Global Climate Talks Troubled by U.S. Inaction

(AP)  The failure of a climate bill in the U.S. Senate is likely to weigh heavily on international negotiations that begin Monday on a new agreement to control global warming.

The decision to strike the bill from the Senate's immediate agenda has deepened the distrust among poor countries about the intentions of United States and other industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions that power their wealthy economies but risk causing the Earth to dangerously overheat, say climate activists.

A split between rich and poor nations has characterized the talks since they began 2½ years ago, but it widened after the disappointment of the Copenhagen climate summit last December that fell short of any binding agreement and produced only a brief document of political intentions.

The withdrawal of the bill to cap U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prominent gas blamed for global warming, "plays into the same old fault lines," said Kelly Dent, of Oxfam International. It has let down developing countries that had looked to President Barack Obama's administration to seize the leadership in climate negotiations, she said Sunday from Bonn, Germany.

Delegations from most of the 194 participating nations begin a five-day negotiating session in Bonn on Monday that is one of the last meetings before another decisive conference convenes at the end of the year in Cancun, Mexico. One more weeklong round of talks is scheduled for October in China.

The two keys to any agreement are commitments by rich countries to cut emissions and their pledges to fund poor countries' actions to adapt to climate changes affecting agriculture and the frequency of extreme weather events like floods and drought.

So far, Washington has not backed away from its promise at Copenhagen to reduce emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next 10 years. But even that pledge, made more doubtful now by legislative inertia, has been roundly criticized as inadequate.

Christiana Figueres, presiding over the talks for the first time since becoming executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change a month ago, says the industrial countries must lift their emissions reduction pledges if they hope to limit global warming to manageable levels this century.

Pledges given so far amount to reductions of 12 to 19 percent below 1990 levels, she told reporters last week. U.N. scientists have said the rich countries must slash emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020. Because carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, scientists say it is crucial to act quickly to reach a peak in global emissions.

The U.N. negotiations aim to reach a deal to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which called on a list of industrial countries to cut emissions by a total 5 percent by 2012 as measured against 1990.

The United States rejected Kyoto, partly because it made no demands on rapidly developing countries like China, which now produces more much heat-trapping gases than any other country.

Developing countries now say they are willing to take steps to control emissions, but that they must be given space to build their economies. Although China is the largest carbon polluter and India is rapidly catching up, both countries lag far behind the industrial countries in emissions per person and still have huge populations mired in poverty.

Shifting to a lower gear, Figueres says it would be a mistake to seek an overarching package deal in Cancun, which she said would "ignore the need to continue innovating" to combat global warming.

Instead, delegates should focus on a few essentials they can build on later. One is a practical plan for raising and distributing $30 billion over the next three years to poor countries, as pledged at Copenhagen, she said.

After a meeting last week in Rio de Janeiro, the environment ministers of Brazil, China, India and South Africa - an increasingly important negotiating bloc known as the BASIC countries - said "fast-start finance will be the key for an effective result" in Cancun.

Financing must be new, rather than repackaged development aid, and should be given as grants, the four countries said in a joint statement.
By Associated Press Writer Arthur Max

[prohb]

We need to unite as a people, like our parents did in WW2, and defeat this common problem-----but this time not with guns and bombs but by behaving as responsible human beings. The US public cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world. Instead we should be a shining example. We can do this.

[cleantheDCcesspool]

Sorry, world. obamao has been very busy trying to financially ruin this country, but as soon as we are as poor as you, he will use "global warming" to pass cap-and-trade, and then you will be richer than the U.S. and you can bail us out.

[Noval53]

Here goes another gathering of the Climate Change Chaos Church; asking for more money of course. The Climate MAD Science priests and all their fanatical followers will gather to demand loyalty, cast out demons, write more climate chaos scripture, excommunicate non-believers, and pass the plate. Donations will be mandatory. Want more money for this "hot air" madness; ask the Chinese, and keep your sticky fingers out of the American taxpayer's pockets.

[louiville35]

by maintain_integrity August 3, 2010 11:52 AM EDT
Hmmmmmm.....new UK order just today for 66MW of Vestas WIND TURBINES:

Vestas says got 66 MW wind turbine order from UK
Aug. 3, 2010

COPENHAGEN Aug 3 (Reuters) - Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas (VWS.CO: Quote) has received an order for 22 turbines with total capacity of 66 megawatts for what will be England's biggest onshore wind farm, Vestas said on Tuesday.

The deal with Devon Wind Power, a subsidiary of ESB Wind Development UK, includes supply, installation and commissioning of the turbines, a Vestas control system and a 10-year service agreement, Vestas Wind Systems A/S said in a statement.

Delivery of the V90-3.0 MW wind turbines for the Fullabrook project in North Devon is scheduled to be completed in April 2011, Vestas said.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFDKT00504520100803



How does it feel to be so wrong on every issue, louie?

Not my fault they suffer from a dance mania symptom of over zealousness, next your going to tell me they still bleed people to make them feel better. Oh and BTW from the UK

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/warning-over-wind-farm-output-1.1042097

[louiville35]

by maintain_integrity August 3, 2010 11:36 AM EDT
louie says, "Kind of like getting your facts from advocacy sites eh?"
***********************



No different than you using steven goddard and his buddy watts's denialist site for your constant disinformation, and your attacks on any clean and green renewable energy with free and abundant fuel, and no emissions of any kind, while worshiping the fossil fuel industry!

Except, my information from the wind industry compares exactly with my own real life experiences with 2 wind turbines IN MY BACK YARD, that compliment by 2KW PV system -- unlike your political tabloid sources!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Well shoot 2 whole KWs why didn't you say so my last system I helped put in was just a measly 4.5 GW system I feel embarrassed.

Here's some questions for you.

Can wind turbines help avoid blackouts?

How much back-up power is needed for wind power?

What is wind power's capacity credit?

How does wind power's variable output affect the grid?

There you go now off with you...

[louiville35]

Oh and ad hominem attacks are the tactics of politicians and con men when they have no facts to challenge the argument. Glad I could help you out there.

[tsigili]

The US does not have the conviction, nor courage, to save the planet.

All the US cares about, is the almighty dollar.....greed, is a descriptive term.

[antiglobal5]

of course the poor countries are upset. They were counting on getting money handed to them via the U.S. taxpayers and consumers.
Look at the proposed plan. U.S. taxpayers and businesses would be taxed for carbon emmissions, a good part of that money would go to poor countries, in other words the U.S. middle class would be funding growth in countries that will eventually compete for jobs Americans need (if a service or good is consumed in the U.S. it should also be made or done here to keep the revenue for ourselves).
THe other reason this idea is bad for the U.S. is because I have not been able to find anything in the plans that would mandate the poor countries use the revenue for green technology. If the people are poor do you really think they will use the revenue to build green technology? Of course not, they will use it for other reasons and then come back and ask for more.

[rf35]

I don't think global warming is caused or can be stopped by man. That said, I support measures that combat global warming because they have the wonderful side effect of making America cleaner and energy-independent.

The US will never move forward on energy independence (or climate change or whatever you dress it up as) so long as partisan politics is a driving factor. No matter which party is in control, the other will do everything in its power to block any legislation proposed. Sad that such petty concerns can keep us on the leash of the oil sheiks.

[j_mcdonald-2009]

dot92141, you need to learn the difference between local and global.

It might have been the coldest winter in history in Florida, for all I know, but globally it was the 8th warmest Dec, 4th warmest Jan, and 6th warmest Feb.

March, April, May, June, and July were all the hottest such months on record. A recent day in July was the hottest ever recorded for worldwide average temperature. The past 12 months were the hottest ever recorded, and the past decade is the hottest ever recorded.

Meanwhile, the arctic ice extent for the past 4 years has reached record lows with over one million fewer square kilometers than in the 20th century, and this year may reach the lowest extent ever come September. With current trends, the arctic will be ice free in the summer within about 20 years. (Did I mention the methane boiling out of the permafrost in Siberia causing lakes to catch on fire?)

And both the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets are losing over 100 cubic kilometers of ice per year (about 1/3 the volume of Lake Erie) at an accelerating rate, while glaciers are not just shrinking but actually disappearing around the world (4 in Glacier National Park last year alone).

And the excess CO2 has caused a pH shift in the world's ocean from 8.179 to 8.104, on a trend that will make it impossible for shellfish to make shells within about 100 years, and is already seriously affecting their ability to reproduce. Plus, a recent study in Nature has shown that about one-half of the ocean's phytoplankton (the basis of the food chain, and the source of most of the atmosphere's oxygen) has been lost in the past 130 years.

So tell me again how cold it was in your backyard for a few days last winter.

[j_mcdonald-2009]

"There exists no alternative energy source, no combination of alternative energy sources, and no system of combinations of alternative energy sources that can fully replace a single, coal fired electric plant built with 1930s era technology."

In a word, ********.

The Geysers geothermal plant produces 750 Megawatts, well within the range of typical coal-fired plants (larger than some, smaller than others).

For wind-power, each individual tower produces about 1 MW, so a collection of 500 or so is easily into the range of a coal-fired plant. (About 1% of backup from other sources is needed for such an array, so if you had 100 coal-fired plants, you could replace 99 with wind-power if you kept one of the coal plants online for backup.)

From the quality of your posts here, I suggest you read more and post less.