Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US, Canada Rank Last in Curbing Warming, Report on G-8 Says
ROME (Reuters) - With only five months to go until a new global pact on climate change, none of the Group of Eight nations is doing enough to curb global warming, with Canada and the United States ranking bottom, a study said on Wednesday.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper shields his eyes from the stage lights as he looks for a reporter during a question period at Pier 21 in Halifax, Nova Scotia June 25, 2009. REUTERS/Paul Darrow The "G8 Climate Scorecards," compiled by environmental group WWF, said even the greenest members of the rich nations' club -- Germany, Britain and France -- were not on track to meet a "danger threshold" of limiting temperature rises to below two degrees Celsius.
G8 leaders gather in Italy next week to discuss the world financial crisis and climate change, hoping to make progress toward a new pact on global warming due to be signed in Copenhagen in December to replace the 1997 Kyoto deal.
They will be joined by members of U.S. President Barack Obama's Major Economies Forum in a bid to forge broad consensus.
"While there might be a bailout possibility for the financial system, no amounts of money will save the planet once climate change crosses the danger threshold," WWF head James Leape wrote in the foreword to the report.
Wednesday's annual G8 scorecard singled out Canada, saying Prime Minister Stephen Harper's conservative government had not implemented a plan to curb emissions, already among the highest in the world per capita and steadily increasing. Canada was not even close to meeting its Kyoto agreements, the WWF said.
The report praised U.S. President Obama for prioritizing clean energy in his economic recovery package and promoting green legislation, but said U.S. per capita emissions were among the highest in the world and were projected to rise.
"There has been more action in the U.S. in the last four months than in the last three decades -- a trend that will hopefully continue," the report said.
Obama's government has not embraced the 2 degree Celsius goal adopted by the European Union. Temperatures have already risen by 0.7 percent since the start of the industrial era.
"In order to avoid or reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change, G8 leaders must agree to do everything they can to stay below 2 degrees," said Kim Carstensen, leader of the WWF's Global Climate Initiative.
GERMANY TOP, THEN BRITAIN
Top of the G8 rankings came Germany, followed by Britain. The WWF praised Berlin for promoting renewable energy and an ambitious target of cutting greenhouse gases by 40 percent by 2020, though said this lacked clear plans for implementation.
"There is no reason to celebrate," said Regine Guenther, director for climate change, WWF Germany, adding that emissions needed to be cut by 95 percent by 2050. "This would be essential to keep global temperature rises well below two degrees."
Britain has already more than achieved its Kyoto pact targets due to a transition from coal to gas-fired power stations in the 1990s, but there was room to cut emissions in transport, power generation and services, the report said.
France has low emissions per capita for an industrialized nation due to its reliance on nuclear power, which provides more than three-quarters of its needs. The WWF does not support nuclear power due to concerns over safety and radioactive waste.
G8 host Italy has low emissions compared to G8 partners due mainly to the structure of its economy, the WWF said, but emissions were rising and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government was not making headway to meeting Kyoto obligations.
(Editing by Elizabeth Fullerton)
13 Comments so far
Show AllFrom the WWF site:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/
who/media/press/2008/WWFPresitem9507.html
Summaries:
7. Canada – Canada has very high per capita emissions and its trend in total emissions is steadily increasing. A plan to curb emissions has been developed but has yet to be implemented. Canada will miss its Kyoto target.
8. United States – The U.S. is the largest emitter among the G8 countries and has the highest per capita emissions rate of any nation. Its total emissions are rising, due to the country’s heavy reliance on coal and oil. The U.S. has not ratified Kyoto and has not implemented national legislation to curb emissions. However, substantial progress has been taking place at the state level and the next administration will likely show much stronger leadership on climate change.
The complete report:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/
press/2008/WWFBinaryitem9506.pdf
The very culture of the US and Canada (yes, I lump them tigether), focused on defining living atandard as the acquisition and accumulation of energy-consuming non-necessities, is imcompatable with addressing global warming.
And we even seem to be facing a sort of backlash. A directive was issues for the agency where I work (MSHA) to turn off all computing equipment at the end of the day, and use two-sided printing as the default setting on printers. It was obviolsly intended to be a conservation measure, but the directive called it a "security/safeguarding personal information" measure. This was done because had this been called a conservation measure, there would have been poor employee compliance and maybe even a backlash.
Most MSHA employees have adopted the mining industry culture, where there is a deep ideological revulsion to any measures that even hint at conservation or environmental awareness. I learned long ago not to ask where the recycling bin for pop cans is when I visit any mine office. You also learn never to turn lights off when leaving a room. No, I'm not making this stuff up.
Though they're not part of the Big Group (yet), if nothing is done about what the sweatshop to the world, China, is pouring into the atmosphere, the entire effort to "clean up the planet" is just a charade.
Actually, China is doing a fair amount to address global warming. They have the highest fiel-economy standatrds for cars and trucks in the world and is investing heavily in EV development. If you visit their citys, you will see numerous electric motor scooters on the streets. China is the largest manufacturer of large scale lithium-iron-phospate (LiFePO4) batteries for electric vehicles at affordable prices. I own two electric motor scooters from China. When I upgraded them to LiFePO4 cells, Chinese-made ones were the only ones avaialble.
China is also developing hydro, nuclear and wind power which will reduce their use of coal. Per-capita carbon emissions of the Chinese will never be more than a small fraction of the carbon emissions of an average USAn. And, dear population people, China's population has been stabilized, through family-size taxes and improved living standard.
None of this means that I like China's undemocratic political institutions, but without Chinese products, I couldn't have shrunk my own carbon footprint to the degree that I have.
>>>pjd412 wrote: ...but without Chinese products, I couldn't have shrunk my own carbon footprint to the degree that I have.
No, you don't really "shrink" your carbon footprint by buying Chinese products - that's just an accounting fraud where the USA's (and every other country that imports) actual carbon footprint gets shifted on to other countries. I don't mean YOU (as an individual) commit the fraud - but proper footprint accounting requires that when products are exported, the ecological footprint (that's a broader measure than just the carbon footprint) should now come under the importing nation's account.
Even after moving so much of manufacturing offshore, countries like the USA and Canada still leave such a huge carbon footprint based on their domestic production/consumption alone. Now imagine what this footprint would be, if all the manufacturing was brought back home and the same level of consumption continues.
That said, I think it is truly outrageous that China is exporting vegetables and wants to export beef (if it hasn't already started). I say it's outrageous because there are a billion plus people that need food, and fresh water is not that abundant. Exporting food is probably done purely for the sake of earning foreign exchange, and not because they have a surplus of food. And the elite within China must be behind this. There is a concept called "virtual water" - that is the water that's used to produce/manufacture the items that are exported - so in effect, China is exporting its water as well.
Check these out - US assembled, but major components from China.
http://www.currentmotor.com/
Actually, China imports US wheat, then exports products made from that wheat back to the US. It is crazy.
In my case, the only materials for an electric vehicle come from China, If it weren't for China, I wouldn't have an electric vehicle. US manufcturers refuse to make practical and affordable electric 2 wheel electric vehicles - or if they are (like Revolution EV, Ltd.), it is using Chinese components.
While there is certanly a payback period to account for the manufacture of the materials, considering that my scooter gets the energy equivalent of 395 miles per gallon, and the carbon equivalent of at least 150 miles per gallon even under the current US electric generating mix, I rhink the payback is fairly rapid.
OK, I misunderstood (because I didn't read your earlier post carefully, so it was not clear as to which Chinese products you were talking about :). Electric two-wheelers or just plain bicycles made in China - they do help reduce our footprint - no question.
How would all the electricity required be generated if everyone drove an electric car?
Coal fired power plants?
Coal or whatever is used at present and whatever renewable power sources that will be added in the future, I suppose. Under the current situation, up to a certain point, using electric cars would help the generation companies by load balancing (thus improving overall efficiency; thermal power plants are less efficient when operated at partial capacity) - when the batteries can be charged at night. I had a brief exchange with someone in one of the other articles where a simple calculation showed that even with coal-fired plants and basic EV technology, the emissions per mile would be less than that from gasoline-powered cars - on an overall (or, as they call it, "well-to-wheels") basis. But for the long term, it's not a good idea for EVERYONE to be driving their cars - electric or whatever - for every trip. Instead, there must be MUCH greater use of public transportation - which will produce far less emissions per passenger per mile even if they are just plain diesel buses. Electric buses would be better. And of course, it's eminently desirable to have a greater share of renewable power sources like wind and solar.
Solar powered electricity.
THE DAY
When oh when is the day going to come? When will the stillness of a starry night seep into this ugly wound that travels down a mountain of shame and greed that belies any claim of humanity or care?
Is the day of the heart so deep in the realm of the money changers that a child should die than poisons should stop on their path to the polluting smoke stack?
Where is the day of the sacredness that was the home; the home of all who believed in Bill and a Constitution? A home for sharing and not to tear.
Why is the day, oh such a long day, get not a rest as life and land cry and plead for this day to end? Yet is the day of doom pursued with vim and vigor for that 30 pieces of silver; as to any animal, vegetable or mineral besides that black angel of death there will be no future to bear.
Without an environment there will be no life. Tony 7/2/2009