Bali, UNFCCC, after Kyoto
Bali, UNFCCC, after Kyoto
In the many comments of the last blog were mentions of the meeting in Bali. First a little background. The meeting in Bali is called the Conference of Parties (conference link) and includes the nations that are part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC site. The UNFCCC was negotiated in the early part of the 1990s, and the US did sign the Framework Convention. It is, in fact, part of our environmental law. It preceded the Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCCC called for, amongst other things, voluntary control of carbon dioxide emissions. The Kyoto Protocol had specific emission targets; it was signed by the United States, but it was not sent to the Senate for ratification. The decision to not send it for ratification was during the Clinton-Gore administration; it was certain that it would not be ratified.
Figure 1: Chart of commitments made in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (thanks to Rosina Bierbaum, SuperDean)
The meeting in Bali was not, first and foremost, a meeting of scientists. It is a meeting to talk about how to respond to the assessments presented by the IPCC. Some people talk about it as what comes after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. (For fun here are links to UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and a nice introduction to the Kyoto Protocol.) This is a big meeting, with a lot of people, and a lot of spectacle. There is not a real expectation that new policy will be formed at the meeting, but the people, the countries are stating and re-stating their positions.
There are two big notions that seem to rise out of the meeting. The first is the statement, or really restatement, that if we want to limit the atmospheric carbon dioxide to, approximately, double the amount in 1850, then we need to do something in the next decade. This amount is 550 parts per million and the model predictions show that even at this amount there will be consequential climate change. There is a May 2007 WU blog entry about this need to take action soon if we want to limit the carbon dioxide to 550 parts per million. The reported discussions from Bali show the diversity of opinions and accusations – and the United States once again maintains the position of requiring economic growth – hence, the need for cheap energy.
The second big notion is trees. There is a lot of talk about trees and how if we stop cutting down trees we will slow the release of carbon dioxide, and if we plant more trees then they will consume carbon dioxide. The issue of trees is complex. There is no doubt that having more trees is good for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, but trees are not a magic solution to the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. First, trees have a finite lifetime, and they have a finite ability to take up carbon dioxide. Second, trees take a lot of water, and planting a lot of trees in a place like Phoenix, Arizona is trading one environmental stress for another.
Nevertheless, the role of trees in climate change is an important one. In anticipation of a growing environmental market that places a value on carbon dioxide emissions, countries, such as Indonesia, are starting to think of their standing stock of forest in terms of carbon dioxide valuation. This starts to give the rain forests value that can be weighed against value as, for instance, lumber, food cropland, or bio-fuels cropland. This becomes a mechanism for conservation and management of forestry resources that includes some valuation of the climate.
My student Gabriel Thoumi is in Bali. He has spent much of the year in Indonesia setting up and negotiating policies and businesses to give valuation of the carbon dioxide stored in trees and how to use that valuation in the mitigation of climate change. Gabriel contributed to an effort with a group of Green Governors whose states hold a large portion of the Earth’s rain forests. Here is a paragraph from the press release announcing the efforts of this group of governors.
“The destruction of tropical forests accounts for about 20% of global carbon emissions – more than the entire global transport sector. The UK government’s 2005 Stern Review identified forest protection and limitation of deforestation as being quick and cost-effective avenues for reducing global carbon emissions – yet until now they have barely featured in governments’ plans to tackle climate change. By acting to protect forests and reduce emissions from deforestation now, on their own lands, the Governors have sent a strong message to their national governments and have opened the door to millions of dollars of potential investments from carbon markets. Already investments are beginning to flow, both from voluntary carbon markets and from private investments to protect the ecosystem services forests provide to humanity.”
Here is the whole press release, with information on how to get more information.
Forests Now Press Release
Green Governors’ Press Release
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index
This is a very interesting article - especially read comment 103 where Rasmus and Safetta debate the data.
It is important not to cherry pick the data. Furthermore, it is especially important not to be a partisan in science - The important question should be - Whose hypothesis best describes/explains/fits the data?
How would increasing efficiency and decreasing fossil fuel consumption damage the economy? Granted, the oil and coal industry would be negatively affected(in the short term) but would not other industries be created and profit from the change? Would not decreasing fossil fuel consumption lead to better health for all due to decreased concentrations of pollutants (CO2 and CH4 not withstanding) in the atmosphere? Finally, wouldn't it be prudent to decrease our ghg emissions just in case the climate modelers are correct in their projections? Is this not a wreckless experiment on humanities' part to be emitting infrared absorbing gases into the atomsphere w/o concern for the future?
Just a thought...
BALI: Representatives of UN member countries and international organisations who have gathered here for the UN Climate Change Conference are talking of promoting renewable energy sources but no one is ready to fund the world's largest solar power project, says the project's developer.
South African power major Eskom has planned a 100 MW solar power plant in Upington at the Northern Cape Province. It is 10 times the size of current solar power plants and uses a new but proven technology.
But no investor wants to put up the $750 million needed for the project, says Eskom's Managing Director (corporate services) Steve Lennon.
Unfortunately, just like the pharmaceutical drug industry, it can be special interests, or funded by investment potential.
That is why it is silly to try to discredit someone by saying they are associated with oil or coal.
When the other data was funded by Waste Management.
It won't hurt a thing to reduce consumption.
If anything, oil and coal are getting more difficult to discover and produce.
Reducing consumption will keep those companies in business longer,
and they in turn will provide jobs and economy contributions longer.
Reducing consumption would allow our resources to last longer,
and also give time for more data to come out.
Becoming more energy independent, however, is contrary to what the UN has drafted.
The UN protocols demand that we become more dependent on the UN and other countries
than we are even right now.
Then it's obvious
They do not feel that it's something they can make money investing in.
There must be a lot more money in trees.
.
That is not the opposite of supply and demand.
That is supply and demand.
Their overhead does not decrease that much because they are only selling half as much.
Another example is green energy.
They hope that by mass producing solar panels,
the price will come down.
Yikes
That means the elecrical overhead on everything that depends on elec for manufacturing will also be three times.
Guess even more jobs would move overseas to the countries that don't have to comply with Kyoto.
Does Rosetta Stone have a Chinese version?
.
You see, this is the point I was making last night. The solutions present nearly the same results: taxation thru regulation or ransom. The net advocated result is the same. That doesn't mean consumers will use less energy, nor does it mean that ACO2 emissions will be reduced. But, it amounts to an increase in price either way. Does that make any sense at all?
IMHO, the best way to control market price and reduce ACO2 emissions is thru free market enterprise with new technologies and less regulation.
You pay either way.
The new plan will cost you more though.
stop it
You're are sounding like a capitalist!
But yes, that is the way that it has been proven to work the best.
The other way is to force technology.
Which has a history of not forcing the best technology.
It has a history of forcing the most corrupt technology.
British Petroleum, BP, is advertising the fact that they will always be in the
energy business, but they are adapting to more green energy.
Which makes sense.
Oil and gas are getting harder to discover and produce. Don't even think about
building a new refinery.
But, when it's all over, it's still going to be the same businesses
supplying evergy.
And we are still going to have the same problems.
.
It's that kind of thing that ensures the IPCC's findings are fraudulent. So very tragic!
If there were facts, Mike Eckhart's email would have simply read
Marlo, you are not correct.
Here are the facts.
If there were facts, no one would have to resort
to these strong arm tactics and threats.
I did not realize that Eckhart was president of ACORE, and that
the EPA was a member of ACORE.
ACORE has been involved in a lot of bad things in the past.
You would think a goverment agency like the EPA would
stay away from that.
The American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) works to bring all forms of renewable energy into the mainstream of America’s economy and lifestyle.
With a focus on trade, finance and policy, ACORE promotes all renewable energy options
So ACORE has an agenda to promote renewable energy only.
A lobby group, that pays out money.
And the EPA is a member.
The government subsidizes the mega-companies that grow corn,
The mega-companies in turn, pay ACORE to lobby the government to use more corn.
That's a lot of money running around in a circle.
'
The mega-companies in turn, pay ACORE to lobby the government to use more corn.
I left out a very important part:
And ACORE only gathers up, sponsors, or pays for 'scientific' material
that will promote their agenda and convince government
to give them more business
Crop duster
Now you understand why I get a little concerned regarding the Senate bill S 2191.
Under the bill the whole deal is basically turned over to the EPA to implement and enforce!
Yeah, the new entity will be called the CCCC - Climate Control Credit Corporation (I think that's how I remembered reading it).
Imagine this - the US balks at the irrationality of the UN and the IPCC. Then states, "Hey, we don't need that. We can do it ourselves." kind of rhetoric to please all the environmentalists. Then, our democratic, liberal, self-serving government turns around and does pretty much the same thing.
Good government is hard to find, but bad government sorely abounds!
Is that like a crop circle?
It can be a crop, energy, trees, metals or even a transparent gas, a vapor, or a figment of imagination.
It doesn't matter what it is or isn't as long as the "circle" of perpetuation is there for funding sustainability.
It's called bureaucratic, governmental wasteful spending and mis-use of taxdollars which need to be returned to the people.
If it's our government, you don't have to worry. It will never happen in our life time.
There will be 45 non-binding resolutions and nothing more.
It was just a way to express to the world that the US was and is doing something about climate change.
You need to go back and read it again
or cowboy, you need to post it again
""Over the last two years the cross trading of Weather and Commodities / Energy has grown significantly, adding a new component to the trading of weather. Even though those markets compliment and supplement each other in a variety of circumstances and have witnessed a dramatic increase in liquidity, rising from $2.2 billion in 2004 to $9.7 billion in 2005 to $45.2 in 2006.""
From a $2 billion industry in 2004
to a $45 billion industry in 2006
anyone that says the science can not be biased is an idiot.
$45 billion buys a lot of science.
I found all that in an attempt to discern the trading process. Which I still haven't figured out; but, I thought it might act as a baseline and trigger more posts on the subject.
It's obviously still very new, but well underway. I thought the UBS site was noticeably not flashy - and I wondered why. Most of those types of sites have whistles and bells all over them.
For me to fully comprehend the issue of carbon credits, I need to understand the carbon trading process. Any help is greatly appreciated. TIA.
The first link explains the process, how we are just paying money to 'developing' countries,
but not spending any of that money to fix the problem here.
So the problem never goes away.
and also, it explains the carbon credits, carbon trading, etc
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Editorials/The_ethics_of_carbon_trading/articleshow/2612592.cms
The second link is to CantorCO2e, the largest trading investment company.
http://www.cantorco2e.com/?gclid=CLTxj665oZACFQQZgQodHDrvqw
You can also Wiki it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
See if that helps.
Basically it's like a stock or commodity.
I understand it's basically like a stock or commodity, but where I get totally lost is where and who places the value of the carbon credit itself. Is it universal? Common value with the globe?
Here's one I just looked at: Carbon fund growth, explained
*These less expensive locations (countries where emissions reductions are cheaper to implement, might have accepted emissions limits such as the Ukraine or Romania, or possess no limits at all such as in India or China; they benefit in the long run since the creation of new credits benefit the installation ‘host’ and host government implicitly, since they share in the sale of new credits.
This was the last paragraph in the article and it read kind of disturbingly. Check it out!
Thanks again, Lat.
I've had no idea this crap had gone that far. Go figure, that rock is awfully big sometimes! lol
If it's too late to turn back, what is all the hubbup about?
the biggest piece of the carbon pie, as well as control its distribution!
Southern Hemisphere sea-ice 12/11/2006
-------------
Southern Hemisphere sea-ice 12/11/2007
Bare with me, thanks: It'd be like not having gold to trade; then, suddenly we invent gold (out of thin air literally), but based on a constantly changing, intangible metal. Except that it is tangible only in the aspect of value alone.
As a result, the world now has a new commodity that is a completely renewable resource. The only value of which is determined by thin air, or rather the lack of (ACO2). Or more aptly put-"money out of thin air."
Then, profits are simply based on the number of people who buy into the carbon trading scheme. If ACO2 is reduced the value of the carbon unit goes up or more effectively split by issuing more carbon units. If ACO2 goes down the carbon unit value drops and the shares have to be used in non-developed countries where the errant value is better.
A carbon crash? Not possible because the value can simply be propped up by the governing/issuing body (which is what the UN wants). The only other way to crash being that the planet actually does go pooooof in which case we're all doomed anyway. Yet, I'd wager that some would still profit from that!
What am I missing?
Eventually, all of it transcends into one, world-wide form of currency that is globally, equally valued and accepted.
Still right, or way off?
hold all of the commodity?
So they have the intangible to sell.
(no matter where the location)
Viewing: 101 - 151
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index