And Now, for the Traditional "Human Caused Global Warming" Slide
Posted on 11/21/2006 6:09:56 AM PST by presidio9
There are signs that key U.S. officials are ready to take on global warming, even as much of the world community failed to show its will to deal with the impending threat at a recent global conference.
Despite intense calls for new and radical actions, last week delegates at the UN-sponsored meeting in Kenya agreed on many outstanding issues, but not on further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental groups widely described the outcome as a failure, but not all were expressing despair. Though equally unhappy with the results, some believe that meaningful global action on climate change is not a distant possibility.
Come January, those in the world who are concerned about the slow pace of climate action could see the global response get a boost with the United States becoming a significant part of it, according to an environmental group that is part of the global campaign for a swift response to global warming.
"With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, changes in the federal policy are to be expected," said Gary Cook, director of the Climate Action Network, an umbrella organization representing over 350 environmental organizations worldwide.
Cook and his colleagues hope that with environmentally conscious Democratic lawmakers holding key positions in the Senate, the United States will soon be making real progress in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, as well as moving the global agenda on climate change forward.
The 1997 Kyoto treaty requires as many as 35 industrialized countries to cut emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States is not obligated to abide by the treaty because the George W. Bush administration does not recognize it.
The Bush administration rejected Kyoto in 2001, arguing that it would harm the U.S. economy and that it should have also required reductions by poor but fast growing economies, such as India and China. Bush also repeatedly has said that more research was needed into the science of climate change.
The United States is responsible for about 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, although its share in the global population is just 5 percent.
Recent statements from Democratic Party leaders regarding appointments of lawmakers in the House and Senate bodies suggest that the analysis by environmentalists such as Cook could prove correct.
Last week, for example, three Democratic senators who are likely to head committees dealing with environmental issues wrote to Bush urging him to push for mandatory federal limits on greenhouse gases.
"The recent elections have signaled a need to change direction in many areas including global warming," they said in a letter telling the U.S. president that voters want the government to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Those who signed the letter included Barbara Boxer of California, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. The three are likely to head the Senate's environment, energy, and homeland security bodies, respectively, when Democrats assume leadership positions in January.
Boxer, who has introduced legislation that would mandate an 80-percent cut in U.S. emissions by 2050, has publicly declared that her committee's first hearing will be focused on global warming.
Like Boxer, Bingaman is considered a staunch supporter of action on climate change. In fact, he was the only member of Congress to attend last year's UN climate negotiations in Montreal.
"We pledge to work to pass an effective system of mandatory limits on greenhouses gases," Boxer and her colleagues told Bush in their letter. "We urge you to work with us...to signal to the world that global warming legislation is on the way."
Supporters for action on climate change say that since the November 7 elections new opportunities have arisen for Democratic politicians to take effective actions on the state level, and that in many areas, indications are that they are willing to do so.
While the most populous state of California has already embraced a climate action plan, Massachusetts' Democratic governor-elect Duval Patrick has expressed his willingness to align his state with a regional greenhouse gas initiative comprising seven other northeastern U.S. states.
Moreover, in recent polls, voters in Washington state joined more than 20 other pro-alternative energy states by approving a ballot initiative requiring 15 percent of the state's electricity to come from renewable sources.
In Nairobi, while delegates failed to set a deadline for concluding international negotiations on further cuts in emissions beyond 2012, they did agree to continue their discussions in the future.
As the next round of international talks takes place in Bali, Indonesia, in 2008, proponents of strong action against global warming say they hope that by then the United States may be in position to play an effective role in taking the world in a more positive direction.
On the domestic front, when the new Congress assumes its responsibility in January, it will have to deal with a number of ambitious bills to support alternative energy production and limit greenhouse gas emissions that were introduced this year.
Activists say they want the new Congress to adopt these and other aggressive measures on climate change proposals without any delay.
"That is the way the U.S. can begin to make real progress in reducing its emissions," said Cook.
The only reasonable way we can significantly reduce emmissions is start building lots of nuclear plants.
The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle
"The 1997 Kyoto treaty requires as many as 35 industrialized countries to cut emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States is not obligated to abide by the treaty because the George W. Bush administration does not recognize it.
The Bush administration rejected Kyoto in 2001 ..."
This is an outrageous distortion and a plain attempt to blame Bush. A principal reason the U.S. does not recognize Kyoto is because it was never ratified by the U.S. government under the CLINTON administration. Even Clinton understood that it would create an economic disater with no tangible benefit.
That's a good idea. Bring Barbara boxer front and center. Nasty and dumb. She's a perfect person to immediately neutralize unwarranted popularity of dems.
If they wait for 10 more years there is a pretty good chance that we'll be heading for a cooling period like the late 50s and 60s that was called a mini ice age.
The author is either ignorant or a lier. The president cannot approve treaties. The senate does that. And a sense of the senate vote in 1997, during the Clinton administration, rejected Kyoto 95-0.
It was particularly the US Senate that voted not to ratify the treaty. The vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan, and overwhelming in numbers against ratification. I do beleive it was also a democratic controlled senate. Babs is completely insane if she thinks the American people are going to miss the giant flip flop.
Bunch of hooey.
Further evidence that you have no idea what this means and why it is significant for the understanding of current, anthropogenically forced, climate change.
The probability of this is lower than the probability of a continuation of the warming trend.
Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...
Not all anthropogenically forced climate change is bad, is it?
The UK government has already attempted to profit from global warming. The Stern Review, a UK government sanctioned report concerning global warming advocates what IBD reported as stealth taxes. The review itself is jam packed with "tax-driven solutions" from adding a tax mechanism to gas prices, taxing SUV owners, adding a "pay-per-mile pollution tax on motorists, a value-added tax on flights to EU destinations and a new tax on inefficient large appliances and light bulbs." Socialism has been resurrected through global warming.
Also, George W. Bush used his magical Rove-a-tron 2000 Time Machine to unseat Bill Clinton in 1996.
Not all ice cream, candy, soft drinks, hamburgers, cheeseburgers, and french fries are bad, right?
The current warming trend likely has a significant anthropogenic forcing component.
I think that the solution is technologically-driven, and should be motivated more from the energy sector (on the basis of economic and national security) than from the environmental sector.
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.