Full Version: The Bush CO2 reduction plan
It seems M. Bush has taken an aggressive position on reducing CO2.
WASHINGTON — President Bush, seeking to blunt international criticism of the U.S. record on climate change, on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global emissions goal for reducing greenhouse gases.
Bush called for the first in a series of meetings to begin this fall, bringing together countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276681,00.html
Questions for the debate:
1. Is the Bush plan better or more likely to succeed than the Kyoto Plan since it would include China and India in the solution?. Why or why not
2. Do you still believe CO2 is the main driver in climate change or is the jury still out.
3. is it too late or can this or any plan actually reduce CO2 emissions?
WASHINGTON — President Bush, seeking to blunt international criticism of the U.S. record on climate change, on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global emissions goal for reducing greenhouse gases.
Bush called for the first in a series of meetings to begin this fall, bringing together countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276681,00.html
Questions for the debate:
1. Is the Bush plan better or more likely to succeed than the Kyoto Plan since it would include China and India in the solution?. Why or why not
2. Do you still believe CO2 is the main driver in climate change or is the jury still out.
3. is it too late or can this or any plan actually reduce CO2 emissions?
1. Is the Bush plan better or more likely to succeed than the Kyoto Plan since it would include China and India in the solution?. Why or why not
Including China and India, as well as other "developing" nations, is a good thing. I'm certainly in favor of international negotiations about this issue, as long as all parties involved are willing to make reasonable compromises. (That includes the good old USA.) This sort of problem, which ignores all national boundaries, is one in which the United Nations can also play an important role.
The best analogy I can think of is the destruction of the ozone layer. After heated debate, this phenomenon was generally accepted. The UN worked with world governments to do something about it. Although the problem still continues, progress has made.
Link
My point is that, as limited as the powers of international co-operation may be, they can be of some help. Taxes breaks, economic sanctions; all these things can have an effect.
2. Do you still believe CO2 is the main driver in climate change or is the jury still out.
I'm not going to touch this question with a ten-meter pole, since it seems to bring out an extraordinary amount of passionate emotion. I will say that, even if carbon dioxide has no effect at all on global temperature, the undeniable sharp climb in the amount of the stuff in the atmosphere during technological times has to have some effect on the planet. (Hint: the Earth has a lot of plant life.) Placing some kind of control on a major atmospheric change like this one seems like a reasonable idea.
3. is it too late or can this or any plan actually reduce CO2 emissions?
I'm cautiously optimistic. Human technology leads to serious challenges. Human technology is often able to deal with serious challenges.
Including China and India, as well as other "developing" nations, is a good thing. I'm certainly in favor of international negotiations about this issue, as long as all parties involved are willing to make reasonable compromises. (That includes the good old USA.) This sort of problem, which ignores all national boundaries, is one in which the United Nations can also play an important role.
The best analogy I can think of is the destruction of the ozone layer. After heated debate, this phenomenon was generally accepted. The UN worked with world governments to do something about it. Although the problem still continues, progress has made.
Link
QUOTE
The latest [Montreal Protocol] . . . held in Copenhagan in November of 1992, laid down the most stringent CFC phase-out schedule for CFC's for the world to date; and was signed by over 100 nations representing 95% of the world's current CFC consumption. Trade sanctions on CFC's, Halons and products that contain them, were imposed as of April 1993 on nations not signing the protocol, and in May 1993 this ban was extended to the export of halocarbon solvents such as Methyl chloride and Carbon tetrachloride. This protocol laid out a schedule for the phase-out of CFC's and related halocarbons by the year 2030.
My point is that, as limited as the powers of international co-operation may be, they can be of some help. Taxes breaks, economic sanctions; all these things can have an effect.
2. Do you still believe CO2 is the main driver in climate change or is the jury still out.
I'm not going to touch this question with a ten-meter pole, since it seems to bring out an extraordinary amount of passionate emotion. I will say that, even if carbon dioxide has no effect at all on global temperature, the undeniable sharp climb in the amount of the stuff in the atmosphere during technological times has to have some effect on the planet. (Hint: the Earth has a lot of plant life.) Placing some kind of control on a major atmospheric change like this one seems like a reasonable idea.
3. is it too late or can this or any plan actually reduce CO2 emissions?
I'm cautiously optimistic. Human technology leads to serious challenges. Human technology is often able to deal with serious challenges.
QUOTE
Including China and India, as well as other "developing" nations, is a good thing. I'm certainly in favor of international negotiations about this issue, as long as all parties involved are willing to make reasonable compromises. (That includes the good old USA.) This sort of problem, which ignores all national boundaries, is one in which the United Nations can also play an important role.
I tend to agree. This plan if implemented would set a reduction goal and then come up with reductions the major CO2 producers must meet to get there. It will be simplicity itself if everyone signs on including China who will pass the US in CO2 output this year.
I, personally never liked Kyoto because it was “fixed” by a measurement start date (1990), that gave Europe and esp. Germany a big break and does not include China and India, without which it cannot possibly succeed.
The Bush "plan" is a diversion designed to undercut the criticism he received recently for turning down the G8 effort.
Holding warming to 2 degrees C as the Europeans propose may itself be insufficient. See this reference to a recent NSA study.
QUOTE
However, Bernd Pfaffenbach, the chief German negotiator or “sherpa” on climate change was blunter. He told the Suddeutschen Zeitung newspaper that excluding the UN or weakening its role was a “red line” that Ms Merkel “will never cross”.
“The leading role of the UN on climate change is non-negotiable,” he added. Another German official described the proposal as a “poison pill” aimed at undermining G8 and UN efforts to tackle global warming. “With one stroke you say goodbye to the UN,” the official said. “This is a fundamentally different approach, and I’d be very surprised if the other G8 countries abandon the UN course.”
Environmentalists were also furious. Daniel Mittler, an analyst at Greenpeace International, said: “It’s not even too little too late, but a dangerous diversionary tactic. He doesn’t need to start a new process. There already is one. This is meant to slow down the UN process.”
See this Guardian Article.“The leading role of the UN on climate change is non-negotiable,” he added. Another German official described the proposal as a “poison pill” aimed at undermining G8 and UN efforts to tackle global warming. “With one stroke you say goodbye to the UN,” the official said. “This is a fundamentally different approach, and I’d be very surprised if the other G8 countries abandon the UN course.”
Environmentalists were also furious. Daniel Mittler, an analyst at Greenpeace International, said: “It’s not even too little too late, but a dangerous diversionary tactic. He doesn’t need to start a new process. There already is one. This is meant to slow down the UN process.”
Holding warming to 2 degrees C as the Europeans propose may itself be insufficient. See this reference to a recent NSA study.
QUOTE
The researchers conclude that additional global warming of about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit above global temperature in 2000 is likely to be dangerous and that policymakers should aim to keep increases below that threshold, not the 3.6 degrees usually cited in talks.
Hansen said that 3.6 F scenario, which he called the "business-as-usual" approach, would be "a guarantee of global and regional disasters."
Hansen said that 3.6 F scenario, which he called the "business-as-usual" approach, would be "a guarantee of global and regional disasters."
There are two real reasons for the global warming (mess)--one, redistribution of the use of resources so we'll have consumption more pro-rata based upon population (the economic justice/communist motive); and two, to create a system of carbon trading which will make certain folks very, very rich (before they died, Enron was pushing Kyoto very, very hard, as they wanted to make the market in carbon trading); therefore, Bush's plan is doomed as it includes all nations, including the poor/ developing ones, killing motive one, and it does not endorse carbon trading, contra to motive two.
If Enron were still around, Bush may have done something sooner, as he was buds with many in the Enron and probably Cheney loved the thought of making big bucks in carbon trading. Now, carbon trading would likely be centered other than in the USA, so why do it?
If Enron were still around, Bush may have done something sooner, as he was buds with many in the Enron and probably Cheney loved the thought of making big bucks in carbon trading. Now, carbon trading would likely be centered other than in the USA, so why do it?
QUOTE
Hansen said that 3.6 F scenario, which he called the "business-as-usual" approach, would be "a guarantee of global and regional disasters."
The Bush "plan" is a diversion designed to undercut the criticism he received recently for turning down the G8 effort.
The Bush "plan" is a diversion designed to undercut the criticism he received recently for turning down the G8 effort.
Amusing that you write it off so quickly given it is possible the only plan capable of actually reducing CO2 emissions rather than slow their growth somewhat.
The reason I have been so much against the 400 billion (to start) we would need to spend is that it is clearly money wasted without China and India involved in the solution.
Clearly Bush and his advisors recognize this and deal with it in this proposal.
QUOTE
(Ted)
Amusing that you write it off so quickly given it is possible the only plan capable of actually reducing CO2 emissions rather than slow their growth somewhat.
Amusing that you write it off so quickly given it is possible the only plan capable of actually reducing CO2 emissions rather than slow their growth somewhat.
Plan? What plan? GWB offered no plan, only years of discussion with no targets or goals. Here is what one observer said when commenting on the way one of the better sets of media pundits treated Bush's "change of course:"
QUOTE
The first and most glaring is that throughout the entire discussion, neither Shields nor Brooks analyzes or even so much as mentions the merits of the new strategy. Seriously. They don't say a word about what would happen, or wouldn't happen, or what it would entail, or wouldn't, or whether it's an improvement, or not. Nothing. Bush's announcement is discussed purely in terms of horserace politics -- how it appears, and and how other political actors react to it.
Second, Brooks and Shields agree that this is a substantial change in Bush's stance -- but neither say why we should think that. Remember, the Bush administration has been playing hide-and-seek on this issue for seven years now. In the campaign, Bush said climate change is a serious problem and he'd regulate CO2 as a pollutant. Then he rescinded that and said we don't know if human beings cause it. He would say one thing, his science advisor would say another, the EPA administrator would say another, a careful dance depending on the audience. One day we'd hear that a strong EPA report on climate change "came from the bureaucracy," the next we'd hear that the administration had done more than any country in the world to fight climate change. Point is, Bush has consistently given exactly as much ground as he has to, tossing out flares this way and that to distract attention. The one unifying theme in this administration's position toward climate change is that they don't do anything substantial about it.
See Brooks and Shields.Second, Brooks and Shields agree that this is a substantial change in Bush's stance -- but neither say why we should think that. Remember, the Bush administration has been playing hide-and-seek on this issue for seven years now. In the campaign, Bush said climate change is a serious problem and he'd regulate CO2 as a pollutant. Then he rescinded that and said we don't know if human beings cause it. He would say one thing, his science advisor would say another, the EPA administrator would say another, a careful dance depending on the audience. One day we'd hear that a strong EPA report on climate change "came from the bureaucracy," the next we'd hear that the administration had done more than any country in the world to fight climate change. Point is, Bush has consistently given exactly as much ground as he has to, tossing out flares this way and that to distract attention. The one unifying theme in this administration's position toward climate change is that they don't do anything substantial about it.
Ted, perhaps you could provide the details in the "plan" that Brooks and Shields failed to provide? And don't try to hide behind the inclusion of India and China in the coversation. They are already in it but require some indication of real seriousness on the part the Western World before taking any real action.
QUOTE
Plan? What plan? GWB offered no plan, only years of discussion with no targets or goals. Here is what one observer said when commenting on the way one of the better sets of media pundits treated Bush's "change of course:"
No they said they would meet with the nations producing the CO2 to come up with a strategy to share in the reduction of same. Since they haven’t met yet you are right there is no plan –YET
Now compare this to Kyoto – a plan that everyone KNOWS will not reduce CO2 output because some of the largest producers of it are not required to reduce CO2 emmissions and are in fact increasing out put at a staggering rate!
In fact China will be the largest producer of CO2 this year and they are exempt. How STUPID is that????
So we spend 400 billion year to “be a good example” to countries that insue the effort will fail.
Some how I fail to see the logic in that – whereas the Bush proposal at least lays out a groundwork for a plan that could actually WORK.
Of course if China says they will not join all bets are off and neither “plan” nor Treaty will work.
The point is that China signed the Kyoto Protocol and, while it is not required by it to make reductions in emissions, is already thoroughly integrated in the international discussions on the issue. Bush's proposal, such as it is, envisions no enforcement mechanism and only the adoption of country by country self regulation. China would not be required to do anything that it hasn't already committed to under the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. (See below). It is true that China and India are a huge part of the problem and important to the solution. However, the question is whether the US, with 6 times the per capita emission of China, can best gain Chinese (and other 3rd World) cooperation by showing its own commitment and developing solutions that can be applied effectively in the 3rd World once they are fully engage or by continuing whining that, "China and India are not regulating emissions so we won't either."
QUOTE
Successor
In the non-binding 'Washington Declaration' agreed on February 16, 2007, Presidents or Prime Ministers from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa agreed in principle on the outline of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisage a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, and hoped that this would be in place by 2009 .[89][90]
Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate
See also: Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate
The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is an agreement between six Asia-Pacific nations: Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. The partnership had its official launch in January 2006 at a ceremony in Sydney, Australia. Within the past year, the six nations have initiated nearly 100 projects aimed at clean energy capacity building and market formation. Building on these activities, long-term projects are schedule to deploy clean energy and environment technologies and services. The pact allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol whilst being more flexible while critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures and ultimately aims to void the negotiations leading to the Protocol called to replace the current Kyoto Protocol (negotiations started in Montreal in December 2005).
See Wiki Article.
In the non-binding 'Washington Declaration' agreed on February 16, 2007, Presidents or Prime Ministers from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa agreed in principle on the outline of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisage a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, and hoped that this would be in place by 2009 .[89][90]
Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate
See also: Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate
The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is an agreement between six Asia-Pacific nations: Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. The partnership had its official launch in January 2006 at a ceremony in Sydney, Australia. Within the past year, the six nations have initiated nearly 100 projects aimed at clean energy capacity building and market formation. Building on these activities, long-term projects are schedule to deploy clean energy and environment technologies and services. The pact allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol whilst being more flexible while critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures and ultimately aims to void the negotiations leading to the Protocol called to replace the current Kyoto Protocol (negotiations started in Montreal in December 2005).
Questions for the debate:
1. Is the Bush plan better or more likely to succeed than the Kyoto Plan since it would include China and India in the solution?. Why or why not
What plan? It is an agreement to agree.
2. Do you still believe CO2 is the main driver in climate change or is the jury still out.
I do not know--the sun, animal methane, volcanic activity--who knows?, but controlling C02 should not be a focus; getting on with new technologies to let us have more control over the climate should--nuke power, CO2 eating plants, dispersal of sunlight techniques, etc. Rushing back to the simple life is not the answer, nor is redistributing the world's energy use.
3. is it too late or can this or any plan actually reduce CO2 emissions?
No one really knows the answer to this--projections are based on models; models must use assumptions on continuing trends, which are always subject to change; and models must use assumptions on data they do not have to input, like data on the patterns of clouds, as clouds may be the most significant reflector of radiant energy. We should focus on advancing technology, as we always have, rather than conserving, reducing, relenting, revising, redistributing, etc.
2. Do you still believe CO2 is the main driver in climate change or is the jury still out.
The IPCC's AR4 quantifies the relative forcing of all factors. (See the chart on page 32 of the Summary of the Technical Assessment from the AR4). (I wish everyone would read the whole thing). CO2 is clearly the most important forcing and the one of greatest long term concern. On the other hand, Methane (which appears to have reached equilibrium in the atmosphere), Halocarbons, and Ozone are also important. The absence of evidence for significant Solar Irradince forcing is displayed. The importance of negative forcings are also illustrated. The jury is definitely in but there are many who won't examine the evidence and who refuse to accept the verdict.
The vast majority of climate scientists know! Read the AR4. Its going to take a variety of efforts to keep climate change within the bounds that human civilization can adapt to. Both reductions in GHG releases and technical innovation will be required. I'll even accept nuclear power (with all of its associated problems) as part of the short term solution. The same is true for carbon sequestration. However, we shouldn't pick technological winner but rather impose a carbon tax that is steeply graduated over a decade. Then the market can pick the economic winners between the low carbon alternatives.
The IPCC's AR4 quantifies the relative forcing of all factors. (See the chart on page 32 of the Summary of the Technical Assessment from the AR4). (I wish everyone would read the whole thing). CO2 is clearly the most important forcing and the one of greatest long term concern. On the other hand, Methane (which appears to have reached equilibrium in the atmosphere), Halocarbons, and Ozone are also important. The absence of evidence for significant Solar Irradince forcing is displayed. The importance of negative forcings are also illustrated. The jury is definitely in but there are many who won't examine the evidence and who refuse to accept the verdict.
QUOTE
(quick)
I do not know--the sun, animal methane, volcanic activity--who knows?, but controlling C02 should not be a focus; getting on with new technologies to let us have more control over the climate should--nuke power, CO2 eating plants, dispersal of sunlight techniques, etc. Rushing back to the simple life is not the answer, nor is redistributing the world's energy use.
I do not know--the sun, animal methane, volcanic activity--who knows?, but controlling C02 should not be a focus; getting on with new technologies to let us have more control over the climate should--nuke power, CO2 eating plants, dispersal of sunlight techniques, etc. Rushing back to the simple life is not the answer, nor is redistributing the world's energy use.
The vast majority of climate scientists know! Read the AR4. Its going to take a variety of efforts to keep climate change within the bounds that human civilization can adapt to. Both reductions in GHG releases and technical innovation will be required. I'll even accept nuclear power (with all of its associated problems) as part of the short term solution. The same is true for carbon sequestration. However, we shouldn't pick technological winner but rather impose a carbon tax that is steeply graduated over a decade. Then the market can pick the economic winners between the low carbon alternatives.
QUOTE
The point is that China signed the Kyoto Protocol and, while it is not required by it to make reductions in emissions, is already thoroughly integrated in the international discussions on the issue. Bush's proposal, such as it is, envisions no enforcement mechanism and only the adoption of country by country self regulation. China would not be required to do anything that it hasn't already committed to under the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. (See below). It is true that China and India are a huge part of the problem and important to the solution. However, the question is whether the US, with 6 times the per capita emission of China, can best gain Chinese (and other 3rd World) cooperation by showing its own commitment and developing solutions that can be applied effectively in the 3rd World once they are fully engage or by continuing whining that, "China and India are not regulating emissions so we won't either."
So you make my point. China as part of Kyoto is not required to reduce emissions of CO2 and last I checked has made NO statement they would comply in any way. They build, on average, one BIG CO2 belching new power plant a week.
And don’t be cute with the “per capita” dodge. They will pass us as the number 1 CO2 producer this year and are expanding emissions rapidly. And as mentioned I do not buy the “by example” crap.
Bush is right. Set up a group and require them to comply- because without China and India it will FAIL - as in worthless – waste of 400 billion/year.
QUOTE
The pact allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol whilst being more flexible while critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures and ultimately aims to void the negotiations leading to the Protocol called to replace the current Kyoto Protocol
So show me sir one piece of evidence that any of the one a week plants being built by China will do anything but pour CO2 into the atmosphere. They cannot “reduce” anything if all they do is add a big CO2 belching power plant a week can they??? The CO2 “sequestering” plants are not yet fully developed and there is no indication that China would ever use them in any case – so to say that China and India are doing or might do anything to reduce CO2 output is a bade JOKE at best sir.
And which IPCC scenario do you buy into? The Constant year 2000, the B1 or the A1Fl
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Jun 4 2007, 08:58 PM) 
2. Do you still believe CO2 is the main driver in climate change or is the jury still out.
The IPCC's AR4 quantifies the relative forcing of all factors. (See the chart on page 32 of the Summary of the Technical Assessment from the AR4). (I wish everyone would read the whole thing). CO2 is clearly the most important forcing and the one of greatest long term concern. On the other hand, Methane (which appears to have reached equilibrium in the atmosphere), Halocarbons, and Ozone are also important. The absence of evidence for significant Solar Irradince forcing is displayed. The importance of negative forcings are also illustrated. The jury is definitely in but there are many who won't examine the evidence and who refuse to accept the verdict.
The vast majority of climate scientists know! Read the AR4. Its going to take a variety of efforts to keep climate change within the bounds that human civilization can adapt to. Both reductions in GHG releases and technical innovation will be required. I'll even accept nuclear power (with all of its associated problems) as part of the short term solution. The same is true for carbon sequestration. However, we shouldn't pick technological winner but rather impose a carbon tax that is steeply graduated over a decade. Then the market can pick the economic winners between the low carbon alternatives.
The IPCC's AR4 quantifies the relative forcing of all factors. (See the chart on page 32 of the Summary of the Technical Assessment from the AR4). (I wish everyone would read the whole thing). CO2 is clearly the most important forcing and the one of greatest long term concern. On the other hand, Methane (which appears to have reached equilibrium in the atmosphere), Halocarbons, and Ozone are also important. The absence of evidence for significant Solar Irradince forcing is displayed. The importance of negative forcings are also illustrated. The jury is definitely in but there are many who won't examine the evidence and who refuse to accept the verdict.
QUOTE
(quick)
I do not know--the sun, animal methane, volcanic activity--who knows?, but controlling C02 should not be a focus; getting on with new technologies to let us have more control over the climate should--nuke power, CO2 eating plants, dispersal of sunlight techniques, etc. Rushing back to the simple life is not the answer, nor is redistributing the world's energy use.
I do not know--the sun, animal methane, volcanic activity--who knows?, but controlling C02 should not be a focus; getting on with new technologies to let us have more control over the climate should--nuke power, CO2 eating plants, dispersal of sunlight techniques, etc. Rushing back to the simple life is not the answer, nor is redistributing the world's energy use.
The vast majority of climate scientists know! Read the AR4. Its going to take a variety of efforts to keep climate change within the bounds that human civilization can adapt to. Both reductions in GHG releases and technical innovation will be required. I'll even accept nuclear power (with all of its associated problems) as part of the short term solution. The same is true for carbon sequestration. However, we shouldn't pick technological winner but rather impose a carbon tax that is steeply graduated over a decade. Then the market can pick the economic winners between the low carbon alternatives.
No one--no one--can tell us what is going to happen 50 years from now (If you can, then please bet on the stock market--you'll be rich!). If we could control every variable, we could, but no one can do that. These models are all we have and they all do two things--they extrapolate from current data, and they use plugs-ins for data they do not have. As my friend Richard Lindzen (The Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meterology at MIT) says, we do not have the computing power to model cloud behavior for an extended period of time, so we have plug-in assumptions for cloud behavior in every global warming model. And clouds may be the single most important factor, next to the sun itself, affecting global warming--much more significant than C02.
So, we still have, at best, an educated guess here.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.