Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change - Who's Got the Score?


Climate Change - Who's Got the Score?29-06-2011 13:37
paulcarbonneutral
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
In my last blog on the future of carbon emissions targets http://www.carbonneutral.com/knowledge-centre/company-blog/an-update-on-climate-politics-in-the-uk/ , I discussed the latest report on global greenhouse gas emissions and Christiana Figueres' view on progress towards a low carbon economy. The headline metric – that global greenhouse gas emissions were the highest on record in 2010 set a rather gloomy scene. The score-card on market-based solutions to GHG emissions wasn't all that healthy (stagnant), and of course we know that progress towards an international agreement is going backwards. But despite that, the prevailing mood was coloured with optimism -- and a commitment to build on sound foundations which have endured through difficult economic times and to draw more deeply on innovations which can break through the many barriers to progress.

Figueres, the present head of the United Nation's Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) has committed herself to forging effective partnerships between public and private finance – and that's a great start. Yvo de Boer, the previous head of the UNFCCC, bruised, battered but still standing after his gruelling experience of trying to get ~190 countries to agree an effective framework to address global climate change, is using his new-found freedom to champion the role of NAMAs as a pragmatic approach to coordinating national efforts for international progress.

NAMA stands for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions. What it really means is that each nation is free to design and implement its own plans to deliver emissions reductions based on its own particular circumstances. A small group of us was discussing this over tapas in Barcelona – musing on whether NAMAs could be the silver bullet. One of our party likened it to an orchestra, where every individual player makes a contribution which adds up to a symphony (indulge me with this analogy for a moment). We all got the individual players bit, and as we looked around the world, we could see some strong and gifted players tuning up their instruments and taking their seats in the orchestra pit, including...

*China with its next 5 year plan including energy efficiency targets and carbon trading
*Korea, Thailand, Chile developing national cap and trade platforms
*South Africa with its proposed carbon tax and renewable energy feed-in tariffs
*The UK with its new-found focus on energy efficiency, clean coal, and nuclear power
*The EU and New Zealand with their emission trading schemes
And, we noted that while the US hasn't exactly joined the orchestra yet, it is practising in the background with its Clean Energy Standard, and letting California jam away with market-based approaches.

This set me thinking about a rather remarkable recording of the song "Stand By Me" which you should watch now here at vimeo.com http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=2539741 . You see what's going on here? A song originally written and performed years ago by Ben E. King now with over 400 recordings including versions by John Lennon, Otis Redding, Jimi Hendrix and Elton John, is the score. The musicians are scattered all over the world, play in isolation, but are brought together through the technical artistry and orchestration of the insignificant guy in the black Nike baseball cap. Together they create one of the most moving renditions of the song I have heard. I think that's a workable demonstration of what the NAMA approach could deliver.

So, back to our discussion on the power of NAMAs – we soon got to asking the really important questions: Is the score written? Who's conducting?

The UNFCCC is conducting – but it hasn't been able to get the musicians to make any music yet. Is it up to the task? Does it have a good score to work from? The scientific community has an early draft, but it's rather a dark piece and hasn't really inspired our individual and collective creativity.

The thing is though, that hasn't stopped the individual musicians – governments, businesses and individuals -- from warming up in expectation.


Jonathan Shopley – The CarbonNeutral Company


If you like this blog and want to receive notification of new posts, then please register for our free email newsletter http://www.carbonneutral.com/carbon-copy/ . You can also read other CarbonNeutral Company blog posts http://www.carbonneutral.com/knowledge-centre/company-blog/ and download our free carbon management whitepapers http://www.carbonneutral.com/knowledge-centre/white-papers/
19-09-2020 00:16
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Lots of words about nothing.
You want to see EnviroWackoWorld, we just went through it worldwide. Pretty bad. Al Gore and Barack Obama an all the other extremists want this to be our future, forever.

Cuba is the ONLY country currently listed as "sustainable." That how you Lefties want to live, like they do in Cuba? Go for it. I'll pay for your one-way ticket.
19-09-2020 02:06
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2701)
Amusing how the OP already considers California a separate country...

Funny how none of these countries notice there is a membership fee, for joining these agreements. The people managing the agreements expect to get paid. Private jet rides, to visit the various countries involved, to collect the membership fees, aren't free. The luxury hotel rooms, and conference venues aren't free, and the need to put on a good show, to solicit greater involvement, new prospective members of their exclusive club. Motel 6 and Dominoes pizza might be fine, for a rat infest, shithole country like California. But a country with money worth scamming, expects to be treated like royalty.

If these party clubs actually spent the money on climate change, rather than just sitting around talking about it, in style, the might actually further their socialist cause a little. Of course, they like the party life, and need the 'crisis', to justify their lifestyle. If the made any actual progress, they wouldn't be needed anymore, and have to find a new scam to work.
19-09-2020 02:29
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(727)
The trend I am picking up is that the focus has gone off sea levels and polar bears and is now focused directly on CO2 creating Climate change directly.paulcarbonneutral can you explain how a small increase in CO2 can change the climate/weather.I have a CO2 meter and it is 375-420 ppm in perth WA
19-09-2020 05:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
paulcarbonneutral wrote: I discussed the latest report on global greenhouse gas emissions and Christiana Figueres' view on progress towards a low carbon economy.

No one has ever explained WHY anyone would prefer a "low carbon" economy. All good economies are "high carbon."

Which kind of economy do you prefer, good or poor?

paulcarbonneutral wrote: The headline metric – that global greenhouse gas emissions were the highest on record in 2010 set a rather gloomy scene.

Hardly. If it's bringing in UNPRECEDENTED economies and record low unemployment then "gloomy" is not the right word. Better words would be "lustrous," "gleaming," "effulgent," "radiant," etc...

It looks like all you need to do is to change a few words and you'll be good to go.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-09-2020 05:43
James___
★★★★★
(3429)
IBdaMann wrote:
paulcarbonneutral wrote: I discussed the latest report on global greenhouse gas emissions and Christiana Figueres' view on progress towards a low carbon economy.

No one has ever explained WHY anyone would prefer a "low carbon" economy. All good economies are "high carbon."

Which kind of economy do you prefer, good or poor?

paulcarbonneutral wrote: The headline metric – that global greenhouse gas emissions were the highest on record in 2010 set a rather gloomy scene.

Hardly. If it's bringing in UNPRECEDENTED economies and record low unemployment then "gloomy" is not the right word. Better words would be "lustrous," "gleaming," "effulgent," "radiant," etc...

It looks like all you need to do is to change a few words and you'll be good to go.


.



And I'm the bad guy in here. I want to increase the amount of O2 in the atmosphere. This would increase the, what is it that ITN says? I think it's (J*K^-1), right? Doesn't more O2 and less CO2 increase entropy in our atmosphere?
19-09-2020 06:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13766)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
paulcarbonneutral wrote: I discussed the latest report on global greenhouse gas emissions and Christiana Figueres' view on progress towards a low carbon economy.

No one has ever explained WHY anyone would prefer a "low carbon" economy. All good economies are "high carbon."

Which kind of economy do you prefer, good or poor?

paulcarbonneutral wrote: The headline metric – that global greenhouse gas emissions were the highest on record in 2010 set a rather gloomy scene.

Hardly. If it's bringing in UNPRECEDENTED economies and record low unemployment then "gloomy" is not the right word. Better words would be "lustrous," "gleaming," "effulgent," "radiant," etc...

It looks like all you need to do is to change a few words and you'll be good to go.


.



And I'm the bad guy in here. I want to increase the amount of O2 in the atmosphere. This would increase the, what is it that ITN says? I think it's (J*K^-1), right? Doesn't more O2 and less CO2 increase entropy in our atmosphere?

No.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-09-2020 07:44
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(727)
Stromatalites created the first O2 on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago.I did the museum tour in Hamelin pool a few years ago and we had an aquarium with them in.During the day you can see the bubbles coming off.They are a form of cynobacteria and mostly died out however over saline shallow water in certain areas still have them.Thrombolites are similar.Satellite imagery shows the Earth to be much greener than 1970 so you got your wish we have more O2 not that you can notice.Satellites can take pictures but thats about it no magick here folks move on




Join the debate Climate Change - Who's Got the Score?:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact