Japan Dumps 2020 Goal In Favor Of Pilot Carbon-Trading Program - Reuters

[hatrack]

TOKYO - Japan will start a trial system for carbon trade this year, Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said on Monday, unveiling a climate change policy that set a goal for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but stopped short of what environmentalists say is key.

Japan will aim to cut its emissions by 60-80 percent by 2050 and announce an interim target sometime next year, Fukuda said in a speech one month before hosting a G8 summit, where global warming is high on the agenda. Tokyo will also contribute up to US$1.2 billion to a new multilateral fund with the United States and Britain that will help developing countries fight global warming, Fukuda said.

The world's fifth-largest emitter, Japan estimates it can cut greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent by 2020 from current levels, Fukuda said, in a nod to pressure to set a firm interim target as host of the G8 summit next month. "When talking about the near future, we no longer have the luxury of encouraging others or spending time playing a game of setting targets for political propaganda," said Fukuda.

Environmentalists, however, were disappointed. "The G8 leaders need to make concrete steps forward to a low carbon world, and Japan's Prime Minister Fukuda needs to push hard to trigger that leadership," said Kathrin Gutmann, WWF Climate Policy Coordinator, in a policy statement. "In this light, Fukuda presents only a blurred vision and the lack of a 2020 target for emissions reduction is utterly disappointing," Gutmann said in a statement.

EDIT

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48711/story.htm

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Carbon trading? You mean "paying poor countries to let us burn more coal".

--p!

[excess_3]

2. .. paying -->the leaders< of poor countries

along with certain ex-politicians
in rich countries ..

[Dogmudgeon]

4. When you're right, you're right

And you're right.

'Cause we're gonna burn us some coal.

--p!

[tom_paine]

3. Translation: They couldn't make the goal, now they don't even have to try.

n/t

[Zachstar]

5. Envrionmentalism is being thrown out the window.

Lets see what is the other element AH desperation!

Coal use is going to GROW MASSIVELY for the next 20-30 years unless.

A) We get fusion

B) They figure out how to burn salt water (The radio wave breakup into hydrogen thing)

C) Nanowire solar systems really come online and are able to absorb vast amounts of the spectrum cheaply.



BTW did I mention 5 years?


Folks we mise well start facing that two bit treaties and "goals" are going to do NOTHING but make the process go a tad but slower.

We need A B or C because no other nonfantasy system can be built fast enough or cheaply enough.

[GliderGuider]

6. It puts a knot in the pit of my stomach

To hear you refer to these as "nonfantasy" systems. It emphasizes how close to the edge we are when our only hope for technical salvation is in "solutions" with such low levels of readiness.

I've been crucified as a Grinch before for saying this, but I really hope we don't achieve cheap fusion. As a species our track record of wisdom is so very poor. Would we be more circumspect with fusion than we've been with other high-density energy sources? The thought of humanity in possession of such a potentially planet-altering form of energy makes me tremble for the remaining species on the Earth. I think the only damage such a development would redress is CO2 emissions, and that's far from the only devastation our high-energy civilization has wreaked on the world.

[Zachstar]

7. Grinch is a vast understatement.

How sickening and without education you say such stuff.

How many times do I have to say environmentalism dies in the face of desperation? You don't want cheap energy fine? I'm sure the trees just love to be chopped down and burned in steam generators when oil reaches 300 USD. (Likely far before that) Im sure earth does not mind Coal use exploding.

Frankly I don't give a rats ass about the "Human Impact" argument. There is no such thing as lack of human impact unless there is no humans PERIOD. And By the time there is no humans there is little else still around on earth.


Right now earth needs..

1) Coal to be useful only in non power system (Economically)

2) Massive amounts of power to begin the process of turning back the clock of hundreds of years of coal and oil use.

The reason we need active restoration is because we do not yet have the ability to cheaply match farming with hydroponic farming buildings yet. LEDs and better construction material could make hydroponics good but that will take atleast another decade or 2.

Otherwise we could have all the power in the world and that will mean shit if crops fail.


Now I know you are worried about more population explosions but it has been proven time and again that better countries economically produce less offspring. And on top of that better education will mean less turn to having children by mistake.

It aint going to happen in the oil age.

[GliderGuider]

16. I know, it's a very unpopular sentiment.

However, I continue to maintain that there is no scenario for a high-energy human civilization that doesn't pose a lethal risk to the rest of the ecosphere. Fusion just poses a different, not a lesser, threat.

I=PAT

Fusion is definitely a quantum leap in "T" that enables a rise in "A" even with a decline in "P". The only sure-fire recipe for a sustainable human presence on the planet involves a reduction in "I", which will only come from a reduction in all three other terms. If we don't achieve that voluntarily, it will be done for us by Mom Nature. At this point I'm pretty sure fusion would only be another part of the problem.

[Zachstar]

17. Or we dont get fusion and cut down trees and scrape every bit of coal to survive?

Is that what you want?

Are you naive enough to honestly think that humans will just slowly vanish away while the birds sing in the beautiful tree. And the streams of fish stream along without a care?

HELL NO

The tree is going down the birds eggs is going to be taken the fish is going to be either blown out of the water or caught with nets. The tree and nest dries and is thrown into a steam generator while a desperate family eats eggs and fish for the first time in days.

By the time we lose a billion people biodiversity will be greatly reduced. Entire ecosystems will be lost. The ocean will be almost devoid of fish (Oh BTW Whales)

By the time we get to two billion earth will be a wasteland.

Stop thinking that way. Fusion is going to help save what is left. Whatever problems it gives we will have a HELL of alot longer to deal with them.

[GliderGuider]

18. Yes, that's what will happen.

Do I want it? Of course not. I understand the deadly combination of human nature and culture well enough to know that the loss of high EROEI energy sources will cause us to turn to more damaging sources.

I don't want that to happen, but I see no way of avoiding it save the development of fusion or similar high-return energy sources. I was an eager proponent of fusion for many years, until I began to understand the interconnected ecological aspect of what's happening right now. That new perception caused me to wonder what the hidden or secondary costs of things like fusion power might be. My conclusion is that despite the possibility that fusion might have less direct environmental impact than other sources, the secondary impact of increased human activity remains in direct proportion to the amount of energy provided.

It's a horrible conundrum, because the best result I can see is that fusion would simply stave off the inevitable ecological collapse for a few years or at best a handful of decades, while we complete the ravaging the land and ocean biomes. I have no faith in humanity's ability to prevent that final outcome through cooperation or cultural evolution if enough energy is available to complete the project. Human wants will always outstrip the ability of the ecosphere to fulfill them, and the more energy we have available, the easier and higher the overshoot will be.

I have no particular desired outcome, because for me any outcome I desire must be possible. I see no possibility for a good outcome from a high-energy scenario, so I put my faith in a general raising of human awareness within an environment of gradually declining energy and an increasing fragmentation of civilization.

[Zachstar]

19. Well if I felt the same way you did I sure would not want to stick around.

You are a sad strange person and I hope you get your head on straight at some point.

Humanity will be fine.

Earth will be fine.

Nothing is easy.

So spare me the stoner bullshit and stick with the problems at hand. We got a serious situation NOW without two decades to think about it.

Do you

A) Understand that oil economy is in decline period. Like the sane people here at DU and work for a serious solution

OR

B) Spout conspiricy theory (It is teh speculators!!111) and try to pass on bullshit.


Too many people here on DU try to use this forum as their hatefest for Fission or Humanity which is helping nobody. The explosion of coal use is going to drive the climate to ruin.

[GliderGuider]

21. Thats an odd response.

Of course I understand oil is in decline. I'm one of the more vocal proponents of Peak Oil around here. There are very few conspiracies in the world, and Peak Oil is sure as hell not one of them.

I also don't hate humanity. I think right now is the most exciting period in human history to be alive. I want humanity to continue to be a positive presence on the planet for many millennia to come, but I have some misgivings about how we're trying to arrange that outcome. I'm working for solutions to ours dilemma, but mine are not technical. Others are doing that part of the work, and more power to them.

We disagree about the appropriateness of some approaches, but that's fine. Your characterization of me as strange is understandable, but I assure you I'm anything but sad. I'm totally exhilarated these days.

[kristopher]

22. That simply isn't true!!

"...Human wants will always outstrip the ability of the ecosphere to fulfill them, and the more energy we have available, the easier and higher the overshoot will be..."

People routinely have controlled population when there was more than ample ability to bring more children into the world. We not only have children in relation to our resources (the basic thought behind your view), but (this you need to incorporate) we view children AS a resource. As long as they give us a positive return on our investment in them (such as in an agricultural society) we have more of them. However when labor becomes highly specialized and we are not only required to invest greater and greater amounts of our resources into raising the children to be productive, but to make it worse, the resultant family structure returns less and less directly to us from our children.

Result: declining population rate and finally declining population. (Harris, Cultural Materialism: The struggle for a science of culture, 1979)

[Zachstar]

25. Bingo!

[GliderGuider]

26. I don't see the connection you're trying to draw.

Declining birth rates in the West are still going hand in hand with rising per capita consumption. Birth rates in the developing world are increasing even in the face of resource scarcity. Regardless of whether children are viewed as a resource with diminishing marginal return, a population needs a certain base of physical resources to sustain itself, and right now populations are continuing to rise in the face of both expanding and static/declining physical resources.

There is no current evidence of humanity voluntarily controlling its numbers to fit within the resource base. Perhaps there isn't a general perception of limits at this point, but certainly high-growth nations in Africa are very aware of local resource limits. You might conclude that the value of the extra kids outweighs their perceived cost, but if we are entering a regime of biophysical limits to growth that perception will only last so long. Do you think we will see frank and rapid population reductions when there is a more generalized perception of resource limits? Will they be voluntary?

[bhikkhu]

27. Questioning your population model:

The suggestion is:

* labor becomes highly specialized, and

* the training of labor (resources invested in raising children to be productive) requires greater investment, so

* children are seen as less of a resource, therfore

* declining population rate.

If I read it right (and I haven't read the book you mention). But aren't the first two facts basic to the industrial revolution, which essentially began our current population explosion?

I admit that the result is not in dispute - economic development leading to stable or declining populations has been well documented - but I haven't ever read the cause you give. It doesn't seem to fit.

[kristopher]

28. Yes, you've parsed it correctly.

What doesn't fit?

[bhikkhu]

29. That the first two facts began with the industrial revolution

Populations exploded under those conditions for over a hundred years before they stabilized.

edit to say: I have no grand theory as to the cause and effect myself. The one convincing argument I have read is that the education of women, regardless of other factors, leads to predictable population stabilization. But even there, strong correlation doesn't strongly explain a cause.

[GliderGuider]

30. A bit of elementary number-crunching seems to support your position

According to global population figures compiled by Dr. Angus Maddison, the world population increased from 225 million in year 1 to 603 million in 1700. This is an average growth rate of 0.0575% per annum, during a period when children should have been seen as a relatively "high-return" resource. In contrast, during the period from 1950 to 2007 the population growth rate never dropped below 1.1%.

The period since 1950 was the height of global industrialization. According to kristopher's apparent interpretation of this aspect of cultural materialism, birthrates should have been lower during this time than in the earlier unindustrialized period. In fact they are about 20 times higher.

Birthrates have been declining recently, but there's no support in the historical record for kristopher's hypothesis of the different return on investment in children being the cause.

In fact, it looks to me like increasing resource availability and better health care are the initial drivers of population growth, followed by a decline due to the education of women. Given the relatively modest recent decline in global population growth rates (from a high of just over 2.0% in the 1960s and 70s to 1.15% today for a drop of 50%) it seems as though it will take a much more severe correction to drop us back to a more sustainable long-term growth rate of less than 0.1% -- which is less than a tenth of today's rate.

I think that only global resource depletion can (and will) accomplish this.

[kristopher]

31. I don't believe you are accounting for the proper variables.

For example; in just your first offered set of numbers:
"the world population increased from 225 million in year 1 to 603 million in 1700. This is an average growth rate of 0.0575% per annum, during a period when children should have been seen as a relatively "high-return" resource."

What culture are you discussing? The Chinese? The Japanese? Eastern Europe? South and Central America?

And what period in each culture are you examining?

What we are doing is forming a global confederacy. We have no previous model for that; however we do have models of individual geographically constrained cultures achieving stability of growth to resources. Also there are instances demonstrating the utility aspect of deliberate control of reproduction; such as elite linages and family structures that are designed to reduce the number of heirs and ensure concentrations of wealth continue to be concentrated.
At that time, the cost of reproductive control was extremely high; most often involving either traumatic assault or poisoning to induce abortion of the female; or, the practice of female infanticide. (1 boy+ 100 girls = high rate of growth // 1 girl + 100 boys = slow rate of pop growth).

The answer, in other words is to be found in the behavior of individuals faced with economic decisions. The question implies, and I assume you are rejecting, is can we bring the the entire world to the level of cultural complexity where the benefits of labor specialization begins to accrue to the point where (for example) state/business interest accept responsibility for the elderly while the children are otherwise employed.

Meanwhile, in Bangladesh raising a child that will care for an elderly parent is still requisite. Considering the high infant mortality rate, the best chances of having a child to live to care for you is to place several bets.

So the 'cure' isn't to fall back to a post collapse, bucolic lifestyle; that requires lots of children and large extended families. The 'cure' is to figure our a way to bring everyone on the planet to a level of engagement with their world where they are properly rewarded and cared for, for their efforts - without depending on children. Japan has been experiencing a declining rate for quite some time now. People don't have to come anywhere near our level of technological complexity for this to start affecting a culture; so we don't have to follow the energy path of the US to see this decline take place in places like India and China.

Environmental degradation is also closely related to the same type affluence and technologically complex culture. The ecologicl behavior forms a definite U curve Where degradation is present and increasingly worse, until a point of (fairly low) GDP is reached and then it starts to climb again. A large part of this curve is felt to be associate more with ignorance and corruption than any intrinsic reason associated with actual gains in GDP - in other words, if the country is well governed, then the environmental degradation isn't a given..

We are already seeing the environmental push in China, but the population controls imposed by the government are accomplishing the same reduction already - people are fined heavily for having extra children. That's just a top down version of the same hypothesis.

Let's see what happens in India in the next 15 years. They are just starting to weave their existence into a technologically complex unit. If that trend continues, will the rate of population growth decline?

I see our real hope in closer cooperation and development of (real) shared benefits around the globe. If we can produce the energy from renewable resources (and I believe we can) and if we can establish at least a somewhat justly governed planet, then it might be possible.

Let's watch.

[GliderGuider]

32. OK, let's look at just Western Europe over the last 2000 years

Maddison's data set breaks out global regions very well, so we can look at just Western Europe -- the cradle of much of the modern global culture.

From years 1 to 1700, Western Europe's population grew by 0.07% per year. From 1820 until 1973, with the exceptions of WW1 and WW2, their population growth was around 0.7%, or ten times as high as the historical average. Since 1973 it has declined to 0.2% per year, which is still three times the historical average.

It looks to me as though you are trying to defend your position based on only 30 years' worth of recent data, while hand-waving away the previous 2 millennia (and especially the 150 years from 1820 to 1973. You accepted bhikku's interpretation of your position (labor becomes highly specialized; the training of labor requires greater investment; so children are seen as less of a resource; therefore declining population rate), but the numbers -- even with the cultural restrictions you insist on -- don't appear to support it.

It looks to me as though other factors are at work, and either Cultural Materialism's explanation for population growth is suspect, or your interpretation of it is either flawed or poorly communicated.

Could you point me to a passage in Harris' book that supports this view of demographics? I now have the book, bought on your recommendation. I went through it again last night looking for the background for your position, and couldn't find any. If you could point me towards the relevant explication I'd appreciate it.

[kristopher]

34. That's difficult.

I'm not quoting I'm synthesizing from the book and a full undergrad curriculum.

Since the logic involved is crucial, so I'd suggest a close reading of the entire volume with focus on the explanations of linkage between production-reproduction. Whet your appetite by checking for Marx and Malthus in the index.

To respond to your comments, I'm not sure what you mean by I'm dismissing the previous 2000 years worth of data.

You are looking at what happened over a long period of time and arriving at a conclusion. But what is the question your conclusion is an answer to? I suspect it isn't "how many children would it have been possible to produce in that same period?"

Does the number of actual children differ?

Why?

During the past "30 years" you spoke of what has happened to the cost of NOT having children?

In an earlier post, I mentioned the price paid in earlier times for avoiding population increase - it was drastic and it was personally extracted from the female of the household. Has that changed?

Did we have the labor specialization and integrated technological system that exists today where social security and health care for the elderly are considered societal responsibilities?

[kristopher]

35. Factor in the cost of birth control. nt

[GliderGuider]

33. I'm not sure how we got off onto population issues

My post that you replied to didn't mention population growth at all. I simply said, "Human wants will always outstrip the ability of the ecosphere to fulfill them..." You don't need a growing population for that to happen, just a continuous expansion of the "wants" (as opposed to the needs) of the existing population. Any additional population growth merely ices the cake. We see one example of this in the pre-industrial deforestation of Western Europe even in the presence of very low population growth rates.

Demographic considerations are essentially moot IMO so long as the human desire for the satisfaction of wants is accepted as a birthright. If we can change our culture to take that desire out of the equation (i.e. we fully accept the idea of limits to growth in both the physical and psychological realms), we may be able to approach sustainability. I have seen precious little evidence of any general acceptance of this world view in modern scientific cultures, though there is a small swelling counterculture that embraces the idea.

[kristopher]

36. It is directly related.

You point to a snapshot of Europe as a proof of your statement, but what about Japan? Same problem, different outcome. The Japanese were faced with exactly the same threat, but they recognized it and responded with legal policies that results in them having the most forested advanced country in the world. IF similar legal measures had been taken in Europe, would the result have been different? I suspect they would.

Your understanding of the relationship between population growth and resource use seems to focus on values. That is part of the equation, but it is only one possible part of a feedback loop. To make sense of it, you need to place that part into its proper context within the loop. Same recommendation - closely read Harris.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. "Crucified as a Grinch"

Wow! Can you imagine the Passion as a book by Dr. Suess?

The Grinch on the cross, with Max and Cindy Lou Who dressed as Roman soldiers?

I do not like you, Jesus Christ,
And if you want, I'll say it twice
I do not like you on the cross,
I do not like your Dad, the Boss
Though loaves and fishes may be nice,
I do not like you, Jesus Christ!

--p!
Going to hell for sure.

[GliderGuider]

15. ROFLOL

Very nice!
:rofl:

[kristopher]

9. Renewables can do it.

Would you agree that with cheap storage, renewables can provide for home and personal transport? Solar, augmented by wind supported by cheap storage are the necessary ingredients, right? Figuring money is no object, you can go out right now and easily get somewhere between 80-100% off the grid right?

Mass produced lithium batteries and mass produced solar PV, mass produced solar thermal and mass produced home geothermal heat pumps; and we are most of the way there as we size each system for each home. Mass produced lithium batteries for EVs also, and mass produced EVs and we really really are almost there. Community scale and large projects of wind and solar feed a grid balanced by CAES on natural gas (70% reduction in fuel use from excess wind and solar production stored as compressed air).

It will work.

No coal.
Diminishing nuclear.
Very little natural gas; which we can get from renewable resources; no matter the scepticism of many here. I mean we have a lot of waste that is processed in this country, and we have a lot of farm waste that should be processed. These CAES could also run on biodiesel.

Remember the grid is only for minimal support for what your home system can't do.

Demand creates supply. Supply builds this infrastructure.

And everything is ready to deploy now. All that is required is to create a demand that will build the manufacturing base to reduce price.

[Zachstar]

10. There is nothing crazy about Nanowires and EEstor so id go with those.

Nanowire solar has shown to be FAR cheaper and safer to produce per watt because of the ability to absorb much more of the spectrum.

Li-Ion batteries suck as a semi-recent plant fire showed when the world was without a major supply of laptop batteries. Even tho the tech has been around for many years.

I'll put my faith in either EEstor or other types of cheap batteries for load balancing and storage.

[kristopher]

11. If they are ready and can be mass produced, I'm in.

If not I say let's start with what we have - it will do the job.

This is going to take some strong government action to steer this mess, we need to be organized and active politically.

They keep talking about an "appollo project" for energy; We Must Hold Them To It.

[Zachstar]

12. No Thanks im not ready for the astounding amount of cost and pollution involved in current methods.

Jeez just give it 5 years. If fusion is not on the fast track by then everything else will be.

#1 Nanowire research enabling absorption of much more of the spectrum.

#2 EEstor Generation 2

#3 Fuel cells (With the help of nanoparticles) finally able to serve as a battery cycle (Along with cracking of water which is simple)

If you want the whole "Solar our way into the future" this stuff is what you want. Not nasty ass current PV tech that is beyond expensive and polluting.

[kristopher]

13. Good, improvements should come along, but we don't wait.

Now is the time to start moving in a purposeful way. There are nanotube SI LI batteries with 10X the storage of current LI also in the pipeline. Let the competition loose! We need to build a regulatory system for them to compete in.

How do you think we should craft policy to make this happen? What laws are needed?

[Zachstar]

14. Laws and budget urging the navy to step up the pace on the EMC2 program plus.

10 million contract for .gov energy fuel cell storage.

10 million contract to US automakers to replace .gov cars with those fitted with fully electric motors with EEstor batteries at under 30 thousand apiece.

10 million contract to the company with the best LED based (Tube lights are hard to dispose of because of toxic mercury) cheap farm hydroponics to provide part of the food supply the .gov consumes to reduce costs overall.

10 million for a MAJOR plant to produce algae based biodiesel to run the nations tanks and another 10 million for another MAJOR plant to produce jet fuel for the military.

And turn them loose to compete for the contracts.

[kristopher]

20. That's a start...

I'd mandate a rapidly increasing percentage of personal transport vehicles sold MUST be EV. (5% 1st year, 10% 2nd year,
15% 3rd year, 30% 5th year, 45% 7th year 60% 9th year 100% 11th year and thereafter. "work vehicles" would follow a slightly different schedule that was determined by biofuel ramp up.

On the 20th year, the use of petroleum as transportation fuel to be banned.

If the technology is guaranteed that kind of demand, it will respond and (if gasoline prices stay above $3) probably penetrate the market as fast as they can bring production online.

A strong carbon tax somewhere in the pipeline that goes to assist purchase prices of EV in first 5 years.

Accelerated depreciation for all infrastructure improvements and capital investments in the associated technologies. This is especially important for the electric storage technologies now in place since we want the makers to build facilities that we hope will be outmoded in 5-8 years.

Major funding for smart grid and grid infrastructure improvements.

Streamlined regulatory approval processing for proved renewables.

Accelerated depreciation on renewable facilities.

Low interest financing provisions for all infrastructure development projects. (this would be achieved by granting long term power purchase agreements from utilities for power providers)

R&D funding in speculative technologies. The more basic stuff will get done by the companies if the above are implemented.

The above is the heart of our "Apollo Project"

I know you like fusion, but I take it that it still isn't ready, so I'd view it as a goal to consider it a replacement for nuclear fission. That allows time and inspiration for pursuing the technology. We are going to need some heavy generation for industry and until something better comes along, nuclear looks to be it.

[Zachstar]

23. To respond to your points.

* Impossible after the crap over ethanol laws.

* Impossible due to aircraft being unable to effective use EV on a large scale for decades.

* No comment

* Will not work

* Contracts

* Agreed

* With contracts perhaps

* Agreed

* Sounds ripe for political problems

* Agreed

* What Apollo project? Apollo was a disaster in the end because we are not going to be back on the moon till 2020.

* Can't replace fission with alt technologies unless they go up by an nth of efficiency and prices reduced by a HUGE amount. Beyond even nanowire tech.

[kristopher]

24. Not impossible at all, everything is ripe for this sort of policy program

There is a standard example used regarding the effort to transition - the moon program. YOU may think it was a flop but most people view it as a crowning effort in our cultures (species') history.

I don't think you understand the term personal transport sector - that means Privately own vehicles (POV). Also remember the penetration numbers are based on percentage of yearly sales. It certainly can be done. As to banning fossils, that is a progressive process similar to rising cigarette taxes.

All of the policies on that list are good and workable programs that today's energy market bring well within the realm of reality.

The replacement I referred to for fission nuclear is fusion. It isn't ready to roll out yet, is it?