Newsbytes from The GWPF
Europe’s proposed new climate goals could be weaker than previously announced due to its method of accounting for changes in land use. Last October the bloc agreed to target greenhouse gas cuts of 40% on 1990 levels by 2030, a rise on its 20% goal for 2020. But in a leaked document outlining the European Commission’s plans for curbing carbon pollution, the 40% goal now includes land use, land use change and forestry accounting. This means the growth of existing forests could be used towards EU targets, which analysts say could mean the 40% drops to 35% in reality. –Ed King, Responding to Climate Change 24 February 2015
Given that heads of states agreed to “at least” 40%, including the land use sector would not be in line with the political decision that has already been taken. It would also be seen as ‘backsliding’ from the originally presented 40% target and would set the EU off on a bad start towards agreeing an ambitious international climate treaty in Paris in December 2015. — Eva Filzmoser, Responding to Climate Change 24 February 2015
European Union leaders want to enshrine in international law a goal to cut global emissions by 60 percent by 2050, according to a draft document that puts the bloc on a collision course with the biggest polluters. The EU document also proposes that the 2015 deal “should preferably be in the form of a protocol”, which is the toughest legal option. That could meet resistance from China and the United States, which are likely to prefer looser arrangements than internationally binding law. —Reuters, 24 February 2015
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Erm, isn’t it the case that when a tree falls and rots – or is burnt – the CO2 is released? Thus forests are not carbon sinks, they are neutral. So, if true, the whole exercise is a fraud?
Living, thriving forests emit a great deal of CO2 at night – the first major discovery of the new CO2 satellite.
There is no photosynthesis at night, no need for a satellite to tell us.
Can’t wait for NASA to start posting OCO-2 satellite data.
Sounds to me like they plan on rolling out a revised Sequestered Carbon Accounting Method!
Note that this timing fits exactly as Greece teeters financially again and France’s Hollande pushes the basic economic and labor reforms that have been ignored for years in place of debt games and other stall tactics. Yes indeed, reality is better at the marathon race. In other words, the French have either realized or admitted that there is a no-growth future for them without some action.
The good news is that there are already genetically engineered trees that grow faster and ‘sequester’ more carbon per tree per year, ideal for planting politically green forests.
The bad news is that the Sierra Club has already started a campoaign against them:
http://vault.sierraclub.org/biotech/trees.aspx
(I had to laugh at the statement on the SC page “Corporations, as Milton Friedman pointed out, exist not to be ethical but to make money.” – as if prolonging poverty is ‘ethical.’)
The EU has taken a step to the right direction. Literally. The European parliament has a right wing majority for the first time. The EU institutions’ management has been reorganized accordingly a couple of months ago. Promising to realize they haven’t been sitting on their thumbs.
This is perhaps why the Nordic watermelons (including Sinn Fein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_United_Left%E2%80%93Nordic_Green_Left) are now fighting against EU more than under the reign of ex-communist Barroso. Paradoxically, this time they find an ally in Front National, Golden Dawn, Jobbik, UKIP etc.
“Why is it that some EU leaders want to literally return to the dark ages and fudalism?”
They don’t…they want to wean themselves off of imported(Russian) energy without violating ‘free trade agreements’ .
Unfortuantely…they have to have a reason other that won’t violate free trade agreements in order to tax imported energy disproportionately….hence CO2 taxes.
The other challenge they face..having convinced the ‘greens’ that commie coal,oil and gas are bad is to convince the greens that nuclear is good. On this point they have failed.
So they set goals that can only be met by massive rollout of nuclear and the greens just keep on insisting that windmills will magically load balance themselves.