After putting some more nails in Kyoto's coffin last month, Tony Blair has an op-ed in the Guardian Unlimited Observer on climate change. His main points including the diffculties of meeting Kyoto, why you should not blame Bush for this one:

We also have to recognise that while the Kyoto Protocol takes us in the right direction, it is not enough. We need to cut greenhouse gas emissions radically but Kyoto doesn't even stabilise them. It won't work as intended, either, unless the US is part of it. It's easy to take frustrations out on the Bush Administration but people forget that the Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto when Bill Clinton was in the White House.

He also addresses the lack of Kyoto's affect on the developing nations:

We have to understand as well that, even if the US did sign up to Kyoto, it wouldn't affect the huge growth in energy consumption we will see in India and China. China is building close to a new power station every week.

While I disagree with his assumption on the dangers of global warming, it is certainly admirable that he is at least approaching this from a realistic perspective.


Dr. Roy W. Spencer addresses this at Tech Central Station:

I do disagree, though, with Blair's invocation of "vicious climate disasters" as a reason for action. While I'm not sure what that term means, I suspect that he is referring at least in part to the recent increase in hurricane activity. But hurricane forecasters have been warning for decades that all of the coastal development that has taken place during a cyclical lull in hurricane activity would be at risk when the peak in the cycle returns. Any possible contribution to this activity from man-made global warming is speculative, and diverts attention from the more important point: intense tropical cyclones have always occurred in the past, will occur in the future, and it is only a matter of time before people and infrastructure in coastal areas are targets once again.

Overall, I am glad to see that political attitudes are gradually changing toward solutions that are based in technology, as this is the only realistic solution to the problem. If driving a hybrid or conserving on your electricity use makes you feel better, then do it. But new technologies will be required to reduce carbon emissions by substantial amounts -- say by 50% or more. Carbon sequestration during the burning of coal, safer nuclear, these are a couple of the more realistic alternatives.

But if you think humanity will choose pre-industrialism in order to "Save the Earth", you will probably have to find another planet to live on.

Posted by Ryan S. on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 at 12:02 AM | Permalink |