Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Yay! We're Saved! More "Aspirational" "Energy Intensity" Goals From John Howard's Big APEC Summit!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 12:05 PM
Original message
Yay! We're Saved! More "Aspirational" "Energy Intensity" Goals From John Howard's Big APEC Summit!
Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group will agree to cut ``energy intensity'' by 25 percent by 2030 and plant 20 million hectares of trees to combat climate change, according to a draft of their declaration.

At a summit in Sydney in September, APEC leaders will agree to fund clean technologies and combat illegal logging, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg. The communiqu is due to be released Sept. 9. The world's two biggest emitters, China and the U.S., will attend the meeting. Energy demand in the APEC region is anticipated to double by 2030, the Australian government estimates. Scientists say global warming caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is causing glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise and coral reefs to die out. United Nations negotiations on a new global treaty cutting emissions begin in December.

Leaders ``agree to work to a goal of reduction in energy intensity across the APEC region by at least 25 percent by 2030,'' the draft says, and adopt ``an inspirational goal of expanding forest cover in the region as a whole by at least 20 million hectares by 2020.'' Energy intensity is a measure of an economy's energy efficiency. Environmental activists say the wording avoids any commitment to carbon emission reduction targets.

``The APEC declaration is clearly 'Made in the U.S.' and covered with a thick coating of Australian coal dust,'' said Cindy Baxter, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace referring to Australia's status as the world's biggest exporter coal.

EDIT

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aM6OR.H1rKmg&refer=japan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Energy Intensity" is the last refuge of the eco-scoundrel
Edited on Tue Aug-28-07 12:38 PM by GliderGuider
So they plan to improve energy intensity by a whopping 25% while energy consumption is going to double? Let me do the math here. Giving these numbers their best possible interpretation, CO2 emissions will therefore rise by 50% by 2030. While they actually need to decline by 50% by then.

Estamos jodidos, yet again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I call it Newcomen Engine syndrome . . . .
Edited on Tue Aug-28-07 12:40 PM by hatrack
Using an existing trend that's been improving "energy intensity" ever since, oh, 1712 or whenever it was, and then claiming credit for just that trend.

It's profound intellectual dishonesty in its own right. And as an instrument of "policy" it's simultaneously disingenuous and lethal as cyanide.

Homo "sapiens" my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well, well, well
I just did the math for the energy intensity of the global GDP from 1965 to 2005 (using constant $ GDP and MTOE for energy). It turns out you are correct, sir. Over those 40 years the energy intensity improved by (ta-daaa!) 1% per year, exactly the amount they are touting in this announcement.

"Intellectual dishonesty" is way too dispassionate a term for these mendacious fuckers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. somebody once said -- the environment doesn't respond to "tons CO2 per capita"
it responds to "tons of CO2."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 21st 2021, 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC