03 Dec '09 17:45>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/02/copenhagen-climate-change-james-hansen
Although this fellow is obviously a climate change alarmist, which I'm not quite sure I buy to the full extent, he essentially is saying the same thing I've been preaching:
All this picking and prodding about quotas and carbon credits and allowance of per capita emissions for developing countries may be a good way to achieve quasi-socialist side objectives, but it's not going to solve the problem (if, in fact, there is one).
IF there is a major impending climate catastrophe, then the ONLY answer is for EVERYONE to get off their duffs and build and use clean technologies starting NOW and, of course to reduce consumption (as uzless will no doubt tell us). A mild and loophole filled cap and trade, which will serve to do little more than transfer wealth from developed nations to developing nations, is a half-assed solution, at best (more like a one tenth-assed solution).
If the politicians are all convinced that climate change is going to kill our grandchildren (and unlike Shav, they believe this to be a bad thing), then go to Copenhagen and agree to:
1) Commit enormous resources to building electric cars and insist that oil consuming cars be off the roads by 2020.
2) Phase out most fossil fuel generated electricity, to be replaced by clean technologies
3) Get used to the idea that this will destroy the World economy; or at least set is back 100 years. Get used to the fact that millions will die of starvation and disease because of the crumbling World economy. Deal with it.
4) Get ALL relevant countries to agree with these principles.
As it stands, Copenhagen will just be another Kyoto. If "successful," it will hurt the economies of developed countries but do little to stop climate change. I sure hope the politicians get some nice photo-ops though. Maybe they'll even win a group Nobel Peace Prize.
Although this fellow is obviously a climate change alarmist, which I'm not quite sure I buy to the full extent, he essentially is saying the same thing I've been preaching:
All this picking and prodding about quotas and carbon credits and allowance of per capita emissions for developing countries may be a good way to achieve quasi-socialist side objectives, but it's not going to solve the problem (if, in fact, there is one).
IF there is a major impending climate catastrophe, then the ONLY answer is for EVERYONE to get off their duffs and build and use clean technologies starting NOW and, of course to reduce consumption (as uzless will no doubt tell us). A mild and loophole filled cap and trade, which will serve to do little more than transfer wealth from developed nations to developing nations, is a half-assed solution, at best (more like a one tenth-assed solution).
If the politicians are all convinced that climate change is going to kill our grandchildren (and unlike Shav, they believe this to be a bad thing), then go to Copenhagen and agree to:
1) Commit enormous resources to building electric cars and insist that oil consuming cars be off the roads by 2020.
2) Phase out most fossil fuel generated electricity, to be replaced by clean technologies
3) Get used to the idea that this will destroy the World economy; or at least set is back 100 years. Get used to the fact that millions will die of starvation and disease because of the crumbling World economy. Deal with it.
4) Get ALL relevant countries to agree with these principles.
As it stands, Copenhagen will just be another Kyoto. If "successful," it will hurt the economies of developed countries but do little to stop climate change. I sure hope the politicians get some nice photo-ops though. Maybe they'll even win a group Nobel Peace Prize.