Legislating temperature limits to 2°C will surely be more effective than legislating alcohol. Right?
Developing Nations Rebuff G-8 on Curbing Pollutants
L’AQUILA, Italy — The world’s major industrial nations and newly emerging powers failed to agree Wednesday on specific cuts in heat-trapping gases by 2050, undercutting an effort to build a global consensus to fight climate change, according to people following the talks.
As President Obama arrived for three days of meetings, negotiators for the world’s 17 leading polluters dropped a proposal to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by mid-century, and emissions from the most advanced economies by 80 percent. But both the G-8 and the developing countries agreed to set a goal of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.
The discussion of climate change was among the top priorities of world leaders as they gathered here for the annual summit meeting of the Group of 8 powers. Mr. Obama invited counterparts from China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and others to join the G-8 here on Thursday for a parallel “Major Economies Forum” representing the producers of 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. But since President Hu Jintao of China abruptly left Italy to deal with unrest at home, the chances of making further progress seemed to evaporate.
The G-8 leaders were also grappling with the sagging global economy, development in Africa, turmoil in Iran, nuclear nonproliferation and other challenging issues. On Friday, Mr. Obama planned to unveil a $15 billion food security initiative by the G-8 to provide emergency and development aid to poor nations.
The failure to establish specific targets on climate change underscored the difficulty in bridging longstanding divisions between the most developed countries like the United States and developing nations like China and India. In the end, people close to the talks said, the emerging powers refused to agree to the specific emissions limits because they wanted industrial countries to commit to midterm goals in 2020, and to follow through on promises of financial and technological help.
“They’re saying, ‘We just don’t trust you guys,’ ” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group based in the United States. “It’s the same gridlock we had last year when Bush was president.”
Read the entire article at the New York Times here
“Oliver Ramsay (08:28:52) :
Phil’s Dad and Matti Virtanen,
I grew up believing that story of Canute, too, but Wiki tells me that was a later interpretation.”
You mean someone altered the historical record! Oh my gosh! How could anyone do such a thing!
Oliver Ramsay (08:28:52) says:
“I grew up believing that story of Canute, too, but Wiki tells me that was a later interpretation.”
OK, I’ve read the Wiki thingy and it still has Canute knowing/realising as far back as the 11th century that he couldn’t control the forces of nature. Looks like we have some catching up to do.
If only this were shorthand for calling for implementation of (McKittrick’s) T3 tax
While they are at it, they should limit hurricanes to a category 3 or less and tornados’ to a F2 or less. This would save trillions of dollars in damages and uncountless lives.
What a fancy bit of dancing by the pols! Just set a threshold that will never happen! Easy win with no pain as long as they don’t set specific goals for reducing CO2 emissions! They’re still blaring the rhetoric though. That has to end at some point in time!
Why not legislate something useful like making it a requirement that all holidays, school picnics and wedding days have pleasant weather (and that means snow on Christmas Day)? While they’re at it, how about making pi=3 so circumference calculations will be easier?
At the G8 press conference, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced the introduction of a Global Clearinghouse for Coal CO2 Sequestration technology.
Currently 40% of the energy related CO2 is caused by coal and by 2050 this percentage will be 52%.
Therefore carbon capture and storage technology for coal plants is a priority.
The consequence of this technology will be that we will use our coal reserves at twice the speed. The additional energy is needed for the capture and compression process.
Nobody knows what the eventual effects on the electricity prices will be, because this is untested and unproved technology, still to be developed.
Because the amount of coal needed to produce electricity will double, so will the energy bill that lands on the doormat of the consumer.
I personally think the price of electricity will triple.
The interesting aspect of the scheme presented is that it takes the wind out of the sails of the US Senate.
Some Senators stated that they will not agree to any climate bill that will increase the energy costs for consumers.
This “Global Treaty” will bypass any instrument of National Control.
It won’t take long before we are governed by a world wide clan of crooks under supervision of the other gang of corrupt criminals, the United Nations.
Elections anyone?
Actually I disagree with most commenters here. I think the “limit to 2 degree C above preindustrial levels” thing is brilliant. It ensures success. No matter what happens. Snowball earth and Cambrian earth temperatures are all “pre-industrial”. In either case, no matter what, temperatures will likely stay within 2 degrees above them if you select the right “pre-industrial” time period that fits the 2 degree condition.
However, to make sure this happens, we will pay a rising “climate tax”.
Bill Illis (07:26:53) :
(assuming that the theory is right in the first place about 3.0C warming per doubling of CO2/GHGs).
Bill – it isn’t:
Lindzen 0.6°C http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.ppt
M. E. Schlesinger and N. Ramankutty, Nature 360, 330-333, (1992) 0.7°C
Spencer – 0.6°C http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
Idso 0.4°C (Idso 1998)
William Kininmonth 0.6°C http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/solomon_essays.pdf page 32
Chilingar: Wentz (2007), Spencer (2008), Lindzen (2008), Schwartz (2008), and Monckton of Brenchley (2008) all find climate sensitivity to be low.
So taking your analysis and using, say, 0.5°C, how many doublings are available to hit 2°C, and what’s the PPM level then?
2.0C = 0.5/Ln(2)*ln(X/280) Solve for X:
X = 4479 PPM. Not bloodly likely of seeing that figure happen!
4479 is about 16x 280PPM, supposed baseline. How many doublings? =ln(16)/ln(2)= 4 doublings (2^4=16)
This is key to taking down AGW once and for all…
Why don’t they legislate a maximum number of sunspots whilst they are at it? Oh and stop the tides…
I never thought that King Canute mentality was real, now we have all witnessed it on a global scale. The story of king Canute was meant to be a warning, NOT a politics guide.
I suggest we re-write politics 101 with a large box with large bold print stating that KING CANUTE COULD NOT TURN BACK THE SEA, AND WE CANNOT STOP THE SUN FROM SHINING DOWN ON THIS PLANET!
The leaders of the G8 are certifiably insane
We can’t control the weather, but we CAN control the world’s climate!
Next week, the G8 to begin talks on 2 + 2 = 5.
“the developing countries agreed to set a goal of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels”
Assuming this report is a correct recitation of the resolution, note that they did not set a goal, rather they agreed to set a goal. This is typical in international agreements. They typically begin with broad, general statements, and then the signatories agree that they will do something later at home in furtherance of the broad agenda. In this case, each leader now gets to go back to his country and try to convince the congress/parliament to pass actual legislation that will set out, for example, the U.S. “goal” of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees.
It should be noted that these folks are not fools. They get some political press, get to save face, don’t agree to any concrete actions, and, most importantly, there is almost no way the temperature will rise by more than 2 degrees in any of their lifetimes anyway, so there is zero risk to agreeing to this “goal.”
Selling out humanity, treason to the electorate and their countries:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8142825.stm
They knew what they were doing. The temperatures will not rise by 2 deg C. They can spend only a million bucks and hire a few people to get rid of the bad UHI stations and further lower the temperature. Then claim success!!
A Jones says,
As I understand it our political masters at the G8 are agreed they will not let global temperatures rise by more than two degrees Celsius.
Well simple enough I suppose.
It just needs an Act of Parliament, Bill in Congress, EU directive and such like, all to be agreed by international conferences, redefining the terms global, temperature, 2, degrees and Celsius.
There you are, all done and dusted.
There is an easier way. Just change the baseline.
Two degrees from what?
Actually from what I’ve seen lately in the news, I think China is coming in line with the bandwagon. They are definitely pushing for GHG reduction from my perspective.
For whom? Them or us?
Pray God the wisdom to ban temperature increases holds. This is a situation where nobody loses. When evidence of dropping temp is plain, politicians can say “We achieved it!” Scientists can quietly move on to greener pastures under cover of new distractions without their AGW humbug being publicly exposed – as was on the brink of happening IMO. Al Grrr is so stinking rich he can retire. Will he give Hansen a “Get out of jail free” card? Everyone here at WUWT and CA and similar gathering-places has gained a heck of a lot of the most real stuff in life: truth, understanding, new science, reclaimed science, integrity, a sense of community… and fun…
crosspatch (19:34:21) : I am having trouble figuring out if we now have an idiocracy or a kleptocracy … or both.
KLEPT-OLIGARCHY. A few thieves hold the rest to ransom. But thieves are ultimately idiots too.
M. Simon:
Good question.
To Bill Illis,
You suggest that the CO2 rise per year wil rise faster in the years to come to 2,5 ppm/year and 3 ppm/year.
On this graphic
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/lansner2.png
I show that for the same temperature the CO2rise/year is in fact becoming smaller and smaller sonsequently over 3 decades. Onless this development changes, the still faster CO2 rise/year you expect can only happen if temperature keeps getting warmer. in a still faster tempo.
As temperatures are not rising these years, we are more likely to see CO2rise/year leveling of, dropping.
Graphic is from the article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/
K.R. Frank
KLA (10:55:44) :
Actually I disagree with most commenters here. I think the “limit to 2 degree C above preindustrial levels” thing is brilliant. It ensures success. No matter what happens. Snowball earth and Cambrian earth temperatures are all “pre-industrial”. In either case, no matter what, temperatures will likely stay within 2 degrees above them if you select the right “pre-industrial” time period that fits the 2 degree condition.
However, to make sure this happens, we will pay a rising “climate tax”.
KLA,
You don’t understand the scheme.
The scheme is that the industrialized world commits suicide.
It’s a UN scheme which is aimed at a reduction in world population because our lunatic leaders believe humanity has become a threat to the survival of the planet.
This is about steeling our rights, our freedom, our prosperity and our future.
What this decision will allow them to do, and what is most important to them, is to keep and increase the massive bureaucracy that has been built up by the United Nations and our glorious leaders. This is the real goal of the Copenhagen people in December; keep the gravy train going. And for some, like our present and former British Prime Ministers, keep building the system for world government (God help us). That is also what the European Union is about. The methodology doesn’t matter.
Hansen blasts Obama’s Climate Bill:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/g-8-failure-reflects-us-f_b_228597.html
Link via Climate Depot
More comments from warmists:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/epa-admits-cap-and-trade-won%E2%80%99t-work/
Several people have talked about the Indian Government and their rejection of CO2 limits. I have a pdf of a document called:
National Action Plan on Climate Change
—
Government of India
—
Prime Ministers Council on Climate Change.
I can’t remember where I got it, but it’s probably available, in English, on the Indian Government’s website.
I believe that it was endorsed by and Indian Railway economist called Rajendra Pachauri.