UN and the IPCC
This year, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--which shared the Nobel with Al Gore--released three major documents chronicling the intricate details, implications and possible solutions to climate change.
Bottom line: Climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activity and if nothing is done there will catastrophic environmental, human and economic consequences.
Now their findings, based on the expert opinion of about 2,500 scientists, are being condensed into a shortened version that will be used by the world's leading policymakers at summit in Bali starting December 3 to discuss the next step in combating climate change.
The ultimate goal of the meeting is to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Coincidentally, one of the two major industrialized nations that didn't ratify Kyoto, Australia, may be on board by the time the Bali meeting comes to pass.
Australia's Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd, said today he would personally attend the meeting and sign the Kyoto pact if he wins this weekend's parliamentary elections. Rudd added that fighting catastrophic climate change would be one of his top priorities.
That would leave just one lonely industrialized country stubbornly refusing to sign Kyoto. And speaking of stubborn:
Bush Struck Down in Court
Last week, a federal appeals court harshly dismissed Bush's new pollution standards for SUVs, pickup trucks and vans, ordering the administration to prepare a new, tougher plan for vehicle emissions.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals couldn't figure out why trucks are allowed to pollute more than cars or why heavier commuter trucks weren't included, among other things. The court also concluded that the administration didn't properly assess greenhouse gas emissions when it set new minimum miles-per-gallon requirements.
Can I get a special interest witness?
But as always, Big Auto had excuses and complaints. "Any further changes to the program would only delay the progress that manufacturers have made toward increasing fleet-wide fuel economy," said Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
They'd get more done if they stopped bitching and just did it.
In Japan, some cars are required to get in excess of 48 miles per gallon (mpg). So it can be done.
Maybe that's why California Attorney General Jerry Brown called raising the efficiency standards a mere one mpg "pathetic and appalling." He's right.
The lead judge in the matter, Betty Fletcher, also questioned why the administration failed to consider the numerous benefits of reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with increased fuel efficiency. She made sure to note that the administration "did, however, include an analysis of the employment and sales impacts of more stringent standards on manufacturers."
She also didn't understand why Bush refused to include new standards for trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds, like the Hummer H2 and the Ford F250.
Can I get another witness?
I'll call Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who said, "This historic ruling vindicates our fight against fuel economy standards that are a complete sham and a gift to the auto industry."
What ever happened to what's best for the citizens? Certainly we'd like to go further on a gallon of gas. Especially in a world of . . .
Runaway Energy Demand
Also last week, the Financial Times (FT) broke a story entitled, "Welcome to a World of Runaway Energy Demand"--an official invitation to anyone who's still in the dark on this issue.
The article is a summary of the International Energy Agency's latest World Energy Outlook, and paints a pretty grim picture of the world's energy economy.
Here, then, are a few of the findings highlighted in that report:
- Without policy change, world energy demand will be 50% higher in 2030 than it is today. China and India would account for 45% of that growth. And you thought things were bad today.
- OPEC's share of the world oil market climbs from 42% to 52%, and "a supply-side crunch in the period to 2015 involving an abrupt escalation in oil prices cannot be ruled out."
- A $22 trillion investment (about half of 2006 gross world product) is needed to make sure energy supply infrastructure can meet rising demand over the next 25 years.
- Without policy change, global CO2 emissions will jump 57% between 2005 and 2030.
- A growing proportion of the energy vital for so-called civilized life comes from a few, sometimes increasingly hostile, suppliers. OPEC's revenues are forecast to triple for the period between 2002 and 2007.
Bottom line, according to the FT article:
"It is simple: commercial energy is the staff of our contemporary life. As demand for energy rises, nothing is more important than ensuring increased supply and efficient use, while curbing environmental damage. Today's high prices are a start. Fundamental innovation and high prices on greenhouse gas emissions must follow."
In the Meantime . . .
According to a new analysis of the energy market, this year will be another record-breaker for venture capital investment in the clean-tech sector.
That's because with such high, and perpetually rising, energy prices, alternatives are increasingly appealing on a financial basis.
And then there's the climate angle. Companies--and I'm talking big companies--are turning increasingly sycophantic toward the public's perception of their level of greenness.
They are trying to reduce and offset their carbon footprints, and are purchasing and investing in renewable energy.
This increased willingness to go green, coupled with a drastic energy crisis in the coming years, has its implications.
One of them is sweeping and continued investment in clean technologies, regardless of individual beliefs on the semantics, causes, or even the reality of climate change.
We need to use less energy. We need to become more efficient. We need to focus on becoming energy independent. We need to pollute less.
These things are not debatable. They are all are inherently good for individuals, nations and the world.
Why not make some money while doing it?
That's exactly what we're doing at Green Chip. Our current portfolio is up over 64%, fueled only by clean energy, water and organic companies.
Click here to join the thousands who are profiting from this revolution.
Until next time,
Nick
Subscribe to
Does anyone in America truly think the EUropeans have a reduced lifestyle because of the small cars?
Try spending some time with the Germans or French, put aside your historical cultural biases and you will see they live, eat and drink well, have an excellent lifestyle, environment, public transport health system, etc. I'm Australian and they beat us & the US hands down.
ALso heaven help us if the Indians & Chinese demand our 'guzzling' lifestyle. My two sons (3 & 5) will curse us all as their living standard goes back two centuries.
Geoff Willett
Before you bash the US for not signing on to Kyoto, maybe you should look at the facts. Just how many of the major industrialized countries that signed on to Kyoto (e.g. Japan, Europe) have actually done anything about CO2 levels? I think you'll find that they have all increased their emissions instead of decreasing them per their committments. In fact, they have increased them more than the US. Most analyses show that they now have no way to meet their committments short of forcing their economies into a deep recession to slow growth. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy trying to reduce the burning of fossil fuels when the cost is so low. In stead of bureaucrats trying to force consumer behavior through regulations of business, we need policy changes that change consumer behaviors. When consumer behoviours change, then the businesses will follow.
Notable & Quotable
John Christy at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on (Climate Change (co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize) responds to questions by CNN anchor Miles O'Brien:
O'BRIEN: I assume you're not happy about sharing this award with Al Gore. You are going to renounce it in some way?
CHRISTY: Well, as a scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville I always thought that-I may sound like the Grinch who stole Christmas here- that the prize was given for performance, and not for promotional activities.
And, when look at the world, I see that the carbon dioxide is increasing, and energy demand, of course, is increasing. And that's because, without energy, life is brutal and short. So, I don't see very much effect in trying to scare people into not using energy, when it is the very basis of how we can live in our society.
O'BRIEN: So, what about the movie ["An Inconvenient Truth"]; do you take issue with, then, Dr. Christy?
CHRISTY: Well, there's any number of things.
I suppose, fundamentally, it's the fact that someone is speaking about a science that I have been very heavily involved with and have labored so hard in, and been humiliated by, in the sense that the climate is so difficult to understand, Mother Nature is so complex and so the uncertainties are great, and then to hear someone speak with such certainty and such confidence about what the climate is going to do is-well, I suppose I could be kind and say, it's annoying to me.
O'BRIEN: But you just got through saying that the carbon dioxide levels are up. Temperatures are going up. There is a certain degree of certainty that goes along with that, right?
CHRISTY: Well, the carbon dioxide is going up. And remember that carbon dioxide is plant food in the fundamental sense. All of life depends-on the fact carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. So, we're fortunate it's not a toxic gas. But, on the other hand, what is the climate doing? And when we build-and I'm one of the few people in the world that actually builds these climate data sets-we don't see the catastrophic .changes that are being promoted all over the place,
For example, I suppose CNN did not announce two weeks ago when the Antarctic sea Ice extent reached its all-time maximum, even though, in the Arctic in the North role, it reached its all-time minimum.
Off-hand it doesn't sound as though it's all as cut and dried as Dr. Christy's employers at the IPCC would have us believe 2000 "scientists" have signed on to. In fact it would seem doubtful the the Nobel Prize Winner is on of them. Pretty brave guy I'd say, given his aegis agency.
R.J. Reilly
These scientists need to spend more time in church and less time doing research.
Reading the anti- Bush anti-nuclear verbiage and articles claiming Kyoto really means something.
And this supposedly is all coming from sound analysis? Oh really.
When we have the solutions to reversing the population growth of the planet with enviro friendly energy production the main contributor to our needs - only then may we provide a habitable planet for future generations.
Some annalist please answers this question.
Can we expect human kind to cap global population very soon? If the answer is yes the solutions to climate change is more than half provided. If the answer is No then sure we can make nice returns from new energy companies relatively soon however they must fail us ultimately as mankind will not reverse the quickening decline of the planet. Get in quick then ? I expect to hear from the investment guru’s.
Erhard Fick
Adelaide
Australia