Sea levels will rise significantly even if levels of CO2 are stabilised. By 2100 sea levels could be 0.43 metres higher on average than present, and by 2300 they could be up to 0.8 metres higher.Seems much milder than the dire predictions of 8 foot increases in sea level, and so forth, that I have heard bandied about. Still much cause for concern in this report, but maybe not so much outright hysteria.
The report adds that global warming over the past 50 years would have been worse had it not been for the counterbalancing influence of man-made emissions of aerosol pollutants, tiny airborne particles that reflect sunlight to cause atmospheric cooling. "Without the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols, it is likely that greenhouse gases alone would have caused more global mean temperature rise than that observed during the last 50 years," the draft report says.Wow, thanks aerosols.
A good energy policy, economists agree, is not difficult to define. Fuel taxes should encourage conservation, but with rebates to taxpayers so that the government revenue from the tax does not increase. The taxpayer can use his rebate to fill his gas-guzzler if he likes, but most people will eventually reduce their use of fuel in order to save money, and will spend the rebate on something else. With slow and continual increases of fuel cost, energy consumption will decline. The economy will not be harmed. Indeed, it will be improved since the trade deficit will be reduced; so will the need to protect US access to energy abroad by means of diplomatic and military action. US manufacturers would be forced to emphasize energy efficiency in order to make their products competitive internationally. Our automakers need not go bankrupt.In Canada, for example, a group at SFU has proposed a policy package that would cut CO2 emissions significantly (90 Mt), with minimal economic impact.
Would this approach result in fewer ultraheavy SUVs on the road? Probably. Would it slow the trend toward bigger houses with higher ceilings? Possibly. But experts say that because technology has sufficient potential to become more efficient, our quality of life need not decline. In order for this to happen, the price of energy should reflect its true cost to society.
... The industrial sector (excluding electricity) experiences an annual cost of production increase reaching $100 million in 2010 (some of this is caused by electricity price increases). However, the costs of producing non-energy goods do not increase by more than 1 percent, which should have a negligible effect on international competitiveness.posted by russilwvong at 4:53 PM on January 29, 2007
From the electricity sector, the combined effect of its inclusion in the large industrial ECTP and a RPS provides more than half of the country’s GHG abatement— 51.6 Mt in 2010. Most reductions are due to switching to more efficient natural gas and coal burners, fuel switching from coal to natural gas, switching to renewable electricity, and demand reductions. The RPS causes about 6.2 Mt of reduction in addition to the 2.4 Mt triggered by the large industry ECTP. Together, these actions increase the average price of electricity by 3 percent.
The carbon sequestration requirement in the oil and gas production sector reduces GHG emissions by 6.5 Mt by 2010, increasing the production cost of oil and natural gas by less than 1 percent each.
The building and equipment standards cause GHG reduction of 6 Mt by 2010 by forcing equipment manufacturers and building developers to phase out sales of the least efficient 10 percent of new buildings and equipment throughout the residential and commercial sectors.
« Older Rev. Robert F. Drinan, first priest to be a voting... | Drops of milk splashing into c... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by elpapacito at 7:33 AM on January 29, 2007