Billhook’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Having blocked Copenhagen, the Senate's corruption will disable any subsequent summit given half a chance. If & when the bill passes in the Senate, Stern would be negotiating under a ceiling of around a 5% or 6% cut by 2020 off the legal 1990 baseline, when the science, the developing nations, the EU, Japan, etc are demanding 25% to 40%. This is an issue with hundreds of millions of lives hung on it - how could nations sign up to their peoples' destruction in an entirely predictable US-led genocide-by-famine ? Respecting the 2.0 degree threshold that the recent G20 adopted as a "politically binding" target almost certainly requires Annexe 1 countries to cut the full 40% by 2020 off 1990, given the rapid acceleration of several potentially vast feedback loops so far this century. (Which is why the UK has offered 42% off 1990 if others will follow suit). Yet that 2.0 degree threshold does not ensure safety; according to the UK Hadley Centre it would give only a 46% chance of avoiding the feedback loops taking off and causing catastrophic irreversible climate destabilization. A less than even chance, which US legislatures spurn. Obama is mistaken if he thinks that the Senate can successfully dictate to the world. On the contrary, if there is to be an effective treaty including the US from the outset, then a way must be found to disable the corruption both in Congess and the Senate. Regards, BillhookOn Delaying an international climate treaty: not as bad as it looks posted 4 days, 13 hours ago 26 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Given that the US has prime culpability in both causing climate destabilization, and also in obstructing its resolution over the last decade, it seems likely that the charge of imposing genocide-by-famine on unprecedented millions of people will be laid against it. That rising sea-level is eroding a part of the evidence of a previous and relatively minor crime against humanity thus seems a singularly black irony. Regards, BillhookOn Disappearing slave history posted 4 days, 22 hours ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Daniel - on the offchance that you're not well aware of it, a large part of the solution to soil stabilization on sloping farmland is the introduction of trees as shelter-belts to cut the velocity of rainfall runoff. Naturally these shelter-belts should be of native species to offer multiple roles beside runoff control, including shade for livestock and soil moisture retention, coppicing both for community fuelwood and for building & fencing posts, and pruning for livestock forage when the grazing is short. The tremendous advantage of the shelter-belt approach is that farmers see the range of benefits each year, as well as the slide-prevention occasionally, and are that much more willing to do the planting and browser-exclusion if given guidance and access to native saplings. And as for the $-cost inputs per hillside, if the communities can grow their own saplings and work co-operatively on one belt at a time, these are practically insignificant. Regards, BillhookOn Salvadoran mudslides: A plea for climate change solutions and holistic water policy posted 5 days, 11 hours ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  This report warrants many times the attention it has received, not only here on Grist but also in MSM. Clear and quantified evidence of the EU27 success in surpassing its Kyoto target, despite having adopted it in the mistaken belief that the US would honour its share of the treaty, puts paid to the denialist cant that "No nation will honour a commitment to cut CO2 as that would wreck its economy." Moreover, as Joe emphasizes above, it is the not the recession's impact on emissions, but the successful application of the GHG-control strategy of "Cap, Allocate & Trade" [CAT] that has been the operating system whereby the EU27 target has been met. Again this should be widely publicized to counter the surge of misinformation in the US against what is mis-named "Cap & Trade", with some rather dubious efforts joining the Carbon Tax lobby, potentially in a classic attempt to split & disempower (divide & rule) the movement to end fossil fuel dependence. Against the EU27's successful operation of (a distinctly sub-optimal version of) "CAT", the sole notable impact to date of the Carbon Tax option has been in the recent Canadian election, where its promotion by the opposition was pivotal in helping to get the Neo-con Harper re-elected. As a result, he now controls Canada's input to Copenhagen. In my view that is a profound demerit on the record of the efficacy of a Carbon Tax. Certainly the title and even the dynamics can be changed, but as long as denialists can vilify it as a Carbon Tax in elections, this massively counter-productive demerit remains active. Regards, BillhookOn Europe to easily beat Kyoto target posted 5 days, 11 hours ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Quote from article: "Millions of words have been exchanged over the past year, but success at Copenhagen hangs on just one—trust. If there was trust, Obama could get the space he needs to win the political fight he faces at home. Unfortunately, it is a scarce and diminishing commodity as Copenhagen approaches. The president and his fellow leaders need to focus in the next few weeks on building it." Trust is plainly essential not only for Obama's needs within the US, but also for other nations to be willing to agree a treaty with America. After all, the US under Bush reneged on Kyoto, which other nations negotiated in good faith, allowing the US major influence over its terms. Obama continues Bush's renegade stance not only in making no effort to ratify Kyoto, but specifically in using the fabricated baseline of 2005 for US emissions, while ignoring the legal UNFCCC 1990 baseline to which the US signed up. Obama has now personally declared, as his first requirement for attending Copenhagen, that he be convinced that all other parties are negotiating in good faith. This is a calculated diplomatic insult, and signals clearly that the US has no interest in moving negotiations forward. And as for building trust, Obama plainly isn't interested. The prospect of a multilateral north-south treaty among a coallition of the willing, without the participation of the US and perhaps of China too, looks increasingly promising as the necessary breakthrough. Regards, BillhookOn From hopeful climate to climate of despair posted 6 days, 12 hours ago 11 Responses