Oh seda Kyoto protokolli...

Eile läks see tühine plaan siis ikkagi käiku, kuid nagu kirjutab Samizdata blog on sellel ettevõtmisele tõsiseid puudusi:

Over 150 of the world's countries are not participating in Kyoto cuts of greenhouse emissions. Only 35 countries have pledged to make greenhouse cuts. Only two of the EU15 countries are on track to meet their Kyoto commitments. Italy, a signatory to the treaty, says it won't seek further greenhouse gas emissions reductions after 2012.

Saab näha, kui mitu Euroopa riik on suutelised Kyoto protokollist kinni pidama ja kui kaua ILMA, et tehtaks mingeid muudatusi või järeleandmisi.

Daniel Drezner viitab enda blogis Kyoto jõustumisega seoses kolmele artiklile, millest kõige huvitavam oli vähemalt minu jaoks New Republic'is ilmunud artikkel metaani (samuti kasvuhoonegaas) õhku paiskamise vähendamisest, mida ma (me?!) aga lugeda ei saa, sest on mõeldud ainult ajakirja tellijatele, seega tsiteerin tsitaati:

You'll hear a reprise of outrage that George W. Bush withdrew the United States from Kyoto negotiations. Here's something you probably won't hear about: the multilateral greenhouse-gas reduction agreement George W. Bush approved a year ago. The world's first international anti-global-warming agreement to take force is not the Kyoto treaty. It is a Bush Administration initiative, and you have not heard a peep regarding the initiative because the American press corps is pretending it does not exist....

Reporters who write reams about carbon dioxide rarely mention methane, and some environmentalists become actively upset when the potential for methane reduction is raised. Why? Because the United States is the world's number-one emitter of carbon dioxide. (At least for the moment; if current trends hold, China will pass us.) Keeping the focus on carbon dioxide is the blame-America-first strategy. The European Union, on the other hand, is a leading emitter of methane, given the natural-gas energy economies of many Western European nations. Talk about methane reduction makes Europe uneasy. In the regnant global warming narrative, the United States is always bad and the European Union is always good. Raising the methane issue complicates that narrative.

Huvitav, n'est pa?

Üks kokkuvõtlikumaid artikleid on saadaval Economist'ist, kuid üks huvitavamaid kirjutis kasvuhoonegaaside vähendamisest ilmus ajakirjas Wired ja puudutab tuumaenergia rolli meie planeedi päästmises:

Burning coal and other fossil fuels is driving climate change, which is blamed for everything from western forest fires and Florida hurricanes to melting polar ice sheets and flooded Himalayan hamlets. On top of that, coal-burning electric power plants have fouled the air with enough heavy metals and other noxious pollutants to cause 15,000 premature deaths annually in the US alone, according to a Harvard School of Public Health study. Believe it or not, a coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radioactive material than an equivalent nuclear reactor - right into the air, too, not into some carefully guarded storage site. (And, by the way, more than 5,200 Chinese coal miners perished in accidents last year.)

Burning hydrocarbons is a luxury that a planet with 6 billion energy-hungry souls can't afford. There's only one sane, practical alternative: nuclear power.

Artikkel on pikk, kuid huvitav ja kajastab paljusid tuumaenergiaga seotud probleeme ja võimalusi s.h. ka siin blogis varem mainimist leidnud "pebble-bed" tehnoloogiat.