<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Energy and Global Warming News for November 20:  Climate negotiating positions of top emitters</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:25:57 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JoAnn Blake</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/#comment-207547</link>
		<dc:creator>JoAnn Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=14346#comment-207547</guid>
		<description>Did you that there is no 13th avenue in San Francisco, but there is a 12th and 14th? The street that would be is 13th was named &quot;Funston.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you that there is no 13th avenue in San Francisco, but there is a 12th and 14th? The street that would be is 13th was named &#8220;Funston.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leif</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/#comment-207518</link>
		<dc:creator>Leif</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:42:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=14346#comment-207518</guid>
		<description>A supper tanker travels 33 feet, yes, that is feet, per gallon of fuel.  Roughly 175 gallons per mile.  
On the other hand ships are a very efficent mode of moving goods.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A supper tanker travels 33 feet, yes, that is feet, per gallon of fuel.  Roughly 175 gallons per mile.<br />
On the other hand ships are a very efficent mode of moving goods.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paulm</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/#comment-207357</link>
		<dc:creator>paulm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=14346#comment-207357</guid>
		<description>Were peaking for sure...5pounds a gallon for gas in UK in the middle of a recession!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229388/Fuel-prices-highest-point-year-supermarkets-charge-oil-giants.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Were peaking for sure&#8230;5pounds a gallon for gas in UK in the middle of a recession!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229388/Fuel-prices-highest-point-year-supermarkets-charge-oil-giants.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>news/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>article-1229388/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>Fuel-prices-highest-point-year-supermarkets-charge-oil-giants.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paulm</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/#comment-207352</link>
		<dc:creator>paulm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=14346#comment-207352</guid>
		<description>If shipping were to clean up their act...commodity and product costs would go right up. (Including oil, a vicious circle)! 

To solve CO2 emissions with current technology we&#039;re probably looking at near zero global trade. That means no cheap gadgets from China.

How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz0XXwDekbP

Ships are as big a contributor to global warming as aircraft – but have had much less attention from environmentalists.

Both international shipping and aviation are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol rules on cutting carbon emissions. But green pressure is having its effect on airlines. Ahead of next month’s Copenhagen climate talks, airlines have promised to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.

But shipping companies are keeping their heads down.

...super-ships are rogues on the high seas, operating under pollution standards long since banished on land; warming the planet and killing its inhabitants. Santa’s sleigh, they are not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If shipping were to clean up their act&#8230;commodity and product costs would go right up. (Including oil, a vicious circle)! </p>
<p>To solve CO2 emissions with current technology we&#8217;re probably looking at near zero global trade. That means no cheap gadgets from China.</p>
<p>How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world<br />
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz0XXwDekbP" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>sciencetech/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>article-1229857/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz0XXwDekbP</a></p>
<p>Ships are as big a contributor to global warming as aircraft – but have had much less attention from environmentalists.</p>
<p>Both international shipping and aviation are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol rules on cutting carbon emissions. But green pressure is having its effect on airlines. Ahead of next month’s Copenhagen climate talks, airlines have promised to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.</p>
<p>But shipping companies are keeping their heads down.</p>
<p>&#8230;super-ships are rogues on the high seas, operating under pollution standards long since banished on land; warming the planet and killing its inhabitants. Santa’s sleigh, they are not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paulm</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/#comment-207323</link>
		<dc:creator>paulm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:27:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=14346#comment-207323</guid>
		<description>The creeping effect of SLR. 
Before people know it their property value will be negative. 
Seems like the US mid Atlantic coast is the canary in the coal mine for North American SLR and Climate Change.

Tidal Flood an Early Week Threat to the East Coast
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=apple&amp;traveler=0&amp;article=1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The creeping effect of SLR.<br />
Before people know it their property value will be negative.<br />
Seems like the US mid Atlantic coast is the canary in the coal mine for North American SLR and Climate Change.</p>
<p>Tidal Flood an Early Week Threat to the East Coast<br />
<a href="http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=apple&amp;traveler=0&amp;article=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.accuweather.com/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>news-story.asp?partner=apple&amp;traveler=0&amp;article=1</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: p</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/#comment-207310</link>
		<dc:creator>p</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:21:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=14346#comment-207310</guid>
		<description>Climate Change affects Thanksgiving. Pumpkin harvest was also pitiful in the Northwest with disappointing size for Halloween.Supermarkets had to import from out of state...

Heavy Rain Could Mean No Pumpkin Pie for Thanksgiving
http://www.accuweather.com/news-weather-features.asp?#extremes</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Climate Change affects Thanksgiving. Pumpkin harvest was also pitiful in the Northwest with disappointing size for Halloween.Supermarkets had to import from out of state&#8230;</p>
<p>Heavy Rain Could Mean No Pumpkin Pie for Thanksgiving<br />
<a href="http://www.accuweather.com/news-weather-features.asp?#extremes" rel="nofollow">http://www.accuweather.com/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>news-weather-features.asp?#extremes</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paulm</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/#comment-207246</link>
		<dc:creator>paulm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:18:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=14346#comment-207246</guid>
		<description>Britain&#039;s all time precipitation record...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/21/cumbria-floods-more-rain-barker
Cumbria, which yesterday suffered the worst downpour in British history, with 314mm – more than a &lt;i&gt;foot of rain – falling in 24 hours.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Britain&#8217;s all time precipitation record&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/21/cumbria-floods-more-rain-barker" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>environment/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>2009/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>nov/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>21/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>cumbria-floods-more-rain-barker</a><br />
Cumbria, which yesterday suffered the worst downpour in British history, with 314mm – more than a <i>foot of rain – falling in 24 hours.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Lewis</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/#comment-207182</link>
		<dc:creator>David Lewis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:07:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=14346#comment-207182</guid>
		<description>Reuters reported earlier this year that according to Russian official figures submitted to the UN Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn, their 2007 emissions were 33.94% lower than those of 1990.  Remember that Russia had all these state sponsored high emitting highly inefficient heavy industries then, and far less of them after Communism imploded.  

I read this Russian promise to go to 25% less than 1990 by 2020 as a promise by Russia to only expand their emissions by 13% or so from those of today.  

(1990=100, today=66, 1990 minus 25%=75, 75 is 13% or so greater than 66).  At some point, there have to be better sources than &quot;Russian official figures&quot;.  

One analysis of EU cuts under Kyoto is that they basically exported the emissions they supposedly cut to China as the Chinese successfully competed in heavy industries, while not changing all that much in most other areas.  So, since the carbon intensity of the global economy has been increasing after a long period of decline, this commitment from China might mean something more than if we heard it from a Western government anxious to do less than it otherwise might have to.  One analyst of Hu Jintao I heard said he&#039;s been talking like this for years.  

Everyone in the world is acutely aware that the US Senate is dithering.  All these positions would change for the better if the Senate was more enthusiastic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reuters reported earlier this year that according to Russian official figures submitted to the UN Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn, their 2007 emissions were 33.94% lower than those of 1990.  Remember that Russia had all these state sponsored high emitting highly inefficient heavy industries then, and far less of them after Communism imploded.  </p>
<p>I read this Russian promise to go to 25% less than 1990 by 2020 as a promise by Russia to only expand their emissions by 13% or so from those of today.  </p>
<p>(1990=100, today=66, 1990 minus 25%=75, 75 is 13% or so greater than 66).  At some point, there have to be better sources than &#8220;Russian official figures&#8221;.  </p>
<p>One analysis of EU cuts under Kyoto is that they basically exported the emissions they supposedly cut to China as the Chinese successfully competed in heavy industries, while not changing all that much in most other areas.  So, since the carbon intensity of the global economy has been increasing after a long period of decline, this commitment from China might mean something more than if we heard it from a Western government anxious to do less than it otherwise might have to.  One analyst of Hu Jintao I heard said he&#8217;s been talking like this for years.  </p>
<p>Everyone in the world is acutely aware that the US Senate is dithering.  All these positions would change for the better if the Senate was more enthusiastic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sidharth</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/#comment-206751</link>
		<dc:creator>Sidharth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=14346#comment-206751</guid>
		<description>This is an excellent piece of information stating as to who is how much required to look at the figures ? 

You cannot build castles in Air... 

We are already under the ill-influence of glaciers melting and the day is not far when we would have to repent... 

so, it&#039;s high time to wake up for everyone involved in making life difficult for our predecessors...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an excellent piece of information stating as to who is how much required to look at the figures ? </p>
<p>You cannot build castles in Air&#8230; </p>
<p>We are already under the ill-influence of glaciers melting and the day is not far when we would have to repent&#8230; </p>
<p>so, it&#8217;s high time to wake up for everyone involved in making life difficult for our predecessors&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Wallace</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/energy-and-global-warming-news-climate-negotiating-positions-of-top-emitters-waxman-schedules-hearing-on-derivatives/#comment-205789</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Wallace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=14346#comment-205789</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s how I would rank them...

1. UNITED STATES (21.2 tonnes per capita, 6.4 billion tonnes)

2. JAPAN (11.0 tonnes per capita, 1.4 billion tonnes)


3. EUROPEAN UNION (10.2 tonnes per capita, 5.03 billion tonnes)

4. CHINA (5.5 tonnes per capita, 6.8 billion tonnes)

5. SOUTH KOREA (2.9 tonnes per capita, 142 million tonnes)

6. INDIA (1.2 tonnes per capita, 1.4 billion tonnes)

7. BRAZIL (0.6 tonnes per capita, 111 million tonnes)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s how I would rank them&#8230;</p>
<p>1. UNITED STATES (21.2 tonnes per capita, 6.4 billion tonnes)</p>
<p>2. JAPAN (11.0 tonnes per capita, 1.4 billion tonnes)</p>
<p>3. EUROPEAN UNION (10.2 tonnes per capita, 5.03 billion tonnes)</p>
<p>4. CHINA (5.5 tonnes per capita, 6.8 billion tonnes)</p>
<p>5. SOUTH KOREA (2.9 tonnes per capita, 142 million tonnes)</p>
<p>6. INDIA (1.2 tonnes per capita, 1.4 billion tonnes)</p>
<p>7. BRAZIL (0.6 tonnes per capita, 111 million tonnes)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
