The Environment, euro-style...
Crazy good news from the land of tea and crumpets. As reported by Reuters and New Scientist, the U.K. could now become the first nation to limit green house gas emissions by statute.
The draft Climate Change Bill, published on Tuesday, requires that carbon dioxide emissions are cut by 26 to 32 per cent by 2020, and 60 per cent by 2050, relative to 1990 levels. One highlight of the legislation includes a "carbon budget" every five years to ensure the targets are reached. The draft bill will go to public and parliamentary consultation before becoming law in 2008. Love him or hate him, Tony Blair’s favourite colour appears to be green.
Gotta love those Europeans
Today’s UK announcement follows on the silky, smooth heels of an agreement last week by the European Union.
The deal sets binding targets for slashing greenhouse gas emissions, developing renewable energy sources, promoting energy efficiency and using biofuels. It also slaps a glove in the face of the U.S. and other major industrialized nations to follow suit.
Yes Canada, that means you too!
And finally
A report from Renato Gandia in Tuesday’s Fort McMurray Today:
Canada's lack of plan when it signed the Kyoto Accord was "a pity," said a diplomat from the European Union who visited the oilsands recently.
Dorian Prince said he is not criticizing this country, but noted, "It's unfortunate that Canada subscribed to the accord when it didn't actually have a focused plan of mandatory requirement."
"It's a pity (about no plan in Canada), but it doesn't matter because there's still time to work towards the next step. What happens after 2012 is also important. It's something that needs more work," Prince said.
John S Gaul
Unfortunately Canada has been ruled by right wing governments since the early 1990's. Both the Progressive Conservatives and Liberals are corporate parties.
Canadians will not vote for the NDP and Green parties in sufficient numbers to really challenge the corporate parties. Thus Canada will continue to be a disappointment to the rest of the world and to Canadians who want to be part of the solution to Global Warming and other environmental problems.
Darcy Shiels
Al Gore's documentary on climate change was so full of holes that it should have been called "An Inconvenient Omission" I am not a crazy right winger, just concerned about the politically fuelled, one-sided propaganda machine that has created a rift in the scientific community. The villification of any scientist who does not subscribe to the global warming view of Carbon Dioxide as the cause of climate change is seen as a slave to the oil interest. We must remind everyone that science has not answered the question yet, and all evidence of paleoclimates disputes the CO2 theory. Global warming is now a multi-million dollar business that lines the pockets of mediocre science.
Jim
"Corporate parties"? You are painting pretend pictures, again. It's past time for many to put aside adholescent romantic ideals of "anti-corporate" and understand that all our political parties that have any intention of leading - need corporations. As do we all. Without corporations, there's no economy. Sorry, but that's what it's about. So all parties need to be "corporate" and keep us all working. If you don't like it, sell everything you have and pack up the wife and kids and find a desert Island. Me? I'm not a big grub eater, so I'll stay and try to work with the "corporates".
Lora
I can't abide by the advice to forget the politicians; that we can do this on our own. Isn't that called anarchy?
We must have leaders to lead in the right direction. Now that Mr. Blair has seen the light, others will follow.
We have democracy but our politicians prefer dictatorships!
Peter Endisch
Darcy Shields:
interesting viewpoint. Seems straight out of The great global warming swindle. But isn't it surprising that so many huge companies are resisting to become green? I mean If the drive behind jumping on board the Global Climate bandwagon is purely motivated by money, as you and the movie alludes to, then surely, all the major corporations would have been green eons ago? Seems to me something doesn't hold up.
And really, what have we got to loose by trying to combat Global Climate change? We'll actually create more jobs, clean up the air, water and soil. Is that really so bad? Even if Global Climate was caused by other factors then humans, we have nothing to loose. Or are you going to tell me that smog is non-existent? That autism is not linked to pesticide use? That more kids have asthma? Let's get real here. Cleaning up our act can only benefit all.
Jim: you're wrong. Corporations only look after the bottom line, nothing else. Coops work much better. Don't believe me? Take a look at www.mec.ca and read their social responsibility and sustainability practices. You will be simply amazed. I don't believe in corporations and I am cutting them out from my life as much as I can. I switch to socially responsible companies wherever I can.
Nathalie Roy
It's not a surprise that the green model comes from Europe. In many ways,they are avant-garde. Germany for example with its green roofs since the beginning of the 70's. Sustainable development calls for a shift in mentalities and priorities: ecology and a just, more human, alter-globalist society. Blair does not fit the bill.
I am in a real bad mood tonight... after election night in Quebec which sled towards a right-wing ideology modeling Canada and the US. Too bad for green and honorable society projects such as the platforms of Qubec Solidaire or Parti Vert du Qubec.
mjb
The overwhelming majority of scientists that study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, comprised of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil. The Royal Society of Canada together with the national academies of fifteen other nations also issued a joint statement on climate change that stated, in part: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change."
Darcy Shiels
Peter Endisch
I totally agree, I am not against the idea of cleaning the planet. I am for the truth, and the truth has not been uncovered yet, not even by the IPCC. I am only pointing out that CO2 has never driven climate change, and all recent available evidence points to heat controlling CO2, not the other way around. I agree that new technologies will benefit our economy greatly, but the hysteria and fear tactics that the media forces upon an unsuspecting public are unfounded. Please try not to bring political bias into the equation, it's cheap and far too easy to discount research into this area of study.
Lora Bruncke
Darcy, what do you mean heat controlls CO2 not the other way around? That doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain. Seems to me that plants and animals had a good balance of oxygen/CO2. Then progress came along and blew the balance. Lora
Steve Lange
What is the real count of scientists that have affirmed man made CO2 as the cause of global warming? We keep hearing this 2000 and sometimes 2500 figure. Looking at the IPCC web site, there are 3 working groups and a task force to which these 2000 attach themselves. Only Working Group I (WGI) is strictly confined to the assessment of the science that leads to the initial conclusion. WGII, WGIII and the task force are experts in the areas of impacts, adaptation and mitigation of global warming. These people are not experts on why it's happening and should not be counted in the 2000 total.
The IPCC web site also says their membership is open to anyone already a member of WMO and UNEP. If there are scientists who are experts in the field of solar energy and its effects on climate who are not members of these organizations, then it would seem to me that their voice is not being heard.
And what of the real climate scientists who have pulled their support from IPCC because of the distortions being presented. There names are not removed from the list and so it remains artificially high. One of them actually had to threaten a law suit in order to get his name removed.
I've been rummaging around the IPCC web site to find a complete list of the 2000 and their credentials but cannot. Anyone know where to get this?