Duh, let's have three categories

The G77+china want's US, UK, etc. to pay more, but China is the biggest CO2 emitter. despite the fact that those countries that have historically spewed more CO2 have also advanced technology for all, isn't there a middle ground?

Another Myth

A country needs to spew CO2 in-order to advance an economy, right?

It's not true today, It wasn't yesterday, and it won't be true tomorrow.

Don't be fooled. An economy is fueled by its values, not CO2.

However, the financial positions of some companies that are too lazy to adapt are fueled by spewed CO2. For them, it's simply cheaper and more profitable in the short-term to spend cash on political contributions and manipulative advertisements to hijack the political process and public opinion than it is to invest in clean energy alternatives and green jobs.

Don't let those lazy companies define your economy's values. Invest locally in clean energy:

• energy audits
• wind energy
• photovoltaics
• zero-emission transport

These are all local decisions...in the words of Sinbad:

'the opposite of pro is con, that is plainly seen. If progress means go forward, what does congress mean?'


.

COP15

It’s a sequel, but not some Hollywood re-hash of an old storyline – we hope. COP15 refers to the 15th Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which will take place in Denmark later this year. The goal of this conference is the next global treaty on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with the aim of reducing the impact of global warming. The outcome of this conference could affect every living (and non-living) entity on our planet.

Of course there are many controversial issues including:
What percentage reduction and by when? (ie 40% by 2020, 20% by 2040, 5% by 2050?)
How to manage the situation in developing countries (who want their turn to spew pollution into the atmosphere)?

Europe wants modest goals (ie 30%) – but is willing to do more if others do more, US is looking at legislation more like 20%, ‘developing’ countries have VERY ambitious goals – like 0%.

Hmm. This could be very long post if we dissected all of these bargaining positions. Two more considerations:

1. 40% is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming
2. A myth exists that you need to spew CO2 in-order to advance an economy

Here’s my proposal to bridge the chasm of what’s being discussed and what’s needed:
1. Designate countries by income or modernization level into three categories, say XYZ – X is US, Europe etc, Z is Mozambique, Mali, Haiti, etc. Y includes the middle.
2. Set ambitious reduction requirements 50%, 60%
3. Z countries get triple credit, Y get double, etc.

This would stimulate North-to-South investment and technology transfer. Additionally, while poor, developing economies are not now the largest contributors of GHG emissions, won’t they be in ~75yrs if they are not covered by today’s treaty? There’s no reason why countries can’t modernize with wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars instead of the high-carbon alternatives.

“A wise person learns from their mistakes. A wiser person learns from the mistakes of others.”

Sell Outs

Dems are going to give away a degree or so of global warming and a foot or so of ocean level rise to coal and other special interest groups if they pass a bill that does not require an auction 100% of the carbon credits:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051503367.html?hpid=topnews

The current bill calls for 85% of the credits to be given away.

I am so so disappointed.

Energy laden with pollution, that causes cancer, asthma, and other dangers IS NOT cheap energy, no matter what the price.

Once again, politicians and corporate powerbrokers are stealing from 5-yr-olds.