Here is the second half of my summary of the IPCC summary (PDF):
Energy Efficiency:
It is often more cost-effective to invest in end-use energy efficiency improvement than in increasing energy supply to satisfy demand for energy services. Efficiency improvement has a positive effect on energy security, local and regional air pollution abatement, and employment.
(In buildings):
Energy efficiency options for new and existing buildings could considerably reduce CO2 emissions with net economic benefit. Many barriers exist against tapping this potential, but there are also large co-benefits (high agreement, much evidence).
By 2030, about 30 percent of the projected GHG emissions in the building sector can be avoided with net economic benefit.
Lifestyle:
Changes in lifestyle and behavior patterns can contribute to climate change mitigation across all sectors. Management practices can also have a positive role.
While studies use different methodologies, in all analyzed world regions near-term health co-benefits from reduced air pollution as a result of actions to reduce GHG emissions can be substantial and may offset a substantial fraction of mitigation costs (high agreement, much evidence).
Transportation:
Improved vehicle efficiency measures, leading to fuel savings, in many cases have net benefits (at least for light-duty vehicles), but the market potential is much lower than the economic potential due to the influence of other consumer considerations, such as performance and size. Market forces alone, including rising fuel costs, are therefore not expected to lead to significant emission reductions.
Biofuels might play an important role in addressing GHG emissions in the transport sector, depending on their production pathway.
Medium term mitigation potential for CO2 emissions from the aviation sector can come from improved fuel efficiency, which can be achieved through a variety of means, including technology, operations and air traffic management. However, such improvements are expected to only partially offset the growth of aviation emissions. Total mitigation potential in the sector would also need to account for non-CO2 climate impacts of aviation emissions.
Realizing emissions reductions in the transport sector is often a co-benefit of addressing traffic congestion, air quality and energy security.
Miscellaneous:
Renewable energy generally has a positive effect on energy security, employment and on air quality.
Agricultural practices collectively can make a significant contribution at low cost to increasing soil carbon sinks, to GHG emission reductions, and by contributing biomass feedstocks for energy use (medium agreement, medium evidence).
Forest-related mitigation activities can considerably reduce emissions from sources and increase CO2 removals by sinks at low costs, and can be designed to create synergies with adaptation and sustainable development (high agreement, much evidence).
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
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 7:41 am
09 May 2007
When all is said and done, what has the IPCC really done for us except reiterate things that have been said and accepted as standard policy by all major countries?
Whether you believe in global warming or not, and whether it's manmade or not, it's always good to be more efficient and produce less pollutants.
But...who is the person that is actually solving that problem? Brie mouthing Eurocrats? Or the pillars of American Industry?
I submit to you Robert Lutz, Chairman of GM, who just ordered the factories to product the Chevy Volt...a gas-electric hybrid with a fuel cell option that can get 150 mpg.
150 mpg -- that's about 1/5th the energy needs of a current "small car".
Robert Lutz, in a bold move reduced the cost and penalties of transportation to 1/5th of the current. When the Volt rolls out in 2010, we should all buy one.
Robert Lutz versus the IPCC? No contest...Lutz kickd Butz.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:06 am
09 May 2007
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007032 ...
And their previous killing of the EV1
And their reliance on gas guzzler income.
I wouldn't hold my breath for GM.
Now the cars that can really make a difference are going to be the modified electric cars, and modified hybrid cars.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/phoenix-motorcars ...
http://www.greyfalcon.net/plugins
http://www.greyfalcon.net/plugins2
And we aren't going to have to wait till 2010 to get our hands on those.
At latest, I'd expect to see one on the road by late 2008.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:13 am
09 May 2007
Considering how GM is saying they "might not" make the Volt.
Your article is from the end of March!
I'm talking about the actual order given this week.
The Volt will be produced in 36 months.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 2:39 am
10 May 2007
Also, the car is butt ugly. Why can't GM make a friggin car that looks decent? Ugh.
At any rate, I'm sure there'll be nice, euro-inspired, brie munching electromobiles by then, so I won't have to drive around that crapmobile.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:54 am
10 May 2007
Also, the car is butt ugly.
Ugly? This is the hottest looking car I've ever seen -- it's like the best of the big snub nosed Chrysler 300 look, plus the nastiness of a 1953 Merc Cruiser's slit windows and the trim styling of a 2002 Malibu.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
astetica Posted 3:50 am
10 May 2007
Permalink