Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (26279)	12/3/2009 4:49:14 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 36917

US business leaders counter critics on climate By Shaun Tandon (AFP) – 57 minutes ago WASHINGTON — US lawmakers on Thursday rolled out business leaders who back action on climate change, hoping to counter criticism that a deal at this month's Copenhagen summit would hit the wobbly US economy. Four days before the high-stakes climate meeting opens in the Danish capital, President Barack Obama and his allies are trying to show US commitment to a global deal even though key legislation has yet to clear through Congress. Senator John Kerry invited executives of major companies to the US Capitol to provide ammunition for his and Obama's argument that US restrictions on carbon emissions blamed for global warming would generate a new green economy. "If you look at China in particular, despite how much of the US wants to portray it sometimes, they are being very aggressive in developing energy efficient products," said David M. Cote, chairman and CEO of US conglomerate Honeywell. "We're lagging behind in that job creation," Cote said. Preston Chiaro, group executive for technology and innovation at Rio Tinto, said the Anglo-Australian mining giant was creating 1,500 jobs in California by building a carbon capture plant, which will have 100 permanent jobs once completed. "We think that the lack of certainty around climate legislation is actually hindering investment," Chiaro said. "This new technology will open the door for the future of coal and that's why we support it." Kerry's push on climate change also enjoyed a boost from Senator Lindsey Graham, a prominent member of the rival Republican Party who has broken ranks to work on a bill. "You'll never convince me that America cannot have the cleanest air and the purest water of any place on the planet," Graham said. "If Congress does not act soon, the world will leave us behind," he said. But other Republicans spoke out sharply against climate legislation, saying that plans by Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to head to Copenhagen showed they were out of touch with US voters concerned about the economy. "The president and the speaker have far more pressing problems to worry about here at home -- namely stopping runaway spending, getting our fiscal house back in order and working on some common-sense solutions that get Americans back to work," said Eric Cantor, the number two Republican in the House of Representatives where a climate bill squeaked through in June. Climate change skeptics also seized on leaked emails by British scientist Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia which called into question the basis for studies that the planet is heating up. The emails offered "increasing evidence that scientific fascism is going on," said Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner. But Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent who usually votes with Obama's Democrats, told reporters that lawmakers had other studies showing climate change was real and predicted legislation would pass in the new year. Obama plans to tell Copenhagen that the United States will cut carbon emissions by about 17 percent by 2050 off 2005 levels, in line with legislation in Congress although less ambitious than what UN scientists recommend. India on Thursday followed China's lead in announcing it would commit to hard numbers on reducing the intensity of its carbon output. The United States had demanded that developing countries take action as part of the next international treaty. The Kyoto Protocol, whose obligations run out in 2012, required emission cuts only from wealthy nations. Nine Democratic senators, some from heavy-industry states, wrote to Obama calling for him to insist on a "global response" on climate change. "Poorly designed climate policies could jeopardize US national interests by imposing burdens on US consumers, companies and workers without solving the climate challenge," they wrote. The letter was signed by senators Mark Begich, Sherrod Brown, Kay Hagan, Tim Johnson, Amy Klobuchar, Carl Levin, Claire McCaskill, Arlen Specter and Debbie Stabenow. Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (26279)	12/3/2009 4:51:03 PM
From: Land Shark	Respond to of 36917

Climate change Russian roulette We need to avoid a global hangover the day after the summit in Copenhagen. A breakthrough is possible, but only with sacrifices Mikhail Gorbachev and Alexander Likhotal guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 December 2009 18.00 GMT Article history Mounting scepticism and deadlocked negotiations have culminated in an announcement that the Copenhagen climate conference will not result in a comprehensive global climate deal. Disappointing? Certainly. But the summit was always meant to be a transitional step. The most important thing to consider is where we will go from here. The phrase "the day after" is most commonly associated with the word "hangover". The absence of a binding agreement could mean a global hangover, and not just for a day. Fed up with apocalyptic predictions, people wanted a miracle in Copenhagen. So a perceived failure may cause a massive, perhaps irreversible, loss of confidence in our politicians. No surprise, then, that governments have sought to manage our expectations carefully. Decision-makers have not faced up to just how close the world may be to the climate "tipping point". But, while a runaway climate remains a risk, runaway politics are already a fact. Official negotiations are removed from reality. According to the latest science, the current proposals under negotiation will result in warming of more than 4C during this century – double the 2C maximum endorsed by the G8 and other leaders. That leaves a higher than 50% probability of the world's climate moving past its tipping point. An agreement based on the parameters that are now on the negotiating table would thus put us in a position more dangerous than a game of Russian roulette. To avoid both the global hangover of no deal and the self-deception of a weak deal, a breakthrough is needed – and can still be achieved in Copenhagen. A two-step process is now our best bet. States should make a political commitment to a framework that includes overall objectives, an institutional framework and specific pledges of early action and financing. The declaration must stipulate that a legally binding agreement must be finalised by a second session, COP15-bis, in 2010. That would allow the US and other countries to enact the necessary legislation, and provide United Nations negotiators time to translate the COP15 declaration into an appropriate, workable legal structure. If this means a total reworking of the current document, so be it. In addition, it might be necessary to have a review conference in 2015 to adjust our targets and plans to the new realities. Therefore, it is more important than ever that heads of state attend the Copenhagen conference, as this two-step solution will only work with strong, direct intervention by leaders. In 1985 during the height of the cold war, when negotiations were bogged down at the US-Soviet Union Geneva summit, the negotiators were instructed by their leaders annoyed by lack of progress: "We do not want your explanations why this can't be done. Just do it!" And it was done by the morning. Today's leaders must come to Copenhagen and say: "We want this done!" To move forward, the Copenhagen meeting must break the political deadlock between industrialised and developing states. Climate injustice must be redressed, as developing countries bear the brunt of the impact and face massive adaptation costs. Rich countries need to put serious money on the table. Claims that they lack the needed resources ring hollow, as trillions of dollars were found to bail out banks in the financial crisis. Poor countries are aware of their power to block progress. Veto power is effectively shifting from the UN security council to G77 plus China. Who would have imagined in the west 10 years ago that the future and their children's wellbeing would depend upon decisions taken in Beijing or Delhi or Addis Ababa? So the industrialised countries need to put a real financing offer on the table as soon as possible to allow time for a positive reaction and announcements of commitments from developing countries. In particular, commitment to an early-start fund – at least $20bn to immediately assist the least developed countries – is critical. This would help establish the trust that is now sorely lacking, and create conditions to restart productive negotiations. Leaders must be honest about the scale of the challenge and recognise that a systemic and transformational change, not incremental gestures, is required. The official response to climate change must be recalibrated to the level and urgency of the threat. A new global agreement must be science-based, not a lowest-common-denominator compromise watered down by vested interests. Sensible risk management today dictates that atmospheric carbon should be stabilised at 350 parts per million of CO2 equivalent (ppm CO2e), not the current pathway of 450-500ppm CO2e. This requires emission reductions of 45-50% in industrialised countries by 2020, and almost complete de-carbonisation by 2050, not the levels of 15-25% by 2020 and 60-80% by 2050 that are now on the table. Major developing countries must also commit to nationally appropriate mitigation actions. But the rich must move first. Their inaction over the last 20 years does not give them the right to point fingers. Governments should not withhold the truth from their citizens. Everyone will have to make sacrifices. But do you want your home to be cheap, dirty, and dangerous or clean, decent, and safe? Are you ready to say, "OK, kids, I inherited this house, but I neglected to maintain it, so you will have to worry that the roof might collapse at any time"? That is not the type of legacy that any of us would want to leave our children. • Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the Soviet Union, is founding president of Green Cross International; Alexander Likhotal is president of Green Cross International and a member of the Climate Change Task Force (CCTF).

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (26279)	12/3/2009 4:55:08 PM
From: Land Shark	Respond to of 36917

E-mail controversy doesn’t change climate science: Prentice Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service Published: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 nationalpost.com OTTAWA - The Harper government said controversy surrounding hacked e-mails of climate scientists doesn't change its concern about global warming or its position heading into a major international summit this month in Copenhagen. Environment Minister Jim Prentice said it was unfortunate that a prominent scientist was forced to resign because of revelations in the e-mails, but the government still believes the science is clear that human activity is causing climate change. "We're all interested in getting to the bottom of that, finding out exactly what happened," Mr. Prentice said after the daily question period in the House of Commons. "It does not change the position of Canada relative to the Copenhagen agreement and the Copenhagen thoughts. The science overall is relatively clear on all of this and as a conservationist and as a responsible environmental steward Canada wants to see carbon emissions reduced." Governments and scientists around the world have reached a consensus that human activity is causing greenhouse gas emissions that are heating up the atmosphere and threatening major impacts to the planet's ecosystems. But some skeptics have claimed that the leaked e-mails which were anonymously posted online last month suggest a planetwide conspiracy to suppress evidence and block research that proposes alternative theories. Phil Jones, the head of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, resigned earlier this week pending an investigation because of suggestions in the e-mails that researchers were trying to hide data and get rid of material that would be subject to a Freedom of Information request. Mr. Prentice said that the revelations suggest that "something quite inappropriate" appears to have happened at the University of East Anglia, but this does not change the importance of reaching an agreement in Copenhagen to fight climate change. Close Presented by Read more: nationalpost.com The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.