Let's shred this POS.
A Modest Sacrifice for the Climate
By David Warren
Which 88 per cent of the economy would my reader most like to kiss goodbye?
I ask this question only as a practical matter, after reading the summary of a Japanese study on the economic implications of the "global warming" fraud. Noting the goal, "seriously" stated by the Group of Eight, to cut world CO2 emissions in half by the year 2050, a couple of techies in Japan (Norichika Kanie of the Tokyo Institute of Technology and Yasuaki Hijioka at the National Institute for Environmental Studies) sat down with their calculators, and coolly worked out what emissions reductions will be required to meet this goal, on an equal per capita basis, around the planet.
The 88 per cent is the figure for North America. The Europeans get off relatively easily: they only have to shut down 83 per cent of their economy; the Japanese 85 per cent. Only 35 per cent of the Chinese economy will have to go. And good news for India, much of which is still living in the Arcadian low-carbon past. The Indians get to gun their carbon emissions by 137 per cent over the next four decades.
With the insouciance of a charming zombie, Mr. Kanie added that he did not think the goal out of reach. "I think it is a matter of changing lifestyle and not necessarily in an austere way," he said. "For example, I often ride my bike instead of driving a car." He thought the government should provide more bicycle infrastructure.
Thank you for that suggestion, Mr. Kanie. After an incident I witnessed on the street the other day, I myself wish to be rid of cars. And after another incident on the street the day after, I would also like to be rid of bicycles: so I can go Mr Kanie one better.
The rest;
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/a_modest_sacrifice_for_the_cli.htmlHe obviously pulls his umbers from his ass. Reducing co2 emissions in
NO way requires an '88% reduction of the economy'. For one, he's narrowed the criteria of reducing GHG emissions to reduced driving and industry in an immediate time frame.
Would any other DU'ers who understand AGW like to help me tear this apart for the sake of posterity, and to create a resource on the internet to debunk the BS?
Throw helpful search terms in like "fraud" and "bullshit" while we're at it.