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

Foxfyre wrote:

And also pertinent is why is it posted on a thread related to global warming?

Because we were discussing David King's piece on greenhouse gas emission which was printed in the Guardian, a paper which George does not like, because its the Guardian. I was just trying to support the paper by citing other examples of its wide ranging content.

Walter, could you provide us the same data for (say) Canada and Germany?

I Googled. And while it didn't turn up exactly the same (2004) data, id did turn up data for 2002. In that year, greenhouse gas emissions declined in Europe by an average 0.5 percent after two years of increases. In Germany, emissions declined by 1.1 percent.

Seven states sign CO2 plan in break with Bush

Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:14 PM GMT

By Timothy Gardner

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Seven northeastern U.S. states have signed the country's first plan to create a market for heat-trapping carbon dioxide by curbing emissions at power plants, New York Gov. George Pataki said on Tuesday.

In a break with fellow Republican President George W. Bush, Pataki helped create the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, in which participating states agree to curb emissions starting in 2009, with cuts in emissions starting in 2016.

Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming in 2001, saying it would hurt the U.S. economy. He backs voluntary, not mandatory, cuts in production of greenhouse gases that most scientists believe warm the earth.

Environmentalists and growing ranks of carbon dioxide brokers hope one day the northeastern states will link with western states such as California to create a national greenhouse gas emissions market.

Pataki, who initiated RGGI in 2003, is widely thought to be aiming for the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election.

"In the face of the Bush administration's adamant refusal to cut heat-trapping pollution, this is a bold act of bipartisan leadership," said Dr. Peter Frumhoff, a climate expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Pataki said in a statement on Monday that RGGI will curtail CO2 emissions and spur development of new technologies to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Other members of the RGGI are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont. Membership is open to other U.S. states.

The states in early 2006 will issue for public review a draft of a memorandum of understanding on the plan that they signed on Monday. Each state then must proceed with required legislative or regulatory approvals to adopt the program.

MARKET

The United States, the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, created the idea of emissions markets but lags other rich nations in developing them.

The Kyoto pact, ratified by 156 nations, created a greenhouse gas market in the European Union earlier this year. In that market, industrial plants that have cut carbon emissions can sell credits to those that have not. A similar Kyoto-created market will open in Canada next year.

U.S. emissions brokers said RGGI should create a vibrant market by allowing power plants to mostly invest in clean energy projects, such as methane burning at landfills and wind farms.

"Essentially everybody (power plants) under RGGI will be short credits," said Andy Ertel, president of Evolution Markets, a New York based emissions broker. "That will lend itself to being more of a project-oriented market rather than a domestic version of the European Union's market, in which participants trade a lot of pure allowances for carbon."

Stakeholders' short positions in RGGI will be created by a rule in which at least 25 percent of a state's CO2 allowances will be dedicated to energy efficiency and new clean energy technologies.

SMALLER RGGI

Under RGGI, emissions of CO2 from power plants in the seven states beginning in 2009 would be capped at current levels of about 121 million tons until 2015.

The states would then slowly reduce emissions, aiming for a 10 percent reduction by 2019.

Massachusetts and Rhode Island quit the program earlier this month, saying it would raise power prices.

But some utilities, perhaps wanting to prepare for future carbon regulations, applauded the plan. KeySpan Corp. and Public Service Enterprise Group support the RGGI, while Dominion Resources Inc. and NRG Energy have come out against it.

The RGGI's own studies suggest that the plan could boost electricity bills by as much as $30 a year, but that bills could be eventually cut through increased efficiency of clean energy projects.

I must regretfully inform Steve( as 4100) that I have no idea as to what he is talking about. He may think that a rise in Co2 means we are all "fukked" but my readings on the subject lead me to disagree with him.

A typical response from someone who is aware that he would not come off well in an exchange of ideas. I feel sorry for you, Steve.

And I must regretfully inform Deadcat that I dont care.

A typical response from someone who is aware that he would not come off well in an exchange of ideas. I feel sorry for you, Steve.

"If Walter Hinteler can dispose of a person's scientifically based testimony on the basis of his field of expertise allegedly modified by his political leanings and his nationality, I am very much afraid that anything that slithers out of the Socialist state of Germany can be critiqued in the same way. "

"I have studied the problems involved in the allegations concerning "global warming and its alleged effects on the world's climate" very carefully and I do not believe that the proponents of the "catasthrope" thesis have enough conclusive evidence."

"The latest scientific data confirms what many of us have long suspected: climate change is already happening, and human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, together with deforestation, are the culprit....

Even a year ago climate change was still reported as a controversial issue. Was the world really warming? If so, was it just a natural change, or could it truly be attributed to human activities? There were just enough gaps in the scientific arguments to give climate sceptics room to manoeuvre. But since then every one of the sceptics' arguments has been shot down by new findings."

"I would be happiest if we could stabilise the atmosphere at 270 parts per million, the "natural" level before we began burning fossil fuels. However, it's too late for that; we are already at 381ppm and the level is increasing by 2ppm per year. Many scientists have suggested that 400ppm would be a desirable target, giving us a reasonable chance of avoiding the worst that climate change might throw at us, but this target is not achievable. We could perhaps manage it, if every nation were prepared to switch off its coal-fired power stations right now and sit waiting in the dark for new zero-emissions technologies to emerge. But in the real world that is not feasible.

Thus I have suggested that we aim for a level of 550 ppm by 2050. This amount of carbon dioxide, roughly double the preindustrial level, will still expose us to many of the dangers of climate change, but it is realistically achievable and provides the best available safeguard for the future."

I'm sure he is a nice guy. I really am not interested in his character but rather in his ideas. I have studied the problems involved in the allegations concerning "global warming and its alleged effects on the world's climate" very carefully and I do not believe that the proponents of the "catasthrope" thesis have enough conclusive evidence.

I remember that as a high schooler in the late sixties and early seventies, I read about evidence concerning the coming ICE AGE. I also read how we were doomed because there was not enough food to take care of mankind's nutritive needs--courtesy Paul Ehrlich.