Emission Reductions – How WIll We Meet The New Targets?

Share Button

OK, I’ll provide a few details, such as they are:

According to people briefed by the senators, the bill aims to cut carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 17 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, largely by implementing separate caps on utilities and manufacturers. The federal government would sell separate pollution permits to each sector, using a “hard price collar” to limit greenhouse gas allowances to between $10 (£6.70) and $30 per ton, and committing to flood the market with credits if the price ceiling is exceeded.

Forget the dream of 80% by 2050, does anyone understand what it would take to achieve the 17% decrease by 2020? What technologies would be implemented to achieve this? Remember that there was already an agreement to reduce carbon emissions. Its name was Kyoto. How did the countries fair that signed on to it?

Canada?

…although the country had signed up to reduce emissions by 6% on 1990 levels, emissions were now 28% above that level.

OK. That didn’t go too well. What aboutFance? They claim to have done well with CO2, but methane, the other greenhouse gas… no.

Among the worst offenders are the UK, which may be emitting 92 per cent more methane than it declares under the Kyoto protocol, and France, which may be emitting 47 per cent more.

Briton? They have tried to make the figures look good, but the problem is that they simply outsourced  their energy generation to other countries, much like the US has with oil production.

“If carbon outsourcing is factored back in, the UK’s impressive emissions cuts over the past two decades don’t look so impressive anymore.

“Rather than falling by over 15% since 1990, they actually rose by around 19%. And even this is flattering, since the UK closed most of its coal industry in the 1990s for reasons unrelated to climate change.

In fact, any claim to have come close to those targets is nothing but an accounting gimmick, an emissions shell game, if you will. The EU had the wonderful advantage of being able to purchase energy production from Russia and the former Soviet Eastern Block, who had tons of carbon credits for sale and plenty of room the expand their energy production, as they were well below 1990 emissions levels due to the fall of the heavily polluting Soviet Union a few years before the target date of 1990. The US? We have no neighbors that have that advantage.

Europe has been much more green conscience than the United States. They have turned toward wind energy generation, and even greatly expanded their use of nuclear generation, yet they could not meet the Kyoto protocol goals without accounting gimmick, without basically cheating. Unless Obama truly is a miracle worker, and has a definite plan, and a new technology up his sleeve that will help us succeed, a 17% reduction in emissions within a 9 year time frame is a pipe dream. The promise of reducing them by 80% in 40 years? That is someone who is flat-out  lying to the American people. A couple of Presidents have been impeached for that.

PS. IF you don’t think that Kyoto is a failure, then you should ponder that the Dopenhagen crowd also deemed it a failure. Oh, and the Green Guru himself Al Gore also notes the failure. Note how he also falls back on the scary claim that glaciers that provide water to China will have melted away by 2035, an IPCC sponsored claim we know is false.

Just When You Think You’ve Been Taxed Enough….

Share Button

Flush with the success of taxing Americans blind via the health care bureaucratic expansion bill, a”New” Climate Change / Energy bill is on its way. From the Financial Times:

Three senior US lawmakers are piecing together a sweeping bipartisan energy and climate bill, which looks set to include sweeteners to galvanise support among Republicans and industry groups….

Nearly six months have passed since the Senate’s last climate bill failed to win over conservatives and moderates, a political stalemate that cast a shadow on America’s presence at the Copenhagen climate summit. But some Democrats say the passage of healthcare reform has opened the door for climate change legislation, while acknowledging tradeoffs will be needed to secure 60 Senate votes.

So, now that the “buy the vote, spare no expense” strategy has been shown to work, they might as well give it a shot on this piece of legislation. The article gives some possible options that might be included in the bill, but you don’t need to bother to read that since the fine people we send to represent us have already shown they don’t read the bills or think about the adverse consequences when they pass a bill, just as long as they “do something”. It’s business as usual – 2.0.

The bill includes a new petrol tax, which would be passed on to consumers,

Hey, at least someone is being honest about it.