Environmentalists: U.S. will reject climate proposals

Environmentalists: U.S. will reject climate proposals

www.usatoday.com

LONDON (AP) — The United States is preparing to reject new targets on climate change at a Group of Eight summit next month, dashing German and British hopes for a new global pact on carbon emissions, according to a document released by environmentalists.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade
There Is No Man-Made Global Warming
Global Warming...fact or global conspiracy?
Why Americans are Skeptical of Their Role in Global Warming

As the debate over carbon emissions, global warming, climate change, and whether or not mankind's pollution production is or is not a major factor in contributing to its causes continues. The international community seems to be working toward preventative measures to limit the potential contributions from human generated factors, yet the source article seems to show a clear resistance to these efforts from the United States, and particularly the Bush administration.

Throughout the debate over climate change, causes and effects the rhetoric has for the most part seemed to fall clearly along right or left political lines.

Would it not be prudent to take appropriate actions to limit potential causes where possible?

Interesting article, click the source link for more.

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 26-5-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Related News Links:

US 'opposes' G8 climate proposals

From above source link
The changes strike out entire sentences and significantly reduce the certainty with which the statement addresses climate change.

U.S. Said To Squash Greenhouse Gas Cuts

From above source link
The U.S., the world's biggest polluter, did not ratify the Kyoto agreement through which developed countries agreed to cut emissions by 5 percent below their 1990 level by 2012.

Is the stage now set for yet another political battle over climate change?

Good for the U.S. BTW, the U.S. is not the only country rejecting the proposals made by England's, and Germany's environmentlists. In fact this latest proposal was done by the Germans. They are proposing to cut GHG emissions by 50%, and since China, India nor Russia are going to accept this the brunt of such a change will be taken on by the U.S. if the U.S. government accepts this proposal.

Most people don't even realize what this would mean, and I am not talking about the impact this would make to large corporations, but the impacts on the regular citizen.

The U.S. has done real well without accepting any of these extreme proposals made by European environmentalists.

As a matter of fact, the following should be very interesting for those who are concerned about the U.S. not going along with the European environmentalists.

Smoke alarm: EU shows carbon trading is not cutting emissions


Some US states want their own 'cap and trade' scheme but the evidence is proving that permits are so generous they fail to curb industry

David Gow in Brussels
Tuesday April 3, 2007
The Guardian

Brussels lambasted the US and Australia yesterday for their inaction in cutting carbon dioxide emissions and stressed Europe's leading role in the battle against global warming. "Only EU leadership can break this impasse on a global agreement [post-Kyoto] to overcome climate change," Stavros Dimas, the EU's environment commissioner, told scientists from the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change. The body is due to publish a report this week in Brussels on the impact of global warming.
......
However, preliminary data on the scheme's performance last year - its second year of operation - showed that 93%, or about 9,000 of the 10,000 heavy industrial plants covered by the EU's trading scheme, emitted less carbon than their quota of free permits. The resulting 1%-1.5% rise in emissions was not as great as in 2005 but the spot price of a tonne of carbon fell by about a quarter to €1 (68p), at one point collapsing to just 92 cents.

business.guardian.co.uk...

Greenhouse emissions decline By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
Wed May 23, 7:37 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A mild winter, followed by a cool summer caused U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to decline last year, according to the Energy Department. The results were hailed by the White House as support for its global warming policies.

The department's Energy Information Administration said Wednesday that preliminary data shows a 1.3 percent decline in the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide released in 2006 from energy-related sources, the first decline in 11 years and the biggest decline since 1990.

news.yahoo.com...

US emissions drop in 2006; Europe's go up

a post written by Patrick Ishmael
Posted Thursday, May 24, 2007 @ 12:49 PM
Is the US becoming greener than the EU? (h/t Volokh)
WASHINGTON - A mild winter, followed by a cool summer caused U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to decline last year, according to the Energy Department. The results were hailed by the White House as support for its global warming policies.

The department's Energy Information Administration said Wednesday that preliminary data shows a 1.3 percent decline in the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide released in 2006 from energy-related sources, the first decline in 11 years and the biggest decline since 1990.
Compare this to the non-progressing progressive European Union.

In 2006, industry emitted about 30m tonnes less than permitted. German emissions rose 0.6% while overall EU emissions went up by 1%-1.5% because of resumed growth in the eurozone.

newsbuckit.blogspot.com...

The Nature article is not longer freely available. But the name of the title says it all.

Europe fails on carbon limits

www.nature.com...

The problem is that there is no real evidence that CO2 causes Climate Change. In fact CO2 levels have always lagged temperature changes up to about 800 years. Even the recent warming cycle started 260 years for most of the world before CO2 levels even began to increase, and experiments have shown that even a doubling of CO2 will not increase temperatures much.

[edit on 26-5-2007 by Muaddib]

The reason for a lag between CO2 levels and global temperature is well understood by the experts, which Muaddib is not.

To anyone reading this please read the experts analysis of this rather the agitated skeptic who is Muaddib.

Not that it I believe it makes any difference anymore, sadly. I strongly suspect we will reach the tipping point before the likes of the US wakes up. The tipping point is when the 95% of CO2 that is natural and currently absorbed by natural mechanisms are no longer able to cope because we are screwing them up. Imagine how dumb we are. We create extra CO2 which the world can't cope with (5% extra) and at the same time we insist in destroying the mechanisms that handle the 95% natural CO2........really really dumb. I mean the biggest historical natural CO2 sink/store is fossil fuel DUH! think about it! and we are re-releasing it DUH. By the way just in case the infamous question arises "how do we know what is human and what is not" here's a clue : Carbon 14.

Originally posted by malcr
The reason for a lag between CO2 levels and global temperature is well understood by the experts, which Muaddib is not.

I am aware of the claim by the "Let's blame mankind crowd" which try to dismiss the lag of CO2. But the fact of the matter is, nomatter the claims of those who want to blame mankind, if CO2 was the cause for warming it would lead warming, not lag it, sometimes for up to hundreds of years... To quote malcr.... "DUUUH!!!!"

Originally posted by malcr
To anyone reading this please read the experts analysis of this rather the agitated skeptic who is Muaddib.

Me agitated?.... please...and the best you can do is make a claim which you obviously do not even understand and can't even explain?...

Originally posted by malcr
Not that it I believe it makes any difference anymore, sadly. I strongly suspect we will reach the tipping point before the likes of the US wakes up.

Wake up to what exactly?... You make a lot of claims, but really offer no concise explanation as to what you are talking about.

Originally posted by malcr
The tipping point is when the 95% of CO2 that is natural and currently absorbed by natural mechanisms are no longer able to cope because we are screwing them up.

Again, you need to provide a concise argument, explaining what you are talking about.

Originally posted by malcr
Imagine how dumb we are. We create extra CO2 which the world can't cope with (5% extra) and at the same time we insist in destroying the mechanisms that handle the 95% natural CO2........really really dumb.

Could you tell us what "mechanism" are you talking about "that handles 95% of natural CO2"?

Originally posted by malcr
I mean the biggest historical natural CO2 sink/store is fossil fuel DUH! think about it! and we are re-releasing it DUH. By the way just in case the infamous question arises "how do we know what is human and what is not" here's a clue : Carbon 14.

Wow, you certainly use the word "DUH!" quite a few times.

You could have made a whole sentence of "Duh-duh, duh, duh....duuuude!!!!.....duh-duh-duh-duh, DUH!?" and probably would have made a lot more sense than anything you have said so far.

First of all, the "biggest", or I should say "largest" natural CO2 sink are the oceans, fossil fuels are not a sink....

Second of all, C14/14C/Carbon 14 occurs naturally, when the protons in cosmic rays enter the Earth's atmosphere, blasting nuclei in the atmosphere producing neutrons, which then collide with N14 (Nitrogen isotope) and form C14. After C14 decays, it has a half-life of about 5,730 years give or take, it becomes once again N14.

So the mere mention of "C14" does not make anything "man-made or not"... You have to understand what you are talking about to make any claims.

Carbon Dioxide transfers C14 into the food cycle, which is why organic matter has trace amounts of C14.

The whole claim that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere in relation to C12/C13 tells us what amount of CO2 is anthropogenic or not, is based on the "assumption that the production of C14 is constant"...which is not true.

There are natural factors which affect the amount of C14 which exists in the Earth's atmosphere, such as an increase, or decrease amount of water vapor, an increase, or decrease in the amount of clouds in the atmosphere, as well as the amount of cosmic rays that reach the Earth's atmosphere, from either the sun, or other extra-solar bodies.

The higher the levels of water vapor (H2Ov) and clouds, the less production of C14. The higher the output of the Sun, or an increase in Solar Flares from the Sun, the higher the amount of C14 on Earth's atmosphere.

When the Sun's output increases, and the amount of Solar Flares increases, the Solar System absorbs less cosmic rays from extrasolar bodies. When the Sun's output decreases, and when Solar Flares are less frequent during Solar minimums, the more cosmic rays we get from extrasolar bodies.

Since the output of the Sun, and the amount of Solar Flares has increased in the last 60+ years, more than during the past 1,000-8,000 years. The amount of C14 which exists in the atmosphere has been higher since 60+ years ago, mostly because of natural factors, not because of mankind.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by Muaddib]