<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: G8 Summit Roundup: Climate Progress Hastens</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/07/09/g8-summit-roundup-climate-progress-hastens/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/07/09/g8-summit-roundup-climate-progress-hastens/</link>
	<description>Environmental Leader</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:25:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Loiz</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/07/09/g8-summit-roundup-climate-progress-hastens/comment-page-1/#comment-136092</link>
		<dc:creator>Loiz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:41:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=17732#comment-136092</guid>
		<description>I would like to point out that the study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and global insurance company Allianz SE was blatantly manipulated by cooking up numbers to lie about the effectiveness of nuclear energy in combating the climate change. See the study page 14 down right:  

&quot;WWF does not consider nuclear power as a viable policy option [..] The indicators emissions per capita, emissions per GDP and CO2/kWh are  adjusted as if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas).&quot;   

In another words: Due to our ideological bias towards nuclear energy, we invent arbitrary numbers to miss-represent reality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like to point out that the study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and global insurance company Allianz SE was blatantly manipulated by cooking up numbers to lie about the effectiveness of nuclear energy in combating the climate change. See the study page 14 down right:  </p>
<p>&#8220;WWF does not consider nuclear power as a viable policy option [..] The indicators emissions per capita, emissions per GDP and CO2/kWh are  adjusted as if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas).&#8221;   </p>
<p>In another words: Due to our ideological bias towards nuclear energy, we invent arbitrary numbers to miss-represent reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter dublin</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/07/09/g8-summit-roundup-climate-progress-hastens/comment-page-1/#comment-135654</link>
		<dc:creator>peter dublin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:30:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=17732#comment-135654</guid>
		<description>Well, there is no doubt that emission reduction could be much simpler - and  without cap and trade!

Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction is achieved by acting on ELECTRICITY generation (coal, gas) and TRANSPORT (mainly automobiles) alone, since these 2 sectors typically (as in the USA) account for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. 

The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:

1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.

2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.

3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.

4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local. Since there is little competition between say utility companies internationally, &quot;best practice&quot; results can be compared and shared.

 

Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.

Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand - together with extensive  -and unnecessary- regulation on what people can or can’t buy and use.

Understanding why proposed Cap and Trade is bad, in USA and elsewhere
 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x&lt;/a&gt;
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Real Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Business Cost — In Conclusion

The Way Forward
  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x&lt;/a&gt;
Introduction — Funding and Impact —No Energy Efficiency Regulation — A New Electric World
Electricity Generation — Distribution
Transport Power Generation — Regulation — Taxation</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, there is no doubt that emission reduction could be much simpler &#8211; and  without cap and trade!</p>
<p>Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction is achieved by acting on ELECTRICITY generation (coal, gas) and TRANSPORT (mainly automobiles) alone, since these 2 sectors typically (as in the USA) account for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:</p>
<p>1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.</p>
<p>2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.</p>
<p>3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.</p>
<p>4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local. Since there is little competition between say utility companies internationally, &#8220;best practice&#8221; results can be compared and shared.</p>
<p>Funding and Impact<br />
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.</p>
<p>Compare with<br />
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand &#8211; together with extensive  -and unnecessary- regulation on what people can or can’t buy and use.</p>
<p>Understanding why proposed Cap and Trade is bad, in USA and elsewhere<br />
 <a href="http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x" rel="nofollow">http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x</a><br />
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Real Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Business Cost — In Conclusion</p>
<p>The Way Forward<br />
  <a href="http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x" rel="nofollow">http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x</a><br />
Introduction — Funding and Impact —No Energy Efficiency Regulation — A New Electric World<br />
Electricity Generation — Distribution<br />
Transport Power Generation — Regulation — Taxation</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: xinunus</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/07/09/g8-summit-roundup-climate-progress-hastens/comment-page-1/#comment-135574</link>
		<dc:creator>xinunus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=17732#comment-135574</guid>
		<description>OBAMA EATS ENDANGERED BELUGA STURGEON WITH PUTIN

Quote: 
Russian agencies, quoting the government&#039;s press service, said Putin treated Obama to black caviar with sour cream, smoked beluga with pancakes and tea made in the traditional Russian samovar, a big coal-fired kettle.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE56657E20090707

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSTRE5661Q520090707

WIKIPEDIA:
--------------
IUCN classifies the beluga as Endangered. It is a protected species listed in appendix III of the Bern Convention and its trade is restricted under CITES appendix II. The Mediterranean population is strongly protected under appendix II of the Bern Convention, prohibiting any intentional killing of these fish.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has banned imports of Beluga Caviar and other beluga products from the Caspian Sea since October 6, 2005.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OBAMA EATS ENDANGERED BELUGA STURGEON WITH PUTIN</p>
<p>Quote:<br />
Russian agencies, quoting the government&#8217;s press service, said Putin treated Obama to black caviar with sour cream, smoked beluga with pancakes and tea made in the traditional Russian samovar, a big coal-fired kettle.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE56657E20090707" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE56657E20090707</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSTRE5661Q520090707" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSTRE5661Q520090707</a></p>
<p>WIKIPEDIA:<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br />
IUCN classifies the beluga as Endangered. It is a protected species listed in appendix III of the Bern Convention and its trade is restricted under CITES appendix II. The Mediterranean population is strongly protected under appendix II of the Bern Convention, prohibiting any intentional killing of these fish.</p>
<p>The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has banned imports of Beluga Caviar and other beluga products from the Caspian Sea since October 6, 2005.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ashwin</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/07/09/g8-summit-roundup-climate-progress-hastens/comment-page-1/#comment-135559</link>
		<dc:creator>Ashwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=17732#comment-135559</guid>
		<description>I had the chance to environmental experts talk at the Commonwealth Club a few weeks ago, and one of them made a really interesting point. Countries like India and China not only worry about their environmental impact, but often times are more worried about their economic and social development, and unfortunately those two notions sometime become mutually exclusive. It&#039;s definitely a thorny issue, but I suppose my point is that I can&#039;t completely fault India or China for not committing, even if in the grand scheme of things, the message it sends is not that great.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had the chance to environmental experts talk at the Commonwealth Club a few weeks ago, and one of them made a really interesting point. Countries like India and China not only worry about their environmental impact, but often times are more worried about their economic and social development, and unfortunately those two notions sometime become mutually exclusive. It&#8217;s definitely a thorny issue, but I suppose my point is that I can&#8217;t completely fault India or China for not committing, even if in the grand scheme of things, the message it sends is not that great.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

