yr.2050 - emissions reductions farce
2050 is too far off to do any good with emissions reductions
Date: 6/8/2007 11:33:50 AM ( 6 y ) ... viewed 854 times
"Reduce emissions causing global warming by half by 2050" is the buzzword for negotiations at the G8 summit this week in Germany. We must, at least, aim to stop the increases as soon a possible, that is paramount but it is not even being discussed in the talks now, as they distract us with meaningless target dates of 2050 - 43 years in the future. That is 43 years of doing nothing, despite that global warming is the biggest threat we hav ever faced as a civilisation!
The 'responsible nations' are calling for much stronger reductions targets, while PM Harper and Pres Bush are together in resisting those targets. As David Suzuki famously says, "Harper has his head so far up Bush's ass" ....
The 2050 timeline is not even worth talking about, since the 2oC temperature rise that we must not pass will occur unless we reduce emssions by half FROM 1990 LEVELS BY 2020.
In fact, even in reducing emissions by half by 2020 we may not avoid a 2oC temperature rise, so we must go at least that far and maybe further, or faster. There is no doubt in my mind that we COULD reduce emissions below 1990 levels by 2012, as Kyoto calls for. We certainly could have done it if we had started in the 1990s, instead of allowing the deniers to cast doubt and do studies and have more talks. It is now 2007 and they are still talking. This is a pttern of stalling, and we may see it repeated over and over, and we will still be stalling by 2020.
Confusion arises the more we let them talk. Targets of "5% below 1990 levels" are being replaced, slyly, with targets of "today", or "2007", and nobody really noted what that means in terms of reductions. It is huge, because we have increased our greenhouse gas emissions [GHGs] by 30% in some places, like Canada, since 1990.
The first big goal would be to just, at least, stop the increases. Only a few European nations have managed to stop increasing their outputs of GHGs. We could do that here in north america too, as AlGore pointed out in his movie Inconvienient Truth. THe resistance to that comes from "business as usual" people who want us to continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we are now.
Emissions reductions could occur in every sector that pollutes:
Transportation - simply by planning for the next 5 years to produce "plug-in hybrid electric cars" powered by solar panels on your rooftop, bringing your cost per mile down to 2 cents from 10 or 15 cents with gasoline. It is an economic advantage for people, not a problem, but the money would not flow to the big oil and auto people, so they have managed to stop this revolution.
Industry - electricity production causes a lot of GHGs, and by changing to solar and wind generation, the cost would go down and the pollution would be zero. Simple, but the money would not go to coal producers, so this great idea is resisted. Solar and wind are now economically viable, with oil at $65/bbl, whereas they were not when oil was $13/bbl. IT IS TIME!!!!!!!!!
Until we manage to get the corporate minions out of office, until a fair election is held where non-war and non-polluting representitives of the people [in a democratic nation] would be voted into power, we will not address global warming. Bush And Harper are obviously still stalling, using whatever tactics they can come up with, to ensure that targets will never be binding and allways so far into the future that it won't matter one bit.
They will cycle the denials and the economic fear-mongering and then have more discussions, and then add in some distractions with the war on terror and do nothing, forever, as we continue to use the dirtiest energy sources on the planet. Fossil fuels were buried deep in the earth millions of years ago because they are not healthy for life on the surface of planet earth. Nature's ways are being undone by our greedy oilmen, in more ways than one. We shall all pay for their trespasses.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!