U.S. nixes 40 percent cuts at climate change talks

I always try to respond to threads on this when I see them, yet, no one seems to want to discuss this except for one or two people. This bill is going to effect the lives of our children. I suppose some who are "Obama lovers" only want it to pass regardless of how its's written because they see it as a 'victory' for him? Is it really about the planet to them all? Even amongst the people there is political playing, and actually that is dangerous and we saw just how dangerous that is when Bush was occupying the White House. Now partly due to that we will get a watered down version of what we should have gotten, and because that is all they will be willing to do we will have to accept it as not being good enough at a time when not being good enough is detrimental to the sustainability of this planet. I just don't get it.

cont.

Therefore, instead of putting emission targets on these countries there would be reforestation targets placed with funds from the Peoples Carbon Fund being used to oversee the reforestation effort. These targets would be the same as emission targets regarding percentages and time frames, and would also include monitoring to make sure that overlogging is not negating the reforestation effort.

Also in combination with this, a global program to revitalize our land and soil in order to sequester carbon and provide more sustainable agricultural practices in line with water conservation would be established, also respecting the traditions of these areas and listening to the feedback given by farmers in these areas who know the land best.

Sustainable agriculture is the best way to boost productivity while protecting the soil, biodiversity, and the environment while respecting the Earth and also boosting economic growth. This approach will also not sentence farmers to urban living and poverty because their land has been taken by a Monsanto or some other Ag giant to use for profit, or the World Bank for debt.

I believe that these cuts put in place for industrialized nations along withe reforestation/agricultural targets placed for other nations in the required timeframe at the required percentages would do much to keep us from a climate tipping point and should be instituted immediately.

Of course, there are no guarantees and this is really the tip of the iceberg. Population growth has not even been mentioned, as well as also tackling "black carbon" and other greenhouse gases like methane.This of course would also require the cooperation on some level of all nations, but I think cooperation is much easier gained when all nations are treated equitably with none being allowed to exert power over the others.

And to end this, the one word besides reforestation that I have to type that I think will save this planet and us is: SOLAR. Developing countries in Africa are already benefitting from it, and if they can do it, so can the world.

If I could go to Copenhagen in December and plead with these ‘leaders’ to look beyond their petty political differences and trying to grandstand to be ‘the one’ that ‘solved’ climate change to gain accolades or make money from it instead of doing the moral thing to save the sustainability of this planet, I would. But in lieu of that I offer this.

cont.

In addressing climate change effects in areas of indigenous peoples, island nations, and places with primarily agricultural land, it must be noted that the effects are more acute and are now currently affecting residents of these areas with climate refugees already a present concern. Sea level rise is already effecting the Maldives, New Guinea, the Carteret Islands, and other islands in the Pacific, with it also now threatening Bangladesh with a population of over a billion people.

There cannot be a climate accord without addressing the plight of these people and planning for refugees in these areas to have a place to move should sea level rise inundate their homes to the point where they are no longer habitable. This also then places a great threat upon global agriculture which then threatens the global economy and the security of those needing to move.

Therefore, those nations that have contributed little to no emissions to this crisis will need the aid of other countries to secure their ability to live.This also includes the Amazon which is not only suffering from deforestation, but a takeover by oil companies and other industries looking to cash in on the climate crisis. Huge swaths of land have also been deforested to plant GM soy and corn only for corporate profit, and those companies must also be accountable for their emissions and their destruction of a place where carbon sequestration is key to future sustainability.

These areas would then be responsible for reforestation efforts with a cap placed on what could be cut down in order to balance carbon emissions. It makes no sense to plant 100 trees if 200 would be cut down the next day. I firmly believe we do not need an expensive abuse ridden cap and trade system that holds poor nations to the whims of Western corporations looking to abuse it in order to continue to be able spewing the same pollution by saying their planted trees in Indonesia with those farmers seeing nothing from their work.

We need a Global Climate Impact Council

As a citizen of the world tired of watching governments especially the US government procrastinate in providing the adequate leadership necessary to avoid a climate tipping point that would forever change the world our children live in by putting politics over principle, I then suggest a Global Climate Impact Council be established to supersede the governments of the world that are not putting the best interests of our global citizens and our planet first.

This Global Climate Impact Council would be comprised of noted climate scientists, non governmental organizations, indigenous peoples of the world and those experiencing the firsthand effects of climate change currently, and farmers of the world who will be hurt the most by the climate changes now taking place, primarily drought. As those who provide the sustenance for our planet farmers have a distinct insight into the Earth and how best to deal with crises such as these.

This Global Climate Impact Council would meet to set emissions limits and the timeframe they must be met in. The following categorizations of countries would be considered in these emissions reductions in the order that follows:

Industrial nations
Developing nations
Indigenous/island nations

Limits and timeframes would be set based on industrial emissions and deforestation statistics over the last decade in tandem with per capita emissions. The top five countries would then not exactly be just industrial nations if emissions from deforestation, agriculture, etc. exceeded the emissions of other countries. Therefore, the first five nations based on this criteria would more than likely be:

U.S.
China
Australia
Canada (tar sands)
Indonesia (deforestation)

Emissions reductions according to scientists require at least a 40% decrease in emissions by 2020, with a 90% decrease in emissions by 2050. These are then the standards that would be applied to the first five nations, which could then combine fossil fuels emissions, industrial emissions, deforestation rates, and carbon lost through non sustainable agricultural practices as part of that 40- 90% thus not placing too much of a burden on any one categorization, but holding accountable industry as well.

{For example, the US, could then easily make this target of 40% by 2020 by allotting a 20% cut to industry, 10% cut in deforestation, and a 10% cut in carbon lost through non sustainable agricultural methods and other means. This could be accomplished through a massive reforestation effort, putting in place sustainable agricultural and irrigation methods that also limit slash and burn and clearing land for GM corn ethanol as we turn to solar energy, and a carbon tax applied to industry that would be placed in a Peoples Carbon Fund to fund alternate energy sources and other efforts to meet this emissions target.}

"The proposal that is reflected in the Waxman-Markey bill is an enormously ambitious proposal for the United States."
___________________________-
What a sad statement. I really am sorry. I simply can't support this bill 100% percent, and I know it will not be strengthened enough to meet what is necessary. It may pass, but it will not be good enough in the timeframe it needs to be. It will be a hollow victory without the proper emissions cuts and the concessions already put into it. This was our chance, and we are blowing it. Oh well, I guess we will have to hit the streets here. I am fully ready to do so to stand up for the future and my child and I am sick of the political games and all of these groups bombarding me with mail telling me to call my reps to tell them to vote for this. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WORK THIS HARD to have those who are employed by us DO THE RIGHT THING. As an environmentalist I am disappointed. As a citizen of the world I am truly angry.