Cars speeding through parliament
Green-tinged MEPs are seriously worried that a deal is being done to weaken plans to cut greenhouse gases from cars.
So that the new laws can zoom through the parliament at the speed of a big black German car, a deal may be clinched tonight between the EU countries and some key MEPs - although the whole parliament won't get to vote on it until the third week of December*.
One of the key issues is the level of fines that will hit car makers who don't meet the new targets.
The last time the parliament voted, they went for fines that would hurt, whereas the British and German governments are more in favour of a slap on the wrist - a fine that would be more like a licence.
European Union ambassadors are talking about this right now, but some MEPs are worried that the member negotiating with them, the Italian socialist Guido Sacconi, has called a news conference for tomorrow morning.
This suggests that he thinks he has something he can sell to his colleagues: his last deal was voted down by the parliament after a rather surprising rebellion by the socialists and some members of the Christian Democrats.
"What's his rush?" one interested MEP asked. "He should carry on negotiating until they blink: we've got another three weeks."
The Greens issued a press release last week suggesting that the governments of the car-making nations of the EU are showing "a lack of ambition".
* For "December", this copy initially read "November". Apologies to readers and thanks to commenter Tantivvy for spotting it.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~53~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I suggest all MEP should use GREEN Ferraris.
Why not? At least the will not cause climate change, since they caused economic change with their policies.
Complain about this comment
Given the severe recession, market demand will be for smaller cheaper cars : witness the problems of the native US manufacturers. The last thing now needed is further restrictions on european car manufacturers who are going currently into short-time and other cost saving measures. Many factories have already closed for the year. The "green" politicians in the EU Parliament are divorced from reality! The should wake up to the fact that Europe is in no position to play at CO2 savings etc...The CO2 threat is a myth anyway as over 95% of the greenhouse effect is generated by the world's oceans and associated water vapour (called "clouds" from which we get rain and snow, for those less well read persons who will believe anything churned out by publicity seeking pundits), NOT by CO2!
Complain about this comment
If they gave incentives to industry rather than acting like a frumpy parent, they'd probably get better results.
Not that I'll ever be buying a new car...
Complain about this comment
Has mikewarsaw (#2) considered that he himself may be one of "those less well read persons who will believe anything..."?
His whole statement that the CO2 threat is a myth is plain false and should not be listened to. Yes of course the large proportion of the 'greenhouse effect' is natural, and when left to its own devices the Earth's climate is a naturally balanced system. Without the natural 'greenhouse effect' we would not be here and the world would be a very harsh place.
But that extra bit that we are contributing through our own emmissions of CO2 is tipping that fine balance and sending the whole system irretrievably inro climate change.
I speak as a graduate in meteorology.
Complain about this comment
Is today not Monday in the 4th week of November?
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell's selection of blog topics remains as revealing as ever. I must say I am not in the least surprised to hear nothing from him about the recent CAP 'heath check'. On BBC Radio 4 Hillary Been (the UK minister) admitted he been outmanoeuvred by the French presidency and the CAP had survived unscathed. Yet the UK permanently sacrificed a significant part of our budget rebate (worth billions ever year) for this one off CAP review and it has led to nothing.
This is, for the UK taxpayer, a significant development, yet Mark Mardel has side-stepped it, preferring to blog about the Common Fisheries Policy instead, and now greenhouse gases. Since the Irish referendum we have had a continuous stream of blogs topics from him to show the EU is as favourable a light as possible. I am beginning to wonder where he will be when the attempts to subvert the Irish referendum result are revealed next month. Hiding out at the International Criminal Court in The Hague again?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the graduate in meteorology, who clearly has no vested interest in promoting the popular belief that climate change is anthropogenic, should take a little time to study some of the basic laws of physics? The subject area of thermodynamics should be a good starting point.
Then I would suggest he/she moves on to reading about the usage of a linear control system to model the response of a multi input, multi output non linear system.
Then, perhaps the meteorologist will have achieved the status being "well read" to be able to come to an informed conclusion on the subject he is so quick to have knowledge of.
For those of you would prefer to "skip to the end" there is a good scientific analysis of the whole anthropogenic climate change model proposed by the IPCC in the July 2008 edition of the American Physics and society magazine (Volume 37. No. 3). It can be downloaded in PDF format gratis.
For our dear friend, the meteorologist, I have one last question:
If you can tell me that the global temperature will be 4.2 degrees higher in 100 years time, could you let me know what the peak air temperature will be 1 metre above the Met Office building in London on Christmas day 2008?
Kind regards,
A. Scientist
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (6):
EU budget for 2007 to 2013 is already locked. In the summit that dealt with the CAP health check the only thing that was adjusted were how subsidies are being paid. The EU largely moved to subsidies not based on production with some countries and some fields getting some concessions, but this as I said before only concerns on how money is being allocated not how much money is being used.
On regards about the EU regulations I would say that we should hold on to plans that were previously drafted. European industries do have the capability to produce cleaner technology when they have to, case in example new BMWs are big black ecomiracles. By putting out tougher regulations European car manufacturers have to invest in research and development and thus in the future will become even more competitive against Americans, Japanese and Chinese.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Freeborn-John is right: please do some reporting on the pressure being applied on the Irish to ignore the decision of their citizens and vote again until they get it right.
Margot Wallstrom, EU Vice President, recently visited Dublin and told them that the vote of the Irish people was "an answer but not a solution".
Complain about this comment
#Suffering_the_fools: I suppose your nickname means that all those fools who listen to you are suffering.
"Then I would suggest he/she moves on to reading about the usage of a linear control system to model the response of a multi input, multi output non linear system."
Well, Herr Professor, and what exactly do you mean by that? What are you talking about?
Complain about this comment
#7, And what's your point with reading all that? Anyway, I always thought that experimental measurements are at the heart of physical sciences and of climate change in particular (Keeling curve, ice measurements, etc.). I like models, it is just that I know their limitations (and now, so do the economists...)
#6, UK is in a catch-22 situation: it cannot have a strong influence in the EU without committing itself, and it cannot commit before some things really change. Whether this situation is real, perceived, or created by France and Germany to reduce UK's intervention on EU building is another question. So no CAP reform until France says so, I am afraid...
#6, 9, My bet is that if the referendum was to be repeated in ireland in a week, with the current economic crisis the irish would vote massively yes to the treaty. EU states are like ladybugs, gathering together to survive the cold of the economic crunch, and Ireland is no UK.
Complain about this comment
Elcano,
If you would like to further your understanding of the basis for anthropogenic climate change that was proposed by the IPCC - rather than believing everything that is presented in the press, it wouldn't hurt to do a little reading around the subject.
One of the best papers that dismantles the IPCC claims in a coherent and scientific manner can be found at the following link:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/upload/july08.pdf
As with most scientific journals, it helps to read them back to front. I.e. start with the conclusions then work your way back through the document. Don't be afraid to read it several times, and Google the parts that don't make sense.
My frustration comes from reading the same regurgitated articles and opinions in the press which are clearly based on bad science. However, the scientific community as a whole have not objected to the climate change scenario, simply because reducing excess consumption of energy is not a bad idea...
Unfortunately, this global warming concept has gained considerable momentum to the point where politicians are starting to base economic policies on 'bad science,' which is ill advised at best.
Complain about this comment
A quick summary of the salient points presented in C. Monckton's paper:
The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
“Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
It was proved 50 years ago that accurately predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible (Chaos Theory);
Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
Complain about this comment
I don't need your furthering my understanding of the basis for anthropogenic climate change.
'The global warming concept'. 'Bad science'. Aha.
Well, it is of course easier to believe we haven't got anything to do with it. It makes you feel better, doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
"It was proved 50 years ago that accurately predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible (Chaos Theory)"
That sentence just goes to show you don't know anything about the whole thing. 'Two weeks': that's a weather forecast, not a climate prediction.
"Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed."
Is this supposed to prove anything?
Has anyone ever denied that a 'global warming' without human beings (non-anthropogenic climate change) is possible?
Complain about this comment
To tomfoord, Elcano and suffering_the_fools:
I think you are missing the point in your discussion about global warming.
The real questions are...
1) How much can global warming cost to us?
2) How much does it cost to stop global warming?
The thing is that potential costs of global warming are just enormous in worst case scenarios. The costs of stopping global warming on the other hand are not big, and if made wisely they can benefit our societies in future: i.e. movement from fossil fuels to nuclear power, the notorious nuclear - hydrogen economy.
Seriously we have to start fighting global warming now and do it effectively as if we don't do it and global warming turns out to be true, then the costs are just too high.
Dude with M.Sc. (Econ)
Complain about this comment
The trouble is with these folk are so brainwashed into believing the whole 'CO2 caused by humans' it takes a paradigm shift in thought to even comprehend the other side of the argument.
On the other hand, all scientists everywhere, if they are good scientists, would well be advised to accept the fact that the more they know about climate change, the less they know about the future of climate change.
Dude (also with M.Sc., absolutely nothing to do with Climatology, and therefore no interest in writing papers on said subject)
Complain about this comment
"The trouble is with these folk are so brainwashed into believing the whole 'CO2 caused by humans' it takes a paradigm shift in thought to even comprehend the other side of the argument." Absoloutely correct! The comments posted by Elcano and Jukka_Rohila etc. really highlight this issue. Beleif in anthropogenic climate change has taken on an status akin to religous fervour amongst activists and political groups. I find this somewhat disturbing, since it makes it very difficult to have any kind of scientific debate on the subject. One final question to Elcano: What is the difference between a localised short term climate prediction and a "weather forecast?" Once again, I strongly suggest that those who have any vague interest in this area, should take the time to read the arguement by C. Monckton presented in the July 2008 Physics and Society Journal: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] Regards, Anonymous Scientist
Complain about this comment
The idea that you can only change the "EU" by being inside it is flawed. One of the reasons that it does not change is that the UK continues to support it financially. Billions! When we leave it will have an incentive to change. It may have to.
I am not in a hurry to leave the "EU". Any time within the next five minutes will do.
Complain about this comment
Ah, Monckton.
It's worth bearing in mind that Monckton is not a climate scientist, he is a politician/journalist. The APS (which published his article) distanced itself from his findings and the Council of the American Physical Society dismissed the article and reaffirmed its support for the IPCC's findings. The APS never changed its stance on the issue.
There's also a detailed rebuttal of Monckton's article available (one of several):
http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
Complain about this comment
#16, Jukka_Rohila:
"Seriously we have to start fighting global warming now and do it effectively as if we don't do it and global warming turns out to be true, then the costs are just too high."
-- Basically I agree with you, it's just that I've already dispaired. I don't know when we'll at last see anything really done.
"The thing is that potential costs of global warming are just enormous in worst case scenarios."
-- Agreed.
"The costs of stopping global warming on the other hand are not big..."
-- That's were I disagree.
"...and if made wisely they can benefit our societies in future: i.e. movement from fossil fuels to nuclear power, the notorious nuclear - hydrogen economy."
-- Nuclear power not costy? Besides, it's extremely dangerous. Even if chances of something going seriously wrong are one in a billion - it's just too much. Personally, I'm glad I don't live anywhere near a nuclear power plant.
Complain about this comment
#17, neillees:
"The trouble is with these folk are so brainwashed into believing the whole 'CO2 caused by humans' it takes a paradigm shift in thought to even comprehend the other side of the argument."
First of all, I noticed a whole bunch of people who still don't believe it, who think that by burying their head in the sand they'll change anything.
And didn't you mean: 'climate change caused by humans'? Because even you don't deny that CO2 is being produced by humans, do you?
Complain about this comment
Post 16, Jukka, I agree, perhaps the E.U. can make a stand on this and a real difference by stopping the charade of having two european parliaments. The enivirnmental costs and increase in CO2 emisssions of moving lock stock and barrel between two venues is nonsensical. Perhaps we can collaborate on this together, I will write to my MEP, will you write to yours - best wishes
Complain about this comment
Whether you believe or not in man's contribution to 'climate change', 100,000 year cycles for Carbon or that Kraft cheese will be the death of us all, I think all would agree that producing less greenhouse gasses is a desirable goal.
It seems that governments the world over seem to target motorists in their eco-terrorism campaigns.
What about power stations? Heavy industry? Agricultural by-products? The last cited is allegedly responsible for 40% of methane and 62% of Nitrous oxide emissions.
Oh, and why, every time I see some TV program announcing our doom (and saying we're really mean for killing all the really cute Polar Bears), is there always some bearded bloke with sunglasses sat on an ancient plane or ice-breaker moaning about carbon emissions? Do they not see the irony?
Complain about this comment
Even if you do not believe that man's activity is accentuating climate change (and I would prefer to side with the overwhelming scientific majority on this one, not discredited pseudo-scientists like Monckton), you simply cannot deny the positive impact most of the measures would have on our economy.
CO2 emissions limits for cars are the same thing as improved fuel efficiency standards. These are a no-brainer: quite apart from reducing pollution (in general), they would dramatically reduce the costs of running a car by reducing the fuel currently wasted by inefficient ICEs. (Thereby reducing our damaging dependence on volatile oil imports.) Why regulate this? Because the car industry was given 'incentives' through soft regulation for over a decade and failed to come even close to its voluntary commitments.
As for other posters:
- power stations are also being "targeted" both through EU measures, making fossil fuel plants more efficient and promiting renewables.
- The costs of investing in future oriented technologies are not small, that's for sure. However, our economies are in need of a boost and modernisation. Investing in domestic renewable sources of energy and investing in improving the way energy-using products (like cars) use energy, would have clear economic benefits in the short-medium term. Not to mention the jobs such investment would create. I mean why "bail out" the car industry to produce the same old wasteful cars?
- Writing to your MEP won't make a difference to where the European Parliament sits. It is up to EU governments to decide and France has a veto. A clear majority of MEPs want to scrap Strasbourg.
Complain about this comment
I don't think anybody's going to conclusively prove or disprove the effect of man-made climate change in our lifetimes, but the following facts remain:
1) Cars producing less CO2 also consume less fuel. It makes sense, for economic and environmental reasons, to use less fuel and encourage more fuel-efficient vehicles. You only have to look at the size of some of the new cars in the street to know that market forces alone will not achieve this.
2) Any new European environmental regulations would apply to all new cars sold in the EU, whether they came from Europe , America, Japan. China or India.
3) European component and system suppliers are acknowledged to have a technological lead in CO2 reduction technologies, from engine control systems to low rolling resistance tyres.
Maybe if the USA had introduce tougher fuel efficiency requirements a few years ago, it would have prevented their big three manufacturers from getting themselves into such a mess due to their reliance on over-sized cars and pick-up trucks that nobody wants to buy.
Complain about this comment
To Elcano (21):
Oh please. Nuclear power is safe and economical.
To address safety, there has been to this date two major nuclear plant incidents. One in Three Mile Island and one in Tsernobyl. The difference between these two accidents was that in Tsernobyl they didn't have any containment structures in case of an accident to keep any harmful substances in side the reactor building. In the west all nuclear power plants have had containment structures, thus Three Mile Island is still livable place where the second reactor is producing electricity even still.
I really would suggest for you a trip to nuclear plant. The older plants are almost pure concrete and can take a big hit. The new EPR plants being build, one in Finland and on in France, can take direct hit of an jumbo jet without inflicting danger to the plants operation. The nuclear waste, well, after 200 years its as radioactive as uranium that is in the nature so no long term danger.
I should add that I currently live 100 km away from closest nuclear plants, but in my youth I lived 15km away from the plants and my parents still live there. I have worked summer jobs there and many of my friends are engineers. I have complete truest on their safety.
On regards of costs of nuclear power then I must disagree. Nuclear power is very economical. The two reactors operating near my parents were build and financed by Finnish industrial companies. The reactors have always been profitable, they have produced cheap energy, and in the same time money has been put on side to a fund which covers not only disposal of nuclear waste into bedrock but decommissioning of the nuclear plants.
I should add that nuclear energy is nowadays so lucrative that in Finland we have three private companies seeking permissions to build three new reactors with private funding. Having a nuclear plant is like having a license to print money.
And yes, sometimes it feels like that we are not going nowhere, but then again in the west with our current actions we have managed to decrease the growth of CO2 emissions. By using nuclear power and other technologies we can start to decrease our emissions. This may not be much, but at least it is a start.
To jordanbasset (23):
Ah! You mean the constant traveling between Brussels and Strasbourg. That is true, but I'm afraid that writing to our MEPs about it is like preaching to a choir. Besides that the Europarliament doesn't have authority to decide where it convenes. Currently the power is at the hands of member states. Some have although speculated that under the rules of Lisbon Treaty the parliament could decide by itself where it sits.
Complain about this comment
Climate change is a non-sense.
What will the non-sense consequences of climate change be?
not as much as we have had in the past, wars, diseases, colds. we will have same number of deaths. why we dont worry about the people dying now because of wars, in iraq afganistan, but we worry about some Nostradamic predictions and assumptions that are just non-sense.
How the hell can someone predict the future with a model in a computer? have the fortune tellers modernized their prediction tools?
i can predict without a model.. and i am cheaper, i dont ask alot of money .. so give me money and i will predict the future changes and worst scenarios, my fantasy is good enough.
so, why we dont care for people dying today because of war, which is anthropogenic factor, and premeditated action with intention to kill?
all this climate change is paying some self called scientists to make as a fortune teller and we are happy brainwashed people.
with this green movment people are starting to make a living without ever producing anything.. that's why economy colapses, and we can't afford anymore this non-sense.
Complain about this comment
Richmof (#25) is dead right. Reducing CO2 emissions is a no brainer, because it will save you money every time you fill up your tank.
And though the car industry is asking for a EUR40 billion loan to pay for investments in green technology, the scandal is that they already know how to make cars that will meet the new proposals.
Complain about this comment
Richmof (#25) is dead right. Reducing CO2 emissions is a no brainer, because it will save you money every time you fill up your tank.
And though the car industry is asking for a
EUR40 billion loan to pay for investments in green technology, the scandal is that they already know how to make cars that will meet the new proposals.
Complain about this comment
Re post 27, Jukka, I also agree with you over Nuclear power, see we do have things to agree on :)
I was aware it was the French that blocked the move to one Parliament (perhaps instead of constantly criticising the U.K. you will also direct some of your thoughts to how they have prevented progress in the E.U.?) but if more mep's put pressure on them this will help surely. Perhaps they could have a sit in and refuse to move at the required time for environemntal reasons. If the did so they, for the first time, they would win my respect.
Another way to cut CO2 emmissions would be to tell E.U. Officials and politicians to stop travelling to Ireland to try and subvert the democratic will of the Irish people. Sure you agree that global warming is so serious we need to stop unnecesary journeys.
Another suggestion, instead of member states sending money to the E.U. so the E.U. can then decide how to spend it in the Nation state, how about we leave it to the mebner states to do this. Just think of the offices you would not need in the E.U. The savings on heating and lighting would be fantastic. I am sure you will agree in the interests of reducing CO2 emmisions we must not leave any stone unturned
Complain about this comment
Sure you agree that global warming is so serious we need to stop unnecessary journeys.
My god, you've got it! In order to save the planet we need to stop people from travelling! Amazing really but what baffles me is that you're only applying this well thought out idea to just the EU you're discriminating the rest of the world, they're missing out from this planet saving idea.
Let's take a look at the UK why should Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh MPs even bother travelling down to London (which is quite a distance) when they have their own parliament? This saves money and CO2 emissions. Furthermore why should Scottish, Welsh and N.Irish money go to London? Why can't it stay in their respective country?
But don't worry Westminster can still be used for the English parliament like in the good ol' days but wait... why stop there?
Why should the representative of Greater Manchester even have to travel down to London, that again wastes money and CO2 emission, perhaps even congestion down the M6. And again why should money from the people of Manchester go to London? Just think of the offices you would not need in London. The savings on heating and lighting would be fantastic.
That was just the 'British' government let's take a look at the Queen, keeping Buckingham palace warm is no easy feat this waste not just money but again CO2 emissions also Buckingham palace being an old building isn't exactly well isolated compared to most modern buildings. Not just Buckingham palace the old castles down the country side owned by the royal family aren't well isolated as well and all of them waste taxpayer's money and CO2 emission.
Let's not forget that the Queen sometimes has to travel down to Australia and other former colonies, while having EU commissioners travelling from Brussels to Dublin is wasteful and needs to be stopped. Having the Queen travel to the other side of the world is just ridiculous.
You know what's even worse: she's unelected nor was there even one referendum about keeping her(!!!) .
And this is just the UK, just imagine the energy and CO2 emissions we save by applying the same idea to the rest of the world.
I am sure you will agree in the interests of reducing CO2 emissions we must not leave any stone unturned.
Complain about this comment
Ticape
I'm glad your agreeing that the Euro-superstate is a bad idea and localised regional government would be better for everyone. Esspecially as it would lower CO2 emmisions.
I'm so glad we can put this whole EU episode behind us and get on with proper localised Democracies in which people actually have a say in how they are Governed.
Complain about this comment
Post 32, Ticape, hi, if the U.K. Parliament had two locations 100 miles apart and once a month every one had to move between the two (leaving the other place empty) I assure you I would be complaining bitterly at the idiocy of it.
My complaint was not politicians travelling to a european Parliament, it was the travelling between two Parliaments that was crazy. If you want to make the arguments that we should not have a E.U. Parliament at all, but rather we should only have National or Local or regional Parliaments I may well support you.
My other issues was E.U. officials travelling to Ireland to try and subvert the democractic will of the people. I still hold that is a correct criticism. If E.U representatives want to come to talk about the CAP or other issues then that is what they should be doing, not interfering in a matter which should be left to the people of that country.
So on to the Queen. Actually Australia did have a referendum and decided not to become a republic but to keep the Queen as a head of state. If the Queen had gone to Australia to try and lobby people to keep the monarchy, again that would not be right. (she did not by the way as she accepts the will of the people) But as the Head of State, as agreed by a referendum (interesting the Australian Government did not tell the people they made the wrong decision and would have to vote again) she has every right and indeed should visit the country.
If the U.K. wanted to get rid of her they could do so by electing a republic minded Government, probably followed by a referendum (all the polls show this would fail miserably)
Re the castles, I would argue they are of a greater architectural merit than either of the European Parliament Buildings and so the state should keep them going. Or do you suggest we knock them down. I certainly would not want to do that, neither would I want to ghet rid of The Elysée Palace for instance, but perhaps you do?
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (31):
Having the EU parliament to convene in two cities doesn't hinder advancement of the EU, it will however make it somewhat less effective and it does damage its image, but then again compared to what EU does, the placement of EU parliament is small nuance.
French, Germans, my fellow country men and others do get my critic when they deserve it. I do critic UK maybe even more than it deserves, but then again most of it is deserved. But lets not make this topic about UK, but about the EU and other nationalities.
The only thing that will push EU parliament to have a one permanent seat will happen when governments of EU countries commit to resolve the situation. Europarliament is already sick and tired of traveling between these two cities, and no, they can't just sit and refuse to move, that would be against the rules and regulations and would be totally unacceptable behavior. I think US has given enough examples on what will happen when the government doesn't follow its own rules or start to bend the rules. I'm sorry, but that is totally unacceptable proposition.
Now to go back to the EU, I have to disagree with you. What the EU does is to integrate and unify Europe making it more competitive, effective and productive. Without EU we wouldn't have common markets, we wouldn't have Euro, we wouldn't have Schengen, we wouldn't have SEPA, etc.. What these all do is to remove overhead from human trans-border and trans-national activities. Now if we look at the money and why the money should be routed via EU is to have a transnational cross-border perspective to issues. Of course as Britain is separated by sea it might not be that obvious how big hindrance national borders and national politics are.
I should also like to note that the only way for Europe to combat the global warming is to act together, and by its size and influence pull other countries and regions to also part take on the struggle. In example by taking higher emissions standards to use, EU doesn't only obligate European car companies to develop greener technologies, but all car companies that want to make business in EU have to follow the suite.
And please, if you remember the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty many in Ireland both in the pro and against sides claimed that they had problems with the treaty. Now is it so bad that the EU addresses those with Ireland and tries to create a settlement that resolves all worries that Ireland had and enables the EU to advantage in its path of ever closer union? And lets not forget that if the Lisbon Treaty falls, nobody knows what will happen, and the consequences could be drastic changes if Paris and Berlin have to take the initiative to advantage the common European cause.
Complain about this comment
Hi Jukka, re post 35, I think we have an understanding of our respective positions and disagreements, understanding is a good first step and I do appreciate many of your comments.
While I can understand when you say that the placement of the Parliament is a small matter when compared to the big picture of what the E.U. does, howver it does send out a big message. It appears to say do as I say, not as I do, on reducing CO2 emmisions. It does appear a little hypocritical to tell other people and organisations to reduce their emissions but fails to take action when it affects their own institution.
We are told all the time that every little helps to reduce CO2 emissions, such as not leaving electrical items on stand by, turning off lights as soon as you leave the room. I could argue for me this is a small matter when compared to the CO2 emissions wasted by the E.U. Parliament moving each month, but I would not. It would be nice if our MEP's made a similar principalled stand on this matter and as I have said before this action would increase my respect for them and I would guess the rspect of many others in europe. If France wishes to make a big issue out of it they will be in the dock of public opinion, not the E.U. Parliament, surely that is a good thing.
Complain about this comment
#27, Jukka_Rohila:
Well, go on trusting nuclear power plants. All I say is: I don't, and that's definitely the more prudent stance than just trusting blindly.
Complain about this comment
Why do these threads always stray from topic? Regardless of the issue - they always degenerate into rants between freebornjohn and Jukka on the EU.
The moderation here leaves wanting. If a poster strays from topic - in this case car emissions rules - the comment should be blocked.
Complain about this comment
Anomymous scientist @7, I think you were too harsh on tomfoord; surely thermodynamics was a corner stone in his meteo study. and it was a little bit unfair to ask for a weather forecast for Christmas either. i think the max is not even 2 weeks, but 1.
anyway I enjoyed reading your @13 with a long list of IPCC defects; even if that unknown to me Monckton is not a scientist, it's healthy to have IPCC stand challenged, or, it seems, rather, annoyed, :o)
from time to time. we all hope their yearly review of the old models and formulas is for the good, and shows they take corrective measures about themselves.
but still, what a nightmare all their approaches are to implement; and the diff. btw calculating smth by formulas of 2 consequtive years does make a huge difference in the quantity of emissions.
my friends calculate Russia's emissions by IPCC. i was helping with translations. they didn't trust the official translation into Russian, because no ends met and all looked hilarious. so in fact I got a lot of work translating IPCC volumes; all the "suspicious" parts, rather. whenever the local emissions control office didn't believe the text - "it cannot be!" do they really mean to say...? please translate us this again. may be smth is missing in the equation.
Complain about this comment
Russian scientists are very sceptical about IPCC; but their guidelines are in fashion, all countries use them as an accepted standard.
the stand being "for the reporting of the emissions - why, they are allright!
but to know the real amounts of them - quite another matter. to say nothing of their impact.
here they tend to side with the Nordic countries approach - (sun wind and all).
Complain about this comment
34. At 2:17pm on 25 Nov 2008, jordanbasset
I thank you for your serious reply to my tongue-in-cheek post I do however agree that the MEP should stop going to Strasbourg, no matter how beautiful the city is.
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland @ 40: "Russian scientists are very sceptical about IPCC..."
Hmm.
Your Russian Academy of Sciences which represents all the scientific research institutes, laboratories and units in Russia has been a signatory to a joint declaration with international academies affirming the IPCC consensus.
In fact, the Russian Academy of Sciences reaffirmed its support of the IPCC in 2005, 2007 and 2008.
You can confirm this for yourself for each of those years:
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/aktuelles/archiv/aktuelle/dateien/G8_Academies%20Declaration.pdf
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf
Complain about this comment
Re post 41, Ticape :)
Complain about this comment
I hate this "green gases" thing, and taxes on polution and so on.
Did they forget to mention that Europe is the least poluting continent? and that we polute way less then back in the 60s?
This whole "being green" phase is ridiculous. They'll do whatever to get money out of peoples pockets.
Oh and fyi, climat change is a natural stage of the planets life.
If you increase taxes or whatever on poluting cars in that case you should put taxes on farmes who own cows, they do just as much "damage".
I'm definitly not an expert on the subject, but I hate being taken for an idiot. I feel sorry for people who are that gullible.
Complain about this comment
The amount of lies, dammed lies and government fudged unreliable highly suspect selectively chosen prejudicial hockey stick statistics on global warming must be the highpoint of deceit by NuLabour, already the free world leader in misinformation and economies with the truth.
The EU states that cars only produce 8% of the worlds greenhouse gases, and the percentage contributed by UK cars is only one twelfth of the 8%, in other words, less than 0.7%. But going by the prominance given to cars by NuLabour and the Greens one would believe that hammering UK cars with special eco taxes will overnight solve the problem of global warming, almost to the point of about to plunging us into an ice age that was supposedly 20 years ago coming anytime now.
Statistically the emissions outputs from cars pales into insignificance compared to ships and aircraft, but the shipping and aircraft lobbies have got their collective acts together and no-one in NuLabour dares to do anything about their contribution to global warming.
So much for the NuLabour and Greens views of the truth.
Complain about this comment
The worlds biggest single producer of CO2 are humans.
Every living breathing human produces 3.5 kgs of CO2 a day, multiply that by 6 billion and you will see nothing else 'manmade ' comes close to that level of annual production. An annual combined output of over 7,600,000,000,000 kgs and rising annually by 3% - 5%.
The worlds population is rising exponentially, and just by chance - would you believe - the exponential growth output of CO2 matches the increase in the worlds population.
Cause and Effect.
Complain about this comment
Fines.
Tax gas guzzlers
Dont tax the economicals
To the extreme.
Complain about this comment
Flowforth, @42.
It's a very complex scientific competitive field here, I mean the amount of Institutes and various institutions who all have a say in the matters of climate change, causes and effects. that will drive any outsider mad. Soviet structures inter-vowen into new Russian science structures, many hybrids, plus on the Federal, local, nationsl and republics' levels - a webknot. webgrid? a deadlock, in short.
The Russian Academy of Science is a very authoritative body, head office in Moscow of course, been there huge building. In charge of abstract unappliccable science entirely. Academic knowledge.
The Academy, reasonably, consist entirely of Academicians, which is the highest title here after a prof. And not every one, at that, can become a member of the Academy. They sift in-comers. An interesting feature is that the membership in the club (the Academy) is for life. You can reach certain heights, Nobel laureate-ship, ex. once in your academic career (say, 50 yrs ago) - and will still be a member of the Academy.
I do not know whether they hailed IPCC or not but as you said they hailed must be this, I won't doubt it. Neither I know if they were right in doing this or wrong; simply not so learned and clever.
Now, the emissions' calculation is done by
another structure, Ros Hydro Met. HO in Moscow as well, regional branches across Russia.
I know people from 3 places: Ros Hydro Meteo HO in Moscow; Voyekov State Observatory in St. Petersburg (within the Ros Hydro Structure), and then - the St. Petersburg State Meteo Institute.
The first two ones calculate Russia's emisssions.
The Meteorological Istitute in St. Pete is the educative and research institute.
Absolutely every person in Russia, from Moscow to Vladivostok, who works in the meteo, atmosphere emissions, oceanology, physics of the atmosphere, or whatever climate or air related - graduates from it. (Or should - in the case of the government function-aries? workers. LOL)
That these 3 places are critical of the prevailing at the moment climate change theory is very sure. But unless somebody proves it convincingly for all others that the cause is different - these are simply doubts.
As far as I know Ros Hydro Met director keeps a list of 15 possible causes of climate change, against which it is thought over and scanned. The question is open, so to say.
Keep in mind it is not critical for Russia to challenge IPCC conclusions at all. At the present stage of development. (And in fact, yes, must be the Academy def. approved the IPCC line of thinking. Otherwise we wouldn't sign the Int'l Convention on green house gases.)
The thing is signing that convention was easy for Russia. Since USSR collapse all our industries stood still. With no looks of revival. The major polluters are off the stage. Therefore it's a piece of cake for us to agree to any conclusions, having a big back-up of quotes of un-spent but allowed quantities of emissions.
So the dispute goes on the academic, abstract and distant from life and money kind of level.
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland @ 48. Thank you for your response.
"The Russian Academy of Science is a very authoritative body, head office in Moscow of course, been there huge building. In charge of abstract unappliccable science entirely."
I don't think that is accurate. The Russian Academy of Sciences has several leading research institutions under its belt including several institutions recognized as the leading science institutions in Russia. For example, the Lebedev Physical Institute and the Obukhov Institute of Atmospheric Physics - to name just two. The RAS produces real science and is at the forefront of it - it is not merely a group of academics doing nothing.
As for those three institutions you mentioned - I tried researching into them but wasn't able to find much information at all on them, so I won't comment. Are these institutions government owned?
"As far as I know Ros Hydro Met director keeps a list of 15 possible causes of climate change, against which it is thought over and scanned. The question is open, so to say."
I don't think that signifies skepticism of the IPCC's basic conclusions, which have been endorsed by science institutions worldwide.
In all scientific disciplines, when it comes to explaining phenomena, there is always a list of explanations (hypotheses) and they are ranked according to evidence, observation and likelihood. The strongest of these becomes the theory. This list doesn't signify that there is no agreement - it is a hallmark of all science that there are always competing hypotheses for a phenomenon. Later developments can change the rank of a hypothesis.
It's sort of like engineering, where you have a problem with multiple solutions - some better, some worse.
Complain about this comment
Yes, all the 3 are state, RosHydroMet in Moscow /Federal Agency, the other two in St. Pete - the observatory and the Uni. (ex-Institute).
Looked up sites as well but mostly all in Russian.
_________
Voeykov Main Geophysical Observatory
The central research institution conducting research in aerophysics and climatology. It has also been monitoring ambient air pollution in St. Petersburg since 1990. Founded in 1849,
__________
Russian State Hydrometeorological University
http://www.rshu.ru/eng/university/research/
1995 — according to the Agreement btw the Gov. of the Rus. Fed. and the WMO from 1995, RSHI received the status of the Regional meteorological educational centre of the WMO.
____________
RosHydroMet - (a major)part of Federeal Service for Hydrometeorology and environment Monitoring
_____________
RosHydro is all powerful; that's where the bosses sit in Moscow, and finance comes down to multiple research insititutes across Russia.
Uni in St. pete, as I wrote - where all graduate from and the main research centre, but not for all disciplines (strongest old faculties Meteo and Oceanology; the other small faculties added in recent times when it was converted as happened to many into a "university".)
Voyekov observatory - consider a research institute, one of many; the only diff. is it has a side activity now (beyond research) - that is checking for pollutions and issueing "ecological passports" to factories, plants, water sewage facilities, to whoever not across Russia.
That Voyekov exists i am sure as i was paid salary there exactly for translating IPCC for 2 years; they wanted to know "narrow" spots in detail as well as to get the freshest translations ahead of when HydroMet sends it down to all institites official translation versions. To calculate for clients (those ecological passports) by the newest methodics, and there is a 4 month lag in translation of volumes every year. All my home is still full of IPCC volumes!!
Complain about this comment
flowForth, a side note. LOL. I'm glad you find our Academy of value as its Shakespeare's society / Secretary of it/ finds Shakespeare of course not Shakespeare but as it happens with debunkers Russia joined the Belgium/Holland club
(Roger Manners for Shakespeare).
And I find the theory very explaining all that is puzzling! (if one gets puzzled, in the first place, of course :o. which isn't sadly the case with the Stratfordian classic club)
Complain about this comment
flowForth, corrections; asked Mum.
She says it's i don't know because i was a translator and nobody in this field (very true).
Because Obukhov you've mentioned is a very famous academic institution (though she thinks he himself must be died already by now).
Lebedev institute she also knows but hasn't worked with.
She works all life in the St. Pete hydrometeo institute/uni; says their main task is still education.
And the main task of RosHydroMet is they hold personnel at thousands those meteo stations across Russia; that's their employees, in the airports etc in the mountains everywhere.
And RosHydro she says makes weather forecast for us all, to airports, power stations, "not one captain would go out at sea without forecast", so for the fleet and agriculture, to variois industries. Like, she says, someone would be "main hydrologist of the Baltic fleet", and various those sit in Murmansk, in Kaliningrad, in Vladivostok, whole institutions in charge of providing sea and air conditions for fleets.
Automatic pollution control stations everywhere also belong to RosHydromet structure. so RosHydroMet is no science; it is infrustructure; stations and people there.
And pollution monitoring stations
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS