Posted on 11/10/2005 3:07:31 AM PST by liberallarry
The UK risks losing its international authority on climate change because of its failure to cut greenhouse gas pollution, according to a leading scientist.
Bob May, president of the Royal Society, said new figures showing that UK emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases which contribute to global warming have risen for the last two years, made it difficult for British politicians to be taken seriously on the issue.
He said: "It is very difficult to criticise other countries such as the United States if we are unable to meet our commitments. Indeed, emissions by the United States have actually declined over the last two years, although they are still some 20% above 1990 levels."
Lord May also responded to Tony Blair's apparent shift away from a target-based approach to tackling climate change, saying that politicians needed "courage" to address the problem. In a speech to energy and environment ministers last week, the prime minister said: "The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge, but all economies know that the only sensible long term way of developing is to do it on a sustainable basis." Lord May said: "The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that countries are not doing enough to adapt their economies so that they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions."
Figures from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that UK greenhouse gas emissions are 12.6% below 1990 levels. Under the Kyoto protocol, Britain has to reduce them by 12.5% by 2012. But Lord May said the recent increase in emissions, caused in part by electricity generators switching to coal in the face of rising gas prices, meant Britain would fail to meet its Kyoto obligation if current trends continued. "What we need is courage from our political leaders, both within and outside government, to take the actions necessary to reduce our emissions," he said in a statement ahead of today's House of Lords debate on climate change. Lord May said climate change was warming the oceans, provoking more intense tropical storms: "Nobody can say that global warming played no part in the unusual ferocity of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. The estimated damage caused by hurricane Katrina alone was equivalent to 1.7% of US GDP. This is an insight into the economic cost to the developed world."
Let the French do the criticizing of the US. It would make much more sense.
Great Britain should not have signed onto Kyoto in the first place. If nothing else, any warming that results from our carbon emissions could postpone the next ice age.
Bingo!! Man is part of nature. Perhaps man is natures way of preventing another destructive, global ice age. So nature allows man to prosper.
These greenhouse emmissions also help propagate vegetative growth, to help make up for the vegetative harvestation practiced by man.
Man is part of nature, and I have no doubt that nature uses man as much as man uses nature.
"Indeed, emissions by the United States have actually declined over the last two years, "
Wow, this is great news! I'll bet the environmentalists are celebrating today! /sarcasm/
I prefer to go with the scientist that believe that the sun is the cause of whatever global warming that is taking place, and that humans contribute only a very minor impact in the great scheme of the environment on Earth.
I do have to state that I am not an environmental scientist...I just play one on Free Republic ;)
What about France? Their auto emmissions have really increased in the last couple of weeks.
Nobody can say for sure that it played a part either. But we can say for sure that there was a low-shear environment this year and that, along with increased SST's helped spawn more hurricanes. We know for sure that when El Nino kicks back in, the frequency and severity of hurricanes will diminish. We also know that having 4 major hurricanes is unique at least back to the early part of the last century (before which major hurricanes could hit unrecorded), but the number of US landfall hurricanes (also 4) is not unique. The total number of hurricanes hyped by the media is unique only after 1966 when satellite detection was implemented.
There, fixed that sentence.
I love this stuff. Kyoto was a farce to begin with, given that it was fatally flawed in it's intent to lower global emissions without signing on the bulk of the so called undeveloped world, not to mention it being junk science.
It was, however, a real example of how you can twist statistics to mean anything.
Nobody was screaming at China and India and Africa that they were destroying the world.
It was simply a Socialist spawned attempt to redistribute global wealth without actually taxing us directly.
Bush had the balls to outright toss this crap, and even Blair came around, much to the chagrin of ivory towered pinheads everywhere.
Now, what country is the next to fail?
What this guy is saying is: The hell with our economy, we signed onto Kyoto and should go broke making our commitments.
If George Bush did nothing else he kept us out of Kyoto and the ICC. Now if he would only wake up on Immigration and Nafta .
The Codfish lays a thousand eggs,
The humble Hen, but one.
The Codfish doesn't cackle around,
To tell you what she's done.
We dreadfully scorn the Codfish,
While the humble Hen we prize.
All of which goes to show
It pays to advertise.
Do I really have to credit the above to Ogden Nash?
England and the rest of the EU ballyhoos and bloviates endlessly about Global Warming and castigates "Bush" for failing to sign onto the Kyoto National Suicide Pact. Meanwhile, their emmissions continue to go up and ours are going down.
Do you think that will make them change their tune?
Do you think that will penetrate the rock-hard smug superiority that is at the core of every EU-rophile?
Do you think they will let reality intrude on their little group hug?
If France were really concerned about reducing emissions, they would not be burning 100s of cars each and every night.
Lar, just out of curiosity, what's the mpg of the car/s you drive?
14, 26, 12, and 7.
If those are mpgs, don't practice whatcha preach, do ya?
I put out the poisoned bait...and you bite. :)
First. I don't preach, and I haven't been preaching.
Second. During my working days I arranged my life so that I walked to work.
Third. Consumption depends upon miles driven as well as mpg. I drive to town and back once a week (round-trip 80 miles) either in my classic or my econobox. The other two vehicles are off-road work trucks which I use occasionally...their mgp compares favorably with others in their class.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.