Gore, others urge CEOs to back climate change deal

[Old Coot]

Source: Associated Press

COPENHAGEN – Climate-change heavyweights U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon and Nobel prize winner Al Gore urged more than 500 business leaders on Sunday to lend their corporate muscle to reaching a global deal on reducing greenhouse gases.

The CEOs of PepsiCo, Nestle, BP and other of the world's major businesses began meeting in Copenhagen, where politicians will gather in December to negotiate a new U.N.-brokered climate treaty.

Despite the global financial crisis, both Ban and Gore said there was no time for delay in hashing out the specifics of how to cut greenhouse gases that contribute to warming the planet.

"We have to do it this year. Not next year. This year," Gore said. "The clock is ticking, because Mother Nature does not do bailouts."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090524/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_denmark_climate_conference

[BunkerHill24]

1. I am beginning to think Mr. Gore is lacking wisdom!

Who the fuck cares climate changes when we can't even show pictures with the rest of the world raping kids in sodomy and homicide of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison?

[w4rma]

4. We can multitask. It's unwise to think we can't do more than one thing at once. (nt)

[wildflower]

2. "Mother Nature does not do bailouts."

Very nice soundbyte.

[YvonneCa]

6. That comment is...

...PRICELESS. ;)

[Baby Snooks]

9. All talk, no action...

http://www.350.org/understanding-350#2

This seems to reflect the current "position" of the activists. To cut the amount of carbon dioxide from 389 ppm to 350 ppm. It probably needs to be cut by 50% rather than 10%. It would be nice to think it can be cut by 80% by 2050. The reality is unless it is cut by more than 10% NOW we will not want to be here by 2050. We will see a planet savaged by extremes in weather and cities under water and average temperatures in some places far too high for human beings to survive for long.

We can either take draconian measures ourselves or be subjected to draconian conditions imposed on us by the Earth itself.

It is our choice. A choice not made easier by cutesy sound bytes by politicians still pandering to the corporations. Which Al Gore is.

A 10% reduction even in one year is probably not going to be sufficient. There is apparently no real timeline involved in this. Just a projected reduction of the amount of carbon dioxide. With 80% reduction by 2050.

The 350 ppm may not even be sufficient to change anything. There doesn't seem to be much scientific evidence that it will. But it sounds good and makes for a cutesy name for a new organization.

We must put people above profit. Humanity above greed. And the Copenhagen Treaty as it is being proposed does neither.

But then this and so many other organizations don't really offer any real solutions. Just lots of cutesy sound bytes.

How much carbon dioxide could be reduced by Al Gore and so many others using commercial airlines instead of chartered and private jets?

He is like everyone else. Just another hypocrite. But good with sound bytes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Err - a cut of 80% in the carbon dioxide *level* would be catastrophic

The pre-industrial level was about 280 ppm; that's about a cut of about 30% from what we have now.

I think your talk of cutting by 50%, or 80%, may come from talk about the carbon dioxide emissions. Cutting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, ie the 'ppm' measurement, to significantly below the pre-industrial level could start a new Ice Age - we need some CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the temperature up, and all the plants are adapted for the pre-industrial levels, too. It would also probably be impossible. 280ppm was the level without significant human activity.

How much carbon dioxide could be reduced by Al Gore and so many others using commercial airlines instead of chartered and private jets?

A miniscule amount. If you want to cut our emissions significantly, you have to cut pretty much all flying, get rid of petroleum-fuelled private cars, design all new houses to be more efficient and not use fossil fuels, get rid of fossil-fuel-powered electricity generating stations, ...

[Baby Snooks]

13. Of course...

A little omission of one word does make a difference. I suspect most realized I meant 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Which of course is impossible given the propensity of politicians to place profit above public interest. Particularly our politicians.

As for the chartered and private jets, well, every little bit helps, doesn't it?

Al Gore had a similar problem with regard to the pharmaceutical companies and their right to profit off the AIDS drugs in Africa.

He was, as they say, talking out of both sides of his mouth. And he appears to be doing the same here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Your whole post was about the atmospheric level, not emissions

That's why you measured it in ppm all the time. No-one measures the carbon dioxide emissions in parts per million.

Maybe you don't realise how difficult it will be to get the level down to 350 ppm. It could take decades of reductions of 80% in the CO2 emissions, compared to the current emissions levels.

From the IPCC AR4 figures, used in this page, we currently emit 7.2 billion tons of carbon per year; vegetation and land use change absorb 1.6 billion tons per year of that, net, and the oceans another 1.6. So the net increase in the carbon in the atmosphere each year is now 4 billion tons. If we cut the emissions by 80%, to 1.4 billion tons, and the absorption rate stayed the same, it'd be a net decrease each year in the atmosphere of 1.8 billion tons - under half the rate it's currently increasing at. So since it's 23 years since the level was 350 ppm, it'd take about 50 years to get back to 350 ppm.

The people aiming for 350 ppm are ambitious. But it's worth aiming for, in my opinion.

[wildflower]

14. But soundbytes are unfortunately a necessary tool...

in order to make the public understand and get the government to do something. Especially when the other side tends to throw out soundbytes that I hear people in real life repeating, like "Drill here, drill now, pay less."

So I applaud and promote them when I hear them.

[MasonJar]

3. Thank you, Mr. Gore, for once again putting the future of civilization

ahead of everything else in your life. If only there were more like you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Uncle Joe]

5. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Old Coot.

[Jakes Progress]

7. He just keeps getting better and better. nt

[sagetea]

8. bumper sticker time

"Mother Nature does not do bailouts" k&r

[dana_b]

10. The last line of the article bothers me

"The United States has said it is committed to reaching a deal in Copenhagen as long as other major polluters such as China and India do their part as well. "

As long as? Why can't we just do it whether or not the other countries do it? Yes, we all NEED to do it, but it shouldn't be a contest of "well, if they're not doing it, we're not doing it". We could be the leaders on this - if we choose to do so.

[happygoluckytoyou]

11. 10%... not enough!!! BUT A START!!! we need a start... any REAL start...

start shows we can talk and discuss....
start shows that we have a chance......
start shows that we understand the issue TO SOME DEGREE.....

it won't DO in the long run, but to those who DON'T GET IT, a start is MORE THAN WE HAVE TO WORK WITH RIGHT NOW ! ! !

[lib2DaBone]

15. Of Course Mr. Gore wants everyone to back this...

the wealthy Wall Street Bankster/Gangsters will trade these energy credits on the world market for profit! And the public will pay at the pump.

Now that they have bankrupted the conventional banks and Mortgage Industry... it's time for the Banksters to move into new.. profitable areas. If you have any doubt.. just do a Google search and see who trades "Drilling Rights" and Oil Leases!

[Optical.Catalyst]

17. PepsiCo, Nestle, BP ? These companies' products cause tons of carbon pollution

They pollute the atmosphere with green house gasses and leave the cleanup to future generations. Asking them to contribute part of their profits to combating global warming won't work. Asking them to limit their use of dirty fossil fuels won't work either. They make more profit by ignoring green house gases.

Caps on carbon pollution will only work in the short term, the long term problem of energy production and global warming will only be solved by the government making petroleum and coal so expensive industry will be forced to switch over to clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

[Odin2005]

18. "Nature doesn't do bailouts.", LOL, good one Al!

:-)

[ohio2007]

19. he won't go after the "Chairman of China" so his arguement is moot

Cap and trade for the US only isn't going to fly.