"The Group of Eight leading industrial nations on Tuesday endorsed halving world emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, edging forward in the battle against global warming but stopping short of tough, nearer-term targets. The G-8 countries — the United States, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Canada and Italy — also called on all major economies to join in the effort to stem the potentially dangerous rise in world temperatures." Go to the link to read more: G-8 endorses halving global emissions by 2050 - Yahoo! News 2050 may be too little, too late, but at least we have global organizations making unanimous decisions that global warming is fact, and action must be taken.
Maybe you could try distorting a few more graphs to make them see sense, eh Tim? Moving averages are over-rated - custom-positioned red dots are the future.
In 2050, every current world leader will be dead. (Probably.) i.e., they might as well have said "never". "Let's put off following a difficult path until it won't affect us." Now THAT'S leadership! Jackasses.
Not only that, but the goals are world-wide "suggestions". There were no numbers set for individual countries. The U.S. ranked #8 of the 8. Since we contribute the most, our goal should be the highest. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on Sunday, called for prudence and thrift in our kitchens, after a Government report concluded that 4.1million tonnes of food was being wasted by householders. He suggested we could save up to £8 a week by making our shopping go further. It was vital to reduce 'unnecessary demand' for food, he said. Meanwhile, the attendees dined on a 6 course lunch and an 18 course dinner while discussing what to do about famine and food shortages. In 2005, at the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, world leaders promised to increase global aid by £25billion a year by 2010 and raise aid to Africa, the world's poorest continent, by £12.5billion. But the bloc of rich nations is only 14 per cent of the way towards hitting its target.
What will the fossil fuel situation be in 2050? What will be left to burn? It looks like nature is helping us more than any organization by limiting the total amount of oil in the earth. It's coal that should be the focus....and China is the CO2 generation leader from coal....and not a G8 country.
I am sorry but these jerks are a bunch of asshats. Nobody eats fried Goby anymore. Poor fella they probably plucked him off a reef. Seriously guys, don't believe this garbage. They are mouthing climate change I am sure most do not believe it.
Well G. W. Bush is taking action....... He is leaving office and taking the V.P. Dick Chaney with him. Of course none of this "goal" is binding on anyone.
Soon to be living in a gated retirement community in South America, complete with non-extradition treaty.:bolt:
There's more than enough fossil carbon available to wreak havoc. We will have to choose to stop using it. If we continue burning all available fossil fuels we'll be well and truly screwed by 2050. It would then be far too late to prevent some very unpleasant changes in climate and sea level. A fair and equitable standard would apply the same per-capita limit for fossil-derived CO2 emission to all countries, adjusted annually for world population. A per-capita limit gives developing countries room to grow and gives everyone an incentive to turn to carbon-neutral technologies. Estimating from the observed rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 we will have to limit total annual fossil-derived CO2 emission to about 14 billion tonnes, or 2 tonnes per person.
G8 failures seem to fall into two categories: first, promise to do too little, and then renege on commitments made; second, promote harmful policies and projects. Following aggressive lobbying by public health groups, the G8 agreed to reiterate its commitment to provide universal treatment for HIV/AIDS. But the rich countries have not agreed to put the money on the table to achieve this objective. Dragged down most of all by the anti-leadership of the United States, the G8 announced a commitment to a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The best science says the world needs at least an 80 percent reduction from 1990 emissions levels by 2050, and very likely more, so the G8 commitment is totally inadequate on its face. The G8 formula is a global cut not imposing particular responsibility on the rich, high carbon-polluting countries. The cut has no clear baseline. 50% of what? 1990? 2000? 2008? The G8 leaders call for opening and deregulating financial markets, even as it is clear that financial deregulation has helped create the current global financial crisis. The G8 leaders call for completion of the Doha Round negotiations at the World Trade Organization, aiming to further deepen reliance on a global food trading system that has driven the poorest people off their land and undermined developing countries' ability to feed themselves. The G8 leaders also call for more aid for food-importing, poor countries -- to be delivered through IMF lending facilities that typically require countries to adopt more of the market fundamentalist mandates that have driven people off the land and undermined governments' capacity to assist the poor and pursue expansionary economic policies.
Yes but eventually they will be the only thing left to burn, and with 6 billion (and growing) increasingly desperate people on the earth, that's what will happen.
Global temperatures have ALREADY increased higher than baseline. Polar ice caps are ALREADY melting. A reduction that gradually increases towards 80 percent by 2050 would result in disaster. In 2009, we should be focusing our planning on how we can REVERSE the warming that has ALREADY occurred.
I don't think you're reading that right. It says we need to REDUCE. That reduction need to come down to no more than 80% of what the levels were in 1990. That would be 20% less than what they were in 1990. Personally, I think the reduction needs to be more and faster.
