Americans for Energy
        americansforenergy.org

Africa and climate change -- A green ransom

Sept 3, 2009

The Economist print edition

Make the rich world feel guilty about global warming

RICH countries should compensate Africa for all their belching chimneys and exhausts. In a rare fit of African unity, it was decided at a recent flurry of leaders’ meetings that the United States, the European Union, Japan and others should pay the continent the tidy sum of $67 billion a year, though it was unclear for how long. Ethiopia’s prime minister, Meles Zenawi, is likely to lead a delegation of 53 countries (all of Africa minus Morocco) to the climate-change summit in Denmark’s capital, Copenhagen, in December, where he will presumably lodge this demand.

Would the money come, if it came at all, with strings attached or as reparations for damage to Africa’s atmosphere? Mr Meles has made it clear he is seeking blood money—or rather carbon money—that would be quite separate from other aid to the continent. If the cash were not forthcoming, the African Union (AU) might take a case to a court of arbitration and ask it to judge overall culpability for climate change.

The AU says it would not administer the carbon cash directly. National governments would get it. But it is unclear how it would be allocated. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says Africa will be the continent worst hit by higher temperatures. But some bits of Africa may deteriorate more, whereas others may benefit from greater rainfall.

Africa’s demand is high, but there is widespread agreement that the continent should get help to adapt to climate change. Some think cash reparations are the right way to go. Others reckon it would be more practical (and less costly) to help to build sea defences for the Niger and Nile deltas and to protect Congo’s rainforest.

Article

Global Warming
Is not caused by humans.
31,000 Scientists
have signed this petition.
Report       Petition

Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
David Chandler, MIT News Office - May 19, 2009.
To illustrate the findings of their model, MIT researchers created a pair of 'roulette wheels.' The wheel on the right depicts their estimate of the range of probability of potential global temperature change over the next 100 years if no policy change is enacted on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The wheel on the left assumes that aggressive policy is enacted. Image courtesy / MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Article


If global warming is coming is it safer to spend billions trying to stop it (and possibly fail) or should we prepare for it?

Is a Richer-But-Warmer World Better
Than Poorer-but-Cooler Worlds?
Indur M. Goklany1
Assistant Director, Science & Technology Policy, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240.
Ph: 202-208-4951
E-mail: Igoklany@ios.doi.gov
Fax: 202-208-4867

Greater economic growth could lead to greater greenhouse gas emissions, while simultaneously enhancing various aspects of human well-being and the capacity to adapt to climate change.
This begs the question as to whether and, if so, for how long would a richer-but-warmer world be better for well-being than poorer-butcooler worlds.
The Report
Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. The Report




From: Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective