Ever since Canada backed out of Kyoto, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, climate change policy has been in a fog (or was it smog?). Yesterday, the Ottawa Citizen published an article on the Canadian climate change charade. The author opens,
It is easy to get lost in the complexities of the fight against climate change -- the multiple deadlines, shifting baselines and arcane technicalities of the file. And lost is just where Stephen Harper's government seems to hope voters will stay.
What is this shifting baseline? Apparently, Canada's Environment Minister expresses support for the G8's proposed 50 percent cut in GHG emissions by 2050 -- but he did not mention he'll be using a 2006 baseline for emissions rather than the Kyoto-proposed 1990 date. The author continues...
The selling campaign continues today with the visit of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Everyone is trying to get close to Arnie these days, to bask in his green glow. But Schwarzenegger has a muscular plan to reduce emissions in his state by 80 per cent beneath 1990 levels by 2050. By comparison, the Baird plan promotes speculative, even fictional, cuts of around 60 per cent below 2006 by 2050 -- and shows no interest in adopting California's tough tailpipe standards.
The Governator's 1990 baseline is admirable in comparison to the federal aims of either the U.S. or Canada. In politics, it might even seem like eons. But remember that the first gas guzzling automobile was built in 1885...
The world's first gas guzzler: Daimeler Benz, 1885
Comments
Maybe we need a slimy hagfish to crawl inside the useless/dead government and eat it from the inside out.
Something to get rid of these useless politicians that aren't doing a damn thing for the environment.
Posted by: Jon Rusho | May 31, 2007 8:06 AM
China builds a new coal (bad coal) power plant every month; India is doing much the same. I suggest that emissions installed on these are not quite what even the oldest North American coalfired power plant has installed. Hmmmmm.
Devonian O2 levels (see Berner) were 38%; Permo-Triassic O2 was 14%; Cretaceous CO2 was abot 8-10 times present CO2
I kinda would spend soem time on what happens to % O2 and less on the ppb's of CO2.
But that's what a living fossil suggests.
cheers
Posted by: Donald Wolberg | May 31, 2007 8:18 AM
Jon: I couldn't have put it better!
Donald: Please send link to your Berner reference, if possible...
Posted by: Jennifer Jacquet | May 31, 2007 10:41 PM
Try this: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5824/557 (there are additional references at the end of that article)
The CO2/O2 issue brings up some interesting issues: 1-combustion of carbon energy sources uses up oxygen, so CO2 rises and O2 drops 2-The ideas proposed to capture and sequester CO2 also would cause removal of oxygen from the atmosphere.
So, daring to use the E-word, what evolutionary changes are in store for rising CO2 and dropping O2?
Posted by: Jon Rusho | June 1, 2007 6:42 AM