January 9, 2006
ENVIRONMENTALISM FOR SERIOUS PEOPLE:
Climate summit challenges Kyoto's approach: Six nations, responsible for 40 percent of global greenhouse gases, meet Wednesday. (Janaki Kremmer, 1/10/06, The Christian Science Monitor)
Formed this past July, the new bloc brings together the US, China, India, Australia, South Korea, and Japan. These six nations are responsible for more than 40 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, which many scientists say cause global warming.Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which sets emissions targets for nations, the new Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate aims to reduce emissions voluntarily through the transfer of emerging technologies - including "clean coal," burial of carbon dioxide, and next-generation nuclear power - from industrialized nations to the developing world.
We'll have to set domestic targets in order to create market forces strong enough to drive the innovation though. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 9, 2006 5:51 PM
This is premature. We must first determine that global warming is deleterious, and then whether human CO2 emissions have any significant effect on warming. The world was apparently warmer than current conditions as little as 5000 years ago.
Since some climatologists have said we are overdue for the next ice age, which would be much more disasterous than warming, an argument could be made that we should be burning oil and coal as quickly as possible (albeit cleanly) if it would delay or prevent the onset of an ice age.
Posted by: jd watson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 9, 2006 6:04 PM
jd:
Why? Reducing emissions and transitioning to other energy sources are goods in themselves, irrespective of warming.
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2006 9:19 PMOJ said:
"Why? Reducing emissions and transitioning to other energy sources are goods in themselves, irrespective of warming."
I agree with oj on at least this one. It matters not one damn bit if the evidence is absolute or not, and it rarely is with science or anything else. The point is, is that we know for certainty that emissions aren't good for the air. So, the rational thing to do is to stop making them.
oj & kb: I'm all for reducing hazardous emissions, but CO2 is not a hazardous gas.
Posted by: jd watson at January 9, 2006 11:11 PM
jd:
Yes, but reductions are easy political camoflauge for transitioning away from gasoline.
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2006 11:13 PMYes, and the next energy source will be completely benign because if your heart is pure tradeoffs are never necessary.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 9, 2006 11:50 PMBenign isn't one of the requirements. The precise point is that this a time when it makes sense to make a trade-off, or rather to trade-in.
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2006 11:52 PM