What if I told you that governments around the world were spending almost $1 trillion dollars a year to subsidize activities that are driving global warming? What if I told you that the leaders of the major countries had committed to phase-out these fossil fuel subsidies in 2009 but they hadn’t really done much to follow through on that commitment? What if I told you that countries had a chance to send a clear signal right now that it is time to finally phase-out these destructive subsidies?` World leaders have a chance at Rio+20 to stop subsidizing fossil fuels to the tune of nearly $1 trillion and make an important dent in reducing global warming. And now you have a chance to tell these world leaders that it is time to end fossil fuel subsidies. Join with NRDC, 350.org, Avaaz.org, and other leading groups in telling world leaders that it is time to #endfossilfuelsubsidies.
Here is why this is so critical and why important progress can be made at Rio+20.
Nearly $1 trillion reasons to change course. Countries are spending around $1 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels. This is 12 times more in subsidies than are being provided to renewable energy* (see figure). Given tight budget times and the need to address global warming, subsidizing activities that are heating the planet just doesn’t make sense. As Christine Lagarde the Head of the International Monetary Fund just said:
Countries must change course in Rio. Right now countries are meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to set the agenda for international action on several critical issues. And next week over 110 world leaders will arrive to (hopefully) make firm commitments on specific actions they’ll take to address global warming, spur more clean energy, and reduce deforestation. Wouldn’t it be nice if one of those commitments was to finally get out of the business of subsidizing our planetary destruction?
Fortunately, these world leaders have a chance to do just that at Rio. They can commit clearly and loudly to finally phase-out fossil fuel subsidies by 2015 at the latest, they can commit to report on those subsidies in transparent and credible fashion, and they can work with other countries to ensure that the poor aren’t harmed by this transition. This isn’t rocket science as environmental, faith, development, trade, indigenous peoples, youth, and health organizations recently signed a letter demanding exactly this kind of action out of leaders at Rio.
But some countries are standing in the way. Unfortunately some countries are blocking progress on this issue at Rio. Not surprisingly Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC are doing everything in their power to block efforts to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. After all, they really don’t want the world addressing global warming and moving off the destructive use of fossil fuels. And other countries are joining into the mix to stop progress. Some are even proposing that we need to eliminate the important subsidies that are being provided to build a clean energy future, such as through wind and solar.
Luckily a few countries like the U.S., New Zealand, Switzerland, Costa Rica, and the E.U. are standing up. But will they stand strong and will President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil make sure that this issue doesn’t get dropped from the final Rio outcome document? Countries are meeting in the next couple of days to decide the fate of the commitment to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies at Rio. Rio must deliver on this issue.
The public strongly supports world leaders in committing to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies at Rio. Over 1 million citizens throughout the world have sent a clear signal that it is time for world leaders to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies, as our friends at 350.org and Avaaz.org have helped mobilize.
We need your help to send a clear signal that it is time to end fossil fuel subsidies. Join NRDC, 350.org, Avaaz.org, and many others in telling world leaders that it is time to end fossil fuel subsidies. Tweet or post on Facebook: #endfossilfuelsubsidies. Go to endfossilfuelsubsides.org to learn more about this issue and how you can add your voice to the citizens demanding action at the G20 and Rio on fossil fuel subsidies.
---------------------------------
* The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that $66 billion in subsidies were provided to renewable energy in 2010. Note that the IEA estimate for fossil fuel subsidies only includes consumption subsidies in 37 countries so their value is lower.
Follow Jake Schmidt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jschmidtnrdc
Yet NOAA reported CO2 is continually increased 2ppm /year during that time. If CO2 is driving temperature, why hasn’t the temperature increased on the GISS graph?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
As one who has a degree in mathematics, I find myself having to say yet again what I've said many times: The mathematical and scientific illiteracy of the arguments of climate science deniers is astounding.
That is, specifically here, it is mathematically and scientifically an astonishingly illiterate claim that there is no causal correlation simply because a relevant continuous-function-based graph trending upward over the long-term does not have a positive slope at every point (it contains some parts that either are flat or are sloping downward). (Learn or review some calculus if you don't follow.) Yet I again and again see deniers put forth this utterly illiterate claim as if it were an argument.
Getting rid of fossil and nukes breaks is not enough,
we need to fund green energy for at least 20 years to finish off fossils and nukes.
There are external costs, damage to the commons, to our environment, and health, that the market does not value.
The market is not benign.
Roy Spencer, Ph. D. - "Latest Global Temps"
Henrik Svensmark - "global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning"
Henrik Svensmark - "A stellar revision of the story of life"
In short, your references aren't based on reality–and they violate the laws of thermodynamics to boot.
This cooling idea is complete fantasy. In 1998 the Earth experienced the warmest year in recorded history. In 2005 that record was broken. In 2010 the record was once again broken. The decade of the 2000's was warmer than than the 90's which were warmer than the 80's, which were warmer than the 70's. You have a series of increasing temperatures. The word most people use for steadily increasing temperatures is "warming". The word deniers use is "cooling". That's why we call them "deniers".
Recently some have claimed that man made CO2 will cause the oceans to become acidic and kill all shellfish. 0.008% of the atmospheric CO2 is man made. Most of the terrestrial CO2 has always been stored in the ocean. Far stronger acid is constantly contributed to the oceans by benthic thermal vents with no affect other than supporting a few unusual life forms. The vast buffering minerals accessible to the ocean maintains balance.
They should read
Total Percentage of Man Made Atmospheric + Marine CO2 = 0.00016%
Man Made Increase of Atmospheric + Marine CO2 = 0.00075%
Scary stuff .
You need to recheck your math and data. According to Vostok data, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere before the Industrial Revolution was ~280 ppmv (not 380 ppmv) and hadn't gotten above 300 ppmv in over 800,000 years prior to the Industrial Revolution (e.g. Petit et al. 1999: http://goo.gl/xPtIQ; Luthi et al. 2008: http://goo.gl/z0cfu). According to direct measurements at Mona Loa, the concentration of CO2 is now 396.78 ppmv (NOAA ESRL data: http://goo.gl/HrfxB). That means that there has been ~116 ppmv of extra CO2 added to the atmosphere (396.78 ppmv - 280 ppmv). Isotope analysis shows that all of that extra CO2 came from burning fossil fuels (Ghosh and Brand 2003: http://goo.gl/GQiCI). So the percentage increase due to fossil fuels is 41.4% (116 ppmv/280 ppmv) and the percentage of human-caused CO2 is 29% (116 ppmv/396 ppmv).
PS. Satellite measurements directly show that increasing levels of CO2 are trapping increasing amounts of heat in the atmosphere (Harries et al. 2001: http://goo.gl/YvOKz; Chen et al. 2007: http://goo.gl/iS5pp). In short, real-world measurements show that CO2 concentrations do have as much effect as its magnitude suggests.
Of course there is still the problem with pollution but that can be resolved with the use of bio filters(livers/kidney).
The trick to many of the worlds problems economically would be to use charities to put into place an artifical life support for the planet. Doing so fixes many of the problems, creates jobs, spurs economic growth and innovation. Since it is in fact all part of an integrated plan it is foolhardly to explain it all.
One aspect to be considerd is that space and water are simply different enviroments. The practices done on earth would be part of the gate way into space.
But unfortunately science says I dont exist.
We are presently experiencing the results of unreasonable oil prices. It is absolutely stupid to further decrease the sources for every product made. When I say everything, I mean EVERYTHING from the food we eat to every component on the Space Station. I challenge anyone to find a single item that is not directly related to fossil fuels..
We have at a minimum of 90 years of fossil fuels within the United States. I am certain we can develop a reasonable and cost effective alterative for the world dependency on fossil fuels.
‘Green’ people need to face reality for what they are attempting to force everyone to suffer. ..for no sane reason..
Everything that is happening has happened before. Since co2 is considered the main reason for global warming, you and every thing breathing air should stop breathing. That may do more to reduce global warming than terminating the dependecy on fossil fuels.
As in the all the major scientific bodies in the US and the world? The same institutions whose collective expertise and knowledge inform modern medicine, technology and engineering?
"need to face reality for what they are attempting to force everyone to suffer. .."
Clean air, energy independence and a livable future for our children?
"for no sane reason.. "
The reason is called global warming—anthropogenic global warming—an issue that threatens the very atmosphere we depend on for life. Doesn't this reason alone, trump money or the short-term relatively mild inconveniences or adjustments we would have to make? Previous generations have made much greater sacrifices for us. We are not asked to do much in comparison, yet our actions will have more profound consequences.
YouTube – “Thermal Depolymerizationâ€
CO2 is not the global warming culprit that we were led to believe. The below theories provide more accurate climate predictions than the IPCC claims and are significantly independent of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The periodic nature of the VOSTOK ice core graph also supports these claims.
Dr Habibullo I. Abdussamatov - "Total Solar Irradiance"
Piers Corbyn - "The Solar Weather Technique"
YouTube – “The great global warming swindleâ€
The only argument in favor of the IPCC theories then becomes the claimed list of prestigious supporters. Nicolaus Copernicus was encouraged by the Spanish Inquisition to publicly denounce his beliefs and agree with a conflicting theory that also had a large list of prestigious scientific supporters. Though in present times, ridicule replaces torture, the IPCC-Global-Warming supporter’s list is analogous to the list presented to Copernicus. A large supportive list usually indicates a lack of supporting evidence.
You can conserve yourself back into a cave and it will have insignificant impact on global temperature or cleansing pollution.
The only real imminent doomsday scenario is that global cooling is coming soon and then there will be no justification for draconian taxation and control (i.e., no more funding).
You must consider the work of
Dr Habibullo I. Abdussamatov - "Total Solar Irradiance"
Henrik Svensmark - "global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning"
if you want to be rehabilitated.