30. Mitigation of carbon emissions to reduce global warming

Why Cutting Carbon Emissions is not Enough

The threat of more malaria has been used to argue for drastic carbon cuts.

The only trend that changed was carbon emissions, which fell.

And because methane is a much shorter lived gas than CO2, we can prevent some of the worst of short term warming through its mitigation.

The returns such projects could generate go beyond addressing carbon emissions.

Their contribution to total emissions will rise accordingly.

There are two basic instruments to reduce carbon emissions and thus mitigate global warming.

The so called emissions trading system aims to control carbon emissions by allocating tradable permits.

Such taxes play a crucial role in cutting the carbon emissions that cause climate change.

Taking the massive over allocation of carbon emission permits out of the ETS will be vital.

And, unlike carbon cuts, this is a solution that developing countries would be likely to embrace.

Put another way, for each person saved from malaria by cutting CO2 emissions, direct malaria policies could have saved 36,000.

Just before the meeting, China announced a substantial cut in the increase, although not the level, of its emissions.

Japan has published its proposals for major carbon reductions.

Capping emissions means, effectively, ending this success story for hundreds of millions of people.

There is just one factor that keeps increasing our carbon emissions. It is not at all obvious to anybody how to convert CO2 to area.

Europe needs fiscal consolidation, reductions in carbon emissions, and a strategy for economic growth.

But energy consumption and thus carbon emissions rise with per capita income.

A second major policy thrust is a cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions.

Decades of talks have failed to make any impact on carbon emissions.

When we power our computers and lights, we are unaware of the carbon emissions that result.

For example, China s per capita carbon emissions are more than four times higher than India s.

After all, a lot can be done without a binding agreement that sets national targets on carbon cuts.

Attempts in 2010 to rekindle commitment to a global carbon emission deal have failed.

We decided to use the Gini coefficient, a common measure of income inequality, to measure inequality in carbon emissions.

This makes the cost of reducing carbon emissions much larger than it needs to be.

COPENHAGEN A sense of panic is setting in among many campaigners for drastic cuts in global carbon emissions.

In Kyoto, leaders committed to a cut of 5.2 below 1990 levels by 2010.

Vehicles cause nearly a fifth of New York City s CO2 emissions.

Acting on their own, nation states can successfully address neither tax avoidance nor carbon emissions.

Cutting carbon still costs a lot more than the good that it produces.

Worst of all, they carry large and unsustainable costs in terms of carbon emissions.

And if you restrict carbon emissions without providing affordable alternative energy sources, GDP will falter.

Or your resolution may have been more altruistic to help those in need, or to reduce your carbon footprint.

How, then, can we sustain worldwide economic progress while cutting back sharply on carbon emissions?

Likewise, when politicians fret that we will lose a significant proportion of polar bears by 2050, they use it as an argument for cutting carbon, but forget to tell us that doing so will have no measurable effect on polar bear populations.

Furthermore, given that deforestation accounts for as much as 20 of the emission problem, carbon storage is as important as carbon cuts.

Consider California, which at the beginning of this year launched a cap and trade system that aims to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

This would not cut carbon emissions spectacularly, but nor would it be a spectacular waste of public funds.

Some argue that the choice between spending money on carbon cuts and on direct policies is unfair. But it is a basic fact that no dollar can be spent twice.

As much as we would like to believe otherwise, the fact is that carbon emissions won t be lowered by a deal.

Importantly, the new research shows that adaptation would achieve a lot more than cuts in carbon emissions.

Extremely expensive cuts in carbon emissions could mean more malnourished people.

There are two fundamental reasons why a focus on reducing carbon emissions is the wrong response to global warming.