WORLD CARBON EMISSIONS FALL
Greetings, Occasional 'positive' news merits posting, since we are deluged with the negative. This seems less 'double edged' than the overestimates of population growth, which are due to rising mortality and topping out of longevity as well as to declining fertility rates. Steve -- NEWS FROM THE WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE WORLDWATCH NEWS BRIEF 99-5 WORLD CARBON EMISSIONS FALL Christopher Flavin [Note: all figures and tables associated with this brief can be viewed online at: http: www.worldwatch.org/alerts/990727.html.] For the first time since 1993, global emissions of carbon from the combustion of fossil fuels declined last year, falling 0.5 percent to 6.32 billion tons, according to new estimates by the Worldwatch Institute. (See Figure 1.) This decline in emissions in the face of a world economy that expanded 2.5 percent in 1998 suggests an accelerated "de-linking" of economic expansion from carbon emissions, undercutting arguments that reducing emissions will damage the economy. During the past two years, the global economy has grown by 6.8 percent, while carbon emissions held steady, leading to an impressive 6.4 percent decrease in the amount of carbon emissions required to produce $1,000 of income. (See Figure 2.) This turn marks the first pause in the carbon emissions escalator since economic collapse cut emissions in central Europe dramatically in the early 1990s. But unlike that reduction, or the previous decline connected with the oil crises of the 1970s, the latest downturn did not result from a major economic disruption. Still, it is not yet clear how long-lasting the new trend will be. These new global emissions figures, the first available for 1998, were calculated early this month by Worldwatch researcher Gerard Alleng, using energy data recently supplied by BP Amoco. Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and is the chief contributor to global climate change. The decline in emissions in 1998 is a sign that it may be less difficult to slow global warming under the Kyoto Protocol than has been assumed by some industry groups, including, most recently, the Business Roundtable. The recent decline in emissions stems in part from improved energy efficiency and from falling coal use, spurred by new efficiency standards and the removal of energy subsidies. Also, much of the economic growth of the last two years has come in information technologies and services, sectors that are not major energy users. Contrary to the implication of a recent Forbes article, operating the entire global Internet requires less electricity than New York City uses. Meanwhile, industries such as steel making and other resource-intensive sectors are growing more slowly. According to new projections by the U.S. Department of Energy, emissions from former Eastern bloc nations will still be 28 percent below the 1990 level in 2010. Under the Kyoto Protocol, this 374 million tons of so-called "hot air" may be sold to other countries-at a projected annual bill of between $4 and $8 billion. The de-linking of carbon emissions from economic growth is most clearly seen in China, the world's second largest emitter. Its economy grew 7.2 percent in 1998, while emissions dropped 3.7 percent, following a smaller decline the previous year. This compares with a steady 4 percent annual increase in China's emissions in the previous two decades. The reasons for the sharp cut in China's emissions are not fully known, but one factor is a recent $14 billion cut in its coal subsidies. Also notable is the fact that emissions in former Eastern bloc countries are still declining a full decade after their economic transformation began. Poland's emissions fell 9.7 percent in 1998, while the economy grew 6 percent. Russia's emissions also declined, and are now 24 percent below the 1991 level. (See Table 1.) Indications of a de-linking of carbon emissions and economic growth were also evident in the United States in 1998, which saw emissions increase 0.4 percent while the economy grew 3.9 percent. Still, U.S. emissions in 1998 were 10.3 percent above its 1990 levels. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the United States is supposed to reduce its total greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below the 1990 level by 2010. Other industrial countries are having greater success in restraining their emissions. Japan's 1998 emissions were only 5.6 percent above the 1990 level, while European Union emissions were less than 1 percent above the 1990 level-due in part to declining coal use in Germany and the United Kingdom. Slower growth in carbon emissions will make it slightly easier to achieve the ambitious goals of the Kyoto Protocol. However, to reach those targets, and to reduce emissions in developing countries, accelerated adoption of new energy technologies will be needed. Recent double-digit growth rates for solar and
Re: WORLD CARBON EMISSIONS FALL
Steve and others: Personally, I don't think this news can be trusted, considering the inexorable trend over the past 100 years. One has but to look at the charts generated by the station on big volcano on Hawaii. This news report is more greenwash, surely. Ted Steve Kurtz wrote: Greetings, Occasional 'positive' news merits posting, since we are deluged with the negative. This seems less 'double edged' than the overestimates of population growth, which are due to rising mortality and topping out of longevity as well as to declining fertility rates. Steve -- NEWS FROM THE WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE WORLDWATCH NEWS BRIEF 99-5 WORLD CARBON EMISSIONS FALL Christopher Flavin [Note: all figures and tables associated with this brief can be viewed online at: http: www.worldwatch.org/alerts/990727.html.] For the first time since 1993, global emissions of carbon from the combustion of fossil fuels declined last year, falling 0.5 percent to 6.32 billion tons, according to new estimates by the Worldwatch Institute. (See Figure 1.) This decline in emissions in the face of a world economy that expanded 2.5 percent in 1998 suggests an accelerated "de-linking" of economic expansion from carbon emissions, undercutting arguments that reducing emissions will damage the economy. During the past two years, the global economy has grown by 6.8 percent, while carbon emissions held steady, leading to an impressive 6.4 percent decrease in the amount of carbon emissions required to produce $1,000 of income. (See Figure 2.) This turn marks the first pause in the carbon emissions escalator since economic collapse cut emissions in central Europe dramatically in the early 1990s. But unlike that reduction, or the previous decline connected with the oil crises of the 1970s, the latest downturn did not result from a major economic disruption. Still, it is not yet clear how long-lasting the new trend will be. These new global emissions figures, the first available for 1998, were calculated early this month by Worldwatch researcher Gerard Alleng, using energy data recently supplied by BP Amoco. Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and is the chief contributor to global climate change. The decline in emissions in 1998 is a sign that it may be less difficult to slow global warming under the Kyoto Protocol than has been assumed by some industry groups, including, most recently, the Business Roundtable. The recent decline in emissions stems in part from improved energy efficiency and from falling coal use, spurred by new efficiency standards and the removal of energy subsidies. Also, much of the economic growth of the last two years has come in information technologies and services, sectors that are not major energy users. Contrary to the implication of a recent Forbes article, operating the entire global Internet requires less electricity than New York City uses. Meanwhile, industries such as steel making and other resource-intensive sectors are growing more slowly. According to new projections by the U.S. Department of Energy, emissions from former Eastern bloc nations will still be 28 percent below the 1990 level in 2010. Under the Kyoto Protocol, this 374 million tons of so-called "hot air" may be sold to other countries-at a projected annual bill of between $4 and $8 billion. The de-linking of carbon emissions from economic growth is most clearly seen in China, the world's second largest emitter. Its economy grew 7.2 percent in 1998, while emissions dropped 3.7 percent, following a smaller decline the previous year. This compares with a steady 4 percent annual increase in China's emissions in the previous two decades. The reasons for the sharp cut in China's emissions are not fully known, but one factor is a recent $14 billion cut in its coal subsidies. Also notable is the fact that emissions in former Eastern bloc countries are still declining a full decade after their economic transformation began. Poland's emissions fell 9.7 percent in 1998, while the economy grew 6 percent. Russia's emissions also declined, and are now 24 percent below the 1991 level. (See Table 1.) Indications of a de-linking of carbon emissions and economic growth were also evident in the United States in 1998, which saw emissions increase 0.4 percent while the economy grew 3.9 percent. Still, U.S. emissions in 1998 were 10.3 percent above its 1990 levels. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the United States is supposed to reduce its total greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below the 1990 level by 2010. Other industrial countries are having greater success in restraining their emissions. Japan's 1998 emissions were only 5.6 percent above the 1990 level, while European Union emissions were less than 1 percent above
Who talked about dematerialising economies?
I've lost most of my notes in a dreadful diskcrash and corrupted backup tape, alas. The other tape drive has failed so my plan of dual backups just went to hell as well... :-( Can anyone tell me who was putting about arguments about "dematerialising" of economies? Someone first used the term, but I can't remember who. In a book, or in an article? grrr sob so much gone howl
FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:01:25 +0100 From: john courtneidge [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Quakers (Britain Yearly Meeting) online meeting place" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: econ-lets [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing Friends, all - for your entertainment/astonishment/whatever Remember the South Sea Bubble, Tulipomania etc and etc ??? -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (heiko) To: subscribers:; Subject: [Co-opNet] Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing Date: Fri, Aug 13, 1999, 6:09 pm Co-operative work, Linux and the future of computing The Market is mad .NASDAQ decides communism is more efficient than capitalism Within three days "Red Hat" a Linux software packaging and marketing company which loses money and makes nothing of significance itself, floated on the US stock market and increased it's share price more than four times and is suddenly valued at $6.4 Billion. All Red Hat have done is package Linux, the free and open source software programmes made by volunteers across the world and charged for it. What does this signify? For those who don't know, Linux is an operating system that works by providing all the "source codes" for all programmes that run on it, so there are no secrets, errors can be corrected immediately and development has no limits. Unlike private copyrighted source codes of commercial companies. In a word Linux can be made to run any computer operation you can imagine, and an infinite variety you cannot yet thing of, AND IT IS FREE. The Financial Times carried a major article today August 13 1999, p 14 asking whether co-operative made software can defeat Microsoft, and concludes yes..! According to the United Nations Human Development Report 1999 Linux "Apache" programme on servers now runs over 50% of all web servers world-wide, and the FT reports 70% of e-mail is sent on Linux "Send Mail". In other words the Internet is being run by co-operative endeavour, nay by the communist ideals that Marx spoke of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Thank God!..because the implications of continuing and extending the domination of private ownership of software managing the Internet are too horrific to contemplate. But what does this mean for co-operatives? First it means the rebirth of co-operatives on a high tech basis can defeat multinationals, second that the Unions, Co-operatives and Labour movement must promote co-operative software development, e-commerce and computing operations, with HARD CASH. A little investment by the Government in these areas, even if only £10-100 million in the UK for example, could destroy Microsoft's position in the server market and create open source core programmes to serve the whole world. No doubt Blair and co and already planning to announce something like this investment in co-operatives any day because they don't want monopolies controlling the world economy by their stifling stranglehold on the development of software do they? Co-operative or communist operations are winning the high tech efficiency war, this we must shout from the rooftops and scream outside number 10, who knows someone may listen. Heiko Khoo http://www.internetfuture.com # This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send any message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To switch to the digest mode, send any message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send administrative queries to [EMAIL PROTECTED]