Comments on: Reactions to Rudd’s ETS delay http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/05/rove-not-responsible-for-logies-rudds-ets-the-us-economy-the-monthly/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:47:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Paul Ferraro http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/05/rove-not-responsible-for-logies-rudds-ets-the-us-economy-the-monthly/#comment-25962 Paul Ferraro Tue, 05 May 2009 05:36:39 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=55493#comment-25962 Jack Balales (comments o5May09) asked "Isn’t a 5% target reduction based on 2000 emissions levels equivalent to about an 18% reduction based on 1990 emissions?" Forgive me if I am mistaken, but don't the 1990 / 2000 base line figures describe cuts in emissions *from* the levels of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) in the atmosphere during these yeaers. If this is the case, then a 5% cut from 1990 levels would be greater than a 5% cut from 2000 levels. So, if the levels of atmospheric CO2-e were, for argument's sake, 300ppm in 1990 and 350ppm in 2000, then a cut of 5% from these levels would equate to CO2-e levels of 285ppm and 333.5ppm, respectively. Hence, cuts based from 1990 levels would be deeper than those from 2000. Or is that a*se about? Jack Balales (comments o5May09) asked “Isn’t a 5% target reduction based on 2000 emissions levels equivalent to about an 18% reduction based on 1990 emissions?”

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but don’t the 1990 / 2000 base line figures describe cuts in emissions *from* the levels of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) in the atmosphere during these yeaers. If this is the case, then a 5% cut from 1990 levels would be greater than a 5% cut from 2000 levels.

So, if the levels of atmospheric CO2-e were, for argument’s sake, 300ppm in 1990 and 350ppm in 2000, then a cut of 5% from these levels would equate to CO2-e levels of 285ppm and 333.5ppm, respectively. Hence, cuts based from 1990 levels would be deeper than those from 2000.

Or is that a*se about?

]]>