Scientists: emissions-based climate deal 'not possible'

Scientists: emissions-based climate deal 'not possible'

www.theecologist.org

Current climate policy of emissions targets and trading will not suceed and should be replaced by a 'politically attractive' one based on providing cheap, non-carbon energy, says new paper

An international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is doomed to failure and must be replaced by a drive towards low-cost green energy, says a group of academics and lobbyists.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www2.lse.ac.uk
www2.lse.ac.uk

Should we buy this...?

It's based on a paper [linked below the snippet] by some lobbyists and academics, spearheaded by Gwyn Prins (known as an AGW denier with no natural science experience), funded in part by the London School of Economics.

Perhaps it is correct, but it seems a bit hasty of contributors to this paper to give up on binding emissions reductions. And either way, I don't believe we have a choice on whether to just accept runaway global warming, we must stop it with both regulation and market solutions... and if that fails, possibly more direct/grassroots efforts.

Thoughts?


[edit on 12-5-2010 by NoHierarchy]

I think everyone directly linked with government should not be allowed a car, use of airplanes, furnace, air conditioner or electricity.

That would take care of what, about 50-75% of energy usage.

I could live with that.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Scientists: emissions-based climate deal 'not possible'

Makes sense to me!

Scientists: emissions-based climate deal 'not possible'

'As long as the technology and price gap between fossil fuels and low-carbon energy remains so wide, those parts of the world experiencing rapid economic growth will deepen their reliance on fossil fuels,' says the paper, pointing out that both India and China had made clear they would not accept externally imposed constraints on their rate of economic growth, and most of this growth continues to be driven by expansion in the use of fossil fuels.

If using fossil fuels is what is driving the economic growth and recovery in a country, it would be hard for any countries government to put constraints on these emissions, and thereby hurting their countries economic growth.

Originally posted by Keyhole

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Scientists: emissions-based climate deal 'not possible'

Makes sense to me!

Scientists: emissions-based climate deal 'not possible'

'As long as the technology and price gap between fossil fuels and low-carbon energy remains so wide, those parts of the world experiencing rapid economic growth will deepen their reliance on fossil fuels,' says the paper, pointing out that both India and China had made clear they would not accept externally imposed constraints on their rate of economic growth, and most of this growth continues to be driven by expansion in the use of fossil fuels.

If using fossil fuels is what is driving the economic growth and recovery in a country, it would be hard for any countries government to put constraints on these emissions, and thereby hurting their countries economic growth.

So you're saying the choice was made- we worship short-term economic growth/stability more than long-term environmental sustainability, and even subsequent long-term economic sustainability?

I can agree with that assessment. However... it's still no less insane to me.