Boost for Copenhagen as Obama sets target for emissions cut
US President announces he will attend next month's key climate change summit
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Prospects for a global climate deal at the UN Conference in Copenhagen next month strengthened yesterday when the United States put a number on the table and announced a target for cutting US greenhouse gas emissions.
The White House statement, that President Barack Obama was prepared to offer a US emissions reduction target "in the range of 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020", means a multilateral treaty to fight global warming is now a possibility.
The US – the world's biggest carbon emitter until it was overtaken by China – was the last developed country without a formal climate target, and it had become clear in recent weeks that without a "US number" for the negotiations, the developing countries, led by China and India, would refuse to pledge specific action of their own to cut back on their soaring CO2 emissions – and thus the conference would fail.
The ball is now back in the developing countries' court, with attention shifting to China, which may make a statement about its climate ambitions later in the week. The White House announcement specified that the US target would be pledged "in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions [to reduce greenhouse gases] from China and the other emerging economies."
The White House further raised hopes for a successful climate deal by announcing that Mr Obama would attend the summit in person. However, there was disappointment, and some puzzlement, that his visit will be in the first week, on 9 December – the day before he collects his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo – and not on the final two days of the summit on December 17 and 18, when most world leaders are expected to be present, and the crucial talks to seal the deal will take place.
The announcement of the US target, however, matters more than the date of the president's visit. It is qualified in various ways and will be widely regarded as far from satisfactory in its detail, but the important point is that it has been publicly set – something which represented a considerable political risk for Mr Obama.
His administration has been hamstrung in its climate policy by the necessity of securing congressional agreement for any pledges. The White House is only too conscious that the Senate declined to ratify the current international treaty, the 1997 Kyoto protocol, although the US had officially signed it, and so it has been waiting for climate legislation, which includes emissions-target proposals, to pass through Congress.
A climate bill has passed through the House of Representatives, but the equivalent bill in the Senate has become bogged down because of the passage of the President's healthcare reforms, and has no chance of passing before the Copenhagen conference ends.
For Mr Obama to announce a target in advance, therefore, risked a clash with the Senate, and the possibility that it might ultimately refuse to sanction his proposals. That he has done so undoubtedly means that congressional assurances have been received that this will not be the case. The White House statement is careful to specify that the target will be "ultimately in line with final US energy and climate legislation."
The US target itself, which is the same as the target contained in the House of Representatives bill proposed by Congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, promises less than it may seem, as it proposes its cut "in the range of 17 per cent" from a baseline year of 2005, whereas the EU and most developed countries are using a much tougher baseline year of 1990. The 17 per cent on 2005 equates to about a 3 per cent cut when compared to 1990 levels.
For comparison, the EU has promised to cut C02 to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, which will climb to 30 per cent if there is a successful deal next month. Britain's own pledge is to cut emissions by 34 per cent by 2020. Japan has pledged a 25 per cent cut by the same date and Norway, a cut of 40 per cent.
But the fact that America has an official climate target at all, for the first time since President George W Bush withdrew the US from Kyoto in March 2001, is an enormous step forward in the search to construct a new global-warming treaty. It is not a sufficient condition for success – but it is a necessary one.
17%
The size of the proposed US cut in CO2 emissions.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
If you had you would see that there's very little to this story other than that the sceptics will readily engage in dirty tricks (like theft of private correspondence - like $5m to undermine climate science). Most of the e-mail stuff is tedius in the extreme and only way that it can be made into 'climategate' is to take the occasional word or phrase out of context OR deliberately misconstrue it.
Don't believe all you read in the Daily Mail!
Oh the irony, the fall from grace, it is something to behold.
Further no science is worth its salt if it refuses to publish its methods/sources & they have plainly refused to do that, both to their eminent doubters/peers & to the many requests from others through the FOA.
And before you go onto a mail rant, almost all papers /media (Indy excepted) have stated this, as did BBC newsnight & even they couldn't get a lucid reply from those defending the Uni E.Anglia in fact all he seemed to mention was how the emails were obtained, further the opening para in the Guardian seems to agree the story/emails are at very best damaging.
One doesn't have to read the mail to be uncomfortable with this, just ensure the blinkers are removed & to give all equal opportunity to state their view & lets face it anyone who follows/believes anything a politician says/supports should at the very least take a big step back & ask can I trust them? And history shows the answer is NO.
Most nations that signed on to Kyoto have increased emissions by around 20% since signing.
Fortunately most nations won't even have economies [in the present sense of the word] for much longer, since none have made any plans whatsoever for dealing with peak oil and other resource depletion, and most are frantically building roads and airports as though they have only a few years left to completely destroy the world. Which is probably true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPDyfNVU
also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_bFthzG
and in the " free world "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ld
Europe offers to cut emissions 95% by 2050 if deal reached at Copenhagen
China outlines plans for energy saving, emissions cut
In its 11th five-year plan (2006-2010), China set targets to annually reduce the per unit GDP energy consumption by 4 percent and in total by 20 percent in five years.
Let's start a new game: I can offer a larger percentage than you can, even if I have absolutely no intention of even trying to reach it but plan to continue increasing my emissions just as I have done for the past 10 years.
Seriously, guys, you can't keep you heads in the sand forever!
With attitudes like that the human race really has no future. Virtually everybody recognises there is a major problem that needs action yet the single biggest cause who is also in the best position to act refuses to do much because it might impact their already excessive lifestyle based on consumption levels amongst the highest in the world.
Self interest - kind of makes a big big statement about the nature and character of the people in the US.
STAMP FEET - STICK FINGERS IN EARS - SHUT EYES - SHOUT, "I'M NOT LISTENING, I'M NOT LISTENING".
PS Pressure grows on Phil Jones to resign.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g
But now, with just over a week or so to go, the genie appears to have squirmed his way out of the bottle. The data on which the all important computer modelling depends has been fixed. FIXED. Emails, probably illegally obtained, have shown some of the devilry in the working practises of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in proving its own manufactured truth. CRU is funded by govt. Incidentally, the email acquisition seems to be on the same level as that which led to the revelations of the expenses fraud at the centre of government. Is this the only way to find out what drives those in power?
Well, the email story broke this week, but the data fixing story is some years old. It was reported as far back as 2004 that Professor Phil Jones, an activist/scientist who maintains the data set, cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data set. Jones is reported as telling an Australian climate scientist (in 2004) -
'Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in this work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?'
But, dear professor, that is precisely why you should have been passing it on. However did you come to be a professor with that sort of disdain for scientific method?
And then, following various freedom of information requests for access to the base climate data, the CRU released the statement
'We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered bt the example agreements......since the 1980s we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country .....should be freely available......station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original data, but only the value added (i.e.quality controlled and homogenized) data.
Note the slippery term 'value added' followed by homogenized. This means post-processing and we all know what that can entail.
Now if a refusal to allow independent climate scientists to examine and indeed use data obtained at public expense, (and possibly foreshadowing an apocalyptic turn of events) doesn't nullify any claim to scientific method and integrity, I don't know what does. If this is really a world crisis, then it's a WORLD CRISIS! and you need all the help you can get.
So where does this leave Copenhagen? Well, more or less exactly where it was many months ago. The main participants know full well that the data on which they will make, and then break, promises, commitments, pledges etc. is not only deeply flawed but brazenly faked.
I suggest that is is up to committed scientists to expose the chicanery behind the claim of man induced global warming/climate change. But this rests on a desire to get at the truth...and this is not a well documented characteristic of government.
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who dont do anything about it."
Remember this quote Independent. Your lack of coverage on Climategate when the American Congress is about to investigate the leaked climate change e-mails from the University of East Anglia is indeed shameful. So all attempts by you to suppress and shut down this scandal has failed.
This is awfull simply because it is a lie.
Climategate has blown the lid off the whole crooked nonsense.
It is cOmpletely disgusting that newspapers like this are not printing the truth.
We will soon be all living in a society based on a lie .
No correction we obviously are living in a society based on a lie.
Why can you, the Independent not see this and the sinister ramifications of said.
Essentially though if you knew there were groups out there which had already played dirty tricks campaigns, and you had data which you know they could, & likely would, twist to their own ends wouldn't you think twice about releasing it?
I'm not saying that CRUs actions are right, but I would say they're perfectly understandable. There biggest crime to my mind seems to be the way that they've avoided giving their side since the news broke; it does them no credit, and their cause no good!
Still, from what I have seen about "climategate" it hardly invalidates the whole field of climate science, or provides proof that anthropogenic climate change is a complete fabrication!
Honestly some of you deniers should think about motivations and agendas; What motivations do Govts have to perpetuate such a charade? Mitigating the effects of climate change is going to be expensive, which means it'll be unpopular with voters, and therefore is likely to cost votes -No Govts going to take such measures unless there's a very good reason! On the other hand you've got the anti-GW camp, who are ultimately largely funded by businesses which stand to loose out if stricter environmental controls are adopted.
It's not rocket science to see which side has a vested interest in mis-representing the truth!
As for actually setting out an effective strategy for mitigating the impacts of climate change -Copenhagen will hopefully yield some progress, but I'm not sure whether it will be enough. It's encouraging to see the US start to at least engage in the process, but until we know what form the US Climate Bill, still before Congress, will finally take anything Obama promises has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Hopefully it will be enough to get other countries, who have so far been using the US stance as an excuse not to commit to targets of their own, to start thinking about reducing their emissions too.
Your quote.
"I'm not saying that CRUs actions are right, but I would say they're perfectly understandable".
Lies and Deception are not perfectly understandable.
I reiterate it is all about money and control.
Your quote.
"What motivations do Govts have to perpetuate such a charade"?
Plenty actually lets start with tax ,lets start with upsizing of government, more control over our everyday lives.
Governments exist now as seperate entities to their dwindling electorates and are only interested in themselves.
This is not science it should work on facts not "fairy stories".
Of course GW believers (a religeon) are fighting back because it is their cushy jobs at stake is it not ?
Lies and deception are not on.
Point !
in New Zealand the data from the 7 stations on which the New Zealand Government based its belief that climate change had arrived had been amended to ensure this result, no explanation forthcoming from the head of NIWA , the quango responsible.
The East Anglian emails clearly show that the Professor concerned had no moral values in that he exulted in the death of a climate sceptic. His and other emails clearly show that alterations. amendment took place and again no explantion has been forthcoming.
Warmists are clearly in denial.