Pirate's Cove

Obviously, their new approach is to practice what they preach, right? Right????? Uh, no

The first Kyoto Protocol commitment period for developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ends in 2012 without any sign of agreement on the next phase.

Or any measurable success. The vast majority of countries failed to meet their goals as set by the Kyoto protocol, but still managed to damage their economies while enacting draconian regulations and subsidizing failed “green” projects.

As we near the post-Kyoto 2012 deadline, there is a ground-swell of support from many climate activists for a new approach to emissions reduction. The failure of the Copenhagen and Cancun summits to agree on robust new measures has seen many disillusioned climate activists looking for a better answer.

I have the answer: they should all cut back their own greenhouse gas output: give up their gas burner and purchase a hybrid or electric car, walk or bike as much as possible, turn the thermostat up to 80 in the summer and 60 in the winter, replace their stoves with solar powered stoves, purchase solar panels for their homes, refuse to have children, and all the rest…..what’s that, Mr. Climate Alarmist? You can’t afford to do that? It would mess up your lifestyle? But I should change my life? Uh huh.

The Protocol has led to many countries using political manipulation and creative accounting to fudge the books on their greenhouse gas emissions. One such example is countries with pragmatic targets that relate to what is politically acceptable, not what is necessary to meet the emissions reduction objective to avoid climate change.

So countries are cheating? Who would thunk it?

Alternatives to countries measuring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions include the concept of carbon stocks, where countries agree to leave coal (and other emissions producing resources such as oil) in the ground, and/or measures that restore and protect forests in perpetuity.

This is because many critics of the Kyoto Protocol point out that the focus on international emissions trading is not the real problem. The problem is that countries are extracting huge quantities of non-renewable fossil fuel resources that cannot be compensated for, because fossil carbon and active carbon are very different.

The Warmists will also surely go bat guano when the rolling blackouts turn the heat off, leaving them shivering with an indoor temperature of 40 and unable to have their fancy schmancy cocktail parties where they complain about deniers.

The solution put forward by the Sierra Club is a move away from coal to ‘grasping the opportunity for expansion of renewable energy initiatives including solar and wind power’.

The report rejects the myth that the world needs coal and states, “Down one path lies a dangerous future of impoverished people and an imperiled planet. Down the other is a new way forward made possible by harnessing the limitless and cost effective power of the wind and the sun.”

So, it seems that the alarmists are going to focus on eliminating coal, which provides roughly 50% of the world’s power supply. Just to play my well worn cassette, none of them ever suggest that they themselves practice what they preach. They just want to make others pay for their unhinged and anti-science beliefs.

Again, I support the ideals of cleaner, cheaper, alternative energies. I’m not a big fan of coal and oil, which are inherently dirty. But, I’m not going to call for reducing the use of them and doing away with them till we actually have those alternatives ready, which they aren’t. They aren’t cheap, they aren’t, for the most part, reliable, and they aren’t ready for prime time. Hydroelectric is reliable, of course, there are only so many places they can be built. Wind turbines tend to freeze, and only work during times when the wind is between 5-25 miles an hour. And require enormous maintenance and open areas. Solar needs large swaths of clear cut area, and creating the panels creates environmental pollution. They also tend to be blocked by the same climate alarmists who call for them.