The figures will be astounding if we presume every country in the whole world growing on a “business as usual” basis with a bit of tapering off to stop growing by 2025. Though W has not given any details the New York Times believes he wants to see emissions growing until they naturally stop growing about 2025 and his plan is to derail a Republican move in the U.S. Senate that would try to actually reduce the 2005 level. Of course now that China is the largest carbon emitter Bush will be “helping” China’s economy more than America’s but that bit of stupidity doesn’t surprise me.

The wonderful thing is that in moving from the “growth forever” paradigm, Bush has admitted there is a physical limit and now it’s up to scientists to do the calculations and tell us how many parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere this new official American policy will mean and what that will do to the environment. IT'S OFFICIAL, THE FIGURE CAN BE CALCULATED. CAN SOMEONE SEND BACK SOME FIGURES. . . read more

For over a decade, governments and non-profit foundations in the developed world have been offering large sums of money to developing countries in exchange for tree plantations, also known as “carbon sinks”. However scientists point out that there is a major difference between the kind of carbon emitted from the burning of fossil fuels and the kind of carbon stored by trees... Once out of the ground and into the air via cars, coal extraction, etc., fossil carbon joins the active carbon pool. It will not return to the fossil carbon pool for millennia. So, the carbon absorbed by trees does not zero out the carbon emitted by airplanes... Even if the carbon were equivalent, trees are not necessarily reliable carbon storehouses... when trees burn, rot, or are chopped down, they release any carbon they have stored...

Frequently, carbon sinks displace local populations, generating poverty, inequality, and food and water scarcity. They also drastically reduce biological diversity. In turn, the erosion of resources at every level exacerbates local conflicts. Even more seriously, some carbon offset tree plantations have become an excuse for human rights violations. [More] . . read more

Given geoengineering's increasing visibility, debates among scientists, environmentalists, and engineers are not hard to find. But these debates center on the scientific risks and merits of the re-terraforming proposals. Few people, regardless of position, have focused on a fundamental non-geophysical risk of the method: political control, costs, and stability.

To put it bluntly, global-scale efforts don't happen without global-scale reactions. Should we see geoengineering efforts, there will certainly be struggles over control of the program(s), conflicts over liability for problems, and - most troublingly - independent "rogue" geoengineering projects undertaken in defiance of established guidelines. [More] . . read more

The questions which emerge from these statistics are:

• What are we doing globally to understand and engage with the Chinese world view?
• When will our preoccupation with 'things-US' deflate so as to let us attend to this major discontinuity?

China's burgeoning wealth means it will soon have more millionaires and more foreign currency than anywhere else. It will make George Soros look like a bit player in a 'B' movie. And Bill Gates 'that guy who ran a laundry in Seattle.'! . . read more

By 2020 Australia will be making a major contribution to a comprehensive global response to climate change, including working with our partners on clean energy. Australia will have dramatically reduced our emissions, and communities, regions and business will be actively assisted to adopt the unavoidable consequences of climate change.

Environmental considerations will be fully integrated into economic decision making in Australia, at the household, business and government levels. We will have resilient and innovative water systems that reduce our dependency on climate-sensitive water resources in our towns and cities.

A robust emissions trading system and a suite of complementary measures will be driving a low carbon revolution with Government taking the lead working in partnership with business and the community. Climate and sustainability policy will also incorporate the needs of disadvantaged and low-income Australians. A new dialogue will have been established with our indigenous peoples on our response to climate change, water and sustainability challenges. . . read more

George Monbiot yesterday gave the crucial figures that need repeating. Capturing (+ burying) carbon from existing coal plants (if it works) will cost A$151-259 per tonne of CO2 whereas the Australian Govt is talking about A$20 per tonne initial price for CO2 emissions. The coal burning power stations will always choose to pay $20 or $50 or $100 per tonne rather than install carbon capture systems that will cost $150-250 per tonne.

Dr Ben McNeil, ARC QEII Research Fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre UNSW, gave the crucial evidence. He was chosen by Penny to give the big picture of the science. At one point he asked "why, if the car industry spends 4-5% on research, why does the mining resources industry spend only 0.3%". Because they know carbon capture is not going to work, Ben. Because even if a technological miracle makes it possible it will cost at least an extra A$150-250 per tonne, doubling or tripling the current retail price and that will be more expensive than existing solar, wind, hydro technology.

This is the elephant that Penny Wong and most Australian and British government members are furiously avoiding, planning and announcing new coal burning stations - the British in Kingsnorth and the Australians in Latrobe - even though their scientists are telling them it will always be too expensive to make them clean. It's like they've entered into an international pact with Coal. This is madness and Penny with her calm, reasonable argument is in the middle of it. . . read more

I am confident that if Americans elect John McCain, or the Republicans steal another presidential election, there will be nuclear war in the second decade of the 21st century. The neocon lies, propaganda, macho flag-waving, and use of U.S. foreign policy in the interests of a few military-security firms, oil companies, and Israel are all leading in that direction.

The November election is perhaps the last chance to avoid nuclear war. But the opportunity might already have been missed. The Republicans have chosen as their candidate one of the most ignorant warmongers alive. The Democrats’ choice was between one of the most divisive women in America and a man of mixed race with a funny name. Considering American’s taste for war, the Democratic candidate could fail to defeat the GOP war candidate. [More]

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. . . read more

There is little question that the majority of people on the planet - those who suffered under both the corporate globalization of the Clinton years and the imperial globalization of George W. Bush - deserve something better. However, it is far from certain that social justice advocates who want to encourage a more democratic approach to world affairs and global economic well-being will be able to sway a new administration. On the other hand, the damage inflicted by eight years of neocon rule and the challenges of an increasingly daunting geopolitical scene present a conundrum to the corporate globalizers: Is it even possible to go back to the way things were?...

Battered by losing wars and economic crisis, the USA is now a superpower visibly on the skids. And yet, there is no guarantee that the coming era will produce a change for the better. In a world in which the value of the dollar is plummeting, oil is growing ever more scarce relative to demand, and foreign states are rising as rivals to American power, the possibility of either going ahead with Bush/Cheney style unilateralism or successfully returning to the "enduring and effective" multilateral corporatism of the 1990s may no longer exist. But the failure of these options will undoubtedly not be for lack of trying. Even with corporate globalization on the decline, multinational businesses will attempt to consolidate or expand their power. And even with the imperial model of globalization discredited, an overextended U.S. military may still try to hold on with violence. [More] . . read more