• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • New Global Warming Targets That Miss the Mark

    At the G8 Summit in Japan, there was much talk about global warming, and considerable self-congratulation over the agreement among member nations to reduce greenhouse gas emission by 50% by 2050. There were also predictable cries from environmentalists that this target was not sufficiently stringent or legally binding. But negotiations about future targets miss the point. Rather than setting new goals, member nations should be looking at whether current goals are being met, and if not, whether a different approach is warranted.

    Under the Kyoto Protocol, the multilateral treaty that the United States has not ratified, the other members of the G8 (United Kingdom, Italy, France, Japan, Germany, Russia, Canada) as well as other developed nations committed to an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 compliance period. The compliance period has already begun, but most nations are not even close to being on target to meet this goal. Ironically, many are seeing their emissions on the rise since the treaty was signed, and several at a faster rate than those the United States, which nonetheless still gets criticism for not being a signatory.

    The reality is that ratcheting down emissions from fossil fuels is proving to be prohibitively expensive, and setting even tighter standards doesn’t change that. For this reason it is a dead end, and new approaches should be pursued, such as efforts to develop new technologies.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to New Global Warming Targets That Miss the Mark

    1. zap Louisiana says:

      In Louisiana we drill and refine oil.The climate here is the same as it was the day i was born 48years ago!There is no warming here.Louisiana proves global warming is bullshit.I think its a yankee or left coast disease!Global warming was created to give looser liberals who got collage degrees for reciting Karl Marx a job.Their scientist are too stupid to create an alternitive fuel for oil!

    2. zap Louisiana says:

      Save more energy than curly light bulbs,TAX computer use!

    3. Greg K says:

      Actually there is some evidence that the Nuclear power producers began it as a pretext for selling more plants in England.. Just what I hear..

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.