SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

DCFC: TraderJoe quotes faithfully, but alas it's from the FT, so the arts graduate there misleads a bit.Uh, thanks for the compliments Dominic, but could you suggest a paper where there is an absence of this so-called arts graduate influence to which you so frequently refer? If not the FT, I can't really think of any others. The Telegraph and The Times are like left-wing entertainment manifestos in comparison to the Financial Times. Looking forward as always to your trusted feedback...TJ.

fars1d3s
Posts: 451
Joined: August 14th, 2004, 12:28 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

I think we should pursue nuclear energy in the short-term and possibly medium-term, while buying some time to research other alternative forms of energy.Nuclear power is a proven technology. Since 1954 when the world's first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus, was commissioned by the US Navy, there have been hundreds of nuclear-powered submarines as well as surface ships such as nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and cruisers in service with both the US Navy and the Soviet Navy. Also, the French navy and the Royal Navy have been operating nuclear-powered submarines since the 1970s. This proves that nuclear power can be safe and reliable. There is enough proven expertise in the West to safely operate nuclear plants .... there are already some of these in the US, Russia and Europe ... and we can and should build more.

Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

In terms of economics, the price per kwhour is highest for nuclear power. Also nuclear power plants are expensive and require alot of front-loaded capital. Not insurmountable issues but should be taken into consideration in any serious analysis.

DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

could you suggest a paper where there is an absence of this so-called arts graduate influence to which you so frequently refer?The Economist has easily the best Science & Technology coverage of any newspaper.It is not exactly 100% behind nuclear, but on rational grounds, like money, and it has made the points you make about front loading of capital. It's pretty much unique in the media for covering the point that thecost of running is comparatively low.My view of this, is that we need to start building reactors whilst we are still rich. An energy driven depression is not the best time. Russia was in decades long recession when it built Chenobyl.Western reactors are encased in thick reinforced concrete which (in theory) is designed to survive a jet ramming them. Chernobyl wasn't encased much better than a blast furnace, was done on the cheap.R&D in nuclear, especially dealing with the mess will be easier to bear in the next decade, than if we hit a will with carbon sources.fars1d3s well as surface ships such as nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and cruisers in service with both the US Navy and the Soviet Navy. Also, the French navy and the Royal Navy have been operating nuclear-powered submarines since the 1970s. This proves that nuclear power can be safe and reliable. America has a fine record in these things. Everyone else varies from the spotty British to the downright scary Russians whose nuclear warships seem more dangerous to Russians than to anyone else.Depending upon who you believe, either hundreds or thousands of Russian sailors have died in nuclear accidents.Also when you look at the US Navy record, you have to take into account that they don't have to do the messy stuff like reprocessing and waste disposal.I do however agree that the USN sets a good standard which should be copied.But let's be realistic here. Nuclear energy is <5% of the world energy budget and is mostly in the hands of well run countries. Over the next 20 years I suspect it increase to 25%. 5 times as many reactors to me means 5 times as many screwups, but that may be a lower bound.The thing I fear about Iran, Pakistan or N.Korea is not weapons, but simply the incompetence with which their nations are run.ost Again we look at Soviet Russia for just how bad it can get. Even then Russia had loads of people well educated in this stuff. You can see one bad case of food poisoning taking out everyone in Iran who knows how to look after their reactors. In theory they would be shut down, but if that means turning off the power to a big city ? Most nuclear jobs in the West require a security clearance, but >80% of skilled people can get through this. It was bad wen Bush apointed to run disasters who was appointed because a) he was a Christian b) he knew about horses...That didn't end well, but in many nations the filter is far tighter, meaning you will get the "right kind" of people running reactors, or more accurately "the least bad who has the right religion, skin colour, and was born in the south of the country".Hard to see that as good.But that is the world we are going to get.I'm in two minds about the reality of Iran's "peaceful" program, but there's plenty more countries like them to whom high oil prices are more than a few % off growth.Also we note that countries who ignore the non-proliferation treaties get a lot more respect.

Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Here's what the G8 is proposing to do:Gleneagles Plan of Action.Here is an interview by John Loyd of the Financial Times with Tony Blair on climate change (amongst other things):Watch the interview again.

Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

World Scientists Urge CO2 Action.In turn, Stephen Cox, executive secretary of the Royal Society, said contrarians such as Professor Singer were increasingly becoming isolated, and pointed to Tuesday's comments by George Bush as evidence that the White House, too, was shifting its position. "If one listened very carefully to what President Bush said last night at his press conference, it appears to me there has been a change and that President Bush has accepted implicitly that there is a problem and has accepted therefore the advice of his own academy, the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, who themselves signed this statement, that there is a really serious problem as far as climate change is concerned."
Last edited by TraderJoe on September 29th, 2005, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

WWF Climate Change Campaign.

JWD
Topic Author
Posts: 1311
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm
Contact:

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Excerpt from today’s news on fuel-efficient vehicles, a positive mitigation step: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/bs_ ... &printer=1 Hybrids, diesels dominate economy listThu Oct 13, 1:25 AM ET Toyota Motor Corp.'s (7203.T) Corolla was the sole gasoline-only car to make a U.S. government list issued on Wednesday of the ten most fuel-efficient 2006 model vehicles. The Corolla's 32 miles per gallon in the city and 41 miles per gallon on the highway earned it last place on the list of top fuel sippers that was otherwise dominated by gasoline-electric hybrids and diesels.Honda Motor Co.'s (7267.T) Insight hybrid was in first place, with 60 mpg city and 66 mpg highway, followed by Toyota Motor Corp.'s (7203.T) Prius hybrid with 60 mpg city and 51 highway.Volkswagen AG (VOWG.DE) grabbed four of the top ten spots with diesel versions of its Beetle, Golf and Jetta models.Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F - news) was the only U.S. automaker to make the top ten with the hybrid version of its Escape sport utility vehicle.The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy produce the fuel economy guide to help buyers compare vehicles…--------
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053

JWD
Topic Author
Posts: 1311
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm
Contact:

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Excerpts from the editorial in today’s NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/07/opini ... nted=print November 7, 2005EditorialClimate Signals President Bush has long argued that a nationwide program of mandatory controls on carbon dioxide and other global warming gases would saddle the country with crippling electricity costs. He may be surprised to learn that his own Environmental Protection Agency no longer believes that to be the case.In the course of a study comparing costs and benefits of various clean air bills rattling around Capitol Hill (including Mr. Bush's Clear Skies program), the E.P.A. found that under a measure sponsored by Senator Thomas Carper, a Delaware Democrat, the cost to electric utilities of controlling carbon dioxide would be only $1 per ton, imposing little burden on consumers and business. To be sure, Mr. Carper's is the least aggressive and least expensive of the bills requiring mandatory controls. It applies only to power plants, which account for about one-third of carbon dioxide emissions, and would not regulate emissions from cars and others sources. Still, that measly$1-per-ton figure should embarrass the Bush people who've been warning that controls will bring economic ruin (Clear Skies regulates other pollutants but not carbon dioxide), while providing encouragement to those in Congress who believe that action on warming is long overdue…Meanwhile, Mr. Bush's staunch and patient friend, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, has once again - this time in The Observer - appealed to the president to join in a global effort to limit greenhouse gases. Without American participation, Mr. Blair suggests, there's little hope of securing the cooperation of the Chinese, who are building coal-fired power plants at a rapid clip and whose future emissions could overwhelm Western efforts to get a grip on the problem… Last summer, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution that put it on record for the first time as favoring a program of mandatory controls on global warming gases. New Mexico's Pete Domenici - a recent convert to the global warming cause and a Republican leader on energy issues - vowed to follow up by seeking consensus legislation. Mr. Domenici should make this an early order of business in the new year, not least because he alone may have the credibility to shake Mr. Bush's indifference. ----------
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053

DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

A windmill that kills fewer birds.A problem for those who believe in "green" power is that is doesn't exist. Greenies liked wind power right up to the point they got it.Standard power generating mills are believed to kill birds in significant number, and of course they are often located in the sort of area where there's more.Also greenies hate technology, a lot, and thus complain about how they "destroy the landscape", (in a way Dutch windmills don't Even though I know they're a stupidly dangerous and inefficient source of power, being a technophile I quite like how they look.

Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

No doubt.

JWD
Topic Author
Posts: 1311
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm
Contact:

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Excerpt from an article in today’s news: Click hereEU says will fulfil Kyoto target by 2010 By Jeff Mason Thu Dec 1, 9:46 AM ET The European Union will meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, two years before the global environment treaty's final deadline, a report by the EU executive showed on Thursday. The European Commission said projections indicated the 15 "old" EU member states would lower their combined emissions of gases that scientists say cause global warming to 9.3 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. "This clearly fulfils the 8 percent reduction target from 1990 levels that the protocol requires the EU-15 to achieve during 2008-2012," the Commission said in a statement…The EU's landmark emissions trading system is the centerpiece of its strategy to cut greenhouse gases. It puts limits on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) big polluters, like power plants, can emit. The Commission said the report's projections were based on measures to fight climate change already in place, some that were still in the works, and credits provided in Kyoto for investment in countries outside of the EU…-----------
Last edited by JWD on November 30th, 2005, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053

Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

From FT.comAction on climate change needed to break deadlockBy Fiona HarveyWhen representatives of close to 200 countries descend on Montreal this week to discuss how to protect the world from the impact of climate change, the aircraft transporting them will produce their own mini-spike in carbon dioxide emissions.It is an irony not lost on the organisers of the meeting to discuss the United Nations-brokered Kyoto protocol. To compensate, they have invested in an electricity generation project in Honduras. By using the gas, that is a by­product of sewage treatment, the Hondurans will be able to produce sufficient "green" energy to offset the damage to the ozone layer inflicted by the arrival of as many as 8,000 temporary visitors.But if the wider world is to benefit from the talks, Canadian negotiators will have to break a deadlock that has hobbled international action on climate change for eight years.The Kyoto protocol requires developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of about 5 per cent from 1990 levels by 2012. Agreed in 1997, it was implemented only this year  and without the participation of the US, the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.The current treaty does not expire until 2012. But given past rates of progress, that means the clock is already ticking towards midnight in terms of striking a fresh deal. The seven years left before the current provisions expire could easily be eaten up in the same sort of stalling and painfully slow negotiations that have characterised previous conferences. The scientific consensus on climate change  that the warming of the earth can be traced largely to human activity ncreasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere  has strengthened. But the political will to take action to reduce the output of those gases, by measures such as switching to new sources of energy and using fuel more efficiently, appears still to be lacking.This year's talks will be the toughest for years. The implementation of the protocol has deepened the divide between the US and the rest of the developed world which, bar Australia, has accepted the agreement. That split has in turn sharpened the focus on the small number of developing countries that have yet to commit themselves to either camp. The ally most eagerly sought by each side is China. No future form of the treaty can fail to take account of the startling reality that the People's Republic is now the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and looks likely to overtake the US within two decades.However, proponents of action on climate change fear the US is close to a shift in strategy that would further undermine the prospects for a deal. Washington's official line has been that to discuss the future would be "premature". Some observers believe that, having stalled talks as long as possible on those grounds, the US could reverse its position in the next year or two to argue that, with fewer than six years remaining before the 2012 deadline, a "flipping point" had been reached which meant it was too late for talks on what form the treaty should take in its next phase.Some observers fear the US would then argue that the rest of the world should drop targets and timetables for emissions reduction and concentrate on its own preferred answer to the ­climate-change problem: technology that could reduce emissions in the future.Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, the environmental pressure group, underlines the frustration in the climate-change camp when he asserts that the US should simply be ignored."There is no question of the US administration coming on board at these talks and the EU and the UK presidency [of the European Union] are wasting their time by trying to convince them," he says. "What is needed is clear leadership from the EU to show that action can be taken with or without the US. American people, business, state and city leaders want to see international action." Mr Juniper adds: "The world cannot afford to wait for regime change in the US."At last year's conference, says Henry Derwent, special representative on climate change for Tony Blair, UK prime minister, the US refused to countenance any document that contained overt references to the future.The UK  which, as holder of the EU's revolving presidency, will play a central role at this year's meeting  has, however, sought to avoid painting President George W.?Bush's administration into a corner.Margaret Beckett, the UK's environment minister, said in London recently: "The US has said they are not prepared to begin negotiations [on the next stage of Kyoto] in Montreal. Well, it is extraordinarily unlikely that anyone will ask them to begin negotiations in Montreal."Ms Beckett said any expectation from environmental organisations and others that this week's meeting would begin to discuss targets for the next stage of the treaty was "unrealistic" and "played into the hands" of opponents of the treaty. Instead, she indicated, the best that proponents could hope for was that the US would agree that discussions on the future shape of the treaty beyond 2012 could begin next year  essentially reducing this year's meeting to "talks about talks".But the deadlock between the US and the developed-country supporters of the Kyoto protocol may yet be broken from a different direction. The rapid industrialisation of countries such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico has irrevocably changed the nature of climate-change negotiations.Countries classed as "developing" have no obligation to reduce their emissions under the protocol as it stands. But the emissions of several of these countries have been soaring, in tandem with their economic growth.Tom Burke, a professor at London's Imperial College and a former UK government adviser on climate change, says gaining China's support will be crucial to progress on the issue: "China holds the key to climate change, because of the way its emissions are going. No one can ignore that."With this in mind, both the US and the EU have begun to woo developing countries, especially China. In July, the US announced the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which calls for the sharing of technologies that reduce emissions but without targets on emissions cuts. In September, the EU followed by ­disclosing a deal to give China access to technology for burning coal more efficiently in its power plants.The question of whether to take a vigorous approach to greenhouse gas reduction encapsulates the dilemma of a country that has reached a critical point in its development as an industrial nation.Like other developing countries, China fears that efforts to cut its emissions may hamper its runaway economic growth. This argument underlies the Kyoto treaty, which excluded developing countries partly on the grounds that the industrialised world, which has created most of the greenhouse gas problem to date, should bear the cost of solving it. Developing country emissions, while growing in absolute terms, also tend to be much smaller per capita than those of the developed world.However, China has first-hand experience of some of the problems that climate change is expected to bring. An increase in desertification and drought is destroying precious agricultural land and causing dust storms that afflict major cities. Air quality in many areas is also impoverished by dirty power stations and factories.As China grows, the strains on its environment are starting to show more and more clearly. The Beijing government will have to calculate whether the risks associated with climate change outweigh the benefits of untrammelled emissions increases.For advocates of the treaty, there are some encouraging signs. At the summit for the Group of Eight industrialised nations at Gleneagles in July, for instance, the five developing countries invited to parallel discussions signed a statement strongly supportive of the principles of the Kyoto protocol.Most developing countries, including China, have also shown a keen interest in the "clean development mechanism", an arrangement under the treaty by which governments and companies in the developed world can finance projects, such as renewable energy generation, in the developing world in order to offset their own emissions. The Canadian government's funding of that sewage-treatment project in Honduras provides an example of this.But finding a way to reconcile the concerns of developing countries with the need to cut emissions, and within the tight timetable available before 2012, will require much more in the way of what Stéphane Dion, the Canadian minister for the environment, calls "innovation".A few suggestions have been proposed: the International Energy Agency has suggested a system of rewarding poor countries if their emissions fall below a certain threshold but not penalising them if they rise above it. The Virginia-based Pew Center for Global Climate Change has suggested a mixture of mandatory and voluntary targets for different countries, or even for differing industrial sectors around the world.Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center, says she is "optimistic" that a way forward will be found: "There are many ways of dealing with this problem. We're not going to be able to negotiate a one-size-fits-all approach. But there are other flexible but rigorous approaches."First, however, the countries represented in Montreal must agree to talk about the future. At the current rate of progress, that will be a significant achievement in itself.BUSINESS WILL COMPLY TO GAIN CERTAINTY Cutting the world's emissions of greenhouse gases would involve a shift away from the fossil fuels that powered the industrial revolution and provided cheap energy for more than a century. As this implies massive disruption at a potentially huge cost, businesses must be at the forefront of any attempt to curb the gases.But while some business lobbies have resisted international action on climate change for precisely these reasons, a growing number of high-profile companies are calling for stiffer regulation of carbon dioxide.These businesses are seeking greater regulatory certainty for future investment decisions, a level playing field for their industry internationally and, in the long term, to help stave off the worst effects of climate change.Some may also have an eye to the possibility of future legal action by environmental groups holding them responsible for damaging the planet, while a few sectors  oil and aviation in particular  may want to embrace curbs on emissions as a cheaper alternative to threatened taxes.Margaret Beckett, the UK's environment minister, says: "You only have to spend 30 seconds with the business community to find they want to know what direction, what goals, what timetable [for action on climate change]. They need that certainty and clarity for planning."Ahead of the meeting of the Group of Eight industrialised nations in Scotland in July, a group of 24 companies called for a global emissions trading scheme to be set up. They included Alcan, BT, EDF, Hewlett-Packard, Petrobras, Rio Tinto, Siemens, Toyota and Volkswagen. The International Chamber of Commerce and the World Economic Forum said such a system was "inevitable". Jeff Immelt, chief executive of General Electric, echoed that view, though he stopped short of calling for tighter regulation.Activist shareholders have also played a large part in the past year. A group of investors controlling assets of $800bn called last week on 30 of the US's biggest insurance companies to disclose information on the risk to them and their policyholders of climate change.More than 350 of the world's biggest companies report on their greenhouse gas emissions under the Carbon Disclosure Project.Governments in favour of the Kyoto treaty and environmental groups want to capitalise on this goodwill from business leaders by cementing the structures of the Kyoto treaty in place beyond 2012. If they fail, the appetite for mandatory emissions reduction systems among businesses may start to wane.HOW TO CUT EMISSIONS THE AMERICAN WAYWhile the White House remains implacably opposed to the Kyoto protocol, mayors across the US are signing up to the climate-change agenda in the most practical way possible  committing to cut the greenhouse gas emissions generated by their own towns and cities.Underlining their growing clout, they have organised a gathering on the fringes of the Montreal meeting where they will be joined by counterparts from other countries in what is becoming an increasingly potent grassroots movement. To date, nearly 200 mayors from the US, representing more than 40m citizens, have joined in the "mayors climate protection agreement": a pledge to meet or exceed the reductions that would be required under Kyoto. In another sign of more active approaches to climate change being adopted within the US, several north-eastern states have been working on an agreement that would limit the carbon dioxide emissions from power stations, allowing companies within those states to trade permits to produce the gas with one another, in a similar way to the "cap and trade" system in operation in the European Union. California, which has initiated its own programmes to reduce greenhouse gases, may also join the initiative. Also, confounding the stereotype of US legislators as antipathetical to the climate-change agenda, there are signs that Congress may try to encourage a shift in attitude. In the summer, the Senate passed a non-binding resolution calling on Congress to initiate mandatory greenhouse gas reductions in a way that did not harm the US economy.In response, the Bush administration has been keen to talk up the measures it has taken to tackle global warming. For instance, James Connaughton, chairman of the White House's council on environmental quality, recently visited Europe to trumpet the$5bn a year the US devotes to research into climate change and the development of numerous technologies aimed at combating the problem. "[We] are spending serious money on these innovations," he said.President George W.?Bush has also pledged to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas intensity of the US economy by 18 per cent by 2012. However, that is not the same as an absolute reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas the US emits. "Intensity" refers to the amount of greenhouse gas produced per dollar of gross domestic product. That means the US's total emissions could keep rising  as long as they do so at a slower rate than the country's economy grows.

Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

From the Climate Change Summit just ended in Montreal:U.S. Isolated by Stance on Global Warming By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Melting glaciers, the shrinking ice cap, warming oceans and rising sea levels  all are urgent concerns around the world, and cause for frustration among many nations that believe the United States has set a glacial pace toward reversing the onset of global warming. Critics said the Bush administration's isolation at the United Nations-brokered international climate talks that ended last week in Montreal doesn't make much sense. The White House acknowledged Sunday that it holds "a different view" from most other nations, but said it is nonetheless providing global leadership on heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.Eileen Claussen, president of the private Pew Center on Global Climate Change and a former U.S. climate negotiator in the Clinton administration, said the current U.S. position reflects an unhealthy tendency toward unilateralism, mistrust of international treaties and a belief that the only things that will make any difference are investments in new technologies."I think most of the rest of the world doesn't believe that for a second," she said. "It's something else that's driving this, and it's not rational. I think it's ideology."More than 150 nations, including nearly every industrialized country except the United States, agreed Saturday to negotiate a second phase of mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Those include carbon dioxide, methane and other gases accumulating in the atmosphere from fossil-fuel burning. A 1997 treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, covers the first phase through 2012, but the United States, whose tailpipes and smokestacks are responsible for one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, won't participate.Claussen said: "If you really want results, you have to do something that's mandatory. It's not going to happen with voluntary approaches."White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the Bush administration favors voluntary efforts and bilateral and regional arrangements to tackle climate change, including \$3 billion a year in U.S. government spending on research and development of energy-saving technologies."If you only focus on debates about binding emissions caps, more specifically the Kyoto Protocol, then yes, we have a different view than the participants that have signed onto Kyoto," Perino said. "However, when you consider the real actions that will be needed to address the issue, there is no doubt that we are leading the world in a global and long-term effort."Others see a different type of leadership. Alden Meyer, strategy and policy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the Bush administration arrived in Montreal "determined to prevent the rest of the world from extending and deepening their commitments under Kyoto."The administration failed, he said, because Europe, Canada, Russia and Japan "understand that mandatory limits on global warming pollution, combined with market-based emissions trading mechanisms, are essential. ... The Bush approach of relying solely on voluntary efforts and long-term R&D simply won't get the job done."Only in the final hours of the Montreal talks did the U.S. delegation, led by State Department and White House officials, accept a weaker agreement to join a preliminary discussion on future steps to slow global warming, and then only on condition that it ruled out "negotiations leading to new commitment" to reduce greenhouse gases.The Bush administration committed itself to slowing down the growth rate of those gases, not reversing the trend. But the United States was included in the talks because it is among 189 nations that signed onto a 1992 agreement, negotiated under the first President Bush, that set voluntary goals for cutting greenhouse emissions. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol grew out of the 1992 agreement.The Montreal meeting was the first annual climate conference to be held since that 1997 accord took effect last February, mandating cuts in gases in 35 industrialized countries. President Bush rejected it in 2001, saying mandatory energy cuts would harm the U.S. economy and major developing countries also should be covered.Despite the U.S. opposition, the head of the Montreal talks, Canadian Environment Minister Stephane Dion, said the "Kyoto Protocol has been switched on, a dialogue about the future action has begun, parties have moved forward."Perino said the White House has reached voluntary, market-related climate agreements with nations that represent 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. That includes a U.S. plan to encourage global trading in methane, which accounts for 16 percent of global greenhouse emissions, compared with carbon dioxide's 74 percent."The goal is to together work on developing clean energy technologies that are the key to addressing climate change in the long term," Perino said.US Isolated.

JWD
Topic Author
Posts: 1311
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm
Contact:

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Weve been spending a lot of time discussing the science of global warming and the impacts on the other two global warming threads. What about getting into the mitigation aspects? Player recently made some good remarks about mitigation. I have taken the liberty of copying them to this mitigation thread. He said: Well firstly we should focus on a micro level rather than at the macro level.....For example.....how about a simple campagin to try and encourage everyone to switch to energy conserving light blubs and a campaign to tell everyone to switch their light bulbs off when not in use and to switch the TV/Hi-Fi etc off when not in use rather than keeping it on stand by..Not only would it conserve energy but people would save money......which makes them even more willing to do this......Sometimes I think people use the excuse that since america isnt doing anything then we shouldnt either..which is just an ostrich like approach.....Personally I believe any campaign which enocurages people to conserve energy will be far better than a macro grandiose approach such as Kyoto.... Any opinions?--------
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053