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Two decades later, that spirit of enthusiasm has been replaced by talk of “broken promises” and “a very uncertain future” in the run-up to this week's unheralded Rio+20 summit, formally the United Nations Conference on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:
Why is "sustainability" such a dirty word? There are jobs and whole industries within "sustainability". And that doesn't mean we have to shut down our existing industries - we just need to make sure that they do not have a monopoly.
I don't understand people who believe that it is okay to plunder and pollute this planet - with no regard of what they leave behind.
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
With an election year just practically a few days ahead, the President is keeping away from promising anything that the GOP will twist and turn. It is better not to attend, that just make empty promises.
This should be the most important summit for ALL humanity, but I guess oil and the pursuit of political agendas are always more powerful. The "sustainability" is geting close to end. Please watch this film:
http://www.midwayfilm.com/
Sustainability is a dirty word for Corporate pigs where human welfare = increase in stock price.
The problem isn't that people don't understand that human welfare is a function bigger than material progress. The problem is that other alternatives haven't worked so far.
The environmentalists need to make deep inroads into the Corporations so that the change comes from within.
Don't expect Obama to get involved for God's sake --- he has campaigning to do!!!!!!
And it would be determental for congress to be involved... they would screw it up even more.
Hey PJ, the trouble with people like you is that your always there just pointing at the things you don't like in life. You just tow the company line well in your case the environmentalists line.
I don't mind the corporate "pigs" as you call them gaining a return on my my investment as I use that for sustenance to feed my family. So go on making your protest signs in your mothers basement, smoke your pot and continue to be another tree-hugger stain that just takes and never gives.
There is no problem with the concept of "sustainablility". It is a part of being reasonable. We do only have one earth to live in.
The problem comes with the politicizing of it. Politicians will do anything, say anything to get elected. People will do anything, say anything, to get a bigger piece of the economic pie.
It's been just over 160 years since Karl Marx suggested that the way to end capitalism is to get people to believe that capitalism means harming the environment.
What you have is a mix of people who truly care about the environment and others who only care about what they can gain from this guilt association.
The corporations have won.
Thank God, the unions were destroying us. Exxon, BP, etc. are investing heavily in bio fuels, Intel, Google, etc. are investing in green energy, China has made solar so affordable it's as cheap as coal, yet what has Obama done? NOTHING! Where is our energy plan? Why not STFU about building solar panels and start talking about using them! Where is our 100 million solar rooftop initiative Obama?
Instead he wants to slap huge tariffs on China to kill the solar industry. Liberals are such lemmings.
Did anyone read the article? It is Brazil that is leveling the rain forests to plant ethanol crops. Our forests are increasing, it's the rest of the world that's screwing up. Our carbon footprint has actually been shrinking.
But is that enough for the enivro-Nazi's, NO! Even though we are one of the leaders in green energy and technology, that isn't enough. They want to destroy all industry.
funny the first thing you coment on is monoply not pollution.....
Obama, on a diplomatic trip to Brazila, takes Air Force one on a 1,000 mile detour (secret service and all) at taxpayer expense, to Rio so his kids can swim in the ocean at the Coco Cabana, but can't go there for an international conference aimed at saving our planet. What a self centered A** who doesn't give a s**t about anything except himself -- not our planet nor the US taxpayer.
Nitpicking travel plans is childish. Or do you have an alternative to Obama that you would rather see? Do you think the GOP is going to save the planet?! Their very platform is that AGW is a hoax! And let's not get started on hurting taxpayers.
You got that right Gil the idiot in chief has to go , we need someone with a little more common sense, I am not in love with Romney but I will vote for him because our country can't afford another four years of obamas let them eat cake attitude. By the way al gore owns several sprawling mansions each using more than 5 or 6 regular home electricity, and flys via his own personnel jet rather than taking regular flights like the rest of us, so he really isn't one to lecture me on conservation.
radagast Alternative to Obama = ANYONE!!
A myth...... mmmm Many of the poor NEVER benefit..... K gentlemen... I'm a ardent climate denier but I do believe that we should be good stewards of the earth. But I see a problem here and I have to agree with one of the threads here. We.... The US... is the only country that could even remotely employ the "suggested sustainability" espoused by the 20. The major world polluters did not sign the "Kyoto" accord. China... India... Russia. If you want Global change...start there. Also If a land can feed and house people and give them a "chance" at a better life.... I'm going to cut the tree down... If drilling for oil produce a moment of respite from misery... then I'm going to drill. I'm not sure how you can talk about "saving the planet" on one hand and marginalize the people on the planet and call that "equity".
This meeting should be about stopping the numerous wars... The "Elders" should be planting "olive branches" instead of trees. Instead of "forcing" countries to sign "agreements" on lowering greenhouse gasses they would be better served to bring attention to feeding a world, reforming land in Ethiopia, Stopping brutality in Darfur, and even conquering Education to the poor. I'v no use for windpower when my fellow man needs help now. We worry of a "world" without a polar bear for our grandchildren to "enjoy" without teaching them that Peace, equity, service to your fellow man IS the only sustainable future.
Hmmmm ..... stop wars by holding meetings. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before now?
@Gil, why don't you grow a brain cell or two.
6dogs: What is inaccurate? Please tell me!!!
Obama also funneled $2 billion to Brazil to devleop their off shore oil and promised to be a loyal and eager customer. Again, liberals are such lemmings.
Gil, maybe President Obama is worried that if the Mediterranean Sea is Russia's, Then Russia invades the
Middle East. If I remember correctly, President Putin paid a visit to Israel in 2005
Phyllis: That's a possibility, but Obama doesn't know geography, and like Rio, damn it, he has a reelection campaign to run.
Flame, we also didn't sign the Kyoto treaty...so it also starts with us.
No one is suggesting we stop drilling. No one is suggesting that we not use land wisely. Developing the means to grow in a sustainable way takes time. It takes incremental changes. We can slowly shift to other ways of generating energy without destroying ourselves - the only people who will tell you otherwise are the vested oil interests. You have got to be able to see through that! Sustainability does not mean less food, or less energy, it just means that we take only what we need or create the rest. We create new ways of manufacturing, building, transport, etc. These are new things that need to be invented and built - how does inventing and building hurt our economy or society? Only the oil companies will tell you that it does! Capturing wind and solar energy still results in giving someone a brief respite from misery - why should it matter the source of the electricity? People say that all this talk is designed to destroy America or take away our prestige. Why should it? It will only do this if we do not take our rightful place at the forefront of innovation. We will only be passed by if we sit on our hands and say it's too hard, I don't want to, or that the UN is just a bunch of commies. These are the excuses of lazy people - and they are being fed to you, again, by the oil companies - all because they are afraid they will lose market share.
You talk about the world's problems as though only one thing can be worked on at a time. Can we not help Darfur and Ethiopia while also becoming more efficient with energy use? And for the record - helping Darfur and Ethiopia can also be seen as wealth redistribution - the very argument people use against sustainability because they think poor people will get all of their money.
Just because you have immediate needs does not mean you can safely not think about the long road ahead. Talk to an investor and they will tell you you are daft to not save for retirement. Why then do we discard this advice when it comes to our resources? Why do we make excuses? Why do we listen to cumbersome corporations who only want to sell us what they have? Why do we allow those corporations to politicize what should be an academic decision? Why are we making excuse after excuse after excuse?
Yes - he was expanding our access to energy sources making us less dependent on Middle East oil. That deal also gave us discounts on the cane ethanol that Brazil develops, which is a renewable source of fuel. So in one fell swoop he expanded our renewable use and made us further independent of the Middle East.
That sounds positive to me - but I guess I'm a lemming then? I just don't understand how this is a bad thing that you would rub in someone's face - unless of course you are under the false impression that Obama's supporters are extremist communists and not left and right of center moderates. I guess tell yourself whatever helps you sleep!
Anyone who buys into this crap is nothing but a total idiot!
It has nothing to do with sustainability, it has everything to do with crippling the United States economy, and calling for us to spend more of dollars to support this cronie organization.
In essence, we will be taxed on our use of our energy, and the proceeds will go to third world dictators.
Just because Obama is'nt going, don't believe for a minute that he does'nt support this crap. He's all for it.
I expect he'll send Hillary to do his underhanded bidding to further erode our national independence.
Rio +20 is BAD. We not only need to shy away from it, but also the entire UN.
5:53am and here it is folks: the curly lightbulb manufacturers of the world have teamed up with international scientists in a UN sponsored plot to cripple the US economy in order to bring about the New World Order with Al Gore as the king of the universe.
Seriously, this conspiracy nonsense is bad for your health.
Google agenda 21 folks this is about the takeover of our country by the UN bringing us down to a equal level with third world countrys, taxing us and giving it to other countrys , revoking private land ownership, all under the guise of global warming, with the new buzzword sustainability like the earth never got warm before man or cold, wake up CO2 is what we exhale people, so should we protect lizards, and tiny fish ? at the expense of people, treehuggers if you feel that strongly about it turn off your air conditioners, stop using electricity, ride a tricyle to work, throw away your ipods made from that nasty plastic, become amish and deal with horse $hit.
radagast
5:53am and here it is folks: the curly lightbulb manufacturers of the world have teamed up with international scientists in a UN sponsored plot to cripple the US economy in order to bring about the New World Order with Al Gore as the king of the universe.
Seriously, this conspiracy nonsense is bad for your health.
Just because you can't see the "conspiracy" does'nt mean that it don't exist.
This deal has been going on for a lot longer than 20 years.
I suppose you're in agreement with the UN sponsored "Small Arms Treaty" as well?
Right on spot John.
It's good to see someone else on this board that knows what the hell is going on.
Wow! Three crumb grabbing rug rats that know everything.
Amen metalman!
Yeah, bike paths are the insidious beachhead of the UN's plan to take over America!
Holy @!$%# guys, the Agenda 21 hysteria is sooooooo nonsensical I can't even begin to respond to it without making fun of it. Do you think your children would be proud of your comments in 20 years, or are you not planning on educating them because college is just indoctrination?
Metalman - my feelings on the Small Arms Treaty have absolutely no bearing on the Rio+20 summit. They aren't even remotely similar topics. Unless you can explain to me why your question isn't a pathetic attempt at deflection I will take a page from Mitt and say that I don't have to talk about it. You are attempting to suggest that I am simply "in love" with the UN and will agree to all their ideas just because I don't have the paranoid delusion that sustainable development is a communist plot to overthrow the country. Can't you see how tenuous the threads of your logic are?
radagast
You have to go no further than Al gore to expose the hypocracy of this movement.
Green indeed. Builds an enegy wasting complex, but justifies the energy waste because he pays more for "Greener Energy". If using energy is bad, then we need to conserve, so greener really isn't an acceptable or justifiable position to justify wasting more.
This whole thing is comical because Gore gets the money back because he owns part of the company he is purchasing the Green energy from. Not only that, but EVERY way producing energy or heat pollutes our environment, you just don't see it because you are not told about it. You are only told about the ones that the investors don't know.
It's a little like car shopping. Go to GM and they will tell you all the problems of Ford, Honda, Toyota, and Chysler. Go to Ford, and they will do the same.
Windmills - kill thousands of birds annually.
Hydro-electric releases hot water downstream altering the ecology, not to mension flooding large areas altering the upstream ecology.
Solar panel fields cause heat islands, alter the water run-off, that will eventually lower the water table in areas where water is already short in supply.
Yes, DB, you can't produce energy without creating heat, and various other costs. So what's your point? Use more coal? I don't see how that follows. The knowledgable peope looking for energy solutions are well aware of the tradeoffs, which is why the first goal is increased energy efficiency and conservation, followed by an intelligent energy portfolio that is fairest and most efficent for all. So are you going to help ir complain?
And your obsession with Al Gore as "proof" of anything is comical.
It is your obsession with Al Gore as "proof" of anything that is comical. He's a proven liar and hypocrite.
The IPCC co chair has publicly stated the goal of CC action is to transfer wealth from richer countries to poorer ones. That isn't conspiracy, it's public record fact.
There are numerous treaty's in the UN wings that usurp the constitution, particularly property rights and taxation. Again, that isn't conspiracy, it's public record fact.
DB, I won't go any further than your obsession with Al Gore. Al Gore is nobody. He is not a scientist. He produces nothing new. He is just an interested party. Mocking him does not mock science.
Exactly.
Valhalla, please cite the public statement where the IPCC co-chair stated that the purpose of responding to reality (CC action) was to transfer wealth. Perhaps what was said was that developing countries need help developing sustainably? Not exactly the same thing!
None of the treaties being presented at the UN are ever binding. There is no law at the UN and it has no more authority than what we choose to allow it have. We can decide on a whim to break any treaty we want and there is no law that says we can't. Further, there is no reason to expect that every treaty put forth at the UN should be automatically in line with our Constitution. We, after all are not the only member of the world body and we cannot expect the world to think as we do.
It isn't so much that these things exist at the UN, as much as it is the hyperbolic, end-times reaction it generates from some people that makes me shake my head. Of course working with other countries means that we will eventually have to share/sacrifice/or carry some burden that is not our own. Welcome to what it means to live in a community. It's not the end of the world.
Radagast, yes, you are correct, but you are leaving out the Trilateral Commission, the Vatican and the Masons ... heck we should all get credit where it is due, right? :c) ... hmmmm ... my head hurts ...
(this is our annoying way of agreeing with you completely regarding conspiracies in general, and Al Gore in particular ... nice fellow ... met him several times ... but as far as I could tell, he could not think his way out of a cardboard box unless he had an aide to figure it out for him.)
No one ever entered into any kind of binding agreement that would guarantee any kind of environmental health for our planet anyway. The US is the only one even halfway capable of enforcing these silly agreements anyway, and we damn sure wont have the guts to see through with these failures with any kind of military backup so please tell me why we really expect these things to be adhered to anyway?????Good faith alone, yeah, that's the ticket.
That's the idiocy of this, the US has done more in this area than most signers. Our footprint is already shrinking, we are #1 in wind, #4 in solar with capacity doubling year after year. We are already on the right path, it's the other countries that are screwing the world.
Canada is bulldozing their forests to strip mine the tar sands, Brazil is decimating it's rain forest to plant ethanol crops, China is bringing two coal fired plants on line a week, Spain refuses to adhere to international fishing limits, Japan still hunts whale, yet we are the bad guys?!!!??
The state will go beyond rhetoric and implement policies if and only if it suits the moneyed interests it serves.
People are essentially praying to a false institutional idol when they petition their governments to act more "responsibly" or more "humanely".
The real nature of the state is control and exploitation of one class by another via a monopoly on force and violence.
Which is why conservatives are for a LIMITED central government.
Figure out how to stabilize the population and you will have solved the problem of sustainable growth.
Want to help stop pollution and global warming? Then make laws that can be enforced, and do away with crap like carbon credits. They stop nothing, never did, they give the corporations a place and a style to trade away their responsibility without ever reducing anything. Just another way for big corporations to make it look like they are helping and making MORE money for themselves. The lowest end companys in the world are the ones in small countries, and they can sell their carbon credits to the big countries, letting them make a profit, while the big corporations never need to reduce a thing, its all covered, world wide by 'credits' that mean nothing to the actual amount of carbon or any other pollutant that the world makes per year.
Its all a game to them maybe the word Revolution isn't so far off, getting rid of a lot of these old school leaders of the world economy might be the only answer.
@kevin marsh, Are you aware that if you quit breathing that's a carbon reduction also. Please feel free to help the planet at your earliest convience.
6dogs if you actually came up w/ an arguement you wouldn't seem so ignorant. MArsh is right, carbon credits were a way for countries to tax everyone to toss out all the nasty sources of energy, to be replaced w/ "green" sources, the thought that it would cost trillions to do it doesn't seem to matter to some.
Bill, it's about artificially redistributing wealth and political power. There are a number of groups out there who admit using "Green" as part of their strategy to gain world power.
And Bill. Stop eating. The entire basis of your body living is in the consumption and exhaust of carbohydrates or sugar. It is the entire basis of life on our planet.
Star Trek used to call humans "carbon base units".
Suppose that there was a creator who invented all life. You suppose to call what he/she used as the basis for life "a pollutant" and presume that that creator wasn't smart enough to build a system that could do with it?
Maybe in the human world we are that stupid!
"U.K.’s University of East Anglia, a world-leading center for environmental research" ???? You mean the group of Enviro-Wackos that have been proven to be unscientific, refuse to release the data supporting their idiotic conclusions and makeup their own Data to support whatever new "Crisis" they want us in the West to pay for? That Bunch of Fraudsters?????
Name one investigation that supports your conclusions about East Anglia. (Rush Limbaugh is not a source.)
You have fallen into the same trap that every other blogger has fallen into: if other people say it often it must be true. Do some research.
I would look up info on this subject but I have some used oil and paint that I need to dump in the river.
They aren't going? Oh what a shock. Who cares. They didn't accomplish anything the first time. They won't this time either. Which would you want? Attend a royal party, or go to some hot as hell country on the ass end of the world and have some jerk sit and tell you how bad your country is? The first conference was just a chance to get a vacation at the the exspence of the tax payers of the world. You want to make this conference work? You want to save the world? Then find way to make conservation work but also generate more profit then they already make.
Solar is doubling every year for two reasons. First, it is so cheap now it's one of the cheapest sources of energy around, if you DIY the install, (which cuts the price in half). Second, solar is the only energy source that pays you! Payback is now as little as five years, whereas any other energy source increases your costs. Even solar owned by the utility raises your costs.
Wind exists mostly on subsidies but it's cost is coming down as well as volume builds. One thing that separates both from other energy sources is the "fuel" to run them is free, (sun and wind). Excepting geothermal and hydro, all other sources require the constant input of raw materials, (oil, gas, etc.)
Yes economy is king. When it comes down to putting food on the table, it damn well should be. BUT, nat gas is replacing coal BECAUSE of this, solar is doubling year over years BECAUSE of this.
The solution is not to ignore economics but to use it by making green sources the low cost choice. That is the stupidity of Obama wanting to tariff the hell out of China's solar panels.
We should stop wasting money on subsidizing wind and solar, they will NEVER be enough. Fusion power is the key and our salvation.
You must understand any regulation that would cost big business money will not be supported by any US politician that has been bought and paid for. There is no longer a Government by the people for the people any place on this depleted planet. Human greed is taking its final toll.
@Oldlog2, The Clean Air Act was started back in the late 1970s. It won't be to long when you will hear about the President, it doesn't matter who they may be, will sign a Clean Air Bill into Law. This has been going on all this time. And you didn't even know it. The Clean Air Act was said it would take away jobs and it did not. It created jobs for Engineers, Scientist, Manufacturing, and Installation of these devises. As for G-20, it's just an ongoing part of the plan and it is still going on according to plan. Actually Big Business is on board much more than people think.
See 9.1, instead of ignoring economics, make it work FOR you. Free market capitalism is the most powerful engine of change if you allow it to work. Nat gas and solar are living proof.
The problem with that Earth Summit was that the 20 people who run the world's biggest energy suppliers didn't get the memo....not that they'd have given a sh*t if they did. Of course, as the groundswell got louder, instead of investing in clean energy, they invested in "think tanks", who have spent the last 20 years trying to convince us all that people who are against pollution and all that results from it are "socialists" who have an evil plot to destroy "capitalism".....which translated into English means "people who care about the Earth will derail our gravy train if we don't start perpetuating repeated lies ASAP". The trouble with this country us there are A LOT of dummies who live in fear of non-existent bogeymen, like "socialists" (what is the membership in the actual Socialist Party in this country, that makes all of you cower in fear- like one tenth of one percent of the population, if that? Seriously?), and so they've been fairly successful.
More liberal lies. US is #1 in wind, #4 in solar, capacity doubling year over year. It's Obama that wants to slap huge tariffs on affordable solar panels. It's Obama that funneled $2 billion to Brazil to develop their off shore oil and promised to be an eager customer. It's Bush that installed 10KW of solar on the white house in 2003.
It's amazing how so many people do not understand the severity of this issue. People are only thinking about thier present problems. This is our future, the futre of our children and their children. It's amazing how many Americans do not understand how severe this is.
It's even more amazing how idiots don't comprehend the severity of tens of millions out of work with no prospects for a future. It's though to worry about half a century from now when you are wondering how to put food on the table tomorrow.
I find it odd that the UN, whose sole reason for existence is to maintain world peace, concerns itself with "climate change", while standing idly by when brutal dictators murder millions of their own people.
Talk to the Russians and the Chinese about that one. The UN is just a forum not a governing body. If they have members that don't agree there isn't a whole lot that they can do. The UN is powerless explicitly because we don't want the UN to have power. We can't then go and complain about that can we?
And it's not like the UN can't do two things at once. If you knew half of the diplomacy that was going back and forth over Syria your head would spin. There aren't exactly doing nothing, they just don't have the power to do more.
There will only be a globally sponsored and committed effort when the obvious and eminent survival of humans is at stake. As long as it is just trees and "bio-diversity" - nothing will ever come of it. Corporate boards and politicians only hear "the sky is falling".
Which is too bad. We have not yet progressed enough to be able to abandon this planet once we have poisoned it beyond recovery. And even if we did have the technology - surely you don't think we would ALL be saved???
Al Gore and George Soros can't figure out a way to profit from it so the U.S. is staying home.
They both are filthy rich greedy bastards...out for themselves not the planet.
These criminal polititians in the U.S. and around the world should be held accountable for they're inaction. Nothing will change because all these greedy bastards care about is money, not our childrens future. These criminals are not even human, they deserve executuion for what they're allowing to happen. Your children won't be able to spend the fortunes you've taken when the planet shifts into an ice age...Bastards!!!!
Brian....Ice Age??? Hell, I thought it was Global Warming we are supposed to be so frightened of?? But, I do recall that back in the '60s there was some fear of Global Cooling. Which is it. Flip a coin. Ask Al Gore. Ask George Soros.
NO NO a thousand No's the Ec summit was a fera summit based onlies,junk science and greedy people trying to sell carbon Tax credits....we are fine ,the world is fine and so is the enviroment...what it's fine is our workforce,our homes and our freedoms!
End this broken promise with facted based real world knowledge ,you were all suckered and we don't need to worry about green house gases or carbon tax credits,jokes over and so is the eco BS movement!
Green energy,wind power and all that is shovel ready BS....this eco movement is killing our futures and will leave us all poor and enslaved!
These eco people are worse than the muslim terrorist and just as crazy!
Do your homework back to the 1800s about Socialism and the ending of America(Capitalism) by using the environmental route. Even Socialist historians admit this hoax to take down the United States. Check out the best selling book Climategate written by CBS television's ex-meteorologist Brian Sussman. This is just another way that the Socialist will suck money from your pockets......wake-up!
Socialism says it is supposedly for the people, but notice not for the Socialist themselves
Socialism? Don't you really mean Communism?
No Jim ...Socialism. I.E., Communism is when the Government, using Armed Forces, removes your autonomy and makes all your decisions for you, FORCING you into virtual slavery to the Elitist Controlling Forces, or "Government". Socialism is when the Government, using BullSCHIT and Lies, coersces you into believing that they are taking control of your life for the good of "all mankind", strips you of all your wealth for redistribution to the "less fortunate" (THEM, of course) , eliminating all personal freedoms except for the ELITE, watering down the average standard of living, except for the ELITE, and expects you to like it. In some places known as the "Great Society". Normally, the first step is with Education, vis a vis integration of a World Class Public School System, turning it into a 25th Best System. But, since that has already been tried in the U.S., and SUCCEEDED, the focus now is on Housing and Healthcare. Which from all appearances has also "Succeeded" in FAILING. Understand Now??
I think we are having a combo of communism and socialism judging by the police state we are now living in.
Well done Tiredoflosers.
Although in the "Communist Manifesto" Karl Marx proposed that the people would rise up against capitalism, he really didn't talk about environment or other means of overthrowing capitalism.
In the 1850's he suggested that a good way to force the demise of capitalism was through teaching people that greedy capitalism would be the destroy the environment. You have to look no further than China to see that the communists do nothing about clean air and water. I remember many countries balking at sending athletes to beijing unless China got the air cleaner.
The great Pearl river is more polluted that Clevelands Cuyahoga River that caught fire in the 70's.
Guess who is refusing to cooperate unless they have to practically nothing on Carbon - China.
BK - sounds to me like communism and socialism are the same thing.
Americans for the most want to change our world, including corporations but the big problem is every fricking one else. The big polluters, India, China, Russia don't give two squirts of goat piss about it. This has always been the problem and will. We have new technology but when the government get into it the fraud and wasted goe hand in hand, Solyndra and many others that get the free money with a bunch of flashy numbers and the greed takes over. In west Tx the wind farms are flourishing but now they are found to warm the earth..what's next? plus many hundreds of acres of prime farm land is now supporting wind turbines...is food more important or electicity...I don't know but I do like to eat.
America is by far the biggest polluter in the world.
You may be right but china and india certainly are doing it, just look at the pics of their air in Bejing. But we can't control anyone but ourselves is my point. Fixing the world is not possible.
China is working on cleaning up their air. After all, they need their people healthy in order to become a world power.
According to stats China, Russia, Mexico,Japan and the US are the leaders in air pollution by autos. china is also famous for leading everyone to believe something that they are not doing as in cleaning up their air as evidenced by air quality during the last olympics over there.
Sorry, the US is one of the cleanest nations in the world. We have long since cleaned up our act and our footprint is shrinking.
That statue is offensive to muslims and should be knocked down.
sarcasm intended ...I hope
Now look what you have done!!! Brought attention to the statue, which the Muslim Radical Sewer rats will more than likely send a Terrorist Suicide Bomber to blow up..........
It's sad people choose not to believe this is happening without even researching the facts. That would require them to pick up a book or actually stop tweeting for 5 min. Sadly it will take eminent danger for this world to wake up, but by then it will be too late. Sheep!
Unfortunately, what we're doing cannot continue indefinitely. Although I do not support many of the regulations and restrictions, I also realize that, yes, there does need to be a change in how we operate.
Now, I don't buy into all this global warming business, but I also can see that we are indeed harming the environment - I'm not in denial about that. I work at an institution that does a lot with sustainability, and while I don't support the UN's crap about it (because the UN is useless anyway, even when it does work on things it actually should be, like human rights issues), we do need to be thinking of alternatives. I view both the sustainable side and the opposite side with skepticism and balance them, since I know that this entirely sustainable future they talk about isn't going to happen.
For those of you claiming that the ecofriendly initiatives will leave us poor? Well, perhaps, but obviously the non-ecofriendly route is leaving most people poor too, and in poor health. SOME of the eco people are crazy, but guess what? So are those of you vehemently saying "the earth is fine - nothing bad is happening." Oh please. Open your eyes.
Again, that being said, I don't buy into all this crap. I view it with a healthy dose of skepticism and do my part to be less wasteful, but I'm also not going to be foolish and deny that we're using resources at an alarming rate and being irresponsible with how we operate.
We are already on the right track and improving, most other nations are not. We are not the bad guys.
Stick your debunked Climate Change, where the sun doesn't shine. You tree huggers are the biggest hypocrites. If you are so darn concerned about the environment, stop driving your Volts, Volvos and your Beamers, get the heck off the Internet and live off the land.
"..debunked Climate Change.."
Who has debunked it?
Who has debunked it? Ever hear of climagegate? All the emails that came out last year showing that global warming was just a hoax and that the earth hasn't warmed since 1998? You probably only get your news from Morons Spouting Nothing But Crap.
When is the last time you have heard a peep from dear ole' Uncle Al Gore??? Al is a Happy Fat rats' Arse now. Made a fortune spreading manure, found a new wife (poor Tipper), purchased Zillions of Dollars in Carbon Credits from George Soros, who bought them from George Clooney and Ron Howard. What more could he want??? Last comment regarding Global Warming from Al?? "Yeah..like I give a phuck!!".
Emails? That's your source? I feel sorry for you.
golfsleft - are you serious? You haven't heard of climategate? Are you seriously that clueless? Wow.
Climategate, the climate science scandal that has already eclipsed Watergate in
terms of its global political ramifications.
Climategate publicly began on November 19, 2009, when a
whistle-blower leaked thousands of emails and documents central to a Freedom of
Information request placed with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of
East Anglia in the United Kingdom. This institution had played a central role in
the “climate change” debate: its scientists, together with their international
colleagues, quite literally put the “warming” into Global Warming: they were
responsible for analyzing and collating the various measurements of temperature
from around the globe and going back into the depths of time, that collectively
underpinned the entire scientific argument that mankind’s liberation of
“greenhouse” gases—such as carbon dioxide—was leading to a relentless,
unprecedented, and ultimately catastrophic warming of the entire planet.
The key phrase here, from a scientific point of view, is that it
is “unprecedented” warming. There is absolutely no doubt that mankind has
liberated huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the past
two centuries. But mankind did not “create” this carbon dioxide out of nothing.
It was released by the burning of “fossil fuels”, created by the Earth over
millions of years from the remains of plants and animals (who themselves
ultimately obtained their nutrition from those plants). So where did those
plants get their energy and carbon dioxide from? They absorbed the radiant
energy of the Sun, and breathed in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as plants
continue to do today. In other words, when we burn fossil fuels, we are
utilizing a small part of the solar energy that had been collected and stored by
plants over millions of years, and in the process we are liberating into the
atmosphere the carbon dioxide that those plants had absorbed from the atmosphere
in the first place.
This may sound like a fairly benign sort of natural cycle, until
you realize that a couple of hundred years is a mere blink of an eye compared to
the millions of years it took for the planet to build up those resources. It is
right for scientists to worry about whether that massive and almost
instantaneous “kick” to the planet may throw the equilibrium of the biota into
complete chaos. It is a valid question, of ultimate global importance—one that
most people would have thought would have demanded the most careful, exacting,
and rigorous scientific analyses that mankind could muster.
Climategate has shattered that myth. It gives us a peephole into
the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever
to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful,
critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing
almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their
“old boys’ club”, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their
“research”. Most people are aghast that this could have happened; and it is only
because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia
into a hugely funded industry in a matter of mere years that the perpetrators
were able to get away with it for so long.
"the last decade was also the hottest on record since 1880."
That sentence pretty much sums up what a hoax the whole global warming/climate change or whatever they are calling it today is. This is nothing more than redistribution of wealth (America's) scheme by the marxists/communists/progressives (there's no distinguishable difference between the 3) to bring the U.S. down.
Here's a title from a Washington Post article dated 11/2/1922: Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. Read that story you lemmings who believe this crap.
rhcrest, the joke is not that you have heard about climategate and can copy an article about it, but that you believe the conspiracy theory. There was nothing there and all invesitgatons have shown that. The fact that a few of the thousands of climate scientists in the world were a little undiplomatic in private emails does not prove that all of the climate research of the last several decades somehow disappears.
Hang your hat on that, and you will miss the bigger picture. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Deal with it.
There is no conspiracy theory. On the contrary - there was a lot there and the word has gotten out to the general public that globull warming is a hoax. Deal with it.
I guess the so-called "hoax" explains why May global temperatures were the second warmest on record (NOAA data) or why ocean heat content is steadily rising (NOAA/NODC data). The fact is, there is no hoax and nothing in the e-mails that invalidates the basic science. Look up "Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails" on the ucsusa.org website.
I don't understand people who worry about their childrens' debt but not the environment they will have to live in.
“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.”
Golfsleft- I do not understand why this statement ONLY makes sense to those on the left when it comes to the environment. It means the exact same thing when talking about the spending that we are doing right now. We need to have sustainability on both the environmental and economic fronts so lets STOP playing politics on both sides of the aisle.
Debt is just as bad as pollution for our grandkids, both will ruin this country.
This horse has already left the barn yet most people in the West still think this is science fiction. I am working on my self sustainability plan. How about you? This planet can support about a billion people but we currently are at 7 billion people and moving fast towards 8 billion. We are dispensing about 385 giga tons of CO2 and the rain forest will burn up at 450. 400 is assured. We have already reached oil peak and are now resorting to last ditch efforts with natural gas fracking and oil sands. As I have said we can build wind turbines and create bio fuels but is that the best use of the remaining steel, copper and corn? Super farming will be the first to go as the US has the only significant surplus and the two main needs are nitrates (from natural gas) and phosphates (mining in Florida). The only thing slowing this mess down was the crash of 2008. Once the emerging markets again pick up steam this train wreck will be approaching faster than people believe. My guess is the bottom will start falling out 2030 and the worst of it coming in 50 years but this depends on the year-over-year population and GDP growth of these new markets. The end of one's 50 year plan should be Canada or Siberia as when the permafrost melts these will be the only fertile soils left. go to www.withouthotair.com for the free book. Cradle-to-cradle is good and so id Reinventing Fire.
Only a recent College graduate could come up with that scenario. Where endoctrination has taken the place of education!
Henry63- not sure how old you are but I remember hippies saying this dribble in the 60's which is now 50 years ago and life is still going. There is also no flying cars yet either but everyone thought by the year 2000 we would be flying instead of driving. I agree with you that there are too many people but how do you propose we deal with that. We can increase the amount of wars instead of waiting for natural disasters to clean the mess but of course that just sounds ridiculus just like your theories. By the way if your old enough to remember the 60s you do not have a 50 year plan.
Why don't you lead by example then and go and sacrifice yourself? If all you environazis did that, you would be giving the earth a break and the rest of us won't have to listen to your dribble anymore. It will be a WIN WIN al laround
I totally believe in solar power and electric cars as the future, but peak oil is a propaganda scam they've tried to sell for decades now. Contrary to your lie, even enviro-Nazis put the date at 2030. They problem is, every time they fix a date, some new huge discovery is made. You can bet that by the time 2030 rolls around the date will be moved to 2060, and on and on.
Point of fact is we will never run out of oil, electric vehicles will reach price/performance parity with gas vehicles less than a decade from now and wholesale transition will occur within half a century. That will cut oil use by two thirds, making peak oil a century longer. Add synthetics for industrial uses, and oil won't even be necessary.
All this will be done in the free market if people would just stop trying to micromanage it. Solyndra is what happens when government trys to pick winners and losers.