OK, I read it again. What I see is a person who can’t understand that you could have a serious effect on greenhouse gas emmissions by making gas more expensive, providing alternatives to the automobile and by designing cities around pedesrtians rather than the automobile.
Again, I said nothing about Kyoto. The aims of that plan were to ambitious for some countries and too slack on others while at the same time allowing for the spread of automobile culture, particularly in developing countries.
[quote=“fred smith”]Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the next century, but – regardless of whether it is or isn’t – we won’t
do much about it.
. . . Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national hypocrisy.’’
From 2003 to 2050, the world’s population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that’s too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world’s poor to their present poverty – and freeze everyone else’s living standards – we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.
…
The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent – and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere. Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do “renewables” (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.
Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet, the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.
Since 1800 there’s been modest global warming. I’m unqualified to judge between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report indicates we’re now powerless. We can’t end annual greenhouse emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for decades. So concentration levels rise. They’re the villains; they presumably trap the world’s heat. They’re already about 36 percent higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45 percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is uncertain; so are the consequences.
I draw two conclusions – one political, one practical.
No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they’re "doing something. The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that didn’t. But it hasn’t reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25 percent since 1990), and many signatories didn’t adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.
…
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it’s really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless.[/ [/quote]
I think your guy is actually an apologist of sorts for the oil and gas companies. Either that or the automobile manufacturers.
