U.S. Government
International
Academic, Non-Governmental
On Dec. 18, the world’s best hope for an ambitious global agreement that can successfully rein in greenhouse gas emissions will either succeed or fizzle in Copenhagen. Much of the outcome will depend on what President Obama and his administration do in the 320 days between now and then.
In an article posted today at Yale Environment 360, Michael Northrop, director of sustainable development grantmaking at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and SolveClimate founder David Sassoon spell out the steps that Obama must take now and why 2009 is the do-or-die year for comprehensive federal climate action.
The president’s mission will fail unless he carries with him a year’s worth of demonstrated results to lend weight and credibility to the promise he made in his inaugural address to “roll back the specter of a warming planet.” In Copenhagen, his inspiring oratory alone will not be sufficient; he must demonstrate how science has been restored “to its rightful place” in America in strong climate regulation and law.
The economic stimulus package is a start, with its commitment to green jobs, clean energy, and energy efficiency, but it is only a start. The EPA must put the Clean Air Act to use in fighting any further spread of greenhouse-gas pumping coal plants. Perhaps most important, the United States needs a science-based energy and climate plan that sets a price on carbon emissions.
Northrop and Sassoon say Obama must also:
The political winds at Obama’s back are now as favorable as they will ever be. He is in a position to seize 2009 and do three things to meet the climate challenge: properly educate the American public about climate change and the need for immediate action; exercise the full might of his executive powers and regulatory discretion under the Clean Air Act to jump-start action; and spend freely from his enormous store of political capital to lead the government to enact comprehensive federal climate legislation. If he does, America will reclaim the mantle of global leadership when it takes its seat in Copenhagen.
The full article is posted at Yale Environment 360. Please read it.
Methane in Kyoto II
A message the US could take to Copenhagen is the fair treatment of methane.
The goal of Kyoto was stated as being the stabilisation of greenhouse gases.
Methane only lasts in the atmosphere for 9 years. Stabilistation of methane can occur in 9 years by maintaining current emissions. Stabilisation of CO2 requires net emissions to return to zero. Methane and CO2 should not be treated the same.
Some people will say,"yes but methane breaks down to CO2 having a long term impact'. This is true, but in the case of biogenic methane (which isn't a fossil fuel) the CO2 was sequested by anaerobic bacteria, so is cyclical and does not contribute to global warming. It is a closed cycle and the CO2 is only 9 years old, not like petrol CO2 which is 200 million years old.
Kyoto inacted GWP's and methane now has a GWP value of 25 CO2.e, meaning it is 25 times more costly to emit than CO2.
However methane is not 25 more time costly to the environment or the economy. As Kyoto predicts tempretures to rise over time, a tempreture change now is less imortant than a tempreture change in 100 years time, because in 100 years time the climate will be hotter and more sensitive to tempreture changes. If in one hundred years we find we have under estimated the effects of greenhouse gases then we can reduce methane emissions and hence levels quickly, and not be affected by being stuck with past emissions, we can not do this with CO2.
We need to drop methane from international agreements, it is a clean gas that other than its radio forcing is not a pollutant. it is created in many types of food production, for example milk and rice. It is not in the worlds best interest to limit the production of these products.
Thanks for your time, hope you learned something. check my statements - they are all true!
Post new comment