BRUSSELS, Belgium, Feb. 20, 2007
EU Seeks Ambitious Global Warming Goal
Environment Ministers Agree To 20% Cut In Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2020
-
(CBS)
-
Interactive Global Warming The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
But the goal — to cut emissions to 20 percent below their 1990 levels — could put a heavy burden on the EU's newest members, and it was unclear how much of the load wealthier nations would shoulder.
The ministers said the target could be pushed up to 30 percent below the 1990 levels if other industrial countries sign on to a global effort.
German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said many European colleagues had spoken of a moral duty toward future generations during the talks.
"Those who took the floor said that their daughters asked them exactly what they did when they came to such meetings and did they come home with good results," he said. "I think that's a pretty good incentive."
The target, which must be approved at an EU summit next month, is a critical first step in a global warming strategy that must be in place by the time the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The protocol requires 35 industrial nations to cut carbon dioxide and other harmful gases collectively by 5 percent from 1990 levels.
The EU ministers called for U.N.-led talks to finish by 2009 to fix a new climate change goal after Kyoto expires. The next agreement should include the United States — which rejected Kyoto — and other less-developed polluting countries like India, China, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa.
The United States — by far the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed by scientists for global warming — has stayed out of the Kyoto treaty. U.S. officials have said it would harm the economy.
The Bush administration has said it is committed instead to advancing and investing in new technologies to combat global warming. It has set a goal of reducing "greenhouse gas intensity," which measures the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output, by 18 percent by 2012.
A U.N. climate official praised the new European target as "a milestone" in efforts to bring down emissions from industrial countries by 60 percent to 80 percent by mid-century, which scientists say is necessary to curb the Earth's potentially disastrous rising temperatures.
The decision is "quite dramatic," said John Hay, spokesman for the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn, Germany. "But it cannot be a standalone target." If other nations don't follow suit, he said, "it won't have the desired effect."
Gabriel, who led the talks, said all countries agreed they need to act urgently just to hold down temperature increases below 3.7 degrees by the end of the century.
EU officials said they would now work on the details of how their target would be shared and reached.
The ministers gave broad support to a plan that would bring airlines into the trading program in which industries that emit too much carbon dioxide must buy credits from energy-efficient industries that meet their own targets. That would include airlines operating flights to European airports, although the United States has warned that such rules could be illegal and it could have grounds to sue.
EU ministers voiced concern that emissions trading might push up the cost of flights to remote parts of Europe.
Discussions also were advanced on imposing limits on carbon emissions by new cars and encouraging more reliance on wind, solar and possibly nuclear energy rather than on carbon-rich fossil fuels.
"There's an urgent need for improvement in the passenger cars category. Voluntary agreements won't be complied with. We must push for binding standards," Gabriel told the meeting. The ministers will debate the issue in June.
Only when there is a global agreement can EU nations fix a final figure for the amount of carbon dioxide emissions each nation must cut. Those discussions on the EU's internal targets could set a base year other than 1990, Gabriel said.
U.N. figures show Europe is on track to meet its goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto plan by 8 percent. But that figure was accepted by the EU when it only had 15 members, and its expansion to include former East bloc countries with less-developed economies has complicated post-2012 plans.
Even old EU members such as Finland, Spain and Denmark said they were concerned about the burden sharing.
Gabriel said the EU was facing a "historic decision" on climate change. He said Germany's parliament was ready to set the pace — with a cut of up to 40 percent.
"There will be some countries like Germany who will see a steeper reduction in greenhouse gases, and other countries, some of them no doubt in eastern Europe, that will have to achieve a lesser reduction in greenhouse gases because of the need to catch up economically," Gabriel said.
EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said EU nations had come a long way since March 2006, when leaders gave only vague direction to environmental officials, telling them to look at a cut in global carbon dioxide emissions of between 15 percent and 30 percent.
"Not even the word 'target' was there," he said.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The secrets of tennis legend 
It would seem the ones screaming the loudest are the very ones who want us to wear synthetic clothing, which only contributes to the problem. After all synthetics are made from petroleum. Go back to wearing wool, cotton, leather and furs to keep you warm in the winter. You would be comforted by the knowledge that you are contributing to a renewable resource and diminishing greenhouse gases...
There is a final fatal logic to it. As the world population increases, the price of gas naturally goes up, and people cannot afford to drive as much. People act like liberals are keeping them from driving, and that's a lie. Economic realities are keeping them from driving.
Biofuels, ethanol, etc. only delay the inevitable. No one is going to give up affordable food so they can drive.
In the long run, only by having smaller cars, and by adding mass transit, can we drive as much as we need to, without having to give up college funds and vacations. To defy these rules of economics is to push the limits of sanity.
And even mega-Republicans like Bill O'Reilly are beginning to lose it. If you watched him over the summer, he was fuming on his TV show about high gas prices. He was fuming about "speculators" who he said were using the futures market to keep the price of gas up and make money. Bill O'Reilly attacking the free market, the very wellspring of capitalism and the basis of American power.
If $3.00 a gallon grass forces Bill O'Reilly to abandon Republican principles, the Republican party's pretty much gonna be dead when gas hits $5.00.
Which it will.
Posted by george2221
Here's an angry fellow looking for a christian to feed to his pet lion!
A true intellectual has arrived! That was spot-on correct. The problem is not the Detroit minds as much as it is the U.S. consumer's tastes. They can't afford to build an unsellable vehicle. The U.S. drivers just won't buy the Mini Cooper-sized vehicles. If they ever drove one they might love them.
We know these companies are world-class, and can adapt if they want to, but instead they force Congress to keep CAFE standards low.
We taught the Japanese everything they know about building cars, and because their companies had a slightly higher threshold for regulatory pain, they're EATING OUR LUNCH!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263
Not sure what you are talking about...
other than we are he largest ecomomy by 400%...we are growing at a 3% rate...low unemployment..
Continued technology improvements..
Venture capital growth
the largest number of patents issued by far vs any othe country..
A university system that is unsurpassed
no frat boys run business or govt...
you state platitudes but give zero examples..
our farm production continues to soar....and far outstrips the nearest competitor...
never allow gov't to run business....you get a socialist ecomy which tends to fail....see the Soviet Union...
However, the American economy is HIDEOUSLY mismanaged because we allow fratboys to run our business and government. It's just like how most school principals in the US are promoted gym teachers.
And so we're WAY behind in adapting to new realities, and have regualtory inertia inhibiting our adapting to lower energy lifestyles. Likewise, we've violated our own rules on littoral development that millions of people are at jeopardy of being flooded out of their homes and insurance is gonna give them NOTHING.
But it's not only the coasts that will suffer. Middle America will also suffer hideous droughts (they've already started), and since they've already sucked the aquifer dry, economic hardship and social disruption in the heartland is a very serious risk.
Maybe now the voters will start letting educated people run their government and business.
as an aside Europe won't take the lead on many issues...gov't regs are an inhibitor...we are positioned to continue to lead the world...Strong universities, good gov't regs and a workforce that is mobile and flexible with capital willing to invest because of great potential returns and a favorable tax environment..
However, I would suggest we (the US) could turn this into a job bonanaza for us (America)..we could take the lead in developing super clean coal burning technologies and export them...( or use them in the US)...
We are looking at this incorrectly....there is a demand.....lets use that demand to our advantage....and it could help the environment...again, not a denier nor a believer but we could use it advantageously...
So it's not happening, but if it is, than it's good that it's happening, because we can all find work rebuilding our houses on higher ground.
- by triassic-2009 February 20, 2007 7:36 PM EST
- OK, time for all you global warming deniers to start posting. But for once, provide some factual support for your position.
- Reply to this comment
See all 16 Comments