Britain Leads EU Charge to Undermine US Climate Change Policy

In a startling report revealing a tale of transatlantic espionage not witnessed since the glory days of 007, the London-based Financial Times recently detailed how Britain, supposedly America’s closest European ally, has been leading a multi-year European undercover ('back-door') effort within the United States to undermine U.S. climate change policy. While this is not surprising, it does smack of interference with another nation's policies. It also happens to confirm prior ITSSD research, readily accessible on its website.

"effort within the United States to undermine U.S. climate change policy. "

Neither this funny British effort at disinformation, nor Algore's moonbat "environmental" movie have had the slightest effect on the Bush administration or Republicans in congress, when it comes to the stupid Kyoto agreement.
Our Federal Government stands as firmly opposed to the non-science of the European, enviro-wackos as ever.
Even worse for the Euro-nuts, the new Canadian government under Harper has now firmly come round to the Bush position on the environment.
Euro-nuts 0, Bush 2.

You should bet on ethanol. If the US doesn't do it, others will and you will have to pay them to use the patents.

The US will never see a change in the Middle East until it gets away from oil. Never. Why?..

Well, why did the US revolution happen? Taxation without representation. Right now there are no taxes in Saudi Arabia. None. Not sales tax, not income tax. Why? Because they pump all of the government revenues out of the ground. They don't tax their people b/c they don't have to. The people in Saudi aren't particularly interested in any form of democracy b/c they don't pay taxes. Get away from oil, and political reform in the Middle East and Gulf will have to follow.

And your statement about it affecting GDP is straight out of the mouths of corrupt oil corporations who have fed Islamic regimes for decades. If anything moving away from oil will boost growth by providing jobs in parts of the US where they are most needed, and will stop us subsiding and paying the Saudis enough money so they can fund loonies to blow up US hotels, embassies, and trade centers around the world.

In 2004, for example, the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration analyzed a carbon-cutting plan advanced by Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman, (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/sacsa/pdf/s139amend_analysis.pdf)
which aimed to stabilize greenhouse emissions. The energy administration estimated that reaching this target would cause U.S. GDP to be 0.4 percent less than it would otherwise have been in 2028. Since GDP was projected to grow by 90 percent between the time of the study and that year, this meant that the nation could address climate change and still experience growth of 89.6 percent over the period.

In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculated that stabilizing carbon emissions at an acceptable level -- defined as slightly higher than today's -- would cause world GDP to be 4 percent lower than it would otherwise have been in 2050. Again, that is a modest cost -- roughly one year of decent growth for the world economy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.