In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by woodman

That is a fact PDS.I'm sure it would'nt take you long to find a long list of that happening in america over the last 50 years.Or 5![/b]

And as melliedie has so astutely stated...a long list of bad things happening from our LACK of action....that is a fact as well. <shrug>
We should seek cautious and reasonable avoidance of problems...with cautious and reasonable solutions.

[NiceTom]

Frito-Lay is doing their part. Guilt-free chips for enviromentalists

In Eco-Friendly Factory, Low-Guilt Potato Chips - New York Times

[Pok-a-tok]

How to make tourism greener

"If I hear the words 'carbon offsetting' once more, I will scream. These kind of papal indulgences were sold in the Middle Ages. It is like paying someone else to give up smoking," he said.

Any improvements in plane or fuel technology, he said, would be outpaced by growth in the sector, which expands by 3-4% per year.

Aviation spewed out some 610 mega-tons of carbon each year, he points out, more than the world's fourth biggest economy - the UK.

He predicts that, by 2010 the figure will rise to 776 mega-tons and, by 2025, it will reach 1,228 mega-tons.

He proposes a hefty passenger tax on aviation of 3.6 pence (74 cents) per kilometre which would flatten demand growth to 1-2% each year.

[Rissask]

It is like paying someone else to give up smoking

You mean I could have done that? Damn....

How about British Airways ...flying empty planes from NA to the UK ....20,000 gallons of fuel.

British Airways is flying dozens of empty planes across the Atlantic because it has no cabin crew to staff them.

Each one pumps out thousands of tons of CO2, in some cases almost 70 times the average adult's annual carbon footprint.

The ghost services have been flying between Britain, Canada and the U.S. over the past two weeks.

---

On November 4, BA Flight 179 crossed the Atlantic to New York completely empty. BA Flight 176 later flew back from the U.S. to Heathrow, also empty.

Two others left Heathrow at the weekend - Flights 093 to Toronto and 279 to Los Angeles - both Boeing 747s.

The LA flight emitted an estimated 698 tons of CO2, 350 times more than the average car in an entire year.

At least two other empty flights - including one from Gatwick to Houston - have also departed in the last couple of days.

A BA spokesman said the practice was extremely rare and occurred when its "highly-complex" rostering system meant there were no cabin crew available for a particular flight.

He said it was better to fly empty planes one way if the return leg was full, than to cancel both legs.

--
Peter Lockley, of the environmental group WWF, said: "This is outrageous. British Airways claims to take its environmental responsibilities seriously, but it is spewing out hundreds of tons of unnecessary carbon just to protect its profits.

"They claim they are reducing carbon emissions but because they can't sort out their staff rotas they are flying planes without passengers and causing untold damage to our environment.

This just blows apart their green image."

In 1990, BA's total CO2 emissions stood at 10.6million tons.

By last year the figure was 16.6million.

'Green' BA flying empty 'ghost planes' across the Atlantic | the Daily Mail

See...stuff like that is why I am so cynical, er, I mean realistic.

[PlayadelSoul]

"If I hear the words 'carbon offsetting' once more, I will scream. These kind of papal indulgences were sold in the Middle Ages. It is like paying someone else to give up smoking," he said.

Think someone has been channeling Papa T.

[Jacko]

Court Rejects Fuel-Economy Standards Here

Excerpted...

A federal appeals court here rejected the Bush administration’s year-old fuel-economy standards for light trucks and sport utility vehicles today. It said the rules were not tough enough because regulators had failed to thoroughly assess the economic impact of tailpipe emissions that contribute to climate change.

,.......

The court, siding with four environmental groups and 13 states and cities, also asked the government to explain why it continued to consider light trucks and sports utility vehicles in a separate category from passenger cars.

Under the rule rejected today, the average fuel economy of light trucks was to rise to 23.5 miles per gallon in 2010, up from the current standard of 22.5 miles per gallon, but still well below the standard for passenger cars of 27.5 miles per gallon.

The ruling, which is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, represents a major setback for both the auto industry and the White House at a time of growing public concern over the rising price of gasoline and the issue of climate change.

.......

In the decision today, Judge Betty B. Fletcher wrote that the “impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative-impacts analysis” required under the National Environmental Policy Act. While the federal government may use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the “maximum feasible” fuel-economy standard, she added, “it cannot put a thumb on the scale by undervaluing the benefits and overvaluing the costs of more stringent standards.”

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Court Rejects Fuel-Economy Standards Here

Excerpted...

A federal appeals court here rejected the Bush administration’s year-old fuel-economy standards for light trucks and sport utility vehicles today. It said the rules were not tough enough because regulators had failed to thoroughly assess the economic impact of tailpipe emissions that contribute to climate change.

,.......

The court, siding with four environmental groups and 13 states and cities, also asked the government to explain why it continued to consider light trucks and sports utility vehicles in a separate category from passenger cars.

Under the rule rejected today, the average fuel economy of light trucks was to rise to 23.5 miles per gallon in 2010, up from the current standard of 22.5 miles per gallon, but still well below the standard for passenger cars of 27.5 miles per gallon.

The ruling, which is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, represents a major setback for both the auto industry and the White House at a time of growing public concern over the rising price of gasoline and the issue of climate change.

.......

In the decision today, Judge Betty B. Fletcher wrote that the “impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative-impacts analysis” required under the National Environmental Policy Act. While the federal government may use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the “maximum feasible” fuel-economy standard, she added, “it cannot put a thumb on the scale by undervaluing the benefits and overvaluing the costs of more stringent standards.”

Legislating from the bench.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Legislating from the bench.

Its good rhetoric I suppose, but not really very accurate. A citizens or citizens group's ability to sue the government for reddress against laws or policies created by that government that may be harmful to those citizens or citizens group is well established in our country. It is one of those necessary principles in our country that helps to make us a more effective and just democracy and maintains the correct relationship between the citizens and their serving government...rather than the other way around.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Its good rhetoric I suppose, but not really very accurate. A citizens or citizens group's ability to sue the government for reddress against laws or policies created by that government that may be harmful to those citizens or citizens group is well established in our country. It is one of those necessary principles in our country that helps to make us a more effective and just democracy and maintains the correct relationship between the citizens and their serving government...rather than the other way around.

It will be overturned.

Its also funny how the article stated that it was a blow for the White House and UAW. It would be a bigger blow for those Democrats who represent states with big UAW populations (John Dingell, comes to mind), who fought so hard against higher standards, fearing the loss of jobs.

What's next? Some judge going to tell us the exact amount of troops we can have in Iraq?

[Jacko]

Its good to see the world's richest country finally beginning to come together with the rest of the world on this important issue...even President Bush...even if the admission that "urgent action is needed" has been very slow in coming...

From this article.....

Sharon Hays, a White House science official and head of the U.S. delegation, said the certainty of climate change was clearer now than when Bush rejected Kyoto.

"What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening," she said in a conference call to reporters late Friday. "Back in 2001 the IPCC report said it is likely that humans were having an impact on the climate," but confidence in human responsibility had increased since then.

And this article...

Meanwhile, the Bush administration’s reaction to the report was muted. At a news conference Friday night after the report was approved, James L. Connaughton, the chairman of the president’s council on environmental quality, said President Bush had agreed with leaders of the other major industrialized nations that “the issue warrants urgent action, and we need to bring forward in a more accelerated way the technologies that will make a lasting solution possible.”

[StephenB]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Its good to see the world's richest country finally beginning to come together with the rest of the world on this important issue...even President Bush...even if the admission that "urgent action is needed" has been very slow in coming...

From this article.....

Sharon Hays, a White House science official and head of the U.S. delegation, said the certainty of climate change was clearer now than when Bush rejected Kyoto.

"What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening," she said in a conference call to reporters late Friday. "Back in 2001 the IPCC report said it is likely that humans were having an impact on the climate," but confidence in human responsibility had increased since then.

And this article...

Meanwhile, the Bush administration’s reaction to the report was muted. At a news conference Friday night after the report was approved, James L. Connaughton, the chairman of the president’s council on environmental quality, said President Bush had agreed with leaders of the other major industrialized nations that “the issue warrants urgent action, and we need to bring forward in a more accelerated way the technologies that will make a lasting solution possible.”

The skeptics should read the report. I'm no lover of some of these whacko environmental groups-nevertheless the report is based on sound science and should not be ignored.

[Seakony]

Did any of you guys happen to catch on the news about how katrina destoyed so many trees that the scientists said that the loss is adding to global warming. I guess you can also throw in the loss of trees from the tsunami and california wildfires too. Mother nature does have a big part in adding to global warming.

ABC News: Katrina: Worst Forest Slam in U.S. History

[Jacko]

U.N. Chief Seeks More Climate Change Leadership Here

Excerpted..

His challenge to the world’s two greatest greenhouse gas emitters came just two weeks before the world’s energy ministers meet in Bali, Indonesia, to begin talks on creating a global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The United States and China are signatories to Kyoto, but Washington has not ratified the treaty, and China, along with other developing countries, is not bound by its mandatory emissions caps.

........

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” said Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the IPCC. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

He said that since the IPCC began its work five years ago, scientists had recorded “much stronger trends in climate change,” like a recent melting of Arctic ice that had not been predicted. “That means you better start with intervention much earlier.”

.........

“It’s extremely clear and is very explicit that the cost of inaction will be huge compared to the cost of action,” said Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute. “We can’t afford to wait for some perfect accord to replace Kyoto, for some grand agreement. We can’t afford to spend years bickering about it. We need to start acting now.”

.....

“Stabilization of emissions can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that exist or are already under development,” said Achim Steiner, head of the United Nations Environment Program.

But he noted that developed countries would have to help poorer ones adapt to climate shifts and adopt cleaner energy choices, which are often expensive.

Mr. Steiner emphasized that the report sent a message to individuals as well as world leaders: “What we need is a new ethic in which every person changes lifestyle, attitude and behavior.”

[PlayadelSoul]

“Stabilization of emissions can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that exist or are already under development,” said Achim Steiner, head of the United Nations Environment Program.

But he noted that developed countries would have to help poorer ones adapt to climate shifts and adopt cleaner energy choices, which are often expensive.

Mr. Steiner emphasized that the report sent a message to individuals as well as world leaders: “What we need is a new ethic in which every person changes lifestyle, attitude and behavior.”

Cancel your vacactions, folks. Not only will you save carbon emissions, you are also going to need the money to give your government so that they can pass it on to the "poorer ones." Kyoto lives.

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” said Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the IPCC. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

And, do it quickly. We don't want you to think too much.

[PlayadelSoul]

He said that since the IPCC began its work five years ago, scientists had recorded “much stronger trends in climate change,” like a recent melting of Arctic ice that had not been predicted. “That means you better start with intervention much earlier.”

How could they, with a straight face, claim to predict anything about Arctic ice melt, when they have only been measuring it since 1979?

There was a time when a 8 men in a wooden sailboat were able to navigate the NW Passage. Must not have been too much ice then, either.

Roald Amundsen,Brief History