The US approach to climate change outlined below seems to me to be a more sensible and practical approach than relying on the essentially political/emotive Kyoto Protocol that could still leave us with the effects of climate change albeit slightly affected.August 5, 2005
Department of Energy Releases Vision & Framework for the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program
WASHINGTON, DC -- In a speech before the Climate Policy Center in Washington, D.C., David Conover, Director of the Department of Energy's Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), today announced the release of the department's Vision and Framework for Strategy and Planning report on behalf of Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman. The report provides strategic direction and guidance to the 10 Federal agencies developing new and advanced global climate change technologies.
The Vision and Framework document is organized around six complementary goals: (1) reducing emissions from energy use and infrastructure; (2) reducing emissions from energy supply; (3) capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide; (4) reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases; (5) measuring and monitoring emissions; and (6) bolstering the contributions of basic science to climate change. The document also outlines actions needed to achieve these goals.
"The Vision and Framework is a comprehensive strategy that promotes the use of technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Secretary Bodman said. "It provides guidance and direction, along with goals, to Federal agencies involved in climate change research and development. By bringing together the varied expertise of agencies throughout the federal government and establishing a plan for the future, the Vision and Framework will guide us for years to come."
Mr. Conover said, "It has become increasingly clear that meeting the global challenge of climate change will require development and deployment of advanced technology in the energy field. This Vision and Framework provides an overall strategy to guide and strengthen our technical efforts to reduce emissions."
CCTP's activities form the technology component of a comprehensive U.S. approach to climate change, which also includes short-term actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensity, advancing climate science, and promoting international cooperation. The technologies being developed under CCTP, including hydrogen, carbon sequestration, renewable energy sources, and advanced nuclear and fusion energy, have the potential to transform the way energy is produced and consumed.
The Climate Change Technology Program was established by President George W. Bush to strengthen and coordinate research and development efforts in the climate change arena and to accelerate the development and eventual deployment of the technologies needed to both power economic growth and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
To view the Vision and Framework document, please visit the Climate Change Technology Program website at: http://www.climatetechnology.gov.
Media contacts:
Anne Womack Kolton, 202/586-4940
Drew Malcomb, 202/586-5806
Number: R-05-218
I replied to this thus:
Kyoto has many weaknesses but, at least, it is a small but both practical and practicable step in the right direction. I have looked carefully at this "new" approach. It is a masterpiece of spindoctorate art but promises not one blind thing towards a practical resolution of the problem. In fact, the USA policy is one of making things progressively worse, especially by placing increasing use of fossil natural gas on the agenda. In fact, NG is worse than even coal for greenhouse gas emissions.
I have done some calculations and, from the data available, it would seem that we have to cut fossil-fuel GHG emissions by about 58% just to maintain status quo and about 65% to see a sizeable improvement within a matter of decades. (I wonder whether some UK government scientist didn't do the same for Tony's goal of 60% by 2050???)
To achieve this, we need to take more than a namby-pamby Kyoto or a wordsmith's waffling in the USA. We need to have the courage to do this by, say, 2020 by
a) stopping all fossil fuel power stations throughout the world
b) implementing a maximum of constant and variable renewables power stations, consistent with a reliable supply
c) implementing MOX nuke power stations and fast breeder reactors, with an infrastructure to allow the present electricity supply to be doubled
d) removing all private cars with a consumption > 4 l/100 km from the road
e) encouraging biofuel manufacture, where the resources make it practicable, but not at the cost of reducing food production
f) stopping all fossil fuel consumption in private households for heating or cooking; carbon-free electricity will do the job
g) mandatory thermal insulation to a high standard in all buildings
h) no transport of goods by road vehicles, except in a local radius
i) a high-speed rail network à la TGV for the intercity transport of people and goods, with good RSR-style rail networks radiating outwards from each TGV hub
j) no inland air travel for distances <1000 km; the TGV would be more convenient and faster
k) a 100-200% tax on all air tickets (half deductible for bona fide business expenses)
l) all sports events (athletics, football etc.) must be performed in daylight and all car parking closed for 20 km around (certified handicapped persons excepted), with adequate public transport feeding the sites (also for large exhibitions and other venues)
m) all appliances and light bulbs etc. must be high-efficiency types
n) recycling should be factored according to the holistic environmental impact and not according to the economics (WEEE and RoHS are stupidly worded and will cause more environmental harm than they will prevent)
o) a carbon tax imposed on ALL fossil fuel producers/users of €5/kg of equivalent CO2, including on that needed for non-fuel purposes, such as petrochemicals, plastics, fertilisers etc. and on all fuel losses (emissions, evaporation, leakages etc.)
p) scrap ALL subsidies, world-wide, in all sectors but especially in energy (including food production); economics would go back 100% to the rules of supply and demand.
q) etc.
Tough, utopian, but necessary!
