Friday, July 10, 2009

G8 L'Aquila - CO2 emissions - 50% reduction by 2050

(AGI) - L'Aquila, 8 July - G8 leaders have formally approved the text of the final declarations on climate and development, reported sources from the Italian government. In a first document the Eight committed to reaching a full and ambitious agreement at the UN conference on climate scheduled for December in Copenhagen: the need to contain the overheating of the planet to within two degrees centigrade; the reduction by 50% of CO2 emissions by 2050 for industrialised and emerging nations, with a commitment to rise to 80 or more in the case of the first group. We plan to guarantee our current and future prosperity by taking up the lead in the struggle against climate change, says the text.

I mean, apart from the fact that GLOBAL WARMING has not been proven to scientists' satisfaction, how are the G8 > G20 Nations going to REDUCE CARBON EMMISSIONS by 50% in 40 years when IN THE SAME PERIOD the world's population is expected to rise by 50% from six billion to nine billion by 2050. Well, isn't it obvious? THEY'RE GOING TO KILL ENOUGH PEOPLE by 2050 to have achieved a global population of THREE BILLION. That is something that's NOT being debated on primetime TV National News. There are (must be) plans afoot to offload the carbon footprint by EUGENICS means, in the USA, in Europe, in Asia and in Africa.

How else are they gonna achieve this? The global elite are still using OIL and FOSSIL FUELS as their financial basis. What, they're just gonna release some amazing ET-back-engineered technology to the planet via their New World Order? And there is a global bioterror/vaccine threat. I'm not totally convinced the carbon footprint legislation isn't totally Fascist. But I'm always open to sensible debate on this issue.

Hey, unless the Global Government are gonna unleash the patents and start 'pulling the energy from the air', it being Nikola Tesla's birthday today.

Prove me wrong, either way, PLEASE.

1 comment:

Panta Rei said...

Mike, it could certainly be handled better!

Given the unproven emission reduction effects on global temperature - and the expense of emission reduction - the key is to engage in activities valuable in themselves, which also keep on track with emission reduction targets at minimal business disruption and expense.

Emission reduction could therefore also be much simpler, and easier to agree on - without emission trading complicating international trade relations....

Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction is achieved by acting on ELECTRICITY generation (coal, gas) and TRANSPORT (mainly automobiles) alone, since these 2 sectors typically (as in the USA) account for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions.

The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:
1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.
4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local. Since there is little competition between say utility companies internationally, "best practice" results can be compared and shared.

Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.

Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand - together with extensive -and unnecessary- regulation on what people can or can’t buy and use.

Understanding why proposed Cap and Trade is bad, in USA and elsewhere
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Real Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Business Cost — In Conclusion

The Way Forward
Introduction — Funding and Impact —No Energy Efficiency Regulation — A New Electric World
Electricity Generation — Distribution
Transport Power Generation — Regulation — Taxation