Posted on 06/04/2012 12:12:32 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Germany is successfully limiting the amount of carbon, energy and resources required to grow its economy. Though the public is generally satisfied with the level of environmental quality, the OECDs Environmental Performance Review of Germany warns that challenges remain in areas like air and water quality, the protection of biodiversity, and de-carbonising energy production. It says that Germany will need more cost-effective policies to achieve its ambitious environmental objectives which, in some cases, go beyond those established in the European Union.
Stringent environmental requirements have helped to make Germany a leader in the environmental goods and services sector. Worth up to EUR 300 billion by 2020, green is an important source of economic growth and jobs.
OECD Environment Director, Simon Upton said, Todays massive environmental challenges demand cost-effective solutions that promote innovation and avoid technological lock-in. New sources of green growth can play an important part in the recovery from the current economic and financial crisis. In this, Germany is leading the way.
See the data in Excel here See the data in Excel here
The report presents 29 recommendations including:
Strengthen assessment of the impact of economic policies on the environment and the impact of environment-related policies on the economy. Design financial support for green innovation to encourage private investment capital Systematically assess the environmental impact of subsidies, with a view to phasing out those that are environmentally harmful and economically and socially inefficient. This includes adjusting subsidies for renewable energies. Tax energy in sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System and provide a consistent carbon price signal across the economy.
For further information, journalists should contact Ivana Capozza in the OECDs Environment Directorate; tel.: +33 1 45 24 16 78. For a copy of the report, email: news.contact@oecd.org.
For more information on this report see the Highlights. For information on the OECDs environmental work see: http://www.oecd.org/environment.
Meant to ping you two on my response: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2891219/posts?page=40#40
And you two, too: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2891219/posts?page=40#40
“Climate Change” is a fact, there has never been a stable climate. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the fairy story.
Let's not allow their watered down, less hysterical label, that is for MSM consumption, to divert attention from the original hysteria associated with AGW.
CO2 is about 383PPM, or .000383 (.0383%) of the atmospheric mix.
AGW is about 10.5PPM, or .0000105 (.00105%) of the atmospheric mix.
The only reason we are having this discussion is that pagans, like the Germans, have swallowed this tripe for science and have created an new “Unholy Crusade” to save their precious “Gaea”.
It has infected everything.
This “Great Whore” (Gaea) will be shed from the beast.
When it's cost effective, I will put in solar on my house, to SUPPLEMENT, and I will do it in a conservative mindset.
This crap will never be primary...that would be insane, i.e. “Socialist”. Right or left.
Exactly so.
My challenge is always: Show me where a utility-sized “alternate energy” installation was put in without either subsidies or mandates (which latter are just hidden subsidies).
They can’t do it.
Doing it due to “carbon footprint” is just spending huge money on a lie. The “science” there, isn’t.
That's a little vague and probably wrong. The rise from 260 or 280 up to the present 395 ppm is from fossil fuels. If mankind were not in the picture there would have been a rise anyway, but only to perhaps 300 ppm at the most. The reason is simple: oceans warming naturally (as a result of the end of the Little Ice Age) were outgassing CO2. Now they are ingassing and that is measurable and factual. So the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is not from the oceans, it is from fossil fuels and land use changes.
Thanks for the ping. It’s unbelievable how arrogant these Germans are about their environmental purity when all they have done is ship their dirty and energy intensive industries to China where the GDP to fossil fuel ratio is much lower. That has made their phony global warming problem worse not better.
I wasn't doing the math, I was doing accounting.
I don't really have to do the math. You may think reality is determined by what gets posted at Free Republic, but reality and the math is being done on the ground in the real world.
Places like Texas are moving forward because they are planning on growth. Sure, a nat gas surplus may come along but that is temporary and planning is looking out into 2035 and 2050.
Whether you call it Cylindra or Solyndra, technology is being developed and it has been subsidized, it is being subsidized, and it will be subsidized.
SCOTUS said in in 2007 that CO2 is a pollutant and SCOTUS said last year that only the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2
I wasn't doing the math, I was doing accounting.
I don't really have to do the math. You may think reality is determined by what gets posted at Free Republic, but reality and the math is being done on the ground in the real world.
Places like Texas are moving forward because they are planning on growth. Sure, a nat gas surplus may come along but that is temporary and planning is looking out into 2035 and 2050.
Whether you call it Cylindra or Solyndra, technology is being developed and it has been subsidized, it is being subsidized, and it will be subsidized.
SCOTUS said in in 2007 that CO2 is a pollutant and SCOTUS said last year that only the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2
You've bought into the dogma when your accepting that the number spouted is all man-made.
The last ice age was accomplished with 2000+ CO2.
2000+ man-made? That is what you'd be suggesting.
Well, Ben Flicklin, if you think Solyndra had anything to do with developing technology as opposed to 100% pure corruption, there is no point talking to you any more.
Ooops, Ben Ficklin. Was just a typo...
CO2 is a plant growth stimulant and that is about it at anything close to current concentrations. And by “anything close” I mean up to 2X to 3X.
Why do you want to starve subsistence farmers?
The fact the the EPA can regulate to extinction fire and breathing, which is a natural outgrowth of their current stance, without any involvement from Congress, pure Executive fiat only, no public debate of any sort, is proof positive the EPA needs to be knocked down if not destroyed completely so that we can start over.
"fire and breathing"- the EPA's tailored regulatory threshold is 75,000 tons or 100,000 tons depending if it is a new permit or expansion of an old permit
"without any involvement from Congress"- Court decisions carry the weight of law and we have many, many laws in this country that flow from court decisions. In fact everything that EPA does gets litigated. EVERYTHING! And usually it gets litagated numerous times and sometimes these changes take decades. Today, the EPA's actions on CO2 that flow from the 2007 court decision are the subject of numerous lawsuits and we can identify the subjects of those law suits. I sat "we" meaning those of those that are informed. I doubt that you can because you listen to the empty right wing rhetoric.
So let me ask you, can you name the subject matter of the 3 lawsuits? Which of the 3 are the plantiffs most likely to win and EPA lose? Is there any possibilty that the plantiffs can get the courts to enjoin EPA from enforcement until the courts hear the suits and issue a ruling?
In the meantime, what actions might Congress take to head this off? What are the 3 positions in Congress?
Then leave once and for all and don't come back. We're all bored with your German green propaganda.
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.