Inside the Green House: Extent of deception

Here is a story from Reuters on the 3rd IPCC report on global warming. I think it shows the extent of deception on the issue of climate change. I'll point them out as we go.

Humans need to make sweeping cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next50 years to keep global warming in check, but it need only cost a tiny fraction of world economic output, a major U.N. climate report said on Friday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in the third of a series of reports, said keeping the rise in temperatures to within 2 degrees Celsius would cost only 0.12 percent of annual gross domestic product.

Note the cost is only 0.12% of GDP, this is to keep the change at only 2 degrees, and the implication is that it will be much more if we don't pay up now.

--Now I cut this part it's just some words from a guy on the panel from Greenpeace.--

To keep within the 2-degree threshold that scientists and the European Union say is needed to stave off disastrous changes to the world's climate, emissions of carbon dioxide needed to drop between 50 and 85 percent by 2050, the report said.

However, technological advances -- particularly in producing and using energy more efficiently -- meant such targets were within reach, the report said.

Note we need to drop emissions by 50 to 85% also note that they acknowledge that we are already making progress in that direction.

It highlighted the use of nuclear, solar and wind power, more
energy-efficient buildings and lighting, as well as capturing and storing carbon dioxide spewed from coal-fired power stations and oil and gas rigs.

Just try to build a new nuclear plant, and how many acres of land are environmentalist will to give up to fields of solar panels, and senator. Kennedy will never let a wind power farm ruin his view.

The panel also said for the first time that lifestyle changes could help fight global warming. It gave no examples, but IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said his personal suggestions included turning down the thermostat and eating less red meat, which could cut animal methane emissions. "These are lifestyle measures but you are not going to give up anything and you might gain," he told a news conference.

Except a good steak.

Here’s the kicker...

China wanted the IPCC report to exclude language which would promote stabilizing emissions near current levels, in part because of the limited economic studies available. The steeper the emissions cuts, the more costly to the global economy, the report said. The cost of limiting greenhouse gases in 2030 to stabilization" levels of between 445 and 710 ppm (parts per million)CO2-equivalent ranges from a 3 percent decrease of global GDP to a small increase, it said.

Now remember when they said that it would only cost 0.12% of GDP now it 3%?

However, regional costs might differ significantly from global averages, it added. Greenhouse gas concentrations are now at about 430 ppm CO2-equivalent.

Wait Current levels are lower then the goals for 30 years from now? Why is it then that we have to reduce emissions by more than 50%?

my past green house reports:
Twofer
Cow Farts
Global Warming Update