Inconvenient Truth wrote: We are at a disadvantage since we do not have any dirty states to absorb, unless China becomes part of the US.
This is a totally bogus argument. Not even George W Bush is sticking to this position - at least publicly. The facts are simple:
- Carbon dioxide levels are above what is thought to be a 'safe' level.
- This rise did not come about overnight, or even in the last decade.
- Most of the big rise in the carbon dioxide levels are due to the industrialized countries - going back to the industrial revolution, but particularly in the last century.
- Developing countries' emissions will rise as they are still, uh, developing, so as to reach a certain basic level of development for their citizens.
- The percapita consumption of the 'developed' countries, especially the US, Canada and Australia, is way above that of the developing nations - even China and India.
- The population argument is also bogus - if all the white people are fitted back on to Europe, Europe would look worse than any third world country.
- Recognizing the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and recognizing the historical contributions to the rise in GHG levels made by various countries, intelligent people negotiated real hard - Kyoto was only the culmination, preceded by several months of worldwide negotiations - and agreed to set a modest target of an average reduction of about 5% below 1990 levels, by the year 2012. This level of reduction, it turns out, is NOT sufficient, but in 1997, this was considered a good starting point. As better estimates and projections become available and as the effects of climate change, which were predicted a few years/decades into the future are brought closer in time, no one in his right mind is even sticking to 1990 levels. People are already preparing to bring about further reduction in a desperate attempt to minimize or hopefully stave off catastrophic effects.
- Remember hurricane Katrina? Years before that, precise information and modeling results were presented by researchers at LSU and other universities about the urgent need to shore up the levees and what exactly would happen if they were to break. Katrina may or may not have been due to climate change - but my point is, scientists and engineers have a way of looking at things and predicting things - even in the face of incomplete data, and normally choose to err on the side of caution. 'Margin of safety' is built into everything that a good engineer designs and hands over to the public.
- Reducing emissions, to an engineer or a scientist, instinctively makes sense as also more efficient - even irrespective of climate change considerations. It is only the businessman, while adopting lower emissions, seeks to increase production, so as to increase profit. Or to sell gas guzzling monsters by appealing to people's vanity.
- USA's emissions grew in the 1990's and in this century, despite closing down of several factories, coupled with a rise in imports. This means, that the real increase, if all the production were made domestically, would have been substantially higher. Similarly, if you subtract that part of the emissions which China exports by way of products, it's per capita emission will also come down. Looking at the lifestyles of people in different countries, it's a no-brainer to see where the emissions are coming from.
- Greenhouse gas effect is not a new idea. Svante August Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, & a real genius, looking at all the coal being burnt, said that this would eventually raise the temperature of the earth and even made some rough calculations - as early as 1896.
I am sure there is no dearth of excuses for the climate change deniers and the status quo-apologists. They can pick from outright doubts on the science to reasons why nothing can be done to blaming the poorer countries to ...you name it. The question every individual has to ask himself is, why he chooses the position that he does. Is it because of actual scientific background - firsthand, not based on secondhand and third hand drivel, is it because of an addiction to a certain lifestyle, is it because of a certain self-righteousness, or a sense of entitlement and arrogance, coupled with a 'let the poor bastards go to hell - it's not my concern' attitude, or what is it? And what exactly will the USA lose if it chooses to move with the rest of the world - along with the more progressive crowd?
Your basic premise is that a higher global atmospheric CO2 content is a bad thing. There is a consensus that man contributed to CO2's increase, that CO2 contributes to warming we have seen to some extent, that we have been warming since the end of the last ice age, that doubling CO2 will cause up to 1 deg warming w/o feedbacks. Where there is no consensus is on the extent of warming due to feedbacks. The models predicting drastic sea level increases assume mostly positive feedbacks. This assumption given the current level of understanding of climate science and large uncertainty in historical data is very suspect.
But lets proceed on the assumption that higher levels of total CO2 is bad. Yet you use per capita emissions in comparing CO2 emissions. The US has 5% of the total global population (21% total emissions, compared to 24% for China). China and India have low per capita emissions (30% of total emissions), and have over 35% of the global population, and their emissions are increasing rapidly. So it would seem CO2 will increase in the future despite our cuts, but we must reduce our consumption so the developing world may have more room to increase theirs. It sounds fair, but one must ask if our cuts are just the beginning.
As pointed out, our CO2 emissions are not increasing much. Most is related to immigration increasing our population. Per capita household energy consumption has not increased in 30 years. Also, they do not account for our forests. I mean, we have the same land area as China, but much of ours is green (over 30% forest), and if you use CO2 emissions per sq mile, China has us beat(they actually have a fertility rate higher than the US). And how much of our emissions are due to the military and MIC. The military uses more oil than most countries.
Reducing emissions in the US would raise the cost of doing business, and encourage companies to move to countries where costs are lower. It would require lowering population (immigration controls) and/or lowering per capita energy consumption (living standards).
As to imports from countries who are increasing CO2 emissions to produce goods for the US, I could see merit in a carbon import tax to give these countries an incentive to use cleaner fuels and level the playing field. This would make imports more expensive and encourage us to produce our own goods with cleaner fuels and better technology. But not a unilateral reduction in CO2 by the US w/o doing anything about the developing worlds increasing CO2.
If CO2 were not an issue, the focus would be on allowing the poorer countries to catch up to our living standards. I am all for that, but Kissingers NSSM 200 in 1974, before Global Warming became an issue, shows this is not our goal. Once a desirable living standard is reached, population growth can be stabilized, and growth is no longer required. The argument against this is sustainability and that if the entire world enjoyed our living standards we would quickly be depleted of resources. But that assumes technology will remain stagnant. Same mistake Malthus made.
Margin of safety. Engineering models are testable and have demonstrated their use in making predictions. The theories and laws used have been applied successfully at so many levels for 100 years. Climate models are not testable, and have not proven their ability to predict; this is because climate really is 60+ years or more of weather and we have only had models since 1988. Predictions from 1988 on global temperature have not been accurate. Temperatures have increased, but not to the extent predicted given our CO2 growth. Also, given the tendency of this planet for ice age over the last 600,000 years, and the poor level of understanding of climate science, which is fairly new, a reduction in atmospheric CO2, assuming man could accomplish that, could actually lead to something much worse. Man today is so dependent on agriculture, an ice age would be devastating. So the margin of error includes both catastrophic global warming and ice age. The uncertainties are too large. Unlike levee design, we are not ready to design our climate.
As for your last questions, I started looking into the science when I saw the push for carbon credits and carbon trading. The scheme looked to be profitable to those who would control the credits and trading, and had ties to the financial industry. So I saw a financial motive.
I also came across Eisenhowers warning of government funding in science, and saw how the science could be influenced, since most of the funding for climate science comes from government funding, and the global corporations who finance elections.
Another agenda I came across, was to use environmental fears as a war substitute so as to keep our current financial system alive without war. This was exposed in a book called "The Report From Iron Mountain" in the 1960's. This is somewhat admirable, since another world war would be ugly, except for the fact we should eliminate a financial system which relies on war and eco-terrorism and constantly brings us recessions and depressions.
Another part of that agenda of course is Global Government and the de-industrialization of the developed world, not to mention the cartelization of the worlds natural resources and control of the world economy. Another name for it is Globalization and Free Trade. None of this is discussed publicly of course, so essentially what I see is that a small group of people have decided they know whats best for everyone, and are pushing this. Not being a democratic process, it will certainly lead to tyranny.