Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Post Carbon

U.S. signs up for Copenhagen Accord

By Juliet Eilperin

The United States pledged Thursday to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 compared to 2005 levels in the context of an international agreement, though it made its commitment contingent on passing a comprehensive climate bill.

The Obama administration submitted its reduction target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat under the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding deal brokered by the U.S. last month at the U.N. climate talks.

The commitment states America will cut its emissions "in the range of 17%, in conformity with anticipated U.S. energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the Secretariat in light of enacted legislation."

Under the deal President Obama helped secure in Copenhagen, major emitters of greenhouse gases are expected to "inscribe" their reduction targets by Jan. 31. Any nation has the option of associating itself with the accord after that deadline, but experts will be looking to see what pledges the world's biggest carbon polluters make by the end of the month.

"The U.S. submission reflects President Obama's continued commitment to meeting the climate change and clean energy challenge through robust domestic and international action that will strengthen our economy, enhance our national security and protect our environment," said Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy on climate change, in a statement. "We expect that all major economies will honor their agreement in Copenhagen to submit their mitigation targets or actions as provided in the Accord. And we urge all other countries to convey to the Secretariat their desire to associate themselves with the Accord so that its landmark provisions can be implemented."

By

Juliet Eilperin

 |  January 28, 2010; 4:41 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Lincoln hits back at LCV | Next: Osama's global warming plan

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



where is the senate vote ratifying this treaty...
again obama thinks he is a king instead of the dunce that he is...
agreement without consent should be equal to impeachment...

Posted by: DwightCollins | February 1, 2010 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

expecting any hard news on the global warming fraud from the Post is wishful thinking as long as Juliet Eilperin continues with her whitewashes. If you want to know what is really happening, read the London press. It's night and day.

The warmers don't care about reality. These are the same people that a few hundred years ago were killing people for saying the earth was round and rotated around the sun.

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | January 31, 2010 8:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Julian8 asks “can the conservatives who insist that global warming can't possibly be happening provide a model that predicts what "normal" temperatures and precipitation would be, and then confront it with the data and show that the model is confirmed?” The answer is that his question displays a misunderstanding of how science now works. In the days of Aristotle, science consisted of developing a hypothesis and performing experiments to prove it true. Bacon turned all of that around and began the road to development of the modern scientific method. We now propose a hypothesis and perform experiments to demonstrate that it is false.

Those you call deniers have done that; the literature is replete with examples of failure of the models that attempt to attribute the ongoing warming of the climate to the influence of carbon dioxide. In fact, the models do not even attribute much of the warming to carbon dioxide, they call for a positive feedback mechanism wherein the small warmth increase caused by carbon dioxide causes extra water to evaporate. The extra water vapor then causes additional heat accumulation, which causes additional warming ad infinitum. The hypothesized increase in the concentration of water in the air is what causes the bulk of the higher projected temperatures.

The other possibility is of course, that the additional water vapor would cause increased cloudiness, which would cause reflection of incoming sunlight and cause climate cooling. This seems more likely to me and a lot of others.

That is one of the predictions of the AGW hypothesis that has failed to materialize. The concentration of water vapor does not appear to be increasing. When the hypothesis fails, regular scientists modify it to try to find a model that reproduces reality. This group, the Warmists, refuse to do that. They continue to maintain that their hypothesis is correct and that those who disagree are on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil, or whoever.

Now, we have revelation after revelation of impropriety inside of the IPCC. The IPCC is, after, all a United Nations program, we should not be surprised to find that it is corrupt. We have accusations (apparently founded) of manipulation of the temperature data, reports of imminent demise of Himalayan glaciers (apparently based on little more than a rumor) predictions of the end of the Amazon rain forest (apparently based on a paper by an activist working at WWF) and others that the Post studiously ignores, but which will not go away. The whole thing is falling apart.

By the way, I am not a denier. Please call me what I am an apostate heretic

Posted by: snorbertzangox | January 29, 2010 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

They're not "climate deniers," they're "disinformers" who equate ideology with science. I'd tell 'em to go to hell, but they're already there.

Posted by: Bugs222 | January 28, 2010 11:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Juliet,

How ironic, only two months after I sent you an email complaining you gave too much heed to AGW Deniers with their "major stories" and "scandals" like Climategate, etc., a Denier complains that you are not paying enough attention to them! Certainly you cant please everyone, but it seems everyone is mad at you...

Please continue your reporting, I certainly don't think you are biased, so please don't try to compensate to please the Deniers. I know them and they are never satisfied - give them an inch, and before you know it you'll to admit the Earth is flat!

C

Posted by: khripin | January 28, 2010 10:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen, http://www.coolforsale.com
Buy now proposed a "New Year's gift '. A rare opportunity, what are you waiting for?
Quickly move your mouse bar. commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, coolforsale will provide service for you all, welcome to
1. sport shoes : Jordan ,Nike, adidas, Puma, Gucci, LV, UGG , etc. including women shoes
and kids shoes.
2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts, Bape T-Shirts, Armani T-Shirts, Polo T-Shirts,etc.
3. Hoodies : Bape hoody, hoody, AFF hoody, GGG hoody, ED hoody ,etc.
4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans, jeans,
Bape jeans , DG jeans ,etc. NHL Jersey Woman $ 40NFL Jersey $35 NBA Jersey $ 34MLB Jersey $ 35 Jordan Six Ring_m $36 Air Yeezy_m $ 45 T-Shirt_m $ 25Jacket_m $ 36,Hoody_m $ 50 Manicure Set $20
Fordetails,pleaseconsult,
http://www.coolforsale.com

Posted by: fyhstyetrujykderytrjy | January 28, 2010 9:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Ms. Eilperin,

In contrast to JTM, I'd like to thank you for the posting. The U.S. has the right to join the climate accord, and it's useful to know that conditions have been agreed upon that would allow that right to be exercised, pending Congressional action. If the bulk of the American people agree with JTM, they can vote for Congressional representatives who will defeat the cap-and-trade proposals (or the other types of proposals that have been submitted). So it's a small step, and it's not activism to inform people about it.

I would ask one question, and one question only, of the people like JTM, who are so upset about the IPCC findings. What is normal weather? To be more precise, can the conservatives who insist that global warming can't possibly be happening provide a model that predicts what "normal" temperatures and precipitation would be, and then confront it with the data and show that the model is confirmed? Anyone who tries to actually look at the data will have a hard time coming to any other conclusion than that global warming is a serious problem.

Julian

Posted by: Julian8 | January 28, 2010 9:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Juliet Eilperin,
Why are you so biased in your reporting on the theory of Man-caused Global Warming? Can you remember the actual moment in your life when you decided to become an activist instead of a journalist? How can you stand behind and support such a Hoax? I know you work for the “Planet Panel” (?) and probably wouldn’t have a job writing for the post if you reported objectively. But In the last couple of days two major stories broke about Climate Change and you just ignored them.


Gene J. Koprowski from Foxnews.com also reported yesterday that A United Nations report on climate change that has been lambasted for its faulty research is under a new attack for yet another instance of what critics say is sloppy science -- guiding global warming policy based on a study of forest fires. The assertion in the 2007 IPCC Report to the UN was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist.


A week ago, Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press reported that Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to issue an apology. The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 — hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates.


As a reader of the Post (and your articles in particular), I am very disappointed with your journalism. Please help restore my confidence in people and start reporting objectively on this issue. People’s jobs at power plants and electrical companies are in jeopardy. Thousands of families could be left in the dark if all of the facts and opposing views are not presented to the American People. I leave you with one question… Are you an activist or a Journalist?

Good Night,
JTM.

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | January 28, 2010 9:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company