Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
A new report from Oxfam has been released that states that the UK and the US must cut its output of carbon dioxide by 45% to prevent the catastrophe that awaits us. In addition, the poorer nations of the world would need to receive $148 billion US (90B £).
There does not appear to be any new scientific evidence of global warming in this paper. Instead it references the 2007 IPCC findings and then studies that financial impact of those assertions.
carbon dioxide, catastrophe, CO2, emissions, EPA, Europe, Greenhouse gas, IPCC, Japan, Oxfam, poverty, tax
The UK needs to cut greenhouse gases by 45 per cent by 2020 to prevent the world “lurching into climate disaster”, according to a new report from Oxfam.
This would mean the UK would have to increase its current target to cut greenhouse gases from 34 per cent on 1990 levels to 45.3 per cent by further improving energy efficiency and relying more on renewable energy.
Both Europe and the US would need to cut emissions by 45 per cent by 2020 – almost double the current EU target of 20 per cent and more than three times the most likely target to be set by the US of 14 per cent. Japan would have to deliver a 56 per cent reduction, although the country recently announced it would not commit to more than eight per cent.
At the same time it will be necessary to pump more than £90 billion into helping poorer countries cut carbon emissions and adapt to climate change to prevent “climate catastrophe”.
Aid agencies and developing countries are putting increasing pressure on rich nations to sign up to tough emissions targets and a “financial mechanism” that can provide money for poorer countries to adapt to climate change. One suggestion is for the money from carbon markets to go towards the adaptation fund or for a tax on international aviation and shipping to provide the money.
Phil Bloomer, Oxfam’s Campaigns and Policy Director, … “Rich countries have the money and the technology to pull us from the brink of no return. They have a double duty – to deliver massive emissions cuts at home and provide money for poor countries to tackle their emissions too,” he said.
“It is unrealistic and immoral for rich countries to expect developing countries to cut their emissions first when it is developing countries who are most vulnerable to climate change and need to develop out of poverty. Every country must play its part.”