UN: we have the money and know-how to stop global warming

[cal04]

Source: The Guardian

Report obtained by the Guardian spells out strategy to reverse climate change

Global climate change experts will this week lay out a detailed plan to save the planet from the catastrophic effects of rising temperatures. Climate change could be stopped in its tracks using existing technology, but only if politicians do more to force businesses and individuals to take action.

The UN study will conclude that mankind has the knowhow to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 26bn tonnes by 2030 - more than enough to limit the expected temperature rise across the planet to 2-3C.

Such a move would cost the world economy billions of pounds over the next two decades, but this could be recouped by savings due to the health benefits of lower levels of air pollution.

Cheaper solutions could bring down emissions to 1990 levels, but that would still see average temperatures rise by as much as 4C this century, with devastating consequences for wildlife, agriculture and the availability of water.

Read more: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2067618,00.html

---

The summary of the new report, a draft of which has been obtained by the Guardian, says: "It is technically and economically feasible to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere ... provided that incentives are in place to further develop and implement a range of mitigation technologies."

[Trillo]

1. Probably more carbon trading schemes.

Translation: More corporate welfare. People will lose under those, the corporations have shown no concerns past their own profit statements, and they have the knowledge and high-paid expertise to insure that regular folk lose, lose, and lose some more, that is their complete history since the mid 1800s.

What kinds of regulations under these new carbon trading schemes will insure that corporate parasitism of regular folk ends completely (100%)?

This whole thing reminds me of Reagan's speech, "Gonna have to tighten the belt" (possibly a paraphrase, it's from my memory) Yeah, entire generations since the 60s have been tightening their belts since the late 70s, now there's more to come? All the while sports stars, celebrities, and CEOs most pointedly take almost EVERYTHING for themselves.

Would these mechanisms be like the FDA's oversight of pet food, and the SECs oversight of Enron? That appears to be what we always fall back to, at first, they're watched closely, the regulators and corporate become cozy, then they're asleep once again while real masses of people are getting fleeced.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. Bad fiction at best

[ohio2007]

3. Carbon smoke and mirrors

Money?
They got money?
Who's money they going to use ?

[Nevernose]

4. Keep reading: UN proposal is against carbon trading

Or at least, sees it as ineefective and on it's way out.

"The draft report says such voluntary agreements are not effective, but it also raises questions about the success of Kyoto-style treaties based on targets and carbon trading. It says the best approach is to tie development to investment in clean technology."

Sector by sector

Transport
Despite breakthroughs in cleaner options, such as hybrid cars, the sector is the fastest growing source of emissions, the report says. It highlights emerging technologies such as cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells and biofuels. Some campaigners warn that increasing use of biofuels could worsen problems such as food shortages, as farmers scramble to meet demand. The IPCC suggests this could be eased by a switch to biofuels made from waste cellulose. The report says government policies such as mandatory carbon dioxide emission standards are crucial, but that hikes in car tax, fuel duty and moves such as road pricing will be less effective as incomes rise. Better public transport can make a significant contribution.

Potential saving by 2030 (million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent): 3,200

Industry
Industry offers the largest potential savings, although the report acknowledges: "Their implementation requires a stable policy environment that is respecting international competitiveness and includes measures for stimulating technology uptake." The IPCC suggests new controls on industrial pollutants such as methane, nitrous oxide and the chemicals HFCs and PFCs, all potent greenhouse gases. It also says there are big savings for firms who invest in more efficient use of fuels, materials and electricity, combined heat and power systems, and recycling. Heavily polluting industries could benefit from new process technologies that avoid carbon and are expected to come on-stream beyond 2015, it says.

Potential savings: 6,500

[sutz12]

5. Carbon trading is a temporary stopgap at best.

A broad based strategy is needed to generate the new technologies of the future.

[Nevernose]

6. That's what the UN is trying to map out

Or at least that was MY impression of the article.

[razzleberry]

8. the people currently making money with carbon scams...

are not going to give up without a fight.

[razzleberry]

7. I'm all for the UK doing all that stuff.

somebody has to go first.

[AdHocSolver]

9. It comes down to a trade-off between saving the planet and corporate profits.

The technology exists to reduce carbon emissions and green-house gas emissions, but without governments forcing the multinational corporations to change their ways, it ain't gonna happen.

Hybrid car technology, electric cars, power plants with carbon scrubbers, saving the forests from being cut down, more public transportation are all technologically available and economical. However, they all have one failing that dooms them from ever being implemented: they reduce corporate profits.

So think of it folks: you who are alive today may get to see the decimation of human life on earth, the extinction of thousands of species, the flooding of vast areas of the earth, the creation of new deserts all so that a few people already wealthy beyond human comprehension can add a few zeroes to the numbers on there already swollen bank accounts.

[Amused Musings]

10. I must admit that

I am skeptical of humankind's ability to stabilize greenhouse gas output, much less reverse the massive amount of damage already done. I simply do not think the world has the discipline. And what about the 3rd world? I know they are Annex II countries but still. I forget the guy's name, but he pops up in the news once and a while and argues that all efforts are going to be in vain. Is he being overly pessimistic? Maybe. But what if he is right? 2-3 C might sound little but remember this is a global average and in many places extreme variations might be hidden. I'm going to miss New Orleans when I leave but I am not going to miss hurricane season.

This carbon trading scheme reminds me of the old Catholic indulgences. The pollution is still there even if they are paying for credits. Kind of like rich people buying their way into heaven.