Re: US refuses to cut emissions, leaving 400 million at risk of hunger.

Note to AW-S: I believe you said you had kill-filed George but I think
this may just interest you so, although it goes against the grain to *not*
snip, I've left the message intact. If you don't find it a worthwhile read
.... shoot me!

"George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
"The Highlander" <micheil@xxxxxxx> wrote

Last Updated: Friday, 14 April 2006, 00:42 GMT 01:42 UK

Climate limit below 3C 'unlikely'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC Environment Correspondent

World leaders are unlikely to agree a climate change deal limiting the
global temperature rise to less than 3C, says the UK government's
chief scientist.

And that is the utter ridiculousness of such an agreement, because no
one knows how to control the climate to such a degree. Sure, we can and
should reduce emisssions. And after having done so, what is to prevent
a volcanic eruption on ther ocean floor from causing a massive
clathratedisruption, releasing earth heating methane into the
atmopsphere? are we trhen going to send the ocean a $15,000/day fine
with a cease and desist order?

Professor David King said that increase would cause drought and famine
and threaten millions of lives.

I agree. In fact, global warming is already threatening millions.

Tony Blair wants a global consensus on stabilising greenhouse gas
emissions blamed for climate change. The government shares the EU's 2C
limit.

The US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are
rising.

Not entirely an accurate statement.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/actions.html

In addition, many of our worst polluters (the coal-fired power plants)
and instigating tough new voluntary measures. For example, L,G&E, the
company that supplies gas and electricity to my home, has embarked on a
five year major upgrade of emissions controls at its coal-fired plants
here in the Ohio Valley. These plants have traditionally been some of
the worst emitters of greenhouse gases and dangerous particulates. In
fact, LG&E is now a world leader in clean-coal technology with its
"Clean CoalPower Initiative project. Power Initiative project". Under
this project, LG&E is reducing greenhouse and particulate emission at
the three largest of its coal-fired power plants by 60% while removing
99.5% of sulfur dioxide(SO2), 90% of SO3 (sulfuric acid mist precursor),
90% of nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 90% of themercury across the total
system, while turning the byproducts into a high-quality, valuable
granularfertilizer, 90% of SO, 90% of nitrogen oxides, and 90 % of
themercury across the total system, while turning the byproducts into a
high-quality, valuable granular fertilizer which can be sold at a
profit. More plant upgrades are planned in the next two-three years for
it's remaining four power plants. LG&E's initiative has been a model
for other companies around the country and elsewhere, since it is an
economic model that demonstrates that clean power initiatives can be
cost-effective while providing valuable agricultural products and much
needed clean energy to the country.

On top of that, I can show you documentation that demonstrates clearly
that the U.S. has spent and is spending hundreds of billions of dollars
on remediation and pollution prevention, more so than any other country.
The Ohio River near Pittsburg used to be so polluted that it would
frequently catch on fire. That's right. It would burn for months, and
was essentially a dead river. Today, it is one of the cleanest large
rivers in the nation, and is thriving. And I've personally caught some
very large fish out of that river (I don't live near Pittsburg,
however). The clean up of the Ohio river has been a huge success story,
and a model for the entire world.

Moreso than the Thames George? :)

http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcglobal/tthawat6.html

In part ...
"Thames Water company plans U.S. "clean up"
June 2000
U.S. Water News Online
LONDON -- The River Thames here, which was biologically "dead" as recently
as the 1960s, is now the cleanest metropolitan river in the world,
according to the Thames Water company."


A government report based on computer modelling projects a 3C rise
would cause:

a drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops

about 400 million more people at risk of hunger

between 1,200 and 3,000 million more people at risk of water stress

Prof King says few ecosystems, such as natural forests, could adapt;
half of nature reserves would cease to be worthwhile and a fifth of
coastal wetlands would be lost.

I would disagree completely with the last part of the last statement.
Given that there is strong evidence that the arctic and antactic ice
sheets are seeing significant melting, and are likely to continue to
melt for the foreseeable future, unprecedented rise in global sea levels
is inevidable. Such a rise will swamp many low-lying coastal areas,
creating MORE wetlands, not less.

A big risk

These forecasts are contained in the government's recent report
Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. It was put together with the UK's
Hadley Centre, one of the top world centres for projecting future
climate.

The forecasts hinge on stabilising the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
(CO2) at a level of 550 parts per million in the atmosphere. Prof King
says this is the figure Mr Blair wants world leaders to agree on.

Professor King says the government is taking a big risk

He admits politicians are taking a big risk to push CO2 levels as high
as 550 parts per million. This figure is almost double the
pre-industrial level of two centuries ago.

But he said the government believed 550ppm was the lowest figure
achievable worldwide as developing countries continued to increase
their emissions, and the US refused to cut its CO2.

Pute propaganda. The U.S. hasn't refused to cut it's emissions at all.
It refuses to be locked into unrealistic emissions goals while allowing
China, India and other developing countries to spew their filth
unimpeded, unregulated and have uncontrolled growth. We've already seen
the tragic results of handing developing nations a blank environmental
check. China and India have some of the most polluted cities on the
planet and the worst health issues related to pollution, while Mexico
City is the most polluted (and the largest city). The rate of
deforestation and desertification in China and Mxico rivals what we've
seen happening in Africa along the margins with the Sahara. 550 ppm is
much too high a standard, and has been selected in order to let
developing countries achieve their modernization at a severe cost to the
global environment. The rationale is that the extreme pollution levels
emitted by the developing countries would be offset by reductions by
developed countries. This is an unrealistic model because it not only
puts developing world populations at risk, it does absolutely nothing to
mitigate global warming since this 550 ppm level is about 175 ppm higher
than today's average (374.9 ppm), and will result in MORE global
warming, not less. If all global CO2 emissions were reduced by 95%
today, it would still take at least 200 years for the average global
temperature to begin to drop back to pre-industrial levels. Increasing
the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 550 ppm is certainly not going
to reduce global warming.

He told the BBC that countries would have to adapt to the changes that
befell them, and said this would be particularly hard for the poorest
countries which had not caused the problem of global warming.

Oh, but they are certainly having an impact. Methane, one of the
strongest greenhouse gases, has its highest emissions production in the
developing world, not in the developed world. I give you the global
methane map:

http://www.universetoday.com/am/uploads/2005-0318methane-full.jpg

Dr King supported the intervention in the UK climate debate by the
Archbishop of Canterbury.

Wow, religious intervention in politics. Gee, what a unique idea. NOT!

Critics have complained that the Church should stay out of such issues
but Dr King said climate change was in some ways a moral issue - so it
was not inappropriate for the Archbishop to offer an opinion.

No, it is a social and scientific/engineering issue. Throwing religious
doctrine at the problem is not going to make it go away.

Criticism expected

Environmentalists are likely to argue that the government must aim for
a target that is lower than 550ppm.

I agree.

The government's favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy
Research (IPPR), will say the world should stabilise at 400ppm - a
level scientists say would probably avoid the worst effects of climate
change.

I disagree. I think the goal should be to REDUCE the levels, not
stabilize them. And that reduction has to be across the board if it is
going to be effective at all.

Environmentalists will argue that the government has no right without
public debate to settle on a figure so important and so controversial.

I agree with that as well.

So far, the US government has been unwilling to enter a debate on a
threshold for CO2.

President Bush's chief climate adviser James Connaughton said recently
that he did not believe anyone could forecast a safe CO2 level. He
said cutting greenhouse gas emissions could harm the world economy,
which would have damaging effects of its own.

The scientists behind the computer predictions admit that the climate
has so many variables that their computer projections are imprecise.

Understatement of the year.

Some sceptical scientists say the climate is so complex and influenced
by so many different factors that it is impossible to forecast the
effect of rising CO2 on temperature with any surety.

But the UK government believes the projections in the Hadley Centre
model - based partly on CO2 records from ice cores nearly a million
years old - are the best available estimates.

Given what we currently know about greehouse gases, it is a safe
prediction to say that increasing emissions will continue to have an
adverse affect on the global climate and global economy for centuries to
come. Barring intervention by a super-volcanic eruption, of course. :-)

George



.

Loading