World CO2 (emissions) up 39 percent by 2030 without new policy: EIA

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE54Q3BY20090527

World CO2 up 39 percent by 2030 without new policy: EIA

Wed May 27, 2009 10:31am EDT

By Timothy Gardner

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Global emissions of the main greenhouse gas carbon dioxide will jump more than 39 percent by 2030 without new policies and binding pacts to cut global warming pollution, the top U.S. energy forecast agency said on Wednesday.

Nearly 200 nations are set to meet late this year in Copenhagen to hash out a new agreement to control greenhouse gases as the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

U.S. President Barack Obama and leaders in both the House and Senate hope to regulate the gases with a cap and trade market in emissions.

Without new agreements to foster emerging technologies such as solar and wind power and burial of carbon dioxide underground, world emissions of the gas should hit 40.4 billion metric tons by 2030, up from 29 billion metric tons in 2006, said the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistics arm of the Department of Energy.

…

Whew! From the headline, I thought atmospheric levels of CO₂ were going to be increasing 39% by 2030! (What a relief!)

[JohnWxy]

1. recommended.

[Wednesdays]

2. K&R

:kick:

[joshcryer]

3. And people ask why China and India should have to cut back.

It's an inherently capitalistic perspective. The reality is that if we don't do something, outside of the guise of profit or "economic progress" billions of people are going to be displaced. It's just a matter of time.

And yes China and India, from a long term perspective, geniunely need to step up.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. And people ask why the US should

It's always the "other guy" who needs to reform.

First, take the log out of your own eye, so you can see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's.

[joshcryer]

5. The US absolutely should. But it should do it without worrying about "hurting" other countries.

The major justification for it is that since we buy from them if we go after products we buy from them we will hurt them because consumers will stop buying from them and start buying locally.

It's a sick catch 22. They want us to "stop polluting" but "continuing buying their pollution creating merch."