US launches new coalition to fight climate change

Feb 16, 2012 by Lachlan Carmichael
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at an event to launch "The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants" initiative in the Benjamin Franklin Room of the State Department in Washington, DC. Faulting the world for not doing enough to fight climate change, the United States on Thursday announced the formation of a coalition to cut short-lived pollutants.

Faulting the world for not doing enough to fight climate change, the United States on Thursday announced the formation of a coalition to cut short-lived pollutants that speed up warming and harm health.

US Secretary of State said the coalition of the United States, Bangladesh, Canada, Mexico, Sweden and Ghana will launch a global drive to curb (soot), and (HFCs).

The chief US diplomat said such pollutants survive only a short time in the atmosphere -- unlike long-lasting , the main climate change culprit -- but account for more than a third of global warming.

"We know that in the principal effort necessary to reduce the effects of carbon dioxide, the world has not yet done enough," Clinton told an audience at the State Department that included envoys from the coalition countries.

"So when we discover effective and affordable ways to reduce global warming -- not just a little, but by a lot -- it is a call to action for all of us," Clinton said.

"This coalition, the first of its kind, will conduct a targeted, practical and highly energetic global campaign to spread solutions to the short-lived pollutants worldwide," she added.

"It will mobilize resources, assemble political support, help countries develop and implement a national action plan, raise public awareness, and reach out to other countries, companies, NGOs and foundations."

A cloud of smoke goes out from a chimney in a winter sky on February 2 in Seclin, northern France. Faulting the world for not doing enough to fight climate change, the United States on Thursday announced the formation of a coalition to cut short-lived pollutants that speed up warming and harm health.

NGOs are non-government organizations that include environmental and other activist groups.

She said the UN Environment Program, which will serve as the coalition's secretariat, has outlined 16 actions that can be taken to cut short-lived pollutants and slow global warming by 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050.

The world's goal is to limit the rise in temperatures to two degrees by that date, she and US officials said.

Clinton said the work of the coalition will "complement but not supplant" the main international efforts to fight climate change, which focus on cutting carbon dioxide emissions but also other greenhouse gases.

Methane comes from landfills, coal mines, the oil and natural gas industry, agriculture and cows. Black carbon hails from cook stoves, kilns and diesel vehicles, while HFCs are used in aerosols, refrigerators and insulating foam.

Experts say such gases contribute disproportionately to .

"They also destroy millions of tons of crops every year and wreak havoc on people's health," Clinton said.

A senior administration official, citing ways to cut the gases, said "a lot of work done on actions that could reduce the leakage from gas pipelines, that could recover gas that is typically vented in connection with gas production."

Clinton announced an initial $15 million to launch the coalition -- $12 million from the and $3 million from Canada.

"We will be reaching out to other countries quite rapidly," the senior administration official told reporters on condition of anonymity.

"There are a number of countries that we have already heard from that have expressed interest in it. And I fully anticipate that this small initial group of six will expand quickly," the official told reporters.

Explore further: Climate change increases risk of crop slowdown in next 20 years

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Cut back on soot, methane to slow warming: study

Jan 12, 2012

There are simple, inexpensive ways to cut back on two major pollutants -- soot and methane -- and taking action now could slow climate change for years to come, international scientists said Thursday.

Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases

Nov 03, 2011

(AP) -- The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made ...

North America backs plan to cut greenhouse gases

Sep 16, 2009

(AP) -- Small island nations gained North America's powerful backing Tuesday for a plan to convert the U.N. ozone treaty into a tool for phasing out some of the globe's most powerful climate-warming gases.

Recommended for you

'Shocking' underground water loss in US drought

Jul 24, 2014

A major drought across the western United States has sapped underground water resources, posing a greater threat to the water supply than previously understood, scientists said Thursday.

User comments : 13

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2012
If CO2 crisis were real & not exaggerated, the thousands of scientists would march with the dozens of climate change protesters.
rubberman
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2012
If CO2 crisis were real & not exaggerated, the thousands of scientists would march with the dozens of climate change protesters.


Where would they march? With what goal in mind...awareness? Scientists do research and report what they find to the science media. They don't march.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2012

If CO2 crisis were real & not exaggerated, the thousands of scientists would march with the dozens of climate change protesters.

What do YOU think should carry more weight? Publishing well researched, factual evidence based on measurements and well supported simulations - or shouting slogans in a mob?

If the people can't be bothered to check up on facts then it's not the scientists' fault.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2012
@antialias_physorg asked:
What do YOU think should carry more weight? Publishing well researched, factual evidence based on measurements and well supported simulations - or shouting slogans in a mob?


I see it as kind of a "plague on both your houses" scenario, since they are neither publishing well researched, factual evidence based on measurements and well supported simulations - nor shouting slogans in a mob.

Though I guess I should be grateful for the latter part of that - shouting slogans in a mob wouldn't accomplish anything.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2012
I see it as kind of a "plague on both your houses" scenario, since they are neither publishing well researched, factual evidence based on measurements and well supported simulations

They are not? Have you even READ any papers published? Or are you just making another unfounded assertion.

It seems what you are doing is exactly what's wrong with the popular debate on this (not the scientific one - there is no debate in scientific circles. Scientists look at the facts). You are just asserting what you want to be true without even bothering to look. Go back to reading the Bible.
Shelgeyr
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2012
antialias_physorg, I've read a great deal of the research (although of course they have yet to release the station data), and I've also read alot about the problems with the research and the fraudulent machinations of those involved.

It seems what you are doing is exactly what's wrong with the popular debate on this, i.e. drinking the Kool-Aid and swallowing the whole cloth.

Your assumption that I have not "bothered to look", simply because I disagree, is arrogant in the extreme and is one of the many, many reasons your side in this dispute looks so juvenile.

Believe me, I'd love it if the scientists involved only looked at the facts!

But no, they're agenda-driven to ignore the facts. They manipulate evidence, cherry-pick data, conspire to silence other scientists who don't share their views, are frightfully dishonest, defraud the public, and although I'm not holding my breath on this one, I really hope a great many of them end up facing criminal charges. Because they should.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Feb 18, 2012
"they are neither publishing well researched, factual evidence" -

The peer review scientific press obviously disagrees with your denialist claptrap, as does every major scientific organization in the world.

"They manipulate evidence, cherry-pick data, conspire to silence other scientists who don't share their views" - Shelgeyr

You are of course referring to the Heritage Institute, the CATO institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the dozens of other corrupt Conservative organizations that exist to lie to the American people.

"I really hope a great many of them end up facing criminal charges." - Shelgeyr

Not only will their be trials, there will be executions of many denialists.

Perhaps you will be one of them.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (40) Feb 18, 2012
"Have you even READ any papers published?" - Shelgar

Yup. Many of them.

It is clear from the idiocy of your comments that you don't have the intellectual capacity to do the same.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2012
VD misquoted when he said ""Have you even READ any papers published?" - Shelgar"

Talk about a lack of intellectual capacity, VD, that was antialias_physorg you were quoting, not me.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (38) Feb 19, 2012
What a moron.

"Believe me, I'd love it if the scientists involved only looked at the facts!" - Shelgeyr
Callippo
1.2 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2012
The only effective fight against global warming is an implementation of cold fusion. All other ways are consuming precious resources and additional energy, which is produced from fossil fuels, thus making things even worse. The particular problem of emissions trading is the fact, it virtualizes the main purpose of carbon tax, i.e. the providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants, the collection of money into introduction of green-house gases free technologies in particular.

Instead of it, the rich companies of western word are sponsoring the introduction of older fossil carbon technologies at the less developed countries and nothing forces them to limit their own production of green-house gases. This is apparently not a feasible way, if we consider the fight with global warming seriously - it just enables few people to make money with "green carbon" business.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (38) Feb 19, 2012
"The only effective fight against global warming is an implementation of cold fusion." - Callippo

Once you find a means of producing cold fusion let us know.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2012
Once you find a means of producing cold fusion let us know.
It's actually very easy: everything what is required to do is to make the denial and ignorance of potentially useful technologies a criminal activity. http://pesn.com/2..._Fusion/ The rest of skeptics will become more careful after then.