Emissions "Must be cut" by 80% by 2050 says British Climate Change Committee VIDEO>>

With dramatic video of melting arctic ice crashing into the ocean, including *insert metaphor* the fjord in Greenland that is believed to have produced the iceberg that sunk the Titanic, this BBC news package introduces the findings of the British government's new Committee on Climate Change. The committes bottom line conclusion is that assumptions of how much we need to cut greenhouse gasses are out of date and GHG emissions need to be cut by 80% by 2050. Many, such as Lester Brown, say that is target is not ambitious enough and instead emissions must be cut to that level by 2020. There seems to be agreement over the idea that if ambitious targets are not met "the world we commit ourselves to will not be a good one to live in."

via:: Susty.tv

More Debate on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts, Britain and the European Union:
Time for Plan B: Cutting Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2020
British Telecom to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80% By 2020
G8 Summit: US to "Seriously Consider" European Climate Pact

Comments

[cloudy]

I can't get access to the video, b/c I can barely get the articles to move down the screen, in jerks, on my lousy dialup. But there is a HUGE discrepancy b/t the goal of 80% reduction by 2020, and by 2050 (which latter goal the leading climatologist Jim Hansen has, including on Huffpo, cogently argued is insufficient -- if we go that slow we are TOAST, as we need to lower not just emissions, but absolute levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from PRESENT levels, to 350 parts per million CO2 (see 350.org).

As to the goal of 2020 being too drastic (it might not even be sufficient), the point is not to whine about what CAN'T be done, but to do EVERYTHING possible to meet the emergency. Defeating the axis in 1941 was hardly something people could imagine doing in a mere four years, but we just hunkered down and did it, because we HAD to. That's the approach we need to take == doing EVERYTHING we can, and not just getting cold feet and resisting the changes that are simply necessary.

I am not a subjectivist. I do NOT think nuclear energy will be made safe anytime soon, as Obama seems to assume (not so sure about the POSSIBILITY of "clean coal" in medium term). But he is basically right that we need to take the attitude of doing what MUST be done, rather than insisting that it can't be.

[Semaj51]

And how exactly does this committee recommend the reductions over the next twelve years? To meet this goal, we need to immediately start the destruction of our current culture/society and the construction of new towns, cities, transportation, and power sources. It will take "decades" just to construct the new transportation system, let alone the conversion of all the homes, stores, and businesses.

We need to change, but these calls for such immediate, drastic changes MUST also include practical, effective, and political recommendations on HOW....