Eastern Europeans and others seeking to use the current financial meltdown as an excuse to roll back climate commitment have failed (for now). The BBC reports:
European Union leaders agreed to stick to their plan to cut greenhouse gases -- despite a surprise demand by Poland and six other member states to drop them to ease the impact on industry struggling with the global credit crunch.
Speaking at the end of a two-day summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: "The deadline on climate change is so important that we cannot use the financial and economic crisis as a pretext for dropping it."
Barack Obama seems to feel the same even as U.S. conservatives glom onto any justification for delay. I am beginning to think that a better term for them than "deniers" or "delayers" is simply "inactivists."
The British government meanwhile has unveiled a tougher climate target:
The government has committed the UK to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the middle of this century. Climate Change and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said the current 60% target would be replaced by a higher goal. He told MPs the government would not "row back" on green issues in the light of the current economic crisis.
Milband announced a variety of specific actions:
He also signalled new help to encourage small-scale electricity generation though technology such as home-based solar panels and wind turbines.
He told the Commons the Energy Bill would be amended to introduce a "feed-in tariff" to guarantee prices for micro-generation projects which are able to supply electricity to the national grid.
Speaking later to BBC News, he said the 80% target was "tough but it is do-able" and could be met through measures including renewable fuels, nuclear power and individuals "doing things differently".
He said changes to the climate were "happening much quicker than we anticipated or even feared a few years ago" and it was "right to step up the pace".
"Our children and our grandchildren will really not thank us if we just carry on and let this problem get worse. The costs that they will face will be all the greater if we do that," he added.
The U.K. "government accepted all the recommendations of the report from Lord Turner's Committee on Climate Change." Turner said the target could be "achieved at a cost of 1 percent to 2 percent of GDP in 2050."
Only one downside in the U.K. action:
The target does not include aviation or shipping emissions -- but Mr Miliband said they would "play a part" in the government's overall strategy ...
[Lord Turner] said a cut of 80% on 1990 levels by 2050 should cover all the major greenhouse gases -- not just carbon dioxide -- and all sectors of the UK economy, including shipping and aviation.
But because of practical problems in allocating emissions of international transport to the UK, they should not be included in the Climate Change Bill's five-yearly carbon budgets, he said.
Instead the overall target should be "at least 80%", with greater reductions in sectors covered by the bill if aviation and shipping did not make sufficient cuts by the middle of the century, he said.
But Lib Dem climate change and energy spokesman Steve Webb said Mr Miliband's decision not to include aviation and shipping in the 80% target made a mockery of his commitments.
"It's like telling everyone you're going on a calorie-controlled diet but not counting cream cakes.
I don't really lose any sleep over the short-term omission of aviation. First, this is a mid-century target, so there will be plenty of time to toughen it up over the next few decades as it becomes clearer and clearer that climate change is coming harder and faster than scientists feared.
Second, it isn't obvious what the best strategy is for aviation emissions right now, but we may have a better idea in a few years depending on the outcome of research to develop low-carbon aviation fuel.
Third, once the economic slowdown is over and oil prices start rising again to record levels, the aviation industry is going to get slammed. It is far from clear how the aviation industry survives oil prices at $150 a barrel or higher.
For now, kudos to the true leaders of the international climate movement in Europe who understand that nothing trumps the need for immediate and sustained action to reverse and then slash carbon emissions.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama
Comments
View as Flat
Sam Wells Posted 1:38 pm
17 Oct 2008
So what do we do, throw up our hands and say we can't do better than the current jet turbine or the huge ship diesels? That one really hurts, if you think about it. -sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:51 am
18 Oct 2008
Permalink
Borzio Posted 2:01 pm
18 Oct 2008
This seems to be the common mantra these days among those who wish to use AGW as the excuse for the next huge increase in government and taxation.
Of course there is only a single data point to justify the "happening much quicker" mantra; and that is the Arctic meltoff of 2007. All other data say that climate is changing much more slowly that we feared a few years ago.
There has been no rise in global temperatures for the last 11 years.
There has been no rise in ocean temperatures for the last 5 years.
There has been no rise in sea level for the last 3 years.
So the warmers and the politicians are forced to cling to the rapid Arctic melt of 2007. Of course while the Arctic had a large melt in 2007, the Antarctic was at near record levels for sea ice extent. And much of the 2007 record melt seems to be starting to recover in 2008. Here is the lastest satellite photo showing 2007 sea ice at this date next to 2008 sea ice at this date (18 Oct.).
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&a ...
Like all of the other indicators, Arctic sea ice seems to be turning around. And Antartic sea ice already has.
Permalink
frankbi Posted 5:14 pm
18 Oct 2008
There has been no rise in sea level for the last 3 years.
Oh, the irony.
I am beginning to think that a better term for them than "deniers" or "delayers" is simply "inactivists."
Joe Romm, thanks for the endorsement! :) So the argument is, if the economy is bomming, we should do nothing; if the economy is tanking, we should also do nothing. If I remember correctly, this is straight out of Hoofnagle's Denialist Deck of Cards.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Permalink
Borzio Posted 8:44 am
19 Oct 2008
No, the argument is, if there is no problem, don't fix it.
As it stands, the only problem is that we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, and the only thing that we need to do to fix it is to start a consistent and even paced program of building nuclear reactors.
Permalink
frankbi Posted 1:31 pm
19 Oct 2008
Also, "we" should do something as long as the "something" involves building huge gargantuan nuclear reactors the size of New Jersey. Otherwise "we" should do nothing.
Help! Help! I'm being suppressed!
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Permalink
Russ Posted 7:56 pm
19 Oct 2008
This seems to be the common mantra these days among those who wish to use AGW as the excuse for the next huge increase in government and taxation.
Of course there is only a single data point to justify the "happening much quicker" mantra; and that is the Arctic meltoff of 2007. All other data say that climate is changing much more slowly that we feared a few years ago.
No, the argument is, if there is no problem, don't fix it.
As it stands, the only problem is that we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, and the only thing that we need to do to fix it is to start a consistent and even paced program of building nuclear reactors.
But according to my data points - that when I went to the gas station they had gas, and when I flick the switch the lights come on - we're not running out of energy. So why would we need more nukes?
"If there is no problem, don't fix it."
[Just using Borzoi logic, which would apply even if he were telling the truth about the climate change data points, which of course he's not.]
Permalink
Borzio Posted 1:49 pm
20 Oct 2008
Yes, I guess that's the argument if you want to engage a strawman. I'll see if I can find one for you.
"Also, "we" should do something as long as the "something" involves building huge gargantuan nuclear reactors the size of New Jersey."
The size of New Jersey? Not given to hyperbole are you? How much area do you think all those windmills would take up as compared with nuclear reactors that generate the same power. Also keep in mind the windmill noise pollution that requires people not to live within a half mile of them.
Permalink
Borzio Posted 1:53 pm
20 Oct 2008
Are you reading impaired? I said that the only problem is that we will run out of fossil fuel eventually.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:23 am
21 Oct 2008
There has been no rise in ocean temperatures for the last 5 years.
There has been no rise in sea level for the last 3 years.
So the Artic meltdown of 2007 and 2008 (the two lowest years on record) occured by magic then?
So tell me, how, exactly, does melt of the Artic ice increase so dramatically if temperatures don't rise?
If the air temps are the same, and the ocean temps are the same, then there should be no increased melt, correct?
Methinks ya might wanna check your facts, hmm? ;)
Permalink