Climate Change: It's getting hot in here

[Thom Little]

2005 was the year in which concerns about the stability of the climate regularly made the headlines; 2006 may be the year when demands to do something about it finally become irresistible.

The past 12 months have seen big changes in the political - as well as the actual - climate. Perhaps the Rubicon was crossed when David Cameron was seen with Zac Goldsmith, editor of The Ecologist, discussing the ins and outs of global warming. Once the party of big business and anti-regulation, the Tories seem set to outflank a struggling Labour on the issue.

What is so surprising is not just the shifting of the ideological landscape that this implies, but the fact that everyone agrees that it matters. Even as recently as the May general election, climate change barely made a headline. Now Cameron's re-invigorated Tories clearly see it as a vote-winner. Tony Blair, who did so much to put climate on the agenda, but then failed to deliver serious policies to address it, could lose out as a result.

.......

There are also indications that the US will not be able to evade legal culpability for its emissions for much longer. The Inuit indigenous inhabitants of the Arctic have taken a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, accusing the US of destroying their lifestyle and future through climate change - dramatic signs of which are already evident across the Arctic region. If the commission rules in favour of the Inuit, the US could find itself in the dock at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. However, both agencies work within the framework of the American Convention on Human Rights, which the US has taken the precaution of not ratifying.



http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article335860.ece

[Catherine Vincent]

1. "...so take off all your clothes"

:-)

[madeline_con]

2. I saw that coming. :-) eom

[Catherine Vincent]

4. sorry

I'm a bit tipsy right nbow. :)

[madeline_con]

3. According to

http://foreignpolicy.com

Hot Air’s Shifting Winds
When it comes to emitting greenhouse gases, the United States is usually seen as the bad guy, content to belch out fumes at its pleasure. But reports released in late November show that U.S. emissions have fallen for the first time in more than a decade. Between 2000 and 2003, U.S. emissions fell by 0.8 percent. By contrast, global goody-two-shoes Canada saw a 24.2 percent increase in 2003 from its 1990 levels. Even the sanctimonious Europeans are set to miss their Kyoto targets by 6.4 percent. Uncle Sam’s emissions dropped partly because U.S. firms introduced clean coal technologies and reduced their methane emissions. So, is the United States turning into the Green Giant? Hardly. The most important reason for its drop in emissions was the migration of heavy manufacturing to industrializing countries such as China, the world’s second-biggest emitter.

[neweurope]

5. Comparing apples to pears here.

The link doesn't work for me; also I don't have the current numbers and frankly with my New Year's Eve hangover I don't want to google them. But the author is comparing:

- US emissions have fallen between 2000 and 2003 by 0.9 percent (because of the migration of heavy manufacturing)
to
Canada saw a 24.2 percent increase in 2003 from its 1990 levels.
The author should give Canada's 2000 level. And the 1990's level of the US.

- US emissions have fallen between 2000 and 2003 by 0.9 percent (because of the migration of heavy manufacturing)
to
Even the sanctimonious Europeans are set to miss their Kyoto targets by 6.4 percent.
The author should state by how much the European's level has fallen. Not by how much the Europeans missed their goal.

The US are still the bad guy. By far.

-----------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!