+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 55

Thread: Global Warming III

  1. #31
    Champ DogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond repute DogtorEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    EPIC-ville, Tejas
    Posts
    9,235

    Re: Global Warming III

    Quote Originally Posted by saltydawg
    The most important fact is that our burning of fossil fuels puts about 7 parts per million of CO2 into the environment EVERY YEAR, with 3.5 ppm going into the sea and biomass and the other 3.5 ppm going into the atmosphere. That is a scientific fact.
    What are you basing these "facts" on, something you dug out of Wikipedia? Post a link from a CREDIBLE source that proves this "fact"

  2. #32
    Champ DogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond repute DogtorEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    EPIC-ville, Tejas
    Posts
    9,235

    Re: Global Warming III

    Quote Originally Posted by saltydawg
    The third fact is that even if we stop all of our CO2 emissions today, the atmospheric level of CO2 would continue to rise for at least the next 100 years because the CO2 that has been stored in the oceans and biomass over the past 150 years will be released back into the atmosphere.

    I believe this "fact" is actually a hypotheses; i.e., if it hasn't happened yet, you are only projecting what you think is going to happen.

    Here's a fact for you....you can reduce CO2 emissions in your environment simply by ceasing to exhale. Try it for a few hours.

    just kidding, just kidding, just kidding....

  3. #33
    Champ arkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond repute arkansasbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    state of incredulity
    Posts
    8,624

    Re: Global Warming III

    billpup, don't bore us all with scientific fact and logical analysis. don't you know that this debate is all about sensationalism? unless you've got a poll that shows that most americans aren't worried about global warming, or prove that temperatures will not go up for the next hundred years :icon_roll then you've got nothing.:icon_wink

  4. #34
    Champ arkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond repute arkansasbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    state of incredulity
    Posts
    8,624

    Re: Global Warming III

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
    When did George Will become a scientist? Last time I saw him he was just some dork on a Sunday morning political show.
    when did the editors and writers for time magazine become scientists? it obviously must have occured some time since 1974?

  5. #35
    Champ arkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond repute arkansasbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    state of incredulity
    Posts
    8,624

    Re: Global Warming III

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
    Maybe George should tell it to the Isrealis. While he is at it, he can explain what a tornado is since they don't know.

    http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/702899.html
    from your article:

    Large numbers of greenhouses in the area sustained damage in the storms...
    proof that the greenhouse effect is at the center of this!

  6. #36
    Champ saltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your time saltydawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southern Nevada
    Posts
    11,262

    Re: Global Warming III

    Quote Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
    What are you basing these "facts" on, something you dug out of Wikipedia? Post a link from a CREDIBLE source that proves this "fact"
    DogtorEvil, I got these facts from a book entitled "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing." Published by Cambridge University Press, 1997.

    It is written by Sir John Houghton CBE, FRS who is a world-renowned expert on climate change. He is also the author of The Physics of Atmospheres and The Search for God: Can Science Help?

    You can probably order the book from LA Tech's bookstore.

    The book is written as a college textbook.

  7. #37
    Champ saltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your time saltydawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southern Nevada
    Posts
    11,262

    Re: Global Warming III

    Also, here is a web page that links many, many articles on Global Warming.

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...climate-change

  8. #38
    Champ TECH88 is a splendid one to beholdTECH88 is a splendid one to beholdTECH88 is a splendid one to beholdTECH88 is a splendid one to beholdTECH88 is a splendid one to beholdTECH88 is a splendid one to beholdTECH88 is a splendid one to beholdTECH88 is a splendid one to beholdTECH88 is a splendid one to beholdTECH88 is a splendid one to beholdTECH88 is a splendid one to behold TECH88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Ruston, LA
    Posts
    5,974

    Re: Global Warming III

    Quote Originally Posted by saltydawg
    Absolutely. I just pray that global warming does not disrupt the cultivation of the agave plant in Mexico. The seas rising a couple of feet is one thing but to have prime agave growing locations suddenly getting wetter would be a terrible loss for mankind.
    YIKES!! No more Patron would be devastating.

  9. #39
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53,273

    Re: Global Warming III

    I found this article interesting.

    Climate of Fear
    Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

    BY RICHARD LINDZEN
    Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

    There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
    The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
    But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.


    To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

    If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
    So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
    All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
    Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
    And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.


    Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

    M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

  10. #40
    Champ saltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your time saltydawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southern Nevada
    Posts
    11,262

    Re: Global Warming III

    OT; TT. St. Mary's Exploration wants to lease my 80 acres in Caddo County, OK. I have 2 choices. 3/16 royalty with $500/acre signing bonus or 1/5 royalty with $300/acre bonus. They plan to drill about 17,000+ ft. later this year. What's the smart choice here?

  11. #41
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53,273

    Re: Global Warming III

    Quote Originally Posted by saltydawg
    OT; TT. St. Mary's Exploration wants to lease my 80 acres in Caddo County, OK. I have 2 choices. 3/16 royalty with $500/acre signing bonus or 1/5 royalty with $300/acre bonus. They plan to drill about 17,000+ ft. later this year. What's the smart choice here?
    Take the 1/5 royalty with the $300/acre bonus all day long! The extra $1600.00 ($200 x 80 acres) doesn't do much when compared to the extra 1.25% (20% - 18.75%) royalty if successful on this deep test. Good luck!

  12. #42
    Champ saltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your time saltydawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southern Nevada
    Posts
    11,262

    Re: Global Warming III

    Quote Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
    Take the 1/5 royalty with the $300/acre bonus all day long! The extra $1600.00 ($200 x 80 acres) doesn't do much when compared to the extra 1.25% (20% - 18.75%) royalty if successful on this deep test. Good luck!
    Thanks! That's what I will do.

    Now, back to the regularly schedule program.

  13. #43
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53,273

    Re: Global Warming III

    Quote Originally Posted by saltydawg
    Thanks! That's what I will do.

    Now, back to the regularly schedule program.
    Welcome Salty. I'll gladly take part of the extra 1.25% royalty as a friendly fee. :icon_wink
    Again, good luck!
    Quote Originally Posted by tylertechsas
    Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
    Take the 1/5 royalty with the $300/acre bonus all day long! The extra $1600.00 ($200 x 80 acres) doesn't do much when compared to the extra 1.25% (20% - 18.75%) royalty if successful on this deep test. Good luck!

  14. #44
    Champ Bill Pup60 is a jewel in the roughBill Pup60 is a jewel in the roughBill Pup60 is a jewel in the roughBill Pup60 is a jewel in the roughBill Pup60 is a jewel in the roughBill Pup60 is a jewel in the roughBill Pup60 is a jewel in the roughBill Pup60 is a jewel in the roughBill Pup60 is a jewel in the roughBill Pup60 is a jewel in the roughBill Pup60 is a jewel in the rough
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Greensburg, PA
    Posts
    1,671

    Re: Global Warming III

    Quote Originally Posted by arkansasbob
    billpup, don't bore us all with scientific fact and logical analysis. don't you know that this debate is all about sensationalism? unless you've got a poll that shows that most americans aren't worried about global warming, or prove that temperatures will not go up for the next hundred years :icon_roll then you've got nothing.:icon_wink
    You're absolutely correct bob.

    Being kind of old fashioned I still cling to this weird idea that both sides of issues should be aired. Sort of like when both the prosecution and the defense are allowed to present their case and let the jury decide. In this on-going circus, thanks to the leftist media and enormous pressure on "scientists" to be quiet to protect their precious grant money, the jury is only getting to hear one side.

  15. #45
    Champ DogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond reputeDogtorEvil has a reputation beyond repute DogtorEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    EPIC-ville, Tejas
    Posts
    9,235

    Re: Global Warming III

    Quote Originally Posted by saltydawg
    DogtorEvil, I got these facts from a book entitled "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing." Published by Cambridge University Press, 1997.

    It is written by Sir John Houghton CBE, FRS who is a world-renowned expert on climate change. He is also the author of The Physics of Atmospheres and The Search for God: Can Science Help?

    You can probably order the book from LA Tech's bookstore.

    The book is written as a college textbook.
    Attached is an article by Houghton. Too many "implies" and "tends" and sensationalism...too much selective use of data points....no substantive mention of any of the other viable possibilities for temperature increase...no mention of accuracy of measurement techniques...

    If he wants to use tornado activity as a clear measure of gloabal warning, the data doesn't support his argument.
    http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/m...tornstats.html

    US temperature data
    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate.../usmontemp.gif

    India temperature data
    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...diamontemp.gif

    China temperature data
    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...hinamontem.gif

    Notice that there are severe jumps in temperature, typically followed by severe drops in temperature.

    I'll see if I can find more current data


    Global warming is now a weapon of mass destruction

    It kills more people than terrorism, yet Blair and Bush do nothing
    John Houghton
    Monday July 28, 2003
    The Guardian

    If political leaders have one duty above all others, it is to protect the security of their people. Thus it was, according to the prime minister, to protect Britain's security against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction that this country went to war in Iraq. And yet our long-term security is threatened by a problem at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, or indeed international terrorism: human-induced climate change.

    As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a "weapon of mass destruction".

    Like terrorism, this weapon knows no boundaries. It can strike anywhere, in any form - a heatwave in one place, a drought or a flood or a storm surge in another. Nor is this just a problem for the future. The 1990s were probably the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years, and 1998 the warmest year. Global warming is already upon us.

    The World Meteorological Organisation warned this month that extreme weather events already seem to be becoming more frequent as a result. The US mainland was struck by 562 tornados in May (which incidentally saw the highest land temperatures globally since records began in 1880), killing 41 people. The developing world is the hardest hit: extremes of climate tend to be more intense at low latitudes and poorer countries are less able to cope with disasters. Pre-monsoon temperatures this year in India reached a blistering 49C (120F) - 5C (9F) above normal.

    Once this killer heatwave began to abate, 1,500 people lay dead - half the number killed outright in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre. While no one can ascribe a single weather event to climate change with any degree of scientific certainty, higher maximum temperatures are one of the most predictable impacts of accelerated global warming, and the parallels - between global climate change and global terrorism - are becoming increasingly obvious.

    To his credit, Tony Blair has - rhetorically, at least - begun to face up to this. In a recent speech he stated clearly that "there can be no genuine security if the planet is ravaged by climate change". But words are not enough. They have to be matched with adequate action. The recent announcement of a large-scale offshore wind generating programme was welcome, but the UK still lags far behind other European countries in developing renewables capacity.
    The latest report on energy and climate change by the royal commission on environmental pollution addressed the much more demanding global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that will be required over the next 50 years (in addition to the Kyoto agreement) and how these could be achieved. Given that the UK needs to take its share of the global burden the commission recommended that we should aim for a cut in these emissions of 60% by 2050.
    It also pointed out the urgent need for an adequate mechanism for negotiating each country's emission target and advocated a globally implemented plan known as "contraction and convergence". The energy white paper published earlier this year accepted the royal commission's 60% reduction target, but it is disturbing that it provided no clarity on UK policy regarding the framework for international negotiation.

    Any successful international negotiation for reducing emissions must be based on four principles: the precautionary principle, the principle of sustainable development, the polluter-pays principle and the principle of equity. The strength of "contraction and convergence" is that it satisfies all these principles. But it also means facing up to some difficult questions.

    First, world leaders have to agree on a target for the stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a sufficiently low level to stave off dangerous climate change. Second, this target, and the global greenhouse gas budget it implies, has to form the framework for an equitable global distribution of emissions permits, assigned to different countries on a per-capita basis. Countries with the largest populations will therefore get the most permits, but for the sake of efficiency and to achieve economic convergence these permits will need to be internationally tradable.

    This is the only solution likely to be acceptable to most of the developing world, which unlike us has not had the benefit of over a century of fossil fuel-driven economic prosperity. And it also meets one of the key demands of the United States, that developing countries should not be excluded from emissions targets, as they currently are under the Kyoto protocol.

    Nowadays everyone knows that the US is the world's biggest polluter, and that with only one 20th of the world's population it produces a quarter of its greenhouse gas emissions. But the US government, in an abdication of leadership of epic proportions, is refusing to take the problem seriously - and Britain, presumably because Blair wishes not to offend George Bush - is beginning to fall behind too. Emissions from the US are up 14% on those in 1990 and are projected to rise by a further 12% over the next decade.
    It is vital that Russia now ratifies the Kyoto protocol so that it can at last come into force. But while the US refuses to cooperate, it is difficult to see how the rest of the world can make much progress on the much tougher longer-term agreements that will be necessary after Kyoto's mandate runs out in 2012.
    Nor does the latest science provide any comfort. The intergovernmental panel on climate change has warned of 1.4C to 5.8C (2.5F to 10.4F) temperature rises by 2100. This already implies massive changes in climate, and yet the current worst-case scenarios emerging from the Met Office's Hadley centre envisage even greater rises than this - a degree and speed of global warming the consequences of which are hard to quantify or even imagine.

    So Blair has a challenge. The world needs leadership, and the British prime minister is well placed to stand at the head of a new "coalition of the willing" to tackle this urgent problem. He is also uniquely placed to persuade Bush to join in this effort, given their joint commitment to making the world safe from "weapons of mass destruction".

    But even if he fails to persuade him, there are other allies who would still respond to his leadership - even if this means opposing the US until such time as it no longer has an oilman for president. If Blair were to assume this mantle, history might not only forgive him, but will also endorse Britain's contribution to long-term global security.


+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts