Calling all Americans - why not sign Kyoto personally? 24 February 05

Mark, a quote from the site that you posted in a previous blog on the IPCC 2001 Report contained this quote. The site and quote below:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf

“Concerns have been expressed about the stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet because it is grounded below sea level. However, loss of grounded sea level rise from this source is now widely agreed to be very unlikely during the 21st century, although its dynamics are still inadequately understood especially for projections on longer time-tables.”

Now, the site you gave in your post today by Ross Gelbspan has this to say about Antarctica and the ICPP Report below:

“As if on cue, about a week later, researchers with the British Antarctic Survey reported that the massive West Antarctic ice sheet may already have begun to collapse. Citing recently discovered increased glacial flows into the Antarctic Ocean, Chris Rapley, head of the survey, noted: “The last IPCC report characterized Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change. I would say it is now an awakened giant.”

Mark, please explain to me precisely so I understand why Antarctica from the IPCC report that I read and what Ross Gelbspan said seem to be in contradiction.

What has changed here whereby the ICPP said in its report that it was unlikely that the West Antarctica ice sheet would be an issue for the rest of the 21st century?

Dan

PS This is a sub issue but I seek clarity on this issue first and later other issues to review our current climate status. Antarctica, Greenland, what constitutes irreversible conditions and why they are irreversible, and then how we can prevent specific power plants from being built through increased efficiency and the like. Will this be enough? How far do we take it? How fast do we need to go?

A focus on the USA is very relevant and I welcome that so we need to put aside our own focus and focus on us for a time. To help us succeed in this effort, will require more discussion and not just a petition signing. I think that a technical discussion at this level will yield many benefits for everyone. Help us get it right but we have to be practical and realistic in how we approach the matter.

For me, I would like to know the plan that will bring success in preventing climate change and go beyond Kyoto if necessary. I want technical solutions included that will insure our economic viability which will be necessary for any plan to be effective.

I want to see a viable plan articulated and this would involve specific discussions relevant to the USA and its infrastructure and our unique problems and how other countries do it differently or better than we do and their problems and successes in meeting their own Kyoto objectives.

Let us start with Antarctica since I brought it up and review the status there so I am not confused by conflicting statements. This is very relevant because the ability to forecast the future is critical to know if a plan to mitigate will succeed. Pending collapse means we already failed. Am I not correct?

It’s just what I wanted. I’ve felt so helpless re the U.S. lack of support for a treaty that will help our economy become much more efficient & redirect it from lumbering on as an outdated dinosaur into the bog of extinction. AND help the world avert harms, perhaps even actual extintion of life itself, which, I have to point out, is a more fundamental principle than the economy and next quarter’s profits. Afterall, animals don’t have an economy, and they do quite well—at least until we kill most of them off through runaway global warming.

I think we have a distorted idea in “the rational, economic man” concept. The Enlightenment was way off. There is nothing rational about living well within the production possibilities frontier (being ridiculously inefficent), losing wealth (burning it, actually), AND killing off life, esp. the poor and our own future generations. Our kids, for heaven’s sake! That is IRRATIONAL. Freud would have a field day with it. It seems to me to be the irruption of THANATOS in a mentally/emotionally sick society.

What a great idea, hopefully we can get a similar thing going here in oz!

word and sounds nice but it is unfair to the US. While I agree with the basic tenet of Kyoto (to reduce energy waste and lower GHG) I think it should include all “major players” and accomplished on a more realisitic time table. Bush backed out because it was not fair to US and would impact the economy. Kyoto in effect would limit each nations amount of energy use since energy is equated with GHG production. Any new plants, neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, expanding cities and towns would be limited in growth by having to go below 1990 levels of GHG production. He did what any leader would do and that is protect his countries interests…

Notice what country agreed to reduce what and by how much….

KYOTO Agreements by participating countries>> The United States agreed to reduce emissions seven percent below 1990 levels during the budget period 2008-2012.(2) Other industrialized countries made different commitments. For example, Japan and Canada will reduce emissions by six percent; the European Union as a whole has agreed to meet an eight percent reduction target; Russia will not exceed its 1990 emissions level; and Australia will be allowed to increase emissions eight percent above 1990 levels.

Countries with emerging economies were exempted from emissions controls under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. Exempted countries include such major, heavily industrialized nations as China, India, South Korea and Mexico. Their economies are among the fastest growing in the world, and data supplied by both the International Energy Administration and the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that, collectively, these countries will be the largest total emitters of greenhouse gases by the year 2010.

source: http://www.consad.com/reports/kyoto.htm

Individually, where were you in 1990? What kind of house did you live in, where did you work and what kind of car did you drive? You need to improve it by 7% in efficiency today to adhere to Kyoto. Never mind you may have a larger house, different car and work in a different facility. I moved into a larger house since 1990. 180% larger to be exact. Yet my energy costs to power it have increased by only 50%. This is b/c of better construction, insulation, window technology and more efficient heating/cooling units. But according to Kyoto I should have moved into something smaller b/c I have exceeded my “personal” limits! Kyoto seems anti-growth!

Ranking of the world’s countries by 2000 total CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring. Emissions (CO2_TOT) are expressed in thousand metric tons of carbon (not CO2). National per capita estimates (CO2_CAP) are expressed in metric tons of carbon.

Source: Gregg Marland, Tom Boden, and Bob Andres+

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory + University of North Dakota

RANK NATION CO2_TOT CO2_CAP

1    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA    1528796      5.40  -7% of 1990 levels
 2    CHINA (MAINLAND)            761586      0.60  <strong>*EXEMPT FROM KYOTO
 3    RUSSIAN FEDERATION          391664      2.69  Allowed same as 1990
 4    JAPAN                       323281      2.55  -6% of 1990 levels
 5    INDIA                       292265      0.29  *</strong>EXEMPT FROM KYOTO
 6    GERMANY                     214386      2.61 
 7    UNITED KINGDOM              154979      2.59 
 8    CANADA                      118957      3.87  -6% of 1990 levels
 9    ITALY (INCLUDING SAN MARINO)116859      2.02  * part of EU
10    REPUBLIC OF KOREA           116543      2.47  <strong>*EXEMPT FROM KYOTO
11    MEXICO                      115713      1.19  *</strong>EXEMPT FROM KYOTO
12    SAUDI ARABIA                102168      4.77 
13    FRANCE (INCLUDING MONACO)   98917      1.68  * part of EU
14    AUSTRALIA                   94094      4.91 
15    UKRAINE                     93551      1.89 
16    SOUTH AFRICA                89323      2.04 
17    ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN    84689      1.33 
18    BRAZIL                      83930      0.50 
19    POLAND                      82245      2.13 
20    SPAIN                       77220      1.95  * part of EU
                       *EU agreed to combined -8% of 1990

Source: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2000.tot

I think the more advanced countries are moving in the right direction but it takes time. Being more efficient is in each countries own best interest b/c of the cost savings in the use of energy! Kyoto gave the countries only 1 decade essentially. Yet it took a century to bring the advanced countries to where they are today. And other countries are making significant economic gains and are EXEMPT from Kyoto! China right now has an economy expanding at around 9% annually. The US has had only 3% gains for the last 3 decades! (source CNBC TV) China is much bigger in population and land mass than the US. It will be only a matter of time before they are indeed a major economic power. Yet they are already a major energy consumer (ranked 2nd in GHG). Assuming the same growth for China and applying the increases to GHG production (with 4 year old numbers), China would surpass the US in GHG’s in 15 short years!! Also notice that 4 of the 11 countries in the top 11 GHG producers are EXEMPT from Kyoto.

This to me is inherently unfair and limits each country from attaining it’s own innate growth level based on innovation and entrepreneurial spirit…..

Dan,

What has changed is that there is more recent science on Antarctica since the IPCC TAR was published in 2001. Then the prevailing opinion was that the Antarctic ice sheet was stable, and might even grow in response to rising precipitation in a warmer atmosphere, thereby countering sea level rise.

The latest work suggests something different. The oceans around the continent are warming, and as the ice shelves melt off the glaciers behind them speed up – just as when a cork is taken out of a bottle and the bottle pours out. This means that the huge glaciers draining the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could actually add significantly to sea level rise.

The best place to look is the British Antarctic Survey news release on this, and also Chris Rapley’s presentation to the Exeter conference.

Must dash, Mark

For me, the greatest threat of climate change is that of rising sea levels. I have read about Antarctica and it receives more solar energy than the Arctic regions but remains colder because of the higher latitude of its exposed surface. It has ice so thick over its land mass that it virtually buries whole mountain ranges under that ice.

The immediate concern would be if our efforts can not prevent the collapse of this ice sheet because in my thinking we lost in the end if this happens.

If any emission reduction scheme would not be sufficient then what else can we do? The heat buildup of the oceans took time to develop and any changes we make now may not be sufficient based on the current heat buildup.

The only idea I can think of which may NOT be feasible is to direct heat away from the ocean waters near the ice surfaces most vulnerable through some refrigeration heat transfer process and employ the ocean currents by selecting locations were the cooler waters can stabilize the most vulnerable ice sheets.

This may be not possible on a large scale that may be required but I mention the idea anyway for further exploration. Would there be any way to increase the reflectivity of the surface ice to make the region colder? Will we have to resort to space mirrors to take heat away from selected ocean surfaces of currents which affect these ice sheets?

In any event, the scientists working in this field have to do better in their research because we simply have to be sure of the stability of these ice sheets. The change in the results from the first ICPP report caused me concern. We suffer enough from uncertainty at the low end of the projected temperature increase.

If we underestimated the ice sheets at this level, and at this time, then we are in big trouble.

I will read your cited references. I would prefer to believe what Gelbspan said was overstated.

I think we are moving precariously into the future whereby there are no more crazy ideas any more. So, I hope that my thoughts do not appear totally ridiculous.

I only share concepts based on the laws of physics that may be within our reach but only maybe. We not only need research but credible focus on preventative measures if we have any at all.

I believe all ideas should be run on computer models to test for undesirable side effects and if we cannot do this then we better develop the capability to do this.

We have to get this right in the end or we will surely loose. Our efforts must be sufficient to insure success.

Kyoto is a good idea but we need to develop the Real Deal which is the plan that will work and that may involve other ideas that will be required.

Thanks for taking the time to post a blog and references on Antarctica research. I will read them with interest.

Best, Dan

It was a long process, which started with one compact fluorescent bulb, turning off lights not it use, turning off water while brushing (water & all products have a GHG component); recycling, esp aluminum (which saves 95% energy & rainforests where bauxite is mined); installing a low-flow showerhead (cost $10, saved $1500 so far in water & water heating, & we can’t tell the difference in spray or force); installed a low-flow 1.6 gal toilet (which worked better than our 5 gal toilet – paid for itself in 1 year & went on to save $100 per year in water); bought a SunFrost refrig (sunfrost.com – it’s very expensive, but we figure it’ll pay for its cost within 16-18 years, also veggies don’t spoil hardly at all); we had already moved close to work (after the 70s energy crunch I was keen about that); installed a water heater jacket; offset a tiny bit of driving with cycling & walking (could have done more & really improved my health, but I’m very lazy); bought reusables r/t throwaways; and many other small things. That got us down to 2/3 to 1/2 our 1990 GHGs, and saved us $hundreds per year, without lowering our living standard or freezing in the dark. After moving to Texas, we go on Green Mountain Energy 100% windpower (having drastically reduced our KWH, we’re spending maybe about $60 more per year for it – of course, if they were ever to include the subsidies & tax breaks given to fossil fuels in the monthly bills, instead of the yearly April 15th bill we all have to pay, even those on wind or solar power, we’d be paying through the nose for fossil fuel power, & that doesn’t even include military costs for protecting our supplies).

The book, NATURAL CAPITALISM, by Paul Hawken and Amory Lovins shows that the U.S. could reduce energy by 3/4 or more, without lowering productivity. It’s a must read. I just wish Washington would read it.

By the way, we’ve gone to a much larger house (because it was the one closest to work that met our parameters). So we’ve actually increased our living standard quite nicely, while lowering our GHGs dramatically. What really helped was prayer. I honestly feel God helped us every step of the way – afterall, it’s His creation we are trying to save.

Mark,

I just finished reading your cited references. Very informative.

Everyone here should read what you posted on Antarctica so we keep informed on the latest developments.

Thanks, Dan

to sign up for Kyoto, asking them to email everyone on their list. Plus I downloaded the sign-up form & printed it on the back side of reused paper, of course, so I can collect signatures at meetings & send it in.

Mark, you wrote: “Since it is our political leadership that is not only abandoning its responsibility to the international community but is actively working to thwart any progress by the rest of the world, it seems time for citizens to take this responsibility on themselves”.

As I mentioned in the climate blog on openDemocracy.net (http://opendemocracy.typepad.com/wsf/climate_change/index.html), Amanda Griscom Little makes the case that environmental groups in the States also dropped the ball:

“If the launch of Kyoto, a major milestone in the battle against the world’s biggest environmental problem, can’t provoke a major response from the U.S. green community, what can?”

Individuals signing up to people’s Kyoto is one thing. More strategy by NGOs needed too.

The text goes: “Since it is our political leadership that is not only abandoning its responsibility to the international community but is actively working to thwart any progress by the rest of the world, it seems time for citizens to take this responsibility on themselves”.

But is individual action enough? As I mentioned in the climate blog on openDemocracy.net (http://opendemocracy.typepad.com/wsf/climate_change/index.html), Amanda Griscom Little makes the case that environmental groups in the States also dropped the ball:

“If the launch of Kyoto, a major milestone in the battle against the world’s biggest environmental problem, can’t provoke a major response from the U.S. green community, what can?”

Individuals signing up to people’s Kyoto is one thing. More strategy by NGOs needed too.

have jumped ahead of your local building codes requirements regarding energy efficiency in houses. Our codes had most of those things already built in (minus the wind power generator). The nice thing about energy efficient products is the more people that by them create more demand and the price of the product goes down. This is true for things like compact flourescent bulbs which are sold in 4 packs now for around 5 dollars.

I was surprised to hear that Texas doesn’t have tighter water regulations as on the western side it’s pretty scarce.

Also, wind produced energy is well suited for the flatter (and windier) areas of west Texas. Idaho’s power (and Nevada I think) has a lot of power coming from hydropower. This is also low GHG way of getting power. Other areas may not be as well suited for alternative energy forms. that is where the fuel cells may be a way to work.

Another new gadget I’ve seen is a motion sensor light switch which comes on at motion. European switches I’ve seen also use a built in timer system to automatically switch back off saving electricity.

One impetus driving us to save energy is money! That is why as energy costs increase the citizenry looks for ways to save money. Sounds like all those improvements and gadgets have cost you just that, a lot of money!

I don’t think on the bigger scheme that companies relish ways to waste energy. Production constraints limit options for saving as they become cost prohibitive. The company would not be able to compete with cheaper product made somewhere else. An example is Chinese products made for sale in another country. China is exempt from Kyoto and therefore would not be bound to invest in more fuel efficient ways of production where another country may have to consider not only the cost of the product by how it was made and the cost/expenditure of energy to make it and thus drive up the price of what they are selling.

A good example of US innovation/ economic frugality is Boeing’s new 7E7 dreamliner. It is the most fuel efficient airliner to date and can fly further without refueling. Airlines right now are being crushed by high fuel costs. Furthermore, the company built the technology without heavy subsidizing from the government unlike Airbus which is heavily subsidized by the EU. But I digress…

Jim, I suggest that you reread my earlier post more carefully and that of Colin as well because you may have missed some important points or you would not be taking the conversation to where you are leading it right now.

You made comments that the world is not clean enough for you to suit your tastes and you evidently observed how others live outside our country and yet you make comments about fairness to the USA which confuse me. I look at it differently.

For example let me use vehicle ownership to point out what is truly unfair. China has 12 vehicles per 1000 people while India has 10 vehicles per 1000 people.

Now let me compare a mix of properous countries as I did before and now do this by order of vehicles per 1000 people. We have the following: UK (517), Germany (559), France (560), Japan (569), Canada (607), Australia (642), and the USA at 777 vehicles per 1000 people. Any surprises?

My surprise it that you would want China and India to remain manufacturing slaves to us and not develop their economies so that you can have your large house with all the amenities and how unfair it is to ask the Chinese to keep riding their bicycles while we drive around in SUVs solo during rush hour traffic. If China grows by 100 percent in vehicle ownership then that is still only 2 percent of what we own here!

China and India were exempt from Kyoto for a reason because of fairness issues to THEM and not to US!!!!

Now, we should be concerned about China and India. I agree with you on that but I already posted that our products come from China and our service jobs are going to India so what do you expect these people to do? Do you see my point Jim?

I agree that China and India should be doing their part as they develop. I would not like to see them emulate our most wasteful habits.

Your cited reference seemed bogus to me for many reasons. The energy prices will increase anyway as China consumes more of the world’s oil and your house will still be large and inefficient as ever.

Ideas like Kyoto would influence you to be more energy efficient. With a focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy, we would diversify our energy resource base creating more high tech jobs, and even more manufacturing. We would be more competitive.

Concernign Kyoto, we can meet half of Kyoto by an aggressive tree-planting program at 7.5 billion a year according to a Pew study. This was in a recent Washington Post. I may post more later on this because there was other research mentioned in the same article being conducted on sequestering carbon using a chemical reaction that makes a material suitable to be used as road pavement. That sounds like manufacturing to me!

And if we can meet half of Kyoto at a fraction of the annual cost of Iraq, then I really wonder about the logic saying that emission reduction for us will harm our economy.

Now, about your house! I know about the large houses built here and they are terribly inefficient because of duct leakage and other aspects. Large window areas make them not only drain more energy but also make them less comfortable due to interior temperature swings. Do you really know if your house is energy efficient for sure?

We need to build houses with less windows and windows facing south with the correct overhang to shade solar energy in the summer months with thermal mass in the floor to absorb and distribute that energy during the winter months. HVAC equipment should be located within conditioned space along with the air ducts. Not putting the air handler in the attic or the duct work there is a good idea. Ridge vents on the roof ventilate attics most efficiently.

Other ideas include insulation other than inefficient fiberglass, sealed drywall that does not allow pressure differentials from the HVAC system to suck attic air inside interior wall cavities. No recessed lighting that allows air infiltration from the attic is a good idea. Compact fluorescent light bulbs would help reduce summer heat load and provide a more efficient lighting source.

The list goes on to the point that your house should be using LESS energy and not 50 percent more. It should be using 50 percent less energy.

Are your windows double pane and do they contain argon gas instead of air? Do the panes have a low emissivity coating and an air gap of at least a half inch between the panes? Is the frame insulated by not having metal connecting the exterior with the interior creating a thermal bridge? Do your glass panes have an edge separating them made of non-conducting material to prevent additional conduction losses?

I did read in one of your sources that mentioned oil flaring as a source of carbon emissions. I would like to see a law passed in the USA banning this practice and world-wide for that matter. I have a problem when world oil companies flare enough natural gas from oil wells that could fuel all of Germany and France with natural gas or could meet 20 percent of our needs.

My position is one of principle. Eliminating the wasteful use of fossil fuels should be a first priority. I do not care about the bean counters who want cheap oil. We should not be wasting fossil fuel that we could capture and use instead.

I would like to see international laws passed against burning forests and peat bogs to clear land.

I think that we should transfer some tax revenue from income to tax energy consumption to encourage more Americans to invest in energy efficiency and alternatives since cheap oil will be no more in time.

I think our energy prices should rise in a controlled fashion allowing time for Americans to adjust.

I think that our reductions in energy use would help increase economic activity. Think of the cost savings to a Utility that does not have to invest in another power plant.

There is something terribly wrong in your cited reference. I simply did not buy their argument.

Take Care, Dan

Fully agree with what you’ve said. I’m about 1/3rd of the way through my house re-build. Its up to 230 yrs old, solid stone and draughty! (Except for the bits that have been finished). At the moment, heating bills are a nightmare, but as we get the insulation progressively installed, and the secondary double-glazing units in, etc. the costs are steadily coming down. Like you, we are investing a bit at a time: I spent £1000 on a mains pressure Hot water tank that can take heat from the log stove, the oil boiler (which can run on biodiesel if it has to) and has an electric heater (for off-peak top-up) It also has a second heat transfer coil so that I can connect a solar panel or a ground-loop heat pump at a later stage when funds permit. The tank is stainless steel and has a 20 yr warranty so it’s worth the investment over time. The insulation is of two types: on the walls, we have fixed a lattice batten cage, then a 1” sheet of multi-layer foil & foam insulation that has the same insulation value as 8” of mineral wool, then another batten cage then board and plaster. 3 1/2” depth for a high u value. Its time-consuming to do but the results are excellent. The attic insulation is 4” flax wool: Just as good as mineral wool but is not an irritant and uses very little energy to manufacture. Finally 1 1/2” foam insulation boards under the slates (this house has cut slate roofing rather than tiles or shingles). Low energy bulbs everywhere: we can even get spot-lamp ones now. Like you, we buy from a renewable electricity tarrif, NPower renewables’ Juice Tarrif. We have a nearby off-shore 420MW windfarm that this company set up: created lots of engineering jobs locally too. They are due to build two more massive wind farms in Liverpool bay as well, giving a further 1.1GW supply capacity. The UK Govt has provided a support levy for non-fossil-fuel renewables until 2027, so this keeps the cost competitive. Generating costs on installed capacity are falling all the time towards coal-fired levels.

I have been toying with the idea of a rainwater recovery system for toilet flushing/ washing machine etc, and have plumbed these items on a separate supply ring, so I could change over at a later date. We have 4.5 times the average UK rainfall here so we are not short of water and could well use more of the run-off. But that’s a project for another year.

I have ordered a copy of Natural Capitalism as everyone is raving about it. There’s a new print-run coming out here on 12th March.

And finally, I personally agree about prayer and about our duty towards God’s creation. If you’re a guest in someone’s house, its not a good idea to trash the place; just in case they get to find out…....

with best wishes

Colin

One interesting point to note is the Greenpeace policy of trying to get major corporates on-side. They have the funds and the political influence, as well as the global reach. If one or more NGO’s can get a major corporate partner to be involved in a re-investment programme to reduce emissions and push up efficiencies, then the leverage effect is substantial. The NGO, through partners in local communities generates the popular buy-in the project in return for the Corporate’s investment. The corporate gets market share and customer loyalty. A commercial joint venture is often possible. In the UK, ‘Energy Mutuals’ are the proposed model for this kind of David and Goliath alliance.

best wishes

Colin Keyse

If I have understood this correctly from your links, Mark, there is a danger that warmed ocean waters will travel under the Iceshelf breaking the bond between the ice and the submerged continental land mass as far as the present msl boundary? If yes, then not only is there the risk of rapidly accellerating calving of bergs into the southern ocean, but the entire shelf could break off and become floating in a very short space of time. If that is possible, then two things could occurr: 1) there would be a sudden and substantial msl rise across the globe which could innundate coastal areas before resettlement or sea defenses could be put in place and 2) since the total Ice mass on the Antarctic continent exerts a downward force depressing the tectonic plate by 08km, with the transfer to floating mass by a lot more ice in a short space of time, this could unleash a series of very large plate meovements that could make disasters like the Asian Tsunami a regular occurrance.

Is this a reaslitic possibility or have I jumped too far ahead here?

regards

Colin

It is full of ways to reduce energy cost effectively. One method they refer to is “Tunneling Through.” Ordinarily a company installs the motor, then the pipefitters fit the pipes around it, with lots of bends, which causes resistance & ups the power needed. One company in the book did the reverse. They laid out the pipes as straight at they could, then found they could use a much smaller motor, and saved 90% in energy. There are many other examples, some not even in the book. I found a lot in Business Week when I was preparing for a course on Business & the environment.

Most things my husband and I did were not expensive at all, and paid for themselves in less than a year. The toilet we replaced was a necessity (the old one had conked out) & that cost $95 (it was cheapest, most efficient one on the market), and it paid for itself in less than a year. The SunFrost was another issue. It just happened that after years of being in debt, we happened to have about $2700 in the bank. I sat down & figured how much we could save with a SunFrost (uses 1/10 the energy of other brands) v. interest in a mutual fund, & the SunFrost won. I presented a “business plan” to my husband (it took some convincing), & he finally agreed to buy one. Now, it is not frostfree – so it may not be for everyone. And we did have to build a little platform for it. But after we got it, we found out that veggies didn’t spoil (expect for ginger root, which we now keep in the freezer section), so food wastage was greatly reduced, giving us a greater saving than planned.

I think you are missing my point on Kyoto. But first let’s talk about the car example.

China car manufacturers are 4th largest producers in world and about to be 3rd overtaking France… http://www.gluckman.com/ChinaCars.html

Selling over 2 million cars in 2003, Pollution and oil consumtion also a concern. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0628_040628_chinacars.html

Sales to exceed 5 million… http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-11/20/content_283109.htm

16 million cars in China – not many for a country with 1.3 billion people – and only one-tenth of one per cent of the Chinese people will be buying a car this year. But industry officials enthuse about a 20% rise in sales last year and a 30% sales rise during the first four months of this year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2026707.stm

China’s economy (and this includes car production) is growing exponentially!

You say don’t make India and China “slaves” to the US? WHo exactly is the slave and who is beniftting? The US has a trade deficit with these countries! The US owes them for the products sold. Their economies are growing from manufacturers. Products which are made with different rules and different production (and air/soil quality) standards. That is what I mean by not fair.

The US has many built in costs because of regulations, EPA guidleines and treaties. Agriculture has various subsidies which the taxpayer pays, Fuel/Oil has taxes and regulations, taxes on water usage, tariffs on cars sold in the US because of EPA standards… These differences that Kyoto would increase was what is not fair.

Why do you think so many manufacturers are flocking to China and India? Low wages are a small part of the picture… it’s the lack of regulations! Certain industries are gone in the US and Europe and why is that? Because of the cost to built the plants to regulated guidelines.

Second, about the “wasteful” US houses and how energy INefficient they are. I live in an all electric house. I think the fact my energy bills only increased by 50% in 10 years and yet I moved into a house that is 280% larger is technology working! Oh and I cited ENERGY COST. The cost for energy has gone UP the past 10 years!!! I did not have the time to compare the actual Kilowatts per hour used and how LITTLE they increased. If that were the case it would be much LESS (subtracting the increased energy costs). Speaking of conservation, I was shocked to see last year at my stay on Paris (France) that water ran in the streets for hours every morning. Wasn’t water something to be conserved? Weren’t we taught to turn off the water when we brush out teeth? Yet it ran for hours to wash the streets in PAris… I don’t get it.

As far as the technology to get a house to use less electricity, I don’t have the time to respond to all the points. It’s obvious you must live in a part of the US where the building codes are very “loose.” In the part I live the codes require the uses of better insulation and ventalation techniques, better windows, house wrap and low flow water etc… The state/ county building code drives saftey and efficiency. Older houses can’t even begin to compete with new houses in terms of the efficiency. This is true of houses even 10 years old! Many Americans think about the energy costs when buying a new house, especially a larger house than the one they may currently own.

My point to Kyoto was that Kyoto is artificially trying to do what the markets would naturally do anyway. Kyoto wants to limited energy use because of it’s assumed bad GHG’s in the world. Well guess what, Oil and energy is going up anyways because of growing economies like China and India! This will naturally cause other countires to use less fuel.

Think about the western European Countries, Why don’t teens of 17 or 18 (or even 20 yrs old) get a car right away? They are able to legally drive but most don’t (unless they have a lot of money). It’s because of all of the other built ins, associated costs to driving… the car cost, insurance, road tax, MOT, parking taxes (in some cities), high cost of fuel and general maintenance. The cost of the car is beyond the reach of many because of other built in costs. I have heard it said the 70-80% of the cars in England are owned by companies because of the expense of owning one. I don’t see that as growth Dan, do you? Kyoto will add to the cost not reduce it. That is what I mean about anti growth. If the car is not selling, it not being produced, and the company is not hiring, and the unemployed worker is not buying things, and the cycle goes on….

It was interesting you picked, Kyoto EXEMPTED, China and India as your examples. China and India are the two largest countries, population wise, on the planet. In terms of the percentages you cited, the numbers do mean something when you dealing with over a billion people!! I found the sources via the web and are included for all to read whether you believe them or not is up to you.

As far as your tree planting argument we already have it. It’s called “Arbor Day” which is celebrated throughout the US. Should a law be passed to force people to plant trees? (think about the paper wasted to print the new law before you answer… ha,ha)

I think I understand your points clearly and that you are missing my point on Kyoto.

Your points about regulations I do understand and I agree with you that China should be on a more level playing field sooner than later. In that regards, I think the fairness issue applies. As I said in my previous post, I would not like them to emulate our bad habits from the past. I think I did say that and that applied to what you posted. So, we are in agreement here.

I was mentioning that China and India have been so far at the bottom of prosperity that that an increase in prosperity be it large is still a drop compared to us and I suggested that what you said about fairness was not correct in that light. They were exempt from Kyoto for a reason but I was never suggesting that they be excluded forever. Just making a point about your concept of fairness!

The tree planting strategy was not Arbor Day. This was a PEW study quoted in the Washington Post. The point here is that for a fraction of the Iraq war, we could meet half of Kyoto just by planting trees. Since you did not make a valid comparison or did not even counter my point of meeting Kyoto with a fraction of the Iraq war costs, then your point about Arbor Day was totally irrelevant as a counter to anything I said on that.

Now, I did provide per capita emission figures which indicate that we have room for reducing and I believe we can do it without sacrificing our quality of living. We should be doing this and we can do it to be fair to those who have committed to reduce emissions when they are already much lower than us on a per capita basis.

FYI, an all-electric house creates more emissions than one that uses natural gas for heating and domestic water supply if the electricity is supplied from a coal plant. Colin, who heats his house with coal, has fewer emissions per heating Btu than your house heated by coal-powered electricity.

The fact that your energy bills increased by 50% in 10 years and yet you moved into a house that is 280% larger is technology working! Agreed! However, older houses were so inefficient that this means little to me. We can still reduce it much further.

Also, it is the exposed envelope which counts. A 280% increase in floor area does not mean that the envelope increases by the same percentage. Your 280% number may be an invalid number in your comparison anyway.

I do have a question concerning your house. Do you have a bonus room over a garage and does it heat and cool adequately. If so, this is a good sign and you had a good builder. If not, then I can help you make that room function better since I know the secret why so many of those rooms are too hot in the summer especially. Are you totally satisfied with the comfort of your new home at all times? This is another test of its quality.

If we and China and all other countries did better at energy efficiency, diversifying resources, and adjusting lifestyles to reduce wasteful habits, then the whole world would improve in quality because we have allowed for the existing carbon-based energy to be more widely available. With the additional threat of climate change, we must do our part to be responsible for the world and future generations.

If prosperous nations have committed to reduce per capita emissions who have half our per capita emissions rates and you say that this is unfair and we should increase our per capita rates in a world of reducing carbon sources of energy then I do not think that you clearly have thought this through at all.

Furthermore, the newspaper is not wasted if it is recycled and old newspaper is the main ingredient in cellulose insulation which is better than fiberglass which I am sure your home uses. R-value is not really the same when comparing different types of insulation but this is not common knowledge. How about your bonus room? I am curious.

You ignored my per capita emissions numbers which were more relevant in this discussion. I could care less about France wasting water being a part of this discussion. Their per capita emissions are a third of ours. Why do you talk about water when I am talking about GW/CC? It helps when we are discussing apples to talk about apples and not about oranges!

Since the per capita emissions aspects were critical to my main point, I wonder why you did not focus on that. My use of per capita numbers was because it ignores population and focuses on emissions per person and we are very high. The fairness argument is bringing our per capita figures down.

What is most fair is to arrive at a per capita balance world-wide which would mean China goes up, India goes up, and we and other more prosperous nations go down. This is called fairness by balancing out carbon emissions world-wide to deal with global GW/CC issues. This is the basis behind concepts like Kyoto.

China and India need to be a part of this process at some point sooner or later. There has to be an upper emission limit for China and India to be fair. Agreed!

Are Americans really more entitled than everyone else on the planet in your mind? Is that a fair attitude? This is what I think you are really suggesting although you may not see that clearly in your mind.

Again, I hope I did not confuse you with the facts. I bet many around the world would disagree with your concept of what is fair and make a good counter case to any point you could make. I bet their counter case would have more factual data supporting it than you would have supporting yours.

I think that our politicians both Republican and Democrat have let us down and not other countries. Our elected leaders have done more harm than good for us and I hold them responsible for any detrimental state to our economic status.

We should never have a deficit or a large national debt at all financed by other countries. I find no reasons for this other than our own stupidity. We are our own worst enemy.

Later, Dan

But not one I can answer – the dynamics of ice-shelf breakup are only just becoming better understood. No-one was sure, before the Larsen shelves broke up, whether the glaciers behind them would accelerate or not. The fear has long been with WAIS that because it is mostly grounded below sea level it could fail fairly catastrophically. Who knows. But tectonic rebound would be much slower – over many thousands of years. That’s why the north of Scotland is still rebounding from the last ice age, for example. But your first point seems to me to be a genuine concern.

No I don’t think the US has exclusive rights to produce whatever it wants at the detriment to everyone else. And I think the US also understands this and that was why they were the first to have unleaded gasoline and catalytic converters on cars. (like in 1975) They pioneered nuclear power and when possible used other forms of power generations such as hydroelectric. Saying the US produce whatever at irresponsible levels would be the same argument smoker’s use for smoking sections in restaurants. I heard a clever counter to that which said, “Smokers sections in a restaurant is like swimming in a pool and having someone pee in the corner” (ha).

But I don’t think that trashing the economy or pricing products out of the market is the way to deal with GHG either. AS I said earlier, why force countries to lower GHG levels in a decade when it took a century to get there? The GHG levels of the US reflect the size of the economy and the size of productivity in the country. As long as they are moving in the direction of better efficiency and lower GHG that is a good thing. Kyoto just determined how fast they move in the lower GHG level.

Capitalistically, working toward efficiency is smarter business. It’s doing business and saving cost at the same time. It’s accomplishing the same goal as Kyoto without demolishing the countries way of living.

About Kyoto here is another article relating my earlier discussion about unfairness and uncompetitive edge for US constrained by Kyoto in a global market.

1998 article on Kyoto’s effect on the economy. Made some points I made like the short timeline to cut so deeply in the GHG output. Impact on economy, involving all major players, etc… http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4070/is_n135/ai_20860166

Other countries may find themselves in a bind trying to adhere to Kyoto also. I think those countries who started with low GHG were probably all for the treaty because they could sell their extra allotted GHG shares to other countries who needed them to stay afloat economically. This to me is not really incentive based but more punitive.

Article on Canada’s inability to meet its GHG cutting goals today. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/timeline.html

Another Canada not meeting goals article http://www.cp.org/english/online/full/science/050215/g021508A.html

Even smaller countries are aware to the difficulties in trying to meet the Kyoto protocols. Especially if it damages the economy.

UK majority put limits on Kyoto protocol http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=15

So are there any alternatives for lowering GHG or is the final answer in the Kyoto treaty? I think there are plenty of ways to accomplish the goals. If we can go to the moon surely we can tackle human generated GHG’s!

Paper on alternatives to Kyoto with GHG reduction as ultimate goal http://www.abare.gov.au/pdf/IRES_FINALwithnewfigurefor.pdf

The US is getting there. Bush is just leading down a path that won’t trash the economy in the process. I think he’s trying to do the right thing for the US and striking a balance between economics and the GHG problem. http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=252 http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/globalwarming/

I read your blog posts on your site with interest. I live here and understand the culture enough. I am also learning more about yours! ;-)

The historical context which you sometimes write reminds me of a more positive outlook I have based on another historical context.

The Brits were the first to contain Nazi Germany and later we came into the fold once we became enlightened. But before we were enlightened, the Brits were on the front lines. Together we were able to insure that they did not rule.

We have a similar threat and it is home grown but again the Brits are taking the lead role and ahead of the game. Somewhere follows a more positive outcome and I leave it for others to complete my metaphor in their own way because within it there may be a greater truth and vision.

I have my own ideas that I am withholding that may be important. However, it may be more important for others, by their own effort, to discover something I may be aware of.

For the curious, see if you can figure out how Britain can become prosperous by saving us financially and creating a framework to enable us to meet Kyoto and beyond willingly without involving our government or even our environmental groups.

This may be a tease but this exercise is only for the deep thinkers on Mark’s site. I have an idea and I wonder if others can discover it without me disclosing it.

I will provide some hints: Think in terms of what the future will actually be like instead of the present day world-view and circumstances. Think about circumstances forcing paradigm shifts in thought based on global financial changes. Once Britain had an Empire! Once there was a Soviet Union and a Berlin Wall! One day everything changed. Why would this not occur again and with us?

Think of the future financial environment, remedial technologies, and the Kyoto carbon-trading mechanisms. Think of the future relative economic positions for the USA and the EU and in particular Great Britain. Just take your thoughts to a higher level!

Do the math. Present economic models are flawed in that the cost of energy is based on present costs and not on the future costs of replacing it in a sustainable way.

Economic theory does not fully integrate the laws of physics or ecology. It does not quite understand the lead time required to change our infrastructure when the Peak Oil/GW/CC watershed comes into full swing.

Other exercises related to this would be answering the following questions:

1. What are the specific reasons for the significant differences in per capita emissions per industrialized country and what can we learn from that?

2. What are the specific differences between our modern world today and the world of the past when we had no oil to use and what can we learn from that which can apply in our modern world?

There was a time when we had no oil to use! In fact, most of our civilization has been without fossil fuel. What can we learn from the past? Surely there is something there to discover!

Sometimes we think we have the answers but we need to be sure we are asking enough of the right questions? I thought that a tease that prompts curiosity might be of more benefit then me just spouting off my own ideas since they may be in primitive form and premature.

Maybe someone can top what I am not disclosing! My purpose here is to encourage us to think more outside the box and see what happens from this post!

Also, I encourage everyone to keep thinking in terms of application and not just a rant. The whole world will have to be reinvented to meet this challenge.

We may be just peering at just the fringes of the required effort. Realistically, this effort may only accelerate forward during a time of crises. What ultimately matters is what the world looks like after the end game.

What might a future “positive” outcome look like? The word “positive” is important. If we could accurately imagine that, what would a person from the future tell us in this moment we call today on what we did that made the difference to our final success?

I will leave it at that. I hope my post will stimulate some interesting and insightful responses even though I posed only abstract questions instead of specific ideas.

Dan

Colin,

Is there any way these ideas can be implemented here?

Any sites you recommend?

Kind Regards, Dan