For the first time, Canada has taken over last place from the United States in this years G8 Climate Scorecard rankings! This comes just as the G8 nations are meeting in Italy in an effort to find solutions to the world's main issues, including climate change.
According to the report, developed by WWF and the global insurance company Allianz, the United States rose in the rankings due to recent actions taken by the Obama administration on green energy and vehicle fuel efficiency. Canada ended up at the bottom of the pack because our greenhouse gas emissions are not only still increasing, thanks in large part to the expansion of the tar sands, but also because we lack a credible plan to reduce emissions in the future. Learn more about Canada's climate performance by downloading the report.
What would you do if you were a member of the G8? Would you choose the right policies that lead to an environmentally sustainable future, or make the same old empty promises and continue with 'business as usual'?
Add your voice to the debate and help ensure that climate change is at the top of the G8 agenda by joining WWF's Face the G8 campaign.
1 comment:
Yes "empty promises" is right....there is no doubt that emission reduction could be much simpler!
Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction is achieved by acting on ELECTRICITY generation (coal, gas) and TRANSPORT (mainly automobiles) alone, since these 2 sectors typically (as in the USA) account for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions.
The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages - apart from lowering CO2 emissions:
1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.
4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local. Since there is little competition between say utility companies internationally, "best practice" results can be compared and shared.
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand - together with extensive -and unnecessary- regulation on what people can or can’t buy and use.
Understanding why proposed Cap and Trade is bad, in USA and elsewhere
http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Real Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Business Cost — In Conclusion
The Way Forward
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
Introduction — Funding and Impact —No Energy Efficiency Regulation — A New Electric World
Electricity Generation — Distribution
Transport Power Generation — Regulation — Taxation
Post a Comment