At least, according to CBC Fruit Fly Guy (May 2006) (PDF);
The European Union (EU) has a Kyoto target requiring the original 15 EU member nations to collectively reduce their emissions 8% below 1990 levels during the Kyoto period of 2008 to 2012. The EU negotiated a burden-sharing agreement to unevenly allocate emission reductions among its members. Currently, emissions are already below 1990 levels. Existing programs and policies combined with the purchase of international credits are expected to allow the EU to go beyond its target and reduce emissions by 9.3% by 2010.
Figure 1: Total EU-15 greenhouse gas emissions in relation to the Kyoto target (source: European Environment Agency, 2006)
Chris Horner; "If you see any emission reductions in there, there's a job waiting for you in Brussels."
12 May 2007 -- Audiatur et altera pars
UN CLIMATE CONSENSUS IN TATTERS AS EUROPE BAILS OUT
EU BOYCOTT: UN CLIMATE CONFERENCE ENDS IN DISARRAY Deutsche Presse Agentur, 12 May 2007
AT THE UN, GERMANY DEFENDS ITS BURNING OF COAL
Inner City Press, 10 May 2007
Will the CBC pull Dave's contract?? Like they tried with Don Cherry ??
Would Canadians rally around DZ like they did DC ??
Sure!!! A wise old sage once said that "liers figure and figures lie." IF there is any reduction in greenhouse gasses, they have France to thank with close to 80% of their electricity being nuclear and how much of the rest of Europe has gone that way? Yet enviromentalists cringe at the thought of nuclear power. How many nuclear accidents have there been? That's right, none.
Chernobyl
Chernobyl was a man made disaster. A bunch of drunk engineers that thought they could take the thing to the point of no return and then back out. Wrong! Not a failure of the unit itself which is what I was getting at. Three Mile Island, all the emergency systems worked preventing a disaster. Hundreds of reactors merrily humming away without any problems whatsoever.
Let's not get too enthralled with nuclear.
It's only a matter of time before our muzzie friends decide to have a go at a nuclear power plant with their awesome security (/end sarcasm.)
The euroweenie union is bying into this ,am made global warming poppycock nonsnense bull kaka what a bunch of fools they must have listened too much to that AL GORE blabbering iidot
Europeans make nice graphs.
The Fwench. . . er, [with respect], French did go for 10,000 small EV oick-ups for mail delivery.
That will save them a fortune in gas and help fill their carbon credits savings bank.= TG
The Euros are not so dim-witted as we could assume. This is a little blurb of info from last December 9th/2006 archives, my blogsite.
**In Switzerland,
battery-electric vehicles are popular with private users. There is a national network of publicly accessible charging points, called Park & Charge, which also covers part of Germany and Austria.
The Swiss and Austrians will be free of Islamofascist dihminitude long before we in North America will. = TG
===================
This came from a reliable UK source and I thought there would be more mention of this, but alas. . . nothing since. = TG
Well that*s because I have not been looking!
Just Googled Park+Charge and hundreds of returns..
parkandcharge.com
newride.org.uk/acc/park_charge/
just to start with.. TG
The key sentence in the cited passage from the DSF backgrounder seems to be that, "[c]urrently, emissions are already below 1990 levels." And at 99.1 percent of 1990 levels, indeed they are. Well, GHG emissions, anyway.
So what, exactly, is the discrepancy between the quoted paragraph and what the EEA chart tells us?
means they have reduced other GHG's, does that include CO2 or does it exclude CO2.
The Euro's are smarter than we are on treaties like this. Inevitably they have built in numerous escape hatches and they sent along the proper team. Canada meanwhile sent some political flunkies who got drunk on Saki and some "true believers" from the ministry of environment.
Not a single level headed negotiator amongst them, not a person who could add subtract or divide a number larger than 2 digits.
I think we need to poke at what is defined as a a GHG
I think we need to poke at what is defined as a a GHG.
The GHG measure is a sum of CO2 emissions (without Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry), CH4, N20, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 (see the linked EEA 2006 document, p. 13).
"Let's not get too enthralled with nuclear.
It's only a matter of time before our muzzie friends decide to have a go at a nuclear power plant with their awesome security (/end sarcasm.)
Posted by: Alienated at May 21, 2007 11:48 PM "
Oh great. Thanks Alienated. Even though I realize you made this comment tongue-in-cheek, let's not give the Kyoto Kultisits/leftards/dippers any more reasons to back their terrorist brethern!!!!
Be sure to read the Chris Horner link for the details.
Have any of you read Margaret Wente's article in the May 10, 2007 Globe & Mail, "Nothing Like Nazifying The Climate Change Debate" In it she comments that the Pro Global warming crowd has stopped the BBC Video " The Great GLobal Warming Swindle" from DVD production until they make changes to it. I ordered this DVD from Amazon.uk and it was supposed to be here by May 7.. I still don't have it.
Anyone out there got any information.
Please read State of Fear by Michael Crichton, and then recommend it to everybody. It's a great blend of a fictional (I hope) story with lots of scientific facts referenced. Global warming fear mongering is strictly a coverup for fundraising. He even predicts they'll morph it into ClimateChange scares. None of these organizations whether it be for the environment, health (ie Cancer Society) or public safety (ie MADD) are ever audited and it is estimated that approx. $.80 of every dollar donated is spent on fundraising. This is where we need whistleblowers to come forward.
RL: I don't know about where your DVD is, but I do know that there are some issues with TGGWS. This one is only the most recent. But you must agree that filling in 100 years worth of data by making up numbers that support your point is pretty bad.
A couple of small errors, perhaps, in the 'Great Global Warming Swindle" and the Kyoto Kultists say stop the presses.
Al Gore's AIT is ALL ERRORS but it is ok to show it to school children. Some people today are truly weird. The fault of our Universities and our public school system, I am afraid. IMO.
John Cross, I know you mean well, but... TGGWS, with its flaws (not fatal to their argument), presents the contradictions inherent in AGW theory. Neither that nor "An Inconvenient Truth" should be shown to school kids because neither is truly science based. The problem with Gore's piece is he exaggerates to the point of fiction and thus, hysteria.
You speak about "making up numbers," but in earlier posts, you say Mann's hockey stick errors not so bad. Which is it? Methodological errors taint results, in the hockey stick case, they are so rife that the results are not to be trusted.
As for the IPCC reports, have you noticed the science follows the reports, not the other way around, as it should be. I do get suspicious when we are told 95% certainty that humans causing global warming, then report comes out and says no such thing.
My problem with AGW is the inherent contradictions, too numberous to mention here, have not been dealth with.
Having said all that, though, the real issue is, how do we get off carbon fuels? That is what we should all be working on, together. Instead, we have a far left enviro movement that has been infiltrated, as Patrick Moore (thank God for this guy), by neo marxists who are more interested in screwing capitalism than saving the planet.
John Cross, If TGGWS is fiction Al Gores movie ranks up there with Borat on presentation of facts. Gore still preachs the religious fiction of the now widely de-bunked junk science of Mann's Hockey stick which by the way is the basis of the Kyoto protocol. Didn't Gore and Borat win an Oscar...says something about the quality of the judging and accuarcy of Hollywood.
The Skeptics never censored Gore's movie, why do the relgious Global Warming cult have the right to censor TGGWS. What about debate rather than the religion of Climate change,
Read the book, "Unstoppable Global Warming" (every 1,500 years)by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. Their point is that Climate Change has always occured and always will. In the 1300 hundreds it was warmer than now and they used to grow grapes in England this hasn't happened since the mini Ice Age in the 1700 - 1800 period. The earth has been warming since the 1800's long before SUV's and air conditioning. Maybe England will be able to grow grapes again in the future and give us an acceptable wine.
Maybe the Sun should be given its significant consideration in the IPCC models.
In Singer's and Avery's book Chapter 8 "The Baseless Fears" (Warming brings Famine, drought and barren soils) They give 5 reasons Not TO Fear Famine During GLobal Warming...I won't go on because I would have to quote the whole book..but if you're interested in reason rather religion you can read it.
Also TG you state that Germany and Austria are using Electric cars (park and Ride)..where does the extra electricity come from? Coal... CO2 as I beleive that the Greens have been trying to shut down Germany's Nuclear generators.
RL,
That*s a tired argument. It*s been answered to many times.
Even if the grid is fed with some coal-gen, it is much more efficient to plug in a vehicle than to fuel up in ANY other way.
The UK rate for a full charge is 38p. Are you suggesting it*s more practical to refine trans-ship and then retail fuel to your vehicle and pay $40 for it?
Have some coffee and get real. = TG
TG, get real ---- and give it a rest.
I agree with Olde Spice, having just watched an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t, I can tell you that this topic is very relevant.
Many of the arguments that enviornmentalists haul out, potential for disaster, unsafe, terrorists, are all BS.
The fact remains nuclear is the way to go to cut GHG and reduce our need for fossil. The fact that we shouldn't build reactors because of terroists threats is ridiculious....when have we ever not done something for fear of an attack. If this was the case then we shouldn't make planes or tall buildings.
AS for storage, the US has gone a head and dug in the Nevada desert a storage facility that will house all the "waste" (pellets actually)from all 107 nuclear reactors and is to be ready for 2017 at the earliest. The use of Nevada is strategic as there is no water for any potential leaks to affect.
The idea that nuclear is disastarous is funny as no accidents have actually occured(cherynoble as pointed out was human stupidity). How many coal minors and oil rig operators have perished?
As for the talk of electric batteries, where do they go when they are used up? Talk about hazardous waste.
We should be looking at Europe and using their technology to build new power plants as the fear mongering is unnecessary.
More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than in US nuclear power generation :)
TG, let's assume power at .07/kwh. The average furnace motor is, say 1kw. At .07 that's running for 5.5 hours on a .38 charge. Now I don't know about you but I don't feel confident driving a car on a 1kw motor. It wouldn't have enough guts to drive over it's shadow. Must have some HEFTY subsidies over there.
ron in kelowna & RL: I confess that I have not seen AIT. I have seen the first part of TGGWS (up until they claimed it was a socialist / neo-communist / whatever plot - political rantings turn me off). However I would be interested in a discussion of the two so I submit a challenge to you. Present some of the worst problems with AIT and I will do the same for TGGWS. IF Kate allows it we can see where that takes us.
Shamrock: I think your idea of debate is a good one so feel free to provide the what you consider the worst examples of AIT. In regards to your comment about being told it is 95% certain. What is your specific objection? I believe that it is about 90% but that is from memory.
You also quote me as saying that "Mann's hockey stick errors not so bad". I do not recall saying that and if I did I did not mean it. Like I said I am happy with the NAS report which confirmed the errors in it. I do not think that the reason being cited a great deal of the time (i.e. the hockey stick shapes from random noise) is a strong argument.
However I am interested in what you consider the inherent contradictions? I have not come across this term in regards to climate change.
Regards,
John
PS. RL, in response to your comment Maybe England will be able to grow grapes again in the future and give us an acceptable wine.
John Cross. re: inherent contradictions in AGW. Sorry I don't have time to go through them all with you, here are a few:
- CO2 growth follows warming
- most temperature rise prior to 1950
- CO2 minor greenhouse (3-5%), only 5% human-induced
- we had fluctuations before, why manmade this time?
- IPCC said 95% certain planet warming, then 2/3 "confident" caused by human activity. This is little more than coin flip.
- etc, etc, etc
John, I suggest you watch Global Warming Swindle, if you haven't already seen it. There are plenty of rebuttals to AGW on internet; no, they are not all run by oil shills. There are plenty of AGW supporters who has vested (financial) interest in not challenging theory.
Again, I believe train has left station. We have to get off carbon fuels with a real plan, not Kyoto fantasy with ridiculous idea of international CO2 credits. Secondly, environmental action has to include all pollution, and not fixate on CO2 only. There are plenty of solutions to reduce tailpipe, smokestack pollution, and CO2 as well. Good, but policies like sequestration use almost the same emissions to capture, transport and store liquefied CO2, with no other pollutants covered.
Third, the problem with the AGW and Kyoto zealots is many of them are actually anti-globalists with little knowledge or affinity to environmental causes. As Penn says, they have learned the language well and their preference is anti-capitalism.
Again on AGW theory; nice discussion but we've moved beyond it as long as we are reasonable and do our best for total environment.
Old Spice,
You can assume all you want to, however no matter how much emotion you put into it, there will be no explaining the logic of why UK truck fleets are converting to full battery operation.
Scroll back on my blogsite, [ TG below ], or
AutoBlogGreen.com
There are no 1 KW motors in those fleets. = TG
RobotChicken,
There is nothing toxic about Lithium. It*s about as toxic as aluminum.
You are thinking of Nickel Cadmium.
The warranty is 8 years on them and ten years in a few states on a life term of 12 years or more.
The packs are returned to manufacturer, just like empties to the bottle depot.
The polymer separators in the Li battery could be a plastics pollution but only every 12 years while vast tons of plastic shopping bags go to the dump every day.
Which is more polluting? = TG
Tg...you are sounding like quite the cultist yourself. Nothing toxic about lithium???? Give your head a shake. It is the susceptible to the same thermal runaway as NiCad, and produces gases that kill you quicker than CO2 ever will. Go Google it some time(no,I won't do your research for you with links)
Lithium is taken internally in medications for both humans and animals.
Do you know of any medications that contain gasoline?
Lithium concentration fumes can be toxic during violent chemical interaction like during fire, but otherwise, not a problem.
Gasoline, on the other hand is a killer when breathed in excessively, note the kids in the north.
So what about the toxicity of lithium grease in cattle? I have not found any specific studies on the subject (they may exist), so I have to rely on conventional wisdom and say that it seems very unlikely that a cow could ingest enough lithium grease to cause a toxic response. I would expect diarrhea to occur because of thegreasy nature of the substance and caution about the possibility of inspiration (foreign body) pneumonia, similar to that sometimes seen in cattle following ingestion of waste oils and petroleum products.
It was suggested to me that lithium grease may contain molybdenum, and again I know of no reports of molybdenum toxicosis (secondary hypocuprosis) in cattle due to ingestion of lithium grease. Molybdenum toxicosis in cattle is seen clinically as a chronic toxicosis characterized as fading of the haircoat(hypotrichromia), diarrhea and anemia.
If the reader is aware of specific information on the toxicity of lithium grease, I would appreciate a letter or telephone call to:
F.R. ROBINSON D.V.M.,PhD
addl.purdue.edu/newsletters/1991/lithium.shtml
======================== Perdue U.
Most things can become toxic during violent chemical interaction. Too much milk can be toxic.
Our Purdue PhD like any true expert keeps an open mind, but I*ll take his word over yours any day. = TG
PS:
Remember the faulty lithium laptop battery fires recently?
Sloppy manufacturing that allowed metal shavings to remain in the cells caused that and the miniaturization contributed as well.
Large format Li batteries can be built to heavier standards because space is not so critical.
No mention of anyone being overcome or poisoned during those Li battery flame-outs.= TG
Shamrock: I well understand the constraints on time that you feel. Consequently I am grateful for the time that you spent to do up a reply to me. However I would like to add some comments.
In regards to your contradictions, I have actually dealt with a couple already on this site. I will comment specifically about three of them.
- CO2 only a minor GHG. I agree that it is a minor GHG compared to water, but it is a persistent one and thus will not be removed quickly. The amount of water in the atmosphere will be related to temperature and this is influenced by the CO2. Having said that, your 5% number – no matter what it refers to - is wrong.
- we had fluctuations before, why manmade this time? The climate fluctuates due to whatever forcings there are on it. At the time there are no measured forcings that will account for the observed rise unless you include enhanced GHGs.
- IPCC said 95% certain planet warming, then 2/3 "confident" caused by human activity. This is little more than coin flip. That is not correct because you are not quoting the IPCC correctly. The relevant passage is:
It is extremely unlikely (
In this case very unlikely means between 5 and 10 %.
I am well aware of most of the key skeptic sites and have invested time in reading them and tracking down their research. What I post here is based on my experiences in researching them.
I can agree to a certain extent with your comment about the debate having moved on. However I still think it is critical that we understand the science since that will be important in order to guide our choices.
Regards,
John
"Would take some University proffessor's word for it !!??"
Ya mean the ones with tenure ??
Doesn't matter if anything meaning full is produced or not ??
Ya mean the ones not accountable to anyone ??Except the like minded ??
The ones with years of paid subatical ?? In exotic countries ?
The life time "student" types ?? The ones always looking for ways to disturb the sh** ??
The so-called "experts", "leading", "well known", types that Pete always seems to find ?? The ones the media seems to find to promote certain agendas ??
There are Profs that are worth their weight in gold ----- others ?? anhych
Opps, I see the "less than" sign caused mormatting problems. Let me requote that part:
It is extremely unlikely (less than 5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone.
Is it also extreemly UNlikely that natural forces caused the Earth to cool enough that ice a kilometer thick covered most of Canada only 10000 years ago ?? What did then ??
Or that natural forces alone could not have possibly brought on the warming that melted it ??
In the distant past there was no ice at either pole. Not natural neither ??
Many Earthy correlations with sunspots. Not natural ?
Seems that the only thing the Kyoto Kult considers UNatural is man himself. Since he arrived on the scene, UNaturaly of course, everything happening now is UNatural.
Yes mankind does affect the Earth and it's systems. So do other animals/plants. Geese cause ecoli on our beaches. Man treats his waste. Who is better ??
Is mankind's "$$fine" payable to the United Nations ?? Overseen by Maurice Strong ? Moral consultant Al Gore ? Policed by Suzuki ? Dion managing the carbon credit accounts ? ..... help...
ron in kelowna:
Is it also extreemly UNlikely that natural forces caused the Earth to cool enough that ice a kilometer thick covered most of Canada only 10000 years ago ?? What did then ??
No, it is 100% certain that natural forces caused the earth to cool. Google Milankovitch cycles.
Or that natural forces alone could not have possibly brought on the warming that melted it ??
See Milankovitch cycles as above.
In the distant past there was no ice at either pole. Not natural neither ??
Completly natural. Keep in mind that probably the largest climate driver is continental drift, but it is not effective on timescales of thousands of years.
Seems that the only thing the Kyoto Kult considers UNatural is man himself. ]
I am not a member of the Kyoto Kult (whatever that is) but let me ask you, if you consider that man is natural and things that man do are natural, does that also make taxes natural?
Regards,
John