Wall Street Journal is reporting that the EU and 13 other countries have come to an agreement on the "cap" part of shutting down the economy--I mean reducing greenhouse gases (ghg):
Thirteen of the world's largest nations and the European Union plan to embrace "an aspirational goal" of reducing emissions of global-warming gases by 50% by 2050, according to a draft declaration by world leaders set for release next week in Italy.
The draft, seen by The Wall Street Journal, sets up a framework for detailed negotiations on the issue ahead of a final, United Nations climate conference in December. But it leaves key areas in the climate-change debate in dispute. The draft is subject to change ahead of a meeting of global leaders starting Wednesday.
Fifty percent of what is the question. The EU wants it to be 1990 emission levels, the U.S. wants a later date.
The question that always seems to be left out of these discussions is: where are we going to get the energy to run our economy if we can only put out half the greenhouse gasses we did in 1990 (or whatever date they choose)? Yes, we can get a little more power from solar energy and wind, but not enough because they are unstable, expensive, and unreliable. And nuclear seems to be off the table. So basically we're talking about shutting down economic activity. That's the only way to do it. That means more poverty, less jobs, and less prosperity for you and your children and your grandchildren.
All for a theory and computer models that have so far, not been very accurate.
Comments