Nice typo

Excerpt from this article:

Delegates at the UN climate change conference in Bali are targeting a guideline of 25-40 percent cuts in greenhouse emissions [by 2020] from 1990 levels, but climate change activist Al Gore says the American delegation is blocking progress.

The Bali conference enters its final day today and the guideline targets are in a daft final document that the EU supports and the United States and Canada do not.

I think it would be utterly daft for the U.S. to legally commit to any emission cuts, based on a notion that we should do something "just in case" carbon dioxide suddenly starts driving global temperature (with no evidence that it's ever done so in the past).

If the U.S. had to start meeting those targets, what would you advise doing first? Note that if you banned all airline travel, you might achieve a 3% reduction from current levels (and to get this reduction, you'd also have to ban people from replacing their lost airline trips with other forms of transportation).

Note also that some or all of that 3% savings might be offset by population growth between now and 2020.

I don't think many "environmentalists" have done the math here. Unplugging cell phone chargers, using less toilet paper, and banning Hanukkah candles wouldn't really move the needle very far towards a 40% reduction.