Yukio Hatoyama's golden carrot
Well okay, it's happened a bit earlier than forecast in these quarters, but Japan's incoming Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has announced what could prove a significant move in climate circles, pledging to cut his country's greenhouse gas emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by 2020.
This goes way beyond the 8% set by Taro Aso's outgoing Liberal Democratic Party government.
It's already being welcomed in campaigning circles. Greenpeace described it as "the first sign of climate leadership we have seen out of any developed country for quite some time," while WWF said it would "be a big force in moving one step forward the stalled talks between developed and developing countries".
One of the reasons why the talks leading up to December's Copenhagen summit are "stalled" is because in general, western nations are not promising emissions cuts by 2020 of anything like the 25-40% that developing countries are asking for.
There should be no doubt that Japan's new target is, in sporting terminology, a "big ask". Because Japan's emissions have risen since 1990, it amounts to a cut of about one-third from current levels.
There is, though, one big caveat: there has to be a global deal through the UN framework, with other developed countries making pledges of similar scale, and some kind of action also promised by at least some developing countries "in the process of achieving sustainable development and eliminating poverty under the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities'.''
So you could regard Mr Hatoyama's pledge as a "golden carrot" for UN negotiators. The incoming Democratic Party government hasn't said what will happen if there isn't a global deal, but you can be fairly sure Japan won't hold to the 25% figure as a unilateral pledge.
The carrot is similar to the one being dangled by the EU; a deal will bring a bigger cut (in the EU's case: 30% with a global deal; 20% without).
A slightly anoraky (but important) point is that Japan has also returned to the logic of measuring everything against a single baseline, 1990, rather than inventing new ones (as Australia has by choosing 2000, Mr Aso did by announcing his target relative to 2005, and US President Barack Obama did during his election campaign by continually referring to 2007).
Slightly more exciting than the concept of common baselines is the comparisons that are already being whispered with the US, which remains the single most important country in this whole process.
Developing countries view the current US carrot as anything but golden: too small, too poor in nutrients and stained through by the brown canker of "business as usual".
Like Japan, US emissions have risen since 1990. Until this Japanese election, leaders in Tokyo, like their counterparts in Washington, were insisting that this made a really steep cut in emissions by 2020 impossible.
Now Japan has broken that mould. Mr Hatoyama believes a major cut is feasible, and in a country that is already far more frugal with energy than the US.
Tokyo, therefore, has laid down a gauntlet to Washington. We shall see whether Washington responds.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Ah, the one with the biggest carrot wins, that might work. Japan has an annual celebration of the giant carrot.
A question was asked of me yesterday about all of this greenhouse cutting caper. How are the quotas worked out for each country? Are the allowances worked out from a historical economic perspective or are they worked out as population times sq km of habitable space? I see there is an inclusive factor thrown in for countries who are LED, which I suppose works like a handicap in a horse race.
Complain about this comment
anoraky? please educate me, dictionary.com does not recognize this word and neither do I.
Complain about this comment
A subtle and often forgotten fact about US foreign policy is that they never violate a treaty. Ever. This was the main reason the US didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty. Since then, every single nation that signed the treaty has been constantly violating it. It amounted to nothing more than a publicity stunt.
Any worldwide deal would have to be done with treaties, and would have to include the US to be relevant. And the US will never agree to sign any treaty it isn't 100% certain it can uphold. Therein lies the sticking point.
While European nations and Japan are more than happy to make treaties galore claiming significant reductions they may or may not achieve, the US simply doesn't work that way.
Complain about this comment
Oh, but we can make it a "Convention". You know, like the Geneva Convention. Then our leaders can violate it as they choose.
Complain about this comment
Just think, when Cheney and Palin run and wins in 2012 they will have our DOD checking to see which of their enemies live in lower lying areas than we do. Then all they have to do is keep burning up the world's fuel and drown all our enemies. You can count on us to make sure this gets done with dispatch.
Complain about this comment
It's good to see Japan voting for someone who will take climate change seriously. The last PM committed to only 8% cuts. Hopefully this will set a benchmark for other developed nations to follow.
Complain about this comment
Apologies, #2 wri571 - "anoraky" = a bit technical, not too intrinsically interesting. Named for scientists wearing anoraks (= dull raincoats) which of course they do all the time...
#3 jackbos - "every single nation that signed the treaty has been constantly violating it"? I'm intrigued; by my reading, a) no-one could have been violating it until 2008 at the earliest because that's when the target period begins, and b) some of the signatories are meeting their targets. I fear you're making a more subtle point that I've missed - could you elucidate? Thanks.
RB
Complain about this comment
Well that's a bold faced lie that the US has never violated a treaty. It took a whole five seconds to find http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/19/mexican.execution.violation/index.html.
And we also back out of treaties right before we're about to violate them, as exemplified by Bush simply walking away from the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia. There's no reason to believe we couldn't sign a Kyoto-style treaty and then simply back out later.
So that premise is false. The USA might have reasons, good reasons even, for not signing such treaties but its definitely not because "We never break our treaties, so we can't sign every piddling little treaty the rest of the world throws at us"
Complain about this comment
Richard Black:
"A slightly anoraky (but important) point is that Japan has also returned to the logic of measuring everything against a single baseline, 1990, rather than inventing new ones (as Australia has by choosing 2000, Mr Aso did by announcing his target relative to 2005, and US President Barack Obama did during his election campaign by continually referring to 2007)...
Tokyo, therefore, has laid down a gauntlet to Washington. We shall see whether Washington responds."
----------------------------
Keep it Simple
1) I like very much the idea of a baseline. 1990 will do, if that is OK with the climatologists.
2) And let's keep CO2 emissions simple too. I like total carbon as tabulated by Oakridge Laboratory; multiply by 3.67 to convert to total CO2 by weight. According to James Hansen, the global dimming/parasol effect currently present is roughly offset by contributions to warming from greenhouse gases other than CO2 (CH4, nitrous oxides etc.,)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2006.ems
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
------------
This is wonderful news from Japan!
What was that Star Trek line?
"Make it so."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Addendum to post #9 - Keep it Simple!
1990 Baseline by Country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Isn't an anoraky a wacky environmentally friendly non placky macky?
Before you knocky anoracky
read Jabberwocky and Mimsey were the Borrogroves
Complain about this comment
#8 Vrieman
I have a problem with your statement about the 'bold faced lie'. Your proof has gone missing. When I click on the link CNN tells me that the page doesn't exist. Bad link perhaps?
Complain about this comment
Richard
Waiting for your review of the New Scientist article - World's climate could cool first, warm later
With such choice quotes as
"Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."
"Another favourite climate nostrum was upturned when Vicky Pope warned that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming."
"Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out,"
"The world may badly want reliable forecasts of future climate. But such predictions are proving as elusive as the perfect weather forecast."
Or is the science still settled?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html
Complain about this comment
I agree that this is just more politics. Developing countries just want major industrialized countries to cut emissions because it will make doing business in their respective developing countries all the more enticing to outsource businesses from industrialized countries due to them not having as many restrictions on emission caps.
As far as climate change is concerned, has anyone notice that its not called "global warming" anymore, but is called "climate change"? The worlds has actually been cooling for most of the past decade and suddenly all the theories about the world just heating up don't quite add up. All this stuff is political non-sense so the politicians can gain support by arguing for an argument that others can't argue against. They can say that they want to save the environment and any politician who thinks there jumping the gun is pretty much crapped on by there opponents being able to say the said politician doesn't care about the world.
I'm not saying that cutting emissions is a bad idea. To the contrary, I think it is a great idea. However, I feel like such a rapid shift based more on politics than on science could cause severe damage to developed countries' economies. I think the U.S. has it right to not suddenly pledge to cut emissions so dramatically so fast. You think the U.S. credit crunch was felt across the world, that is nothing compared to what would happen to the price of goods and cost of doing business if there was a 25% lowering of emissions in such a small span of time.
Feel free to call me an "enemy of the world" or environment hater or some other nonsense phrase that people have come up with to describe anyone who is more hesitant about making rapid changes just like the world has viewed America.
Complain about this comment
to jackbos #3:
If memory serves, the United States government has viloated every single treaty made with the aboriginal native population as the country was settled. There may be an exception or two, a case of the exception proving the rule.
And the Patriot Act, in all of its guises, is a fundamental breach of the guiding principles of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
On the fairly recent International Criminal Court at The Hague:
"The United States was the first nation founded on the bedrock principle of justice and equality for all before the law. It is wrong for us now to insist that this principle cannot be applied to all inhabitants of this earth. Just as our forebearers did, we should build institutions that will serve as a haven for all against the arbitrary exercise of power."
- Jimmy Carter, thirty-ninth President of the United States
My father was a United States Marine, and I am a supporter of the fundamental principles of the United States as envisioned by its founders. I have travelled and climbed extensively in the United States, and like much of what I see.
But you have been severed from your foundations. Time to rebuild.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
The answer to climate change is nuclear power + electric cars. I think Japan already knows this and thinks they can do it.
Complain about this comment
Until the world goes to zero carbon energy, all these lovely treaties and cap and trade bills aren't going to stop the real cause of climate change. Yawn.
Complain about this comment
#14 jpkramer
I must be getting old and senile because I cannot for the life of me understand what you are talking about. What exactly is going to happen if the US manages to bring it's emissions into line with the European states even? Why should prices rocket? The US has been very lazy and uses a lot of very primitive power solutions, it might even lower your costs. Good clean energy solutions need not mean expensive solutions.
Complain about this comment
-manysummits-
If your going to pick a U.S. president to quote, pick one that has actually been considered to be a good president by historians. If your looking for one that is famous for his outdoor activity, I recommend Theodore Roosevelt.
The patriot act was put enacted because people were scared. Its not the first time Americans have given up liberties to achieve security; try reading up on McCarthyism and some of D. Roosevelt's early New Deal Reforms. Indeed every time the U.S. has gone to war, civil liberties were given up. The U.S. founding fathers knew that there would be times liberties must be suspended. That is why war powers exist. The amazing thing about the U.S. government however, is that when Americans feel safe and they have had enough of government power, they respond by repealing laws they think infringe on their rights.
-SteveK9123-
I think your comment was smartest thing anyone has said on this forum.
Complain about this comment
#13 crsmumby, please see Global temperatures 'to decrease' and Next decade 'may see no warming' - thanks.
RB
Complain about this comment
Climate or Economy? That seems to be the debate. However, I think the USA should view the energy situation from a national security perspective. This will get the "god, guns, guts, and glory" people on-board. In Japan, as with other developed and developing countries, it's basically an economic sacrifice, to control carbon emmissions. Security is not in their equation. They don't mind giving money to "bad" countries. Thay have the US to fight for them.
Complain about this comment
Richard Black (BBC)
Your first link points to another anomaly and the second one to a report of the same group of scientists' research.
The wheels have fallen off the Co2 bandwagon, the IPCC gravy train and the carbon trading getaway car. So badly that some of the benificiaries have had to put their hands in the air.
Complain about this comment
#13 crsmumby
i too would like to see a review. maybe it could include the fact that the author of the research states clearly he's 'not one of the sceptics'.
just because there is still natural variation in the system (strewth that must be news to the ipcc) does not invalidate the science.
as is mentioned in the article we could use the time to prepare and reduce emissions rather than bury our heads in the sand for another decade.
climate change is the biggest threat we face but i have a sneaky suspicion that the decision by the japanese and others may be more to do with peak oil than concern for future generations.
Complain about this comment
The nuclear power option sounds good in principle but who is going to police it? There is a bad track record of nuclear industry behaviour and there is still the big problem of what to do with the nuclear waste. I suppose at the end of the day it is all about the Prince-iple of Quality Control Management. Each energy option has its pluses and minuses and nuclear appears to still be streets ahead of anything else even though it is unpopular and 'dirty.' Has the geothermal option got any more mileage or is that still small fry?
I get a pretty good idea of how the US really feels from reading a book of speeches by world leaders. The US likes to co-operate with the rest of the world so long as it serves US purposes but according to the speech writers of the past, America primarily would prefer to look after its own back yard.
Complain about this comment
just because there is still natural variation in the system (strewth that must be news to the ipcc) does not invalidate the science
********
The models did not include a major cyclical natural event. They were wrong within six months of their touted certainty. There is no (predictive) science beyond the models. I would guess that without the politics and associated bullying, a large number of scientists would be sceptics.
Mike Hulme and the Piekle family (father and son) have been brave enough to very strongly hint at scepticism. A number of scientists are openly sceptical
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/critics.htm
Complain about this comment
Richard;
I am glad, that Mr. Yukio Hatayama did the right thing and, working on the
Climate Change goals....
=D=
Complain about this comment
When things get tense high on a mountain, you look around at your partners.
How are they reacting?
There are many ways to read the steadiness of nerve, or lack of it.
Some signs are obvious, such as someone crashing to their kness and saying, "I don't want to die."
Some are more subtle.
As rossglory has pointed out, natural variability in the climate system remains. In fact, if the paleoclimate is any indicator, we can expect variability to increase as the planet warms.
And the planet is warming.
The Earth will continue to heat up as our numbers increase and our thirst for power and control and survival manifest themselves in a destabilizing world. That destabilization has not only to do with climate change, it is a 'Limits to Growth' and Industrial/Consumer Society thing - with many losing their nerve.
It is not intelligence which is lacking, nor knowledge, nor the technical means to reverse every one of the 'Limits to Growth.'
It is the courage to look the situation in the eye - and to act.
- Manysummits; so much for a light-hearted Labor Day weekend -
Complain about this comment
I wish to congratulate Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, and to wish him and his Countrymen well.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
> A subtle and often forgotten fact about US foreign policy is that they never violate a treaty. Ever. This was the main reason the US didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty. Since then, every single nation that signed the treaty has been constantly violating it. It amounted to nothing more than a >publicity stunt.
am I missing irony here? The US violated virtually every single treaty they made with native americans [..does not qualify as 'ever' ]
I suggest the reasons for not signing have more to do with the power of the oil lobby under Bush..
Complain about this comment
RE: 16. At 5:04pm on 07 Sep 2009, SteveK9123 wrote: "The answer to climate change is nuclear power + electric cars."
That would be nice, but sadly nuclear is no panacea. At our present rate of use, known global economically viably uranium reserves (approx. 5.5 million tonnes) will last a little over 100 years. If nations increasingly turn to nuclear power as an answer, those reserves (which are not distributed evenly by the way) could be depleted in only a few decades. Nuclear reprocessing, as attractive as it sounds, is fraught with its own problems including the increased likelihood of weapons grade material going astray. And of course, there's still the unresolved issue of storage/disposal of material that will remain dangerously radioactive for another 100,000 years.
Realistically speaking, unless significant progress is made with fusion, I'm afraid society will ultimately have to learn to live with renewables (some mix of solar, wind, wave, geothermal, biomass, and biofuels) or learn to do without.
Complain about this comment
All the mathematics about climate change may be contestable, as indeed is almost any scientifically contrived phenomenon, but the reality has hit me every April-July (since after 1990, trust my memory) when i would normally expect rains and they no longer come as they used, and the dry seasons are longer and more devastating.
Complain about this comment
What I find very difficult to understand is the reluctance on the US right to come to grips with a simple truth, more people wanting more goodies (possessions comfort and all) and dwindling natural resources. Even if global warming, climate change doesn't happen resource depletion will, and common sense says that efficient resource management should start now. The old US model of an inefficient, power hungry, wasteful society, (look at your cars for instance) has gone. Why is 'living with renewables' such a horrific thought. I would have thought non polluting self sustaining energy systems would gladden the heart of any conservative. I agree with the thoughts on nuclear although they could be very useful while we get all the other stuff developed.
Complain about this comment
I guessed that uranium reserves must be depleting but I didn't know we were down to only 100 year's worth. How much oil and coal reserve is left?
With Japan showing initiative and leading the way we cannot sit back and carry on as usual. For instance how much does the landfill tax cost Britain each year and who has to pay it?
I know Britain was looking at the possibility of using anaerobic digesters but considered our environment too cold for them to work efficiently. I disagree, all the advertising blurb shows them sited above ground when they could be sited underground in more neutral temperatures. We have an overwhelming continuous supply of organic waste to dispose of which might as well make fuel. I know there are issues with cost of setting up these initiatives and there is too much negative feedback from people living near by. Local authorities start innovative new ideas but abandon them before they become integrated and accepted, creating more waste. Is there an alternative to platinum in catalytic converters? This precious resource is being stolen from exhaust systems on a daily basis.
I see that more dumps are being managed carefully, the (pipe outlets etc are visible from a distance).
(I know you may think of me as some daft old grannie but I am a serious fan of Andrew Porteous and his book is one of my favourites).
I shall give you an example of extreme waste at a local shop level. I can't name the shop for obvious reasons but every day, at the end of the day, they throw away a really giant sack filled with cakes that have not been sold. They are forbidden to give them away or sell them of cheaply to poorer people. This wastage is going on everywhere, as shops overstock and throw away perfectly good food. Some supermarkets go to the extreme and spray dye over food thrown away to prevent the freegans using it. (There is a cult university student activity of bin diving to eat for free). We have accepted the insane idea of fruit and vegetables being all exactly the same size and shape in the supermarkets. We have accepted the insane idea of buying electrical goods manufactured with inherent defects, designed to break down or become obsolete within two years of purchase. The economy revolves around manufacturing new products and less around replacing components of well made goods with interchangeable components with universal fittings.
I like the idea of the electric car and the hybrid car but these new technologies are going to create resource issues themselves.
Complain about this comment
No need to make it up - just read the gov website
"The UK Climate Projections published last month show that if we don’t take action by 2080 the temperature for the hottest day of the year in the West Midlands could increase by a scorching 100 C by 2080"
This is a quote from Energy and Climate Change Minister, David Kidney on
nds.coi.gov.uk
Complain about this comment
Grannie,
Don't worry about these 'peak something' stories - peak oil / peak uranium / peak bronze / peak stone etc.
We did this a few months ago on this blog and no-one could come up with a real life historical example of running out of anything. The bronze age did not run out of bronze for example.
What happens is: the price starts to go up which means that more reserves in more difficult areas are found and at the same time the demand drops as people use the 'something' more carefully and find alternatives.
For the last 30 years there has only ever been about 30 years oil reserve left. Nobody bothers looking for more.
Complain about this comment
Isn't 'peak oil' a sort of euphemism to explain that we are moving away from easy extraction from lakes of the stuff, to oil shale extraction which is more expensive, labour intensive and requires more technology to get at it? From all of the graphs I have seen about this subject, there is a suggestion of steep decline after the peak. I can relate this situation to jam and jelly making where the resource has a finite extraction after which it becomes more effort than it is worth to glean the last drops.
Relating back to cooking again, I worry about the addition of vegetable oil to stretch out the volume of fuel. Vegetable oil contains a sticky resinous residue which clogs up everything. Is there going to be a future issue of this happening to motor vehicles, or is there something done to the oil to get rid of the resins?
Complain about this comment
Jack at #34
Funny! But I suspect a typographic error rather than blissful ignorance.... Anyway, I'm guessing that you'ld still ridicule it if he meant 10 degrees C? :-)
Complain about this comment
We've been talking about Hollywood et al playing a bigger role in environmental issues. Curiously, Michael Moore's new movie is just that:
"Sunday, September 6th, 2009
Friends,
Well, this is it!
Tonight, at the Venice Film Festival, I will premiere my new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story."...
I'll leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies."
- Michael Moore
----------------
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Hi Richard
Thanks for the links - not quite a review of the World Climate Conference 3 that I was expecting - or even the article on New Scientist.
This may be because you do not feel the conference is news worthy - I have searched BBC for a review of WCC 3 - and found nothing - strange, as it was a gathering of the top 1500 climate scientists.
Myself, I find the outcomes from WCC3 a lot more interesting and relevant that some a vague future pledge by a new Japanese prime minister.
Complain about this comment
I was up half the night dealing with one of the consequences of global warming. As I was dozing off to sleep I felt something move on my hand. I shook it off, switched the light on and saw a small, black, shiny, bulbous spider run for cover under the bed. I have captured it and I believe it to be a false black widow spider, that is the nearest match so far. Apparently these little steatoda nobilis are spreading across the south of England. I have quite a large painful bite on the back of my knee from the other day and I believe this spider is the culprit.
Complain about this comment
Please forgive my ignorance (and no, that phrase wasn't meant ironically as it so often is on this kind of board) but does reducing carbon emmissions include carbon offsetting? It seems to me that although biotech still has a long way to go it's still our best hope (plus i can't wait to see all the major cities on earth carpeted with algae!!!)
Complain about this comment
bushouhige-murph:
'At our present rate of use, known global economically viably uranium reserves (approx. 5.5 million tonnes) will last a little over 100 years.'
This is not entirely true. If all the reserves of uranium were to be used in fast breeder reactors there should be enough uranium for approximately the next 8,500 years.
Tom
I believe new build nuclear plants are the only means in which most countries will be able to meet their CO2 targets in the short term but in the long term I think the only reasonable assumption to make is that are energy will come form the most ecconomically efficient balance of all the sustainable energy technologies.
Complain about this comment
It seems as if the EU is getting its carrot ready too! And if the test of commitment is being willing to back one's word with money, then the EU seems to be getting serious.
According to a story runing on EurAktiv ('EU ready to shoulder a quarter of global climate funding'), there is a draft Commission document in circulation which indicates that the EU is prepared to put up to 30% of the money required at global level to finance a post-Kyoto climate treaty and overcome the current standoff in the negotiations. The paper outlines the financing needs of developing countries for climate change mitigation and adaptation and sketches out a scheme of how the burden might be shared among developed countries. The Commission plans to present the paper in the coming days.
Complain about this comment
I truly hope that in the spirit of change the Japanese also reconsider their stance on whaling because going green includes conservation.
Complain about this comment
Following up on the comments about "peaks" of this and that. It looks like oil is just getting going:
http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/journal/?p=5567&utm_source=Autoline+Newsletter+-+Daily&utm_campaign=37ce24f0ab-Autoline_Daily_E_mail_Blast09_3_2009&utm_medium=email
7 miles deep. The technology and engineering must be awesome.
Drill baby drill……..
Complain about this comment
#36 sensibleoldgrannie
spot on :o)
the really steep decline is in 'net' oil extraction since tar sands and deep water extraction takes a lot more energy (i.e. oil) to extract.
i still find it odd that peak oil is dismissed so easily, just a glimpse at the current output, the pent up demand in the bric block and the potential reserves is enough to make anyone worried (bearing in mind our whole culture is based on cheap oil).
maybe i'm just a worrier.....a bit like bruce dern's character
Complain about this comment
Here's a better link to the oil story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/business/global/03oil.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=bp%20oil%20discovery&st=cse
Picked the wrong one to publish......
Complain about this comment
#47 timjenvey
the potential of that field was known about and included in the projections (bp weren't just randomly drilling 11km down for the fun of it).
the rush for the arctic oil is not going to make much difference either.
also worth bearing in mind that the peak of oil field dicovery was in the 60s!!
still, don;t want to hijack a post going over peak oil again. there's plenty of info out there if anyone's interested just be careful who you believe :o)
my belief is that 200 dollar barrels aren;t that far off.....and you won;t be flying to spain for your hols or driving a 4 litre car when it happens (unless you made a mint from the subprime bubble).
Complain about this comment
The entanglements of government and business are most often to the disadvantage of the people. In almost any country gains could be made by the simple enforcement of existing laws. Energy producers are often poorly regulated and too powerful to require that they comply with existing regulations related to polluants and emissions. Reductions can be had by simple enforcement of current standards. The Japanese are also serious about alternative fuels. They have developed hydrogen cars and power sources that will also make this a reachable goal. While other leaders have been tied down by the lobbyist DPJ has yet to become a victim of greed and influence buying by corporate interest. They will be attacked by the energy industries when they take office and corruption will be attempted and maybe succeed. The Japanese have a unique national identity that allows for national efforts to focus on objectives as a collective effort without the confrontation seen in other countries. We will all probably be buying alternative energy technologies from Japan in the near future. They have a very good understanding of the economics of alternative energy and the technologies that will support that development and implmentation. Demographics and other factors are pushing Japan in this direction and they realize that there is a pot of gold at the end of the clean energy rainbow. Western countries will be sending messages of concern about pulling back the curtain on regulation enforcement and the current plan they all agreed on to deceive the general public. Most countries are only maintaining the status quo while talking about change but in fact they are mostly interested in campaign contributions.
Complain about this comment
rossglory #48:
The 7 miles (11km) depth just blows me away. It's what passenger aircraft cruise at for intercontinental flights and higher than the tallest mountain and deeper than the deepest sea.
From a read of the article this appears to be a new discovery and there are no current projections. Please correct me if I’m wrong. There appears to be a great deal of uncertainty as to how much can be extracted and it will not be known for 3 years or so as further technology is developed.
What is known is that the deposits are potentially huge (they use the word giant) and these fields are cropping up all over the area. I guess BP think the risks are worth it. They certainly will not be doing it for fun or for what would be the conventional known returns.
There is also rumor that the Russians have mastered the technology for gas and are also developing for oil. As you say: "be careful who you believe :o)"
I'll be watching this space with interest.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
"maybe i'm just a worrier"
Psychologists describe an urban-eco personality type. The urban-ecos value consensus and co-operation, compromise, caring. They would agree 'very strongly' with the proposition: 'we are destroying the environment through our greed'.
Other personality types exist: it's estimated that only 20% of the UK adult population fits the urban-eco type. Most people change types as they move through life.
Personality types are a product of the prevailing culture and personal social contacts. They vary massively across different countries: for example most of Afghanistan is in the 'tribal-warlordist' type.
It's a big mistake to think that other people and countries have your own personality type - eg the Chinese govt is very happy to let the western urban-ecos dismantle our industries and our whole way of life while they just carry on as before.
Complain about this comment
Oh! please Richard Black get real! There is no 'carrot' that anyone can actually eat, just 'emission impossible.' Japan's latest unachievable policy represents a reduction of CO2 emissions by 25% from 1990, equivalent to a 37% below 2005 levels. The outgoing government already set a very challenging target of a 15% reduction below 2005 levels.
From the FT:
"The incoming prime minister stressed that the goal would be contingent on other nations making strong commitments to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
He said industrialised nations would offer “financial and technological support” to developing countries and that as soon as he took office he would “begin studying” concrete steps to be brought together as the Hatoyama Initiative for international co-operation on the issues."
And:
"The DPJ, which has given little detail of how it will curb greenhouse gas emissions, is also likely to face substantial practical and political obstacles in putting policies in place to meet its carbon-cutting goal."
Pointless CO2 reduction economic suicide anyone? I don't think so - just think of a big number then go find the magic wand to achieve it.
Why not submit your analysis for peer review? Like this:
Pielke, Jr., R.A., (in review). Mamizu Climate Policy: An Evaluation of Japanese Carbon Emissions Reduction Targets, Environmental Research Letters.
Mind you, judging by the fatally flawed papers selectively cited by the BBC to support unfounded climate alarmism, peer review is getting even more cursory these days.
Complain about this comment
Peak Oil
"In terms of non-OPEC [countries outside the big oil producers’ cartel]", he replied, "we are expecting that in three, four years’ time the production of conventional oil will come to a plateau, and start to decline. … In terms of the global picture, assuming that OPEC will invest in a timely manner, global conventional oil can still continue, but we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau as well, which is of course not good news from a global oil supply point of view...
I think time is not on our side here."
- Fatih Birol; lead author of the International Energy Agency's report, '2008 World Energy Outlook.'
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/15/at-last-a-date/
------------------
For more background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
-------------------------------------
Now we're talking the oil business. I was a consulting wellsite geologist for some nineteen years, out of Calgary, Alberta.
Peak Oil is real - expect variability and extreme events to increase. Does that have a familiar ring to it?
Here in Alberta, Suncor, one of the original 'tarsands' giants, has just laid off a thousand people - interesting.
One of our Candian author/journalits wrote a book on oil - its title will suffice to sum up this post:
"Stupid to the Last Drop," by William Marsden, 2008.
- Manysummits - formerly 'many-wells' - from 'the patch' -
Complain about this comment
Jack_Hughes_NZ #51.
Totally agree that different cultures can have completely different interpretations on the rights, wrongs and interactions of what’s fair, what's dishonest, what's acceptable and what's not and the degrees in between.
I have had to deal with this in my career and have always employed local representatives who would guide me through the nuances. No judgments here it's just how things are.
It's good to be reminded of this at times when we have such discourse.
Thanks
Tim
Complain about this comment
Manysummits.
OT but continuing your #53 theme.
As a geologist and if you are so inclined, I'd be very interested in your estimation of the engineering feat and of the finding so many 'giant' oil fields so deep (7mls/11km).
Thanks
Tim
Complain about this comment
#51 jack
interesting analysis. what i can say is that my family in china (my partner is chinese) seem to have a pretty similar take on life to my english family. some of them worry about climate change and others don;t. in fact having family about as far away as possible (in distance, language and culture) that i was able to connect with almost immediately has reinforced my view that national identities are trivial compared with our shared genetic background. we are all in this together on a pretty small planet.
i agree the chinese govt doesn;t worry too much about my prosperity (apart from my ability to buy their goods) but i don;t see they're too different to western govts. one thing is for sure, competition (whether national, corporate or individual) will not fix the problems it's created.
Complain about this comment
#53 manysummits
didn't mean to kick this off again...honestly
however, this is my simple take on the new find.
current production around 12bn barrels/yr;
estimate of new bp find 3bn barrels;
therefore we'll need to find and develop one of these every 3 months to stop us rapidly depleting the (very approx 250bn barrel known reserves).
i would be very interested on your take on this, never worked in oil (i'm an urban-eco!!) so have taken a deliberately simplistic approach :o)
Complain about this comment
crsmumby
Reporting only one side of a story is called propaganda. It's what the BBC is, and always has been for.
Complain about this comment
Urban-ecos can be great work colleagues and neighbors (think Ned Flanders).
But the qualities that make them great work colleagues (co-operation, compromise, thinking of other peoples' feelings) can be weaknesses.
For example the climate change thing is mission-creep on stilts. Not only is it a co-operative, consensual, collaborative, sharing, UN-controlled attempt to fix the climate for all time but it's also trying to solve all problems of the 3rd world and also rescue our own economies with millions of new green jobs. And promote motherhood and apple pie to boot.
These people seem incapable of trying to simplify or prioritise or tackle one thing at a time. Its become incoherent. Unplug your phone charger to save a polar bear. Then fly off to Copenhagen. Errr...
Complain about this comment
From a young pupil aged about 12years old, the suggestion came, why don't we use geothermal heat to extract the oil from oil shale?
Out of the mouths of babes ;o) Maybe we should listen to the children.
It came out of discussion about alternative energy sources and the move to oil shale extraction.
forumdude 2
Don't trash the BBC because it choses a subject for debate. You are allowed to have your say otherwise we wouldn't hear you, this is democracy in action. If this debate is 'propaganda' give us your balanced view and include it. I have not noticed any serious controls on our opinions and I am grateful for a chance to have my say by asking reasonable questions.
pmbbiggsy
When I look at the fantastic innovations others in the world are quietly achieving, I believe that Japan could achieve the climate goal because it will get the whole population working in one direction. I don't know how Japan is going to achieve its goal but I would love to hear what it will be doing to enable the population to reach the target. If they have some good ideas perhaps we could use them ourselves?
I have very strong doubts about the legitimacy of maintaining air traffic levels while cutting 90% emissions by the general population. I would like to know what that will mean in real terms, broken down into what the population will have to do differently, targets, sanctions, rewards, outcomes. Cutting back must be inclusive and not place poorer people at risk. For instance if there were to be a cut back in private transport then public transport must be regulated to provide GUARANTEED, REGULAR, ON TIME transport to and from work, by bus or by train. If the government wants to cut household waste, it must first deal with the supermarkets. If the government wants to reduce household heating and water consumption then it must provide the resources for poorer households to achieve this. If the government wants to reduce the level of us buying consumer goods, it must have much tougher regulations on the DURABILITY of imported basic-necessity goods.
Complain about this comment
This is going round the blogosphere like a forest fire:
"...lower living standards for you are a small price to pay in exchange for more power for the political class — whose living standards won’t be going down at all..."
Complain about this comment
2009, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
forumdude 2
If this debate is 'propaganda' give us your balanced view and include it. I have not noticed any serious controls on our opinions and I am grateful for a chance to have my say by asking
*********
Fine. I am asking Richard Green to arrange that the Geneva Conference is reported in the 6 o'clock news. Let's see how successfull I am. Every glacier that moves a few inches, every idiot politician who talks about Arctic ice melting gets a mention but a serious climate conference is ignored because it doesn't fit with British government propaganda.
Global warming politics started with Margaret Thatcher and continues in its home country today, the world's first post industrial economy (with massive investments in India and China).
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey (55) and rossglory (57) re - deep oil:
When I started in the oilpatch, deviating ten degrees on purpose (directional drilling) was a big deal, and I was on a well ~ 1980 that went down over 3000 meters (NE British Columbia foothills) and angled off about this amount. To measure your drift angle, you had to stop driling and physically lower a long rod on a cable and winch to the bottom of the well and then haul it back up, read the angle off a 'target' type piece of paper, for your angle. Then give orders to correct. Then do it all over again, maybe soon, if you were in doubt.
Now directional drilling can go horizontal for literally kilometers, you can even go up, or weave sideways, corkscrew, as long as you don't get stuck, and it's all real time (as you drill) measurement of angles, and now also various geophysical logging parameters, via some pretty sophisticated telemetry from the bottom of the hole. Then you beam everything in to head office via satellite!
I was a part of all that, and I haven't been on a rig in twelve years!
So it's no surprise that we are drilling deep including offshore - utilizing some very sophisticated technology.
But it is expensive!!! And risky!!!
Why are we doing this? Because the easy to get stuff is gone.
And 'rossglory', you are right as to the numbers. I'm not an analyst, but somewhat 'in touch,' and a look at the various graphs about the future of oil all tell the same story. We are spending more and more to get less and less.
These giant fields will make a few very happy, because oil is an expensive commodity these days. But it will not make the many happy, or provide them (us) with a bright future.
We are in point of fact - desperate.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
One interesting aspect around the Climate Change issue is the lack of Climate Change organizations on the local level. It is unwise to leave these decisions to the governments and although it requires governmental actions to mitiagte, the relationship between politicians and the fossile fuel industry is not reassuring. Althoug we have a gobal issue the impacts will be on each local area and one would think that this would be a local concern. Local governments seem to feel that some national or federal solution will arise and they will receive whatever funding is necessary or that they don't need to bring up an issue that may require a decision on their part. It is just an observation but my guess is that the Climate Change issues will remain stalled until some organized ground swell appears on the local level.
Complain about this comment
30. At 04:17am on 08 Sep 2009, bushouhige-murph wrote:
RE: 16. At 5:04pm on 07 Sep 2009, SteveK9123 wrote: "The answer to climate change is nuclear power + electric cars."
As pointed out, at best not so much an answer as a very minor possible help in postponement.
I'd say fewer folk around wanting (or allowed... eek) to go elsewhere all the time might be closer to it, but with the politico-media Caravans of Carbon making their green elite - either deluded or venal - ways 1st class from one world venue to the next, if occasionally offset, only to pronounce but not practice, that doesn't seem likely.
Complain about this comment
Why carrots and funding are important, and why the EU is trying to focus attention on who will pick up the bill (see my posting at #43).
A recent paper argues that the economic, financial and environmental communities are not acting in a coherent way in addressing climate change. As a result, climate negotiators and economic officials in developing countries have received contradictory messages from the international system. The international financial institutions, which deal principally with ministries of finance, trade, development and domestic central banks, have maintained their established directions of decision-making, signalling to developing country governments that climate change and the economic consequences of climate change are not a central concern. The mixed messages reinforce the trade and finance ministries’ inclination to not support a climate agreement with serious economic underpinnings, and it potentially limits the effectiveness of the post-Kyoto regime.
To read the full article, visit: www.iisd.ca/mea-l/guestarticle75.html
Complain about this comment
forumdude2
Did you get your wish for the 6pm news? I was blogging at the time so I don't know if your voice was heard by 'them'.
Complain about this comment
#63 thanks manysummits
have to look out for 'stupid to the last drop'. interesting that the latest film is called 'age of stupid'. i think a lot of what humanity is upto these days could be termed.....well 'suboptimal' maybe.
i think the 21st century will ultimately belong to those countries that get a headstart in green technologies so japan's decision, to me seems perfectly rational. not sure the uk will be very successful.
Complain about this comment
#62 forumdude2:
"I am asking Richard Green (I presume you mean me?) to arrange that the Geneva Conference is reported in the 6 o'clock news..."
OK, I'll go and tell the editor what to put in his programme, just for you... that should work...
RB
Complain about this comment
talking of films:
www.noteviljustwrong.com
i confess i haven't seen it (realised in 38 days), but it shows not even the film makers have a consensus on this subject
Complain about this comment
Wow dude2! All we need now to have one big happy family is for our Royals to have a public voice (obviously with a name that can't be recognised) then we will have a true forum because I think if they were ungagged they would have some interesting things to say. I wonder how many politicians sound us out here?
Complain about this comment
#69 you weren't in reservoir dogs were you richard?
Complain about this comment
To ghostofsichuan #64;
"Climate Change organizations on the local level"
I think you're onto something here!
I contacted our local Sierra Club a little while ago to ask if they had anything on the go as regards 'climate science'? "No," they referred me to their national headquarters.
I used to have my own website, not on climate science, but on mountains and deserts. But I have often thought of starting a new one, with trips to the mountains and other interesting outdoor spots being tied in some way to climate change. The family keeps me pretty busy being a Dad (I've moved up a notch from Da-Da). But if I did start such a club, or group, it would also be a family oriented affair, as Underacanoe and I have found to our great dissapointment that there is a dearth of family outdoor outings around Calgary. In fact, most outdoor mountain clubs are actually hostile to children, many being glorified dating services.
We've got to get away from this virtual reality everything - and get real. The way to reconnect with nature is to go and see her, time and again, in all of her moods, and I think, as a family or 'tribe', or whatever you want to call a natural unit.
I remember my first big mountain in Baja California. I met a group of local Mexicans, 'The Picacheros', from Mexicali, the capital city of Baja California Norte. After a successful ascent, I returned the way I had come in, alone, as my vehicle was parked high in a National Park to the west. But I had been invited to accompany the Picaheros east, the way they had come in, down the Canon del Diablo, into the desert, where they would be met and greeted by their families and a huge fiesta of good food, perhaps some local beer, and of course, some fine Tequila.
I missed that one, but luckily I was able to return several times in later years to renew acquaintenances, and to see Mexicali for myself - but that is another story!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To rossglory #68, and ghostofsichuan:
We've talked several times of getting a head start on green technologies, or alternative energy sources, in a kind of friendly? competition. All very natural.
But I am reminded of our hunting past. There we learned to also harness our cooperative skills, to achieve a greater good, something unlikely or impossible without a 'team.' I am thinking of "Head Smashed in Buffalo Jump", just south of Calgary, for example, and there are examples from all continents and locals, I am sure.
Each must do their part to achieve success, at all levels of competence and ability. Isn't this what we have to do at the international level as regards climate change and the environmental 'Limits to Growth.'?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To 'simon-swede':
I just wanted to let you know - I have a copy of "Should Trees Have Standing", and other essays on law, morals and the environment (25th anniversary edition), by Christopher Stone.
Just read the first paragraphs of the Introduction - I can tell I am going to like this man and what he has to say.
Thanks again Simon,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
You are so right manysummits. Even here on a humble blog I can sense the possibility for cooperation and change for the greater good. I watched the news on TV and saw what the various players in environmental politics looked like in the flesh and it felt strange that there was a possibility that they had read or participated in this blog. I feel that with your experience and obvious humanitarianism you could bring people together to work together, instead of thumping each other over the head with academic hyperbole like babies wacking each other with their toy rattles. You and rossglory are good mediators in helping people like me understand what is going on in our world.
Complain about this comment
#62 forumdude2:
"I am asking Richard Green (I presume you mean me?) to arrange that the Geneva Conference is reported in the 6 o'clock news..."
OK, I'll go and tell the editor what to put in his programme, just for you... that should work...
RB
*******
Richard, I'm colour blind, sorry. Green was a good guess though.
I was making a point about the six o'clock news as I'm sure you realise. You may not have a direct input on that but perhaps you would like to expain why as the environment correspondent for the BBC News website, there was no report on this extremely significant event.
Is your current remit to promote anthropogenic global warming as a settled theory ?
Complain about this comment
That spider is still giving me the creeps so I can't sleep. Lets pretend I was a project leader and I had to chose a team of environmentalists to lead Britain into a workable plan to reduce greenhouse gasses etc. at local as well as country level. Who would you choose to be in that team, what role and why? Goodnight. : o)
Complain about this comment
Here is the official BBC house opinion on climate change
"The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."
The list of experts at the seminar is secret, the agenda is secret, the minutes are secret.
Blogger Tony N at Harmless Sky has made repeated Freedom of Information requests to discover more about this seminar.
This is the most that Auntie will tell:
...the name of the seminar (Climate Change - the Challenge to Broadcasting), when and where it was held (Television Centre on 26th Jan 2006), how many people attended (30 BBC personnel and 30 invited guests who were ‘specialists in the area of climate change’ - no mention of them being scientists), that the ‘key speaker’ was Lord May of Oxford (President of the Royal Society, eminent ecologist and lifelong environmental campaigner), and that the event was hosted by Jana Bennett (£536k a year Director of Vision). Clearly this was no casual get-together down at the pub.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #63.
Thanks for the input. You obviously understand the technology so it probably takes the edge off. I've seen many a drilling that goes horizontal for miles but going downward, that to me is something else. And then to seal it and get oil to come out!! My brain explodes with the issues they have obviously overcome.
As you say it's expensive and risky so there must be potential rewards. It will be interesting to follow over the next few years.
BTW. Have you any input on how giant oil well's exist at such depths? The massive quantities of oil that have already been extracted seem so incredible this far out.
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
sensibleoldgrannie #78.
I hope the spider spares you and you awake safely tomorrow morning to spend another day with us!
You ask to: “chose a team of environmentalists to lead Britain into a workable plan to reduce greenhouse gasses etc. at local as well as country level. Who would you choose to be in that team, what role and why?”
A great question and a serious answer. I would choose Mother Nature as she will have the say what ever we do. She will do what ever she deems at this particular time in our history. This could be creation or destruction, or where ever her current mood takes her. Our input is zero, zilch, absolutely insignificant.
On another level, ignoring the team I suggest above, it would depend on the project sponsor. There are many types and depending on the type the team would be different,
- Sponsor 1: A passionate environmentalist that truly believes in AGW and wants to address it.
- Sponsor 2: A passionate environmentalist that does not believe in AGW and believes that this is distracting from greater needs.
- Sponser 3: Somebody that just wants the whole shenanigans put to rest as it's distracting from everything.
.
- Sponsor 4: Those that are making and set to make their fortunes out of cashing in on the profits.
- Sponsor 5: Those wanting to establish long term tax revenues.
- Sponsor 6: Those wanting to establish global control and re-distribution of wealth.
And the list could go on. Until the sponsors requirements a fully understood and a scope of work produced I would not attempt to assign a team.
Night, night and I hope you got some sleep
Best
Tim
Complain about this comment
ghostofsichuan at #64, manysummits at #73
In Sweden, it was agreed a few years ago that the county administrative boards should be given a key role in Sweden's climate adaptation efforts. To this end, it was recommended that special climate adaptation panel should be established at each county administrative board, to provide enhanced support for the municipalities in particular.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits at #75
Nice! Thought you might like it! And it may also appeal that the original idea came about from an off-the-cuff comment he made towards the end of a lecture when the students were getting sleepy!
Complain about this comment
Jack_Hughes at #79
Jack, you could equally have quoted the passage from the same page of the BBC report which stated “for as long as minority opinions [about climate] are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space” or “But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should,it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate”. Of course, if you had mentione dthose bits then your "message" would have been lost, so you give only part of the story and create a misleading impression by doing so.
The report you refer to is from an 81 page report “FROM SEESAW TO WAGON WHEEL: Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century” which was commissioned by the BBC Trust and written by John Bridcut, an independent programme-maker. The focus is about BBC and impartiality as a whole.
The extract Jack quotes comes from page 40, where it is part of two paragraphs that discuss climate. In full, it is stated here:
“Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.”
“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers. The wagon wheel remains a model shape. But the trundle of the bandwagon is not a model sound.”
On the same page, the report also gives two quotes from the seminar:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television, argued at the seminar that ‘as journalists, we have the duty to understand where the weight of the evidence has got to. And that is an incredibly important thing in terms of public understanding – equipping citizens, informing the public as to what’s going to happen or not happen possibly over the next couple of hundred years.’
Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, said that in his former job as head of TV News, he had been lobbied by scientists ‘about what they thought was a disproportionate number of people denying climate change getting on our airwaves and being part of a balanced discussion – because they believe, absolutely sincerely, that climate change is now scientific fact.
Later on (at page 59) it states:
"Increasingly manipulative and media-savvy pressure groups are hungry for free airtime, and so are governments. They envy the BBC’s trusted position in Britain, and naturally turn to it as the surest standard-bearer for their latest cause. Frustrated by public disenchantment, some politicians seem to believe that the BBC, in a public service role, can be harnessed to a government agenda, whether on matters of climate change or social behaviour. There have been four such approaches in recent months, and the BBC quite rightly rejected them. Once again, they were ‘common good’ subjects, about which little opposition had been articulated at Westminster. But there is often coherent opposition in the world beyond – which cansurface later in the political process. In any event, the BBC should be wary of political consensus: it may conceal intellectual laziness, and quite often turns out to be wrong."
For those that want to have a a look at the full report, there is a link at: http://www.mediastandardstrust.org/resources/mediaresearch/researchdetails.aspx?sid=4404
Complain about this comment
A report in Nature this week describes progress towards agreeing a new global framework to supply on-demand climate predictions to governments, businesses and individuals.
Last week, during the by now famous (on this blog!) World Climate Conference in Geneva, it was agreed that a body should be established to supply 'climate services' to a range of users, including governments, industries and even individuals. Nature reckons that the service would be particularly helpful for developing nations which lack access to the weather and climate observations needed to plan their strategies for adapting to climate change.
Over the coming months the details will be sorted out by a task group set up by the World Meteorological Organization, before being finalised with the member states.
Complain about this comment
Hi somin and fellow bloggers !
Thanks for the link.
Maybe you could post some examples of the 'minority opinions [about climate] being coherently and honestly expressed' on the BBC website ?
Just one will do if you cannot find 2 or 3.
Complain about this comment
Jack at #86
Two seconds with a very narrow search will find you some (and heaps more along the lines of what you posted earlier).
Here's a couple for free:
'[Lawson]warned of "alarmist" predictions and said some countries would "actually benefit from a warmer climate".' in "Lawson attacks green 'alarmists' at "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6107428.stm
'... one of Britain's top climate scientists says the language of chaos and catastrophe has got out of hand.' in "Chaotic world of climate truth" at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm
If there are not so many as one finds in the wider blogosphere, could it be because of the quality check that they are "being coherently and honestly expressed"?
Complain about this comment
Thank you for all of the ideas. I did not realise that I had asked the right question at 1.42am but listening to all of your following chatter I guess I must of intuitively done so. Intuition must play some part in all of this and I have been blessed/cursed with rather a lot of it. (You might call it cheeky, nosy, citizen input) The BBC's stance of impartiality is very important and will be the keystone in the portal to climate discussion and discussion about other global issues.
Complain about this comment
Excellent - another 'binding commitment' to reduce emissions.
What will happen to Japan if it comes to 2020 and they have not reduced emissions by 25%? What will happen if they have actually increased their emissions? (Like most countries who set these 'binding commitments')
Will they sack Yukio Hatoyama as PM?
Of course he unlikely to even be in power by 2020. So I guess it's not that big a risk to commit to any level of reductions that they may or may not meet.
Just to help people see the problem here I will make my own 'binding commitment' to reduce my personal emissions by 99% below my 1970 levels by 2010. Anyone think that statement actually means anything?
Complain about this comment
To jon112uk:
You wrote:
"Just to help people see the problem here I will make my own 'binding commitment' to reduce my personal emissions by 99% below my 1970 levels by 2010. Anyone think that statement actually means anything?:
--------------
That would depend upon your personal integrity.
Beacause others compromise their integrity, does that mean it's allright for you to do so?
-------------------
BBC Discussion
Excellent - Congratulations to the BBC Team!
------------
Digression:
Look Mom - no hands!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8246556.stm
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
# 21 proceednet: you are right about the security issue. A powerful group of moderate Republican and Democrats have just come out advocating climate action for reasons of national security. These are hardly the "usual suspects". See:
http://www.psaonline.org/downloads/Climate.pdf
"Climate change is a national security issue. The longer we wait to act, the harder it will be to mitigate and respond to its impacts. U.S. leadership alone will not guarantee global cooperation. But if we fail to take action now, we will have little hope of influencing other countries to reduce their own harmful contributions to climate change, or of forging a coordinated international response.
We must also help less developed countries adapt to the realities and consequences of a drastically changed climate. Doing so now will help avoid humanitarian disasters and political instability in the future that could ultimately threaten the security of the U.S. and our allies.
But most importantly, we must transcend the political issues that divide us – by party and by region – to devise a unified American strategy that can endure and succeed.
We, the undersigned Republicans and Democrats, believe Congress working closely with the Administration must develop a clear, comprehensive, realistic and broadly bipartisan plan to address our role in the climate change crisis. WE MUST LEAD."
Complain about this comment
Manysummits & others:
My concern has been the politics of global warming being constructed on an international stage. No doubt it is an international issue but the consequences will all be local. As with any issue, public support is necessary before the politcal process will allocate resources and policy to address an issue. There will be an uneveness in the process. The Pacific seems to be the leading indicator. As local and regional planning groups and governmental units build roads and bridges there is never any indication that possible rise in sea level may make these investments poor decisions. Coastal areas continue to develop along the waters edge. This is always high value and highly taxed property so there is little incentive on the part of local governments to be restrictive as these areas are revenue producers. The re-building of New Oreleans makes little sense when everyone knows it will happen again. The new plans are to inform citizens that your local government will abondon you in times of crisis so you need to make your own plan. But that does not take into account the structures and infrastructures. It issems to be an accepted practice these days that national governments will underwrite private sector ventures with tax dollars which is a further disincentive to be prudent when building or rebuilding coastal areas. Local governments seem to have taken the banking model of short term profit over long term sustainability based on the ability to shift all costs for consequences onto the taxpayer. I think for the issue to resonate in the political arena local groups must appear that place this on the political agenda for representatives at all levels of government. I am not an advoacte of government only solutions as they have very little history of success. Citizen groups that can apply pressure and oversight are always necessary if political corrption is to be curtailed. The Government/business/taxes/campaign contribution model is what has gotten us into this mess. Citizens need to be more viligant for as we have seen with the banking industry our governments cannot be trusted with looking out for our interest.
Complain about this comment
#86 Jack_Hughes_NZ and others: in the early threads of this blog (for example here, BBC reporting of climate science was discussed at great length.
My simple take on it is this: you write what you want, and unless it breaks the house rules it will get posted. But to me, going over the same ground time and time again is simply tedious, and takes us nowhere. What's happening out there in the big world is surely the important stuff.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for your thoughts Richard and a link to a great thread.
Maybe the questions about the secret BBC seminar would dry up if the BBC was more open - maybe publishing the list of attendees, the agenda, the minutes.
It's hard to understand why this seminar should be secret.
If you think for a few seconds about the attendees: if you choose the attendees you have chosen the outcome. Maybe that's why it is secret.
Complain about this comment
To ghostofsichuan #92:
You wrote:
"Citizen groups that can apply pressure and oversight are always necessary if political corrption is to be curtailed. The Government/business/taxes/campaign contribution model is what has gotten us into this mess."
---------------------
Would you be thinking along the lines of a non-governmental organization, or something less formal, or perhaps more innovative?
I am always intrigued and frankly stunned by your insights, which are obviously, I would think, based upon real experience.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#95/92
we really need to reconnect as citizens (locally, nationally or globally) rather than just as consumers. this story (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8248268.stm) certainly confirms my faith that community spirit is widespread even in frosty uk.
the real aberration is to presume that personalities like dick fuld (ex lehman's ceo) represent human nature or, even worse, represent an aspirational role model.
i may be showing my urban-eco stripes here but i cannot see any other way forward.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits:
In most of the Western world the concept of representation of the people is the governmental model. Unfortunately that model becomes corrupted. As people talk about natural cycles of environmental change there are likewise cycles of political change. Power becomes concentrated, power is used to abuse the people and the interests of wealth place the people at a disadvantage. You can see today that it is individuals and small organizations that are pushing for change. If it be plastic bags, more energy efficient buildings, cleaner waterways, this is all becomes a focus because small groups have spent untold numbers of hours and energy to educate their own communities. Now every TV commerical talks about Green this and Green that. Of course that is more advertising than reality but it does tell you something about the concept. In the West every good idea is adopted to image and commercials to dull the senses and create the illusion that something positive is being done when in reality very little is being done. The sorry, inept and self-serving leaders of this world are all held hostage by the consolidated wealth and threats to undermine economies and create other difficulties if profits are threathened. It is simply the world we have made. I would expect that things are changing. When you see oil companies promoting that they are investing in bio-fuels that should be a good indication not of being responsible corporate citizens, but a sign that they want to be in a position to control the development of alternatives until they have drained all possible profits from their current investments. People do matter and most things require local organizations that build to larger organizations that appear to have enough influence with the public to influence votes. "Leaders" then will leap out front and claim a histroy of support in the hopes of public shot memories and positiion themselves as the great hope of change, which of course they are not. First comes the ideas, then the talk, then the "studies", then the "pilot programs" and other delaying of change, and finally implementation when all other options are gone. We may not have time for all this now so we will see the hand of nature force the issue, at which time all politicians stand up and say that this is not the time for change of leadership....in other words the political model of those who create the mess are best to clean it up, unture but has been the standard for some time. You climb on the mountains, formed by natural disruptions, solid though impermanent, some danger associated with rewards and at the summit there is peacefulness, unrelated to human endeavors. I tend to enjoy the isolated village with little or no modern intrusions, simple families living day to day and relating to their environment as a respectful struggle. I am still not convienced that education and office jobs are the treasures they are promoted in the rural areas. There is education and there is wisdom and both have a place. What we see has difficult living conditions also promote a sense of community and cooperation that cannot be found in any urban environment. Death is a constant neighbor, for young and old, but also accepted as a part of the natural process, still the emotions are real and the loss hurtful but the community still remains. I see human being mainly seeking alternative and options that are continuely to their own disadvantage and you have to wonder about why after 5 thousand years, this is the best we can do...a half step out of the cave.
Complain about this comment
Thank you ghostofsichuan - much appreciated!
"I tend to enjoy the isolated village with little or no modern intrusions, simple families living day to day and relating to their environment as a respectful struggle. I am still not convienced that education and office jobs are the treasures they are promoted in the rural areas. There is education and there is wisdom and both have a place. What we see has difficult living conditions also promote a sense of community and cooperation that cannot be found in any urban environment. Death is a constant neighbor, for young and old, but also accepted as a part of the natural process, still the emotions are real and the loss hurtful but the community still remains. I see human being mainly seeking alternative and options that are continuely to their own disadvantage and you have to wonder about why after 5 thousand years, this is the best we can do...a half step out of the cave."
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I notice the trowel and apron brigade also use calipers, a measure of proportionality, a sculptors tool and one to include in this conundrum.
Complain about this comment
It just seems as if all of these promises to "cut greenhouse gas emissions" are nothing but empty statements, regardless of who or where they're coming from. Without any further information about how such goals will supposedly be achieved, which industries and (non)point-source polluters will be targeted, how nationwide emission levels will be measured...how am I or anyone else supposed to believe a word any government, politician or industry leader says? I'm constantly hearing commitments to and promises for emissions reduction by some stated deadline usually a decade into the future...but where are the updates? Where are the progress reports? Why do we hear these things once and then never again until something goes wrong? Who exactly is working on this pollution abatement and how? How many times do we have to ask what's being done, at what cost, who's being affected, have there been any changes yet, etc etc before getting SOME kind of genuine answer?
Public statements are all well and good, but they're pathetically vague, at best. So dumbed down and simplified to satisfy the short attention spans of the lay person that nothing of true substance can actually be extracted from them. Tell me more, Japan! Tell me more, Australia! United States? Anybody?
Complain about this comment
#100
Sheesha wrote:
"I'm constantly hearing commitments to and promises for emissions reduction by some stated deadline usually a decade into the future...but where are the updates? Where are the progress reports?"
Here's a summary of the GHG emissions in Sweden from 1990 onwards from the Swedish environment protection agency...
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/Climate-change/Greenhouse-gas-emissions/Emissions-from-1990/
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS