Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Climate change not imminent danger

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC seems to have spilled the beans here:

There is no clear evidence that global warming is an imminent danger to the world, says Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But even so why not continue to cut emmissions even though thre is no clear evidence of danger to the world:

Even so, it would be good for governments to go further with proposed cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions to deal with dire predictions made in a 2007 panel report, he told the Associated Press in an interview on Tuesday.

It would be good? so what, it doesn't really matter, but it'd be good if it happened?

Rudd to decrease emissions by how much?

Almost exactly a year ago, Kevin Rudd supported cutting greenhouse emissions by 25 to 40%:

THE Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, signalled his support for developed countries, including Australia, agreeing to making deep cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions in the next 12 years.

In a significant move last night the Australian delegation to the UN climate talks stated it "fully supports" the proposal that developed countries need to cut their greenhouse gas emission by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020.

But just yesterday, the Prime Minister announced a 5% reduction is his plan on cutting the deadly gas by 2020. So what does 5% actually mean? Bob Brown and the Greens for example, want a 100% reduction.

Well Australa's CO2 emmisions are currently at 326,000 thousand metric tonnes. Which is about 1.2% of the worlds.

If we assume that CO2 has caused 100% of the 0.7 degre increase that we have seen over the past 100 years (extremly unlikely - even the IPCC don't perscribe to this, but still - for interests sake), then australia cutting greenshouse gasses by 5% will result in a decrease of

0.00042 degrees per 100 years, or

0.0000042 degree decrease per year.

Well done Kevid Rudd!!