U.S. Set To Spend $5.8 Billion In 2005 On Climate Change (from ATSNN)

U.S. Set To Spend $5.8 Billion In 2005 On Climate Change (from ATSNN)

The United States had already turned down signing with the Kyoto protocol and has decided to go with the voluntary approach to aid in the reduction of man-made-green-house-gasses. In 2005 the U.S will spend more than 5 billion dollars on climate change. About 700 million dollars will be available in tax incentives for renewable energy programs.

In my opnion they should be spending at least 15billion a year if not more on Renewable energy programs. I grew up in L.A. and the The amount of progress that we've made on polution Has definetly shown, Driving into Down Town I can remember how the sky wasn't a real Blue More of a Grey or when i went to the beach the funny color the water was(not to mention the smell). And even where we are at today isn't enough.
If the U.S. can show that they can make the change(and that there is a profit to be had) others will follow. Especially those who can barely afford to buy the resources that they are using now.
We can complain that others wont follow , but if we want to have a beautiful world to pass on to our Grandchildren we need to start YESTERDAY! but i hope today will be good enough.

"Graph showing national greenhouse gas emissions, projected emissions, and achievement of the country's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol."

I've also pulled this up.

Scientific studies came to the conclusion, that a - 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 - combined with a phase out of nuclear energy - is possible and leads to an increase of employment by 200.000 people.
www.germany-info.org...

An increase of employment? Sounds like the rest of the world could use some tips from the Germans.

Yeah just look how well Germany's economy is doing Have you seen their unemployment rate lately?

''Germany: unemployment hits 50-year record ''

"Unemployment figures in Germany hit a post-World War II high in January when 5 million workers, 12.1 percent of the workforce, were reported jobless"

Yeah I dont think anyone should be trying to model their country after that.

themilitant.com...

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Yeah just look how well Germany's economy is doing

Okay.

As Europe's largest economy and most populous nation, Germany remains a key member of the continent's economic, political, and defense organizations.
www.odci.gov...

Germany is the fifth largest national economy in the world.
Yes they have an 10.5% unemployment rate. Isn't it great that they are creating 2 million jobs by reducing greenhouse gasses and nuclear use?
How is that not a model to go by?

Yeah 10.5% is a two year old number, they moved up to 12.1% percent as shown in the link I provided. So where are these new jobs they are making?

They have one of the highest deficits in the EU which breaks the EU deficit rules for the last couple of years and high unemployment.

The US has the largest national economy in the world and a 5.2% unemployment rate. Germany can keep their model.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

So where are these new jobs they are making?

I will repost my quote.

Scientific studies came to the conclusion, that a - 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 - combined with a phase out of nuclear energy - is possible and leads to an increase of employment by 200.000 people.
www.germany-info.org...

Anyway, this thread isn't about Germany's unemployment rate.

What I am trying to illustrate by the original post you commented on is that greenhouse reductions can be done. I was using Germany as an example of that.

You are also missing the big picture.
The Environment is of far greater importance than the economy.

Oh yes the environmental aspect, you mean with its best case scenario were we can reduce the temp in 2050 a whole tenth of a degree

12.1 % unemployment in exchange for a chance at a tenth of a degree drop in 2050. WOW I wonder why the US voted it down 95-0

Theres ways to help the enviroment but this political bunk aint it. How about trying to develop some alternative energy sources.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
12.1 % unemployment in exchange for a chance at a tenth of a degree drop in 2050. WOW I wonder why the US voted it down 95-0
[edit on 16-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Where exactly do these numbers come from? 12.1% is Germany's current unemployment rate. I don't have projected stats for Germany's temperature in 2050 or it's unemployment. However I did already post similar stats for California.
I will recap them.

The following data shows predicted average change in the years 2070 to 2099.

Lower emissions Higher emissions

Change in: scenario* scenario*

Temperature (statewide average)

Summer 4° higher 15° higher

Winter 4° higher 7° higher.

In other words, if we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions we can expect only a 4° increase rather than a 15° increase.
As I said when I originally posted this information, the study was done last year before we discovered that the world is heating up twice as fast as we had thought before.

We have an exellent thread on how pollution is affecting DNA on our babies.

I wonder also where is the leadership but let's see.

More on the Bush administration favoritism of big polluters over the safety of the environment.

quote:

New Rule Would Permit Routine Maintenance for Industrial Polluters > The Bush administration modified the Clean Air Act to permit power plants, > refineries and other pollution sources to replace equipment without > installing up-to-date emission-control devices. > > The new rule says that plants can replace up to 20 percent of their > equipment during "routine maintenance" each year without having to modernize > emissions-control systems. Industry groups said the move will make it less > costly for older plants to improve their environmental performance, while > critics said it could permit the nation's oldest and dirtiest plants to > skirt the law.


lists.isb.sdnpk.org...

So as we get sicker due to problems with our air, water and natural resources the administration is making sure that we can not get affordable health care and we will get medicaid cuts.

quote:

Today more than 130 million Americans-almost half the population-are exposed to unhealthy air pollution levels. Emissions from power plants are linked to a host of pediatric health problems, from asthma attacks and slowed neurological growth to stunted lung development and neonatal death. Instead of living up to his responsibility to safeguard public health and improve the nation's air quality, President Bush has partnered with industry lobbyists to begin a vast rollback of Clean Air Act protections.


The legacy of the present administration to generations to generations to come making sure our children future is of health problems giving the pharmaceutical industry a favor at the expenses of the American people future generations.

www.environment2004.org...

This some of bush records on our environment protections

quote:

Unclear Skies. The Bush administration's "Clear Skies" initiative would rewrite the Clean Air Act to benefit some of the nation's biggest polluters while weakening health protections for millions of Americans.


The bush record on our National Parks, has suffered in order to protect private interests.
The bush record on Global warming, Bush administration has make sure that such thing as global warming warnings is a fallacy and a Myth that will never affect the US occurs we are one of the biggest producers of CO2.
Bush record on environmental enforcement, The EPA has for the past 30 years been one of the best agencies to keep the environmental laws in place, since bush administration resources has been taken away from the agency, lest inspectors mean lest sources to find environmental law breakers giving more access to companies to pollute.

www.environment2004.org...

With such a record is not wonder the bush administration is not part of the Kyoto Protocol.

Originally posted by Umbrax

Where exactly do these numbers come from? 12.1% is Germany's current unemployment rate. I don't have projected stats for Germany's temperature in 2050 or it's unemployment.

The 2050 is the global temp not just for Germany and its is what scientist agree can be the best possible outcome if every nation hit it Kyoto target emissions. A 1/10th of a degree drop in projected temp in 2050.

So this treaty really has no effect on future temps even if everyone signs up.China,mexico,india get free rides and dont have to cut back at all, Undeveloped countries can even sell unused emission rights to countries that run over their limit. Its just flawed in so many ways its bunk.

The unemployment rate number for Germany is as of jan. 2005 in the link I already gave.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The 2050 is the global temp not just for Germany and its is what scientist agree can be the best possible outcome if every nation hit it Kyoto target emissions. A 1/10th of a degree drop in projected temp in 2050.

This is what I'm asking about I want to see where this number is from.
Obviously our efforts will be in vain if we can only reduce the global temperature by a tenth of a degree. I have already looked on the net and can not find this stat. This is why I asked where exactly do these numbers come from. I was hoping you could provide me with a link.
The sources I have posted suggest a much larger decrease than that.

The tenth of a degree is the best any scientist can come up with but here is another estimate of its likely effect by 2050.

"Wigley (1998) recently calculated the "saved" warming, under the assumptions noted above, that would accrue if every nation met its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. According to him, the earth’s temperature in 2050 will be 0.07°C lower as a result. My own calculations produced a similar answer. Wigley is a Senior Scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

0.07°C is an amount so small that it cannot be reliably measured by ground-based thermometers. If one assumes the more likely scenario that warming to the year 2100 will be approximately half of the IPCC estimate, the saved warming drops to 0.04°C over the next fifty years.''

.07 of a degree thats really not worth anything. Such a small change it cant even reliably measured by ground-based thermometers.


www.cato.org...

As I was looking at the Cato Institute MaskedAvatar posted this on a different thread.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
The task of critiquing the Cato Institute has been delegated to me.

It is done very well here:

world.std.com...

As in all such things, the Cato Institute "says" and "indicates" what dominant interest groups tell it to "say" and "indicate". It is a front for lobbying the positions of dominant corporations, nothing more nothing less.

It never seemed reasonable to me that we could only reduce global warming by 0.07°C. It didn't make sense to me while I was reading last the Kyoto Protocol. The amount of man made greenhouse gas reduction they are asking for would surely have an impact. I was also thinking, can 141 countries be that stupid to legally sign up for something that wont solve a thing?

Well alot of those countries get a economic boom if everyone signs up to it. China,India,Mexico ect.. will see many industries move to their country because they have no limit.

Vladimir Putin declared Kyoto "scientifically flawed" and Yet Russia signed it and Ill tell you why. They can make money off it, Russia's economic collapse after 1990 nearly halved its emissions. The protocol permits selling Russia's unused emission rights to other countries that might go over their limit.

All the less developed countries can do this as well. Say Peru comes no where close to there emission limits they can sell these rights over to the US. Theres alot of money to be made n this thing.

You can see why our our economic competitors are so anxious to get us to ratify Kyoto.

I have not found out yet why these countries are not required to lower emissions. But like I said before It is a lot easier to pick on a SUV driver rather than someone who has to cook their meal.

Canada signed Kyoto and Canada has a lot to lose also. The province of Alberta has been fighting it all the way. Canada being the U.S. trade partner would have a lot to lose by a failing American economy.

I started this thread being happy that the U.S is not ignoring the Global warming issue and spending the 5.8 billion and using tax benefits. This has not changed but I sure have learned about the motives of Global warming skeptics.

I have not looked into every countries motives for signing it and admitt im naive to Canadas position on it. I find it interesting that the province of Alberta has been fighting it all the way though.

With some tweaking a treaty like this might be great But I dont think it should favor any countries economy over anothers. Sure people need to be able to cook meals but that shouldn't give that same country free rides to bring loads of industries into their country.

A texile plant or plastic factory shouldn't be ok if the lack of limits is so they can cook food.