On Tuesday, G8 leaders in Japan made an agreement that sounds great – by 2050, they'll cut the number of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by half. It's an improvement to Kyoto Protocol, at least, which the United States refused to adopt (and refused to apologize about). But developing nations, including China and India, were quick to criticize the accord, insisting that the G8 cut their emissions by more than 80 percent.
Despite the G8's dirty past, it's hard to pinpoint who's more at fault here. The list of concerned developing nations includes China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, a group not exactly known for being green. But the G8's consensus is hardly airtight – it's not yet legally binding, and no one's thought of a good way for rich and poor nations to share the burden. The intentions of the United States, which emits 7.2 billion of the 55 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases released yearly, are also questionable. In April, President George Bush pressured other nations – including China and India – to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, and announced that the U.S. would halt the growth of emissions by 2025. How on Earth we would do this? The answer mirrors the current G8 dilemma: he didn't say.
Should G8 blame on those developing nations which produce lots of gas emission or blame themselves first?
Since the first industrial revolution back the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the G8 have been tormenting the mother earth for more than a century. Now G8 should do more effects to cut their gas emission as quickly as they can rather than avoid the problems and blame on developing countries.
It seems to me that India and China are the catholicon that western countries use them again and again. They always blame soaring food prices and skyrocket gas price on those poor countries and ignore their own responsibilities. Just do the simple math, 10% of the developed countries use more than 80% of the energy in the world. So who should be blamed on?
Think again before even making any silly ideas and to fool the America again and again.
It's really everybodies fault here. The Kyoto Protocol said they would cut emissions. But what happened? Nothing! There is no way we can cut half of the emissions in 42 years! There is still greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. That has to circulate as well. Even if we do manage to cut the emissions, there is still going to be some left over. It's pointless. Just stop using fossil fuels and switch to other alternatives. Let the CO2 handle itself as mother nature intended it to.
It turns out that President Bush's proposal was the most realistic and successful of all. Between 2000 and 2006, U.S. emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases" decreased by 3%. Of the 17 largest emitters, only France managed to decrease it by more. Did we do it with fanciful cap-and-trade regulations? No. Just plain old fuel-economy standards, efficiency regulations and subsidies for low-carbon technologies. No one else who signed on to Kyoto did better except France. Also, President Bush introduced accountability into the process by requiring them to track and publish how well they're doing instead of making ridiculous promises and promptly ignoring them. Kyoto II's carbon-offsets programs are creating significant economic problems rather than any real-world reduction in emissions. Boo to Kyoto. Kudos to Bush. Now if more people would just pay attention to the data on anthropogenic climate change we'd soon realize that it's an imaginary problem and we could spend our resources on solving real world problems like hunger.
The damage has already been done I think. I cant see how they can achieve that goal? So to me halving emissions by 2050 is another joke. So much is planned to happen "before" 2050 so whatever they've told us here now will be irrelevent soon anyway.
To get the population to reduce carbon emissions by 50% or more, would need the world as a whole to reestablish a new way of living. That in itself would bring the emissions up, the resources and materials needed to establish that would only add to the emissions count. So technically its impossible unless we all ditch our cars and melt them to make other things, switch from coal generated power to solar/wind/hydo, and somehow I dont think people are too keen on that idea lol?
People want to save the Earth, they just dont want to have to pay for it though. Some just cant pay, others can but dont think this is an issue. Lack of "factual" information on climate change to educate people is impossible because the "experts" have no idea whats going to happen or how to change it.
Until individuals accept their part of the responsibilty then nothing will change. People dont like being told what to do even if its for their own best interests. So I guess we have to wait for people to "believe" there is even a problem, then for them get accustomed to the idea of change, and then for them to make that change, then hopefully it wont be too late?
Im not holding my breath ...
I have tried to wade through the decades of documents and measurements and theories and all the techno blah blah blah....I have the education to understand it, to do enough of the math and chemistry to get a grip on it. Problem is I don't have unlimited time and resources, and I have found that far too many "experts" are just blowing a lot of smoke, posing in a media darling limelight. Al Gore traded his credibility for celebrity...bad trade. But its a bunch of nonsense to say that there is a consensus of agreement on what is going on with our climate. The statement " a majority of scientist agree " is a myth. Some influential scientist "agree" and the dutiful sheep fall in behind to keep their careers moving. Scientist is a rather generic term with a broad swath. What actually constitutes a scientist? If I buy a lab coat and some test tubes can I claim to be a scientist and get on TV and sell my opinion to the highest bidder? I'm not saying the theory is wrong but why do the proponents of it so viciously attack the critics of it. Peer crticism is a scientific tool that helps a sound concept evolve in a productive manner. To stifle it seems suspicious to me. But just to play it safe I conduct my energy affairs as if it were true. I cut my gasoline consumption by 75% by pressing my motorcyle into full time commuter duty. I don't consider myself to be an enviromentalist at all but that 75% is light years beyond any "enviromentalist" efforts I personally do know. They preach the GCC gospel but don't seem to be to willing to give up much themselves. Now to a lighter note..did I mention I have a fully functional radio controlled M5 Stuart tank with 3 WIRELESS VIDEO CAMERAS!. ...turret, driver, and reverse looking back-up camera.(with back-up beeper too..so cool) .. and a 300 ft range....!!!