Global Warming In The Agenda Of The Pittsburgh G20 Summit

Source : https://dofollownet.com

Sept. 24, 2009 - Last summit in London was centered around the financial crisis and the best strategies to get the global economy out of recession. Although it is expected that the reform of international financial institutions will still be an important part of the discussion in today Pittsburgh summit, some sentences in president Barack Obama address to the UN indicate that global warming will be part of the agenda.

According to sources in the White House, the US president will propose to his G20 partners a plan to eliminate subsidies on fossil fuels, in order to encourage the use of renewable energy and to fight against global warming.

Recent studies by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) have shown that ending subsidies fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) would decrease global emission of carbon dioxide by 10% by 2020, while freeing up cash for programmes to alleviate poverty.

Environmentalists seem to welcome the proposal, and Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, said there is "no greater cause of climate change than fossil fuels. There's no greater cause of that than artificial subsidies. It's a great idea to eliminate those subsidies and let the marketplace work."

On the other side, oil industry officials say that such a project does not make sense and will hurt U.S. economical growth and energy security. Not a surprise when you know that in the U.S. alone, the federal government gave $72 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry between 2002 and 2008.

Read full article »
Created by Kevin 1 year 5 weeks ago – Made popular 1 year 5 weeks ago
Category: Science & Nature   Tags:

We need more heretics like

Keiros 1 year 5 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago

We need more heretics like Freeman Dyson to oppose the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.

Freeman Dyson can't be called a "flat earther" and he was among the fist scientists, in 1975, to work on the problem of carbon dioxide reduction. He does not deny the role played by CO2 in the climate change, but he does not believe in predictions issued by climate models that are nothing more than very sophisticated and expansive cristal balls.

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

Another source that is worth reading is The Case For Skeptism On Global Warming, an article by Michael Chrichton, in which, using published UN data, he reviews why claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; why reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than we are being told; and why we are morally unjustified to spend vast sums on this speculative issue when around the world people are dying of starvation and disease.