AP: (Obama's) New climate targets may not change daily life much

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZoCWGwSidNxoQ20t0YjwqjNHf7QD9C7G3A01

New climate targets may not change daily life much

By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) – 18 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Americans' day-to-day lives won't change noticeably if President Barack Obama achieves his newly announced goal of slashing carbon dioxide pollution by one-sixth in the next decade, experts say.

Except for rising energy bills. And how much they'll go up depends on who's doing the calculating.

The White House will commit the U.S. to a goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 to about 17 percent below 2005 levels at a U.N.-sponsored climate change summit in Copenhagen early next month. That's about 12.5 percent below 2008 levels, according to the Department of Energy. He also set a goal of cutting emissions by 83 percent by 2050, which is what European nations want.

…

Experts say it will mean higher energy bills, fewer deaths from air pollution, and maybe even a dividend check at the end of the year. But mostly, they say, it'll be small, slowly evolving changes that the public won't even notice.

…

[joshcryer]

1. Translation: New Climate Targets are ineffective and worthless.

Welcome to 4.0-5.0C.

[kristopher]

2. It is more than you advocate for.

You wrote on another thread yesterday: "...what I believe is the only plan that can work to save us from catastrophe. USA drops its (per capita) emissions to 90% what they currently are in 10 years (ten years). Europe likewise. China must also limit its emissions to whatever 90% USAs current emissions are, by that point (2020). India and the other developing nations then can grow their emissions to 90% current USA emissions, until by 2065 there are no emissions whatsoever."

Obama is at 17% below 2005 US levels (58.7 metric tons/capita), you are at 10% of current levels which are perhaps slightly lower (+-55 mt?) due to recession.

[joshcryer]

3. What? How do you get 90% reductions to equal 10%?

Huh?

edit: OK I see how that was read, I mispoke.

I should have said "90% reduction in emissions in 10 years."

[kristopher]

4. That doesn't track

RE your original post:

I haven't seen the movie so I'm just going by what you relate is in it. You said their goal is carbon free by 2065. Obama is calling for 85% reduction by 2050. That sounds similar.

You initially relayed their plan as a reduction to 90% of current levels by 2020; while Obama is calling for 17% below 2005 by 2020 - similar, but Obama is trying to set a faster pace.

Now you say there was a miscommunication and that the plan they present is a reduction to 10% of current levels by 2020 which I presume means that their plan allows 45 years to eliminate the other 10%.

It doesn't track.

[joshcryer]

5. It does track.

Watch the movie.

Would I really say "What is necessary though is an immediate and dramatic drop off of emissions." if I thought I was saying a 10% reduction to 90% current levels? Really, you're just being stupid now. I already admitted that I misspoke.

The movie did not not say "reduction to 90%" it says "reduction of 90%." It would be ridiculous for that movie to suggest a reduction of 10% when it points out just how fucked we'd be if we don't stop emissions dramatically and in a short time frame.

[kristopher]

6. Pot and thinking don't mix Josh.

At least, pot and rigorous thinking don't mix.

It looks like you made a mistake, can't admit it and are instead trying to deflect the issue with bullshit.

You endorsed the plan in the video. What is that plan calling for? It is a simple question and your tap dancing isn't necessary nor constructive. I was going by what you wrote, but apparently placing such trust in you is foolish since the truth doesn't seem to matter to you one iota.

I found this online:

The Age of Stupid is key part of a major push green lobby push this week to publicize their key goals:

1) Reducing the 3% per year increase in CO2 emissions we've seen this decade to 0% by 2015.
2) An 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
3) An eventual return to CO2 levels of 350 ppm--well below the current level of 388 ppm.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1329

Obviously if they are aiming for 80% by 2050 then your assertion that their goal is 90% within 10 years is bullshit. If you want people to trust your judgment you need to display both a modest degree of accuracy and a commitment to being truthful.

[joshcryer]

7. I wish I didn't delete it, I would post the relevant part of the video.

But since I don't feel like acquiring it again I will just put up with you calling me a liar.

[kristopher]

9. I see.

You think are the victim...

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. I'm sorry

You’re implying that someone else is a http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/victim">victim here, as if Josh has gone out of his way to attack someone.

He made a mistake in the way he phrased his post, rather like, "You think are the victim…"

[kristopher]

11. I didn't say anthing about an "attack"

That is your usual left turn to nowhere.

What Josh did was totally screw up the goal supported by the film and use the goal he had created out of whole cloth to denigrate the goal announced by Obama. In other words, he misinformed people on several levels.

He had ample opportunity to correct his mistake and chose instead to dig in his heels and claim he had not erred; then he tried to act as if it were an issue of per capita emission (falsely) that I somehow didn't understand.
Finally he plays the victim and acts as if calling him on his falsehoods is a product of something other than the FACT that he repeatedly misrepresented the truth. That is "playing the victim".

To date he still maintains the false position that the makers of the film are advocating a goal of 90% reductions from present levels in 10 years. That is as false now as it was when he first wrote it.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218781&mesg_id=218869
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218781&mesg_id=218875
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218781&mesg_id=218877

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. It looks to me like he admitted his mistake

I noticed his mistake straight off, but didn't think it worthy of mentioning.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218781&mesg_id=218781

…

Finally, the movie notes what I believe is the only plan that can work to save us from catastrophe. USA drops its (per capita) emissions to 90% what they currently are in 10 years (ten years). Europe likewise. China must also limit its emissions to whatever 90% USAs current emissions are, by that point (2020). India and the other developing nations then can grow their emissions to 90% current USA emissions, until by 2065 there are no emissions whatsoever. What is necessary though is an immediate and dramatic drop off of emissions. In a decade. That's why I like the plan.

A 10% reduction in 10 years is not what I would call “an immediate and dramatic drop off of emissions.” I knew what he meant. It’s a common sort of error.

When you pointed out his error, he http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218781&mesg_id=218869">replied, “By 90% reduced, I mean that (r)emissions are 10% what they were in 2008 or whatever.” http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218841&mesg_id=218867">and “OK I see how that was read, I mispoke. I should have said ‘90% reduction in emissions in 10 years.’”

That seems pretty clear to me; and Obama’s proposal does fall far short of those goals (i.e. a 90% reduction in 10 years.)

In any case, I don't believe there was any intentional effort on Josh's part to harm/misinform anyone.

[kristopher]

13. Please consider your post proof of my argument

Here, let me shout so that you get it this time: THE FILM DOES NOT RECOMMEND 90% REDUCTIONS FROM CURRENT LEVELS IN 10 YEARS.

Got it? the original number posted by Josh seems to be more correct; it is about 10% by 2020.

Whether Josh original misstatement about the comparison to Obama's goal was intentional or not is irrelevant. He clearly chose to insist that the false claim of 90% reduction by 2020 was correct.

Since the discussion seems so important to you perhaps you should take the time to at least figure out what has transpired. The fact that you are 'confused' about 1) the position of the film, 2) the impression that creates of Obama's goal, and 3) what was actually discussed between Josh and myself lends a lot of weight to my concerns.

[joshcryer]

14. "THE FILM DOES NOT RECOMMEND 90% REDUCTIONS FROM CURRENT LEVELS IN 10 YEARS."

Have you seen the film?

[kristopher]

15. That is correct.

And no, I haven't seen the film.

But your statements regarding the goals are internally inconsistent, indicating the statements are invalid. It is absurd on its face to claim they are calling for a 90% reduction in ten years and then allow another 45 years for a total phase out.

Also I did a search of of others discussing the film and they all state that the purpose of the film is to present a goal that is similar to what Obama has announced. For your benefit I posted one that was explicit about the numbers here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218841&mesg_id=218880

1) Reducing the 3% per year increase in CO2 emissions we've seen this decade to 0% by 2015.
2) An 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.
3) An eventual return to CO2 levels of 350 ppm--well below the current level of 388 ppm.

Try rehab.

[joshcryer]

19. Try watching the film.

[joshcryer]

20. Here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lt2Z9yBTeY

Direct copy from the relevant part of the movie.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. I believe you are mistaken

Sites affiliated with the movie:
http://www.ageofstupid.net/
http://www.notstupid.org/

direct readers to an effort to cut emissions "10% in 2010":
http://www.1010global.org/
http://www.1010uk.org/

So, either we are to assume that the goal is to cut emissions 10% in one year, and sit back and congratulate ourselves for the next 10 years, or…

http://www.1010uk.org/1010/what_is_1010/arms

…

As Pete Postlethwaite’s character says in our, er, documentary, The Age of Stupid, “We wouldn’t be the first life form to wipe itself out. But what would be unique about us is that we did it knowingly.” And there’s the crux of it. We are the most intelligent creature ever to evolve. The first to understand how the overstretching resources->extinction pathway works and the first with the potential to use our big brains to jump off that pathway before it's too late.

So... to maximise our chances of preventing runaway climate change, we must quickly and massively cut global emissions. To quickly and massively cut global emissions we need a binding international treaty and the last chance we have to get that treaty within the timescale of the physics of the planet, is the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December this year. Hence the “Most important meeting in human history” moniker.

Clearly the treaty isn’t just made up on the spot, they’ve been working on it for years. The best deal currently on the table is that from the EU, which calls for a 30% reduction by 2020 (compared to 1990 levels). If this deal were to be accepted (which is a very big if, given that Japan argues for 8%, Australia for 5% and America for between 0%-6%) and if the emission cuts were then carried out (which is an even bigger if, given that no country has ever deliberately cut its emissions), this would give us about a 50/50 chance of not hitting the dreaded two degrees. Two degrees is where we trigger runaway climate change: two leads to three, three to four, four to five, five to six... by which time it’s about over for life on Earth.

In other words, our elected leaders are giving us – at best – a coinflip chance of avoiding catastrophe. It is hard to imagine a more total failing of our political system. Imagine if they were standing at a plane door... “Come on citizens, get on this plane, 50/50 chance of a safe landing....”

…

Clearly, they don't believe that even a 30% cut (from 1990 levels) in 10 years is sufficient.

[kristopher]

17. His discussion was of the goals recommeded in the movie.

According to the goal stated by other viewers of the film his claims are bogus.

I have already visited the website of the film and the other effort you link to, but there is nothing directly stated one way or the other. Feel free to comb the web for viewer comments as I did.

[joshcryer]

18. Please watch the film.

And then let me know what it says.

[joshcryer]

21. He's so forceful I actually started to doubt myself. So I got it again and checked.

You gotta feel stupid when someone harasses you so much you start to doubt yourself. Has nothing to do with open-minded interpretation of the facts, it's all about who is right and who is stupid or not. Then spam to see who gives up first (usually in this case, the non-spammer).

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. Wait for it…

I'm confident we’ll hear that you’re still wrong. (Or we’ll hear nothing at all.)

[joshcryer]

22. "the original number posted by Josh seems to be more correct" Wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lt2Z9yBTeY

Note, the movie doesn't recommend shit, the whole way it lays out the information is in a historical fashion. The movie just gives out information. It is unclear even if the proposal in question has anything to do with the advocacy made by those behind the film. In the end the proposal is just that, a proposal. My initial statements said I liked it (you didn't like this and then insisted on going off on a tangent).

I never claimed the movie "recommended it." Only that it was in the movie and I liked it.

[joshcryer]

24. I believe the only person misinforming people is you.

The fact that you spent so much time insisting that I was making shit up only illustrates your close-minded nature, and your inability to trust anyone outside of those who explicitly and always agree with whatever it is you believe.

[notesdev]

8. That's right

his economic policies will make sure that our CO2 output drops dramatically.