banner photo:

"Each individual should allow reason to guide his conduct, or like an animal, he will need to be led by a leash."
Diogenes of Sinope


Banner photo
Thousand Flowers tapestry (15th Century) - Beaune, France (detail)

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

The cost of carbon dioxide reduction

The World Wildlife Federation and the International Institute of Environment and Development issued a statement from 40 leading climate scientists last week claiming that developed countries would have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 to prevent an average global temperature increase of 2 degrees celsius. Is that even possible? Ronald Bailey at Reason Online takes a look:
So is a 40 percent cut in emissions possible? The foregoing number crunching exercise suggests that it could be. But the commitment is huge: We're talking about the equivalent of shuttering every single one of America's coal plants in favor of hundreds of new nuclear facilities, hundreds of thousands of windmills, or millions of solar panels—or perhaps replacing the entire U.S. auto fleet with zero-emissions vehicles. The magnitude of such an effort would be similar to the projected costs of President Obama's proposed government-funded health insurance plan or the price tag for the War on Terror. These are big changes, not to be glossed over in glowing speeches about international cooperation and our bright green energy future.

5 comments:

Philanthropist said...

The US energy secretary says to paint your roof white, that probably do it eh?

The_Iceman said...

http://pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2009/06/where-environmentalism-ends-and-marxism.html

I wrote a relevant piece on this subject last spring, where environmentalism ends and Marxism begins.

Kevin said...

I think that at the rate the Obama administration is tearing down the US economy it is very possible.

Anonymous said...

The fucking globe has been cooling for over a decade now, how bloody long does it take to sink in with these fucking morons!!
Not can we, should we, and the answer is No for so many reasons not least of which is that there never was a problem!

Rose21 said...

I had thought the World Wildlife Federation were a trusted name -- and therefore wondered about their support of the AGW nonsense. How naive of me -- I have discovered they are indeed governed by the power elites of the world (International Federation Board members) and I found these curious phrases in a job ad for a "Carbon Finance Fellow":

"As the world moves toward a new global deal on climate change in Copenhagen, there are unprecedented opportunities to use carbon finance as a source of funding for climate, conservation and sustainable economic development."

"The Fellow will work with conservation experts inside and outside WWF to use the NEW GLOBAL FINANCIAL ARCHITECTURE!!!! for carbon to support WWF’s initiatives.

This is quite worrisome as they seem confident about decisions being made in Copenhagen that I have not yet heard about. This stuff is really getting sinister.

Check the International WWF site job ads to read the posting.