So Europeans are saying W-M doesn’t do enough?

What is the W-M U.S. target, anyway?

First of all, the “economy-wide” goal for W-M, as stated in W-M, is a 20% cut from 2005 levels by 2020. That’s a 6 or7 percent cut below 1990 levels, not 3 or 4 percent everyone is talking about, right?

Furthermore, why is this (the economy-wide 20% below 2005 levels in 2020) the stated goal for W-M when WRI analysis finds that the bill will achieve cuts below 2005 levels of 28-33% and below 1990 levels of 17-23%? Why not draw on these figures for the “economy-wide” goal?

(For the analysis, go to wri dot org slash usclimatetargets.)

Finally, what would the range for *domestic* emission cuts through W-M in 2020 be, using the WRI assumptions?

I’m all for hanging onto hope…I’m actually an eternal optimist…but my optimism is now rooted in reinventing society to survive the coming cataclysm…a dark optimism to be sure….but with a 1 month old 2.75 yr old girls…I must believe there will be a way for them to thrive….however 90% of humanity I’m not so sure about…whiplash to be sure…

What is the W-M U.S. target, anyway?

First of all, the “economy-wide” goal for W-M, as stated in W-M, is a 20% cut from 2005 levels by 2020. That’s a 6 or7 percent cut below 1990 levels, not 3 or 4 percent everyone is talking about, right?

Furthermore, why is this (the economy-wide 20% below 2005 levels in 2020) the stated goal for W-M when WRI analysis finds that the bill will achieve cuts below 2005 levels of 28-33% and below 1990 levels of 17-23%? Why not draw on these figures for the “economy-wide” goal?

http://www.wri.org/usclimatetargets
http://www.wri.org/publication/usclimatetargets

Finally, what would the range for *domestic* emission cuts through W-M in 2020 be, using the WRI assumptions?

Most of us tend to hang on to hope much longer than we should, because it can change outcomes – its a human instinct.

Much is possible if you wish on it enough. Unfortunately, also, a lot isn’t.

They still need to factor in very high temeperatures leading to massive crop losses like those seen in the European Heat Wave of 2003.

http://www.dbcca.com/ dbcca/ EN/ _media/ Investing_in_Agriculture_June_25_2009.pdf

On page 24 the talk about climate change impacting yields, but then they don’t appear to factor it into the report anywhere: “Changing precipitation patterns and the shifts of regional weather to be hotter and drier in some regions while other regions become more moist will cause severe challenges to existing agricultural systems. Lobell et al. 2008, described how warmer climates will harm yields. Also, Schlenker and Roberts (2005) estimated that the probability of increased warmer temperatures would occur in developing regions of the world is proportionately. Losses of as much as US $5 billion a year have been estimated from farmland value (dryland) due to changes in temperature and precipitation Schlenker et al.2005″

Rising sea level to submerge Louisiana coastline by 2100, study warns
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/ 2009/ jun/ 29/ rising-sea-level-new-orleans

Scientists say between 10,000 and 13,500 square kilometres of coastal land around New Orleans will go underwater due to rising sea levels and subsidence.

“When you look at the numbers you come to the conclusion that the resources are just not there to restore all the coast, and that is one of the major points of this paper,”

“I think every geologist that has worked on this problem realises the future does not look very bright unless we can come up with some innovative ways to get that sediment in the right spot,”

With that sort of cover, it’s an easy sell to those citizens that want to believe people like Fred Dyson, George Will, etc. I mean, here we have the second biggest state of the union’s chief pollution regulator and a scientist from its biggest university stating (with arms folded at the chest) that global warming is hooey.

It is time to tackle each and everyone of these limelighters out and destroy their credibility by calling out their credentials and pointing out their the mistakes in their beliefs.

http://www.chron.com/ disp/ story.mpl/ metropolitan/ 6502024.html

“Our research expenditure on non-fossil energy sources is 0.2% of what we spend on energy itself,” said Shepherd. “Multiplying that by 10 would be a very sensible thing to do. We’re spending less than 1% on probably the biggest problem we’ve faced in many decades.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/ 2009/ jun/ 29/ energy-bills-green-technology