“To hold global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels deforestation must be cut to half by 2020…” — so we are told by the the U.S.-based Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests (reported here).
If we believe some credible sources of information (and apply the half-and-half logic), a ’4 degree rise’ in globally averaged gridded temperatures will create hell on earth, which can only mean that a ’2 degree rise’ will create half that hell.
In March this year, Johann Hari was doing something George Monbiot did once upon a time ago – speak refreshingly on environmental issues. We learn what one of his interviewees told him:
'key architect of REDD' - Dan Nepstad
At the national level, the US government wrote to appropriate ~2 billion USD towards the forest-protectionist REDD for 2011. The money would go to certain countries which in return,would not do something, i.e., cut down trees, which they might do, if the money was not given to them.
Lord Monckton points out to us that Wikileaks revealed “how much bullying and arm-twisting the administration of Barack Obama in the United States applied to various countries around the world so that they would (and did) sign up to the Copenhagen climate accord”.
Frannie and Ed in the Age of Stupid
So one might wonder: how is the Copenhagen accord important? That piece of scrap is a non-binding accord, for the ‘conference of parties’ at Copenhagen (the version which decisively “tipped into the gulch”), just a hasty fig-leaf to paper over the partie hontuese of colossal failure, to be taken ‘note of’, so that the foolishly oblivious can go home, their innocent green hearts not wrenched out.
By now, this is about the third time science journalist Fred Pearce has tried his hand at spinning Amazongate. Why may we wonder, is this hobby horse being flogged back to life?
The US Environmental Protection Agency says its authority to regulate environmental CO2 rests on the scientific veracity of the Nobel-prize winning IPCC reports. As a federal agency, the EPA can be fully expected to preserve its own right to regulate the environment. However, getting the science right, is as important for this very science-driven policy-making agency. This is because the EPA claims so steadfastly that it is the science that lends weight to its own authority.
Now, the question is: if there is a conflict between getting the science right and preserving its own regulatory authority, which path will the EPA take?
The answer is evident from its ‘defense’ (page 21 – PDF document) of the IPCC’s Amazon statement.