World Leaders Must Not Get Bogged Down In Precise Percentages, Says Tony Blair On Copenhagen Treaty

Speaking in Beijing on Thursday, Mr Blair said leaders should trust in new technologies to put the world on a path to a greener future. The former British prime minister called for a "realistic and practical" deal to be struck at the UN Summit in Copenhagen this December that would unleash the potential of green technology to solve the problem of global warming.

"We need to get an agreement that sets the world on a new path of sustainable consumption without getting obsessed with precise percentages," he said.

Mr Blair, who is working with the non-profit Climate Group to push for an agreement in December, welcomed recent reports that China is considering setting targets that will see its carbon emissions peak in 2030. However he predicted the key to success in keeping climate change below the UN's benchmark 2C would come down to as yet unforeseen developments in greener cars, buildings and power-stations.

"It is impossible to predict now what might happen in 10 or 20 years time," he added, "the important thing is that we reach an agreement that allows China and India, the US and EU to come to a common position - though with varying obligations. "If we reach an agreement that sets the world on this new sustainable path then I think that we can see emissions peak more quickly than many people think."

EDIT

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/6061978/Tony-Blair-Copenhagen-climate-summit-must-not-be-about-percentages.html

The Bushies operate like a mafia family and if you ain't in the family, you are expendable. Dumbass!

"If we reach an agreement that sets the world on this new sustainable path then I think that we can see emissions peak more quickly than many people think."

That is the best display of not-saying-anything that I've seen recently.
:rofl:

Well, I'll take a wild chance and make a few predictions:

1. More people on Earth in 10 years.

2. Higher atmospheric GHG concentrations in 10 years.

3. Lower ocean pH in 10 years.

4. Increased urbanization, on average, in 10 years.

5. Lower wild marine biomass in 10 years.

More to the point, if it's "impossible to predict now what might happen in 10 or 20 years", why bother to have a conference?

I mean, seriously, Tony old chap, what degree of certainty would be necessary to make it possible?

:eyes:

the saying-things-without-saying-things game.

Defined carbon reduction targets? Whoa, hey, let's not get crazy. If we did that, we'll look bad when we fail to meet them. Or worse yet, somebody might get the idea to enforce them. Right lot of trouble that would be!

The leaders talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche.

and over, we see politicians don't know what they are talking about. Why pay attention to ANY politician?? I don't trust any of em!

Science is the way bur, alas, science continues to be manipulated and politicized by both parties.

climate models can't explain today's or previous climates,
unless you input the current climate.

I don't like predictions

The biggest single obstacle to change is the inertia of the current system of central, thermal generation of electricity from fossil fuels. If we look at the behavior of businesses it is easy to predict that, other things being equal, they will pursue options that promise the least risk to their future; and even when all things aren't equal reducing uncertainty is valued highly. It isn't unusal at all for a company to choose a course promising a significantly lower return on investment if that return has a a higher guarantee of actually materializing. The great weight in their decision making attached to reducing uncertainty is the factor that Blair is speaaking of.

The current state of non-agreement between nations should be understood as a decision making environment for businesses that are contributors to GHG emissions. Given the uncertainty of willingness to take coordinated action of CC the businesses are not motivated to change practices. However, if a true agreement is reached that demonstrates to businesses that the global economy is committed to moving to a carbon free energy base, that uncertainty is eliminated.

Once that uncertainty is eliminated, business will commence a search for competitive advantages. While some businesses will find this in practices that run counter to the goal of going carbon free (cheating the system, greenwashing etc) the vast majority will simply move as far as they practically can in the direction they now know is inevitable. As an independent entity, a business doesn't say to itself "Hey the international goal is to reduce carbon by 20% by 2025, so what can we do to cut 25% of our emissions?" Instead they just move as far as they can in the direction of GHG emissions reductions - and increasingly (as options become available to do so) they will totally eliminate their emissions. The result is that policies which articulate ultimately goals clearly and convincingly are likely to result in strong overshoot of interim goals.

This behavior is well documented.