The European Commission has agreed to reduce carbon emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. The agreement was announced at a climate change summit in Brussels. EU president Angela Merkel said Europe would cut its emissions even further, to 30 per cent below 1990 levels, if the bigger global producers of CO2 such as …
I've been curious about several things so I did a bit of digging, one thing I found was a list of temperatures from greenland for the last 49 thousand years. Turns out there have been plenty of times in just the past ten thousand years when the little island has been far warmer then it is now (by a good 2 to four degrees.)
Makes you think when you see data like that what's really going on in the world. Hmmmm I wonder. Perhaps people should stop listening to government and global warming movement scientists and start looking at hard numbers.
But no, nevar, the media, scientists, global warming monitoring expecters and the like all need the fear generated by the end of the world far more then realism.
Did you know mosqutos thrived in cold climates? Shocking.
Also apparently it's getting hotter on Mars! Damn those pesky martian factories ¬.¬ we'll need to put a ban on them.
Generators vs. distributors
Tejas already has a separation of producers and distribution (for the most part). TXU may own both the lines and the generators, but you can still buy your juice from somebody else and get it pumped into your house. Has this led to a reduction in rates? Not really. Has this led to a greener production path? Not really. What it has done is to give raise to a new beauracracy, one that turns out to have some serious ethics problems and a toothless enforcement arm.
Maybe the EU can look at our example and figure out something different. Not that they will. They'll invent something just as bad.
Of course, the "new" TXU (assuming the buyout goes through) is taking a greener stance, and promising a rate break, but that's all political posturing. In the long run, they still need to generate more electricity than they are now, but haven't presented any solutions. Wind alone won't cut it, solar is still a pipe dream, wave action "seems like a good idea". That leaves us with coal, natural gas or nuclear. I do believe I hear the blueprints being rolled out for the long abandoned expansion of the South Texas Nuclear Project. At least that's green for about 30 years, then it becomes Nevada's problem.
The "for the most part" part. Those of us served by municipal energy providers don't have a choice. Austin has a "Green Choice" option whereby a select number of customers get to pay a higher "fuel recovery" cost right now, with the promise that it will stay there for the next ten years. Austin is part of a wind farm project in West Texas, but that only generates a fraction of the total output, and I think that the Green Choice customers are actually using more juice than it generates.
RE: Of Late
Maybe you should try reading up on global warming instead of assuming things. Scientists have never said that there hasn't been points in our history where the Earth has heated up -- infact, quite the opposite. They acknowledge there has been warming periods.
Furthermore, most of those warming periods are followed by ice ages.
Scientists believe that we are in a warming period now, the problem is that we're speeding up that natural process and it's happening much faster than it should.
Even if it was natural, warming of the Earth causes massive changes. Species die out, new species appear. Diseases spread faster. Coastlines shrink. And so on... regardless of how things have been in the past, forced global warming by our emissions will result in a drastically different world.
The important part about Global Warming that appears to be overlooked too often by "Green" campaigners is that CO2 only makes up a very small percentage of green house gasses in the atmosphere (around 0.59%), and that the vast majority of CO2 is produced by the Sun heating the Oceans, not from the tiny comparable amount produced by Man. Leafs that fall from trees and decompose produce more CO2 that all human output; so how do you combat that?
The reality is that we are starting to fully understand that living on an expanding/contracting molten ball that does not stay in the exact same orbit around its nuclear reactor life-giver is not without its risks. Now we know these things, the billions of pounds being invested in "reducing CO2" would be better spent planning for the inevitable change in climate associated with our location.