Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Climate Action Report 2002(NYT's Bush's U-Turn report)
US. EPA Global Warming ^ | May 2002 | Various EPA studies

Posted on 06/02/2002 7:46:20 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander

The United States of America's Third National
Communication Under the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change


FINAL VERSION
Hard copies of this report will not be published for several months. Ordering information will be available on this page once copies are available.


(Per Federal Register Notice)

(Public Comments Submitted)


Get Acrobat ReaderAll files listed in the Table of Contents are available for viewing or download in Adobe Acrobat 5.0 format. The Acrobat Reader is available at no cost from Adobe Systems.Exit EPA


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Zip file of pdf containing entire document (5.7M)

Upfront (247k pdf)  – Cover page and table of contents.

Chapter 1.  Introduction and Overview (197k pdf) – Summarizes the main elements of the report.

Chapter 2.  National Circumstances (450k pdf) – Presents a snapshot of the national characteristics of the United States that play a role in climate change, including the country's climate, geography, economy, demographic trends, energy production and consumption, and natural resources.

Chapter 3.  Greenhouse Gas Inventory (442k pdf) – Provides a broad overview of all U.S. greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks, introduces key concepts, and discusses the primary drivers for the growth in emissions.  All material in the chapter is drawn from the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:  1990–1999

Chapter 4.  Policies and Measures (320k pdf) – Reviews national policies to limit emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases undertaken since 1990.

Chapter 5.  Projections (322k pdf) – Quantifies the aggregate effects on greenhouse gas emissions of policies and measures implemented or planned from 1990 to 2020.

Chapter 6.  Vulnerability (1.5M pdf) – Addresses U.S. vulnerabilities to the adverse consequences of climate change and identifies the most promising adaptation measures being explored.

Chapter 7.  Financial Resources (426k pdf) – Reviews U.S. efforts with other countries to assist with mitigation and sequestration strategies, build human and institutional capacity to address climate change, and facilitate the commercial transfer of technology.

Chapter 8.  Research and Observation (296k pdf) – Discusses research efforts involving prediction of climate change, impacts and adaptation, and mitigation and new technologies.  This chapter also provides an overview of U.S. work on Global Climate Observing Systems.Exit EPA

Chapter 9.  Education, Training, and Awareness (269k pdf) – Addresses programs to educate and train students and citizens in areas related to climate change and reviews U.S. outreach activities to disseminate information about global climate change.

Appendix A:  Emission Trends. (1.9M pdf)

Appendix B:  Policies and Measures. (1.5M pdf)

Appendix C:  Selected Technology Transfer Activities and U.S. Direct Financial Contributions and Commercial Sales Related to Implementation of the UNFCCC. (4.4M pdf)

Appendix D:  Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. (264k pdf)

Appendix E:  Bibliography. (197k pdf)


http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/nwinsite.html
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/actions/national/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/index.html



TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: climatechange; drudgegas; globalwarming; greenhousegas; unitednations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-160 next last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: JerseyHighlander
I doubt the media will report this section. Thanks for posting these sections for folks like me who aren't too intersted in reading a bunch of jargon in a huge report like this. If the media does start a smear campaign, let's fax these sections to the media and see if they will bother to do something called balanced reporting. It IS their responsibility.
22 posted on 06/02/2002 8:19:41 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: deport
More stifling heat waves? Adapt? Good Lord, I live in Florida. I'm about as adapted as I can get.
23 posted on 06/02/2002 8:21:36 PM PDT by bloggerjohn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: semper_libertas
Does this mean you don't love me anymore?

No, just that I never did. lol. (you asked for it)

You know, I should have paid closer attention when my husband told me that Venus and Mercury were closely aligned and bright in the sky tonight. I don't know what it means, but these pings are a bit goofy tonight. :)

24 posted on 06/02/2002 8:23:47 PM PDT by Ms. AntiFeminazi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: rintense
Well, well, well, we don't the naysayers on this thread, now do we? No siree. Zilch, nada, zippo. There wouldn't be an agenda right here in River City? Nah.
26 posted on 06/02/2002 8:28:56 PM PDT by WIMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: rwfromkansas
H.Con.Res. 83

The Senate Budget Resolution, passed in the nature of a substitute for language in H.Con.Res.83, included S.Amdt. 249, sponsored by Senator John Kerry, to restore funding for programs related to global climate change to the funding level of $4.5 billion over 10 years, primarily for existing programs. Among the purposes identified by the amendment were “addressing global climate change concerns...promoting domestic energy security....to provide increased funding to ensure adequate U.S. participation in negotiations...pursuant to the Senate-ratified U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change...” and other purposes.

Passed by the Senate April 6, 2001. See Congressional Record p. S3641. From this PDF file

28 posted on 06/02/2002 8:30:50 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander
I wonder if we've found the price of Europe's cooperation for the war on terror.
29 posted on 06/02/2002 8:33:44 PM PDT by 5by5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense; deport
...it does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases.

What kind of changes would be considered a non-major shift, and where would that kind of shift put us in respect to global warming accords? Yes, I saw your post, deport. Sorry to be so cynical, but I've seen such statements before and watched something rather different happen.

I'd be happy to believe otherwise, that the libs are running this to slice support from Bush's base. But to tell you the truth, I haven't seen one ounce of government weight reduction, not one rescinsion of Bubba's most intrusive and frightening EO's, no indication of reigning in the insane drug war, any reduction of expensive, intrusive and offensive executive agencies, or any redirection of executive efforts away from the status quo of a rapidly developing socialist forces. I do see a very disturbing event, the redefining of federal policy toward citizens and firearms, the effect of which may just be the strategy to keep Emerson out of the SC.

30 posted on 06/02/2002 8:35:41 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander
With this wide open airing (curteous NYT), it becomes a great foil to sow doubt in Bush's base as the the president's commitments on politically charged issues.

I'll give ya odds this is true. (The Bush admin. has already backpedaled on "global warming" months ago, and lo & behold!, now no offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico)
And as far as "sowing any doubt", that deed has already been accomplished by George W. Bush.

And if the "base" turns away from him, he, and all of his supporters, have nobody to blame but themselves.
Don't throw this at the Conservatives...it won't stick.

I've a question for those of you ardently & loyally standing by W:
If there was no war, how would you feel about him?

And please don't give me any cock 'n bull story about some grand plan to materialize if the GOP wins majorities in both House & Senate.

31 posted on 06/02/2002 8:35:59 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ms. AntiFeminazi
Be very careful. RBA is one of the board's biggest flirts. ;)
32 posted on 06/02/2002 8:36:22 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 5by5
If Europe is using this as a crutch for the war on terror, and GWB buys it, then Europe and GWB can take a flying leap. You heard it here first! But I seriously doubt this is the case.
33 posted on 06/02/2002 8:38:08 PM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Here's a dose of common sense on what is REALLY going on. Make sure you go straight to Nick Danger's statement, post #242.
34 posted on 06/02/2002 8:38:42 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: semper_libertas
I support cleaning up the air to a degree....we have to acknowledge that companies can't be perfect or they would go out of business and the prices would go way up for us in the stores. But, not because of global warming. I simply support it because it is the right thing to do. I don't know about you, but I don't want the air in 100 years from now to be really dirty if we can at least keep it reasonable by having some REASONABLE reducations in emissions.
35 posted on 06/02/2002 8:40:04 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: semper_libertas
If that makes me a leftwinger, that is news to me.
36 posted on 06/02/2002 8:40:25 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: semper_libertas
also....note the words VOLUNTARY, INCENTIVE-BASED, AND EXISTING MANDATORY
37 posted on 06/02/2002 8:41:20 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15
"What's the use of an election, if we can't force these agencies to reflect the policy changes made by our elected leadership? "

You're joking, right? You don't alter a scientific report on the say so of a politician. Besides, we are looking at this all wrong. Clearly, this puts the lie to the Democratic canard that Bush Bows to Big Business. To quote the article:

"For the most part, the document does not reflect industry's wishes, which were conveyed in letters during a period of public comment on a draft last year"

But Bush simply allowed the report to be published, without altering it to, as the dems would certainly holler "reflect industry's wishes." Seems to me he is damned if he do and damned if he don't and at this point damned for being honest and releasing an unaltered report ;')

38 posted on 06/02/2002 8:44:53 PM PDT by bloggerjohn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-160 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson