³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

So Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised the climate change issue in China and India on her recent trip to Asia. Let me make a wild guess: The Chinese made no binding concessions on their part to reduce the number of their planned coal plants but smiled and complimented her on her activism, concern for the environment and wardrobe instead.

The policies of Clintons in 1990's to improve China's human rights record by sending western business their way (arguing that capitalism would raise living standards and bring compassion) has ended in disaster, as oppression only got more powerful. Last year's Olympic games was the showcase of one of the greatest fiascos of their naive policy. Now the same team is happily repeating the same old mistakes.

The reason that America is on the GW band wagon is that we've become so politically correct that we bend to just about every whim of any special interest group. Check your own editors blog today and you will see yet more proof that GW is all a hoax a myth and anouther y2k type scare.

That's all...

What is the economic logic of wasting as much energy as possible and failing to minimise the need for overseas oil?

The "economic" arguments that get banded about are very one-sided and dogmatic... now perhaps they will flip to being one-sided and fawning to whatever Obama suggests.

The failure to regulate banks, so that they didn't move offshore, was flawed in the same way that any threat from GM to offshore it's bankrupt gas-guzzling business model would be totally bogus.

Ideologically, the Bush White House didn't like the idea of any restraint on the reckless behaviour of its backers and continuously vilified rational scientific arguments throughout its tenure. Hopefully, things will be different under Obama, but he still has to turn his many fine words into action.

So the world stops producing Carbon Dioxide? What influence does the other 97% CO2 that Mother Nature makes have on our weather?

Or rather, why tilt at CO2 when it has very little to do with Greenie Hysterical "Tipping Points" and even less to do with what influences the changes in our weather patterns.

Ethical Man, just what are you attempting to do? Whatever you do will have absolutely no influence on anything our ever changing climate does.
Note. Since 1750 the influence of man on our atmosphere is to increase the amount of CO2 by a minute amount, roughly
1/10,000th part. Does Al Gore care? Hansen? Moore? So long as they get their grubby hands on the cash they can say what they like because dimwits like you can't see the wood for the trees and believe every word they utter.

It is absolutely vital that America reduces it's CO2 emissions. Once America does it, others will follow.

To stop industries moving abroad, why not put restrictions on what can be imported? There are already safety requirements for imported goods. Why can't customs check how much CO2 was used to make the goods when they are imported?

It's a pity we can't use fusion as a power source yet. It would really help us solve this problem. In a years though, it could be the way forward.

"Since 1750 the influence of man on our atmosphere is to increase the amount of CO2 by a minute amount, roughly
1/10,000th part."

Nonsense.

"Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent."

Source: NOAA

Globalclaptrap and AndyPost:
It seems that you are both correct in the CO2 contribution from humans. 100ppm equals 1 part per 10,000. Isn't it easy to quote measurements for your owns purposes? Whether or not global warming is man-made, if the cap and trade system will reduce US oil imports I will support it. However I would rather see a simpler carbon tax paying for a reduction in personal income taxes.

I'm not sure if the Mexican food has gone to your head, but it sure must have been difficult to choke down if you are going to make statements agreeing with George W. It's nice to hear that he had at least ONE sensible position, but his refusal to do anything about it was unforgivable.

Having the State Dept tackling climate change would, in my humble opinion, do much good; and leading by example has been our strong point, I feel (prior to 2002, of course).

Maybe I am just being too optimistic with Obama and having the weight of Bush lifted. And how the hell did you get Mexican food on Amtrak? All I've ever had was stale sandwiches and weak coffee!!

"Isn't it easy to quote measurements for your owns purposes?"

The absolute amount of increase is irrelevant. The relative amount is.

For instance, if you spend an hour in a room in which the concentration of hydrogen cyanide in the air is 100 ppm, you get sick, but you survive. However, if you increase that concentration by a mere 9 ppm, to 109 ppm over one hour, which is a "minute" amount (roughly 1 part per 100,000), you're dead. The increase seems too small to cause anything to change unless you look at it in relative terms. That additional 9 ppm equates to a 9% increase in the concentration of the gas, which is obviously significant.

We've seen roughly a 36% increase in the amount of carbon dioxide since 1958. That's significant, too.

merrymeMorableName: India is not one of the countries Hilary Clinton went to. Other than that I completely agree with you regarding China. This is precisely why what needs to be in place is (as Petejdean has said) restrictions on what can be imported based on how much CO2 was used to make those goods - analogous to how Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement brings India into the broader nuclear non-proliferation regime.

3030Winchester: I just wish everyone treats GW as Y2K. The problem is we will never find out what would have happened if Y2K was not dealt with on war footing!

The US is a force to reckon with by virtue of the size of its economy. Introducing alternative sources of energy will create jobs in technology, engineering and manufacturing. Substituing oil as a primarly source of energy will reduce imports substantially and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases at the same time.

AndyPost, That cyanide analagy is interesting, however you just did the same thing. Let's say I have a penny in my pocket. While walking down the street I find 10p. That is a 1000% increase! But I still don't have a "significant" amount of purchasing power.

What matters is the correllation between the CO2 increase and the increase in global temperatures. That correlation is very difficult to prove. You could mention that respectable UN scientists found that it is "very likely" that humans are contributing to global warming.

We may have little success in the effort to stop CO2 emmisions. It seems to me like our current obsessive focus on global warming is reducing focus on other important natural preservation issues such as rainforest destruction and rapid extinction of animal species.

BigJames, you make valid arguments, however a 100 percent increase as small as it seems mean disaster to certain ecosystems so to reflect it in your own analogy 10p may mean nothing to you, but to those that have nothing, it could mean the difference between eating for a day or not. So your geographic location is a huge determiner in what a 1000 percent increase means.

The rapid extinction of animal species is a -result- of global warming a 1 degree increase is major and species can not adapt quick enough to avoid being wiped out. Now saying that the habitat of a species is now -too warm- for it to survive is a narrow band of looking at the issue. However saying that a new predatory species can not survive in an environment because of said increase is not far fetched as well as mosquitoes being able to survive at high elevations is -not- unbelievable or even algae being in lakes previously unavailable because of temperature is realistic. You can not argue one without the other.

And I am a bit confused by earlier comments, do some posters means to suggest that global warming is not happening?

Yes, there are several comments posted by people who do not believe that global warming is happening. Whether or not they are correct does not reduce their interests in toxic air and water, pollution, and wasted resources.

It is not easy to stand and say that energy efficiency is not good for the american economy; it takes a dedicated point of view, a vested interest, and the ability to dismiss an essential and fundamental aspect of so many of the truly extraordinary achievements that the US is responsible for, ranging from and including fighting on two fronts in the Atlantic and Pacific during the legitimate crises of WWII, and the exceptional sciences and economics making the moon a return trip.

The depth and complexities relating to how fast global warming can be vilified illustrates how the need for debate has to exceed the desire to believe or, put another way, simply disbelieve in global warming.

if there apparently isn't money in it and indeed it is going to cost money and demand a reduction in quality of life many people are led to believe that it has to be just the latest attempt to undermine the american dream, the latest threat, the spawn of the leftists.

Since it won't be agreed to disagree, try this.

Revise the questions; if your grandchild worked a lathe or fiber kevlar reinforcement system in the production of wind generator blades, with benefits, how would that be? If the cousin found work testing solar powered UV treatment systems before they are packed for export, how would that be? Or, if your neighbours child helped in the project design, fund raising and development for their school's prototype two seater and satisfied grades in the basics and had to deal with research and communications, how would that be?

Not face on "is global warming real" but list the actual paid or educational benefits, which are going on everywhere in the US but often in small ways but so valuable and applied - like the fact of challenging stimulation to the mind which depends on people and their practical, experienced belief in others, and a certain amount of generous gain, like grandparents encouraged to bring forward their early lives and methods for the benefit of a grandchild

Seriously few people recognized the British Prime Minister before or since he addressed the joint houses of Congress or knew that he had, who is to say that most people have the measure or extent of the tools, technologies or trades already existing which are worth training for, are providing employment, help to make education feel that much more real?

Sometimes something plain as lists of firms and colleges, research centers, manufacturers associations and locations, in addition to news articles and documentaries, test reports and promotional materials help the critic see the pragmatic, economic ways of trying to go in non-pollution, cleaner running and further reaching and all in the believe of wanting to stay warmer longer for the same dollar, good food cost less to transport or keep, and your vehicle to deliver more miles from that amount of fuel (+ fewer break downs always!)

There are fantastic but credible lists for folk who can't or don't chose to travel, and no company with a product to show doesn't prepare for that moment of interest. So long as none of us dismiss the other in the disbelief that there is anything to know, we won't turn our backs on neighbours or grandchildren as if we had nothing to say worth telling, because there should always be another day when they know they can ask, and will

Creating green jobs is a very good step in a world of market oriented economy but still I feel it’s a secondary line of action. We can only achieve our targets substantially unless we do not reduce the human population of the planet. Why to wait up to year 2050? Why to make the main task utmost difficult and than transfer it to the next generation. What is the difficulty in highlighting/promoting single child norm all over the planet at least for next 15 to 20 years?
People who are adding more numbers in the population can be managed through education, money and legislation. Why to fight battle at so many places. We must fight battle at the source. Right of extra child may give pleasure to one person but when it gets multiplied with billion it becomes curse for entire planet. Any scientific invention, right from the Stone Age to the modern age gives short term gain to the human civilization but in the long run it becomes a severe set back for the planet or particularly to those species that are at the verge of extinction. Why do not we check the long term ecological impact of any scientific invention in the time scale of the life of the planet and not in the time scale of one or few human generations? We are relatively relaxed because other specie are getting extinct from the planet but do we know some where we may come in that queue despite our claims of the most powerful specie of the planet. Why to allow destruction of this wonderland without any substantial effort. All the challenges of the today’s world are connected with the main issue of the human population despite that no body from the political community talks for the control of the growing population.

I have got very strong feeling that still we are in position to reverse the damages done to the planet. For creating an environment to protect the environment of the planet, the initiative from the US would be of great help but ultimately it should be supported by the other countries too.

My apologies to merryMemorableName for the incorrect capitalisation in your name in my comment No.10. Also, the last line should read Substituting oil with non-fossil fuels as a primary source of energy will reduce imports substantially and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases at the same time.

@ BigJames27 No.11: You mention the other important natural preservation issues such as rainforest destruction and rapid extinction of animal species. In fact these issues and CO2 / greenhouse emissions are not mutually exclusive. According to a report in International Herald Tribune few years back "Each time you bite into a steak, particularly in Europe, you might also be taking a bite out of the Brazilian rain forest. An explosion in cattle ranching in the Amazon has endangered thousands of rare plants and animals, sped up global warming, and deprived many Brazilians of forest products on which they depend." Perhaps an extreme view, but it does illustrate the point.

@ PrinceZod No.12: Yes there are sceptics / cynics who believe GW is not happening and it is a communist plot. Other cynics believe it to be a money-spinner for the likes of Al Gore - a capitalist plot?! There are some who are in denial and would like to believe the 'scientists' who claim GW is a natural cyclical phenomenon and human beings can't do anything about it.

@ sanjaysinghthakur No.14: I do agree with the main thrust of your argument i.e. the explosion of human population as being the main contributor to the damage being done to our planet and its environment.

In an autocratic country like China (which used to promote larger families with propaganda such as "many hands make light" work) it is easy to change tune / course and enforce one child families.

I am not sure if promoting single child norm will be either practical or effective in all countries. Even if it were effective, it would take at least one generation before we saw any perceptible results. The reasons I believe it may not be practical are (a) high child mortality in the underdeveloped and developing countries and (b) children provide security for the parents in their old age. In some countries there are cultural and/or religious reasons for larger families. Some actually take pride in claiming their faith as the fastest growing 'religion' on earth. Whether this is ORGANic or through conversions is a moot point.

Justin, first allow me to voice my excitement and say that I greatly enjoy your blog. What a great way to experience the emerging green industries and explore America's efforts on climate change! That being said, I would like to address some of the facets of your post about America's role in the fight against global warming.

I am glad you have pointed out that, while there are economic risks involved with becoming the first "low carbon economy," Obama is not willing to stand by and watch American industries and consumers continue to degrade the environment. The cap-and-trade idea has been controversial to say the least, but it is wrong for us to expect a perfect solution. Some environmentalists argue that this is one way that economically productive polluters stay entrenched in their position: by pointing out only the flaws in potential solutions and arguing that we must wait for comprehensive tactic that will show immediate results without causing any collateral damage. To counter this argument and risk sounding colloquial, you have to crack some eggs if you want to make an omelet: while I do not believe that America will be economically crippled by a leading position on climate change, we must accept that some changes will be made. The result, however, is something Dr. Hansen, cited in your post, said: we will avoid "catastrophic climate change." I do, however, wonder about your position on the issue. Do you believe the economic hurdles are too great to conquer this issue? Do you believe that the alternative energy cause will die before it is truly developed?

Secondly, I would like to commend Hillary Clinton, who has been putting climate change at the heart of her foreign policy trips. This is important, for as you said, any plan to stop climate change (such as the cap-and-trade system) "will need to try to ensure that no country seeks to profit from the rest of the world's attempt to tackle global warming by operating as a kind of off-store high-carbon industrial centre." Thus, implementing these concerns in foreign policy is imperative, especially if America wishes to construct its own alternative to the Kyoto Protocol. To conclude and to respond to your question, America will definitely be the game-changer on climate. It is extremely influential, and the inclusion of climate change in foreign policy will allow it to push this movement forward.

Justin:

So why does the White House believe it can reduce emissions without damaging American industry?

Because, they think that the American Industry will be willing to sacrifice things for a better environment......

~Dennis Junior~

Justin:

Do you agree or has all the Mexican food I've been eating gone to my head?

I have to split the difference......It is half and half...

~Dennis Junior~