Comments on: Secret Climate Pact and IPCC Chairman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3542 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: kevin vranes http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3542&cpage=1#comment-1425 kevin vranes Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:07:16 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3542#comment-1425 another FWIW comment-as-trackback: http://nosenada.org/cblog/index.php?/archives/24-secret-deals,-stupid-justifications.html another FWIW comment-as-trackback:

http://nosenada.org/cblog/index.php?/archives/24-secret-deals,-stupid-justifications.html

]]> By: Mark A Gray http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3542&cpage=1#comment-1424 Mark A Gray Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:13:49 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3542#comment-1424 A disappointing effort from the Australian Government. There is some irony to be appreciated. Australia might be amongst some of the first major industrialised countries to be currently feeling the early effects of global climate change. We have a 30 year history now of decreasing rainfall along the southern coastline - where all the major population centers are located. Recent reports from within the Australian Government have been released warning of this and other dire consequences in the next 30-50 years. On the other hand I dare say that whether Australia meets some contrived goal is largely symbolic with respect to global changes. A disappointing effort from the Australian Government. There is some irony to be appreciated. Australia might be amongst some of the first major industrialised countries to be currently feeling the early effects of global climate change. We have a 30 year history now of decreasing rainfall along the southern coastline – where all the major population centers are located. Recent reports from within the Australian Government have been released warning of this and other dire consequences in the next 30-50 years.

On the other hand I dare say that whether Australia meets some contrived goal is largely symbolic with respect to global changes.

]]> By: Ender http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3542&cpage=1#comment-1423 Ender Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:35:56 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3542#comment-1423 The downside is that without measurable targets the Australia can actually increase its emissions. It can set its targets after it sees what it actually achieves. I mean if it achieves at 10% increase as long as it says its target was to reduce its increase from 20% to 10% the it can say that Australia met its goal. The downside is that without measurable targets the Australia can actually increase its emissions. It can set its targets after it sees what it actually achieves. I mean if it achieves at 10% increase as long as it says its target was to reduce its increase from 20% to 10% the it can say that Australia met its goal.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3542&cpage=1#comment-1422 Roger Pielke, Jr. Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:53:12 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3542#comment-1422 A somewhat different spin to Dr. Pachauri's comments here: http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEH20050727133046&Page=H&Title=Top+Stories&Topic=0 "“If it means actual technology transfer, it is useful but it should not undermine the Kyoto Protocol that has been agreed the world over as the mechanism to tackle climate change,” said R K Pachauri, Chairman, United Nations' Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change." A somewhat different spin to Dr. Pachauri’s comments here:

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEH20050727133046&Page=H&Title=Top+Stories&Topic=0

““If it means actual technology transfer, it is useful but it should not undermine the Kyoto Protocol that has been agreed the world over as the mechanism to tackle climate change,” said R K Pachauri, Chairman, United Nations’ Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change.”

]]> By: Steve Bloom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3542&cpage=1#comment-1421 Steve Bloom Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:28:18 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3542#comment-1421 I suspect Pachauri sees Kyoto not in terms of any specific goals but rather as a mechanism ro get international agreement and movement on climate change. Any international agreement that moves things forward, even if it's only in the research area for now and even if there's an argument that a technical conflict exists between it and Kyoto, is a help. Getting India and China to rake any kind of first step is also a good thing. Notwithstanding all of the immediate frustrations with the Bush regime, in the larger picture of the effort to deal with anthropogenic climate change it is after all just one administration. It will be replaced soon enough by another that, based on the trend in public attitudes, will likely be much more amenable to action. Look at how much the public debate in the U.S. has advanced since, e.g., just ten years ago during the first Clinton administration (which notwithstanding Al Gore was rather long on talk and short on action). It also seems to me to be perfectly appropriate for Pachauri as IPCC head to applaud whatever progress is being made. I frankly don't see the downside. I suspect Pachauri sees Kyoto not in terms of any specific goals but rather as a mechanism ro get international agreement and movement on climate change. Any international agreement that moves things forward, even if it’s only in the research area for now and even if there’s an argument that a technical conflict exists between it and Kyoto, is a help. Getting India and China to rake any kind of first step is also a good thing. Notwithstanding all of the immediate frustrations with the Bush regime, in the larger picture of the effort to deal with anthropogenic climate change it is after all just one administration. It will be replaced soon enough by another that, based on the trend in public attitudes, will likely be much more amenable to action. Look at how much the public debate in the U.S. has advanced since, e.g., just ten years ago during the first Clinton administration (which notwithstanding Al Gore was rather long on talk and short on action). It also seems to me to be perfectly appropriate for Pachauri as IPCC head to applaud whatever progress is being made. I frankly don’t see the downside.

]]>