Posted on 04/08/2008 12:11:07 PM PDT by Shermy
TORSHAVN (AFP) - Nobel Peace Prize-winner and former US vice president Al Gore said Monday that he believes Washington will sign up to a new climate change treaty in Copenhagen in 2009. ADVERTISEMENT
"The United States will definitely join the next treaty," Gore said at a conference on global warming and rising oceans in the Faroe Islands. "The good news is that after the next (presidential, November 2008) elections, we will have a new politics."
The United States was the only industrialised economy not to sign up to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but a new deal has to be agreed in Copenhagen to cut greenhouse gas emissions when current commitments end in 2012.
Gore said everything required to make environmental progress was in place, "with a possible exception of political will".
"But we are free people," he added. "Political will is a renewable resource. Never before has our civilisation been at such risk," he told a gathering of transatlantic experts.
"A one-metre (yard) rise in sea-level worldwide would lead to one hundred million climate refugees. Six metres would mean 450 million," he added.
However, Gore said that if emissions were sufficiently cut and if enough people opt to use renewable energy sources, the world's economy would also benefit from more jobs.
Citing the need for China to play its part, he added that "the solution will come when people at the grassroots, mothers and fathers, think about their children (and) demand action".
"I think we are close to that point," he added.
Quick, someone book an airline ticket for ‘Manbearpig’!!!
Al Gore assuring the Euros their carbon credits held now will not expire in 2012 and they can be dumped on American markets for dollars.
The Euros got to know this is a scam by now. Best position for them, get the US to sign up, dump the credits for something, and get out ASAP.
Or maybe they are true believers..just the dumb ones and lefty useful idiots.
A hundred million climate refugees? Good grief, he’s nuts.
So, he’s banking on a Hillary or Obama presidency, but what’s McCain got to say about this 2009 proposal.
None of this will do anything except that for politicians the mere passing of the Bill or Treaty or whatever is sufficient result in itself since it results in movement of money.
That's as far as I got, I am afraid.
Gore’s probably right. MCCain’s bought into man-made Global Warming too.
McCain believes the gobblety gook.
True. But "we have found the enemy, and he is us—those attempting to destroy the world economy due to baseless fears."
I was afraid of that, but asked anyway.
sigh.
The more I listen to McCain the more I am convinced that if he going to win he is on his own. I cannot in good conscience support him and his support of this global warming B.S. is one of the biggest reasons.
McCain has long accepted cap and trade.
A week or so ago he actually spoke disappointedly that Obama and Clinton weren’t expressing it enough too.
I suspect this was McCain’s message to “Wall Street”, the financial houses and traders, to send money to him because he would be more amenable to the money moving scam.
Macroeconomic Effects of CO2 Emissions Limits Are Significant. A wide range of economic models predict that reducing U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to either 1990 levels or to the Kyoto target (7 percent below 1990 emission levels) would reduce U.S. GDP and slow wage growth significantly, worsen the distribution of income, and reduce growth in living standards. If the United States is not able to take advantage of “where” flexibility (reducing emissions wherever it is cheapest globally) through international emissions trading to meet the Kyoto target, the cost in terms of lost output will range from about 1 percent to over 4 percent of GDP.
In addition, near-term emissions reductions would reduce U.S. competitiveness in energy-intensive manufacturing industries as well as in agriculture. Meeting the Kyoto emission targets would make it much more difficult to sustain tax cuts or “save” social security, and could require sharp changes in fiscal policy to avoid deficit spending.
Psssst! Why just the Faroe Islands? If it's rising there, it's rising everywhere. So, how much has it risen? Or are the islands sinking? Hmmmm?
“Why just the Faroe Islands?”
It’s part of the Warmers pr plans.
They find an island eroding, blatantly lie that it’s about global warming, and don’t explain why the neighboring islands are the same and such.
There is such an island in the Bering Sea. The Native Alaskans who inhabit it have been lied to for the reasons of the erosion, some even trotted out to Congress to speak.
Let me guess, China and India will not be among the countries required to cut greenhouse emissions. Where is the global tax provision to steal from US taxpayers?
So, we don’t know if he believes it, or it’s just a cynical embrace. Or an outright cash grab. Either way, we are doomed.
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.