News & Politics - UK, Calif. to strike global warming deal

Lexis · 07-31-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Britain and California are preparing to sidestep the Bush administration and fight global warming together by creating a joint market for greenhouse gases.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plan to lay the groundwork for a new trans-Atlantic market in carbon dioxide emissions, The Associated Press has learned. Such a move could help California cut carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists blame for warming the planet. President Bush has rejected the idea of ordering such cuts.

Blair and Schwarzenegger were expected to announce their collaboration Monday afternoon in Los Angeles, according to documents provided by British government officials on condition of anonymity because the announcement was forthcoming.

The aim is to fix a price on carbon pollution, an unwanted byproduct of burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gasoline. The idea is to set overall caps for carbon and reward businesses that find a profitable way to minimize their carbon emissions, thereby encouraging new, greener technologies.

Monday's meeting was being hosted by Steve Howard, CEO of The Climate Group, and Lord John Browne, chairman of British Petroleum. British and American business leaders planned to use it to also discuss other ways of accelerating use of low-carbon technologies.

The world's only mandatory carbon trading program is in Europe. Created in conjunction with the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international treaty that took effect last year, it caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from power plants and factories in more than two dozen countries.

Companies can trade rights to pollute directly with each other or through exchanges located around Europe as long as the cap is met. Canada, one of more than 160 nations that signed Kyoto, plans a similar program.

Although the United States is one of the few industrialized nations that haven't signed the treaty, some Eastern states are developing a regional cap-and-trade program. And some U.S. companies have voluntarily agreed to cap their carbon pollution as part of a new Chicago-based market.

A main target of the agreement between Britain and California is the carbon from cars, trucks and other modes of transportation. Transportation accounts for an estimated 41 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions and 28 percent of Britain's.

Schwarzenegger has called on California to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. California was the 12th largest source of greenhouse gases in the world last year, bigger than most nations.

Blair has called on Britain to reduce carbon emissions to 60 percent of its 1990 levels by 2050. Britain also has been looking at imposing individual limits on carbon pollution. People who accumulate unused carbon allowances — for example, by driving less, or switching to less polluting vehicles — could sell them to people who exceed their allowances — for example by driving more.

Bush has resisted Blair's efforts to make carbon reduction a top international priority. After taking office, Bush reversed a 2000 campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, then withdrew U.S. support from the Kyoto treaty requiring industrialized nations to cut their greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels.

UK, Calif. to strike global warming deal - Yahoo! News

This is good news. Nice to see Blair working with people in the US who want to work on reducing carbon emissions.

Enigma, I.C. · 07-31-2006, 10:33 AM

It's so disappointing that the states have to exercise this sort of responsibility because of a lack of federal leadership. I'm guessing the Bush administration thinks that if it keeps its collective head in the sand long enough that this whole global warming thing will just go away. The science is pretty sound on this, but of course, this is probably the most anti-intellectual/science administration since Reagan (the ketchup-is-a-vegetable people).

AlexEvans · 07-31-2006, 10:47 AM

If you read the entire article, you'll see it does mention that the Bush administration is focusing on research, rather than arbitrary caps. It also has brought India and China on board, something Kyoto failed to do.

Remember also, if the science that Kyoto supporters cite is correct, Kyoto will do absolutely no good.

If these Kyotoites are really serious though, one way to reduce carbon emissions would be for these people to stop flying around the globe to swanky environmental conferences. I detest being preached at by people whose lifestyle includes at least tens of times more carbon emissions than mine.

Canada is formulating a new climate change strategy. I'm hoping it includes more mass transit and fewer annoying Rick Mercer commercials.

Lexis · 07-31-2006, 10:57 AM

Research is good - research is grea actually. But I think we should be doing more than that. And lets face it, India and China are growing economies who are going hell for leather to be compete with other nations. But China has some of the most polluted air on the planet.

We can all do lots to reduce the damage we do to our planet - using public transport, buying local produce, recycling, being energy efficient...

I like that my Prime Minister is actually getting us to do these things.

VU&NICO · 07-31-2006, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexis

I like that my Prime Minister is actually getting us to do these things.

At least ONE good thing...

Lexis · 07-31-2006, 12:04 PM

Blair has his flaws (lots and lots of them) but he does seem committed to a few things that I agree with - this being one of them.

**TheAngel** · 07-31-2006, 02:20 PM

You know, I see so many people complaining about global warming, and then hopping onto their massive SUV's and driving into the sunset. There are so many things that we can do. I bought a motorcycle this past summer, 75 miles to the gallon...and I just plain like motorcycles. People can easily ride bikes, take public transportation, recycle, buy recycled goods. Since the government isn't doing anything right now, we have to do something instead.

Lexis · 07-31-2006, 02:36 PM

SUV's are my pet hate. I mean, who really needs one? Park rangers, farmers, military personnel...I can see that. But soccor mom - or as we Londoners call them "Notting Hillbillies"? I think not.

Enigma, I.C. · 07-31-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexEvans

If you read the entire article, you'll see it does mention that the Bush administration is focusing on research, rather than arbitrary caps.

"Research" is just another name for stalling. They'll stall until the earth melts, if they get their way.

elisheva · 07-31-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexis

SUV's are my pet hate. I mean, who really needs one? Park rangers, farmers, military personnel...I can see that. But soccor mom - or as we Londoners call them "Notting Hillbillies"? I think not.

Totally agree with you. Especially the Hummers and H2s and H3s. I mean, why do you need that? A military tank for driving through the city???
Both Cars and Over the Hedge had some cute SUV cracks in them (Boot camp for SUVs: "But I've never been off-road!!!"; "Wow..So how many people fit in there?" "Usually...one.")

ETA: A lot of people have been saying that a "made in Canada" solution that isn't international will not work at all. I'm not sure I agree with that.

WalkingOnSunshine · 07-31-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexis

SUV's are my pet hate. I mean, who really needs one? Park rangers, farmers, military personnel...I can see that. But soccor mom - or as we Londoners call them "Notting Hillbillies"? I think not.

You think they don't need one, but you don't know that. SUVs are a lot more spacious and giving than cars. Personally, I get so tired of the "anti-SUV" wagon everyone seems to pile on when this topic is discussed. If you (generally speaking) want to ride a bike or walk everyday - fine do it. I don't see those driving their SUVs, myself included, telling you not to. Do your part whatever way you can, but some people need their SUVs and some simply like them.

Also, there are some interesting facts from the SUVOA website that I thought I would post here:

Quote:

Regarding Fuel Economy:
Myth: SUVs are gas-guzzlers and are contributing to our reliance on oil from the Mid-East.

Facts:
-Since the mid-1970s, the fuel economy of SUVs and light trucks has improved by nearly 60%.
-In fact, today’s SUVs are 50% more efficient than cars were a generation ago.
When the term “gas-guzzler” was coined, it referred to cars that got about 10 miles per gallon or less. By comparison, today’s SUVs are relatively fuel efficient for the jobs they perform.
-We will continue to import oil from the Middle East as long as it continues to be cheaper than other sources.

Regarding The Statement that "People don't really need SUVs:

Myth: Most people don’t really need big SUVs.

Facts:

-Americans buy vehicles that meet their maximum needs. Most can’t afford to buy purpose-specific vehicles.
-SUV owners who may commute alone during the workweek may be hauling a soccer team, boat, home improvement materials or supplies for a local charity during the weekend.
-About half of the respondents in a scientific R.L. Polk poll use their SUV regularly to haul bulky items[8] that just won’t fit into cars.
-Today, less than 6% of passenger cars can tow more than 2,100 pounds, so Americans rely on SUVs and other light trucks to tow almost 24 million boats, ATVs, horse trailers, RVs, snowmobiles and off-road motorcycles.

Regarding SUVs' pollution:

Myth: SUVs pollute more than cars.

Facts:

-Many SUVs today already meet the same stringent federal tailpipe emissions standards as cars. Beginning in the 2004 model year, those same strict standards are being phased in over the next few years to apply to the remainder of the largest SUVs (up to 8,500 pounds). So regulations have already dealt with this.
-The emissions from a new midsize SUV are cleaner than those of the average passenger car built just three years ago.
-A 2004 Ford Explorer driven from Washington, DC to Los Angeles and back pollutes less than a 1968 Ford Fairlane driven one way from Washington, DC to Baltimore.

SUVs & Global Warming:

Myth: SUVs emit more global warming pollution than passenger cars.

Facts:

-Contrary to claims of environmental lobbyists, CO2 is not a pollutant, according to the EPA. It is a naturally-occuring compound that is essential to life on earth. Plants breathe CO2 and "exhale" oxygen for humans and other living creatures to breathe. CO2 is not a clean air (smog) issue.
-While it is true that the amount of CO2 a vehicle emits is directly related to the amount of fuel used, it must be appreciated that ALL the cars and light trucks in the U.S. make up only about 2% of all man-made greenhouse gases worldwide.
Thus, even if every SUV driver switched to an economy car, the difference in emissions would be imperceptible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elisheva

Totally agree with you. Especially the Hummers and H2s and H3s. I mean, why do you need that? A military tank for driving through the city??? Both Cars and Over the Hedge had some cute SUV cracks in them (Boot camp for SUVs: "But I've never been off-road!!!"; "Wow..So how many people fit in there?" "Usually...one.")

And, who needs a sports car? Who needs a station wagon? Who needs a minivan? I mean if you have the money and want to spend it on the car you choose then so be it.

ceilirose · 07-31-2006, 11:33 PM

Who can afford gas for a SUV or Hummer? I think I read/heard that SUV sales are down. It's kind of obvious that with gas prices rising in the US that it's going to be harder and harder for a lot of people to keep them and be able to pay the rent and groceries for a family.

SUVOA seems nothing more than a pr firm for SUV manufacturers - Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) Owners of America - SourceWatch. What they say can be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't expect Bush to do anything about global warming in his second term. He has to focus on the mid term elections and all the other problems in the ME. I'm glad Arnold did something even though I'm not a fan. Good for him.

Ms. Fiction · 08-01-2006, 02:20 AM

I’m getting annoyed with Schwarzenegger, he hasn’t been a Republican for half of his time as governor. So if he is going to call on me as a Californian to do something, I’m going to have to say no.

I still plan on getting an SUV as my first car.

Lexis · 08-01-2006, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WalkingOnSunshine

You think they don't need one, but you don't know that. SUVs are a lot more spacious and giving than cars. Personally, I get so tired of the "anti-SUV" wagon everyone seems to pile on when this topic is discussed. If you (generally speaking) want to ride a bike or walk everyday - fine do it. I don't see those driving their SUVs, myself included, telling you not to. Do your part whatever way you can, but some people need their SUVs and some simply like them.

Its your choice to buy SUVs - nobody is limiting your ability to do so (if you can afford it and the gas required to run it). If you (general you) like them, then that's your business too.

But personally, I think for the most part they are wasteful.

I also enjoyed reading those facts you posted, paticularly "A 2004 Ford Explorer driven from Washington, DC to Los Angeles and back pollutes less than a 1968 Ford Fairlane driven one way from Washington, DC to Baltimore." Comparing a new Ford to one that's 36 years old - seriously, what did the writer hope to demonstrate to me? That new cars are more efficient than old ones? Well, duh.

I found some interesting stuff on the web myself.

Quote:

In July 2001, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a study on fuel economy standards. The NAS found that light trucks, SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks could reach 28-30 mpg for an additional cost of $1,200-$1,300. (23) Automakers make an average of $10,000 in pure profit on each SUV sold. (24) It shouldn't be too much to ask automakers to sacrifice a small amount of their profits to clean up these vehicles. The NAS study specifically pointed out that safety would not be sacrificed, and actually assumes an increase in vehicle weight, which is associated with certain safety-enhancing features. (25) However, the NAS points out that reducing the weight of the largest SUVs on the roads would make all drivers safer, since the biggest SUVs tend to do the most damage in an accident. (26)

That'd be a good step for the manufacturers to make I think.

Ms Fiction, maybe a Ford would suit you?

Quote:

In 2000, Ford Motor Company announced plans to improve their SUV fleet fuel economy by 25 percent by 2005. This is a great first step, and it shows that automakers are capable of improving their vehicles. It also shows that a concerned public can influence a company like Ford. This is why educated consumers must demand better vehicles, and demand that Congress and the president finally address the problem with today's fuel economy standards.

But automakers are unlikely to make significant improvements unless they are pushed. William Clay Ford, the chairman of Ford Motor Company, put it best. "The best way to get the auto industry to stop dragging its feet is to have us race against each other. We love to do that, and we're good at it." The race will begin as soon as fuel economy standards are improved to a realistic level.

SUV Environmental Concerns

thescoobygang · 08-01-2006, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexEvans

Canada is formulating a new climate change strategy. I'm hoping it includes more mass transit and fewer annoying Rick Mercer commercials.

We definitely need more/better mass transit. One bus takes 40 cars off the road. A 6-car subway takes off 900.

Quote:

People can easily ride bikes, take public transportation, recycle, buy recycled goods. Since the government isn't doing anything right now, we have to do something instead.

The problem is trying to convince people to do anything. People are complacent with their lives and have a strong aversion to doing anything environmental even if it's a minor thing. I work in a building with about 700 people and maybe 12 people take the bus. And some people only live like 5-10 minutes away. Last year the company spent thousands of dollars expanding the parking lot by cutting down trees and paving over the lawn by half. I don't know anybody in the office who uses an energy efficient bulb at home. And some of my co-workers freely admit they leave their cars running idle or have the air conditioner running when the house is empty. I am in no way a die-hard activist but it really bugs me to see people indifferent about this.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > UK, Calif. to strike global warming deal