The Philippines has committed to an ambitious renewable energy target of 50% by 2030, but is it up to the task?

I guess the question here is should the Philippines be doing this (setting up such an ambitious goal)?

To answer this question, we first need to look at the cost or potential adverse impact of maintaining higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere might have on us. If you accept the argument that man-made pollution is causing climate change, i.e. creating more severe weather disturbances, then the impact associated with these activities is very large indeed.

The Center for Global Development has tried to quantify the effects of severe weather events. In its report, the country ranks 4th most vulnerable country in the world to be directly impacted by extreme weather events. We are ranked below China (1st), India (2nd) and Bangladesh (3rd). If you consult their working paper on the effects of these events, you will find out what that means for the population.

Between 2008 and 2015, the likelihood of severe weather events is placed at 58%. While the impact of these disturbances can be mitigated through higher income and better regulations, about 5% of the total population could suffer. With our population expected to rise above 100 million in the next five years, that means about 5 million Filipinos will be in need of some form of assistance from natural disasters.

Using a small damage cost of 10 thousand pesos per individual, the total bill could be as much as 50 billion pesos. That excludes any damage suffered by the economy. In the first quarter of the year, the Australian economy contracted in part due to the floods that ravaged Queensland. The goal of reaching 7-8% might have to be scaled down by 1-2% points.

So if we are to take some responsibility for fixing the problem, should we not look at our contribution to it first?

Yes of course, and to answer that question, take a look at this map that was posted originally on The Cusp. It shows that the Philippines has a relatively small footprint compared to the likes of China, India and the West. The Philippines accounts for only 67.5 71 thousand kilo tons of green house gases or CO-2 equivalents, while China’s footprint is a hundred times larger 6.5 million in 2007; India’s is 1.7 million 25 times larger. By the way, in 2006, China’s footprint exceeded the US for the first time (6.1 M kt Co-2-e that’s million kilo tons of CO-2 equivalent, compared to 5.7 M kt for the US).

In per capita terms, the Philippines is also a minor contributor with only 0.8 0.78 metric tons of CO-2 equivalent emissions per person compared to twice that amount for nearby Indonesia (1.8 t) which had a comparable per capita income of 3,300 thousand dollars in 2007 2006 (in purchasing parity terms). That means the Philippines uses less than half the emissions to produce one dollar of GDP compared to Indonesia. China on the other hand saw its per capita footprint rise to 4.7 mt per person as its per capita incomes rose to $4,790. India is still way behind with per capita incomes of $2,540 and 1.5 mt of emissions per person.

What all of this means is that the energy mix of the country which has hydro and geothermal assets is much more eco-friendly compared to our close neighbors in the region. This means that each Filipino has contributed much less to the overall problem and yet will suffer an inordinately higher cost. This ought to be an argument for us gaining more grants to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Which brings us back to the question posed at the start, is the use of a 50% renewable target appropriate?

The answer I suppose is yes if you consider the potential of using solar, wave and wind energy. The Philippines being a tropical country on the typhoon belt should find a way to harness these abundant sources of renewable energy.

Compared with other countries, the Philippine target seems to be well placed. China is eyeing a 40-45% reduction from its 2005 levels by 2020. India is looking at a 20-25% reduction under the same timetable. Most of the rich nations are looking at 20-30% reductions as well.

It then becomes a question of affordability on the part of the consuming public. Since the country already has one of the highest costs of electricity in the ASEAN region, what set of policies would help?

Coal which is the dirtiest but cheapest source of energy and therefore most attractive for a middle income country has to be the first on the hit list, if we are to reduce our carbon footprint. A representative of Greenpeace noted that while the long term goal was ambitious, the government failed to demonstrate its commitment to it by lining up new coal-fired power plants in the near term to address the bulk of increased demand.

As a Productivity Commission report in Australia last month pointed out, to move from less costly but dirty coal to more costly and less polluting power sources such as oil and gas and non-renewable sources requires large interventions on the part of the government. The most efficient way to make the transition is through an emissions trading scheme rather than regulation or direct action policies (like Renewable Energy Certificates, Feed-In Tariffs or capital subsidies), the Commission concluded.

Australia which is eyeing a $15-20 dollar per ton carbon tax as a starting point of an emissions trading scheme to achieve a 5-25% reduction of 2000 based emissions by 2020 is also looking at amending its tax and compensation systems to compensate households for higher energy costs. Treasurer Wayne Swan announced that this would reduce gross national income by 0.1 per cent per capita, making it very affordable.

In order to address the question of affordability, the country will have to look at the question of whether or not to impose either a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme down the track. China is already considering piloting it in a few of its provinces. Japan and South Korea have plans of introducing an ETS although they have been put on hold. The Western Climate Initiative seeks to adopt an ETS in seven western states of the US and four provinces in Canada. Thirty countries in the EU have already adopted an ETS and so has New Zealand.

If the Philippines goes down the same road, it will have a lot of catching up to do. The goal would be to make the transition less costly to the economy and the populace. That’s as far as mitigation goes. In terms of adaptation, it will have to secure as big a share as it can from the global fund set up to help developing nations. As a middle income country, the Philippines will find it hard to justify more being spent here compared to much poorer nations. Let’s hope that our government is up to the task.

Doy Santos aka The Cusp

Doy Santos is an international development consultant who shuttles between Australia and the Philippines. He maintains a blog called The Cusp: A discussion of new thinking, new schools of thought and fresh ideas on public policy (www.thecusponline.org) and tweets as @thecusponline. He holds a Master in Development Economics from the University of the Philippines and an MS in Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University.

  • UP nn grad

    Whether or not climate change is truth, it still requires great organizational skills on Pilipinas’ part to control emissions, clean up the garbage, make the rivers flow better. And this — more power. Pilipinas is so under-powered it is —HILARIOUS!!—- pathetic????

    I bet the “Climate-fraud yellers” and the “methane-gas-is-for-real!!!” banner raisers can agree on that —- more power to the people /// and cheaper per kilowatt-hour, please!!!

    This ls like RELIGION —- a country can make progress if a country can find common ground. This is like NOYNOY-AQUINO….. whether or not he was competent during his years as Senator and Congressman — irrelevant.

    More relevant — the leadership and he demonstrates and how well the Yellows can work on issues they have in common with the non-Yellows.

    This — even if Noynoy won with 54% of the votes in the last election. Pompous “We Won!!! We Won!!! We are now leaders!!!” — not good.

    • Bert

      Two things, UP n:

      One, the majority of the Filipinos who voted for Noynoy never bragged about their being the majority. They’re just content that Noynoy is doing well on his job, and keeping his word, too. It’s the minority who are with GMA and hence voted for Gibo or Villar who kept on mentioning about the ‘54% of the votes’, haven’t you noticed?

      Two, your advocating for cheaper electricity per kilowatt-hour and taxing energy source is a contradictory statement/proposal.

      ‘Di ba?

  • UP nn grad

    Food-for-thought: Maybe, most likely…. China’s emissions per dollar-GDP is higher than Pinas because Pinas is agriculture and mining-based.

    • Yes, UP nn grad, both the industry mix and the energy mix have an impact on the carbon intensity of each economy. China, the workshop of the world would have a bigger carbon footprint than a service intensive economy like the Philippines.

  • manuelbuencamino

    The issue is not only about environmental impact. We need to look for renewable energy because of our dependence on foreign oil for our energy needs, driven not only by economics but also by national security considerations so when it comes to sourcing energy, indigenous sources, whenever possible, are best, we are insulated from foreign shocks.

    Hydro and geothermal are clean only in so far as emissions are concerned. However there are negative environmental consequences to hydro power. I assume you are familiar with the problems created by dams. The same applies to geothermal in terms of localized environmental degradation.

    Is the government up to the task of finding clean renewable energy? Maybe/maybe not but the only way to find out is by finding out.

    • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

      We all desire non-allergenic sources of fuel. We all desire independence from oil importation (which is implied slavery). We all desire long-term sources of energy if not perpetual sources. We all desire free energy.

      There’s no question about that. But the politics behind this global warming/cooling/climate change has nothing to do with those. I wish it had anything to do with it to mitigate all lies surrounding the same.

      But it’s not about that. It’s about economic and political control.

    • The scientific community has reached a clear consensus (it doesn’t mean there won’t be some who disagree, but there is a much greater probability that global warming is real). The economists have specified the least costly way of dealing with it, which is to put a price on carbon, what they call the negative externalities associated with emitting green house gases in the atmosphere. Doing so makes renewable energy much more viable than any form of government direct action or regulation such as subsidies or feed-in tariffs. It is now up to politicians to craft workable policies to put these recommendations into action.

      • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

        Ha! Just as I expect!

        It’s not about the science, not about the environment or even human survival…

        But the money!

        Thank you for confirming the same.

      • What great leaps of logic you make with your statements.

        It is no longer about the science, because the science has been settled. No longer about working out the economics of the solution, because that has been settled empirically as well. It is now about getting consensus in the community for the sake of maintaining a sustainable planet for future generations. If we don’t no amount of money will compensate our children and their kids for the damage that will be caused.

        • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

          Oh really, Coy?

          Settled? Hmmm…don’t be so coy. (winks)

          I could sense you’re in Australia now. Your Prime Minister was wise enough to sense the real politics behind these things. Perhaps, you should do a little background check into the matter.

          Or just read your local paper there: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/japanese-scientists-cool-on-theories/story-e6frg6t6-1111119126656

          You’re a Filipino. I’m a Filipino too. Please don’t sell our people to the globalists. We may just regret that. For the sake of your grandchildren, Coy, if you plan to have any.

        • Talk about having a political agenda, the Rupert Murdoch owned paper that you just cited has been campaigning against the carbon tax policy of the Gillard government.

          I don’t think given events in Great Britain surrounding News International and the News of the World, you would want to be on the side of the Murdoch empire at the moment. This global multinational media empire has been influencing the political debate in three continents for decades now to suit the personal views of its owner.

          Talk of political conspiracy, eh? And FYI, my name is not Coy.

          • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

            Fair enough.

            But I wouldn’t be on the side of people who desire to milk money from the Filipino people based on some carbon-tax policy which would not even reduce carbon dioxide any way whatsoever or benefit the environment in any manner or abate the threat of Global Warming/ Global Cooling/ Climate Change.

            Let’s cut the politics out of it. Governments shouldn’t be inventing taxing schemes like this.

            Analyze what you are proposing and it’s human enslavement par excellence! Maybe we should extend the taxation towards the fungi and moneran kingdom.

          • UP nn grad

            The carbon-tax policy is one of the things that second- and third-world countries had been pushing for. REASON — they can make money from the taxation.

            Very simply, Pinas with less carbon footprint can sell its utilization to first-world countries. The money can then be used to increase Pilipinas carbon footprint.

            Indonesia is already one of the countries organizing some of its policies (about preserving foorests, other natural areas) —- maybe Pilipinas can learn some things from its Muslim neighbor.

          • You make a good point UP nn grad. Where is the Philippines on this front? Given our low carbon intensity per capita, we should be able to profit from internationally trading carbon permits. It could help keep our forest cover from shrinking any further.

          • KG

            about learning from Indonesia:

            “By Muklis Ali
            JAKARTA | Wed Mar 3, 2010 5:37am EST
            (Reuters) – Indonesia’s new decree, allowing mining, power plant, transport and renewable energy projects in protected forests, was welcomed by several companies in those sectors.”

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/03/us-indonesia-forest-geothermal-idUSTRE62210C20100303

  • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

    “The consensus moved on from the flat earth theory and later the Ptolemaic belief that the Sun and planets revolved around the earth because people decided to verify their sacred texts by examining the natural world and considered other theories that would explain what they saw with their telescopes.”

    Well, prior to their idiocy, Sacred Texts of the Vedas have always taught humans what they’re supposed to verify. Have you read some of humanity’s sacred texts? You might be surprised at the physics in it and the comprehensive cosmology and astronomy in it prior to the rediscovery of the alleged modern telescope.

    • Okay now we are really going off-topic. My goodness, you are really trying to wiggle out any way you can from the discussion at hand which is about the science behind the IPCC report which you say has been debunked but are not prepared to show me the evidence in the scientific literature to support your claim.

      • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

        I already cited the papers below, if you would only care to approve.

        But of course, I don’t expect the same. This is site is obviously a political site.

        And like all politics, I expect it to be full of BS. That’s how it works.

      • My column article talks about the evidence based policy, not the politics. You dragged into that sphere. You are the one quoting political websites when I asked for scientific citations.

        • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

          I submitted evidence-based researches but you have no desire whatsoever to approve them.

          Is that what you call as fairness and truthfulness? Haha, don’t worry, I’m used to your kind. I am afraid of the kind of people we are putting in our institutions.

          Almost everything these days cannot be trusted, including this site. Goodness gracious! We have much to fear for the future if every single institution in the world is governed by politics instead of truth.

          Oh well, there’s such a thing as karmic balance. In the end, we’ll eat the same cake we’ve tried to poison so we better be careful with our choices. Politics come and go. Such is its nature. But karma is constant. Has always been.

          • GabbyD

            approve them? what do you mean?

          • Esmeralda, please note the time zone I live in. Your links had to be moderated, but they appear in full. We appreciate your contribution to this debate. Now please find my rebuttal below.

  • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

    Surely you understand the politics and agenda behind all these environmental propaganda, which has nothing to do with the environment, or even Carbon Dioxide, but the eventual introduction of laws all across the world that will control and tax each of us.

    That’s what this is all about and has very little to do with environment, energy or even the climate.

    If these goody-goody earth friendly experts were so keen about the environment, then they should simply release free-energy devices which not only does not emit carbon dioxide but is totally fueless and almost inexhaustible. But that’s not what this is all about.

    You should have researched the politics of the IPCC and its history.

    May I refer you to what they’re really planning and it’s for the public to read in the Congressional Record since the 1940’s: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread721043/pg1

    • It is so ironic, that when asked for a scientific citation, you turn to some political crackpot website with conspiracy theories about a one world government! And yet you demonize the scientific community as a bunch engaged in “peddling” their “quackery”. It is quite obvious here who the quacks are in this debate.

      • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

        Because I’m personally aware of the politics behind it.

        I already cited my sources, but it appears to me that you’re not approving that particular reply.

      • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

        This is what I call as discrediting something through summary ad-hominism.

        I know your bunch very well.

        Call it crackpottery but as far as crackpottery is concerned, so-called Climate Scientists have a lot to answer for and be ashamed after their crackpottery in East Anglia.

      • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

        “And yet you demonize the scientific community as a bunch engaged in “peddling” their “quackery’. ”

        Not the whole, but only those involved in all these carbon dioxide hullabaloo and their climate research anomalies. Perhaps you need to do your own independent research into the matter instead of relying on “official press-releases.”

        Historically, such official pronouncements hardly fit reality.

        http://www.climategate.com/

        • Again, this link quotes Christopher Monckton as a source. He is a politician, not a scientist.

          • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

            This is a concise summary of some of the papers submitted for peer-review and before the US Senate Committee for Environment.

            http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

            You should understand that our current peer-review system is more political rather than scientific, so it’s not even reliable as a system. Science as it is now is dogmatic.

          • Like I said above, the fact that a consensus has been arrived at doesn’t mean there won’t be dissenters. But the overwhelming majority of those in the scientific community have concluded that the weight of the evidence is on their side.

          • GabbyD

            “Highlights of the Updated 2009 Senate Minority Report of 700 plus scientists featuring the 59 additional scientists: ”

            this is called “minority” report for a reason.

        • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

          There IS NO CONSENSUS. So stop using that word. Even the term majority is misleading.

          “Over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.”

          That’s just some actually. There are around 30000 Scientists with 9000 Phd’s who sued Al Gore Over Global Warming FRAUD.

          The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) announced that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.

          NO such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

          http://www.petitionproject.org/

          • GabbyD

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
            _________

            So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

            The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on “unverifiable mess” below].

            This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.

          • GabbyD

            also, lets talk about he meaning of the word “majority”

            in 2001, there are 2.2 millions scientists in the US. by this point, it has more than doubled.

            http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05313/pdf/tab1.pdf

            so EVEN IF ITS TRUE, that 9k signed it, its certiainly NOT the majority.

          • Yes thanks for pointing that out, GabbyD.

      • This group of yours does not base their arguments on scientific verifiable, refutable evidence, but rather on some belief about the motivations of Western governments. You call climate science quackery because you claim it does not square with the truth, and yet you refuse to subject your own assertions to verification. What is that if not quackery, the promotion of unproven, fraudulent practices.

        • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

          Fraud?

          Have you investigated the climate research fraud recently?

  • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

    The same people concluded humans are contributing to Global Cooling somewhere in the 70’s.

    Fact check please.

    • And so must we ignore the advances in knowledge that have occurred since then? Again, you keep talking about ‘facts’, I am still awaiting your sources.

      • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

        There is no consensus. There is no provable correlation.

        I already cited the peer-reviewed studies done on the same.

        We always cite “consensus.” Are you aware how these people are pressured to agree for fear of being sacked?

        Have you conducted a thorough investigation into the matter?

  • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

    ClimateGate anyone???

    The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change

    Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements” – John R. Chirsty, William B.Norris, Roy W. Spencer, Justin J. Hnilo Journal of Geophysical Research, VOL. 112, D06102

    Satellite and VIZ-Radiosonde Intercomparisons for Diagnosis of Nonclimatic Influences – John R. Christy and William B. Norris

    Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.109 109, D14108, doi:10.1029/2003JD004414, 2005 – an assessment of three alternatives to linear trends for characterizing global atmospheric temperature changes

    Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 109, D14108, doi:10.1029/2003JD004414, 2004 – an assessment of three alternatives to linear trends for characterizing global atmospheric temperature changes

    Letters to nature
    Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols

    More Information:
    The Ice-core Man – Read More
    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/c/co2climatehistory.jsp http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V4/N14/C1.jsp
    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V4/N8/C1.jsp
    D.H. Douglass, B. D. Pearson, and S. F. Singer, “Altitude Dependence of Atmospheric Temperature Trends: Climate Models Versus Observations,” Geophysical Research Letters 31 (2004): L13208, DOI: 10 (1029/2004): GL020103;
    Read More
    D. H. Douglass et al., “Disparity of Tropospheric and Surface Temperature Trends: New Evidence,” Geophysical Research Letters 31 (2004): L13207, DOI: 10 (1029/2004): GL020212
    Read More
    S. Fred Singer, Hot Talk, Cold Science (Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute, 1997)

    De Laat and Maurellis, “Industrial C02 Emissions as a proxy.”
     
    Philip Ball, “Shake-up for Climate Models,” Nature 1 July 2002 http://www.nature.com/nsu/020624/020624-11.html

    “For Lands Sake” http://www.worldclimatereport.com (17 March 2004), Commenting on A. T. J. de Laat and A. N. Maurellis, “Industrial CO2 Emissions as a Proxy for Anthropogenic Influence on Lower Tropospheric Temperature Trends,” Geophysical Research Letters 31: 105204, doi: 10.1029/2003GL019024

    R. S. Lindzen et al., “Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82 (2001): 417-32

    D. H. Douglass, B. Pearson, and S. F. Singer, “Disparity of Tropospheric and Surface Temperature Trends: New Evidence,” Geophysical Research Letters 31: LI3207.doi:10.1029/2004/GL020212 (2004)

    Temperature Record
    T. R. Oke, “City Size and the Urban Heat Island,” Atmospheric Environment 7 (1987): 769-79
    Read More
    W. E. Dean et al., “The Variability of Holocene Climate Change: Evidence from Varved Lake Sediments,” Science 226(1984): 1191-194
    Read More
    R. E. Vance et al., “7,000-Year Record of Lake-Level Change on the Northern Great Plains: A High-Resolution Proxy of Past Climate,” Geology 20 (1992):870-82

    Henry Lamb, I. Darbyshire, and D. Verschueren, “Vegetation Response to Rainfall Variation and Human Impact in Central Kenya during the Past 1,100 Years,” The Holocene 13 (2003): 285-92

    E. T. Brown and T. C. Johnson, “The Lake Malawi Climate Record: Links to South America.” Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 35, no. 6 (September 2003): 62
    G. H. Haug et al., “Climate and the Collapse of the Maya Civilization,” Science 299 (2003): 1731-735

    S. Stine, “Extreme Drought in California and Patagonia during Medieval Time,” Nature 369 (1994): 546-49

    B. Schilman et al., “Global Climate Instability Reflected by Eastern Mediterranean Marine Records during the Late Holocene,” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 176 (2001): 157-76

    M. M. Naurzbaev and E. A. Vaganov, “Variation on Early Summer and Annual Temperature in East Taymir and Putoran (Siberia) over the Last Two Millennia Inferred from Tree Rings,” Journal of Geophysical Research 105 (2000): 7317-326
    Read More
    H. Xu et al., “Temperature Variations of the last 6,000 Years Inferred from O-18 Peat Cellulose from Hongyuan, China,” Chinese Science Bulletin 47 (200): 1584

    Jean. M. Grove, The Little Ice Age (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988)

    C. J. Caseldine, “The Extent of Some Glaciers In Northern Iceland during the Little Ice Age and the Nature of Recent Deglaciation,” The Geographical Journal 151 (1985): 215-27

    H. H. Lamb, Climate, History and the Future (London: Methuen, 1977), 156
    H. H. Lamb, Climate, History and the Modern World (London: Routledge, 1982) 162
    D. A. Graybill and S. B. Idso, “Detecting the Aerial Fertilization Effect of Atmospheric C02 Enrichment in Tree Ring Chronologies,” Global Biogeochemical Cycles 7 (1993): 81-95

    L. Keigwin, “The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea,” Science 274 (1996): 1503-508

  • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

    Carbon dioxide footprint science is quackery. This website should have done extensive research on the subject before posting things like this.

    Every single organism in the world is a carbon dioxide emitter and consumer. Maybe we should kill every single plant and organism because we have now labelled the same as potential “pollutants” and emitters of “greenhouse gases.”

    Secondly, the proposed alternative energy sources are just as idiotic as those that we have now. Has anyone heard of decentralized electricity? Zero-point energy anyone?

    Wind and solar energy are not only inefficient and unreliable sources but the science behind them is idiotic compared to what we are already able to accomplish.

    • I don’t suppose you have your own research to cite that supports your view that environmental science is quackery?

      • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

        Yes. I do.

        Climate-science peddlers always taut that it is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.

        The cause-effect relationship is not settled. Which causes what? Does the amount of CO2 increase the temperature or does the rise in temperature cause the Earth to volatilize gases more (CO2 in particular)? Correlation does not prove causation. Yes, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising but that doesn’t necessarily mean that carbon dioxide is solely to blame for global temperature increases. And we’re in a cooling stage now, that’s what they didn’t tell you, which is why we have to relabel it into “Climate Change” instead of Global Warming or Global Cooling to make this environmental propaganda more accurate.

        What about Mars, with an atmosphere almost entirely made of CO2, but very cold? Where’s your greenhouse warming now?

        How about the trend of warming among most other planets? Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn? Did we cause those as well?

        The debate now is over whether the connection between warming and human emission of carbon dioxide is real, or whether there are other causes of climate change at work. Has anyone heard of the East Anglia Scandal and the fudging of data with regards these things?

      • I was looking for a citation from a peer reviewed science journal or some scientific community, for example the American Physical Society (physicists) which has concluded the evidence that humans are contributing to global warming is incontrovertible:

        http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

        Of course there will be naysayers as there are still some who believe that the Earth is flat, but overall the scientific community has reached a consensus based on the evidence. Now if you can point out to me the source of your arguments, we can then have an assessment of their credibility.

        • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

          Argument by consensus is not tenable in this case. There is no consensus.

          Flat Earth argument, my dear, was propagated by no less than the scientific thinkers of the middle ages.

          Prior to the idiots of that age, the ancient world always knew the earth was round, from Summeria, to Egypt, to Ancient India, to Greece, to Israel, to Burma and to all other ancient texts.

          The Flat Earth era only sprang from the loss of knowledge after the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

        • The consensus moved on from the flat earth theory and later the Ptolemaic belief that the Sun and planets revolved around the earth because people decided to verify their sacred texts by examining the natural world and considered other theories that would explain what they saw with their telescopes.

          Similarly, the consensus has moved away from your position to the current one that human activity contributes to global warming by examining the evidence.

          You are evading the question, though. Please cite your source/s.

          • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

            Paul Reiter’s testimony to the House of Lords
            Read more

            Chris Landsea’s open letter
            (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm)

            Benny Peiser on the supposed ‘consensus’
            (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html)

            “Climate chaos? Don’t believe it.” By Christopher Monckton, Sunday
            Telegraph
            (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml)

            Heidelberg Appeal, publicly released at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
            (http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html)

            Text of the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change
            (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration)

            Govindan, R. B. et al. Global climate models violate scaling of the observed atmospheric variability. Physical Review Letters, 89, 28501, (2002).

            Global climate instability reflected by Eastern Mediterranean marine records during the late Holocene

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018201003364

          • Esmeralda Ocampo-Macalintal

            You are cherry-picking replies.

            This site is not only politically biased but untrustworthy.

            I already cited my sources. Please approve.

          • manuelbuencamino

            Ms Macalintal,

            I am sure you are also aware of scientific studies that show methane gas is the second biggest contributor to global warming, after to CO2.

            And it is more harmful than CO2 in some respects:

            “It is the second biggest contributor to global warming. Methane occurs naturally and is the primary component of natural gas. It constitutes 1.8ppm, or 0.00018% of the atmosphere, much less than carbon dioxide.

            Compared to carbon dioxide, methane is:

            20 times more potent over 100 years

            100 times more potent over 10 years” (http://www.acoolerclimate.com/methane/)

            So one way of preventing global warming if I were to follow your argument that “Every single organism in the world is a carbon dioxide emitter and consumer.” is not to kill all living organisms but to limit their gas emissions.

            So I propose that henceforth all cows and all two and four legged animals, including humans, plug corks up their asses. No flatulence no global warming.

            However, there could be a slight environmental price to pay for the proposal as it will entail cutting down billions of cork trees.

          • One of the reasons why the Earth’s temp has not increased since the 1990s is because of China’s sudden growth. Their power plants have been emitting sulfur into the atmosphere which has a cooling effect but is also more damaging than carbon dioxide.

            Now that they are taking steps to rid their sulfuric emissions, over the coming years, we will begin to see the effects of greenhouse gases.