Political Discussions
G8 Climate “Scorecards” released USA Disappoints
Posted by timethief • 7/06/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: climate change, co2 emissions, g8, global warming, greenhouse gases, usa, wwf
The World Wildlife Fund and SE- Allianz released their 2009 "G8 Climate Scorecards" report, ranking the energy performance of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US. Based on three categories—"Improvements Since 1990", "Current Status", and "Policies for the Future", each with specific areas for potential growth, the 8 countries were ranked based on a "stoplight" system.
No country received a green light for its overall performance (half got red lights), and the tone of the report was disappointment—Although the WWF applauded efforts of top ranked countries, never did they cede that any G8 country has reached its goals or is prepared for the future.
Notes: Obama administration seen as "very positive and encouraging" for climate change action. However, the US remains the “country with the highest absolute emissions in the G8” with a "strong dependence on coal and oil".
Read the full article: www.enn.com/top_stories/article/40170
User Comments
-
I'm guessing the U.S. has the highest percentage of people who don't believe in global warming. I had Hannity on earlier. He's claming that global warming is debunked because June is the coldest on record. Of course, if July is the hottest on record I doubt it will convince him and his crowd.-
I get tired of people drawing conclusions about climate change based only on their senses and memories. High schools and colleges need to teach not only science, but the scientific method.
-
Hannity is a self-serving moron. This video explains the relationship between everyday weather and global warming.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM
-
-
I'm very suspicious of any group that looks primarilly at emissions, and the reason I say this is because regulations to curtail emissions usually end with said affected industries running off to a foreign land with fewer regulations. Keeping open space and forest, however, will always reduce CO2 in air and there is no second kick afterwards.
Also, it has greater benefits to the environment outside of CO2 by ensuring that wildlife habitats and water quality are also preserved, whereas CO2 regulations, by putting a pressure on the economy and society (definitionally) often create political marketplace pressure to sacrifice other regulations or providing exemptions to existing industries for the sake of keeping manufacturing jobs.
It also involves fewer people, organizations and other potential breakpoints in execution, and there exists considerable social pressure to maintain a neighborhood park as supposed to social pressure to not whistle blow on an offending industry.-
I doubt electric power plants are going to move outside the country. That said, I agree that we should preserve our forests and open space areas, and curtailing emissions is one way to do that. The combustion of coal, gas, oil, and other fuels generates sulfur dioxide, which becomes sulfuric acid in rain water and destroys forests. -
- It seems to me that the role of government ought to include preservation and protection of the environment for future generations. That means every form of "green" power generation ought to be fully researched and pursued wherever possible. The USA is a coal burning nation and coal is dirty power. The BS about "clean coal" is a transparent public relations spiel that just doesn't cut it.
Like the article states: "We [Americans] have failed to improve our emissions since 1990, and we have high emissions in every sector of our society and industry, and we have ineffective future policies (with the exception of leadership and renewables)
* Notes: Obama administration seen as "very positive and encouraging" for climate change action. However, the US remains the “country with the highest absolute emissions in the G8”with a "strong dependence on coal and oil". -
Yes TimeThief, even if we went to a version of government that was stripped down to its most basic functions, including protection of our persons and property, government would need to be involved, because our lives and property are under threat, or at least the lives and property of the coming generations.
-
@satj, cc TT: Most polluters are smokestack industries like cement, not power plants, which will be far more affected by this legislation then your coal plants, as they have captive customers.
Further, very few forests are destroyed through acid rain. Most forests are destroyed by bulldozers, and slashing your tax base to the point where the only way to pay for government services is to sell open land (we are quickly reaching that point, with a deficit over 1 trillion and no promise of increased tax revenues in the near future) will do more harm to the environment then all the acid rain in the world. Add to this a fleeing energy-intensive industrial base, and you have a true perfect storm.
As for power plants, they will "move" out of the country in a way because most American industry is energy intensive (as supposed to labor intensive) and it will largely be driven to China and other more lax nations, moving the demand, and therefore generating brand new Coal-burning plants in places that haven't even heard of a scrubber system.
There is an alternative, it's called Nuclear energy, a free market solution to the coal problem which can be built with private money that becomes more safe and recyclable every year as our friends in Japan just figured out a use for the high-yield, non-reprocessable waste (using it, in shielding, to boil sea water for drinking. It's actually cleaner, safer water then what you get from a ground pump.) Further, it still outpaces coal in terms of cost, even though it is the most highly regulated industry in America, and with a few basic legal reforms and a less troublesome permitting process could become even less expensive.
@TT: Right now there are really only three "shovel-ready" alternate energy sources, nuclear, wind and hydroelectric. Hydro in America is near tapped out, and both of these sources are, as you know, very controversial. Wind is not controversial (though perhaps it should be, considering its effects on migratory birds) but is only truly effective in certain areas where it is already being built in massive numbers. You might encourage some growth in wind with the current Cap and Trade bill, but mostly you'll just drive the power-demand, through industries like Aluminum that need cheap electricity and make up the majority of American industry, to China. And again, most polluters are not power plants, they're manufacturing plants, and in America, they're regulated. -
- Thanks for your reply here and the one below as well.
I feel so discouraged.
-
@TT: Ah don't feel discouraged. Let's just talk a new approach.
-
As for power plants, they will "move" out of the country in a way because most American industry is energy intensive (as supposed to labor intensive) and it will largely be driven to China and other more lax nations, moving the demand, and therefore generating brand new Coal-burning plants in places that haven't even heard of a scrubber system.
They can't move out of the country (except to maybe Canada or Mexico). They'd have to run cables across the Pacific and I doubt that's going to happen any time soon. -
@satj: Move the users of the power plants, and no cables are neccesary.
-
-
@Mark
There's no question that lives and property are under threat so without doubt our governments must act.
- Reaction: G8 commits to curbing climate change www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ukYj4A4n0
President Obama is attending the G8 Summit this week, where leaders are discussing how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Should climate change be a priority for the Group of Eight right now?
- The group has agreed to cut emissions in developed countries by 80 percent by the year 2050. Do you think this is an appropriate goal?
- Do you think meetings among G8 leaders are effective?-
@TT: (1) should read "reduce the NET emissions of CO2 from developed countries by 80 percent." If a nation finds that it is cheaper and more effective to increase CO2 absorption and storage through restored green spaces or possible CO2 capture industries then through reductions in original emissions, they should do that instead.
Further, if some (slightly more flexible) goal from undeveloped nations is not also met, it shall be considered failure, and if we move our polluting industries to China, it's still must be our emissions and I see no procedural, legalistic way of doing that.
(2) Meetings among G8 leaders are not effective. The G8 has no authority today, as too many influential nations are not members of the G8 and some members of the G8 are hardly influential. Even if these nations were strong, they would have to largely agree before sitting down to talk or else nothing would come of it.
Untying nuclear would do far more good, as it would simply outcompete the polluters and possibly even electrify not electric processes in industrial plants. Keep in mind also that the more expensive electricity is, the less will be done with it. Build a solar grid, and they may well bring back the steam boilers, as electricity will be expensive and coal will be dirt cheap!
-
-
Who cares. I just find it funny that the whole climate crisis has just emerged in the last 10 years. Just an easy way for the government to get taxes.-
@jhixon2
Who cares. ... Just an easy way for the government to get taxes.
- Obviously I do care or I would not have posted this thread. Obviously the others who posted to the thread care too. Let's not forget that over 90% of all climate change scientists in the world care and have been concerned for decades, or that the vast majority of aware citizens on the planet care as well.
So as you have gone out of your way to post into this thread just to tell me/us know that you don't care and think the whole thing is a hoax aimed at increasing taxes, I assume that's some sort of prelude to posting your own conspiracy theory thread. Good luck with it. -
The global warming theory was around during the late 80's. it was considered the other major crisis along with the hole in the ozone. they may be older than that, but that's when i first heard about them.
A bit longer than 10 years. -
@Agit8r
- I believe I can find references dating back to the 1970's from the oceanographic climatic studies I cataloged but I'm too tired to do that this evening.
Also why respond at all to someone who claims he doesn't care and that it's all a tax grab conspiracy?
I wont' be responding to anyone who relies on rudeness and foul language (violations of the community guidelines for forum posting ) because IMHO failing to engage is always the better way to go. -
JH is an idealistic 19 year old. Too bad his ideology isn't to make the world a better place.
-
*rolls eyes*
-
You are also not a scientist, JX, nor do you understand the science, so you have no grounds to refute the findings agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists.
-
JH, I don't draw cartoons for a living. I just did that for fun for a while. I'm a software engineer.
The field that includes the study of climate is not biology: that's the study of living organisms such as plants and animals. The study of climate is part of climatology, meteorology, chemistry, environmental sciences, and geography to some extent, -- possibly others, but not biology.
And the fact that you study something doesn't mean you understand it. I doubt you understand much of what your taught. It takes an inquisitive nature and intellectual curiosity to fully understand something. -
Ive taken chemistry too so that argument is gone. Your last paragraph explains it all Sati, you claim you know alot, but in fact you don't understand it. You just go along with what the libs say.
-
No, I go along with what the vast majority of scientists say.
-
vast majority? give me a break. Its a divided issue. I'm sure you will go look up some biased source to back you up like huffington post
-
vast majority? give me a break. Its a divided issue. I'm sure you will go look up some biased source to back you up like huffington post
-
No, you're not worth the trouble.
-
And thus that proves how little you know about the issue. I am laughing.
-
@jhixon2
It's best to look to climatologists and those who are active in climate research when seeking information regarding climate change and global warming. So why do deniers, corporate interest groups and far right ideologues get so much of their info from meteorologists, petroleum geologists, biologists and even economists?
A vast majority of those who actively study climate change agree that global warming is real and humans play a role.
---
Majority of surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
"Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."
www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
---
But how could the globe be warming when there has been soo much snow this winter??
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM
How deniers use a strawman argument to deceive people:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8
The Great Petition Fraud:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
More:
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D16AD4B03B869098
---
For those questioning or seeking more information on global warming:
www.cnas.org/naturalsecurity/consequences/climate-change
"In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released nearly unanimous findings that it is "unequivocal" that the climate is and will continue to change, and that human generation of greenhouse gases is responsible for most related changes since the 1950s." -
"I doubt you understand much of what your taught."
When lecturing to someone that you have more knowledge than they do, it is probably best to spell your words correctly.
Should have been, "...understand much of what you're taught."
-
-
Ruinous Right- And of course surveys aren't rigged with questions that are biased towards the opinions of who is conducting the survey. I mean we never come across that. (sarcasm)
As I said before, minimal data is being used to fire the subject of man-made contribution to climate change. The earth is 4 billion years old!!
Check out this cite:
www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Has manmade pollution in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases caused a runaway Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming?
Before joining the mantra, consider the following:
1. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before humans invented industrial pollution.
2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.
Data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.
3. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
4. If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?
Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the "cause".
Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed the "Little Ice Age." This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing seasons, and a drier climate. The decline in global temperatures was a modest 1/2° C, but the effects of this global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes. The Little Ice Age has been blamed for a host of human suffering including crop failures like the "Irish Potato Famine" and the demise of the medieval Viking colonies in Greenland.
Today we enjoy global temperatures which have warmed back to levels of the so called "Medieval Warm Period," which existed from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350.
A majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening, but the issue is considerably divided when it comes to if it is man made. Thus this is why many of us believe that politics is at the heart of this debate.-
Give it up jhix, no amount of reason or facts will sway Ruinous. He keeps harping on the "Great Petition Fraud" and other Gore-dista's talking points.
-
I know, just throwing out some actual logical data and not complete B.S.
-
jhixon
Thanks for taking the time to dig up all that info, but don't you wonder why all these denier websites look so amateur, are outdated and rarely display any university, professional science or government agency certifications?
Like you said... anyone can put together some info and stats, but the majority of resources stating that human-induced global warming is real are from reputable and well-known scientific resources. This info is coming from those who actively study climate: climatologists, universities and NASA to name a few.
Much of the stuff I see coming from opponents of human-induced global warming is from corporate interests groups and far-right media (which is largely controlled by corporate interests).
Ask yourself.... what is it they have to gain? -
"Much of the stuff I see coming from opponents of human-induced global warming is from corporate interests groups and far-right media (which is largely controlled by corporate interests).
Ask yourself.... what is it they have to gain?"
Hmmm, okay. Let's take your statement and question Ruinous, and examine them. Basically you are saying that only independent studies can be trusted. Alright, would you accept a study from a well known University?
"No one knows exactly how much Earth’s climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists’ best predictions about global warming might be incorrect. The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth’s ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.
“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.”
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/there-appears-to-be-something-fundamentally-...
And from Geophysical Research Letters on a study evaluating the reliability of the projection models used by such panels and agencies as the IPCC:
"In our analysis there is no evidence of future prediction skill delivered by past performance-based model selection. There seems to be little persistence in relative model skill, as illustrated by the percentage turnover in Figure 3. We speculate that the cause of this behavior is the
non-stationarity of climate feedback strengths. Models that respond accurately in one period are likely to have the correct feedback strength at that time. However, the feedback strength and forcing is not stationary, favoring no particular model or groups of models consistently."
www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038082.pdf
And the authors of that study are:
C. Reifen, Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, UK and R. Toumi, also from the Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, UK
I dunno, are those independent enough for ya, Ruinous??
-
-
- On one hand, we have the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – as well as the science academies of every developed nation in the world including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Royal Society of London and the Royal Society of Canada – confirming that:
* climate change is real;
* it is caused by human activity; and
* it is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine.
www.ipcc.ch/
On the other, those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory and evidence of human-induced climate change.
By all means, read the junk science sites that deny the reality of climate change. But then check on www.sourcewatch.org to see who paid for those opinions.-
Well stated TT!
Thanks for all your efforts.
-
Lol what efforts? Just read an Al Gore speech to hear what she said.
-
@ruinous right
- You're welcome. I actually do care and find it appalling that we cannot have a civilized conversation about such an important issue that affects us all.
If anyone does uncover a peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory and evidence of human-induced climate change, then I'd be happy to read the article. -
"On the other, those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory and evidence of human-induced climate change."
So Rice University and the Imperial College of London are "junk science?"
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/g8-scorecards-released-usa-disappoints#co... -
Antics: Timethief is the pinnacle of academic knowledge and those sources that you provided are not up to her standards. I think we have discovered a second Al Gore, but as a female.
-
jhix...gotcha!
-
- I'm a Canadian and I have never read a speech by Al Gore so I don't know why you are inferring that what I wrote myself came from one of his speeches.
I also have no idea why you keep attacking me personally, and I don't care to know what motivates you or your sidekick to perform these antics and behave online in the way that you do. I don't have a cure for what ails you two and appears to disable you from engaging in civilized discourse on issues but maybe Admin does. -
Timethief is such a whiner. Criticize her views and she claims foul play. She attacks your views and when you attack back she again calls foul play. Thats how liberals work.
-
@jhix...I thought YOU were gonna be the sidekick this week!! No fair!
-
-
Ruinous Right- Maybe these groups actually want to produce credible information that ISN'T run by the GOVERNMENT.
Timethief-I could really care less about all of these GOVERNMENT run groups that are politically motivated that you are showing me. You are ignorantly ignoring actual DATA that has been produced in contrast with your claims. i really don't see any data that isn't politically motivated coming from your side. All I see is big graphs and gigantic claims with little to no substance that goes along with them. Nothing is confirmed timethief and if you actually knew what science was, you would realize that science is constantly changing ideals and shifting hypothesis.
And by all means, I think you have no right to criticize one of my so called "junk science sites" when all you cite is the usual big name GOVERNMENT site. Please also provide me a source saying that,those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory and evidence of human-induced climate change." And again we are not denying climate change. We are denying the fact that it is human caused. The Earth has changed temperatures dramatically in its lifetime. -
I also find it funny that on your SourceWAtch page, they mention Al Gore and the IPCC almost hand in hand. Nobody cares about nobel peace prizes anymore Timethief, the fact that they gave Bono and Al Gore one just proves the fact that they are politically motivated.
-
But the Gore-distas are telling the truth! I mean if there is no man made climate change, then how will his Highness the Great Gore make millions and millions...oh wait. He already has. And he just happened to invest in a company that is going to make the software that the Obama admin will use to police the carbon emissions. But there is no way he is biased, right timethief? I mean he is doing this for the betterment of the world, Mother Earth, mankind. Right?
"An environmental start-up backed by Al Gore's venture capital firm aims to take advantage of coming U.S. climate change legislation by helping companies like Coca Cola and even cities cut pollution.
Hara, a 25-employee company that debuted in 2008, provides online software to help companies reduce their carbon footprint -- a $2.5 billion market that will grow 10-fold if the proposed energy bill, which will require companies to get permits for emissions, becomes law, Chief Executive Amit Chatterjee said.
At the heart of the legislation is a "cap-and-trade" system that will gradually reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by industry, by requiring them to have permits to spew their emissions.
"Then companies will be forced to act, as opposed to seeing the business benefit of acting," he said in an interview, "The debate alone of 'cap and trade' is a driver for our product."
www.reuters.com/article/smallBusinessNews/idUSTRE5500S420090601
“While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”
The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”
And that’s only the beginning of this tawdry tale, Mr. Barnes.
The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong."
Now I know all the libs will discount this because it was a story that was expanded from a short Fox news blurb. But it is definitely worth the read.
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629 -
You guys can keep your heads buried in the sand and twist the facts however you want. The science academies of every developed nation in the world including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Royal Society of London and the Royal Society of Canada don't answer to Al Gore.
Fox News, many petroleum geologists and other deniers are influenced by corporate interests. -
*hands ruinous a crying towel*
What? You won't admit that Gore is using this supposed man made disaster to line his pockets? Where is the classic liberal outrage like there was against Haliburton?
-
-
-
How come you got in massive debt? Probably worked at McDonalds and bought a mansion.
-
No, my debt was from college. My parents didn't have money to pay my tuition, living expenses, health care, etc... so I had to borrow quite a bit of money.
In effect, you're on welfare, since you get all those benefits handed to you. -
I will be there soon, but theres a difference, I don't want to be poor and mooch off the government.
-
got a plan to get there?
-
med school
-
I don't want to be poor and mooch off the government.
That's what all welfare recipients say. -
i doubt that
-
"How is it that AR and JH both show up at the same time? Shift change at McDonalds?"
Oh I get it! That's a joke, right? Sorry, just not used to humor coming from you, sati.
Good thing you aren't making personal attacks. -
Personal attacks are personally very personal to my personal self.
-
I know what you mean, but personally I don't give certain people that much credit, lol.
-
"I don't want to be poor and mooch off the government.
That's what all welfare recipients say."
Hmmm, sounds like someone is talking from PERSONAL experience. -
Yes, from when I interviewed you, AR. What's it like to live on SSDI (otherwise known as welfare)?
-
I wouldn't know sati. I don't live on SSDI. Remind me? Please provide that link to the interview you speak of.
-
@sati...I knew you would avoid answering that one. Predictable cowardly behavior.
-
It was sarcasm, AR.
-
Oh, I see. When you lie, it is sarcasm. When you attack personally, it is making a statement. I am beginning to understand now. If I become a liberal, then I can say what I want and it is okay.
Bullsh*t sati. In the past when I have tried to joke with you, you cry foul play. Yet when you do it, it is okay.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
