EU backs target to cut CO2 emissions

[one...two...tree 2,762]

European Union environment ministers said Tuesday they would cut overall carbon dioxide emissions 20 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2020, adding that they were ready to go to 30 percent if other industrialized nations matched their efforts.

But the European Union's 27 nations still must agree what each should do to meet a 20 percent target for the entire bloc, with eastern European nations, Finland, Spain and Denmark calling on other countries within the bloc to share the burden.

The EU Executive Commission will now start drawing up more detailed plans on how that target will be meted out to allow some countries room to maneuver. This could see lower reductions for some nations, such as those of the former East bloc, to take into account their growing economies and efforts to clean up their heavily polluting industries. No penalties for failure to meet the target have been discussed.

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, who led the talks, said Berlin was prepared to go even further, noting that his parliament already had backed a 40 percent cut.

"There will be some countries like Germany that will see a steeper reduction in greenhouse gases," he said.

Gabriel said the European Union was facing a "historic decision" on climate change and all ministers were well aware of the importance of striking a deal, not least because their children were watching what they do.

The Kyoto protocol on climate change sets 1990 carbon dioxide limits as the starting point, and EU target is for a 20 percent reduction by 2020 from that baseline.

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said EU nations had come a long way since March 2006, when leaders gave a vague direction to environment officials, telling them to look at a cut in global carbon dioxide emissions of between 15 and 30 percent.

"Not even the word 'target' was there," he said.

European countries will try to see if other nations will go further when EU members Britain, France, Germany and Italy meet with the other G-8 nations — the United States, Russia, Japan and Canada — in the German resort of Heiligendamm June 6-8. They will also seek carbon dioxide cuts from the emerging economies of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa.

President Bush has kept the United States — by far the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed by scientists for global warming — out of the Kyoto treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, saying it would harm the U.S. economy.

The Bush administration has said it is committed instead to advancing and investing in new technologies to combat global warming. It has set a goal of reducing "greenhouse gas intensity," which measures the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output, by 18 percent by 2012.

Many U.S. states and cities have set target reductions for themselves for emissions of greenhouse gases.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_...c16bLvs6eFxieAA

[dalegg 143]

The Kyoto protocol on climate change sets 1990 carbon dioxide limits as the starting point, and EU target is for a 20 percent reduction by 2020 from that baseline.

I wonder how much of a difference that really makes, or if that's even possible. The most popular graph shown to tie C02 to global warming is probably this one:

.

Human contribution to the total C02 output is = to about 5% of the total according to this chart:

and in 1990 we were at about 350 ppm. Okay, so 5% of 350 = 17.5 PPM, and a 20% reduction to that gives us a total of 14 PPM, because surely we don't think we are going to reduce the rest of those contributers. So this would put us at 336 PPM, which is according to that chart, still pretty damn bad, and I would have to think past the point of return, because unless we can somehow actually figure out how to regreeze the ice caps, they are doomed and the world will warm even further. That 38% (respiration) part catches my eye though because of these additional graphs:

better view

This is the population graph and notice how, unlike the C02 to global warming chart which has about the same

trend, they match almost identically. What is interesting to me is that the C02 graph matches the population graph even during the late 1800s. What were we doing then? We didn't have any autos to speak of and no massive coal burning electricity plants, so it seems that just our very being might just be causing this. Even the glaciers began to melt during the late 1800s. So, the trend to stop it seems is the population graph, because if more people cause more C02 and other gasses- see the other graphs below- at an almost 1 to 1 ratio, and more C02 gases causes global warming, then we have to get rid of the people. Good luck!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Kyoto protocol on climate change sets 1990 carbon dioxide limits as the starting point, and EU target is for a 20 percent reduction by 2020 from that baseline.

I wonder how much of a difference that really makes, or if that's even possible. The most popular graph shown to tie C02 to global warming is probably this one:

.

Human contribution to the total C02 output is = to about 5% of the total according to this chart:

and in 1990 we were at about 350 ppm. Okay, so 5% of 350 = 17.5 PPM, and a 20% reduction to that gives us a total of 14 PPM, because surely we don't think we are going to reduce the rest of those contributers. So this would put us at 336 PPM, which is according to that chart, still pretty damn bad, and I would have to think past the point of return, because unless we can somehow actually figure out how to regreeze the ice caps, they are doomed and the world will warm even further. That 38% (respiration) part catches my eye though because of these additional graphs:

better view

This is the population graph and notice how, unlike the C02 to global warming chart which has about the same

trend, they match almost identically. What is interesting to me is that the C02 graph matches the population graph even during the late 1800s. What were we doing then? We didn't have any autos to speak of and no massive coal burning electricity plants, so it seems that just our very being might just be causing this. Even the glaciers began to melt during the late 1800s. So, the trend to stop it seems is the population graph, because if more people cause more C02 and other gasses- see the other graphs below- at an almost 1 to 1 ratio, and more C02 gases causes global warming, then we have to get rid of the people. Good luck!

I'll leave such analysis to the community of capable scientists around the world. If they're telling me that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels is producing an enormous amount of CO2 then I believe them.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

then we have to get rid of the people. Good luck!

do your part for global warming. support a world war now!

[dalegg 143]

I'll leave such analysis to the community of capable scientists around the world. If they're telling me that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels is producing an enormous amount of CO2 then I believe them.

Well, the capable scientists around the world have defined enormous. From what I've seen- even from groups that state that human activity is the cause of global warming, they put that number at 5% of the total output, and what they say is that the extra 5% is too much right now. Do you have links to data that contradicts this?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'll leave such analysis to the community of capable scientists around the world. If they're telling me that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels is producing an enormous amount of CO2 then I believe them.

Well, the capable scientists around the world have defined enormous. From what I've seen- even from groups that state that human activity is the cause of global warming, they put that number at 5% of the total output, and what they say is that the extra 5% is too much right now. Do you have links to data that contradicts this?

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

Since 1751 roughly 305 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s. The 2003 global fossil-fuel CO2 emission estimate, 7303 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 4.5% increase from 2002.

Globally, liquid and solid fuels accounted for 76.7% of the emissions from fossil-fuel burning in 2003. Combustion of gas fuels (e.g., natural gas) accounted for 19.2% (1402 million metric tons of carbon) of the total emissions from fossil fuels in 2003 and reflects a gradually increasing global utilization of natural gas. Emissions from cement production (275 million metric tons of carbon in 2003) have more than doubled since the mid 1970s and now represent 3.8% of global CO2 releases from fossil-fuel burning and cement production. Gas flaring, which accounted for roughly 2% of global emissions during the 1970s, now accounts for less than 1% of global fossil-fuel releases.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

[dalegg 143]

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

Since 1751 roughly 305 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s. The 2003 global fossil-fuel CO2 emission estimate, 7303 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 4.5% increase from 2002.

Globally, liquid and solid fuels accounted for 76.7% of the emissions from fossil-fuel burning in 2003. Combustion of gas fuels (e.g., natural gas) accounted for 19.2% (1402 million metric tons of carbon) of the total emissions from fossil fuels in 2003 and reflects a gradually increasing global utilization of natural gas. Emissions from cement production (275 million metric tons of carbon in 2003) have more than doubled since the mid 1970s and now represent 3.8% of global CO2 releases from fossil-fuel burning and cement production. Gas flaring, which accounted for roughly 2% of global emissions during the 1970s, now accounts for less than 1% of global fossil-fuel releases.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

None of this disputes that the total emissions represent only 4% of the total CO2 output. What this document does is break down that 4% into it's individual parts.

For example, as you say there, since 1751, roughly 305 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels an cement production. But, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year (source). This information is coming from an article entitled

"How Do We Know that the Atmospheric Build-up of Greenhouse Gases Is Due to Human Activity?", so they agree with you.

Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s- not suprising. Look at the world population since 1970. It has nearly doubled. Let's say we stopped -not reduced- but stopped- all activity created from burning fossil fuels like coal and oil. We'd go back to the way it was in the 1800s before both the C02 levels and the population levels started climbing. What would we be doing? We'd at least be burning wood to stay warm. And guess what? That also creates C02- plus a lot of air pollution. Don't you wonder how much different the man made contributions to C02 emissions would really be if we were burning wood to stay warm instead of oil and coal? Not to mention the added stress put on by deforestation.

I'm not disagreeing with you on Global warming. Nor am I disagreeing that C02 has contributed to that, or that humans are the cause of the additional C02. What I am saying is that, based on the extreme similarities between the population curve and the C02 curve- predating the real industrial boom, I think it is a natural affect of having so many healthy human beings on the planet at once, and the idea that we are going to really be able to do something about it is wishful thinking in my mind.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not disagreeing with you on Global warming. Nor am I disagreeing that C02 has contributed to that, or that humans are the cause of the additional C02. What I am saying is that, based on the extreme similarities between the population curve and the C02 curve- predating the real industrial boom, I think it is a natural affect of having so many healthy human beings on the planet at once, and the idea that we are going to really be able to do something about it is wishful thinking in my mind.

Following your logic, we would see those countries with the highest populations producing the highest amount of CO2, but that is not the case - currently the U.S. is the largest producer of CO2 emissions. Again, these are issues that have been thought out thoroughly, discussed and debated among the world's scientists. No offense, but it's a bit precarious to think that climate scientists around the world would overlook something so simple as that. Doing nothing and being wrong would be wreckless.

[dalegg 143]

Following your logic, we would see those countries with the highest populations producing the highest amount of CO2, but that is not the case - currently the U.S. is the largest producer of CO2 emissions. Again, these are issues that have been thought out thoroughly, discussed and debated among the world's scientists. No offense, but it's a bit precarious to think that climate scientists around the world would overlook something so simple as that. Doing nothing and being wrong would be wreckless.

Yes, it is true what you say there. We are contributing unproportionally. So, if the U.S backed off a bit the C02 emissions would decrease a bit. But the total output would still be extremely high.

By the way, Scientists have certainly NOT overlooked the affects of population on global warming. One random article

Edited February 21, 2007 by dalegg

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Following your logic, we would see those countries with the highest populations producing the highest amount of CO2, but that is not the case - currently the U.S. is the largest producer of CO2 emissions. Again, these are issues that have been thought out thoroughly, discussed and debated among the world's scientists. No offense, but it's a bit precarious to think that climate scientists around the world would overlook something so simple as that. Doing nothing and being wrong would be wreckless.

Yes, it is true what you say there. We are contributing unproportionally. So, if the U.S backed off a bit the C02 emissions would decrease a bit. But the total output would still be extremely high.

By the way, Scientists have certainly NOT overlooked the affects of population on global warming. One random article

When the amount of CO2 an individual human being contributes, varies so widely, it seems logical to me that reducing one's personal consumption of energy created from fossil fuels is the most effective measure to take vs. any attempt to slow population growth.

At the very least, the US should lead by example for the rest of the world to follow. The problem is that reduction is counter to our consumer driven culture. We love to consume.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[dalegg 143]

The problem is that reduction is counter to our consumer driven culture. We love to consume.

Yep, and other countries are beginning to love it more and more at a faster pace than us too. Whatever amount we here cut back on, the developing countries will simply make up for and keep those C02 and temperature charts rising.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The problem is that reduction is counter to our consumer driven culture. We love to consume.

Yep, and other countries are beginning to love it more and more at a faster pace than us too. Whatever amount we here cut back on, the developing countries will simply make up for and keep those C02 and temperature charts rising.

2 words - Kyoto Protocol.

[dalegg 143]

The problem is that reduction is counter to our consumer driven culture. We love to consume.

Yep, and other countries are beginning to love it more and more at a faster pace than us too. Whatever amount we here cut back on, the developing countries will simply make up for and keep those C02 and temperature charts rising.

2 words - Kyoto Protocol.

2 more words - accomplishes nothing

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The problem is that reduction is counter to our consumer driven culture. We love to consume.

Yep, and other countries are beginning to love it more and more at a faster pace than us too. Whatever amount we here cut back on, the developing countries will simply make up for and keep those C02 and temperature charts rising.

2 words - Kyoto Protocol.

2 more words - accomplishes nothing

Does so.

[dalegg 143]

2 words - Kyoto Protocol.

2 more words - accomplishes nothing

Does so.

Your'e right- it would allow developing countries to catch up with the U.S faster and give China more economic power.

Edited February 21, 2007 by dalegg