European hypocrisy on Kyoto's Anniversary: Despite Bitterly Nagging the U.S. to Adopt Kyoto, Europe Fails to Meet Kyoto Targets

February 16 marks the Kyoto Protocol's first anniversary -- it's been one year since the UN global warming agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions went into effect. But don't plan on uncorking the bubbly any time soon. In spite of claims by the European Union's top brass that the targets for reducing energy use are easily in reach-and their nagging pressure on the United States to sign the treaty-the glaring failure of Europe's nations to meet the treaty's targets has put the partying on hold.

The Kyoto Protocol requires industrialized countries to cut carbon dioxide emissions by an average 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. But 13 of the 15 original members of the European Union have increased their emissions since 1990, not reduced them. New data by the EU's own European Environmental Agency show that by 2010, the 15 nations' emissions collectively will exceed 1990 levels by seven percent.

And while leaders within the EU are pushing for even more stringent caps beyond 2012, the year the Kyoto Protocol expires, other key players believe Kyoto has no future. The UN climate talks in Montreal last December was telling. There, member countries failed to agree on binding emissions cuts for post-2012, and the climate shifted toward a discussion of clean energy and new technology development as a policy alternative to Kyoto.

Handicapping Kyoto's future is the fact that the treaty is economic suicide, and most European nations know it. According to the Brussels economic research organization International Council for Capital Formation (ICCF), the UK's gross domestic product will fall more than 1 percent in 2010 from what it otherwise would be, Italy's by more than 2 percent, and Spain's by more than 3 percent as a result of Kyoto's emissions targets. The UK, Italy, and Germany each would lose at least 200,000 jobs; Spain would lose 800,000.

For what? Even if European nations did comply with the Kyoto targets, for all the economic hardship, they'd achieve a paltry reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 0.1 percent by 2010, according to Margo Thorning, economist and managing director of ICCF.

The harsh reality of an economic plunge with little to show for it has caused some key European political leaders to do an about-face on Kyoto. The UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair, a previous Kyoto die-hard, has had to deal first-hand with the economic sacrifices of Kyoto round one. And while the UK is one of only two European nations that so far are meeting the Kyoto targets, Blair's new enough-is-enough stance is telling. "I'm changing my thinking about this... No country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem," he told government and private-sector leaders at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York last September. "I don't think people are going to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto."

Similarly, Italy's Defense Minister Antonio Martino recently had harsh words for the EU's stubborn pursuit: "That the EU would still insist on implementing the protocol must be seen as an institutional form of collective self-flagellation. Kyoto will severely penalize the European economy without bringing any real progress toward the noble aims proclaimed by the EU."

Enter the Asia-Pacific Partnership, a new coalition of Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and the United States, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the development of new, clean technologies. The gang of six, who first met officially last month in Sydney, will invest in new R&D promoting cleaner sources of energy and work with China and India to utilize them. By comparison, Kyoto failed to sign up China and India, the emerging industrial giants that together emit over 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gases.

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the new pact will not force its signatories to cut fossil fuel production or cap greenhouse gas emissions but will work to develop new sources of energy that will curb emissions long into the future. Also unlike the Kyoto Protocol, this club's members comprise almost half the world's greenhouse gas emitters, all committed to reducing emissions without sacrificing economic growth.

The Kyoto Protocol's one-year anniversary is a reminder that the agreement's future looks bleak and that more realistic and sensible approaches to develop new methods and clean sources of energy for all industrial nations are likely to be around for a long time to come.

Source. Laer also has some derisive comments plus a cartoon!







AN INTERESTING EXPERIMENT IN SWEDEN

If they start importing ethanol produced from sugarcane instead of importing oil it would make economic sense but it sounds like they are aiming for "self-sufficiency" -- in which case they will encounter huge costs in reaching their goals. Forests are an even more ludicrous source of ethanol than corn. And you would have to be quite a magician to make a tropical crop like sugarcane grow in icy Sweden. My bet is that they will just end up impoverishing themselves

Sweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 15 years - without building a new generation of nuclear power stations. The attempt by the country of 9 million people to become the world's first practically oil-free economy is being planned by a committee of industrialists, academics, farmers, car makers, civil servants and others, who will report to parliament in several months.

The intention, the Swedish government said yesterday, is to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change destroys economies and growing oil scarcity leads to huge new price rises. "Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020," said Mona Sahlin, minister of sustainable development. "There shall always be better alternatives to oil, which means no house should need oil for heating, and no driver should need to turn solely to gasoline."

According to the energy committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, there is growing concern that global oil supplies are peaking and will shortly dwindle, and that a global economic recession could result from high oil prices. Ms Sahlin has described oil dependency as one of the greatest problems facing the world. "A Sweden free of fossil fuels would give us enormous advantages, not least by reducing the impact from fluctuations in oil prices," she said. "The price of oil has tripled since 1996." A government official said: "We want to be both mentally and technically prepared for a world without oil. The plan is a response to global climate change, rising petroleum prices and warnings by some experts that the world may soon be running out of oil."

Sweden, which was badly hit by the oil price rises in the 1970s, now gets almost all its electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric power, and relies on fossil fuels mainly for transport. Almost all its heating has been converted in the past decade to schemes which distribute steam or hot water generated by geothermal energy or waste heat. A 1980 referendum decided that nuclear power should be phased out, but this has still not been finalised. The decision to abandon oil puts Sweden at the top of the world green league table. Iceland hopes by 2050 to power all its cars and boats with hydrogen made from electricity drawn from renewable resources, and Brazil intends to power 80% of its transport fleet with ethanol derived mainly from sugar cane within five years.

Last week George Bush surprised analysts by saying that the US was addicted to oil and should greatly reduce imports from the Middle East. The US now plans a large increase in nuclear power.

The British government, which is committed to generating 10% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2012, last month launched an energy review which has a specific remit to consider a large increase in nuclear power. But a report by accountants Ernst & Young yesterday said that the UK was falling behind in its attempt to meet its renewables target. "The UK has Europe's best wind, wave and tidal resources yet it continues to miss out on its economic potential," said Jonathan Johns, head of renewable energy at Ernst & Young.

Energy ministry officials in Sweden said they expected the oil committee to recommend further development of biofuels derived from its massive forests, and by expanding other renewable energies such as wind and wave power.

Sweden has a head start over most countries. In 2003, 26% of all the energy consumed came from renewable sources - the EU average is 6%. Only 32% of the energy came from oil - down from 77% in 1970. The Swedish government is working with carmakers Saab and Volvo to develop cars and lorries that burn ethanol and other biofuels. Last year the Swedish energy agency said it planned to get the public sector to move out of oil. Its health and library services are being given grants to convert from oil use and homeowners are being encouraged with green taxes. The paper and pulp industries use bark to produce energy, and sawmills burn wood chips and sawdust to generate power.

Source






DIESEL: THE NEW GREEN?

Sounds like a stretch but it could be. Note that it's not the sclerotic old U.S. auto companies introducing it

For years diesel engines have been the rage in Europe. They're powerful, use relatively cheap fuel, and can propel a car 40 miles on a single gallon. But they've never really caught on in the U.S., where memories of 1970s-era soot-belching diesel cars still linger. Now, DaimlerChrysler (DCX ) is trying to clear away that old image. The company has engineered a new emissions technology that promises to make diesel as clean-burning as gasoline. Daimler also has just announced plans to unveil its clean-diesel exhaust system in the U.S. in the latest Mercedes E-class sedans.

Daimler's system, called BlueTec, uses a catalytic converter and specialized filters to reduce harmful nitrogen-oxide emissions. The company is betting BlueTec will turn U.S. drivers on to diesel and give hybrids fresh competition. The reason: Mercedes clean-diesel cars will cost less than an equivalent hybrid while offering greater power and acceleration, plus up to 40% better mileage over conventional gas engines. That's a lure for Americans who love big cars and off-road vehicles. And diesels can go 500 miles without a fill-up.

Diesel has floundered in the U.S. because oil companies haven't offered the clean fuel required in Europe. Since diesel pollutes more than regular gas in the U.S., such big markets as California and New York refuse to register new diesel cars. Later this year, though, the feds will require oil companies to switch to the low-sulfur diesel long available in Europe, eliminating the soot problem.

But Daimler's exhaust-treatment technology will go a big step further, cleaning up to 80% of the remaining nitrogen-oxide emissions. That, combined with good mileage, will make diesel a truly green U.S. driving alternative for the first time. DaimlerChrysler CEO Dieter Zetsche likens Mercedes' emissions-control solution to Silicon Valley tech breakthroughs. "It's our intention that customers regard BlueTec for diesels [as] similar to 'Intel Inside' for PCs," says Zetsche.

That sounds like a stretch. But many industry experts believe a new generation of clean-diesel cars will eventually win over Americans and that diesel will become the dominant technology for fuel-efficient autos. While hybrids get better mileage only in the city, diesel cars consume less fuel in all driving conditions. Market researcher J.D. Power & Associates (like BusinessWeek, a unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies) forecasts diesel will take 11.8% of the U.S. market by 2015, up from about 3% now. Says Anthony Pratt, a senior J.D. Power analyst: "We think it will fly, and the Europeans have the most to gain."

Daimler isn't the only one to recognize the opportunity. Volkswagen, which is working on two different clean-diesel technologies, saw its U.S. diesel sales double in 2005, to 25% of total sales. It already sells Jetta, Golf, and Beetle diesel models in the U.S. The first VW clean-diesel model will be a Touareg SUV, slated to launch this year. BMW and Audi also have plans for diesels, as do Nissan and Honda. If the Japanese mass marketers put their muscle behind diesel, it will suddenly have much broader appeal.

USER-FRIENDLY PUMPS

Daimler, which also intends to put BlueTec into Chryslers, appears to have an early jump, but hurdles remain. Perhaps the biggest: Oil companies need to update their filling stations with modern, user-friendly pumps for passenger cars. And some diesel critics note that the cost of the equipment to clean up diesel's emissions will bring the premium for clean-diesel cars close to that of a hybrid, especially in smaller models.

Mercedes insists that the premium over a gasoline E-Class will be less than $2,000, compared with at least $4,000 for a hybrid. Even that added cost could be partially offset if the U.S. government proceeds with plans to offer diesel the same tax benefits hybrids now enjoy. Toyota Motor Corp. may have stolen the limelight on fuel efficiency with its hybrid Prius. But if the new crop of Daimler clean diesels catches on, the real debate about green car technology may be just beginning.

Source






SHOCK, HORROR: INCREASED CO2 MAY INCREASE WORLD'S FRESH WATER

Plants around the world are using water much more efficiently, thanks to increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The effect is so pronounced, says a new study, that it is massively increasing river flows and raising the risks of flooding. "We think it has added about 2000 cubic kilometres to annual global runoff, which is a pretty big deal," says Nicola Gedney of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, UK, who led the study.

The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from burning carbon-based fossil fuels. Rising concentrations of the gas are believed to warming the atmosphere. But they also make it easier for plants to absorb the gas and convert it to plant tissue through photosynthesis, using less moisture in the process. At the small scale this means plants release less moisture into the air through the pores on their leaves. Across the landscape, it leaves more moisture in soils and flowing into rivers.

Water mystery

Each year, about 40,000 cubic kilometres of water flows down the world's rivers - a figure that grew by about 3% during the 20th century. Until now, most researchers have blamed the burgeoning flow on climate change. But Gedney says that over the land surface of the planet as a whole, climate change has probably reduced rainfall, so that theory does not hold water, as it were. To reach her conclusion, Gedney tested four different theories for why river flows are rising. In each case, she compared predictions of their likely impact on river flow, made using the Hadley Centre's climate model, with actual trends. She compared both the global trend and different trends on different continents.

The four theories for rising river flows were:

1. recent changes in rainfall
2. land-use changes, such as chopping down forests
3. man-made particles in the air that dim sunlight and reduces evaporation
4. more-efficient photosynthesis, caused by increased carbon dioxide in the air

Only the modelled effects of carbon dioxide came close to matching the actual pattern of changes in river flows.

Combined effect

"Climate change on its own would have slightly reduced run-off, whereas the carbon dioxide effect on plants would have increased global run-off by about 5%," Gedney told New Scientist. The combined effect of the two comes close to the 3% increase in flow actually observed, and also matches the regional pattern.

Peter Cox of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Winfrith, UK, says the findings are the "the first time anyone has detected the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants at large scales".

Damon Matthews at the University of Calgary, Canada, warns that there could be other factors involved in changing river flows. But he agrees that, of the theories put forward to date, only changing photosynthesis seems to fit the bill.

Journal reference: Nature (vol 439, p 835)

NewScientist.com news service, 15 February 2006

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************