E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mario Tama / Getty Images
Protesters demonstrate against the Forest Code and Belo Monte dam project at the Rio + 20 counter summit or "People's Summit" on Monday, June 18, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The "People's Summit" is financed by the Brazilian government and involves 200 ecological groups and social organizations. Over 100 heads of state and tens of thousands of participants and protesters will descend on the city for the high-level portion of the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development or "Earth Summit" this week.
In 1992, nearly every country in the world took part in what was hailed a “historic moment for humanity.”
The Rio Earth Summit in Brazil delivered a plan of action that would tackle greenhouse gases and climate change, stop species going extinct and save the forests. And if all that wasn’t enough, they committed to creating a “safe and just world” for all.
Amid the optimism fostered by the fall of communism, global leaders embraced the "revolutionary" new idea of sustainable development – economic progress in harmony with the natural world.
Two decades later, that spirit of enthusiasm has been replaced by talk of “broken promises” and “a very uncertain future” in the run-up to this week's unheralded Rio+20 summit, formally the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.
In 1992, then President George H. W. Bush was at Rio, but his successor Barack Obama has no plans to go this time and other world leaders – like the U.K.’s David Cameron and Germany’s Angela Merkel – are also expected to stay away from the summit, which begins Wednesday.
Indeed, such is the apparent lack of interest, the conference was rescheduled from early to late June partly to avoid a clash with the U.K. queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, as it was feared some world leaders would rather celebrate the 60th anniversary of the start of an unelected head-of-state’s reign than reach a deal on the future of the planet.
Andrew Jordan, professor of environmental politics at the U.K.’s University of East Anglia, a world-leading center for environmental research, told msnbc.com that the idea of sustainable development had “gone right down the agenda since Rio in 1992.”
“I think there’s probably still enough support within the U.N. and environmental system to just about keep it on the policy agenda, but you can see a general lack of interest,” he said.
“I would say the world wouldn’t be doing this [Rio+20] unless it was already in the diary,” he added. “Starting with a blank sheet of paper, they wouldn’t have been talking about sustainable development this year or possibly even at all.”
Jordan said “green growth” – rather than sustainable development – was the new buzz word among industrialized countries, but “really it’s growth, old-fashioned growth” with “a bit of a nod towards the environment.”
World warmer, with fewer species, trees
The lack of progress since 1992 is plain to see in a U.N. report, Keeping Track of Our Changing Environment.
The much-trumpeted drive to tackle greenhouse gases saw carbon dioxide emissions actually increase by a massive 36 percent between 1992 and 2008. And, between 1992 and 2010, global warming continued apace, with the mean temperature of the Earth rising by 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.72 degrees Fahrenheit); the last decade was also the hottest on record since 1880.
J. DAVID AKE / AFP / Getty Images
US President George H. W. Bush signs the United Nations Climate Change convention, 12 June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, during the UN-sponsored Earth Summit.
As for stopping species from dying out, biodiversity in the tropics has fallen by 30 percent since 1992. And saving the trees? Again, primary forest cover has fallen by 741 million acres – an area larger than Argentina – since 1990.
Brazil Senate OKs easing of rules to limit Amazon deforestation
In February this year, following a meeting of the world’s environment ministers, Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme, called for “bold, transformative decisions ” at Rio+20.
And he warned that incremental reforms were “leading seven billion down an unsustainable path and [toward] a very uncertain future."
Arctic sea ice ‘megabloom’ tied to climate change
It was Maurice Strong, the conference secretary-general at Rio in 1992, who described that summit as a “historic moment for humanity” as it came to an end.
Since then, the Canadian entrepreneur has complained of “continued broken promises” and is now looking to Rio+20 for real action.
Mario Tama / Getty Images
The Amazon rainforest has meant prosperous times for many in Brazil, but environmental and cultural disaster for others.
“If you add up all the commitments they made, if they had implemented them, we’d be a long way down the road. They’ve not been implemented to any great extent,” he told msnbc.com.
“If we stay on the same pathway, whatever the politicians say, we’ll not be sustainable,” he said. “The achievement of sustainability needs to be revitalized.”
“The irony is the science has become more definitive … since ’92 things have got worse,” Strong added. “On the other hand at the political level … the will to act has been overshadowed by immediate concerns of a political and economic nature that are less important in the long run.”
Revolution needed?
But he said he was still hopeful “because pessimism is self-fulfilling.”
“As long as there’s a chance, we can do something,” Strong said. “We need the equivalent of a revolution.”
Earth nearing 'tipping point,' study warns
And there is some hope in U.N. report for those convinced of the need to deal with climate change: Between 1992 and 2009, energy from solar power increased by 30,000 percent, from wind power by 6,000 percent and from biofuels by 3,500 percent.
Kate Newman, of environmental campaign group WWF, said she was “optimistic” about what Rio+20 would achieve, so much so that she thought it would be a “positive turning-point for the world.”
She said the Obama administration had showed “a lot of enthusiasm” about Rio+20 and dismissed the president’s decision not to go, saying “he doesn’t attend many of these events.”
World's cities to expand by more than twice the size of Texas by 2030
Newman said that many countries had been introducing policies to promote sustainable development.
“No matter what happens in Rio, those policies will stand. Countries are already doing important things in anticipation of Rio,” she said.
Newman said that China, for example, planned “to show the world what they’ve done in their own country to move to a green economy” at Rio.
Fossil fuel subsidies in firing line?
Nick Nuttall, spokesperson for the U.N. Environment Programme, told msnbc.com that he didn’t think Rio+20 was “intended to be a place of big agreements,” but pointed to several areas where there could be significant changes.
The world, including the U.S. and many developing countries, spends about $600 billion a year on subsidizing fossil fuels, Nuttall said, compared to about $70 billion on renewable energy.
Clinton highlights importance of oil-rich Arctic
“There is a sense the issue of fossil fuel subsidies may be dealt with” at Rio, he said.
“One of the myths about fossil fuel subsidies is that many developing countries do it to protect the poor from oil price shocks,” he said. “Many of the poor never benefit because they don’t use fossil fuels.”
Rio closes its massive garbage dump
“The fact is all the analysis shows what these fossil fuel subsidies do is create inefficiencies,” Nuttall added.
He also said the Environment Programme could be upgraded to a more powerful body, like the World Trade Organization or World Health Organization.
“At the moment if you are a health minister and you go to the annual assembly of the WHO and you decide you are going to phase out some terrible disease across the world in 10 years, that is so decided,” Nuttal said.
“But if environment ministers of the world meet under the auspices of UNEP and they decide to have a 20-year program to get rid of cadmium, a heavy metal, [for instance] from the world, that decision then has to go to the General Assembly of the United Nations,” he added.
Rio could also spell the beginning of the end for Gross Domestic Product, with progress on what Nuttall described as a “more sustainable, sophisticated measure of wealth that takes into account the human side, the environmental side.”
Sustainable development pioneer: Vote Obama
The idea of sustainable development – controversial to some – was given life by the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, which was chaired by then Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland.
The report defined sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Speaking to msnbc.com, Brundtland said the concept had been a “revolutionary breakthrough in thinking.”
“Across the world there was a realization that something dramatic was ahead of us and we must change path,” she said. “It was all quite amazing what the world was willing to sign up to 20 years ago.”
Jeff Moore/The Elders
Former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, second right, talks to two of the "Youngers," Marvin Nala, left, and Esther Agbarakwe, right, during the Elders+Youngers dialogue in Oslo, Norway.
Brundtland said progress since then had been slow, but added “we know as politicians that change takes time.”
“Those statistics [on emissions, climate change etc.] would have been much worse today without Rio and without the whole awareness,” she said.
Watch Elders+Youngers video: It's our future, it's our time
She said it was “a pity” that Obama and other world leaders would not be at Rio+20, but said she was “quite certain that he is aware of the seriousness of the issues” and added that she hoped he would win the November election.
“He is struggling with an American scene and a political system that is really difficult with polarization and climate deniers, a scene that is very different from the European scene,” Brundtland said.
“I do believe in people, I do believe there are a number of progressive leaders who see further than one year ahead and they will feel a responsibility to deliver,” she added.
But if world leaders fail to step up to the plate, Brundtland and other former world leaders in the “The Elders” group are hoping to inspire a grassroots movement of “Youngers.”
Watch Elders video: What kind of world do we want to leave our great-great-grandchildren?
“Elders and Youngers is our attempt to try and mobilize civil society, certainly on behalf of young people … who may be pessimistic about their future,” Brundtland said.
“Every human being is responsible for the future. It’s not enough to point at politicians and expect them to do the right thing,” she added. “We all have to try to make a difference, we all have to mobilize. This Rio is absolutely dependent on public participation.
“I think it will not be a failure,” Brundtland said, but added, “maybe it’s because I’m always keeping my optimism as a driving force.”
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 20 to 22.
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Germany's Merkel faces growing pressure at home, abroad
- EU chief at G20 Summit: We're not here to 'receive lessons from nobody!'
- Taliban bans Pakistan polio vaccinations over drone strikes
- Luka Magnotta, suspected dismemberment killer, extradited to Canada
- London bound: Blinded warrior to represent U.S. at 2012 Paralympics
- Arrows fly as tribal clashes break out in Indonesia's Papua
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
Sustainability? A population of seven billion people is simply not sustainable. Five billion is probably not sustainable. We are well past the redline. Fortunately, nature will correct this, sooner or later. The tragic thing is, nature's birth control measures tend to be rather harsh.
Let's hope nature only knocks us back to about1 billion. At one time it is estimated she knocked us back to about 3,000!
THANKS TO THE MEDIA
The greens bark is all they have. in the top 100 projects none have gotten of the ground.
look at solar its been around 40 years and nothing but bankruptcies by bankrupt governments.
in 20 years the joke will be wind and electric cars. neither will break 20% in power or cars.
Solar power is being used extensively. You need to get out more.
golf...yeah...for Partial or Supplimental energy supply.
Something is better than nothing.
And just how much Solar Energy do you employ in your Home? No BS, please.
Solar has been promising sustainability (i.e. competitive pricing) since the 1970s, if only they could get the conversion rate above 50%. Still not even close. So Solar is just like Fusion. Promises, promises, promises, all "sometime in the next 20 years". Both may never deliver.
golfsleft
they are building the largest solar farm in texas 5 miles from my house
the problem the mgw wil not be more than 4% of county need.
when that something can be of better use it is a minus not a plus
like ethanol from food grains is a minus ethanol from other sources is a plus
too many people can't do the simple math yes wind and solar have their place however
too many windmills will hurt birds and too much solar takes up valuable grain plants
Solar power is being used extensively are you kidding extensively means greater than 50%
You are out of date on solar. Thanks to China and other eastern sources it is now dirt cheap. It surpassed nuclear years ago and is now on par with coal if you DIY the install. I put 10KW on my roof and it handles 90% of my power needs.
Utility owned solar is not viable, customer owned is viable even without federal 30% subsidies. Solar is not efficient, it taks a roof full to supplant your electric bill. The bad news is, utility solar farms take up acre upon acre, the good news is, you just happen to have a roof over your head that is completely available! :<)
This is year one of affordable battery cars. We are in the "early adopter" stage. Year five and year ten will see huge improvements. Never bet against electronics married to mass production. Electric cars are the future, but it won't happen over night. Technology takes time.
Wind is still expensive but as volume builds those costs will come down. Nat gas is already replacing coal thanks to the free market. Fusion, as said, is the ultimate gold plated buggy whip.
Also, as mentioned above, solar capacity has been doubling year over year in this country precisely because prices continue to fall. This has held true even through the recession and is already on track to more than double this year.
American companies are failing because China has turned solar panels into a commodity. It does not signify the failure of solar, it signifies the success. The failure is the US being unable to compete. The same would be true if Apple attempted to build their products here.
valhalla phil
four questions you need to answer to consider solar viable
1]number of house/apartments in usa not able to support solar panels and their mgw needs
2] number of mgw by solar on line in usa presently
3] number of mgw needed to cover non business use(households)in usa
4] number of years for solar mgw to equal 25% power required at peak in usa
The simple solution is to just kill all of humanity. Then the enviromentalist will be happy. Nothing short of that will ever satisfy these idiots. If they keep pushing their agenda ,there will be NO jobs and we can all just freeze in the dark.
The environmental movement has done more harm to the U.S. than any of her enemies could ever hope to achieve. Communists, Socialists. and other America haters are in this movent and their agenda is destroying the economy of the country.
The commie movement and the environmental movement are one and the same. It's all about control of the population. For anyone here who is not familiar with agenda 21 please see - agenda 21, how it affects you on youtube. Or please google democrats against agenda 21.
Yes, because freezing in the dark is the only possible alternative to using resources sustainably, right?
Its real easy to see why no one wants to attend.....Its a complete and utter economic failure AND farce!!!! Since 1992 what have we got? higher unemployment, regulations up the wazoo, financial destruction, more costs passed onto business's which pass it ion as higher prices to consumers......all to save Species that if I'm not wrong, the last time i checked have come and gone with regularity over say the last ohhhh billion years of the planet!!!!
Wake up people!!! this is a complete farce and doesnt work.....ONLY soverienty works...just look at the loss of countries rights, control and sovereignty in Europe....Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.......
Noone is saying not to pay attention to polution, or better ways to be more efficient wiht resources......but seeing as though we LEAD the way in effective solutions we dont need over burdening BS....tell China, India, Russia....all those clowns to step up to t he plate first and get somewhere near the BS we put up .......they are the problem....they have zero regulations to deal. This is al orchestrated to drive financial pressure on us and make our living more costly ot drive us down. Think about it, they know they cant beat us militarily wise, as we have proven time and time again....they are after us wiht "smoke and mirrors" show ....if the world really believed this BS...they would be imppossing hte same EPA regulations and BS....so why are the not? ...Hey Iseem to remember that crisp clean air during the Olympics in China a few years ago.....I mean that was 1970 action in the US AT BEST.
Tell the world to clean up their act, adhere to the standards they IMPOSE on us....then we'll talk....till then .....GO SCREW
The specie worth saving is humans.
"but seeing as though we LEAD the way in effective solutions"
Um, no we don't.
Um, yes we do. We invented solar cells and installed capacity is doubling year after year, we are #1 in wind, our footprint is shrinking, we will make electric vehicles viable.
It is China, Brazil, India, etc. that will ruin the world, not us.
Obama sees no votes worth going after in the Environmental world. He could at least send the First Lady. It is sad that politicians will use certain "platforms" just to gain votes when they want.
His "Green" initiatives have failed because all that was seen here was a potential revenue source. It was not approached as a sustainable industry concept. Jobs have not been created in this sector and he has lost interest in it. His solar and wind power efforts only looked at large business and municipal utility groups (primary grid) as the prime point to start with and overlooked smaller businesses that really don't want government interference/intervention/assistance.
Why do people always wait for governments to "save the day"? It's time for the PEOPLE of this world to take action if they really want to make things sustainable.
I find it hilarious that China is going to give Brasil a
Green path. China via Brasils Billionaires is strip mining entire mountains
along Corumbá, and the Pantanal (Amazon basin) for Iron ore and other minerals.
China's hunger for the world’s natural resources’ will not stop, and greed will
never go way. Give me one example where money, greed, and power at a government
level ever fails. A Revolution indeed.
Obama isn't going? Bush Sr did.
Obama made more promises than any president in US history, and has kept none of them...
Can you say flim flam man? He's a bad check writer, a lying SOB, a two faced race divider and the worst president in history.
Hope and change... people are more hopeless now than any time I remember in my life. The economy is in the dump, the national debt is over $800,000 per man, woman and child alive, unemployment is horrible.
Do you have anything sensible to say?
".. the national debt is over $800,000 per man, woman and child alive.."
Your math is terrible.
Not my math troll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Here's some light reading for you. Once you start adding up the interest, what number do you come up with?
Go away now little girl...
michael 2772128
800k per person is 248trillion
you math skills match the obama's administrations. they may have a space for you
michael, I come up with just over $48K.
golfsleft, which is above the median income for working people in the U.S., so the debt now exceeds our ability to pay it any time soon. Which is why the first hundred or so priorities of the U.S. government should be reducing the deficit to the point where we can start making significant dents in the debt. It is time to pay the piper before we start being the Southern tier of the Eurozone.
"Once you start adding up the interest, what number do you come up with?"
I even told you to add the interest... But that flew right over your heads...
Why don't you two go look up what interest is...
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/05/news/economy/national-debt-interest/index.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021606897.html
This is getting painfully difficult, but I'll give it another shot-
There's a thing called interest. This is when you pay a fee, basically, to get a loan. That fee is called interest. You have to pay each interest payment before you touch the principle, the money you owe. And you have to pay the interest payments continuously.
Now, the interst payments ALONE are over 5 trillion dollars over ten years... So add how long it takes us to pay off the principle PLUS INTEREST, and that will tell you how much interest you pay. The interest alone is about 2.5% of our GDP. And we're already in deficit spending. Meaning, we're not fiscally balanced NOW, so we don't even have the money currently to pay the INTEREST ALONE, without even touching the principle. So we have to either increase the GPD by 2.5%, and spend that windfall on JUST THE INTEREST, OR we have to lower the budget by 2.5% of the GDP, JUST TO PAY THE INTEREST. So, EVEN IF we manage to spend less, and earn more, even at 2.5% of the GDP, we will NEVER pay off that debt.
In case you two hadn't noticed, we've been in deficit spending for decades and decades. This means, were not getting any more out of debt, we're getting MORE in debt.
To make matters worse, our government holds the current currency standard, the dollar. Now Britain years ago held that standard, but because of poor money managment, they lost that distinction. So currently, JUST TO PAY INTEREST ON OUR DEBT, we merely print more money. That money isn't based upon any value. This is one of the ways the dollar gets devalued. Now, BEST CASE, with all this debt, the dollar continue to lose value. WORSE case, the dollar is no longer recognized as the standard. That means we basically have to pay a higher rate to pay JUST THE INTEREST on our loans. We would have to buy the new standard, such a marks or yen, with dollars, which would be severly lower in value, to pay the debt. So we would in effect pay two fees. One conversion rate, and one interest. That is without paying the principle.
Are you little tykes following? The dollar gets further devalued, we pay a higher rate of interest. The dollar ceases to be a standard, we pay a VASTLY higher rate.. Best case, the interest goes UP. Worse case, the interest goes WAY UP.
NOW, you two geniuses, HOW MUCH do we owe, AFTER INTEREST?
Go back to school little kiddies...
o
I was one of the people celebrating the commitments that were made 2 decades ago but, with a grain of salt, as we humans seldom do anything about anything unless it benefits big business and the government.. Everyone seems to forget that we can protest and march down the streets in anger all over the world but if big business, the wealthy minority and our 'elected' officials see any enterprise as money going out of THEIR pockets you can, as they say, forgeddaboutit!
It's disgusting that not even their own children's future welfare means enough to the billionaires, the CEO's, the bankers and the politicians of this world to actually help with cleaning it up! Guess where all the money will come from to even begin to initiate these programs? Well, it ain't them, that's for sure!
What's disgusting is idiots that don't realize how much ahead of the rest of the world we are. Blame America first is the Enviro-Nazi motto.
This whole thing is just about Agenda 21 which is another word for communism. It is all about taking away our private property rights and our way of life under the guise of "saving" the environment. Meanwhile all the elite will live like kings and the rest of us will be freezing, jobless, homeless and hungry. But hey as long as we saved a fking tree that makes it all worthwhile. I cannot believe there are still people who don't understand that contol of the population is what these summits are all about judging by the ignorant comments here already. THere is so much info on Agenda 21 i am amazed that there are still people who evidently have no idea what it is all about. Please Democrats against agenda 21. Google it. And no i am not a dem but for once i agree with these dems on something.
I guess Obama is too busy caring about saving the illegal aliens from extinction?
Now THAT is an impossible task. Simply take a look at ANY roof being shingled in the U.S. today, new or existing home. What do you see?? SUSTAINABLE ENERGY being exerted by 6-7 Million Non-English speaking "roof rats". But, no....according to the Libs and our DimoCrap "leadership" those are Jobs the American Worker doesn't want. I can remember when those "roof rats" were ALL legal Tax paying residents .
well with the neverending war plan in place it looks like this piece of history is just another big "hands across your face" media mastrabation tactic. Absolutely histerical seeing the patriarch of hypocrites daddy Bush signing it then you know its a big shuffle.
Wow...you mean the facts that people need to feed themselves and provide jobs keeps pushing "Green" "sustainable" concepts into the swamp?
Easy for those living in a theoretical paradise to hallucinate that they have the power to get the rest of the world to bow to their childish, ridiculous demands. There is a level of attention to pollution and the environment that has resulted in cleaner water, cleaner air and less ground deposits of pollutants. When it reaches the point where jobs are being lost (think any of our current joblessness is the result of "green choices"?) and phony "green industries" start to crop up (Solyndra) to siphon money from the "stupid and gullible", something has to go. That something is not going to be the economies of the world's nations.
If you think industry and the households of the world pollute now, just review the countries that have no industry and no household income. Obviously the green movement intends to have no world industry or jobs at all! Then the world will have the greatest level of pollution possible, multiplying the poverty stricken nations' plight to the whole world. There is no green industry (except for fraudulent) and no green jobs.
What is really amazing it that so many people believed a bunch of politicians promising to make such monumental changes in the first place! Short of world wars, when has any large set of promises made at conferences like that ever been fulfilled? Most of the leaders who signed up knew they would not be in power long enough to enact anything useful. So the lack of progress is not surprising at all.
I share some of that pessimism, but I don't think the alternative is not to even try.
Let's see. Temperatures have gone down. Sea levels dropped recently. There is no list of recent extinctions but lots of new species have been discovered and rain forests have actually grown, many of the cleared areas have returned to forest.
What's the problem?
So many lies; so little time.
"So many lies" and so little intelligence or evidence to counter them. Al Gore recently bought a multi-million dollar beach estate. Because the sea levels are going up 20 feet and will snatch his investment away in a year.
If the liar is benefiting from the lie (Al) then HIS side is wrong. You think people with nothing to lose are lying about global warming? Why? All the flawed and fabricated "evidence" is on Al's side. But then, he has benefited in the millions from his ridiculous hypotheses.
Steve: Whether or not a politician is a hypocrite has no bearing on the science of global warming. There is no fabrictaed evidence. Perhaps some errors here and there, but nothing to change the overall conclusions for which the scientific support is still increasing: carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and it is contributing to warming the climate.
Al Gore is not a scientists and has no "hypotheses." He is a political advocate who you can love or hate with no consequences whatsoever.
No, and the truth doesn't seem to count either. How many dire predictions of global destructions have been made since 1975...and how many of them have come true? N O N E.
THere are some errors all right. There are also falsifications, destruction of raw data, complete lies and denial of the hard facts.
Jock....I know about politicians, but at least you can see their motives. UN "scientists" are apparently less informed than politicians, but will lie to please whoever pays them.
Since the "silent spring" days, every prediction, every projection, many of the actual measurements have been a joke. The "global warming" industry (that's right, it's an evil, greedy, money grubbing corporation) is profiting, but does not have any actual truthful data to even indicate where their "mistakes" are coming from.
Temperatures are not going down, unless you count the temporary dip during La Nina periods. This May was the second warmest ever recorded (globally) and a new annual record high is likely soon.
Lovely server error.
Let's see. CO2 is plant food. Plant's grow faster and stronger with more of it, they are also more drought tolerant and more water efficient with more CO2. Sounds like a great way of greening the Earth.
Temperatures have leveled off for over a decade while CO2 levels have gone up which disproves the theory of man made global warming. Sea levels actually dropped in recent years. The Arctic has been gaining sea ice since 2007.
There is no list of recent extinctions. But there is a big list of recently discovered new species.
Rain forests are actually growing. Many areas that had been cleared for farming are returning to forest.
What's the problem?
"Temperatures have leveled off for over a decade while CO2 levels have gone up which disproves the theory of man made global warming. Sea levels actually dropped in recent years. The Arctic has been gaining sea ice since 2007."
Proof please.
(sarcasm), but the models say we are doomed! Run for your lives! Oppose all use of fossil fuels! Stop exhaling! Wait a minute ... Temps are stable? Sea levels dropped? But the models say ... Well so much for the models! The AGW crowd needs to incorporate the last decade's data, retune their models and make better predictions. Know why they won't? It might not show a global disaster looming in the near future and they would have nothing to rant about.
The forrested areas cleared for farming are being abandoned because they won't grow crops. The soil is dead. People like you are just what the doctor ordered for the governments, idiots. The studies you refer to were mostly financed by oil companies.
Probably because any study funded by the gov or the ecos that produced that kind of result would be de-funded and squashed. So the only ones that found this kind of data would have to be funded outside that realm, i.e. the oil companies.
Neal, do you disagree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?
"Temps are stable? Sea levels dropped?"
No, they haven't. Come on Neal, you seem like a pretty intelligent person. Don't fall for this cherry-picking of short-term numbers to negate the obvious facts that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that we are in a long-term warming trend. The science is actually fairly clear on this.
CO2 was vastly exaggerated in climate models, even the IPCC admits that. That's why all the horrific disasters haven't even come close to happening.
Actually, Phil, CO2 is rising faster than anyone ever predicted, and the climae is not far behind.
Mostly incorrect ... temperatures have not leveled off when other influences (such as El Nino/La Nina) are accounted for; this is very clear from 0-2000m depth ocean heat content (see NOAA/NODC), and will soon become clear from annual global average air temperatures. Sea levels only dropped slightly one year. And minimum arctic sea ice extent (in September each year) has been near record lows; let's see what it is this year.
Big business and governments all treat our planet like their very own personal roll of toilet paper.
Future generations may curse the ground they walk on, but that makes no difference to them. Why? They honestly don't care. Profits over people. I think the 2012 alarmists have it slightly wrong, it won't be an end, it will be the beginning of the worst chapter in human history. The sad thing is, we'll be getting just what we paid for.
Does solar power work? Absolutely. Problem is, is that you need a solar array so large to produce enough power to be viable that the environmental impact and cost of maintaining these arrays make it UNSUSTAINABLE.
The only form of energy that can produce enough is nuclear. Instead of beating our heads against the poverbial physics wall we should investing develping the energy source that powers every star in the universe.
What is the environmental impact of a solar array? What are the maintance costs?
So far the ecos oppose large solar farms because, get this, they create too much shade and disturb the natural life cycles and habits of desert dwellers. Maintenance? The glass (or whatever they use) surfaces of the solar cells have to be kept clear of sand, bird droppings, plant material. They need to be replaced regularly. Alignment for maximum power generation needs to be maintained. The electrical connections need to be inspected regularly for wear and failure. The larger the farm (needed because of solar's inefficient conversion rate) the larger the impact and maintenance needs. These are definitely not build-and-forget systems as some proponents would have you believe.
Neal, I don't know about these "ecos" you live to hate so much, but most people realize there are costs to all energy sources, and what we have to do is develop them as intelligently and safely as possible.
Solar is low efficiency. Utilities using solar should be outlawed, only rooftops should have solar. My rooftop array handles 90% of my electric needs. We already have hundreds of millions of rooftops begging to be used, paving over the desert with silicon is stupid.
There is zero maintenance on solar panels. At most do a yearly powerwash while you're cleaning the gutters, siding, etc. They don't have to be replaced, they carry a 25 year warrantee so you know they'll last twice that. :<) You do not need anywhere near optimal azmuth or elevation, mine aren't and they work fine. Electrical inspections are unnecessary any more than you phone line or electric service is, in other words zero.
On rooftops, they are definitely set and forget. Sorry but it's stupid so say solar doesn't work when there are millions on installations to prove you wrong. Solar farms are absurd, utility owned solar is absurd, solar on your rooftop, pays you. It's the only power source that lowers your cost instead of raising it.
P.S. Solar has been cheaper than nuclear for years now, even before the Japan disaster. Payback times range from 5-10 years, after that it's all gravy.
Please, let's keep it real. Nuclear - stupid, wind - getting there, coal - stupid, nat gas - already there, solar - already there, fusion - patently absurd.
phil
So we can understand your system
1]how many kw do you use in a month
2] size of roof
3] cost of system (gross number assume end of nanny state)
4] your electric cost of 10% you need to purchase
5] the cost of carry to you if you used borrowed funds or loss of investment if cash paid
Also, unless there has been a change in the laws of physics, solar panels degrade over time. So after about 20 years they'll only generate 10-20% of the power they did when they were new. I'm sure your warranty excludes this fact.
That would be nuclear fusion, so far just a pipe dream. What can be developed econmonically and safely is nuclear fission, but the ecos has so scared the public that the environmental impact studies and licensing processes alone make starting a new nuclear facility almost impossible.
Fusion is possible and the main fuel component which is is basically unlimited is found in our ocean. I agree that fusion power however can be produced safely as you said.
We don't know yet if fusion will be practical, at least not for decades. Nulcear fission will probably have to part of the energy portfolio, at least in the near future, and most practical people realize this. BUt that doesn't mean there ar no problems with it, as Fukushima showed. Let's quit blaming each other and move forward intelligently.
I agree. Now if you can convince all of the nuclear doom and gloom nay sayers to agree then we could start.
There is no safe nuclear plant, only odds of failure. The fallacy of statistics is thinking a failure rate of a zillion to one means your safe for half a zillion years. WRONG! It could just as easily fail tomorrow then not again for a zillion years or fail tomorrow and the next day and not fail again for two zillion years.
Again, solar is cheaper, wind is getting there and nat gas is already there. Those three are all the world needs. Saudi Arabia is investing $109 billion in solar, think about that.
"Saudi Arabia is investing $109 billion in solar, think about that."
Yes and the major population centers of the world reside in deserts and the windy places. Not!!
Try again.
phil
you need to make apple to apple comparsons
saudi arabia has 12persons/km and the usa has 33/km
"20 years later".... Twenty years later the earth was supposedly 99% ruined because of global warming, pollution and the evil "big corporations" All that has been ruined is jobs from irrational regulations.
Hey, chicken little....when is that sky going to finally fall?
All exaggerration aside, we are obviously falling. And no, it is not due to the bogeyman of "regulations." Just because find, or exagerrate, past predictions that the problems would come faster, does not mean that we have no problems.
Our footprint is shrinking, it's the third world that is exploding. If you think CO2 will kill us kiss your sweet a$$ goodbye, China is firing up two coal plants a week and will do so for three decades. Car sales in China are expanding double digits year over year.
phil
look on the bright side every year their longevity has been going down.
I'm getting such a kick out of the resurgence of the old commie/socialist fearmongering. Anything to avoid giving up your big boy toys, eh?
I live in the countryside of waaayyyy upstate NY. The people of the little town of Ava, who are Republicans and Conservatives of the first water, and mostly good people to boot, tried to fight off having this HUGE dump stuck up their rears. They lost. Too bad nobody listened to those commie hippies go on about recycling back in the day. 40 years of NYC recycling would have held off the day when little villages and towns had to take its garbage. Oh, well.
And the folks of North Dakota are getting a fine lesson in pollution. Between the fracking waste haulers throwing their urine bottles out the truck windows, and the illegal dumping of fracking waste on the sides of the roads (time is MONEY, boys, time is MONEY), there are pastures and streams that will be unusable for decades. And there is currently a plume of waste in at least one town's aquifer that's gonna cause a little problem with their drinking water. Well, that's just the price of progress, right? And let's keep subsidizing the oil companies. They need our contribution.
And don't bother talking about the LAWS that North Dakota has in place for pollution. They don't enforce them. Government at it's finest. Please look up the MSNBC.com article by typing in fracking in North Dakota; there are direct quotes from people on what they were told by their elected representatives when they complained about the dumping on their property.
But you good folks who don't live in fracking states don't need to worry about anything, right? Just use the oil and to hell with the hindmost! When the oil companies turn our beautiful nation into another Nigeria, you can blame the politicians. The Nigerians will be happy that we've become self-sufficient so they can start their 30 year, multibillion dollar cleanup. And commies and socialists will be the least of your grandchildrens' problems. Although after they get through crapping where they live, they might looking for a new neighborhood. So let's make sure we're just as toxic as they are!!!
Bwah, ha, ha........
And do you have a Leaf in your driveway, a roof full of solar panels? If not STFU hypocrite.
I figured you'd come out of the woodwork, Val. For your information, I do more than the average person to lower my footprint. I've probably been recycling longer than you've been alive. I'm too poor to afford a Leaf or the solar panels, but I keep my heat down in the winter, wear more clothes, and weather permitting I hang my laundry out instead of using the dryer. These are just a few examples of what I do. So take your own advise, Val.
Golfsleft - That's funny - Looks like we're handling both the same way...nothing.
For all the huffing and puffing on both problems, we seem to be standing still.
Actually, I think we are doing more on the pollution problem, but we're doing nothing on the debt problem.
THIS WOULD HAVE WORKED IF ......
1. The MYTH of Man Made Global Warming were not show.
2. LIES trying to prove Man Made Global Warming were not exposed.
3. GREED of small African Nations in attempts to EXTORT $$$ from Rich Nations were not so BLATANT.
"Sustainable growth" without population control is just wasted effort. The earth can't sustain current population growth.
woooooooooo half a degree , what will we ever do ? Where I live the temerature flucuates 10 degrees or more daily , so what's a half a degree ? Much ado about nothing .Newsflash for you enviro-kooks , when we step into ww3 coming up soon it'll be a lot hotter than an extra .5 of a degree. Or do you guys think that'll never happen ? Better off spending the extra trillions on missile defence .