Greenhouse gases soar; no signs warming is slowed
November 21, 2011 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer(AP) -- Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe.
New figures from the U.N. weather agency Monday showed that the three biggest greenhouse gases not only reached record levels last year but were increasing at an ever-faster rate, despite efforts by many countries to reduce emissions.
As world leaders meet next week in South Africa to tackle the issue of climate change, several scientists said their projections show it is unlikely the world can hold warming to the target set by leaders just two years ago in Copenhagen.
"The growth rate is increasing every decade," said Jim Butler, director of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Global Monitoring Division. "That's kind of scary."
Scientists can't say exactly what levels of greenhouse gases are safe, but some fear a continued rise in global temperatures will lead to irreversible melting of some of the world's ice sheets and a several-foot rise in sea levels over the centuries - the so-called tipping point.
The findings from the U.N. World Meteorological Organization are consistent with other grim reports issued recently. Earlier this month, figures from the U.S. Department of Energy showed that global carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 jumped by the highest one-year amount ever.
The WMO found that total carbon dioxide levels in 2010 hit 389 parts per million, up from 280 parts per million in 1750, before the start of the Industrial Revolution. Levels increased 1.5 ppm per year in the 1990s and 2.0 per year in the first decade of this century, and are now rising at a rate of 2.3 per year. The top two other greenhouse gases - methane and nitrous oxide - are also soaring.
The U.N. agency cited fossil fuel-burning, loss of forests that absorb CO2 and use of fertilizer as the main culprits.
Since 1990 - a year that international climate negotiators have set as a benchmark for emissions - the total heat-trapping force from all the major greenhouse gases has increased by 29 percent, according to NOAA.
The accelerating rise is happening despite the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut emissions. Europe, Russia and Japan have about reached their targets under the treaty. But China, the U.S. and India are all increasing emissions. The treaty didn't require emission cuts from China and India because they are developing nations. The U.S. pulled out of the treaty in 2001, the Senate having never ratified it.
While scientists can't agree on what level of warming of the climate is considered dangerous, environmental activists have seized upon 350 parts per million as a target for carbon dioxide levels. The world pushed past that mark more than 20 years ago.
Governments have focused more on projected temperature increases rather than carbon levels. Since the mid-1990s, European governments have set a goal of limiting warming to slightly more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) above current levels by the end of this century. The goal was part of a nonbinding agreement reached in Copenhagen in 2009 that was signed by the U.S. and other countries.
Temperatures have already risen about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since pre-industrial times.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology professors Ron Prinn, Henry Jacoby and John Sterman said MIT's calculations show the world is unlikely to meet that two-degree goal now.
"There's very, very little chance," Prinn said. "One has to be pessimistic about making that absolute threshold." He added: "Maybe we've waited too long to do anything serious if two degrees is the danger level."
Andrew Weaver at the University of Victoria, Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University and Gregg Marland of Appalachian State University agreed with the MIT analysis that holding warming to two degrees now seems unlikely.
"There's no way to stop it. There's so much inertia in the system," Morgan said. "We've committed to quite a bit of warming."
Prinn said new studies predict that if temperatures increase by more than two degrees, the Greenland ice sheets will start an irreversible melting. And that will add to sea level rise significantly.
"Over the next several centuries, Greenland slowly melts away," Weaver said.
More information:
World Meteorological Organization's Greenhouse Gas Bulletin: http://bit.ly/vu04vB
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Annual Greenhouse Gas Index: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
©2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases
Nov 03, 2011 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Greenhouse gases rise to record high in 2010: UN
Nov 21, 2011 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would save Arctic ice, reduce sea level rise
Apr 14, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
US expects China to cut emissions after a 'peak year'
Jun 13, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Planned emission cuts still mean far hotter Earth
Sep 24, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Stars containing dark matter should look different from other stars
Feb 20, 2012 |
4.5 / 5 (17) |
11
-
Physicists discover evidence of rare hypernucleus, a component of strange matter
Feb 17, 2012 |
4.7 / 5 (38) |
22
-
Fast photon control brings quantum photonic technologies closer
Feb 13, 2012 |
5 / 5 (8) |
1
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (36) |
32
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
Is the Earth really going to die
14 hours ago
-
Do some geologists actually act a lot like Randy Marsh?
Feb 11, 2012
-
Discrepancy between oxygen and carbon-dioxide levels
Feb 09, 2012
-
where gems are found in the world
Feb 09, 2012
-
Wind Waves in Reservoir ~ Wind run-up and Wind set-up
Feb 08, 2012
-
Balance of oxygen in the atmosphere
Feb 01, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
Spitzer finds solid buckyballs in space
(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers using data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have, for the first time, discovered buckyballs in a solid form in space. Prior to this discovery, the microscopic carbon spheres ...
14 hours ago |
4.7 / 5 (12) |
8
|
Going up: Japan builder eyes space elevator
A Japanese construction firm claimed Wednesday it could execute an out-of-this-world plan to put tourists in space within 40 years by building an elevator that stretches a quarter of the way to the moon.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
21 hours ago |
3.5 / 5 (13) |
26
ENASA satellite finds Earth's clouds are getting lower
(PhysOrg.com) -- Earth's clouds got a little lower -- about one percent on average -- during the first decade of this century, finds a new NASA-funded university study based on NASA satellite data. The results ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
18 hours ago |
5 / 5 (8) |
13
|
Fresh scandal embroils US climate science debate
A fresh scandal over climate change has erupted in the United States after leaked documents appeared to show a right-wing funded campaign to influence how climate science is taught in schools.
11 hours ago |
4.1 / 5 (9) |
8
World's oceans get an acid bath
Among the repercussions of global climate change, the effect of ocean acidification on marine life is one of the least-understood variables.
18 hours ago |
4.3 / 5 (6) |
4
|
Researchers build first physical 'metatronic' circuit
(PhysOrg.com) -- The technological world of the 21st century owes a tremendous amount to advances in electrical engineering, specifically, the ability to finely control the flow of electrical charges using ...
Faster than light neutrinos? More like faulty wiring
You can shelf your designs for a warp drive engine (for now) and put the DeLorean back in the garage; it turns out neutrinos may not have broken any cosmic speed limits after all.
Physicists surprised by disappearing and reappearing superconductivity in iron selenium chalcogenides
Superconductivity is a rare physical state in which matter is able to conduct electricity -- maintain a flow of electrons -- without any resistance. This phenomenon can only be found in certain materials at low temperatures, ...
Stanford research team cracks animated NuCaptcha
(PhysOrg.com) -- The research team from Stanford University, led by Elie Bursztein, that previously had cracked regular CAPTCHAs and then audio CAPTCHAs, now has also successfully cracked the animated version called NuCapt ...
Flesh-eating bacteria inspire superglue
(PhysOrg.com) -- A bio-inspired superglue has been developed by Oxford University researchers that cant be matched for sticking molecules together and not letting go.
Scientists create potent molecules aimed at treating muscular dystrophy
While RNA is an appealing drug target, small molecules that can actually affect its function have rarely been found. But now scientists from the Florida campus of The Scripps Research Institute have for the first time designed ...
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (7)
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (13)
"New studies" how can a leading science website accept articles that don't back up their claims with a click through link in the text? Maybe I'm wrong but the last research I read on physorg was that tipping points with arctic ice were not going to happen. Very confusing.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 2.4 / 5 (14)
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (15)
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (14)
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (14)
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (13)
First of all, 1998 was what is known in statistics as an "outlier". It was extraordinarily warm -- well above the trend line (most of that is attributed to a monstrous El Nino that occurred in that year.) Using 1998 as a benchmark from which to measure subsequent trends is a mistake only ignoramuses or well-informed yet malicious propagandists would make.
Secondly, as I said before there is natural variability in climate. There are various cycles; one of those is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), another is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). A recent Berkeley Earth finding is that AMO is a significant component of global temperature trends:
http://berkeleyea...ions.pdf
Due to AMO being in a waning phase currently, we may see _average_ global temperatures stagnate or even retreat for a couple of decades. However, this doesn't make AGW go away: the next peak on AMO will reach much higher than the last one.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (11)
Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study
In other words, rightwing propaganda really can influence how much you know. It really does show.
Pink, on the linger time of CO2, please see:
http://www.nature...122.html
That was the reference I wanted to share with you about Co2 lasting 1000s of years. Good read IMHO.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (10)
Apologies Pink it wasn't Physorg it was New Scientist &here
http://news.ku.dk...sea_ice/
I have a science degree on on my first day of Uni my professor told us the human race would be extinct by yr 2,000 so it taught me to question the hubris of professors who predict the future. It also led me into becoming an activist scientist though I now consider that an oxymoron. I am definitely an ignoramus and as a former activist am wondering if you are actually a schill for the oil industry who drives the unwary into the skeptic camp by calling people names. Also I said 10 years. That goes back to 2001 not 1998.
Please don't take to the skies on me. Your much more knowledgeable than me, and a flying pink elephant is no help to anyone. Take care mate
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
So has anyone checked if the late 20th Century warming of 0.7C could have been caused by cleaner coal fired stations removing an existing cooling bias caused by SO2?
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I think coming up with a plan to limit global warming to any specific amount is completely wrong and stupid as well.
If we want to set a limit to something it would have to be expressed in either production or total PPM of specific gases.
If we set a limit to specific gas production or relative air ratios it is easily measured and we can see exactly where we are in relation.
The fact that we are passed an acceptable level and actually have to reduce output to below current levels is a sure sign that things need to happen in order to meet targets.
So if a set PPM rate of CO2 causes x amount of warming it would not be apparent exactly how much in total, until after Y years. Till then it could increase every year by some small amount.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (11)
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (11)
In case it's not sufficiently obvious, industrial pollution did not exist until development of industry. And since then, it has to some extent masked the warming effects of greenhouse gases like CO2. Unfortunately, modern societies don't hold a very high regard for toxic air or acid rain, so they tend to clean up SO2 in particular and smog in general.
Also, CO2 lingers long after SO2 is gone from the atmosphere. CO2 builds up; SO2 doesn't.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (12)
It makes one wonder: Is there really a significant cause and effect between atmospheric carbon content and global warming?
http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2011
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (11)
Snow cover will vary from year to year. What is strange about that?The physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect have been explained to you repeatedly, by various people, in various ways, at various points in time. It boggles the mind that you still fail to comprehend the very basics of the science you endeavor to criticize and reject. What makes you imagine that any of your points have any merit whatsoever, unless and until you have managed to attain at least a grade-school level understanding of the issues at hand? Egomania is not an excuse.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
It seems the only way to reverse this trend is to return to sustainable pre-1900 levels of carbon and other greenhouse gas output. Not very likely without something devastating happening to the human species. The important question we need to answer is: How do we survive this? Because "it" is coming.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Perhaps you are confused because your reading comprehension levels are so low.
From the article you can't understand...
"Temperatures have already risen about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since pre-industrial times."
Get back to us if you need any help parsing the sentence above.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
What are you jabbering about now? Moron.
Arctic sea ice EXTENT (TODAY) is still 0.8 million square kilometers less than historic norms, and arctic sea ice volume is dropping like a stone.
http://www.skepti...maly.gif
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Pretty much everyone is better informed than you. Tard Boy.
The amount of change expected over the last decade is expected to be around 0.1'C which is smaller than the natural level of variability which is around 0.5'C Hence over time scales of a decade natural variability always masks the underlying trend.
When you get to grade 10. Have your math teacher explain it to you.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
You in particular Gregor.
Haven't you heard? Faux news makes you stupid.
"We seem to have a hodgepodge of hypotheses that are unfalsifiable." - Gregor
You can easily falsify the theory by showing that CO2 doesn't absorb light in the IR region of the spectra.
Or you could falsify it by showing that Co2 scattering is always forward coherent.
Your tacit admission is that you can't falsify the truth.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.... How sad to be you.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Not by a long shot. The scientific method involves observing the world, formulating a hypothesis about it and verifying that hypothesis in the best way possible.
Skepticism is an open and honest suspicion that an observation is in error or an open and honest suspicion based on a viable alternate theory, that the theory doesn't explain the observations.
In the case of Global Warming Denialism, there is no viable alternate theory, and certainly no honesty in the denialist camp.
Denialism is the refusal to accept reality as reality.
It is the antithesis of science.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (10)
Yes, there are.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Explanations that include Alien visitation's and Bigfoot, Illuminati, or a Bilderberg conspiracy aren't legitimate Tard Boy.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
NO that's religion or ideology. In science you try to disprove the hypothesis not prove it. That IS what science is. For a hypothesis to be valid it must be falsifiable and that is the problem with calling mathematical models science. I think you missed something at school. Science is not a body of knowledge, it's a method. Sorry Climate science risks becoming a dogma. Science only moves forward when the hypothesis is disproved. The problem we have here is that green ideology is clashing with actual science. The "activist scientist" is an oxymoron.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Go away. Little Tard Boy.
"NO that's religion or ideology." - Gregor
"Science is not a body of knowledge, it's a method." - Gregor
Idiot
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (10)
From this I make two hypotheses
1/ You're a "big oil" shill deliberately trying to give activists a bad name.
or
2/ You're a " big green" shill trying to prevent debate by bullying.
Now, If you are a scientist you will try to disprove my hypotheses
(By the way, where I come from calling someone "Tard boy" is akin to calling someone "Nigger" )
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (10)
The Sun has been at a cyclical low for the past several years, with Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in the dumps. Yet, no slowing in global warming. Oceans continue to heat up, glaciers continue to melt off, ecosystems continue being disrupted. The fundamental physics involved here (radiative and convective heat transport through the atmosphere) is well-tested, well-known, and well-established. Slanderous allegations of scientific fraud have been shown to be a scam, and BEST reproduced the very same data despite being funded (and run by) prominent "skeptics".
What's missing? Do you need to hear it from a burning bush, or something?
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (10)
I agree. Personally I don't know many who would disagree. You've used a classic straw man. I say there's been no warming for 10 years (as I remember even the BEST data shows this) and you assume that I don't think GHG cause the climate to warm. The question is how much?
The hypothesis from the alarmist point of view seems to have changed from
That human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming. to this
That human activity is causing dangerous global warming. Another proposition entirely (though as there is no warming we now call it climate change)
I think you'd have to agree that if the CO@ concentration rises dramatically and the temperature stays put the first hypothesis has to go. As for the second H, that remains to be tested at the moment it's merely speculation.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (9)
The "alarmist point of view" (your very use of that loaded term is quite telling, and you have my pity) is that AGW will drive temperatures upward on multi-decadal, multi-century scales. It DOES NOT postulate a perfect linear rise in global temperature averages. It DOES NOT say that there can be no 10-year periods of failing to exceed an EXTREME OUTLIER like 1998. Indeed, that would be rather stupid to assume, considering all the long-period cycles involved with oceanic circulation, and general chaotic noise due to short-term climate turbulence. You want to discuss classic strawmen? Look in the mirror.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (9)
"That human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming except when other things are causing more cooling."
and you are suggesting that So4 might be one of those things though that's yet to be established. I"VE GOT AN IDEA! Why don't instead of calling them "other things" why don't we call them "Negative feedbacks" and why don't we study them? Perhaps there are completely natural ones! Like clouds! For a large African mammal you astonish me sometimes! Look what we've achieved with science! You still can't manage basic maths though. It's now 2011. subtract 10 years and you get 2001. Not 1998. Your heaps of fun
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (9)
Wow. A major discovery. Water that melts and cannot ever be re-frozen. Amazing new physics.
Its hard to take any of this seriously. The views are so polarised that common sense and reason long ago vanished in this debate.
good attitude.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
"The "alarmist point of view" (your very use of that loaded term is quite telling, and you have my pity) is that AGW will drive temperatures upward on multi-decadal, multi-century scales."
Where did this come from? I know you are well informed so please a reference would be nice. I'm not sure the BEST data shows this. Is this actually falsifiable (testable) without actually doing nothing but waiting centuries to see what happens? I'm pretty sure the BEST data doesn't show this but I may be wrong. I'm thinking that this comes from mathematical models but as I remember this show no 10 year hiatus. Are models actually science? Are there experiments that are reproducible? I'm thinking a point of view is a guess rather than a fact, but then I'm just an ignoramus. I'm thinking you may be subject to the "post hoc" error with a little confirmation bias added for good measure.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (9)
A little? Now that's an understatement.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (11)
So you're saying precipitation is not expected to trend continually downward at an increasing rate, caused by the buildup of CO2 induced global warming?
Question: If there's no significant trend either way, then why worry about it at all?
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (11)
Naw, that'd be you.
And you, yours?
Funny how the doomsayers keep coming up short, isn't it?
Then quit with it already.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
And yes seasonal ice will return to the arctic every winter...have you been to the arctic, or even anywhere close to it? If the earth is ever in a state where seasonal ice doesn't return to the arctic, I doubt any of us would be alive.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
Ahem. Isn't water vapor the #1 greenhouse gas by a huge margin?
This kind of reporting reminds me of a certain poll recently in which the ranking went from 1st place to third and then to fourth without mentioning who was tied for second place. Propaganda of the most blatant kind, in both cases.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (8)
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (9)
"Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas along with other gases such as carbon dioxide and methane."
-Wikipedia
Even in the desert, water vapor is 4%, which is orders of magnitude higher than CO2.
To ignore water vapor in discussing greenhouse gases is pure sophistry, a tool of propagandists.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
How is water vapor modeled then with high fidelity?
Water vapor is consistently in the atm.
H2O absorbs the most IR energy in the atm.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Since H2O is the most potent GHG, how is it modeled if the concentration is not uniform and well mixed?
So what you are saying is measuring and modeling H2O is really hard and, even if it could be accomplished with high fidelity, how can the IPCC control water vapor in the atm?
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (9)
I think this (ignoring the facts) is important in order to elevate the importance of CO2. It is hard to find another explanation.
Also, why do you believe is it significant that water vapor's concentration isn't uniform? Even at its lowest concentration (desert,) it is still a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2, by orders of magnitude.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (9)
I am not impressed with reliance on models. It seems they are like the Bible, you can get them to say whatever you want by changing the inputs, which the climategate email leaks have shown.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (9)
Well, they've already had CO2 classified as a pollutant. They could classify H20 as a pollutant. After all, H20 is the most significant greenhouse gas, and most of what comes out of nuclear and coal fired power plants is H20. Since human activity is increasing the concentration of H20 in the atmosphere, we must be causing global warming with H20 emissions, which must be controlled. We should crack down on any activity that increases the concentration of H20 in the atmosphere, including breathing. (This would be tongue in cheek if it weren't so close to reality.)
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Of course, methane and other green house gasses also increase.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
So, stop coal, oil, natural gas and switch to solar, geothermal, hydro-electric, wind! It's the only way to save earth.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (9)
This imperative drives the AGW movement, and in spite of a questionable so-called consensus, there is no conclusive link between catastrophic climate change and human activity.
Extraordinary change requires extraordinary evidence. We do not have extraordinary evidence for AGW.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Blather, nothing but blather. If CO2 is such a big deal, and we have more now than ever before, why haven't Al Gore's predictions held up?
It aint winter yet.
What? Didn't you know even the Antarctic has been ice free before?
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
MIT made some famously wrong calculations in the 70s. The critique was published in Models of Doom.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
audience of an often overlooked fact: omnipresent water vapor itself is one of the most important and potent of the greenhouse gases."
"But Prinn
asked, "Is this a chicken and egg problem? Is carbon rising merely
because temperature is rising and the biosphere responds, or, is the
temperature rise itself due to changes in carbon dioxide? We don't have
an answer to that yet.""
"We're not going to severely
restrict by regulation or pricing the use of carbon dioxide.""
{But that is exactly what is being attempted.}
http://www.google...VOapxmpw
Nov 24, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Amazing isn't it. Being able to breath? Now take all of those exhales and pack them so dense as to be COAL and you see why burning coal could be a problem? All of those exhales all at once and what do you get? CO2 overdose!
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, traps heat, and then Earth is cooked.
Nov 25, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
http://www.coolan...xide.png
The biggest problem of emissions trading is the fact, it virtualizes the main purpose of carbon tax, i.e. the providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants, the collection of money into introduction of green-house gases free technologies in particular.
Instead of it, the rich companies of western word are sponsoring the introduction of older fossil carbon technologies at the less developed countries and nothing forces them to limit their own production of green-house gases.
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Nov 27, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Correct. But of course it is actually closer to 150 PPM.
Nov 27, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Correct again.
Nov 27, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
"CO2 is such a big deal, and we have more now than ever before" - Ubvon
Correct.