Skip to main content

Obama ready to offer target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions


 Encouraging news!- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/22/obama-greenhouse-gas-cut-target

Obama is seemingly ready to offer target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions cuts. I always suspected that the 'pessimism' of the last fortnight or so was a lot to do with managing expectations...

Comments

Ian Sinclair said…
Hi Rupert

If you look at the detail of the article, it says Obama's target is a cut of "14-20% by 2020, compared with 2005 levels".

You must know these figures are completely inadequate. Caroline Lucas recently argued "To have even a 50/50 chance of keeping the global temperature rise below two degrees, the industrialised countries need to adopt binding targets to reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2020, based on 1990 levels" (see http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23175)

Why don't you mention how poor Obama's offer really is rather than presenting them as wholly positive?

Ian
Rupert said…
Hi Ian.
Please note that this was a very SHORT blogpost. Just a glorified 'tweet' really. It set out to make just one, optimistic/realistic , point.
You are of course absolutely correct in the point of criticism you are making here. I would add a number of others - most notably, the pessimistic/realistic point that last time around, with Kyoto, the then President (Clinton) tried a similar maneouvre - and the Senate later voted Kyoto down, 95 to 0. I see no reason for much hope that Obama will actually GET (m)any emissions reductions through
the Senate.
But: that doesn't take away from the fact (which was all that Iwas blogging about) that Obama's (inadequate) target, which would be better than nothing, may at least now energise and focus the minds somewhat, at Copenhagen.

Popular posts from this blog

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...

Stansted: a reflection

The key question, in relation to protsts like that at Stansted last week, is: which side are you on? Are you on the side of big corporations profiteering from completely unsustainable climate-destructive behaviour? Or are you on the side of people with no vested interests just making a non-violent stand, at considerable cost to their own time and money, for the sake of all our futures? It doesn't seem to me a hard judgement to make... Rupert Read Green Party Councillor, Norwich, and Lead Candidate for Eastern Region for the Greens in the 2009 Euro-elections. DID YOU KNOW: A vote of about 10% across Eastern Region on June 4 2009 would be enough to get me elected to the European Parliament... http://rupertsread.blogspot.com