73
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 09:58 am
Meanwhile the United States that is still a government by the people, most of whom prefer to do things the practical way instead of by government madate, is doing pretty well if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions in fact do significantly contribute to global warming. Typically, however, the left wingnuts are only interested in villifying rather than working with the current administration.

BERKELEY
Greenhouse emissions reduced by biodiesel
Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Berkeley reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the city by 14 percent during the past two years with conservation measures that included running cars on vegetable oil, city officials said Monday.

The dramatic drop in carbon emissions apparently puts Berkeley at the forefront of a handful of cities that are legally committing themselves to reducing the pollution that many scientists have blamed for global warming.

"Berkeley's groundbreaking efforts to be a model environmental city are beginning to show dramatic results,'' said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates.

The city calculated that its carbon emissions in 2004 were 2,066 metric tons less than its baseline number. To get equivalent air-quality benefits, the city would have had to plant 52,000 trees or remove 450 cars from the road, Bates said.

The greatest cut in greenhouse gases, 47 percent, came from city vehicles -- particularly as a result of the use of biodiesel fuel but also through use of electric, natural gas and hybrid electric-gasoline powered vehicles.

Berkeley's City Council is expected to vote tonight to join four other cities, including Oakland, as members of the Chicago Climate Exchange, a stock-market-like association of private and public entities that has been trading "emissions allowances" since December 2003. The exchange requires members to reduce emissions by 1 percent per year through 2006.

None of the other cities has documented a reduction in emissions as big as Berkeley claims. This year, Oakland became the second city to join, but it has not calculated its emissions.

Chicago, a founding member of the exchange, claims about a 5 percent reduction over 2003 and 2004. Portland has not released numbers, while Boulder, Colo., showed a drop of 9 percent in 2003 and estimates its emissions stayed constant in 2004.

The exchange's 110 members include major corporations such as IBM, Ford Motor Co. and DuPont Co. In the first year, members of the exchange collectively reduced their carbon emissions by 9 percent, said Richard Sandor, the chairman and chief executive officer of the exchange. Numbers for 2004 are not yet available.

Berkeley is "doing a fantastic job'' said Sandor, who was chief economist of the Chicago Board of Trade in the 1970s and an assistant professor at UC Berkeley's business school from 1966 to 1972.

The city has had problems this year with engines being damaged by contaminated biodiesel fuel -- which is essentially vegetable oil -- and has been using much less biodiesel as a result, which could result in higher emissions this year, officials said.

The city cut its use of natural gas by 16 percent but saw electricity use climb 5 percent, mostly from the opening of its expanded central library and the purchase of a downtown office building that has a tenant operating an Internet server farm.

Bates took a swipe Monday at the Bush administration for it refusal to abide by the Kyoto Protocol, which calls upon nearly 40 industrialized countries to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

"With the outrageous failure of our federal government to take action, it is essential for cities to step up to the plate and show real leadership in the fight against global warming,'' Bates said.

Michele St. Martin, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, took exception with Bates' criticism, saying that President Bush in 2002 set forth a plan to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent by 2012.

She claimed reductions were 2.3 percent in 2003 and 2.6 percent in 2004, but those numbers have been hotly disputed by environmentalists.

"We welcome efforts from all levels of government to meet that goal,'' St. Martin said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/13/BAG0GEMQEJ1.DTL
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 10:34 am
JustWonders wrote:
This is excellent news, indeed, for proponents of sound science and economic growth!

UK SIGNALS U-TURN ON CLIMATE DEAL

British environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, has suggested a u-turn in climate policies, suggesting voluntary targets for cutting emissions when the Kyoto climate agreement ends in 2012. Environmentalists say that, without mandatory targets, the climate deal is effectively dead. ...She said it would be impossible to achieve consensus on compulsory targets, according to UK Sunday paper the Observer. ...Last week a UN report concluded the EU as a bloc has achieved a reduction of only 1.4 percent in emissions from 1990 to 2003, far from the minus 8 percent target in 2012 that the Europeans have set themselves in the framework of Kyoto. Goals set by the EU to increase the share of renewable energy also seem to have failed.


JW, reading the web site you linked to - how did you reach your conclusion?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 10:43 am
Here in Germany every second county/town/city council (at least) runs their cars on bio diesel since years - and you hardly find a petrol station that doesn't have bio diesel pumps. (About 5% of all used Diesel is Bio-Diesel)


The production of bio diesel is a huge industry - both in the agriculture as well as on the actual production area. (Production in 2004 was more than 1.2 million tons = about 1.4 million US tons)


Besides the fact that rape and the Diesel has to be transported from one place to the other - modern Diesel cars can't be filled with Bio Diesel (at least not too often).

And: my Diesel car has fewer emissions than a four years old one with Bio Diesel: carbon-particulate filter, catalysator, modern engine for instance made this.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 10:54 am
old europe wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
This is excellent news, indeed, for proponents of sound science and economic growth!

UK SIGNALS U-TURN ON CLIMATE DEAL

British environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, has suggested a u-turn in climate policies, suggesting voluntary targets for cutting emissions when the Kyoto climate agreement ends in 2012. Environmentalists say that, without mandatory targets, the climate deal is effectively dead. ...She said it would be impossible to achieve consensus on compulsory targets, according to UK Sunday paper the Observer. ...Last week a UN report concluded the EU as a bloc has achieved a reduction of only 1.4 percent in emissions from 1990 to 2003, far from the minus 8 percent target in 2012 that the Europeans have set themselves in the framework of Kyoto. Goals set by the EU to increase the share of renewable energy also seem to have failed.


JW, reading the web site you linked to - how did you reach your conclusion?


OE - I see Kyoto as being a rather misguided global effort to over-regulate and over-tax energy consumption when there's no conclusive proof about what's causing global warming in the first place. Now that the Brits have stated their willingness to accept voluntary targets for emission reductions rather than mandatory, I think it pretty well nails the Kyoto coffin shut. I know you disagree. <Shrug>
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 11:05 am
JustWonders wrote:
Now that the Brits have stated their willingness to accept voluntary targets for emission reductions rather than mandatory, I think it pretty well nails the Kyoto coffin shut. I know you disagree. <Shrug>


I suppose, everyone knew that the Kyoto climate agreement ends in 2012. No nails needed to close it.

Quote:
British environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, has suggested a u-turn in climate policies, suggesting voluntary targets for cutting emissions when the Kyoto climate agreement ends in 2012.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 12:14 pm
Kyoto was an abomination. Anyone who followed it knows why the US Senate voted 95-0 in 1997 NOT TO RATIFY KYOTO.

How quickly people forget:

The Senate would not approve an agreement which would place Draconian strictures on the US Economy while the Chinese and Indian economies were not covered by Kyoto BECAUSE THEY WERE LISTED AS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

I am sure that Walter Hinteler does not know this but every car in Germany and, for that matter, all of Europe, can run on bio-diesel and even carrot juice, and if China and India do not make changes in thier pollution, it will make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE.

I hope Walter Hinteler realizes that pollution in China and India DOES affect the entire world.

Besides that, there is no real consensus as to whether CO2 causes global warming. Those eager to check this point out may go to the excellent posts made by Foxfyre and the numerous posts I made which gave specific and varied reasons why there has not been a good strong case made for the supposed deleterious effects of CO2.

Rest easy, Just Wonders, George W. Bush will never ruin the US economy because of an unproven theory. Hillary, his successor might but then she has always been ruthless.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 12:32 pm
JustWonders wrote:
old europe wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
This is excellent news, indeed, for proponents of sound science and economic growth!

UK SIGNALS U-TURN ON CLIMATE DEAL

British environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, has suggested a u-turn in climate policies, suggesting voluntary targets for cutting emissions when the Kyoto climate agreement ends in 2012. Environmentalists say that, without mandatory targets, the climate deal is effectively dead. ...She said it would be impossible to achieve consensus on compulsory targets, according to UK Sunday paper the Observer. ...Last week a UN report concluded the EU as a bloc has achieved a reduction of only 1.4 percent in emissions from 1990 to 2003, far from the minus 8 percent target in 2012 that the Europeans have set themselves in the framework of Kyoto. Goals set by the EU to increase the share of renewable energy also seem to have failed.


JW, reading the web site you linked to - how did you reach your conclusion?


OE - I see Kyoto as being a rather misguided global effort to over-regulate and over-tax energy consumption when there's no conclusive proof about what's causing global warming in the first place. Now that the Brits have stated their willingness to accept voluntary targets for emission reductions rather than mandatory, I think it pretty well nails the Kyoto coffin shut. I know you disagree. <Shrug>


I know you do, JW. Yet I wondered how you would interprete the article as "excellent news for proponents of sound science and economic growth". How, for example, did you reach the statement that "there's no conclusive proof about what's causing global warming" from the article?

All I got from the article was that Margaret Beckett stated that it would be "impossible to achieve consensus on compulsory targets". A view I tend to agree with. As long as the US can't be bothered to support any international agreement, those treaties are indeed "not worth the paper they are written on".
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 12:37 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Typically, however, the left wingnuts are only interested in villifying rather than working with the current administration.


So Berkeley's current administration - Tom Bates and the City Council - is Republican?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 01:28 pm
old europe wrote:
I know you do, JW. Yet I wondered how you would interprete the article as "excellent news for proponents of sound science and economic growth". How, for example, did you reach the statement that "there's no conclusive proof about what's causing global warming" from the article?


You're assuming my opinion regarding what's causing global warming is from the article, when in fact, it's an opinion I formed a while back. You hold a different opinion <Another shrug>

old europe wrote:
All I got from the article was that Margaret Beckett stated that it would be "impossible to achieve consensus on compulsory targets". A view I tend to agree with. As long as the US can't be bothered to support any international agreement, those treaties are indeed "not worth the paper they are written on".


I can't be responsible for your reading comprehension skills. If that's all you got from the article, that's your problem...not mine Smile

The lawmakers of this country saw (and see) Kyoto as a flawed treaty and wanted no part of it. Some of the countries that did sign on seem to be having second thoughts. We did the right thing for us and I'm sure you feel the same about your country (Germany?) doing the right thing for you. <Yet another shrug>
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 01:34 pm
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Typically, however, the left wingnuts are only interested in villifying rather than working with the current administration.


So Berkeley's current administration - Tom Bates and the City Council - is Republican?


I don't know what they are, but since Berkeley is a central hotbed of radical liberalism, I think it highly unlikely that they are Republican. And what does that have to do with anything anyway?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 03:09 pm
JustWonders wrote:
old europe wrote:
I know you do, JW. Yet I wondered how you would interprete the article as "excellent news for proponents of sound science and economic growth". How, for example, did you reach the statement that "there's no conclusive proof about what's causing global warming" from the article?


You're assuming my opinion regarding what's causing global warming is from the article, when in fact, it's an opinion I formed a while back. You hold a different opinion <Another shrug>


Ah. Okay. I just thought that your 'introduction' might have something to do with the article you subsequently posted. I was mistaken, then.

JustWonders wrote:
old europe wrote:
All I got from the article was that Margaret Beckett stated that it would be "impossible to achieve consensus on compulsory targets". A view I tend to agree with. As long as the US can't be bothered to support any international agreement, those treaties are indeed "not worth the paper they are written on".


I can't be responsible for your reading comprehension skills. If that's all you got from the article, that's your problem...not mine Smile


Well, what do you get from the article?

JustWonders wrote:
The lawmakers of this country saw (and see) Kyoto as a flawed treaty and wanted no part of it. Some of the countries that did sign on seem to be having second thoughts. We did the right thing for us and I'm sure you feel the same about your country (Germany?) doing the right thing for you. <Yet another shrug>


"Some of the countries" are the UK, I presume? I don't think that e.g. Blair's statement constitutes a "u-turn". I think that most people would agree that a treaty where only some nations are participating is, by design, flawed. The righties in the US usually name India and China when retiring to that position. I would add the States, of course. And I would add that a lot more could be done in Europe, too.

I'd be happy about any "u-turn" that would get the US, India, China and Europe to work together. And all the other countries, too. Of course.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 03:17 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't know what they are, but since Berkeley is a central hotbed of radical liberalism, I think it highly unlikely that they are Republican. And what does that have to do with anything anyway?


Well, that was what you wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Meanwhile the United States that is still a government by the people, most of whom prefer to do things the practical way instead of by government madate, is doing pretty well if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions in fact do significantly contribute to global warming. Typically, however, the left wingnuts are only interested in villifying rather than working with the current administration.


You are specifically bashing the "the left wingnuts who are only interested in villifying". Then you go on and post an article about what the left wingnuts have achieved so far, which seems to be a lot more than what the US government is doing.

So either you try to discredit your own argument all within one post, or there's something hidden in there that went completely over my head.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 03:27 pm
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't know what they are, but since Berkeley is a central hotbed of radical liberalism, I think it highly unlikely that they are Republican. And what does that have to do with anything anyway?


Well, that was what you wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Meanwhile the United States that is still a government by the people, most of whom prefer to do things the practical way instead of by government madate, is doing pretty well if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions in fact do significantly contribute to global warming. Typically, however, the left wingnuts are only interested in villifying rather than working with the current administration.


You are specifically bashing the "the left wingnuts who are only interested in villifying". Then you go on and post an article about what the left wingnuts have achieved so far, which seems to be a lot more than what the US government is doing.

So either you try to discredit your own argument all within one post, or there's something hidden in there that went completely over my head.


Did you even read the article? It's all there. So yes, it must have gone completely over your head.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 03:30 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Did you even read the article? It's all there. So yes, it must have gone completely over your head.


It's all there, indeed.

Quote:
Bates took a swipe Monday at the Bush administration for it refusal to abide by the Kyoto Protocol, which calls upon nearly 40 industrialized countries to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

"With the outrageous failure of our federal government to take action, it is essential for cities to step up to the plate and show real leadership in the fight against global warming,'' Bates said.


What I just said.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 03:47 pm
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Did you even read the article? It's all there. So yes, it must have gone completely over your head.


It's all there, indeed.

Quote:
Bates took a swipe Monday at the Bush administration for it refusal to abide by the Kyoto Protocol, which calls upon nearly 40 industrialized countries to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

"With the outrageous failure of our federal government to take action, it is essential for cities to step up to the plate and show real leadership in the fight against global warming,'' Bates said.


What I just said.


And what I said was based on the information in the article that the U.S. president is even more ambitious than Kyoto, and US cities and town are indeed implementing their own programs as described.

Did you pick up on that? No. You picked up on the Left Wingnut propanganda villifying the current administration. Which is exactly what they do. Fair and honest? I don't think so.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 04:59 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
And what I said was based on the information in the article that the U.S. president is even more ambitious than Kyoto


Can you quote the article on that, please?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 05:33 pm
I did quote the article. The article is what we are talking about, yes?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 05:46 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I did quote the article. The article is what we are talking about, yes?


Yes, I suppose. What I meant was: could you point out where exactly the article states what you claimed here:

Foxfyre wrote:
And what I said was based on the information in the article that the U.S. president is even more ambitious than Kyoto
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 06:40 pm
Check the article and what the President's proposal was, OE. And then compare that with what others want from the Kyoto Accord.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2005 07:24 pm
What are you talking about, Foxy? There's absolutely nothing in the article!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 07/29/2025 at 12:11:57