<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for A 50 percent GHG cut by 2025 will save Florida $28 billion]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Billhook</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/florida-part-one/</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:50:45 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/florida-part-one/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Baseline solution in isolation ?</strong></p><p>While any such official planning of significant CO2e output cuts is to be welcomed,<br>
hyping the target numbers to the public seems just counterproductive, <br>
given the need to build trust around the issue.</p><p>
The UNFCCC baseline for national cuts in emissions is 1990,<br>
and the projected peak of Florida's output is 2010, <br>
but instead of either of these dates, 2005 has been chosen as the baseline, <br>
which just happens to give a notional 50% cut by 2025.</p><p>
Assuming that America will one day return to diplomatic relations <br>
with the rest of the world (as opposed to current pseudo-imperial ones)<br>
the UNFCCC 1990 baseline is very likely to be acknowledged <br>
since the US has in fact already signed up to it. [Berlin, 1995].<br>
So hadn't Florida better participate now <br>
rather than backtracking before its electorate in the future ?</p><p>
In doing so it would then be aiming for around a 36% cut by 2025, <br>
which would be comfortably close to the EU (multilateral) target of a 30% cut by 2020.</p><p>
Regards,</p><p>
Billhook</br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Baseline solution in isolation ?</strong></p><p>While any such official planning of significant CO2e output cuts is to be welcomed,<br>
hyping the target numbers to the public seems just counterproductive, <br>
given the need to build trust around the issue.</p><p>
The UNFCCC baseline for national cuts in emissions is 1990,<br>
and the projected peak of Florida's output is 2010, <br>
but instead of either of these dates, 2005 has been chosen as the baseline, <br>
which just happens to give a notional 50% cut by 2025.</p><p>
Assuming that America will one day return to diplomatic relations <br>
with the rest of the world (as opposed to current pseudo-imperial ones)<br>
the UNFCCC 1990 baseline is very likely to be acknowledged <br>
since the US has in fact already signed up to it. [Berlin, 1995].<br>
So hadn't Florida better participate now <br>
rather than backtracking before its electorate in the future ?</p><p>
In doing so it would then be aiming for around a 36% cut by 2025, <br>
which would be comfortably close to the EU (multilateral) target of a 30% cut by 2020.</p><p>
Regards,</p><p>
Billhook</br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>