Commissioner Meglena Kuneva said: "If we are going to "keep the lights on" at Christmas, consumers need to be confident that there are no compromises on safety. Consumers want value for money and choice when they shop around at Christmas but never at the expense of safety. This report is a "wake up" call. National authorities and industry will redouble efforts to crackdown on the gaps and loopholes that can let shoddy goods into shops and our homes. But consumers also need to work to minimise safety risks: so be vigilant, be active and be aware, that way everyone can have a safe and happy Christmas." ... The 3 main problems found were: 25% of lighting chains failed the safety tests for the cord anchorage. Insufficient cord anchorage can lead to the electric wires coming loose with a high risk of electric shock (serious non-compliance). 23% of lighting chains failed the requirement for "cross sectional area." This means that the wiring is too thin for the electric currents it is carrying, which increases the risk of overheating and fire (serious non-compliance). 28 % failed the safety tests for cables. This means the insulation and construction of the chain is such that there is a risk of electric shock (serious non-compliance). In addition: A number of other technical requirements are also regularly not met, though less frequently, for example basic mechanical problems that can result in an injury from sharp edges. Nearly 15% of samples did not carry the correct "technical markings" required. More importantly, warnings were lacking in 41% of the samples and proper user instructions in almost 35% of the samples. Lighting chains regularly fail more than one of the safety tests. Some lighting chains failed nearly all the technical tests and many failed 4 to 7 tests. The level of non-compliance varied from one Member State to another. While in Hungary, 95.7% of chains tested showed serious hazards to consumers, only 56% of those checked in the Netherlands showed any type of non-compliance. This is partially because the Netherlands has been carrying out market surveillance on lighting chains for 8 years and through these efforts has managed to halve the number of dangerous products destined for the market. (See MEMO/09/532 for details). With regard to origin of the dangerous products, China accounted for approximately 41% of the 196 samples tested.
...
The 3 main problems found were:
President Barroso said: "In Copenhagen world leaders must take the bold decisions needed to stop climate change from reaching the dangerous and potentially catastrophic levels projected by the scientific community. We must seize this chance to keep global warming below 2°C before it is too late. But Copenhagen is also an historic opportunity to draw the roadmap to a global low-carbon society, and in so doing unleash a wave of innovation that can revitalise our economies through the creation of new, sustainable growth sectors and "green collar" jobs. The European Union has set the pace with our unilateral commitment to cut emissions 20% by 2020 and our climate financing proposals for developing countries. We will be ready to scale up our emission reduction to 30% provided our partners in both the developed and the developing world take on their fair share of the global effort." Commissioner Dimas added: "I very much welcome that several major partners including the US and China have recently put concrete emission targets or actions on the table. The scientific evidence tells us that to keep global warming below 2°C, industrialised countries must cut their emissions to 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 while developing countries need to hold their emissions growth at some 15-30% below projected levels in 2020. However, the aggregate offers from developed countries still fall well short of the level of ambition needed, so I urge those countries with weak targets to improve them. Moreover a number of provisions in the current negotiating texts would have the effect of reducing developed countries' targets in practice. These provisions must be tightened up in Copenhagen. Ensuring the environmental integrity of the future treaty is of paramount importance to the EU." ... Given the slow progress made in the negotiations to date, and a lack of consensus about the shape of the eventual agreement, it is now unlikely that the treaty can be finalised in Copenhagen as originally planned. The EU's goal at the conference is therefore to make as much progress as possible towards a full treaty and to reach an ambitious and comprehensive political agreement covering all its key elements as well as a `fast start' deal (see MEMO/09/534 ).
Commissioner Dimas added: "I very much welcome that several major partners including the US and China have recently put concrete emission targets or actions on the table. The scientific evidence tells us that to keep global warming below 2°C, industrialised countries must cut their emissions to 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 while developing countries need to hold their emissions growth at some 15-30% below projected levels in 2020. However, the aggregate offers from developed countries still fall well short of the level of ambition needed, so I urge those countries with weak targets to improve them. Moreover a number of provisions in the current negotiating texts would have the effect of reducing developed countries' targets in practice. These provisions must be tightened up in Copenhagen. Ensuring the environmental integrity of the future treaty is of paramount importance to the EU."
Given the slow progress made in the negotiations to date, and a lack of consensus about the shape of the eventual agreement, it is now unlikely that the treaty can be finalised in Copenhagen as originally planned.
The EU's goal at the conference is therefore to make as much progress as possible towards a full treaty and to reach an ambitious and comprehensive political agreement covering all its key elements as well as a `fast start' deal (see MEMO/09/534 ).
The case for changing these trends soon is that the costs of curbing large rises in temperature would otherwise become extremely high or, at worst, prohibitive. The IEA argues that if the aim is to limit greenhouse gas concentrations to 450 parts per million, every year of delay in moving towards the required trajectory adds an extra $500bn of costs to the estimated global cost of $10,500bn. These costs result from the extremely long life of the capital assets used in power generation and the even longer life of CO2 in the atmosphere.The alternative scenario is quite different: instead of the 40.2 Gt of energy-related emissions in 2030, we would have just 26.4 Gt. The gap is huge. A briefing paper from the European Climate Foundation shows that the pledges made in advance of Copenhagen would not close it.* Even on the most optimistic view, current offers fall short by about a third of the reductions needed by 2020 for a pathway to a ceiling of 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent....Unfortunately, this does not mean that the right sort of agreement will emerge. The policies we employ must be as effective and efficient as possible. What does that mean? I would emphasise three criteria. First, we need prices for carbon that apply over relevant planning horizons. That price cannot be fixed forever, but must change with events. But it needs to be far more stable than in the European Union's market for permits (see chart). A tax seems more attractive to me than "cap and trade", for this reason. Second, where the abatement occurs must be separated from who pays for it. Abatement needs to happen where it is most efficient. That is why emissions of developing countries must be included. But the cost should fall on the wealthy. This is as much because they can afford it as because they produced the bulk of past emissions. Finally, we need to develop and apply innovations in all relevant technologies. A paper from the Bruegel think-tank argues, persuasively, that merely raising prices on carbon emissions would reinforce the position of established technologies. We need large-scale subsidies for innovation as well.** Tackling the risk of climate change is the most complex collective challenge humanity has ever confronted. Success requires costly and concerted action among many countries to deal with a distant threat, on behalf of people as yet unborn, under unavoidable uncertainty about the costs of not acting. We have reached the point, however, where a broad consensus exists on the nature of the threat and the sorts of policies we need to follow to deal with it. We may not reach a deal in Copenhagen. But the time for decision has come. Either we act soon - or we finally discover whether the sceptics are right. If we fail to act, as seems likely, I hope they are. But I very much doubt it..........
The alternative scenario is quite different: instead of the 40.2 Gt of energy-related emissions in 2030, we would have just 26.4 Gt. The gap is huge. A briefing paper from the European Climate Foundation shows that the pledges made in advance of Copenhagen would not close it.* Even on the most optimistic view, current offers fall short by about a third of the reductions needed by 2020 for a pathway to a ceiling of 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent....Unfortunately, this does not mean that the right sort of agreement will emerge. The policies we employ must be as effective and efficient as possible. What does that mean? I would emphasise three criteria.
First, we need prices for carbon that apply over relevant planning horizons. That price cannot be fixed forever, but must change with events. But it needs to be far more stable than in the European Union's market for permits (see chart). A tax seems more attractive to me than "cap and trade", for this reason.
Second, where the abatement occurs must be separated from who pays for it. Abatement needs to happen where it is most efficient. That is why emissions of developing countries must be included. But the cost should fall on the wealthy. This is as much because they can afford it as because they produced the bulk of past emissions.
Finally, we need to develop and apply innovations in all relevant technologies. A paper from the Bruegel think-tank argues, persuasively, that merely raising prices on carbon emissions would reinforce the position of established technologies. We need large-scale subsidies for innovation as well.**
Tackling the risk of climate change is the most complex collective challenge humanity has ever confronted. Success requires costly and concerted action among many countries to deal with a distant threat, on behalf of people as yet unborn, under unavoidable uncertainty about the costs of not acting. We have reached the point, however, where a broad consensus exists on the nature of the threat and the sorts of policies we need to follow to deal with it. We may not reach a deal in Copenhagen. But the time for decision has come. Either we act soon - or we finally discover whether the sceptics are right. If we fail to act, as seems likely, I hope they are. But I very much doubt it..........
i just want a law passed that means that when the Greenland icecap collapses we can waterboard the deniers s l o w l y keep to the Fen Causeway
India thinks it may be possible to cut its carbon intensity by 24 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels, according to provisional government estimates obtained by Reuters Wednesday. Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of gross domestic product. By 2030, India estimates it could achieve a reduction in its carbon intensity by 37 percent from 2005 levels. The figures were arrived at after an analysis by various government departments.
Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of gross domestic product.
By 2030, India estimates it could achieve a reduction in its carbon intensity by 37 percent from 2005 levels. The figures were arrived at after an analysis by various government departments.
Today's 387 ppm CO2 concentration is already greater than the 350 ppm that should be the target.
Researchers and policymakers have long rued that it's hard to illustrate the perils of global warming when its most serious impacts won't be visible for decades. But thanks to the state Natural Resources Agency and Google, a graphic view of climate change's potential effect on California -- based on scientific modeling -- is now just a mouse-click away. Do you want to know if global warming will wipe out the Sierra snowpack before your great-great-grandchildren hit college? Whether rising sea levels will obliterate landmarks in Baghdad by the Increasingly Deep Bay? Whether your neighborhood will be safe from wildfires whipped by rising temperatures 76 years from now? If Google Earth already lives in your computer, see for yourself in living color. Dodger fans take note: Much of the field at AT&T Park, where San Francisco Giants play, could someday be under five feet of water. The interactive initiative is called CalAdapt, and it was unveiled Wednesday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Google CEO Eric Schmidt on scenic Treasure Island in the middle of San Francisco Bay. Why there? "Within a century, Treasure Island, this place where we are right now, could be totally under water," Schwarzenegger said during a late-morning news conference. But when it comes to climate change, "it is technology in the end that will save us." CalAdapt, which is still in the prototype stage, isn't a forecaster but rather an electronic way to visualize the possible effects of climate change based on current scientific data, according to the site. "It's a whole new way of communicating research," said Anthony Brunello, deputy secretary for climate change and energy. Although "grandmas, mothers and individuals are a key audience," the main focus for the site is local planners and scientific researchers.
CalAdapt, which is still in the prototype stage, isn't a forecaster but rather an electronic way to visualize the possible effects of climate change based on current scientific data, according to the site. "It's a whole new way of communicating research," said Anthony Brunello, deputy secretary for climate change and energy. Although "grandmas, mothers and individuals are a key audience," the main focus for the site is local planners and scientific researchers.
as far as the effects on California, I couldn't care less! I "voted" when I had a vasectomy back in '76 before having any kids.
Hey humans, you want to screw up the planet with overpopulation and garbage? Be my guest! In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
RALEIGH, N.C. -- Progress Energy plans to mothball 11 coal-burning power plants in the state, a move that signals the beginning of the end of the era of cheap coal that has defined the state's electricity production for decades. The Raleigh electric utility is moving to shutter older coal-burning plants because it's becoming too expensive to modify the older plants to comply with ever-tougher environmental regulations. The aging plants, including one in Chatham County, produce 12.5 percent of the power company's electricity but lack pollution-trapping "scrubber" technology. Progress officials anticipate a slew of new federal restrictions on air pollution that crosses state lines, on mercury emissions and on waste pits that store coal ash. For the power company it came down to simple math. The cost of replacing those plants with new ones mostly fueled by natural gas would be about $1.5 billion. The cost of retrofitting all 11 of the old coal-burning plants to cut emissions is at least $2 billion and rising. "We would have had to put some kind of environmental retrofits on all these plants eventually," said Lloyd Yates, chief executive of Progress Energy's operations in the Carolinas. Additionally, Congress is debating proposals that would require cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent, with penalties for noncompliance. Currently there is no technology commercially available that can trap greenhouse gas emissions.
The Raleigh electric utility is moving to shutter older coal-burning plants because it's becoming too expensive to modify the older plants to comply with ever-tougher environmental regulations. The aging plants, including one in Chatham County, produce 12.5 percent of the power company's electricity but lack pollution-trapping "scrubber" technology. Progress officials anticipate a slew of new federal restrictions on air pollution that crosses state lines, on mercury emissions and on waste pits that store coal ash.
For the power company it came down to simple math. The cost of replacing those plants with new ones mostly fueled by natural gas would be about $1.5 billion. The cost of retrofitting all 11 of the old coal-burning plants to cut emissions is at least $2 billion and rising. "We would have had to put some kind of environmental retrofits on all these plants eventually," said Lloyd Yates, chief executive of Progress Energy's operations in the Carolinas.
Additionally, Congress is debating proposals that would require cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent, with penalties for noncompliance. Currently there is no technology commercially available that can trap greenhouse gas emissions.
A study released Wednesday which found that nine of 10 babies tested were born with bisphenol A in their systems has renewed calls for the chemical to be banned. In the study commissioned by the Environmental Working Group, scientists found the chemical in nine of 10 randomly selected samples of umbilical cord blood. Previous studies have found BPA in the urine of 93% of Americans tested. But Wednesday's study is the first to find it in the cord blood of U.S. newborns. "It's alarming," Janet Gray, director of the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project at Vassar College, said of the study results. "What more evidence do we need to act?"
A study released Wednesday which found that nine of 10 babies tested were born with bisphenol A in their systems has renewed calls for the chemical to be banned.
In the study commissioned by the Environmental Working Group, scientists found the chemical in nine of 10 randomly selected samples of umbilical cord blood.
Previous studies have found BPA in the urine of 93% of Americans tested. But Wednesday's study is the first to find it in the cord blood of U.S. newborns.
"It's alarming," Janet Gray, director of the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project at Vassar College, said of the study results. "What more evidence do we need to act?"
"Obesity" "Neurological issues" "Thyroid function" "Prostate development and cancer" "Reproductive system and sexual behavior" (Well that explains me.)
Bisphenol A ... like Herpes ... the gift that keeps on giving. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
