<div>Who believes this plan has any chance of being adopted? </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/80by2020.htm">http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/80by2020.htm</a></div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 has been peppered with examples of politicized dismissal, promotion of uncertainty that exaggerates the scientific significance of the skeptics, outright hostility, or apathy towards the problem of anthropogenic climate change. Or if the problem is acknowledged as significant, the economic impacts of substantially addressing it are assesd as too great, apparently downplaying that the long term economic impacts of climate change will be gigantic, as the Stern Report has indicated, with long term costs greater than the costs of addressing the problem now: </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm">http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm</a></div>
<div>------------------</div>
<div>Given the opposition of powerful corporate, national and political interests, who will fight tooth and nail not to surrender their legacy power base dependent on fossil fuels, the developing world's (China, India et. al.) continuing economic expansion based largely on fossil fuels, especially cheap coal, and that many consumers do not want to assume any economic sacrifice in the short term for long term climate change mitigation, especially with higher energy prices from soaring oil costs, already straining budgets, I'd bet that in 2020 global CO2 emissions are higher than today. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, I think the critics of rosy climate change mitigation economics are likely correct, in the short term, that the poor will especially suffer from the economic impacts of lowering fossil fuel use, or more costly CO2 sequestration for coal energy (coal is perhaps the main fossil fuel/energy source to address in climate mitigation efforts, given huge global reserves and its cheap energy), though the long term impacts on the poor from climate change will be enormous, balancing the long term equation in favor of addressing climate change now to help the poor long term.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The just issued G8 statement on climate change </div>
<div><a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/TKN002947.htm">http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/TKN002947.htm</a> , the failed Kyoto protocols (a good failed idea, because it at least put the issue on the international table), the European Union's efforts, the climate mitigation efforts of US states (California's efforts tied up in court: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/20epa-web.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/20epa-web.html</a> ) trying independently to lower emissions, while the US Federal government avoids more substantially addressing the problem, other international agreements to lower global CO2 emissions upcoming, and the laudable work of the Earth Policy Institute, the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and others, will amount to a lot of hot air:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/80by2020.htm">http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/80by2020.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From URL above:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Cutting CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020 will take a worldwide mobilization at wartime speed."</div>
<div>-------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>