How odd - despite the best efforts of bureaucrats, people continue to go to work, eat and breath. Who would have ever thought?

The US is the world's largest food exporter, which accounts for a lot of our GHG emissions. If the UN succeeds in hammering the most productive countries, they will starve millions or billions.

In the mind of an AGW true-believer, being productive is evil, but being poor and starving is good - because you don't consume as many resources or emit as much CO2.

I suspect most starving people would disagree with this viewpoint of ivory tower liberals.

The Kyoto approach of limiting emissions is bound to failure.

Our only hope is to sequester CO2 and the most cost effective means of doing that is iron fertilization of the oceans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

It is cheap and as a side benefit will stimulate the fishing industry.

Here is another link on Iron Fertilization.

http://www.bbm.me.uk/FeFert/science.htm

Don't believe anybody wants to limit economic growth or suffer a significant carbon tax.

Conservation seems to be the mantra of the Environmental minded crowd. However, realistically, a more progressive approach is needed.

Report says Kyoto should be Dropped

REPLY: Yep! In the toilet!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!

If you are really interested in learning about new things look into H.A.A.R.P.. Your tax dollars fund it and I saw a documentary on it that is very eye opening. If you get a second look into it. I'm not saying it is the cause for Global Warming. I am saying you should look into a very interesting topic. Decide for yourself. Check it out.

Thanks to Marc Morano for this Senate blog-

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=dddc4451-802a-23ad-4000-a9b55ed9489a&Issue_id=
it was Newsweek Magazine which in the 1970's proclaimed meteorologists were "almost unanimous" in their view that a coming Ice Age would have negative impacts. It was also Newsweek in 1975 which originated the eerily similar "tipping point" rhetoric of today:

Newsweek wrote on April 28, 1975 about coming ice age fears: "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Of course Newsweek essentially retracted their coming ice age article 29 years later in October 2006. In addition, a 1975 National Academy of Sciences report addressed coming ice age fears and in 1971, NASA predicted the world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age."

I don't think the big concern here is global warming. Regardless of whether that is happenning, we need to reduce or oil consumption and develop alternative energy sources NOW before Peak Oil arrives. If we don't, we'll continue this ecological damage and be completely unprepared when oil prices soar.

Also, Oiznop. Stfu, would ya?

Andrew:
You said: Don't believe anybody wants to limit economic growth or suffer a significant carbon tax.

I truely think you believe in what you say and I respect that. However, can't agree that nobody wants to limit economic growth.
Remember the German environment minister that said Kyoto was designed to criple the economy of the US to allow socialist Europe a chance to compete.
And never forget the chief archatect of Kyoto Maurice Strong who said:
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

While there are many well meaning people who just want to do their best for the world, there are also many who have very different goals.
Keep an eye on Al Gore's fortunes as we enter the Carbon Tax erra.
I for one would trust your motives over his any day.

Kyoto was supposed to be a starting point, just a bolt together temporary scaffold put together by amateurs for use in a very complicated development that no one really knew much about.
Rather than a solution that would remain unchanged, Kyoto was designed to be scrapped once a learning curve had been negotiated . The architects hoped its original version would assist in constructing a new economic movement that may one day lead to a sustainable way forward for global trade.

Their hope was misguided.

Bringing Kyoto into being achieved many positive things, the most important being that a network of concerned nations were bought together willing to explore, cooperation and decide upon a new direction built on a firm foundation.

Unfortunately no one found the firm foundation.

Naturally those who rejected all notions of AGW, peak oil, crusades. war for oil, did not and still do not support cutting emissions and so why should we be surprised that co2 emission continued to soar? Kyoto nations were still competing in global markets where the cheapest suppliers won the best contracts. Many developing nations took the worst polluters from the west and increased production in the worst way imaginable where the actions of companies are illegal and hidden from even their owners.

Kyoto was always going to be a bit like getting a group of heavy smokers together at the race track to encourage each other to cut down. The organisers knew that the action will have no success or long term health benefits whilst new smokers were being encouraged to the same bets and take up the same habits.

No one who really understood Kyoto believed it would ever be successful. All those plans to cut emission were nice ideas, especially if you are drunk on sucess, but increasing demand was the goal and growth was really the only objective of all those concerned.

Member nations just exchanged cards and got on with business as usual.

In years to come Kyoto will not be looked upon as a missed chance, it will be proof that there was never really a chance to begin with.

I've always contended that adaptation was the only course of action to take with this natural cyclical warming and this article proves my point. By all means, if money is to be spent, spend it on alternative energy sources and adapting to warmer climate. Don't throw it away on false idols like carbon credits which will only enrich a few and cause hardship for the rest of us.

Given that warming will happen with or without the help of humans, and that stopping our emissions entirely would slow warming by a tiny amount, it seems clear to me that the problem is one of adapting to a warming climate, not making futile attempts to stop it warming.

Compared to the overall mass of the earth, we are specks of dust. The idea that we are capable of changing the earth's climate to such an extent is perhaps one of the most delusional and arrogant things I have ever heard. But those taken in by the hysteria have an almost cartoon perception of the earth, in which the "evil smokestacks of industry" are cartoon exaggerations which cover most of its surface, and humans are towering giants who stomp over entire continents in heavy books, crushing entire rainforests in the process. The reality is nothing like this.

Prosperity is the best hope of coping with natural climate change, which effects poor and helpless communities disproportionately. The only hope those poor people have to become prosperous is not through some fairy-tale socialist wealth "redistribution" but with capitalism and industry. The fact is, to become better equipped to deal with warming that we cannot stop no matter what, we need more industry, not less. The trouble is that this reasoning is lost on those who have no intention of thinking outside the populist box.

Anonymous is correct in that there are some people that do want to limit economic growth. However, they are extremists. So, perhaps what I should have posted is that no respectable people would like to limit growth.

Anyhow, another major problem with Kyoto is that is does not permit credit for CO2 sequestration in the oceans. Not sure the basis for this, but it could be legal since there are not clear owners of the open Oceans beyond the 200 mile border.

So, as a minimum, this aspect of Kyoto needs to be removed which will open what is IMO, the most viable means available. No doubt environmental extremists will fight this, but considering that the area likely to be fertilized are otherwise mostly void of life, I don�t see how there can be that much of a negative impact.

The only way to reduce oil consumption is to either run out of oil or develop new technologies. The latter is a much saner policy and will require large amounts of investment from strong, vibrant economies.

The knee-jerk leftist view imagines that a crippled US and Europe would make the world a better place. Not only would that lead to war and starvation, but would severely limit the world's ability to develop new technology.

Or perhaps "low carbon footprint" third world villagers will lead the technological charge?

Anderw:
Sorry... I missed putting my name in, I am Anonymous.
I have a question for you.
With the projected effect of an 80% cut in CO2 emmissions being barely measurable and the cost being enormous, would you agree that the Cut CO2 approach is not cost effective?
I seems to me that a trillion dollars spent to cut global temperatures a fraction of a degree is a bad investment.
However, that same trillions dollars could fund unimaginable new technologies in efficient power and very likely stop malaria in its tracks.
I am never against making progress and I even agree that SOMETIMES governemts can be effective in driving progress.
I am however very much against wasting time, energy and Money on things that make no difference.
Your suggestion of fertilzing the oceans might actually have some good effect and won't cost much. More study is in order first though to make sure it does not bite us in the ass.

What do you think?

Those who believe Global warming is real, will work to help our earth recover cleaner air, cleaner water & a healthier lifestyle and even if they were wrong we will all have a healthier world for their efforts. Those who do not believe in global warming, will either suffer the consequences of doing nothing - or reap the benefits of the people who make changes to clean up our air, and water. So even if you do not believe in global warming, wouldn't trying to help make our planet cleaner still be better than doing nothing?!!

Kyoto protocol was incepted to further an agenda, a means to an ends which has little to do with the health of the earth and more to do with advertising a consciousness. Fear Consciousness that the sky is falling and all you poor humans are the cause of it. Another mass mind controll psychological operation like any other media hype. The Absurdity of "Carbon Trading" and "carbon Taxes" is just overwhealmingly insulting to any thinking person. Peek Oil is a scam, a lie, it turns out that Petroleum may not always be a fossil fuel, rather a mineral fuel, a product of the earths tectonic pressures where oil is litterally squeezed into existance. The wells in the Gulf of Mexico keep regenerating to the surprize of the oil companies...Abiotic Oil production was developed by the Nazi's in WW2 Germany. Synthetic Oil they called it, from using hydrolic presses squeeze oil from stone. Fossil bearing coal is more aptly called a fossil fuel. So fuel supply is less a problem than the social control machinery the corporations apply to the human herd. There are all kinds of ways to live with minimal pollution. We are simply driven like lemming not to live naturally and free. Industrial based economic slavery is our sad condition. All bad advertising, solutions are here, always have been, it is consciousness than needs to evolve and behavior that needs to change.

carbon sequestration ???????????
Those who propose humans removing CO2 from the atmosphere should take a course in biology...
and be more concerned about the concentration of oxygen than CO2....
CO2 was the dominant gas when the earth was formed and was so for at least an eon. Without fuel for photosynthesis, humans will become the next species to become extinct.
Water is the dominant greenhouse gas and the only molecule in the environment that exists in all three phases at the typical temperatures extremes (ca.-150 to +120). The enthaphy change from gas to liquid is something not possible with CO2 and is ca. 500x greater because of hydrogen bonding. Regardless, anthropogenic contributions still pale in comparison with natural ones, both with CO2 and H20. Do the math!

Simon,

Everyone wants to cut emissions. Don't be so arrogant or foolish to believe that you stand on high moral ground. The disagreement is about the effectiveness and danger of instituting half-cocked Draconian legislation. Many people as they become adults learn to recognize that understanding human nature and needs is the key to effective action. Al Gore understands this as he laughs all the way to the Stockholm bank.

"How dare they not let me play President?"

"Need a massive spending increase on clean energy technology and devote as much money to this challenge as they currently spend on military research"

No surprise that scientists want to have an unlimited supply of money. What is surprising is how uncritical we are of conflict of interest, blindly assuming that "climate scientists" are somehow morally superior to the rest of us.

Oleg

Everyone wants to cut emissions????

High moral ground has nothing to do with anything. I have no choice but to observe, participate or not, the picture will remain unchanged.

No one wants to cut emissions at the cost of economic growth, which is the problem.

Pre 1990 emissions are the targets we focus on today, and tomorrow the problem will be much greater.6.7 billion of us contribute today, and in a few years there will be 7 billion of us fighting over oil, and in a couple of decades 9 billion people using methane hydrates as a primary source of fuel and they too will want to cut emissions as well.

We should be focusing on the cause of AGW instead of just the symptom. Restricting economic growth and restoring a natural balance is the only way to counter global warming.

Biofuels 'crime against humanity'

A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity.

The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm

amazing how blindly AGW'rs continue to follow the cult line with hairbrain ideas to save the world in the face of real science rebuttal saying AGW has no legs to stand on...lets see, antarctic ice at new record...arctic ice low the result of unusual winds...thermometers proven to be a joke...tree ring science a joke...calculation of temperature record proven to be a joke...judge spanking the al gore movie as a joke...little kids books about global warming had to admit they lied...the International Panel on Climate Conspiracy written by politicians caught lying about scientific consensus...a dismal hurricane season even though its supposed to be getting worse and now the kyoto joke is being abandoned for no doubt another bird brain convention on how to lie differently because the first went nowhere...all the while, the airwaves are filled that california is burning up because of co2 when the real cause was failed underbrush policy lawsuited into effect by guess who?, the same type of cultists...i expect the screaming to get louder and louder as the AGW lie continues to unravel...

Also, Oiznop. Stfu, would ya?

REPLY: Um excuse me, but I don't speak in acronyms or ebonics or any other language that is taught in the government funded school systems other than english (that is if that is still taught). Could you please translate? Or is it too obscene that Brett can't post it??

Thanks for that Patrick.

Cut it any way you like and you�ll still get another problem. There is no solution,except the one being ignored.

biofuels are not even a low emission fuels, but as they are still an alternative fuel they will have an even bigger role to play as oil supplies run dry.

However with Alaskan Arctic and Antarctic regions largely untapped, biofuel will only be supplemental rather than a replacement because of which its value will guide farmers while they chose the best options to make a seasonal buck.
Food prices will go through the roof as droughts worsen or crops are flooded, demand for food will always be higher than fuel. Nevertheless farmers in the third world will switch to any cash crops or swap from growing tobacco tomorrow. In our heavily subsidized worlds farmers will just sell to the highest bidder and the famine relief will have to buy less or will have less to buy�. so yes people will starve, but that�s just normal.

if it was possible to cut emissions in a way that no one will like, at the source, bringing about forced economic hardships, and actually tackling energy production and the pollution head on . The need for an alternative source of fuel is no longer met with increasing demand and emissions will decrease fairly rapidly.

The benevolent acts of humanitarian intervention in the Middle East will no longer need invention as we in the global community prepared for life without oil and design a society that must live within the rules o