Climate Change Can Be Avoided

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...504?hub=SciTech

Delegates at a UN international conference on climate change reached an agreement Friday on a plan to combat global warming, saying the world can avoid disaster if it acts immediately.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN network of scientists and government officials from more than 120 countries, finalized the report after a week of closed-door discussions in Bangkok, Thailand.

Delegates agreed that if the world acts right away, there is enough technological and economic resilience to avoid the impending effects of global warming -- which would include rising ocean levels, droughts, extinction of species and economic havoc.

The report concludes that the world can achieve success by drastically reducing reliance on the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases and by significantly reducing the deforestation of the planet.

Seems like it can be done without destroying the economy unlike Baird's forecasts seem to suggest.

[B. Max]

If it's coming from the UN you know it's crap. The couldn't run a peanut stand never mind an economy.

[noahbody]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...504?hub=SciTech

Delegates at a UN international conference on climate change reached an agreement Friday on a plan to combat global warming, saying the world can avoid disaster if it acts immediately.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN network of scientists and government officials from more than 120 countries, finalized the report after a week of closed-door discussions in Bangkok, Thailand.

Delegates agreed that if the world acts right away, there is enough technological and economic resilience to avoid the impending effects of global warming -- which would include rising ocean levels, droughts, extinction of species and economic havoc.

The report concludes that the world can achieve success by drastically reducing reliance on the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases and by significantly reducing the deforestation of the planet.

Seems like it can be done without destroying the economy unlike Baird's forecasts seem to suggest.

I'd argue "drastically reducing reliance on the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels" indicates Canada's ecomony would be drastically affected.

[jdobbin]

I'd argue "drastically reducing reliance on the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels" indicates Canada's ecomony would be drastically affected.

And yet even the U.S. and China signed off on this latest report saying that it won't break the economies to try and make a difference.

[scribblet]

Maybe not to try, gradually.

[Keepitsimple]

Baird's forecast were an analysis of what would happen if we tried to meet our Kyoto committment - which amounts to reducing our emissions by 30% on average between the years 2008-2012. That means a 30% cut in 8 months and if we can't do that, we have to cut deeper in 2009...and if we can't do that, deeper still in 2010....so that we can average 30% reductions over the period. Even the Toronto Star today - for the first time - finally published an article that said we had to meet our targets by 2008. Do people really think that we can cut our emissions by 30% in 8 months or even two years without affecting our economy? It's just silly. Let's not get wrapped up in Left-wing handwringing that "we have to try". Simply admit we were naive in signing Kyoto, admit that we've not done much since then....and let's move on and get something accomplished.

The European Union seems to get a lot of media attention in being champions of Kyoto. It may surprise people to know that since 1999, European emissions have actually gone up! After making a big dent in their emissions by closing a lot of state-controlled dirty factories with the fall of communism, they have at best, been treading water. They have now made a committment to reduce their emissions by 12% by the year 2020. We have just made a committment to reduce ours by 20%. That's why Baird said our targets were among the most agressive in the world. Let's stop focusing on this arbitrary year of 1990 - which was a self-serving European selection - and let's move on and make real reductions on a go-forward basis.

Here's a few points (page 19) from a report by the European Environment Agency titles "Greenhouse Gas Trends and Projections in Europe 2006".

EU‑15 assessment

1) Greenhouse gases emissions in the EU-15 have risen since 1999 and emission levels in 2004 were the

highest since 1996.

2) In 2004, greenhouse gas emissions for the EU-15 were 0.9 % below the base-year level. This means

that the EU-15 is little more than one tenth of the way towards its 8% reduction target under the Kyoto

Protocol.

3) Compared to last year's analysis, emission reductions in the EU-15 projected for 2010 have become

significantly smaller. This is due to changes in both the base-year emission data and in the emission

projections of several Member States.

4) Enhanced efforts on top of existing domestic policies and measures, including additional domestic

measures along with the use of Kyoto mechanisms and carbon sinks, are projected to amount to a

combined emission reduction of 8.0 % below base-year level. These policies and measures would just

be sufficient to reach the EU-15 Kyoto target (existing domestic policies and measures are projected to

deliver 0.6 % (21), additional domestic policies and measures 4.0 %, use of Kyoto mechanisms 2.6 %

and use of carbons sinks 0.8 %).

5) The achievement of an 8 % reduction assumes that several Member States substantially over-deliver on

their individual targets.

6) Two Member States — Sweden and the United Kingdom — were on track to achieve their burden-sharing

targets in 2010 and project that existing domestic policies and measures alone will be sufficient to meet

or even exceed their targets.

7) Six more countries anticipate they will exceed (Finland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) or meet

(France, Germany and Greece) their commitment targets by additional measures, use of Kyoto

mechanisms, use carbon sinks or a combination thereof.

8) The remaining seven Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Austria, Italy and Portugal)

project that they will miss their targets despite the implementation of additional measures or the use of

Kyoto mechanisms or carbon sinks.

Link: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_20...port_9_2006.pdf

[AMAI]

I'd like to know whether there's any real proof that the changes being cited are actually the result of human activity on the planet. When did they start measuring "greenhouse gases"? Is there really enough data to support these claims? It sounds like a lot of political grandstanding and pressing of emotional buttons.