*** Sent by Avaaz supporter and volunteer Duncan Maru ***
Climate change will certainly be one of the top agenda
items at the G8 summit during the first week of July, but the
real question is whether the G8 leaders will actually take decisive
action to stop global warming. Leaders from each of the G8 countries
have frittered away most of the momentum gained in 2007 and continue
to avoid the pressing need to make binding, national targets to
decrease carbon
emissions. All the important innovations and
ideas aimed at reducing global warming--from wind energy to fuel
efficiency to changes in consumer behavior --can not be effective
unless
countries make the firm, immediate, political commitment to reduce
carbon emissions. This meeting, a prelude to the
broader G8 summit next month, marks a critical juncture at which the
world's most powerful-- and polluting-- countries can start to take
leadership on the issue.
Host country Japan plays a particularly
central role here, and there is some reason for optimism. A recent Pew global attitudes poll showed that the
66% of Japanese citizens are concerned "a great deal" about global
warming--the highest total among the countries surveyed (the same
figure was 19% in the United States and 26% in Britain) [1]. Within
the government, the Environment Ministry supports mandatory, national
caps on carbon emissions. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry, however, opposes these critical policy changes [2]. Japan's Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, is the key to shaping his
administration's ultimate stance on it, and it looks presently as if
he is leaning the wrong way -- on the side of the
Trade Ministry [3]. Avaaz members need to
show Mr. Fukuda that the global community supports the Japanese public
and his colleagues in the Environment Ministry in
trying to achieve aggressive policy action in Japan.
Why is this important? Most Avaaz members are well
aware of the pressing need for action on climate change, but let's
briefly recap. To avoid a greater than 2 degrees Celsius increase in
global temperatures
over pre-industrial levels, the scientific consensus is that
greenhouse gases must be limited to 450 parts per million carbon dioxide over the next
century [4]-- though some argue that even this figure may be too
high and it should be as low as 350
ppm [5]. To achieve this and avoid
environmental
catastrophe, action must be taken swiftly [6,7].
Countries would need to reach a 60-80% reduction in carbon emissions over 1990
levels by 2050 [4]. An important graphic from the
journal Science, showing clearly that if we
continue to fail to act (blue line), the rate of carbon emissions we
will need to achieve the desired greenhouse gas level may be out of reach [4]:

Unfortunately, Fukuda's seems to currently favor the Trade Ministry's strategy and is considering largely voluntary, sectoral-- that is, targets set within specific industries rather than at a national level-- targets. Furthermore, they recently announced that they would aim for a 14% reduction from current levels by 2020--a pathetic 4% reduction from 1990 levels and nowhere close to the aggressive action needed [12]. Japan, having both public opinion and its own Environment Ministry on the right side of the issue, is well-positioned to take decisive action, but they need the support of global public opinion to win. Let's get them to immediately declare what scientists have been saying for years now: that their governments must enact mandatory, national caps on carbon emissions to achieve a reduction of 25-40% from 1990 levels by 2020. Let's all work together to help Mr. Fukuda, host to the most powerful and polluting countries in the world, to put mandatory, national carbon caps on the agenda at this meeting-- both for his country and for the rest of the G8.
References
-
Pew Global Attitudes Project. "America's Image Slips, But Allies Share U.S. Concerns Over Iran, Hamas. No Global Warming Alarm in the U.S., China." http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252.
-
"Voluntary, then mandatory path for CO2 scheme-Japan." Reuters, October 5, 2007. http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKT14136220071005.
-
Arita, Eriko. "Are Japan's leaders merely readers on climate change?." Japan Times, March 20, 2008. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fe20080320a1.html.
-
Doniger, David D., Antonia V. Herzog, and Daniel A. Lashof. "CLIMATE CHANGE: An Ambitious, Centrist Approach to Global Warming Legislation." Science 314, no. 5800 (November 3, 2006): 764-765. doi:10.1126/science.1131558. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5800/764.
-
Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani, et al. "Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?." 0804.1126 (April 7, 2008). http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126.
-
O'Neill, Brian C., and Michael Oppenheimer. "CLIMATE CHANGE: Dangerous Climate Impacts and the Kyoto Protocol." Science 296, no. 5575 (June 14, 2002): 1971-1972. doi:10.1126/science.1071238. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/296/5575/1971?ijkey=jVqsttm/anqYc&keytype=ref&siteid=sci.
-
Wigley, T. M. L. "The Climate Change Commitment." Science 307, no. 5716 (March 18, 2005): 1766-1769. doi:10.1126/science.1103934. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5716/1766.
-
"The Bali Roadmap: main points." http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22932645-2,00.html.
-
Griscom, Amanda. "Involuntarism: Study finds mandatory caps work better than voluntary programs to limit pollution." Grist.org, April 21, 2008. http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/04/21/griscom-emissions/.
-
Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Service Enterprise Group. "Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Generation Owners in the U.S.." http://www.ceres.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=595&srcid=592.
-
Rivers, Nic, and Mark Jaccard. " Canada's efforts towards greenhouse gas emission reduction: a case study on the limits of voluntary action and subsidies." International Journal of Global Energy Issues 23, no. 4: 307-23.
- Chris Fujioka, "Japan puts off interim C02 goal," Reuters, June 9, 2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUST31826220080609?sp=true.



RSS FEED
Comments (2)
I urge G8 leaders to support decisive action to
prevent further global warming.
Posted by Rev. B. Mordecai | 07/ 7/08
Posted on 07/ 7/08
Free housing = -negative- carbon footprint ; yes it is profitable...*
Free Trade for CLEAN Energy = $1,500 income per home ($.05 / KWH) each month!
Isn't -accurate- free trade a right in a healthy community?
What other free society foundation definitions have been marginalized in the past 50 years?
Basically, if a person can get a (reasonably) guaranteed price of $.05 / KWH for energy that they generate, (20 HP @ $.05 = $1,500/mth per home, & $7,000,000/mth per 5,000 homes, for watching the windmills go round) then people can profit in finding ways to make the machinery to do so.
Once that is done, 20 HP energy generation (that results in $1,500 / month in return) will allow banks to be comfortable in lending the money for the solar-home / car-convertors (whatever) that do this. With a car payment of $300, and a mortgage payment of $800 (possibly distributed automatically), that still leaves $300 for taxes, and insurance, and food. All this without being any burden on the State.The figures are ballpark, but I would expect the banks to adjust the levels to provide a better level of food / personal income for the kind of return this represents.
* One example:
The LP gas utility increases production of thawing methane resources to capture the gas before it can escape to the atmosphere. It sells the gas to the home owner who can turn the gas into heat and electricity for the home, (plus 2 HP constant extra), using a auto engine equipped with an extra catalytic converter that turns the carbon dioxide into calcium carbonate (this is effective for this range of engine conversion size to 40(?) HP constant). for a check from the utility company of $150 each month (about the cost of the LP gas bill, plus that much more for the pocket). -No changes required to utility infrastructure, and the utility doesn't have to build, man, or maintain the energy generation source; they become a _more profitable_ broker.-
If larger generation capacity is wanted, (20 HP for $1,500 return), a larger monthly connection fee is billed the location, for the upgrade in the wire, equipment, and transformer size, and the LP gas bill would be about $750, with a balance of $700 for profit each month. Any windmills or solar would result in reducing the LP gas bill, making small farms more secure in growing food/energy crops instead of some of the crap they now -have to- sell.
More than that; correct type of homes built / upgraded get more jobs, in the local area. Energy costs for manufacturing and transportation go down -and remain low-. Labor benefits improve for workers, because they don't need a job , absolutely, right away, and small business will have more money to move around.
Free home, security, transportation, food, and insurance,... and all a person has to do is sign a paper (and maybe get a vasectomy in the dangerously over populated parts of the world).
Page 2:
Some math;
20 HP of CLEAN energy conversion machinery per household, (@ $.05 / KWH) = $1,500 per home of extra income, - each month - .
Multiply that by a community of 5,000, and that = $7,000,000 of restructured money flow - per month - for that community alone!
Not to mention how much carbon it removes from the planet.
Do us all a favor and promote the following....
Why CAN'T I sell CLEAN ENERGY to my neighbor (for $.05 / KWH)?
Simple concept isn't it? We all want cheaper (elect.) energy. We all would prefer to buy clean energy if it were available. And, most of us would prefer to buy from a local supplier (especially if the main grid goes down). Why is this concept so "radical" that no politician wants to touch it with a ten foot pole? Just what is really going on here? Isn't the local utility just an ISP, that both you (the content supplier), and
your neighbor (the content customer), pay to, for the right of connection?
If you can show (on an annual inspection) that the energy you generate (on a small farm say) is clean, (or
actually -removes- carbon from the atmosphere), with today's technology for phase regulation, and line
safety, then the only price regulation concerning the local utility should be the size of the transformer and wire coming into your source required to feed your electricity to the grid, and your connection fee be adjusted accordingly. Who cares how it is generated; ethanol fuel cell auto, LP fuel cell home kit, solar, wind,... pig spit (!), as long as it meets the standard for the carbon load to the utility. How many
new business would this technology generate?
I should (as a consumer) be able to go to a web site and purchase -clean- energy futures for any rate that anyone (within a local area) wants to sell it to me for.
The arguments being presented by the utilities are a "tobacco up" mentality that has -never- shown a benefit to any of those involved. The currently existing equipment is similar to the phone system was being operated before the Internet; -mostly unused-. If a transformer is rated to drain 2 HP (constant) into a residence, then it can just as easily handle 2 HP being pumped into the grid without any effect to any
equipment. Additionally, the 60 Hz phase would be strengthened, not corrupted because of the current
technology used to regulate this kind and range of power. There is -much- less power line loss with this type of local consumption. The power companies don't have to build or maintain any new generation locations or expensive high power lines, they only need maintain the local "NET".
Even though an argument can be made for the "ISP" perspective,
this needs to be actually presented in a court case for the rights of free trade in this issue.
Not only will the advertisement move clean free trade in energy in this country, it will be adopted by the rest of the planet (proved profitable). "Germany does it." At that point a lot of things change, potentially irreversibly ... as some potential examples:
Foreign Policy;
STOP SENDING MONEY!
If we (in the US) send machinery, of the type indicated in this post, -only- (instead of money that gets funneled into corrupt pockets), how much would the spending of that national money within the country, improve the countries' business climate?. We would, in effect, be making a profit by improving the world community, to a point that terrorism results in the opposite effect intended.
With this kind if free trade in clean energy, we would be able to reliably establish a "energy homestead act"; A low interest loan (as potentially a social security buyout) to establish self supportive residences that will generate more (clean) energy than they require, enough so that the loan is automatically paid back for said energy sale, with possibly enough left over to provide for food and medical. This would be a $50,000 home (to start), paid in 15(?) years, not the "requiring a credit rating, for bank that charges you $300,000, -over thirty years-, for a place to live, that kills the planet"). What if we (in the US in particular) did that, with energy equipment (in a loan program with the excuse of "terra formation") "to "fix the planet"? What kind of response would that get for us, to prove we can improve our living conditions -so substantially-, by helping so many others on the planet, that no terrorist involvement can never find -effective- support, again?
A bit over the top I guess, but if you follow somewhat the direction I suggest here, at least you won't have to deal with the heat during the next grid brown out. ...without sending people to go die in "coal holes"...or on " US military private security escort" for the oil company trucks in Iraq...
more: Just "google" "be1st2"
Posted by Kevin Espeseth | 07/10/08
Posted on 07/10/08