Monday, April 14, 2014

No debate, China 'historical emissions' expected to overtake those of US in next 10 yrs, (AP). UN rulers say country with most 'historic emissions' must pay. China has most CO2 now, rising fast, soon will have most 'historic.' Mitch McConnell has a microphone. Why doesn't he say China, not US, must pay most for non-existent global warming?

.
"China’s historical emissions are expected to overtake those of the U.S. in the next decade." 

4/14/14, "Cost of fighting global warming ‘modest,’ U.N. panel says," AP, Karl Ritter, via Portland (Maine) Press Herald

"In Berlin, a dispute erupted over whether to include charts that showed emissions from large developing countries are rising the fastest as they expand their economies. Developing countries said linking emissions to income growth would divert attention from the fact that historically, most emissions have come from the developed nations, which industrialized earlier....

In the end the charts were taken out of the summary, but would remain in the underlying report.

Counting all emissions since the industrial revolution in the 18th century, the U.S. is the top carbon polluter. China’s current emissions are greater than those of the U.S. and rising quickly. China’s historical emissions are expected to overtake those of the U.S. in the next decade.

The IPCC summary also refrained from detailed discussions on what level of financial transfers are needed."...


=====================

Per AP, key diagrams were omitted from the UN report because participants wanted more "harm" to go to Americans. More accurate terminology was also voted out in favor of fluff that could more easily fan hate and the myth of financial "responsibility" for alleged past CO2 on innocent Americans now said to be causing non-existent global warming

4/13/14, "Emissions rising to 'unprecedented levels,' UN climate change panel warns," AP, Karl Ritter, via CTV News (Canada)

"Leaked drafts of that document showed the biggest reason for the rising emissions is the higher energy needs resulting from population growth and expanding economies in the developing world, mainly in China and other large countries.  

However, diagrams that illustrated that trend were deleted by governments in the final version adopted during a weeklong IPCC session in Berlin.

"The problem for the governments was that they felt that these different perspectives can cause harm for them because they can be made at different scales responsible for the emissions," Edenhofer told The Associated Press.

The graphics divided the world into four categories -- low, lower-middle, upper-middle and high income countries. Participants in the closed-door session said many developing countries objected to using such income categories.

In UN climate negotiations only two categories are used -- developed and developing countries
. The former want to scrap that firewall, saying China and other fast-growing economies can't be compared to the least developed nations and must face stricter emissions cuts, while most developing countries want to keep it....

Counting all emissions since the industrialized revolution in the 18th century, the U.S. is the top carbon polluter. China's current emissions are greater than those of the U.S. and rising quickly. China's historical emissions are expected to overtake those of the U.S. in the next decade.

There is plenty of material analyzing emissions from those and other perspectives in a larger scientific report that the IPCC will release this week, but it was kept out of the summary for policy-makers.

Oswaldo Lucon, a Brazilian scientist involved in the report, regretted that the diagrams were taken out, saying they are relevant to the "big picture." He said China, India, Brazil and Saudi Arabia were among the countries opposing using them in the summary.

Underlying the arguments "was a whole history of discussions on who was going to foot the bill of environmental damage," Lucon said."...

=======================

In 2012 $1 billion a day was invested in the notion of "global warming.


. .

No comments: