US to miss own emissions targets: report
The World Resources Institute’s report casts doubts on Obama’s chances of making action on global warming a successful part of his legacy.
US President Barack Obama’s administration’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% from 2005 levels by 2025 is likely to fail unless bolder measure are taken, a new study shows.
The report from US think-tank World Resources Institute, published Wednesday, also casts doubts on Obama’s chances of making action on global warming a successful part of his legacy.
Last year, the executive announced fresh measures to cut carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector and motor vehicles, which triggered significant opposition from industry groups and Republicans.
But according to the World Resources Institute, such measures are not enough and should be reformed to include even stricter guidelines to phase out coal-fired power plants; new standards to reduce emissions from manufacturing, construction and mining; limits on aircraft emissions; and measures to cut demand for ground travel.
(Click on it to enlarge)
“The challenges and urgency presented by climate change are abundantly clear, but so too are the capabilities to meet them, and the opportunities for economic gain,” said Sam Adams, director of Climate Initiative at the institute in a statement. “Leadership is in the doing, not just the pledging.”
Adams and his colleagues propose a 10-point plan for the administration to implement, saying that there is enough evidence to support that such actions can bring economic benefits to industry and consumers, while achieving the set targets on emissions.
{{ commodity.name }}
{{ post.title }}
{{ post.date }}
3 Comments
Pat Wood
Destroying the US economy to address liberal hysteria is madness.
Diogenes60025
It’s OK to use fossil fuels and emit CO2. Our climate is pleasant and productive, and getting better. This is normal because earth is in an interglacial period. Increased carbon dioxide emissions are the result of warming, not the cause.
Only 3% of all carbon dioxide emissions arise from human activities. 97% are from natural sources, mainly rotting vegetation. The ultimate reservoir of CO2 is limestone (CaCO3) and other carbonate rocks. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. CO2 is sequestered as carbonates for tens of millions of years. Attempts to limit human fossil fuels use will ruin America’s energy infrastructure, and not affect warming.
The cost of controlling CO2 is not worth any conceivable benefit. IEA estimated the cost of worldwide “decarbonization” at $44 trillion. The entire cumulative wealth of mankind is estimated at $150 trillion. The United States, the EU and the UN are proposing to spend nearly 30% of mankind’s wealth on a foolish boondoggle, with no clear benefits.
The causes of global warming are undetermined. There is no evidence that global warming is caused by human use of fossil fuels. The proxy data (tree rings and polar ice cores) used by scientists is faulty. All of the climate models that predicted dramatic warming have been wrong.
Why should rational people believe climate activists? Climate action proponents just don’t seem trustworthy. Thoughtful people can discern the truth about climate change, even if they are not scientists. For example, if proponents of a policy use deceptive arguments in promoting that policy, that policy, and its “scientific” basis are suspect. Also see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…
Arguments for regulating CO2 emissions are suspect. The peer review process has been distorted, in large part to present fossil fuels use as a threat. See “The Liberal War on Transparency” by Christopher C Horner; ISBN 978-1-4516-9488-8
and “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” by Dr. Tim Ball; ISBN 978-0-9888777-4-0.
Pieter
Further, I recommend Professor Plimer’s tome, “Heaven and Earth” (Connor Court Publishing, 2009; ISBN 9781921421143), for a thorough review of the science and the evidence