Effects of global warming
Global warming means increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses of the earth. The planet has warmed (and cooled) many times during the 4.65 billion years of its history. At present, earth appears to be facing a rapid warming, which most scientists believe results, at least in part, from human activities.
The chief cause of this warming is thought to be the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, which releases carbon dioxide and other substances known as greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As the atmosphere becomes richer in these gases, it becomes a better insulator, retaining more of the heat provided to the planet by the sun.
Scientists use elaborate computer models of temperature, precipitation patterns, and atmosphere circulation to study global warming. Based on these models, they have made several predictions about how global warming will affect weather, sea levels, coastlines, agriculture, wildlife, and human health.
Weather
Some experts predict that an increase in global warming will result in unpredictable weather patterns, including storm surges in which the wind piles up water in low-lying areas. The curved arms of the New Waterway Storm Surge Barrier in the Netherlands protect Rotterdam and other inland cities from flooding during large storms in the North Sea.
Normally, the large, curved arms are retracted to allow ships from the North Sea to travel to ports along the New Waterway. When a dangerous storm is anticipated, the arms are swung out to block off the waterway and prevent large waves from pushing floodwaters inland.
Scientists predict that during global warming, the northern regions of the Northern Hemisphere will heat up more than other areas of the planet, northern and mountain glaciers will shrink, and less ice will float on northern oceans. Regions that now experience light winter snows may receive no snow at all.
In temperate mountains, snowlines will be higher and snow-packs will melt earlier. Growing seasons will be longer in some areas. Winter and nighttime temperatures will tend to rise more than summer and daytime ones.
The warmed world will be generally more humid as a result of more water evaporating from the oceans. Scientists are not sure whether a more humid atmosphere will encourage or discourage further warming. On the one hand, water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and its increased presence should add to the insulating effect. On the other hand, more vapour in the atmosphere will produce more clouds, which reflect sunlight back into space, which should slow the warming process (see Water Cycle).
Greater humidity will increase rainfall, on average, about 1% for each Fahrenheit degree of warming. (Rainfall over the continents has already increased by about 1% in the last 100 years.) Storms are expected to be more frequent and more intense. However, water will also evaporate more rapidly from the soil, causing it to dry out faster between rains.
Some regions might actually become drier than before. Winds will blow harder and perhaps in different patterns. Hurricanes, which gain their force from the evaporation of water, are likely to be more severe. Against the background of warming, some very cold periods will still occur. Weather patterns are expected to be less predictable and more extreme.
Sea levels
An increase in global warming will likely result in a rise in sea levels, which could threaten many coastal areas around the world. Experts predict that parts of Bangladesh may become completely submerged if sea levels rise.
As the atmosphere warms, the surface layer of the ocean warms as well, expanding in volume and thus raising sea level. Warming will also melt much of the glacier ice, especially around Greenland, further swelling the sea. Sea levels worldwide rose 10 to 25 cm (4 to 10 in) during the 20th century, and IPCC scientists predict a further rise of 9 to 88 cm (4 to 35 in) in the 21st century.
Sea-level changes will complicate life in many coastal regions. A 100-cm (40-in) rise could submerge 6% of the Netherlands, 17.5% of Bangladesh, and most or all of many islands. Erosion of cliffs, beaches, and dunes will increase. Storm surges, in which winds locally pile up water and raise the sea, will become more frequent and damaging. As the sea invades the mouths of rivers, flooding from runoff will also increase upstream.
Wealthier countries will spend huge amounts of money to protect their shorelines, while poor countries may simply evacuate low-lying coastal regions.
Even a modest rise in sea level will greatly change coastal ecosystems. A 50-cm (20-in) rise will submerge about half of the present coastal wetlands of the United States. New marshes will form in many places, but not where urban areas and developed landscapes block the way. This sea-level rise will cover much of the Florida Everglades.
Agriculture
A warmed globe will probably produce as much food as before, but not necessarily in the same places. Southern Canada, for example, may benefit from more rainfall and a longer growing season. At the same time, the semiarid tropical farmlands in some parts of Africa may become further impoverished.
Desert farm regions that bring in irrigation water from distant mountains may suffer if the winter snow-pack, which functions as a natural reservoir, melts before the peak growing months. Crops and woodlands may also be afflicted with more insects and plant diseases.
Animals and plants
Animals and plants will find it difficult to escape from or adjust to the effects of warming because humans occupy so much land. Under global warming, animals will tend to migrate toward the poles and up mountainsides toward higher elevations, and plants will shift their ranges, seeking new areas as old habitats grow too warm.
In many places, however, human development will prevent this shift. Species that find cities or farmlands blocking their way north or south may die out. Some types of forests, unable to propagate toward the poles fast enough, may disappear.
Human health
In a warmer world, scientists predict that more people will get sick or die from heat stress, due less to hotter days than to warmer nights (giving the sufferers less relief). Diseases now found in the tropics, transmitted by mosquitoes and other animal hosts, will widen their range as these animal hosts move into regions formerly too cold for them.
Today, 45% of the world's people live where a mosquito carrying the parasite that causes malaria might bite them; that percentage may increase to 60% if temperatures rise. Other tropical diseases may spread similarly, including dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Scientists also predict rising incidence of allergies and respiratory diseases as warmer air grows more charged with pollutants, mold spores, and pollens.
Md. Badsha Mia writes from the Dept. of Environmental Science and Resource Management, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Santosh, Tangail.
source-http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=39828
Friday, June 6, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Right Answer to Global Warming
The Right Answer to Global Warming
The Bush Administration may have struck out on their decision to list the polar bear as “threatened” pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. But they hit a home run with their promise to veto what ever carbon cap bill comes out of the Senate’s debate on the Lieberman-Warner legislation. Heritage scholar Ben Lieberman summarizes the White House’s statement:
Not only did the White House threaten to veto this economy-damaging bill, but it spelled out all the right considerations that should remain central to any future debate over climate change.
Economic pain must be avoided – The last thing people struggling with $4.00 a gallon gasoline need is a new law like S. 3036 that would raise pump prices even further in the years ahead. Ditto electricity and natural gas prices, both of which would also be sharply impacted by the bill. And any measure that kills jobs, especially good paying manufacturing jobs, out to be a dealbreaker. The SAP states this in no uncertain terms.
The answer is technology not mandates – we need further research into means of producing the affordable energy the nation needs in ways that emit less carbon. S. 3036 puts the cart before the horse in that it demands emissions reductions before that technology is available. The administration’s technology-first approach is a good one.
The current hodgepodge of provisions potentially applicable to global warming needs to be rectified before a major bill is added – The President is right to mention the use (some might say misuse) of existing statutes like the Endangered Species Act and Clean Air Act as a way of regulating greenhouse gas emission. This should be dealt with before more climate measures are added.
The focus should be global not unilateral - Given sharp increases in emissions from China and other fast developing nations, the unilateral measures in S. 3036 would do little. Even assuming the worst of global warming, emissions would still go up, and the impact on the earth’s future temperature would likely be too small to even verify – quite remarkable given the multi-trillion dollar price tag.
The bill should not grossly expand the federal government – S. 3036 would create a new bureaucracy with the power to raise and distribute literally trillions of dollars in the revenues raised from energy users. It is as if global warming is being used as an excuse for a new round of big government.
source--http://blog.heritage.org/
The Bush Administration may have struck out on their decision to list the polar bear as “threatened” pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. But they hit a home run with their promise to veto what ever carbon cap bill comes out of the Senate’s debate on the Lieberman-Warner legislation. Heritage scholar Ben Lieberman summarizes the White House’s statement:
Not only did the White House threaten to veto this economy-damaging bill, but it spelled out all the right considerations that should remain central to any future debate over climate change.
Economic pain must be avoided – The last thing people struggling with $4.00 a gallon gasoline need is a new law like S. 3036 that would raise pump prices even further in the years ahead. Ditto electricity and natural gas prices, both of which would also be sharply impacted by the bill. And any measure that kills jobs, especially good paying manufacturing jobs, out to be a dealbreaker. The SAP states this in no uncertain terms.
The answer is technology not mandates – we need further research into means of producing the affordable energy the nation needs in ways that emit less carbon. S. 3036 puts the cart before the horse in that it demands emissions reductions before that technology is available. The administration’s technology-first approach is a good one.
The current hodgepodge of provisions potentially applicable to global warming needs to be rectified before a major bill is added – The President is right to mention the use (some might say misuse) of existing statutes like the Endangered Species Act and Clean Air Act as a way of regulating greenhouse gas emission. This should be dealt with before more climate measures are added.
The focus should be global not unilateral - Given sharp increases in emissions from China and other fast developing nations, the unilateral measures in S. 3036 would do little. Even assuming the worst of global warming, emissions would still go up, and the impact on the earth’s future temperature would likely be too small to even verify – quite remarkable given the multi-trillion dollar price tag.
The bill should not grossly expand the federal government – S. 3036 would create a new bureaucracy with the power to raise and distribute literally trillions of dollars in the revenues raised from energy users. It is as if global warming is being used as an excuse for a new round of big government.
source--http://blog.heritage.org/
Global warming pot of gold - uh, but not for you
Global warming pot of gold - uh, but not for you
The Senate today begins yammering about the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, which thankfully isn’t likely to pass in an election year, but portends ill because all three leading presidential contenders endorse something similar.
Squabbling will mostly be over how to divide that pot of gold the bill will drain from U.S. industries - and by extenstion from you. We’re talking about $3.32 TRILLION between now and 2050. That’s how much the government stands to gain in dollars and cents, and someone to lose. Guess who.
And you thought this was about global warming, hm?
What is certain under this scheme (scam) is that this will enrich the government more than anything since the imposition of the income tax.
What’s just as certain is that you will be proportionately impoverished. As the Wall Street Journal points out, this is one huge redistribution of wealth scheme (uh, scam?).
What’s far, far less certain is what effect this will have on the so-called threat of global warming. Considering the fact that CO2 only theoretically has been linked to increasing temperatures, we suspect crippling industries by taxing them with this cap and trade nonsense and imposing countless Draconian regulations won’t budget the thermometer a degree one way or the other. But you can bet if temperatures go down they’ll claim credit and if temperatures go down they’ll say we haven’t done (taxed and controlled) enough.
source-http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/
The Senate today begins yammering about the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, which thankfully isn’t likely to pass in an election year, but portends ill because all three leading presidential contenders endorse something similar.
Squabbling will mostly be over how to divide that pot of gold the bill will drain from U.S. industries - and by extenstion from you. We’re talking about $3.32 TRILLION between now and 2050. That’s how much the government stands to gain in dollars and cents, and someone to lose. Guess who.
And you thought this was about global warming, hm?
What is certain under this scheme (scam) is that this will enrich the government more than anything since the imposition of the income tax.
What’s just as certain is that you will be proportionately impoverished. As the Wall Street Journal points out, this is one huge redistribution of wealth scheme (uh, scam?).
What’s far, far less certain is what effect this will have on the so-called threat of global warming. Considering the fact that CO2 only theoretically has been linked to increasing temperatures, we suspect crippling industries by taxing them with this cap and trade nonsense and imposing countless Draconian regulations won’t budget the thermometer a degree one way or the other. But you can bet if temperatures go down they’ll claim credit and if temperatures go down they’ll say we haven’t done (taxed and controlled) enough.
source-http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/
Global warming and and the struggle for freedom and prosperity
Global warming and and the struggle for freedom and prosperity
Today's must read article from Peter Ferrara at National Review Online:
Global warming has nothing to do with climate or science. What it is all about is the great, historic class struggle between working people and the ruling classes.
Global warming is a great excuse for a massive expansion of government power. That, not science, is why the overlords, from the New York Times to the United Nations to Al Gore, so heartily embrace it.
The U.N. thinks global warming is a perfect reason for the U.N. to be transformed into a world government. So how long do you think it took for the world-class bureaucrats at Turtle Bay to conclude that global warming was real and caused by humans?
Ferrara covers all the bases in his article. Be sure to RTWT.
source-http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2008/06/global-warming-and-and-struggle-for.html
Today's must read article from Peter Ferrara at National Review Online:
Global warming has nothing to do with climate or science. What it is all about is the great, historic class struggle between working people and the ruling classes.
Global warming is a great excuse for a massive expansion of government power. That, not science, is why the overlords, from the New York Times to the United Nations to Al Gore, so heartily embrace it.
The U.N. thinks global warming is a perfect reason for the U.N. to be transformed into a world government. So how long do you think it took for the world-class bureaucrats at Turtle Bay to conclude that global warming was real and caused by humans?
Ferrara covers all the bases in his article. Be sure to RTWT.
source-http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2008/06/global-warming-and-and-struggle-for.html
What global warming?
What global warming?
The Tribune editorial board showed its usual liberal bias in the editorial complaining about the effect of oil and gas drilling on tourism, hunting and the natural beauty of Utah ("Cost of drilling: Wells threaten tourism, hunting and natural beauty," Our View, May 25). I grew up in the Uintah Basin in the 1960s and '70s where we enjoyed wonderful hunting and fishing while the oil companies provided jobs harvesting needed resources.
I remember deer and antelope drinking out of the waste water drained from the mine where I worked. They didn't seem too affected by our efforts!
The editorial also made the mandatory slight against the Bush administration's hope for more drilling. Obviously, Congress has done nothing to cause fuel prices to rise, what with its stringent regulations and bureaucracy resisting any new refineries or the search for new resources. Likewise, I'm sure the editorial staff will never again hypocritically criticize fuel prices while they challenge those who try to supply the needed resource!
The Tribune supports green, global-warming hysteria, but a number of us don't buy your Al Gore-inspired baloney.
source-http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_9457342
The Tribune editorial board showed its usual liberal bias in the editorial complaining about the effect of oil and gas drilling on tourism, hunting and the natural beauty of Utah ("Cost of drilling: Wells threaten tourism, hunting and natural beauty," Our View, May 25). I grew up in the Uintah Basin in the 1960s and '70s where we enjoyed wonderful hunting and fishing while the oil companies provided jobs harvesting needed resources.
I remember deer and antelope drinking out of the waste water drained from the mine where I worked. They didn't seem too affected by our efforts!
The editorial also made the mandatory slight against the Bush administration's hope for more drilling. Obviously, Congress has done nothing to cause fuel prices to rise, what with its stringent regulations and bureaucracy resisting any new refineries or the search for new resources. Likewise, I'm sure the editorial staff will never again hypocritically criticize fuel prices while they challenge those who try to supply the needed resource!
The Tribune supports green, global-warming hysteria, but a number of us don't buy your Al Gore-inspired baloney.
source-http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_9457342
Get beyond global warming talk in Senate
Get beyond global warming talk in Senate
All it may amount to in the end is hot air, but the Senate still needs to engage seriously this week in its discussion of how this country can best counter global warming. At the very least, the Senate can set the stage for a needed presidential debate on the issue this fall.
If by some chance a global warming bill makes it all the way through Congress, President George W. Bush is likely to veto it. Nonetheless, Congress should explore the subject fully -- and the three senators still in the running as presidential candidates can take the opportunity to refine their positions.
Equally important, as the Senate and the candidates discuss the Lieberman-Warner bill, Americans can begin to wrestle with what the proposed solutions mean to them.
The chief mechanism to control warming gases would be a cap and trade system, which has already been tested and worked well to control the emissions that cause acid rain. But costs can vary widely, depending on how initial emissions credits are issued.
A federal auction of credits would raise the cost of electricity but simultaneously bring in money that can boost research, spur efficiency in homes and places like cities that otherwise cannot afford it, and cushion the blow of rising energy costs for many consumers. Handing out permits would keep the initial cost of energy lower and rely more on the marketplace to find solutions.
Michigan has a big stake, because it relies on coal for most of its power generation, as do many other states in this part of the country. Coal puts out more C0{-2} than other fuels, so any system will hit harder in coal-reliant areas. Congress must take special care not to disproportionately handicap Midwestern states that already are reeling from loss of manufacturing jobs.
Lawmakers must also ensure that any plan does not inadvertently increase the power companies' demand for other fuels, such as natural gas, because that would push home heating costs even higher.
Global warming deniers will continue to attack even the mildest efforts to cut back on fossil fuel use. But the risks involved in doing nothing -- including far lower levels in the Great Lakes -- have grown too great to ignore. And the talent that could be put toward innovative solutions has been sitting idle for too long.
source-http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080603/OPINION01/806030315/1069
All it may amount to in the end is hot air, but the Senate still needs to engage seriously this week in its discussion of how this country can best counter global warming. At the very least, the Senate can set the stage for a needed presidential debate on the issue this fall.
If by some chance a global warming bill makes it all the way through Congress, President George W. Bush is likely to veto it. Nonetheless, Congress should explore the subject fully -- and the three senators still in the running as presidential candidates can take the opportunity to refine their positions.
Equally important, as the Senate and the candidates discuss the Lieberman-Warner bill, Americans can begin to wrestle with what the proposed solutions mean to them.
The chief mechanism to control warming gases would be a cap and trade system, which has already been tested and worked well to control the emissions that cause acid rain. But costs can vary widely, depending on how initial emissions credits are issued.
A federal auction of credits would raise the cost of electricity but simultaneously bring in money that can boost research, spur efficiency in homes and places like cities that otherwise cannot afford it, and cushion the blow of rising energy costs for many consumers. Handing out permits would keep the initial cost of energy lower and rely more on the marketplace to find solutions.
Michigan has a big stake, because it relies on coal for most of its power generation, as do many other states in this part of the country. Coal puts out more C0{-2} than other fuels, so any system will hit harder in coal-reliant areas. Congress must take special care not to disproportionately handicap Midwestern states that already are reeling from loss of manufacturing jobs.
Lawmakers must also ensure that any plan does not inadvertently increase the power companies' demand for other fuels, such as natural gas, because that would push home heating costs even higher.
Global warming deniers will continue to attack even the mildest efforts to cut back on fossil fuel use. But the risks involved in doing nothing -- including far lower levels in the Great Lakes -- have grown too great to ignore. And the talent that could be put toward innovative solutions has been sitting idle for too long.
source-http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080603/OPINION01/806030315/1069
Slash Global Warming Gases Now Urge 1,700 Scientists, Economists
Slash Global Warming Gases Now Urge 1,700 Scientists, Economists
Hundreds of the nation's most prominent scientists and economists have issued a first-ever joint statement calling on policymakers to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming.
"Failure to act now is the most risky and most expensive thing we could do," warns statement co-author James McCarthy, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Issued just before the U.S. Senate begins debate on the Warner-Lieberman climate bill, the statement marks the first time U.S. scientists and economists have joined together to make such an appeal.
The more than 1,700 signatories, compiled by Union of Concerned Scientists, include six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 31 National Academy of Science members, and more than 100 authors and editors of the 2007 climate reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who all shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
"Economists now join climate scientists in a unified call for action to address the causes of climate change," said McCarthy, a professor of biological oceanography in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University.
McCarthy served as co-chair for the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and lead author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
There is a strong consensus that we must do something about reducing the emissions that cause global warming," he said. "The debate right now is about how much we need to cut."
The statement proposes that the United States should reduce global warming pollution "on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050" and that the first step should be reductions of 15 to 20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020. It calls on the United States to set an example and bring nations together to meet the climate challenge.
"The fact that so many scientists and economists have spoken out and signed this letter should give policymakers the confidence that we can avert serious adverse climate impacts," McCarthy said.
The statement's co-authors include Mario Molina, co-recipient of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his role in discovering the threat to the Earth's ozone layer of chlorofluorocarbon gases, or CFCs, becoming the first and only Mexican citizen to ever receive a Nobel Prize for science.
"The United States worked with other nations to take on the ozone threat; so, too, must we lead the international effort to reduce heat-trapping emissions that cause climate change," said Molina, who now serves as professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the Center for Atmospheric Sciences in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California-San Diego.
One of the co-authors is Geoff Heal, an economist at Columbia University's Business School. "Preventing dangerous climate change is a great investment. It will cost between one and two percent of GDP, and the benefits will be between 10 and 20 percent. That's a return of 10 to 1 - attractive even to a venture capitalist," said Heal.
The statement affirms the scientific evidence for global warming, saying, "the strength of the science on climate change" compelled the signers to warn policymakers of climate change's growing risks, including "sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, snowmelt, floods and disease, as well as increased plant and animal species extinctions."
Acting quickly to cut global warming pollution would be the most cost-effective way to limit climate change, the scientists and economists state. If the United States delays taking action, they say, future cuts would have to more drastic and would be much more expensive.
And those costs would come in addition to the increased cost of adapting to more climate change.
On the other hand, the scientists and economists advise, smart reduction strategies would allow the economy to grow, generate new domestic jobs, protect public health, and strengthen energy security.
"The consequences of global climate change constitute one of the most serious threats facing humanity," warned Jagadish Shukla, professor of earth sciences and global change and chair of the Climate Dynamics Program at George Mason University.
President of the Institute of Global Environment and Society, Shukla was a lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007
"While the poor and the impoverished will suffer the most," said Shukla, "the potential for catastrophic climate change that can adversely affect the habitability of the entire planet is quite real."
source-http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-02-02.asp
Hundreds of the nation's most prominent scientists and economists have issued a first-ever joint statement calling on policymakers to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming.
"Failure to act now is the most risky and most expensive thing we could do," warns statement co-author James McCarthy, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Issued just before the U.S. Senate begins debate on the Warner-Lieberman climate bill, the statement marks the first time U.S. scientists and economists have joined together to make such an appeal.
The more than 1,700 signatories, compiled by Union of Concerned Scientists, include six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 31 National Academy of Science members, and more than 100 authors and editors of the 2007 climate reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who all shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
"Economists now join climate scientists in a unified call for action to address the causes of climate change," said McCarthy, a professor of biological oceanography in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University.
McCarthy served as co-chair for the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and lead author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
There is a strong consensus that we must do something about reducing the emissions that cause global warming," he said. "The debate right now is about how much we need to cut."
The statement proposes that the United States should reduce global warming pollution "on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050" and that the first step should be reductions of 15 to 20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020. It calls on the United States to set an example and bring nations together to meet the climate challenge.
"The fact that so many scientists and economists have spoken out and signed this letter should give policymakers the confidence that we can avert serious adverse climate impacts," McCarthy said.
The statement's co-authors include Mario Molina, co-recipient of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his role in discovering the threat to the Earth's ozone layer of chlorofluorocarbon gases, or CFCs, becoming the first and only Mexican citizen to ever receive a Nobel Prize for science.
"The United States worked with other nations to take on the ozone threat; so, too, must we lead the international effort to reduce heat-trapping emissions that cause climate change," said Molina, who now serves as professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the Center for Atmospheric Sciences in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California-San Diego.
One of the co-authors is Geoff Heal, an economist at Columbia University's Business School. "Preventing dangerous climate change is a great investment. It will cost between one and two percent of GDP, and the benefits will be between 10 and 20 percent. That's a return of 10 to 1 - attractive even to a venture capitalist," said Heal.
The statement affirms the scientific evidence for global warming, saying, "the strength of the science on climate change" compelled the signers to warn policymakers of climate change's growing risks, including "sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, snowmelt, floods and disease, as well as increased plant and animal species extinctions."
Acting quickly to cut global warming pollution would be the most cost-effective way to limit climate change, the scientists and economists state. If the United States delays taking action, they say, future cuts would have to more drastic and would be much more expensive.
And those costs would come in addition to the increased cost of adapting to more climate change.
On the other hand, the scientists and economists advise, smart reduction strategies would allow the economy to grow, generate new domestic jobs, protect public health, and strengthen energy security.
"The consequences of global climate change constitute one of the most serious threats facing humanity," warned Jagadish Shukla, professor of earth sciences and global change and chair of the Climate Dynamics Program at George Mason University.
President of the Institute of Global Environment and Society, Shukla was a lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007
"While the poor and the impoverished will suffer the most," said Shukla, "the potential for catastrophic climate change that can adversely affect the habitability of the entire planet is quite real."
source-http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-02-02.asp
FOCUS ON GLOBAL WARMING
FOCUS ON GLOBAL WARMING
What senators are saying about the controversial legislation
Senators argued Monday as they voted to begin debate over far-reaching climate legislation that would require major emitters, such as coal-fired power plants, to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Here are excerpts from some of the speeches:
"Now, today you will hear from those who wish to kill this bill. Kill it, kill it as dead as they can. They say it's too complicated, that we should do nothing and we should continue the status quo. The status quo is devastating, my friends. The scientists have told us that." - Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
"As summer driving season begins and oil prices remain at near-all-time records, it is simply incredible that the first measure debated in this session will not be a bill to lower energy bills, but a bill that will in fact substantially increase them." - Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M .
"It will not only deal with the problem of global warming, this bill is the energy independence, energy security act that America in its right mind should have adopted 30 years ago." - Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent-Conn., a chief sponsor of the bill
"The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if China and India do not institute similar plans to the same extent we do, as they have already told us they will not, this bill before us will have no measurable impact on world temperatures. That means $6.7 trillion in pain for American families and workers for no gain in global temperatures lowering." - Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo.
"Let's show the American public this institution can work and address a complicated subject and try and reach a common understanding. To do nothing is not an option." - Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a sponsor of the bill
"If the United States were to act unilaterally, manufacturing facilities will go overseas. They go to where the energy is, we know that. And that's where the energy regulations or emissions regulations are more lax. This results in more emissions in transporting the product back to the United States." - Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
Source: Chronicle staff report
What senators are saying about the controversial legislation
Senators argued Monday as they voted to begin debate over far-reaching climate legislation that would require major emitters, such as coal-fired power plants, to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Here are excerpts from some of the speeches:
"Now, today you will hear from those who wish to kill this bill. Kill it, kill it as dead as they can. They say it's too complicated, that we should do nothing and we should continue the status quo. The status quo is devastating, my friends. The scientists have told us that." - Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
"As summer driving season begins and oil prices remain at near-all-time records, it is simply incredible that the first measure debated in this session will not be a bill to lower energy bills, but a bill that will in fact substantially increase them." - Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M .
"It will not only deal with the problem of global warming, this bill is the energy independence, energy security act that America in its right mind should have adopted 30 years ago." - Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent-Conn., a chief sponsor of the bill
"The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if China and India do not institute similar plans to the same extent we do, as they have already told us they will not, this bill before us will have no measurable impact on world temperatures. That means $6.7 trillion in pain for American families and workers for no gain in global temperatures lowering." - Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo.
"Let's show the American public this institution can work and address a complicated subject and try and reach a common understanding. To do nothing is not an option." - Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a sponsor of the bill
"If the United States were to act unilaterally, manufacturing facilities will go overseas. They go to where the energy is, we know that. And that's where the energy regulations or emissions regulations are more lax. This results in more emissions in transporting the product back to the United States." - Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
Source: Chronicle staff report
Anglican Bishop: Global Warming Skeptics = Child Rapist
Anglican Bishop: Global Warming Skeptics = Child Rapist
I’ve heard many things about how we’re ruining our planet, but this one takes the cake. I just read that Anglican Bishop Gordon Mursell has recently compared the people who don’t take action about the global warming issue to Josef Fritzl, an Austrian rapist and child abuser. Now, how in the world does this relate? There is no way that this can make sense. How can a non-tree hugger be compared to a pedophile?
Thank goodness he’s not comparing people like me (yes, I’ll admit it. I’m not gung-ho about this global warming issue) to rapists and child abusers. He is showing that there is a comparison between Fritzl’s attitude and mine-we are selfish, and only are concerned with ourselves. He believes that we are ruining the future for our children by not taking action about global warming.
I understand that Bishop Mursell is concerned about our well being, but I just happen to believe that global warming is a bunch of bologna. I believe that God created this world, and that he gave it to humans to take care of it, but I do not believe that we are in charge of destroying the earth. That’s God’s job. Not mine. While I fully believe that we do have an impact on this earth, we do not control it, or its outcome.
I believe that we need to be more concerned with the people on the planet rather than conserving energy. How about we focus on changing lives rather than changing gas-powered to water-powered? The world needs a Savior, not another person trying to tell them to save trees. God did give us this world to take care of it. But we should be more involved in taking care of our brothers and sisters in Christ. “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith. So that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.” Philemon 6.
source-http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=129692
I’ve heard many things about how we’re ruining our planet, but this one takes the cake. I just read that Anglican Bishop Gordon Mursell has recently compared the people who don’t take action about the global warming issue to Josef Fritzl, an Austrian rapist and child abuser. Now, how in the world does this relate? There is no way that this can make sense. How can a non-tree hugger be compared to a pedophile?
Thank goodness he’s not comparing people like me (yes, I’ll admit it. I’m not gung-ho about this global warming issue) to rapists and child abusers. He is showing that there is a comparison between Fritzl’s attitude and mine-we are selfish, and only are concerned with ourselves. He believes that we are ruining the future for our children by not taking action about global warming.
I understand that Bishop Mursell is concerned about our well being, but I just happen to believe that global warming is a bunch of bologna. I believe that God created this world, and that he gave it to humans to take care of it, but I do not believe that we are in charge of destroying the earth. That’s God’s job. Not mine. While I fully believe that we do have an impact on this earth, we do not control it, or its outcome.
I believe that we need to be more concerned with the people on the planet rather than conserving energy. How about we focus on changing lives rather than changing gas-powered to water-powered? The world needs a Savior, not another person trying to tell them to save trees. God did give us this world to take care of it. But we should be more involved in taking care of our brothers and sisters in Christ. “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith. So that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.” Philemon 6.
source-http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=129692
All three US candidates are strong on global warming: UN climate chief
All three US candidates are strong on global warming: UN climate chief
PARIS (AFP) — UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said on Tuesday the profiles of all three US presidential candidates pointed to a major change in US policies on global warming after George W. Bush leaves the White House next January.
Yvo de Boer, who is executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said he found the stances of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain "very encouraging."
"All three presidential candidates have recognised the importance of climate change; want to act on climate change; want to develop a strong domestic policy approach; seem to favour a policy approach that goes in the direction of a cap-and-trade regime which would mesh very well with the direction in which other industrialised countries want to go; and seem to favour an international approach to climate change," de Boer said in Paris.
"So, in other words, whoever wins the presidential elections, I think that we will see a pro-active, international, market-based approach to climate change in the United States, founded on solid domestic policy."
The United States is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases which stoke man-made global warming, although by some estimates it has been overtaken by China.
Under the Bush presidency, the United States walked away from the UNFCCC's Kyoto Protocol, saying its caps on emissions by industrial countries were too costly for the US economy and unfair as big developing countries do not have such constraints.
Under a bill put before the US Senate this week, the United States would set up its own cap-and-trade system, meaning that companies would be set a ceiling of carbon emissions, and those who are below it can sell the surplus to those who are above it.
The idea behind cap-and-trade is to provide a financial incentive to reduce carbon pollution.
De Boer, speaking at a climate conference hosted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), said it was a "very exciting week in Washington" but added "let's see" if the so-called Lieberman-Warner bill becomes law.
Bush has threatened to veto the bill "in its current form," saying it would impose six trillion dollars of new costs on the US economy.
Proponents, though, say the bill, in addition to reducing carbon emissions, would raise fuel efficiency and ease dependence on foreign energy imports.
source-http://afp.google.com/article/
PARIS (AFP) — UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said on Tuesday the profiles of all three US presidential candidates pointed to a major change in US policies on global warming after George W. Bush leaves the White House next January.
Yvo de Boer, who is executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said he found the stances of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain "very encouraging."
"All three presidential candidates have recognised the importance of climate change; want to act on climate change; want to develop a strong domestic policy approach; seem to favour a policy approach that goes in the direction of a cap-and-trade regime which would mesh very well with the direction in which other industrialised countries want to go; and seem to favour an international approach to climate change," de Boer said in Paris.
"So, in other words, whoever wins the presidential elections, I think that we will see a pro-active, international, market-based approach to climate change in the United States, founded on solid domestic policy."
The United States is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases which stoke man-made global warming, although by some estimates it has been overtaken by China.
Under the Bush presidency, the United States walked away from the UNFCCC's Kyoto Protocol, saying its caps on emissions by industrial countries were too costly for the US economy and unfair as big developing countries do not have such constraints.
Under a bill put before the US Senate this week, the United States would set up its own cap-and-trade system, meaning that companies would be set a ceiling of carbon emissions, and those who are below it can sell the surplus to those who are above it.
The idea behind cap-and-trade is to provide a financial incentive to reduce carbon pollution.
De Boer, speaking at a climate conference hosted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), said it was a "very exciting week in Washington" but added "let's see" if the so-called Lieberman-Warner bill becomes law.
Bush has threatened to veto the bill "in its current form," saying it would impose six trillion dollars of new costs on the US economy.
Proponents, though, say the bill, in addition to reducing carbon emissions, would raise fuel efficiency and ease dependence on foreign energy imports.
source-http://afp.google.com/article/
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
We can all fight global warming
We can all fight global warming
Editor’s note: The following column was written by Columneetza Grade 12 student Brittany Betts-Edwards as part of the work experience component of his graduation transitions program.
The baking sun of the approaching summer is starting to feel like we are all ants getting burned under a magnifying glass. Scorching hot!
What happened to the times when it was hot, not scorching? The summers of our childhoods, back when the breeze was actually cold and could send chills down your spine? Global Warming is winning the fight against this. We will be lucky if we ever get to see our old summers again.
If we do not slow down Global Warming, it will get worse. Do we really want it to become more like Global Boiling or something of the like? I sure know that I don’t want that.
“Global Warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century,” as said by online source, Wikipedia.
Solar variations, combined with volcanoes, are natural phenomena that have led to the contribution. But through the natural, there are many unnatural, many that us humans have put in ourselves. Non-renewable resources, with carbon dioxide in the lead, are a huge problem.
Some of our other problems are that some families have too many vehicles when they are not needed. Yes, my family included.
Many families also use too much energy inside their homes when they don’t even need to. As the commercials on Much Music say, “Flick Off!” And pollution? That’s another huge problem. Why do people litter anyway? Not only is it dangerous for our environment, but it also looks disgusting. We really need to stop this mess.
The scorching sun is not only harming us as people, but harming everything around us as well. Because of all the sudden heat waves, sea levels are rising very quickly. Yes, it is true that they would be rising anyway, not this fast though. Global Warming has sped up the process quite quickly. The ozone is turning into a giant magnifying glass over the world due to the depletion.
Solutions are waiting for you everywhere. Look around you. Even the simplest of all things could help. It’s worth it, right?
No one wants to burn up under the sun. You can do things in your home, with your vehicles, inefficient energy, in your yard, and with a littering habit that you may, or may not have.
Sitting in your house alone right now? Take a look around you.
Right there you saw many things that could probably help in our fight — the light bulbs for instance. Have lights that you use often? Switch them to the energy saving fluorescent bulbs. Another bright side to fluorescent bulbs is that they last longer. (Did you know that switching even just one light to a fluorescent bulb saves 150 pounds of carbon dioxide a year?) That’s what we are doing in our house. Most of our lights are the fluorescent bulbs.
Do you have a dishwasher? If yes, next time you plan on running it, make sure it is full. If it’s not, wait or do the dishes by hand.
This saves both water and energy, both of which are valuable. Also, you should never leave water on that is not being used.
Fun Fact: Using a clothesline when possible can save you more than 600 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Throughout the summer, we only use our dryer on the days that the clothes are out on the line when it starts to rain.
How many vehicles does one family really need? If it’s nice out, why don’t you walk? Walking is a great way to get around.
Or you could bike, depending on which you prefer. Why not? They are fun, save energy, and help to get you in shape.
What have you really got to lose? But, if you really must drive, think about carpooling.
Get as many of you as you can into the vehicle. Think about it. If you don’t do it that way, most of you will take separate vehicles.
That is a lot of pollution right there.
Fun Fact: leaving your car at home three days every week can save you up to 2,385 pounds of carbon dioxide in one year.
There is so much energy being used, much of which is inefficient. Think about it. Does your television really need to be on when no one is watching it?
How about the light that is on in the empty room down the hall?
Or how about your computer that is sitting there, no one even thinking of touching it for another hour or two? Get up and turn them off; they do not need to be on.
The least you can do with a computer is turn the monitor off. Yes, the monitor uses the most energy out of the entire computer.
Why leave the lights on when you are in bed, or not in a room at all? It is pointless, yet many of us do it. Why? Are we just scared of the dark?
The same things will get you either way. Light will only really protect you from vampires and other monsters of that sort.
Since they do not exist, we do not have to worry about it. Every night before bed, check that all the lights and appliances are off. Either my mother or I make sure to do that every night. Plus, turning them off gives you an advantage in another way: smaller bills.
Stop using powered tools in your yard. Is that really necessary? No. That is the lazy way of doing yard work. You should be using push-mowers, rakes, shovels, and hedge clippers.
My father has a powered lawn mower, but every time he goes to use it, there is something wrong.
Whether it is the cord being chewed by a pet, or being out of gas, it is a problem. With a push-mower, you do not have to worry about those problems.
Litter is a very vile and disgusting habit. Garbage on the ground of the Earth is what second hand smoke is like to people. It is both dangerous and deadly.
Those who don’t do it, have no control, and often can’t escape the smoke.
Well, the Earth cannot escape litter, no matter how bad it would like to. Is it so hard to use garbage cans or recycle? Anything that cannot be recycled could at least be thrown into a garbage can.
Just hold onto the garbage until you come across an appropriate can to place it in. Next time you see someone drop something on the ground, stop him or her and ask him or her to pick it up. If you are too scared to say something, pick it up yourself. Either way, you are helping out and should feel good about yourself. Now that you are doing things the proper way, the world is beautiful and is one step closer to being saved.
Unaware of the places you can go in Williams Lake you can go to recycle? Fear no longer. There are three places that you can go: Hodgson Road, the Recreation Complex, and the Landfill. We are all familiar with at least one of these places.
Things that can be recycled:
•Newsprint (no glossy flyers)
•Mixed papers (no glossy magazines, pizza boxes, or books)
•Tin cans (no aerosol, paint, or metal cans)
•Cardboard
•Glass food jars and bottles (no pane glass, light bulbs, or other glass)
Global Warming is a major problem that needs special attention. We just need to follow these simple steps, and we can save the world in a big way. We should all pitch in; we all want to live, right? No one wants to get burned under that giant magnifying glass.
Summers may never go back to the way that we remember them, but it is worth a try. How are we going to find out if we do not try?
source-http://www.bclocalnews.com
Editor’s note: The following column was written by Columneetza Grade 12 student Brittany Betts-Edwards as part of the work experience component of his graduation transitions program.
The baking sun of the approaching summer is starting to feel like we are all ants getting burned under a magnifying glass. Scorching hot!
What happened to the times when it was hot, not scorching? The summers of our childhoods, back when the breeze was actually cold and could send chills down your spine? Global Warming is winning the fight against this. We will be lucky if we ever get to see our old summers again.
If we do not slow down Global Warming, it will get worse. Do we really want it to become more like Global Boiling or something of the like? I sure know that I don’t want that.
“Global Warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century,” as said by online source, Wikipedia.
Solar variations, combined with volcanoes, are natural phenomena that have led to the contribution. But through the natural, there are many unnatural, many that us humans have put in ourselves. Non-renewable resources, with carbon dioxide in the lead, are a huge problem.
Some of our other problems are that some families have too many vehicles when they are not needed. Yes, my family included.
Many families also use too much energy inside their homes when they don’t even need to. As the commercials on Much Music say, “Flick Off!” And pollution? That’s another huge problem. Why do people litter anyway? Not only is it dangerous for our environment, but it also looks disgusting. We really need to stop this mess.
The scorching sun is not only harming us as people, but harming everything around us as well. Because of all the sudden heat waves, sea levels are rising very quickly. Yes, it is true that they would be rising anyway, not this fast though. Global Warming has sped up the process quite quickly. The ozone is turning into a giant magnifying glass over the world due to the depletion.
Solutions are waiting for you everywhere. Look around you. Even the simplest of all things could help. It’s worth it, right?
No one wants to burn up under the sun. You can do things in your home, with your vehicles, inefficient energy, in your yard, and with a littering habit that you may, or may not have.
Sitting in your house alone right now? Take a look around you.
Right there you saw many things that could probably help in our fight — the light bulbs for instance. Have lights that you use often? Switch them to the energy saving fluorescent bulbs. Another bright side to fluorescent bulbs is that they last longer. (Did you know that switching even just one light to a fluorescent bulb saves 150 pounds of carbon dioxide a year?) That’s what we are doing in our house. Most of our lights are the fluorescent bulbs.
Do you have a dishwasher? If yes, next time you plan on running it, make sure it is full. If it’s not, wait or do the dishes by hand.
This saves both water and energy, both of which are valuable. Also, you should never leave water on that is not being used.
Fun Fact: Using a clothesline when possible can save you more than 600 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Throughout the summer, we only use our dryer on the days that the clothes are out on the line when it starts to rain.
How many vehicles does one family really need? If it’s nice out, why don’t you walk? Walking is a great way to get around.
Or you could bike, depending on which you prefer. Why not? They are fun, save energy, and help to get you in shape.
What have you really got to lose? But, if you really must drive, think about carpooling.
Get as many of you as you can into the vehicle. Think about it. If you don’t do it that way, most of you will take separate vehicles.
That is a lot of pollution right there.
Fun Fact: leaving your car at home three days every week can save you up to 2,385 pounds of carbon dioxide in one year.
There is so much energy being used, much of which is inefficient. Think about it. Does your television really need to be on when no one is watching it?
How about the light that is on in the empty room down the hall?
Or how about your computer that is sitting there, no one even thinking of touching it for another hour or two? Get up and turn them off; they do not need to be on.
The least you can do with a computer is turn the monitor off. Yes, the monitor uses the most energy out of the entire computer.
Why leave the lights on when you are in bed, or not in a room at all? It is pointless, yet many of us do it. Why? Are we just scared of the dark?
The same things will get you either way. Light will only really protect you from vampires and other monsters of that sort.
Since they do not exist, we do not have to worry about it. Every night before bed, check that all the lights and appliances are off. Either my mother or I make sure to do that every night. Plus, turning them off gives you an advantage in another way: smaller bills.
Stop using powered tools in your yard. Is that really necessary? No. That is the lazy way of doing yard work. You should be using push-mowers, rakes, shovels, and hedge clippers.
My father has a powered lawn mower, but every time he goes to use it, there is something wrong.
Whether it is the cord being chewed by a pet, or being out of gas, it is a problem. With a push-mower, you do not have to worry about those problems.
Litter is a very vile and disgusting habit. Garbage on the ground of the Earth is what second hand smoke is like to people. It is both dangerous and deadly.
Those who don’t do it, have no control, and often can’t escape the smoke.
Well, the Earth cannot escape litter, no matter how bad it would like to. Is it so hard to use garbage cans or recycle? Anything that cannot be recycled could at least be thrown into a garbage can.
Just hold onto the garbage until you come across an appropriate can to place it in. Next time you see someone drop something on the ground, stop him or her and ask him or her to pick it up. If you are too scared to say something, pick it up yourself. Either way, you are helping out and should feel good about yourself. Now that you are doing things the proper way, the world is beautiful and is one step closer to being saved.
Unaware of the places you can go in Williams Lake you can go to recycle? Fear no longer. There are three places that you can go: Hodgson Road, the Recreation Complex, and the Landfill. We are all familiar with at least one of these places.
Things that can be recycled:
•Newsprint (no glossy flyers)
•Mixed papers (no glossy magazines, pizza boxes, or books)
•Tin cans (no aerosol, paint, or metal cans)
•Cardboard
•Glass food jars and bottles (no pane glass, light bulbs, or other glass)
Global Warming is a major problem that needs special attention. We just need to follow these simple steps, and we can save the world in a big way. We should all pitch in; we all want to live, right? No one wants to get burned under that giant magnifying glass.
Summers may never go back to the way that we remember them, but it is worth a try. How are we going to find out if we do not try?
source-http://www.bclocalnews.com
G8 To Decide Human Fighting With Global Warming
G8 To Decide Human Fighting With Global Warming
The need for a global warming pact has reunited a Group of Eight environment ministers on Monday in Japan.
U.N. European countries and other developing nations made pressures on the eight ministers to discuss and find a solution for this major issue that is affecting the whole world. They even suggested that a cut of the emissions might be a first step in showing everyone's interest in improving the environment. Therefore, the ministers should set some limits or targets for cutting emissions by 2020.
However, it seems that the ministers from the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain, Canada, Italy and Russia set a target for 2050, not taking into consideration the environmentalists’ frustrations. Moreover, even the Germany’s state minister for environment, Matthias Machnig, agreed that “the next 20 years are very vital, very important for climate change and the decisions we make in this process.”
There was a general opinion that emissions should be cut 50% by 2050 and that countries should take control over the rate of greenhouse increase. However, scientific reviews show that emissions cuts from 25% to 40% by 2020 are a necessity for stopping global temperatures from rising. With the entire math made, U.S and Japan carefully stated that they are not willing to obey.
Reuters announced today that the U.S. Senate would debate on June 2 a bill that could cut global warming emissions by 66% by 2050.
The three-day conference in Kobe was a forerunner for the Toyako summit, which will be held in July.
Naoyuki Yamagishi, head of the Climate Change Program at WWF Japan, one of the largest multinational conservation organization in the world, considers that “G8 failed to send a signal of hope for a breakthrough at the July summit, although this meeting in Kobe was an opportunity to accelerate the slow progress of G8 climate negotiations.”
source-http://www.enews20.com
The need for a global warming pact has reunited a Group of Eight environment ministers on Monday in Japan.
U.N. European countries and other developing nations made pressures on the eight ministers to discuss and find a solution for this major issue that is affecting the whole world. They even suggested that a cut of the emissions might be a first step in showing everyone's interest in improving the environment. Therefore, the ministers should set some limits or targets for cutting emissions by 2020.
However, it seems that the ministers from the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain, Canada, Italy and Russia set a target for 2050, not taking into consideration the environmentalists’ frustrations. Moreover, even the Germany’s state minister for environment, Matthias Machnig, agreed that “the next 20 years are very vital, very important for climate change and the decisions we make in this process.”
There was a general opinion that emissions should be cut 50% by 2050 and that countries should take control over the rate of greenhouse increase. However, scientific reviews show that emissions cuts from 25% to 40% by 2020 are a necessity for stopping global temperatures from rising. With the entire math made, U.S and Japan carefully stated that they are not willing to obey.
Reuters announced today that the U.S. Senate would debate on June 2 a bill that could cut global warming emissions by 66% by 2050.
The three-day conference in Kobe was a forerunner for the Toyako summit, which will be held in July.
Naoyuki Yamagishi, head of the Climate Change Program at WWF Japan, one of the largest multinational conservation organization in the world, considers that “G8 failed to send a signal of hope for a breakthrough at the July summit, although this meeting in Kobe was an opportunity to accelerate the slow progress of G8 climate negotiations.”
source-http://www.enews20.com
Monday, May 26, 2008
Many Global Warming Skeptics Are Environmentalists
Many Global Warming Skeptics Are Environmentalists
That’s the interesting take from theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson. He’s becoming a leading voice asking for nothing more than rational discussion on the issue of global warming. He’s a leading voice, but one of the 30,000 scientists who just announced publicly they think government action on global warming would be misplaced. Then there’s this from a Dyson article in the New York Review of Books:
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
source-http://thechillingeffect.org/
That’s the interesting take from theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson. He’s becoming a leading voice asking for nothing more than rational discussion on the issue of global warming. He’s a leading voice, but one of the 30,000 scientists who just announced publicly they think government action on global warming would be misplaced. Then there’s this from a Dyson article in the New York Review of Books:
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
source-http://thechillingeffect.org/
A vision for fighting global warming in Latin-America
Action on climate change must go hand-in-hand with the fight against poverty, Luis Alberto Moreno, president of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), said on Wednesday at the Tel Aviv University Conference on Alternative Energy.
Inter-American Development Bank President Luis Alberto Moreno
Photo: Courtesy
Moreno, formerly a Columbian politician and diplomat, spoke of the difference between global warming activism in wealthy countries and in the mostly poor nations of Latin America.
Latin America has as much reason, or more, to be worried about climate change, Moreno said. The poor are more likely to be affected by weather effects and increased food prices that scientists say are liable to result from an increase in global temperatures.
Although Latin America uses relatively less energy than the developed world, due to low income levels, the region's energy needs are growing fast, Moreno said. Energy use in the region will increase by 76 percent by 2030, according to IDB forecasts, requiring a significant investment in capacity.
Understandably, poorer nations are reluctant to invest in expensive alternative energy technologies, but Moreno said alternative energy could actually help the region fight poverty.
One well-known example is Brazil's investment in ethanol production, which has been an economic boon. Brazil's example sends somewhat of a mixed message, though, as ethanol production has raised the price of food, making life very hard for many poor people. Next-generation biofuels may find ways of avoiding what Moreno calls the "food-fuel-wilderness" tradeoff.
Latin America has been investing in other areas of alternative energy as well. Brazil has seen a nine-fold increase in wind power production, while Mexico has recently geared-up capacity to some 500 MW, (though still a paltry amount compared to tens of thousands of total electric capacity in the country).
Hydroelectric power, generated from the energy of river flow, has already been a significant player in Latin America. The construction of dams in such areas as Costa Rica and elsewhere has brought electricity to many rural communities, as well as reduced dependence on energy imports.
Due to the high cost of building dams and turbines, the IDB has been looking at "micro-hydro," smaller dams with shorter construction times, less capital investment, and, hopefully, mitigated environmental effect.
Programs such as micro-hydro, supported by international development money, can strike a formula for fossil-fuel reduction on rural development that is a winning equation for Latin American governments.
After the meeting, Moreno told The Jerusalem Post he had met with officials in Israel, including Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On, and that Israeli opportunities in Latin America could include both renewable energy projects, as well as the spread of modern agricultural techniques.
The recent rise in global food prices means that investment in agri-tech will be more lucrative for farmers, and help solve a dire need for the region's poor.
source-http://www.jpost.com/
Inter-American Development Bank President Luis Alberto Moreno
Photo: Courtesy
Moreno, formerly a Columbian politician and diplomat, spoke of the difference between global warming activism in wealthy countries and in the mostly poor nations of Latin America.
Latin America has as much reason, or more, to be worried about climate change, Moreno said. The poor are more likely to be affected by weather effects and increased food prices that scientists say are liable to result from an increase in global temperatures.
Although Latin America uses relatively less energy than the developed world, due to low income levels, the region's energy needs are growing fast, Moreno said. Energy use in the region will increase by 76 percent by 2030, according to IDB forecasts, requiring a significant investment in capacity.
Understandably, poorer nations are reluctant to invest in expensive alternative energy technologies, but Moreno said alternative energy could actually help the region fight poverty.
One well-known example is Brazil's investment in ethanol production, which has been an economic boon. Brazil's example sends somewhat of a mixed message, though, as ethanol production has raised the price of food, making life very hard for many poor people. Next-generation biofuels may find ways of avoiding what Moreno calls the "food-fuel-wilderness" tradeoff.
Latin America has been investing in other areas of alternative energy as well. Brazil has seen a nine-fold increase in wind power production, while Mexico has recently geared-up capacity to some 500 MW, (though still a paltry amount compared to tens of thousands of total electric capacity in the country).
Hydroelectric power, generated from the energy of river flow, has already been a significant player in Latin America. The construction of dams in such areas as Costa Rica and elsewhere has brought electricity to many rural communities, as well as reduced dependence on energy imports.
Due to the high cost of building dams and turbines, the IDB has been looking at "micro-hydro," smaller dams with shorter construction times, less capital investment, and, hopefully, mitigated environmental effect.
Programs such as micro-hydro, supported by international development money, can strike a formula for fossil-fuel reduction on rural development that is a winning equation for Latin American governments.
After the meeting, Moreno told The Jerusalem Post he had met with officials in Israel, including Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On, and that Israeli opportunities in Latin America could include both renewable energy projects, as well as the spread of modern agricultural techniques.
The recent rise in global food prices means that investment in agri-tech will be more lucrative for farmers, and help solve a dire need for the region's poor.
source-http://www.jpost.com/
State needs to stay strong on global warming act
As gas prices creep across the $4-per-gallon mark, most consumers recognize that an inefficient car is a drag on the family budget.
Multiply those high prices across the state and it's clear that heavy oil dependence is a drag on the economy. The more we spend on pricey oil, the less money is available for more productive uses, including job-creating investments.
Worse still, burning oil contributes to global warming, a clear risk to California's economy because of the projected impacts on air quality, public health and mountain snowpack.
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act that was adopted in 2006 to cap greenhouse gas emissions statewide, will help all of us use energy more efficiently, cut dependence on costly oil and reduce the risks of climate change. It's important to keep the state on track toward implementation.
In adopting America's first cap on global warming pollution, California has taken the lead in addressing the interrelated problems of energy security, environmental quality and economic growth.
In our view as businessmen and Republicans, AB 32 sets our economy on a fast trajectory toward greater prosperity and an improved quality of life for all Californians.
First, energy efficiency makes smart business sense. Over the past 30 years, California's groundbreaking energy policies have helped to grow one of the largest, most diverse economies in the world while reducing global warming pollution to the lowest per capita level in the country.
Energy efficiency has cut California's electricity costs dramatically. If California's annual statewide electricity bill were the same fraction of GDP as Texas', for example, Californians would be paying almost $25 billion more for electricity each year. Instead, money not spent on wasted electricity is available for investment, generating economic growth and jobs.
The savings generated by efficiency multiply. According to the International Energy Agency, every $1 spent on high-efficiency electrical equipment, appliances and buildings avoids more than $2 in spending on power plants.
Efficiency is the first vital step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Efficiency can deliver more than 50 percent of the total global warming emissions reductions needed worldwide to keep the climate stable, according to a recent analysis published by the McKinsey Global Institute.
The next vital step is to create market certainty in order to encourage greater investment in cleaner energy technologies. By adopting emissions caps in AB 32, California established certainty in a political environment where uncertainty over inevitable global warming reductions made long-term investment decisions difficult.
Before AB 32's adoption, investment in clean technology – now the third-largest and fastest-growing category of venture capital investment – was going overseas where policies are known and rules are predictable.
After Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32 into law, venture capital investments in cleaner energy technologies skyrocketed in California. In the first half of 2007, the state attracted 49 percent of all clean tech venture capital in the United States.
Our state also leads the United States in clean tech patent registration – a harbinger of innovation. This is critically important. When California innovates – witness computers and biotechnology – it changes the world and captures a significant share of markets in emerging industries.
Worldwide, revenues from clean energy technology – wind, solar, fuel cells and biofuels – totaled $77 billion in 2007. By 2017, total revenue is projected to grow to $254 billion. Thanks to AB 32, California is well positioned to be a major player in the fast growing clean energy industry.
Grabbing a large share of clean energy's projected growth will keep money and jobs in California. Every year, California exports $30 billion – $2,500 from every California household – to buy fossil fuels. Thanks to AB 32, more of that money will stay home and create jobs here.
Importantly, the benefits will not be limited to a few urban clusters. Because clean energy production is distributed broadly, every part of the state will share in the wealth that it creates. Today, clean energy businesses are popping up in all 58 of California's counties.
Delaying implementation of AB 32 would put that growth potential at risk. If California dawdles, the investments will go elsewhere. Texas will gladly take the wind dollars, Germany the solar and the Midwest will capture the biofuel investments.
In a global market with hungry competitors, the punishment for hesitation is swift and sure.
California cannot afford delay.
California needs to stay on track with AB 32 for the health of our economy and for the future generations that depend on our decisions.
source-http://www.sacbee.com/
Multiply those high prices across the state and it's clear that heavy oil dependence is a drag on the economy. The more we spend on pricey oil, the less money is available for more productive uses, including job-creating investments.
Worse still, burning oil contributes to global warming, a clear risk to California's economy because of the projected impacts on air quality, public health and mountain snowpack.
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act that was adopted in 2006 to cap greenhouse gas emissions statewide, will help all of us use energy more efficiently, cut dependence on costly oil and reduce the risks of climate change. It's important to keep the state on track toward implementation.
In adopting America's first cap on global warming pollution, California has taken the lead in addressing the interrelated problems of energy security, environmental quality and economic growth.
In our view as businessmen and Republicans, AB 32 sets our economy on a fast trajectory toward greater prosperity and an improved quality of life for all Californians.
First, energy efficiency makes smart business sense. Over the past 30 years, California's groundbreaking energy policies have helped to grow one of the largest, most diverse economies in the world while reducing global warming pollution to the lowest per capita level in the country.
Energy efficiency has cut California's electricity costs dramatically. If California's annual statewide electricity bill were the same fraction of GDP as Texas', for example, Californians would be paying almost $25 billion more for electricity each year. Instead, money not spent on wasted electricity is available for investment, generating economic growth and jobs.
The savings generated by efficiency multiply. According to the International Energy Agency, every $1 spent on high-efficiency electrical equipment, appliances and buildings avoids more than $2 in spending on power plants.
Efficiency is the first vital step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Efficiency can deliver more than 50 percent of the total global warming emissions reductions needed worldwide to keep the climate stable, according to a recent analysis published by the McKinsey Global Institute.
The next vital step is to create market certainty in order to encourage greater investment in cleaner energy technologies. By adopting emissions caps in AB 32, California established certainty in a political environment where uncertainty over inevitable global warming reductions made long-term investment decisions difficult.
Before AB 32's adoption, investment in clean technology – now the third-largest and fastest-growing category of venture capital investment – was going overseas where policies are known and rules are predictable.
After Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32 into law, venture capital investments in cleaner energy technologies skyrocketed in California. In the first half of 2007, the state attracted 49 percent of all clean tech venture capital in the United States.
Our state also leads the United States in clean tech patent registration – a harbinger of innovation. This is critically important. When California innovates – witness computers and biotechnology – it changes the world and captures a significant share of markets in emerging industries.
Worldwide, revenues from clean energy technology – wind, solar, fuel cells and biofuels – totaled $77 billion in 2007. By 2017, total revenue is projected to grow to $254 billion. Thanks to AB 32, California is well positioned to be a major player in the fast growing clean energy industry.
Grabbing a large share of clean energy's projected growth will keep money and jobs in California. Every year, California exports $30 billion – $2,500 from every California household – to buy fossil fuels. Thanks to AB 32, more of that money will stay home and create jobs here.
Importantly, the benefits will not be limited to a few urban clusters. Because clean energy production is distributed broadly, every part of the state will share in the wealth that it creates. Today, clean energy businesses are popping up in all 58 of California's counties.
Delaying implementation of AB 32 would put that growth potential at risk. If California dawdles, the investments will go elsewhere. Texas will gladly take the wind dollars, Germany the solar and the Midwest will capture the biofuel investments.
In a global market with hungry competitors, the punishment for hesitation is swift and sure.
California cannot afford delay.
California needs to stay on track with AB 32 for the health of our economy and for the future generations that depend on our decisions.
source-http://www.sacbee.com/
Global Warming or Planet X
Global Warming or Planet X
There's alot of public data and scientific consensus on the reasons for global warming from increased car emissions to the rapid melting of the artic glaciers. Now, we're being told that we need new and cleaner fuel alternatives which are heavily taxing our food supplies. In our daily hustle for survival have we considered whether or not we are being told the REAL truth?
We must keep in mind that whenever there are global events that can have global impact on human behavior the "actual" truth cannot always be revealed in the manner which we think and feel. Take for example, if all governments would reveal to all people everywhere that alien life forms exist and that they do live inside our planet and governments also are working directly with them on special underground projects how would this effect the overall population...? Naturally, many would panic and chaos would be center stage in all aspects of people's lives.
The subject of this discussion is global warming and more importantly the year 2012 and our planetary positioning within the milky way. Is there a connection? The video Surviving 2012 gives a comprehensive insight to the REAL celestial problems that have been causing global warming as well as disturbances within our solar system. In videos 1 thru 5 you'll discover historical proof as well as scientific extrapolations that point to something far more destructive than greenhouse gases – Planet X! This giant, rogue planet and its 7 billion miles eliptical trajectory is enough to cause perturbations among all the planets in our solar system!
In fact, when governments and the media decide to announce the REAL facts to the general public there may be little time left for planning. After viewing the video I certainly would like to hear our views on the matter. It's not for the faint of heart. The truth of Planet X certainly puts our backs against the wall. Planet X has visited Earth once before and hopefully this time we get to prepare ourselves for the ultimate in catastrophe.
source-http://www.gather.com/
There's alot of public data and scientific consensus on the reasons for global warming from increased car emissions to the rapid melting of the artic glaciers. Now, we're being told that we need new and cleaner fuel alternatives which are heavily taxing our food supplies. In our daily hustle for survival have we considered whether or not we are being told the REAL truth?
We must keep in mind that whenever there are global events that can have global impact on human behavior the "actual" truth cannot always be revealed in the manner which we think and feel. Take for example, if all governments would reveal to all people everywhere that alien life forms exist and that they do live inside our planet and governments also are working directly with them on special underground projects how would this effect the overall population...? Naturally, many would panic and chaos would be center stage in all aspects of people's lives.
The subject of this discussion is global warming and more importantly the year 2012 and our planetary positioning within the milky way. Is there a connection? The video Surviving 2012 gives a comprehensive insight to the REAL celestial problems that have been causing global warming as well as disturbances within our solar system. In videos 1 thru 5 you'll discover historical proof as well as scientific extrapolations that point to something far more destructive than greenhouse gases – Planet X! This giant, rogue planet and its 7 billion miles eliptical trajectory is enough to cause perturbations among all the planets in our solar system!
In fact, when governments and the media decide to announce the REAL facts to the general public there may be little time left for planning. After viewing the video I certainly would like to hear our views on the matter. It's not for the faint of heart. The truth of Planet X certainly puts our backs against the wall. Planet X has visited Earth once before and hopefully this time we get to prepare ourselves for the ultimate in catastrophe.
source-http://www.gather.com/
Global warming solutions a tough sell for San Carlos City Council
The current plan is to hire a consultant to help the city create a comprehensive "climate protection program" as part of its ongoing General Plan update, due to conclude in a year. San Carlos will be able employ information from a regionwide greenhouse gas inventory currently being prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and, like other cities, is waiting on the state to release an estimate of where carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions stood in 1990.
Councilman Omar Ahmad took issue with Grocott's beliefs about climate change but did not press the point. Like Mayor Bradford Lewis, he pointed out that the actions described in the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement, such as improving energy efficiency in government buildings or using hybrid cars for city business, were things the city had already started doing and were clearly within its reach.
"We may take some of these actions, we may do something that's even more leading," said Ahmad, who sipped from a reusable water canteen while others on the dais drank from paper cups.
The call to action on climate change was sounded more than a year ago by San Carlos Green, a residents' group that has petitioned the city to adopt green building standards and take other forward-looking steps, such as appointing a "green task force" similar to San Mateo's that would be independent of the General Plan process. The group presented 150
signatures and several letters from local churches and neighborhood associations earlier in May.
The "alternate" letter San Carlos may adopt "essentially has no commitments by the city whatsoever," said Julie Willard, an elementary school science teacher and leading member of San Carlos Green. "We're just trying to advocate for more community involvement in the climate action plan. ... It feels to us like they're trying to contain it from having more public involvement than we'd like to have."
Nearly 850 U.S. cities have signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement since the launch of the initiative, which came in response to President Bush's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In San Mateo County,10 cities have signed the letter, including Atherton, Burlingame, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Mateo and South San Francisco. Others, like Foster City, have adopted letters of good intent that nevertheless carry little language that is binding.
In a presentation on May 12, Moura showcased several of the city's most prominent "green" accomplishments to date, such as a recent campaign to sign residents up for discounted solar panel installations in partnership with San Carlos Green, and its popular "Green Business" certification program. He said San Carlos would likely adopt a regional green building standard currently being developed by the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network rather than craft something on its own similar to the stringent new regulations the county recently incorporated. Pacifica established a green building task force earlier this month, and Brisbane has had standards in place for a while.
The city can only afford to spend about $15,000 per year on environmental initiatives, Moura said. San Carlos made headlines for eliminating its solar panel permit fees last year, but on June 30 they will increase to $250 because the city needs the money.
"Other communities are spending from $200,000 to $1 million in this area," Moura said.
Part of the reluctance to act alone on climate change comes from the belief that the city might eventually be reimbursed for fulfilling the mandates of Assembly Bill 32, otherwise known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB32, which only comes into effect in 2012, uses market-based incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a 25 percent reduction) and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
National Sierra Club Director Rafael Reyes said San Carlos shouldn't wait to see what requirements the state would impose, especially since AB32 focuses more on the energy industry and other polluters than it does on municipalities.
"AB32 is a pretty lengthy process. It's not at all clear that there will be specific mandates to cities," Reyes said. "I think there's a sincere intention to move things forward (in San Carlos), but there are a lot of opportunities they should be seizing."
source-http://www.mercurynews.com/
Councilman Omar Ahmad took issue with Grocott's beliefs about climate change but did not press the point. Like Mayor Bradford Lewis, he pointed out that the actions described in the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement, such as improving energy efficiency in government buildings or using hybrid cars for city business, were things the city had already started doing and were clearly within its reach.
"We may take some of these actions, we may do something that's even more leading," said Ahmad, who sipped from a reusable water canteen while others on the dais drank from paper cups.
The call to action on climate change was sounded more than a year ago by San Carlos Green, a residents' group that has petitioned the city to adopt green building standards and take other forward-looking steps, such as appointing a "green task force" similar to San Mateo's that would be independent of the General Plan process. The group presented 150
signatures and several letters from local churches and neighborhood associations earlier in May.
The "alternate" letter San Carlos may adopt "essentially has no commitments by the city whatsoever," said Julie Willard, an elementary school science teacher and leading member of San Carlos Green. "We're just trying to advocate for more community involvement in the climate action plan. ... It feels to us like they're trying to contain it from having more public involvement than we'd like to have."
Nearly 850 U.S. cities have signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement since the launch of the initiative, which came in response to President Bush's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In San Mateo County,10 cities have signed the letter, including Atherton, Burlingame, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Mateo and South San Francisco. Others, like Foster City, have adopted letters of good intent that nevertheless carry little language that is binding.
In a presentation on May 12, Moura showcased several of the city's most prominent "green" accomplishments to date, such as a recent campaign to sign residents up for discounted solar panel installations in partnership with San Carlos Green, and its popular "Green Business" certification program. He said San Carlos would likely adopt a regional green building standard currently being developed by the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network rather than craft something on its own similar to the stringent new regulations the county recently incorporated. Pacifica established a green building task force earlier this month, and Brisbane has had standards in place for a while.
The city can only afford to spend about $15,000 per year on environmental initiatives, Moura said. San Carlos made headlines for eliminating its solar panel permit fees last year, but on June 30 they will increase to $250 because the city needs the money.
"Other communities are spending from $200,000 to $1 million in this area," Moura said.
Part of the reluctance to act alone on climate change comes from the belief that the city might eventually be reimbursed for fulfilling the mandates of Assembly Bill 32, otherwise known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB32, which only comes into effect in 2012, uses market-based incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a 25 percent reduction) and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
National Sierra Club Director Rafael Reyes said San Carlos shouldn't wait to see what requirements the state would impose, especially since AB32 focuses more on the energy industry and other polluters than it does on municipalities.
"AB32 is a pretty lengthy process. It's not at all clear that there will be specific mandates to cities," Reyes said. "I think there's a sincere intention to move things forward (in San Carlos), but there are a lot of opportunities they should be seizing."
source-http://www.mercurynews.com/
Over 31,000 U.S. scientists deny man-made global warming
In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, posted his first Global Warming skeptic petition, on the Institute's website (oism.org). It quickly attracted the signatures of more than 17,000 Americans who held college degrees in science. Widely known as the Oregon Petition, it became a counter-weight for the "all scientists agree" mantra of the man-man Global Warming crowd.
Recently, with America being dragged toward Kyoto-style energy limits by cadres of alarmists, Robinson mailed a new copy of the petition to his original signers, asking them to recruit additional qualified scientists. Now his list includes nearly 32,000 American man-made warming skeptics with science qualifications. More than 9,000 hold scientific PhDs. Almost 32,000 thousand skeptics happens to be twelve times as many scientists as the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a scientific consensus.
Earlier this month Robinson held a press meeting at the National Press Club in DC, followed by a luncheon on Capital Hill, to which members of Congress and their aides were invited. Not surprisingly, attendance was low.
Robinson's petition states a truth: "There is no convincing evidence that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
What do these approx 32,000 scientists believe has caused the earth's warming since 1850 if it isn't CO2? He points to the sun. Robinson notes that over the past 150 years the sunspot index has predicted the Earth's temperature changes—with 79 percent accuracy—about ten years before they happen. The sunspots actually predicted the 2007 global temperature decline; the index turned down in 2000. The computer models didn't foresee it.
The correlation between Earth's temperatures and CO2 is only at the "accidental" level—22 percent and declining sharply over the past decade as the temperatures have refused to increase with the CO2 levels. Robinson says the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and past Earth temperatures proves that CO2 is not dominating our climate.
The Oregon chemist warns that "no other major scientific problem has ever been tackled the way the UN has approached global warming." The UN hosted a big meeting of scientists, he says, and then a small group of "authors" summarized the discussions into a global action plan. But the UN has never produced any evidence that humans are warming our climate. The UN panel says CO2 became the culprit "by the process of elimination" but such a process is neither scientific nor admissible in a court of law.
The forecasts of desperate temperature increases all come from computer climate models, notes Robinson. But the computer models keep forecasting more warming than we get. In fact, 70 percent of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, while virtually all of humanity's greenhouse gas emission has occurred since that date. The Earth's net warming since 1940 is a tiny 0.2 degree C.
"If CO2 isn't causing our tiny warming, then banning all our energy will simply make people poor and helpless, says Robinson, "The cold spells and heat waves nature will always throw at us, will then indeed, threaten human lives on the planet."
source-http://www.enterstageright.com/
Recently, with America being dragged toward Kyoto-style energy limits by cadres of alarmists, Robinson mailed a new copy of the petition to his original signers, asking them to recruit additional qualified scientists. Now his list includes nearly 32,000 American man-made warming skeptics with science qualifications. More than 9,000 hold scientific PhDs. Almost 32,000 thousand skeptics happens to be twelve times as many scientists as the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a scientific consensus.
Earlier this month Robinson held a press meeting at the National Press Club in DC, followed by a luncheon on Capital Hill, to which members of Congress and their aides were invited. Not surprisingly, attendance was low.
Robinson's petition states a truth: "There is no convincing evidence that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
What do these approx 32,000 scientists believe has caused the earth's warming since 1850 if it isn't CO2? He points to the sun. Robinson notes that over the past 150 years the sunspot index has predicted the Earth's temperature changes—with 79 percent accuracy—about ten years before they happen. The sunspots actually predicted the 2007 global temperature decline; the index turned down in 2000. The computer models didn't foresee it.
The correlation between Earth's temperatures and CO2 is only at the "accidental" level—22 percent and declining sharply over the past decade as the temperatures have refused to increase with the CO2 levels. Robinson says the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and past Earth temperatures proves that CO2 is not dominating our climate.
The Oregon chemist warns that "no other major scientific problem has ever been tackled the way the UN has approached global warming." The UN hosted a big meeting of scientists, he says, and then a small group of "authors" summarized the discussions into a global action plan. But the UN has never produced any evidence that humans are warming our climate. The UN panel says CO2 became the culprit "by the process of elimination" but such a process is neither scientific nor admissible in a court of law.
The forecasts of desperate temperature increases all come from computer climate models, notes Robinson. But the computer models keep forecasting more warming than we get. In fact, 70 percent of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, while virtually all of humanity's greenhouse gas emission has occurred since that date. The Earth's net warming since 1940 is a tiny 0.2 degree C.
"If CO2 isn't causing our tiny warming, then banning all our energy will simply make people poor and helpless, says Robinson, "The cold spells and heat waves nature will always throw at us, will then indeed, threaten human lives on the planet."
source-http://www.enterstageright.com/
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Global warming hoo-hah?
Global warming hoo-hah?
I usually try to stay out of emotional battles, especially ones about abortion, politics and global warming. It’s not that I don’t have strong feelings about all of those subjects; it’s that we all do and those strong feelings usually bring out the worst in people. We become so wrapped up in our own “rightness” and are so sure that anyone who disagrees with us is wrong that we forget that, like most things in the adult world, there are shades of gray. That others’ opinions are worth hearing even — especially — when we disagree. That the knee-jerk response of “I’m right and you’re wrong” only persuades others that you’re a jerk, not that you’re right.
So it is with much trepidation that I’m going to wade in on global warming. Hear me out because this is my opinion, and it’s one that I have struggled with for years. You can disagree without hurting my pride — in fact, please post your thoughts in the comments. I would like to hear them; I’m hardly infallible and certainly no scientist.
I don’t know whether global warming exists. I’ve heard both sides, and I honestly don’t know which scientists are correct (again, I’m no scientist, so how would I know which side is accurate?). I’ve heard all of the arguments against global warming. I’ve heard the one that says that since there is doubt in the scientific community, then that is enough to show that global warming doesn’t exist. I call B.S. on that one though. Scientists don’t agree on a lot of things, and frankly humanity doesn’t understand enough about the world to settle entirely on one side or the other. That’s hardly a reason to ignore the possibility of global warming.
I’ve heard the argument that fighting global warming would destroy the U.S. economy, and I reject that one, too. Would an all-out war against global warming hurt the U.S. economy in the short-term? Absolutely. But we Americans are smart, and we adapt quickly. Within a few years, businesses would change. Old ones — say, the current automobile industry — would change or die. New ones would spring up to feed the new demand for alternative fuel sources, alternative transportation. New, biodegradable creations would replace plastics. Why? Because there would be a huge demand, and wherever there is huge demand there is money to be made. Never discount human ingenuity and the quest for the almighty dollar.
I’ve heard the other arguments, too. Like the one that says pollution levels are dropping while global warming hype is sky-high, that the ozone layer has been healing itself, that carbon dioxide is not causing global warming and that humans aren’t causing it either. I’ve heard the arguments that this recent period of warming is cyclical in nature. I’ve even heard the argument that if global warming is real then humanity is already doomed because we don’t have enough time to stop it. I’ve heard them all, but I’m not convinced.
Why do I doubt? Because what if those arguments are wrong? What if humans are causing global warming? What if our generation is pissing away future generations’ legacy just so we can have cheap fuel? Just so we don’t have to change. What if it’s all our fault and we don’t do anything about it? Those questions should give you pause, even if you think global warming is a conspiracy led by Al Gore.
These are real questions: What if those arguments are wrong? Is it worth risking my baby son’s future? Are you confident enough that you are willing to risk your children’s future? Your grandchildren’s future? I’m not. There is just too much at stake to ignore the possible risk, to not do my part to give back to the planet that has given me so much. Call me a hippie if you like, but don’t tell me I haven’t thought this through. I’ve agonized about this for years.
Global warming may not exist — like I said, I don’t know which side is right — but there is too much at stake for me to ignore the possibility that we could be killing our planet and humanity itself. And if it turns out that global warming is just a bunch of hot air, then I can still feel good that I did something good for the world. It’s not about who’s right and who’s wrong for me. It’s about my baby’s legacy. I want to be a good steward for him and his generation. It’s the right thing to do.
source-http://aaronmarvin.wordpress.com/
I usually try to stay out of emotional battles, especially ones about abortion, politics and global warming. It’s not that I don’t have strong feelings about all of those subjects; it’s that we all do and those strong feelings usually bring out the worst in people. We become so wrapped up in our own “rightness” and are so sure that anyone who disagrees with us is wrong that we forget that, like most things in the adult world, there are shades of gray. That others’ opinions are worth hearing even — especially — when we disagree. That the knee-jerk response of “I’m right and you’re wrong” only persuades others that you’re a jerk, not that you’re right.
So it is with much trepidation that I’m going to wade in on global warming. Hear me out because this is my opinion, and it’s one that I have struggled with for years. You can disagree without hurting my pride — in fact, please post your thoughts in the comments. I would like to hear them; I’m hardly infallible and certainly no scientist.
I don’t know whether global warming exists. I’ve heard both sides, and I honestly don’t know which scientists are correct (again, I’m no scientist, so how would I know which side is accurate?). I’ve heard all of the arguments against global warming. I’ve heard the one that says that since there is doubt in the scientific community, then that is enough to show that global warming doesn’t exist. I call B.S. on that one though. Scientists don’t agree on a lot of things, and frankly humanity doesn’t understand enough about the world to settle entirely on one side or the other. That’s hardly a reason to ignore the possibility of global warming.
I’ve heard the argument that fighting global warming would destroy the U.S. economy, and I reject that one, too. Would an all-out war against global warming hurt the U.S. economy in the short-term? Absolutely. But we Americans are smart, and we adapt quickly. Within a few years, businesses would change. Old ones — say, the current automobile industry — would change or die. New ones would spring up to feed the new demand for alternative fuel sources, alternative transportation. New, biodegradable creations would replace plastics. Why? Because there would be a huge demand, and wherever there is huge demand there is money to be made. Never discount human ingenuity and the quest for the almighty dollar.
I’ve heard the other arguments, too. Like the one that says pollution levels are dropping while global warming hype is sky-high, that the ozone layer has been healing itself, that carbon dioxide is not causing global warming and that humans aren’t causing it either. I’ve heard the arguments that this recent period of warming is cyclical in nature. I’ve even heard the argument that if global warming is real then humanity is already doomed because we don’t have enough time to stop it. I’ve heard them all, but I’m not convinced.
Why do I doubt? Because what if those arguments are wrong? What if humans are causing global warming? What if our generation is pissing away future generations’ legacy just so we can have cheap fuel? Just so we don’t have to change. What if it’s all our fault and we don’t do anything about it? Those questions should give you pause, even if you think global warming is a conspiracy led by Al Gore.
These are real questions: What if those arguments are wrong? Is it worth risking my baby son’s future? Are you confident enough that you are willing to risk your children’s future? Your grandchildren’s future? I’m not. There is just too much at stake to ignore the possible risk, to not do my part to give back to the planet that has given me so much. Call me a hippie if you like, but don’t tell me I haven’t thought this through. I’ve agonized about this for years.
Global warming may not exist — like I said, I don’t know which side is right — but there is too much at stake for me to ignore the possibility that we could be killing our planet and humanity itself. And if it turns out that global warming is just a bunch of hot air, then I can still feel good that I did something good for the world. It’s not about who’s right and who’s wrong for me. It’s about my baby’s legacy. I want to be a good steward for him and his generation. It’s the right thing to do.
source-http://aaronmarvin.wordpress.com/
Global warming
Global warming
I should go to bed but since I’m actually inspired to write now I’m going to roll with it.
While browsing my bloggy links, I found (via Nashville is Talking - I’m too lazy to link, so look to your right) a post or two on global waming - you know, the “global warming is some big, bad, nasty commie hoax” type of viewpoint.
Now, I’m no scientist - my last science class was AP Biology my senior year of high school, back in 1996 (but, I should add, I did score a 4 of 5 on that AP exam) - but the global warming thing makes sense to me. If we’re pumping chemicals and Lord knows what else into our air - stuff that God never intended to be there - I don’t know, but it seems that the effects would take a toll.
If you don’t buy global warming, fine. But a lot of the anti-global warming crowd seem to think the whole “clean up the air, take care of the Earth” thing is wrong. What’s the harm in cleaning up house, guys? Seriously. Do you want to turn your neighborhood into a landfill? No? Then recycle your plastics, your newspapers - it doesn’t take a lot of time, heck, some of you people probably have a recycling pickup as part of your trash pickup and just don’t take advantage of it! And it doesn’t even have to be expensive to be a little green - my husband last mopped our floors with a vinegar solution vs. going to the store and getting your chemical-laden mop mix - we both swear our kitchen floor has never looked so good, and it’s cheaper to boot!
Anyway, rant over. Happy Belated Earth Day, ya’ll.
source-http://awesomeave.wordpress.com/
I should go to bed but since I’m actually inspired to write now I’m going to roll with it.
While browsing my bloggy links, I found (via Nashville is Talking - I’m too lazy to link, so look to your right) a post or two on global waming - you know, the “global warming is some big, bad, nasty commie hoax” type of viewpoint.
Now, I’m no scientist - my last science class was AP Biology my senior year of high school, back in 1996 (but, I should add, I did score a 4 of 5 on that AP exam) - but the global warming thing makes sense to me. If we’re pumping chemicals and Lord knows what else into our air - stuff that God never intended to be there - I don’t know, but it seems that the effects would take a toll.
If you don’t buy global warming, fine. But a lot of the anti-global warming crowd seem to think the whole “clean up the air, take care of the Earth” thing is wrong. What’s the harm in cleaning up house, guys? Seriously. Do you want to turn your neighborhood into a landfill? No? Then recycle your plastics, your newspapers - it doesn’t take a lot of time, heck, some of you people probably have a recycling pickup as part of your trash pickup and just don’t take advantage of it! And it doesn’t even have to be expensive to be a little green - my husband last mopped our floors with a vinegar solution vs. going to the store and getting your chemical-laden mop mix - we both swear our kitchen floor has never looked so good, and it’s cheaper to boot!
Anyway, rant over. Happy Belated Earth Day, ya’ll.
source-http://awesomeave.wordpress.com/
Global warming: Not an issue
Global warming: Not an issue
Virtually no voters care about global warming, according to an ABC News poll that asked voters to pick the most important issue in selecting a candidate for president.
With three presidential hopefuls who have vowed to varying degrees to wage “war” on global warming, it’s interesting that ABC has found voters don’t consider climate change important.
The poll has tracked voters’ interest in a score of topics throughout the campaign.
Far and away, the stuttering economy is what voters consider to be the single most important issue facing the presidential wannabes. The second biggest issue is the war in Iraq, though the number of voters who see that as the deciding factor has decreased by almost half since September. Health care placed third and is also decreasing. Other subjects were around 5 percent or less.
Among the score of issues voters were asked about, the interest in global warming as a presidential decider was so low it didn’t even register. Only slightly more voters thought the more general issue of environmentalism was the most important. The poll doesn’t mean global warming isn’t a concern at all, but it shows no voters consider it THE issue that has been portrayed in the media.
Considering that most proposals to deal with global warming are costly and destructive to the economy, not to mention personal freedom, presidential candidates would do well to reassess their commitment to “do something” about the climate.
The poll also raises the question of what’s really driving all the media coverage of global warming and all the political proposals to deal with the “problem.” I’ve maintained for sometime now that the global warming frenzy is nothing more than a cynical drive for power and money by a combination of corporate, political and education interests.
When one looks into the lists of the major contributors to lobby groups pushing the warming agenda, it quickly becomes apparent that there is a core group of names involved — names like Dow Corning, British Petroleum, Heinz Foundation (as in Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of Sen. John Kerry and friend of Al Gore) and numerous others.
Among those consistently contributing is the New York Times Company Foundation. And if you peruse the lists of officers of environmental groups, you’ll start to notice a proliferation of prominent publishers and other media types, such as Warner Books Chairman William Sarnoff.
Global warming is being pushed by wealthy politicians, large corporations and prominent media groups and individuals. But if the ABC poll is accurate, it’s not an issue high on voters’ list of priorities.
source-http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/
Virtually no voters care about global warming, according to an ABC News poll that asked voters to pick the most important issue in selecting a candidate for president.
With three presidential hopefuls who have vowed to varying degrees to wage “war” on global warming, it’s interesting that ABC has found voters don’t consider climate change important.
The poll has tracked voters’ interest in a score of topics throughout the campaign.
Far and away, the stuttering economy is what voters consider to be the single most important issue facing the presidential wannabes. The second biggest issue is the war in Iraq, though the number of voters who see that as the deciding factor has decreased by almost half since September. Health care placed third and is also decreasing. Other subjects were around 5 percent or less.
Among the score of issues voters were asked about, the interest in global warming as a presidential decider was so low it didn’t even register. Only slightly more voters thought the more general issue of environmentalism was the most important. The poll doesn’t mean global warming isn’t a concern at all, but it shows no voters consider it THE issue that has been portrayed in the media.
Considering that most proposals to deal with global warming are costly and destructive to the economy, not to mention personal freedom, presidential candidates would do well to reassess their commitment to “do something” about the climate.
The poll also raises the question of what’s really driving all the media coverage of global warming and all the political proposals to deal with the “problem.” I’ve maintained for sometime now that the global warming frenzy is nothing more than a cynical drive for power and money by a combination of corporate, political and education interests.
When one looks into the lists of the major contributors to lobby groups pushing the warming agenda, it quickly becomes apparent that there is a core group of names involved — names like Dow Corning, British Petroleum, Heinz Foundation (as in Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of Sen. John Kerry and friend of Al Gore) and numerous others.
Among those consistently contributing is the New York Times Company Foundation. And if you peruse the lists of officers of environmental groups, you’ll start to notice a proliferation of prominent publishers and other media types, such as Warner Books Chairman William Sarnoff.
Global warming is being pushed by wealthy politicians, large corporations and prominent media groups and individuals. But if the ABC poll is accurate, it’s not an issue high on voters’ list of priorities.
source-http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/
Americans mindlessly pursue global-warming scam, political correctness
Americans mindlessly pursue global-warming scam, political correctness
It is disturbing to see the herdlike mentality taking place in America today. Two examples of this are manifested in our mindless pursuit of mankind's responsibility for global warming and in our obsession with political correctness.
Space does not allow for a point-by-point refutation of this scam, as John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, is so fond of calling global warming. It is rumored that Mr. Coleman may sue Al Gore so that he will have to prove his contentions in a court of law rather than pontificate on his theories in a very one-sided slide presentation.
Recently Ted Turner, founder of CNN, predicted seashores will be under water in eight to 10 years (later he corrected himself to 30 to 40 years), and mankind will be reduced to cannibalism, as there will be no more crops at that time. Actually, some scientists argue that there has been no global warming since 1998.
Political correctness has crept into every fabric of our life. In order for one to be an African-American, that person would have to be born in Africa of American parents. After coming to the United States, that individual would then have to declare himself an American after reaching adulthood by swearing his allegiance to the United States.
This is a fact because we experienced it with our son who was born in France while we were on active duty there with the U.S. Air Force in 1958. Actually, he was Franco-American. It is wonderful to have pride in your heritage, but there is a fine line between pride and vanity. If you are born in America, you are American.
source-http://www.cantonrep.com/
It is disturbing to see the herdlike mentality taking place in America today. Two examples of this are manifested in our mindless pursuit of mankind's responsibility for global warming and in our obsession with political correctness.
Space does not allow for a point-by-point refutation of this scam, as John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, is so fond of calling global warming. It is rumored that Mr. Coleman may sue Al Gore so that he will have to prove his contentions in a court of law rather than pontificate on his theories in a very one-sided slide presentation.
Recently Ted Turner, founder of CNN, predicted seashores will be under water in eight to 10 years (later he corrected himself to 30 to 40 years), and mankind will be reduced to cannibalism, as there will be no more crops at that time. Actually, some scientists argue that there has been no global warming since 1998.
Political correctness has crept into every fabric of our life. In order for one to be an African-American, that person would have to be born in Africa of American parents. After coming to the United States, that individual would then have to declare himself an American after reaching adulthood by swearing his allegiance to the United States.
This is a fact because we experienced it with our son who was born in France while we were on active duty there with the U.S. Air Force in 1958. Actually, he was Franco-American. It is wonderful to have pride in your heritage, but there is a fine line between pride and vanity. If you are born in America, you are American.
source-http://www.cantonrep.com/
Officials discuss beliefs in depth concerning global warming
Officials discuss beliefs in depth concerning global warming
Explanations of why local and state officials agree or disagree with the four statements:
Question 1
The time for doubt has passed. Scientific experts have clearly affirmed that our climate system is warming, as is evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
Question 2
This warming is linked directly to human activity. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Question 3
Global warming will lead to impacts on weather, agriculture, species, ecosystems, fisheries, coastlines, low-lying areas, vegetation, drinking water that are abrupt or irreversible.
Question 4
Local, state and federal governments should take action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
BSU PresidentJo Ann Gora
1. We asserted our support for this concept when we became one of the 12 charter signatories of the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment.
2. I agree that we should limit our environmental footprint and that we can make a difference. That's why sustainability is a key part of Ball State's strategic plan. We're committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
3. I think these are believable consequences when considering the interactivity of the earth's many systems.
4. I don't believe it's solely the government's responsibility to counter the effects of global warming. We all need to do our part.
Gov. Mitch Daniels
"We will not participate in this survey," said spokeswoman Jane Jankowski. "The format of agree/disagree answers to statements is not an approach we believe lends itself to an effective discussion about a complex topic."
After Daniels declined to respond, The Star Press submitted the survey to Tom Easterly, commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
"It's my understanding the governor's office has responded to you," replied Easterly's spokeswoman, Amy Hartsock. "If you need any further assistance, please contact Jane Jankowski."
Delaware County CommissionerJohn Brooke
1. Agree. The evidence is mounting almost daily. Continued debate as to whether global warming is true or not does just as much damage to the ecosystem as the actual emissions. Arguing ... delays real discussions as to how to bring about solutions.
2. Agree.
3. I agree ... that global warming will and already has had an effect on the weather as well as coastal areas. Ecosystems away from the coast may be negatively impacted due to changes in weather patterns, soil erosion, changes in migration and potentially water tables. True impact and possible negative changes to areas away from the coast need to be studied in greater detail.
4. Government has an obligation to enact rules and regulations to mitigate greenhouse gases. Government has an obligation to be a leader in helping to reduce these emissions by taking its own steps and reduce its own carbon footprint on the environment.
U.S. Rep.Mike Pence
1. Agree.
2. I would not agree that there is broad consensus on man-made or human activity being the proximate cause of global warming. I think there is more diversity of opinion among many scientists in this area of discipline than most people realize. I don't think global warming as caused by human activity is a settled question in the scientific community.
3. Disagree. Claims of catastrophic consequences in global warming are not reflective of the majority of the opinions even among IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists. Many people rely on the (IPCC's) 'summary for policy makers' and they haven't taken into account the uncertainty contained in the balance of the report. The summary doesn't reflect the scientific uncertainty that is evident among many IPCC scientists.
4. I think it is appropriate for particularly the federal government to encourage investment in new, clean, alternative technologies. But I think it should be done in a way that puts the broad interests of the American people first. If we were to embrace the more draconian proposals being advocated by some in Congress and the environmental movement we could see as much as a 20-percent increase in utility bills for Hoosiers.
source-http://www.thestarpress.com/
Explanations of why local and state officials agree or disagree with the four statements:
Question 1
The time for doubt has passed. Scientific experts have clearly affirmed that our climate system is warming, as is evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
Question 2
This warming is linked directly to human activity. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Question 3
Global warming will lead to impacts on weather, agriculture, species, ecosystems, fisheries, coastlines, low-lying areas, vegetation, drinking water that are abrupt or irreversible.
Question 4
Local, state and federal governments should take action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
BSU PresidentJo Ann Gora
1. We asserted our support for this concept when we became one of the 12 charter signatories of the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment.
2. I agree that we should limit our environmental footprint and that we can make a difference. That's why sustainability is a key part of Ball State's strategic plan. We're committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
3. I think these are believable consequences when considering the interactivity of the earth's many systems.
4. I don't believe it's solely the government's responsibility to counter the effects of global warming. We all need to do our part.
Gov. Mitch Daniels
"We will not participate in this survey," said spokeswoman Jane Jankowski. "The format of agree/disagree answers to statements is not an approach we believe lends itself to an effective discussion about a complex topic."
After Daniels declined to respond, The Star Press submitted the survey to Tom Easterly, commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
"It's my understanding the governor's office has responded to you," replied Easterly's spokeswoman, Amy Hartsock. "If you need any further assistance, please contact Jane Jankowski."
Delaware County CommissionerJohn Brooke
1. Agree. The evidence is mounting almost daily. Continued debate as to whether global warming is true or not does just as much damage to the ecosystem as the actual emissions. Arguing ... delays real discussions as to how to bring about solutions.
2. Agree.
3. I agree ... that global warming will and already has had an effect on the weather as well as coastal areas. Ecosystems away from the coast may be negatively impacted due to changes in weather patterns, soil erosion, changes in migration and potentially water tables. True impact and possible negative changes to areas away from the coast need to be studied in greater detail.
4. Government has an obligation to enact rules and regulations to mitigate greenhouse gases. Government has an obligation to be a leader in helping to reduce these emissions by taking its own steps and reduce its own carbon footprint on the environment.
U.S. Rep.Mike Pence
1. Agree.
2. I would not agree that there is broad consensus on man-made or human activity being the proximate cause of global warming. I think there is more diversity of opinion among many scientists in this area of discipline than most people realize. I don't think global warming as caused by human activity is a settled question in the scientific community.
3. Disagree. Claims of catastrophic consequences in global warming are not reflective of the majority of the opinions even among IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists. Many people rely on the (IPCC's) 'summary for policy makers' and they haven't taken into account the uncertainty contained in the balance of the report. The summary doesn't reflect the scientific uncertainty that is evident among many IPCC scientists.
4. I think it is appropriate for particularly the federal government to encourage investment in new, clean, alternative technologies. But I think it should be done in a way that puts the broad interests of the American people first. If we were to embrace the more draconian proposals being advocated by some in Congress and the environmental movement we could see as much as a 20-percent increase in utility bills for Hoosiers.
source-http://www.thestarpress.com/
BSU, county and state take steps to address global warming
BSU, county and state take steps to address global warming
Ball State University President Jo Ann Gora and Delaware County Commissioner John Brooke believe global warming is linked directly to human activity, while U.S. Rep. Mike Pence remains a doubter. Gov. Mitch Daniels didn't want to talk about it last week, and Mayor Sharon McShurley said she was too busy to do so.
Organizers of Earth Day 2008 are hoping to generate one million calls to Congress on Tuesday to urge the federal government to take action against global warming.
Pence disagrees with ex-Vice President Al Gore (who believes there is a planetary emergency) and will not give in to Earth Day Network demands such as a moratorium on the construction of all new conventional coal-fired power plants.
The only demand from Earth Day Network that Pence agrees with is to protect the poor and middle class from unfairly bearing the cost of solving the climate crisis.
"I'm a yes on that one," Pence said. "I have been told by experts in the utility industry in Indiana that some of what Congress is debating under the rubric of global climate change could result in a 20-percent increase in the utility bills of working Hoosiers."
Daniels declined to respond to a request from The Star Press asking him to agree or disagree with the statement that global warming is linked directly to human activity such as the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Thomas Easterly, the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, also declined to state an opinion.
"The format of agree/disagree answers to statements is not an approach we believe lends itself to an effective discussion about a complex topic," said Jane Jankowski, a spokeswoman for the governor, who was offered an opportunity to not only agree/disagree but to comment.
Asked what action the state of Indiana was taking to address climate change/global warming, Jankowski provided a list of initiatives, events, grants and so forth that the state has been involved in since Daniels took office.
The list includes wind farm construction; wetland/wildlife habitat conservation and reforestation; nearly $720,000 in grants for the purchase of alternative energy systems that will help offset fossil fuel use; tax credits for Energy Star-rated appliances; construction of new state buildings that are energy efficient; recycling, and requiring state facilities in Marion County to get seven percent of their electricity from renewable sources.
Last year, Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan and Illinois signed the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indiana, Ohio and South Dakota signed the agreement as observers.
More greenhouse gas
During the past century, humans have substantially added to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil and gasoline) to power cars, factories, utilities and appliances, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The added gases are enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and likely contributing to an increase in global average temperature and related climate change, the agency says.
Climate change is being observed in the Great Lakes region as winters are getting shorter, while annual average temperatures, the number of extreme heat events and the number of heavy precipitation events are increasing, according to the Purdue University Climate Change Research Center.
Last year, Gora signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC).
"We ... became one of the 12 charter signatories of ACUPCC," Gora said. "Now, hundreds of other colleges and universities across the country have joined Ball State in our commitment to sharply reduce and eventually eliminate all of the university's global warming emissions."
That commitment is demonstrated by BSU's vehicle fleet (the majority of which is hybrid cars, E-85 and biodiesel vehicles and six electric buses); construction of new green buildings that are rated as energy efficient; construction of a $42 million advanced coal combustor; and the longest-standing faculty-staff green committee in Indiana's higher education community, Gora said.
BSU is also committed to recycling and to long-lived tree plantings that sequester carbon.
"We continue to look at the economics of solar and wind power, but neither of those options is ready for prime time here yet," said BSU facilities official Kevin Kenyon.
Brooke, president of the board of county commissioners, said county government had taken various steps to address global warming, such as completing an energy audit of the county building; taking price quotes to remove some of the concrete around the county building; exploring a potential vegetated roof for the justice center; co-sponsoring the Living Lightly Fair; and buying heavy equipment, vehicles and other machinery that produces less exhaust.
The Star Press asked Mayor Sharon McShurley for her position on global warming and whether she planned to sign the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. McShurley said she could not find time to respond over the course of three-and-a-half days.
Climate change is being observed in the Great Lakes region as winters are getting shorter, while annual average temperatures, the number of extreme heat events and the number of heavy precipitation events are increasing, according to the Purdue University Climate Change Research Center
source-http://www.thestarpress.com/
Ball State University President Jo Ann Gora and Delaware County Commissioner John Brooke believe global warming is linked directly to human activity, while U.S. Rep. Mike Pence remains a doubter. Gov. Mitch Daniels didn't want to talk about it last week, and Mayor Sharon McShurley said she was too busy to do so.
Organizers of Earth Day 2008 are hoping to generate one million calls to Congress on Tuesday to urge the federal government to take action against global warming.
Pence disagrees with ex-Vice President Al Gore (who believes there is a planetary emergency) and will not give in to Earth Day Network demands such as a moratorium on the construction of all new conventional coal-fired power plants.
The only demand from Earth Day Network that Pence agrees with is to protect the poor and middle class from unfairly bearing the cost of solving the climate crisis.
"I'm a yes on that one," Pence said. "I have been told by experts in the utility industry in Indiana that some of what Congress is debating under the rubric of global climate change could result in a 20-percent increase in the utility bills of working Hoosiers."
Daniels declined to respond to a request from The Star Press asking him to agree or disagree with the statement that global warming is linked directly to human activity such as the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Thomas Easterly, the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, also declined to state an opinion.
"The format of agree/disagree answers to statements is not an approach we believe lends itself to an effective discussion about a complex topic," said Jane Jankowski, a spokeswoman for the governor, who was offered an opportunity to not only agree/disagree but to comment.
Asked what action the state of Indiana was taking to address climate change/global warming, Jankowski provided a list of initiatives, events, grants and so forth that the state has been involved in since Daniels took office.
The list includes wind farm construction; wetland/wildlife habitat conservation and reforestation; nearly $720,000 in grants for the purchase of alternative energy systems that will help offset fossil fuel use; tax credits for Energy Star-rated appliances; construction of new state buildings that are energy efficient; recycling, and requiring state facilities in Marion County to get seven percent of their electricity from renewable sources.
Last year, Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan and Illinois signed the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indiana, Ohio and South Dakota signed the agreement as observers.
More greenhouse gas
During the past century, humans have substantially added to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil and gasoline) to power cars, factories, utilities and appliances, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The added gases are enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and likely contributing to an increase in global average temperature and related climate change, the agency says.
Climate change is being observed in the Great Lakes region as winters are getting shorter, while annual average temperatures, the number of extreme heat events and the number of heavy precipitation events are increasing, according to the Purdue University Climate Change Research Center.
Last year, Gora signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC).
"We ... became one of the 12 charter signatories of ACUPCC," Gora said. "Now, hundreds of other colleges and universities across the country have joined Ball State in our commitment to sharply reduce and eventually eliminate all of the university's global warming emissions."
That commitment is demonstrated by BSU's vehicle fleet (the majority of which is hybrid cars, E-85 and biodiesel vehicles and six electric buses); construction of new green buildings that are rated as energy efficient; construction of a $42 million advanced coal combustor; and the longest-standing faculty-staff green committee in Indiana's higher education community, Gora said.
BSU is also committed to recycling and to long-lived tree plantings that sequester carbon.
"We continue to look at the economics of solar and wind power, but neither of those options is ready for prime time here yet," said BSU facilities official Kevin Kenyon.
Brooke, president of the board of county commissioners, said county government had taken various steps to address global warming, such as completing an energy audit of the county building; taking price quotes to remove some of the concrete around the county building; exploring a potential vegetated roof for the justice center; co-sponsoring the Living Lightly Fair; and buying heavy equipment, vehicles and other machinery that produces less exhaust.
The Star Press asked Mayor Sharon McShurley for her position on global warming and whether she planned to sign the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. McShurley said she could not find time to respond over the course of three-and-a-half days.
Climate change is being observed in the Great Lakes region as winters are getting shorter, while annual average temperatures, the number of extreme heat events and the number of heavy precipitation events are increasing, according to the Purdue University Climate Change Research Center
source-http://www.thestarpress.com/
Bush, S. Korea remarks
Bush, S. Korea remarks
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak with President Bush speak to the media at Camp David, Md., Saturday, April 19, 2008. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)
( BW)(PRESIDENTS-BUSH-LEE) Remarks by President Bush and President Lee Myung-Bak of the Republic of Korea in Joint Press Availability
Camp David International News Desks/National Desks
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Apr. 19, 2008-- 11:17 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT BUSH: Welcome. We're glad you're here, Mr. President, and we're glad you brought Mrs. Kim. We had a wonderful dinner last night, and looking forward to having lunch, too, today. We've had great visits. And this is an important visit for me to get to know you. I heard about your background -- I admire your strength of character, and this is an important visit to strengthen the relationship between our two countries and I believe we have done so.
President Lee is the first Korean President to visit Camp David. And I don't know if the American citizens understand your nickname -- you're known as the ''Bulldozer.'' (Laughter.) He said to make sure that it was a bulldozer with a computer. (Laughter.) And the reason why is this is a man who takes on big challenges and he doesn't let obstacles get in the way. I like his spirit, I like his candor, and I like his optimistic vision. But most of all I really appreciate his values. A good relationship is based upon common values, and our countries share common values -- values of the rights of each individual to live in a free society. We believe in human dignity and justice.
We discussed a variety of issues. We talked about our defense cooperation. In 2004, our nations began an alliance transformation that has involved realigning U.S. forces in Korea and relocating some of them from the Peninsula. We're in constant touch and we're constantly reassessing our needs and we have reaffirmed our need to remain in close dialogue. And we reached an agreement to maintain the current U.S. troop level on the Peninsula. This is a mutual agreement that benefits both our nations and will strengthen our alliance. And Secretary Gates and Defense Minister Lee will coordinate its implementation. Korea has asked to upgrade its foreign military sales status with the United States and to have the same access to U.S. military technologies as NATO and other key allies, and I strongly support this request and have instructed Secretaries Rice and Gates to work with the Congress to get this done.
Yesterday, our nations signed a Memorandum of Understanding on security improvements necessary for Korea to enter the visa waiver program. This was a very important issue for the President. We spent a lot of time talking about this issue. These security enhancements put Korea on the path toward visa-free travel to the United States for its people. We promised that both sides will work hard on this issue so that Koreans will be visiting the United States under the visa waiver program before this year ends. The United States and Korea are working to improve security and advance freedom in the Asia Pacific region. Together with China, Russia and Japan, our nations are pressing North Korea to fulfill its obligations to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Thanks to the six party framework, North Korea has begun disabling the plutonium production facilities at Yongbyon. And now North Korea must fulfill its other obligations: provide a full declaration of its nuclear programs and proliferation activities in a verifiable way.
President Lee and I discussed our mutual concern for the human condition in North Korea. We are -- our hearts break when we hear these stories of families that have been torn apart or people being subjected to harsh work camps because of their beliefs. We believe in basic rights, and we believe those rights ought to be extended to the people of North Korea. We're also thankful for the Koreans' contributions to young democracies, whether it be Afghanistan or Iraq or Lebanon. And we want to thank you and your people, Mr. President, for those sacrifices.
And then of course we talked about our economy. As a former CEO, President Lee understands the importance of trade. First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate your decision to reopen the Korean market to American beef -- consistent with international standards. This is good news for Korean consumers and it's good news for American beef producers. As a matter of fact, we had some good American beef last night for dinner. (Laughter.)
Now, our United States Congress must reject protectionism. It must not turn its back on a friend and ally like Korea, and must approve the free trade agreement with Korea this year. So the President was wondering -- he's been reading about the decision by our Speaker that effectively killed the Colombia free trade agreement, unless of course she gives us a date certain of when there will be a vote. He wonders if this protectionist sentiment is such that it will cause me, for example, not to continue to fight for free and fair trade.
I assured him that the Korea trade agreement is a priority of this administration. And I assured him that we will press hard with the United States Congress. It's in our country's interests that we approve this agreement, Mr. President. It's in our interests that we stand with our friends and allies. And it's in the interests of the world that we complete the Doha negotiations for the WTO. We spent some time discussing that as well.
And then finally we talked about our mutual desire to have a rational, practical approach to international climate, the international climate issue, global warming. How can you possibly have an international agreement that's effective unless countries like China and India are not (sic) full participants. And that's why I assured him this major economies meeting that is taking place in Paris, I assured him I meant what I said in my speech in the Rose Garden, and that hopefully by the time we get to G8 there's a serious effort by all major economies to become active participants in a effective strategy to deal with this issue.
So we had a great discussion. Really appreciate you coming. And Mr. President, the podium is yours.
PRESIDENT LEE: (As translated.) Thank you very much, Mr. President. First of all, thank you for inviting me and my wife to this beautiful place called Camp David. I would like to extend my thanks to President Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush for their invitation, and I was warmly welcomed by the American people. If I were to have known I was going to get this warm hospitality, I should have come earlier. (Laughter.)
Again, I would like to extend my most sincere gratitude to you, Mr. President. And also we had a very productive discussion. We had a very open and frank discussion, and I believe that today's meeting was very constructive, and I'm very thankful for having this meeting, Mr. President.
The Korea-U.S. alliance was pivotal in ensuring peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula, but also that of northeast Asia. Now, as the international situation as well as the economic and security situation change dramatically, our alliance is also called upon to undergo new changes. And so in order to effectively respond to the need for change, President Bush and I agreed to develop our alliance into an alliance based on freedom and democracy, human rights and the principle of market economy -- otherwise known as the 21st century strategic alliance, something that will contribute to global peace and security as well.
Furthermore, we both agreed to -- based on such mutual understanding and common ideas, to discuss specific ways to realize our vision for this strategic alliance. So we'll discuss this when President Bush visits Korea later on this year.
Just a while ago President Bush mentioned as for the U.S. forces in Korea, he decided to maintain the current troop levels in Korea. Is that right, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, that's an accurate statement.
PRESIDENT LEE: Both of us reaffirmed once again that under no circumstances would we allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons. Also, we agreed to work together closely within the six-party talks so that North Korea can fully and completely give up all their nuclear weapons programs as soon as possible.
Korea and the United States do not harbor any hostile intent towards North Korea. We both agreed to work together to help North Korea escape international isolation and to improve the lives of the North Korean people. President Bush supported our policy towards North Korea, including our denuclearization ''opening-3000'' policy, and also said that the United States will continue to dialogue -- seek ways to promote dialogue in exchange with North Korea.
Both President Bush and I agreed that the passage of the KORUS FTA will benefit not only our two economies, but also act as a catalyst to substantially improve exchange and cooperation in all areas between our two countries. And so we agreed to work closely together for the speedy ratification of the KORUS FTA. And Mr. President, he agreed to work very closely and to convince the United States Congress to pass the KORUS FTA by the end of this year. I would like to thank him for that.
Among the achievements of my visit to the United States -- there were a lot of difficulties for Koreans to visit the United States; most of all the difficulty they faced was due to the difficulty in getting visas to enter the United States. However, the Republic of Korea has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to take part in the visa waiver program, and we agreed to implement this by the end of this year. Once that happens our cultural exchanges, as well as our economic exchange and the exchange in many areas will expand, and I have high hopes for that.
At the same time, President Bush and I agreed to expand exchange programs for our youth and students, which will ensure a brighter future for our bilateral ties.
We reaffirmed that nuclear nonproliferation and the promotion of democracy and human rights are all a vital component in making our world a better, safer place. In this regard, in order to ensure sustainable development, we agreed to work closely on the issues of climate change and energy securities, matters which are very serious and concerns us all.
During the summit meeting today I was very heartened to hear that the United States and President Bush personally had a very strong interest in fighting global warming and climate change. That's a very important decision and I hope that the United States -- and I have confidence that the United States will take a leading role in this issue, and I have confidence Mr. President Bush will do that as well.
I invited President Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush to visit Korea this summer. And I'm pleased to note that President Bush agreed and readily accepted to come visit Korea with Mrs. Bush.
Once again, today's meeting was an opportunity for us to reaffirm our mutual trust, and we agreed to work together to solve issues not only of the Peninsula, but to work closely and cooperate with issues of global concern.
I'm very happy with the results of today's meeting. And we will work very closely together to see the complete dismantlement of the nuclear weapons program of North Korea, and we will work closely within the six-party talks framework. And we must see the satisfactory conclusion, which will lead to helping the North Korean people lead better lives, with dignity.
Once again, Mr. President, I'm very happy to have met you, Mr. President, as well as Mrs. Laura Bush, and thank you for the warm hospitality extended to me and my delegation by the people of America. We will work closely together with a future-oriented mind. And I promise you I will do my very best, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir. Thank you. We'll do two questions a side, starting with Deb.
Q I have the same question for both of you.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I warned him that this was going to happen. (Laughter.)
Q Well, at least it's not two questions.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, I know -- (laughter.)
Q First to President Bush, isn't scaling back demands about what North Korea has to declare giving in to a country that has repeatedly demonstrated that it can't be trusted? Former U.N. Ambassador Bolton has called it a complete collapse in the deal. And your critics are saying that you're selling out to get an agreement. Why is it not?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Look, we're going to make a judgment as to whether North Korea has met its obligations to account for its nuclear program and activities, as well as meet its obligations to disable its reactor. In other words, we'll see. The burden of proof is there. We've laid out -- they've made some promises, and we'll make a judgment as to whether they met those promises. And then we and our partners will take a look at North Korea's full declaration to determine whether or not the activities they promised they could do could be verified. And then we'll make a judgment of our own as to whether or not -- you know, about our own obligations.
You know, there's all kinds of rumors about what is happening and what's not happening. Obviously I'm not going to accept a deal that doesn't advance the interests of the region. The whole objective of the six-party talks and framework is to get them to disclose their weapons programs, is to get them to dismantle their plutonium processing, is to get them to talk about activities, nuclear activities. And we'll make a judgment as to whether or not they do that. But somehow people are precluding -- you know, jumping ahead of the game. They have yet to make a full declaration. Why don't we just wait and see what they say before people go out there and start giving their opinions about whether or not this is a good deal or a bad deal.
But one thing is for certain: The most effective way to deal with this issue is to do so with parties like China and Japan and Korea joining the United States and South Korea with a common voice. The whole object of this exercise is to convince the leader of North Korea to give up his nuclear weapons ambitions. That's the whole object.
And so we have yet to come to the stage where he has made a full declaration. And so we'll wait and see what he says, and then we'll make a decision about our obligations, depending upon whether or not we're convinced that there is a solid and full declaration, and whether or not there's a way to verify whether or not he's going to do what he says he's going to do.
PRESIDENT LEE: As for the declaration of North Korea, that is a very important process. I believe if North Korea's declaration is not satisfactory or if the verification is not satisfactory, we could probably have a temporary achievement, but in the long term, that will cause a lot more serious problems. I believe President Bush shares this thought with me.
Mr. President Bush explained just now the declaration, the verification process, has not begun. We are still waiting for North Korea to declare their full program. They should not get away with this temporary measure. The United States is not dealing with North Korea alone; there are other parties to the six-party talks, and they must all agree to North Korea's declaration. So in that regard North Korea's declaration of their nuclear weapons program should be complete and correct, and verification -- I'm not sure how long that is going to take, but North Korea must faithfully cooperate with verification process.
All the parties of the six-party talks are with one mind that the verification process must be full and complete and satisfactory. I think it's inappropriate and unconstructive for us to have too many doubts before the process even begins. The process is beginning. We should have trust in the process, and I will watch this process and cooperate fully.
Q (As translated.) I have a question for President Lee. Korea and the United States have made many achievements through the summit meeting, especially North Korean nuclear issue and the strengthening of the alliance. As for North Korean nuclear issue, Mr. President Lee suggested setting up a permanent liaison office in both Seoul and Pyongyang. What are some of the follow-up effects, if you do have any follow-up actions? And do you have any thoughts of proposing a meeting with Chairman Kim at an earlier date?
PRESIDENT LEE: The process is not something that we discussed between ourselves during the summit meeting. In fact, when I was staying in Washington, D.C., I had an interview with one of the newspapers there, and it came up. Of course it was not a sudden suggestion. I did have a meeting among my staff and related ministries, and I talked about this in detail before I came to the United States.
We have a new administration in Korea, and we haven't yet to begun dialogue with the North Koreans. Inter-Korean dialogue -- there is a need for us to have dialogue all the time. Up until now we had dialogues whenever the need arose, and then it would stop. However, dialogue should be based on genuine cooperation and sincerity. And so with this in mind, I thought that it would be helpful to set up a permanent liaison office in both Seoul and Pyongyang.
As for the summit meeting between myself and Chairman Kim, I will agree to it when the need is real. And I already said publicly that I am willing to meet with him -- not just once, but many times -- but if the meeting will yield substantial and real results. I believe only when that is possible I am ready to meet with him and have sincere dialogue, because that will help to bring about peace and stability of the Peninsula.
So basically, I do hold that thought, but I'm not suggesting to have a meeting with Chairman Kim anytime soon. If the need arises, again, I'm ready to meet with him.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Steven Lee.
Q Thank you very much, Mr. President. If I could follow up a little bit on North Korea. The North Koreans agreed last year to make their disclosure. We're now in April and we've yet to see this disclosure. There are continued negotiations, a new round next week. Are you concerned that, given this record, they're not prepared to make this full disclosure, that they're stalling the process somehow? And if so, a question for both of you, how do you respond to that?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes. Of course, I mean, they may be trying to stall. One thing about a non-transparent society where there's not a lot of free press, for example, or a lot of opposition voices, it's hard to tell what's going on. Now, he has made declarations, and he's testing the relationship. He's wondering whether or not the five of us will stay unified. And the only thing I know to do is to continue pressing forward within the six-party framework.
The decision -- we've made our decision. ''We,'' the five of us, have made our decision and that is, there's a way forward. And obviously we hope he chooses to honor his commitments in a verifiable way. But when you're dealing with a society in which it's hard to get information out of, you just have to wait and see whether they're sincere or not. Unlike our society, of course, where there's all kinds of people in the administration talking and sharing information with you -- some of it authorized, some of it's not -- it doesn't happen that way in North Korea. It's a closed society. It's a society in which the will of one person decides the course of the future.
And again, we're very hopeful. We talked about our mutual desire to keep the six-party framework in place, to deal with a lot of issues. The first one of course is with North Korea. And it's -- I can just tell you, Steven Lee, it's much more effective to have more than one voice speaking on this issue than to be the sole voice speaking on the issue. And so if there ever is going to be a breakthrough, it's through the six-party framework.
And, look, I'm hopeful. We'll see. This has been a -- I've been at this for quite a while, and there's been moments where it looks like the process is going to go very smoothly and everybody is going to honor their commitments, and then for one reason or another, there's a -- there was a setback. But the key thing is, is that we haven't abandoned the efforts to solve this problem peacefully and diplomatically.
PRESIDENT LEE: Thank you. If you correctly understand North Korea, and if you do understand North Korean society, you'll probably get a better picture why we are seeing some delay in the process at the moment. If North Korea wasn't like that, then we would have the seen the resolvement of this issue already. We need persistent patience, ladies and gentlemen. And we need time in order to have complete resolution of this issue.
However, it's difficult to convince North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons program, but it's not impossible. It is not impossible. I believe that. So in order to resolve this issue, I believe that the six-party talks is the most effective way and mechanism to resolve this issue, like the President mentioned. And right now we're in the stages of waiting for their declaration, and then we can move on to the verification process.
So I think it's up to you to make the atmosphere so that North Korea can faithfully abide by their promise and make the right declaration; that once North Korea does so, it is also in their interest to make the correct decision to give a full and complete declaration. And it will also help the North Korean people improve the quality of their life, and that is the best strategic choice that they can make.
Q (As translated.) I have a question for President Bush. The United States has a divergent alliance with countries like the United Kingdom, Japan. In your opinion, President Bush, what kind of alliance do you have with the Republic of Korea? And during your summit meeting today, I believe you agreed to upgrade the Korea-U.S. alliance. In order to upgrade the alliance, what kind of new movement will you take on -- for instance, the transfer of wartime operational control? And what will you do, President Bush -- do you have any intention to meet with both President Lee and Chairman Kim in order to resolve this issue?
PRESIDENT BUSH: No. As to the latter point, no I don't. I think the President described the relationship as a good one -- a 21st century strategic alliance -- that makes sense to me. So what does that mean? Well, it means we work in ways to deal with 21st century problems, such as proliferation of nuclear materials; such as working to make sure our children are educated with the tools necessary to be productive citizens; such as having a recognition that in the 21st century, a free and fair trading system will be necessary for prosperity. And that's why it's going to be very important for our Congress to ratify the free trade agreement with Korea.
It's going to be very important a 21st century alliance recognizes that China is a opportunity for both nations to engage in a constructive way. We have our problems with China, of course, whether it be human rights or how the Chinese leadership deals with the Dalai Lama or with Burma -- a variety of issues. On the other hand, you can either have a constructive relationship -- we can work constructively with China -- or we can have a destructive relationship. I've chosen to have a constructive relationship.
And so the step one is to anticipate the issues confronting our peoples in the 21st century, and step two is to develop a practical way to deal with those issues. And that's exactly what our conversation revolved around. And I'm confident that this meeting has strengthened our relationship, and I'm confident that the American people understand how important this relationship is to our own prosperity and our own security.
source-http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2008/04/20/news/local/news01.txt
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak with President Bush speak to the media at Camp David, Md., Saturday, April 19, 2008. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)
( BW)(PRESIDENTS-BUSH-LEE) Remarks by President Bush and President Lee Myung-Bak of the Republic of Korea in Joint Press Availability
Camp David International News Desks/National Desks
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Apr. 19, 2008-- 11:17 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT BUSH: Welcome. We're glad you're here, Mr. President, and we're glad you brought Mrs. Kim. We had a wonderful dinner last night, and looking forward to having lunch, too, today. We've had great visits. And this is an important visit for me to get to know you. I heard about your background -- I admire your strength of character, and this is an important visit to strengthen the relationship between our two countries and I believe we have done so.
President Lee is the first Korean President to visit Camp David. And I don't know if the American citizens understand your nickname -- you're known as the ''Bulldozer.'' (Laughter.) He said to make sure that it was a bulldozer with a computer. (Laughter.) And the reason why is this is a man who takes on big challenges and he doesn't let obstacles get in the way. I like his spirit, I like his candor, and I like his optimistic vision. But most of all I really appreciate his values. A good relationship is based upon common values, and our countries share common values -- values of the rights of each individual to live in a free society. We believe in human dignity and justice.
We discussed a variety of issues. We talked about our defense cooperation. In 2004, our nations began an alliance transformation that has involved realigning U.S. forces in Korea and relocating some of them from the Peninsula. We're in constant touch and we're constantly reassessing our needs and we have reaffirmed our need to remain in close dialogue. And we reached an agreement to maintain the current U.S. troop level on the Peninsula. This is a mutual agreement that benefits both our nations and will strengthen our alliance. And Secretary Gates and Defense Minister Lee will coordinate its implementation. Korea has asked to upgrade its foreign military sales status with the United States and to have the same access to U.S. military technologies as NATO and other key allies, and I strongly support this request and have instructed Secretaries Rice and Gates to work with the Congress to get this done.
Yesterday, our nations signed a Memorandum of Understanding on security improvements necessary for Korea to enter the visa waiver program. This was a very important issue for the President. We spent a lot of time talking about this issue. These security enhancements put Korea on the path toward visa-free travel to the United States for its people. We promised that both sides will work hard on this issue so that Koreans will be visiting the United States under the visa waiver program before this year ends. The United States and Korea are working to improve security and advance freedom in the Asia Pacific region. Together with China, Russia and Japan, our nations are pressing North Korea to fulfill its obligations to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Thanks to the six party framework, North Korea has begun disabling the plutonium production facilities at Yongbyon. And now North Korea must fulfill its other obligations: provide a full declaration of its nuclear programs and proliferation activities in a verifiable way.
President Lee and I discussed our mutual concern for the human condition in North Korea. We are -- our hearts break when we hear these stories of families that have been torn apart or people being subjected to harsh work camps because of their beliefs. We believe in basic rights, and we believe those rights ought to be extended to the people of North Korea. We're also thankful for the Koreans' contributions to young democracies, whether it be Afghanistan or Iraq or Lebanon. And we want to thank you and your people, Mr. President, for those sacrifices.
And then of course we talked about our economy. As a former CEO, President Lee understands the importance of trade. First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate your decision to reopen the Korean market to American beef -- consistent with international standards. This is good news for Korean consumers and it's good news for American beef producers. As a matter of fact, we had some good American beef last night for dinner. (Laughter.)
Now, our United States Congress must reject protectionism. It must not turn its back on a friend and ally like Korea, and must approve the free trade agreement with Korea this year. So the President was wondering -- he's been reading about the decision by our Speaker that effectively killed the Colombia free trade agreement, unless of course she gives us a date certain of when there will be a vote. He wonders if this protectionist sentiment is such that it will cause me, for example, not to continue to fight for free and fair trade.
I assured him that the Korea trade agreement is a priority of this administration. And I assured him that we will press hard with the United States Congress. It's in our country's interests that we approve this agreement, Mr. President. It's in our interests that we stand with our friends and allies. And it's in the interests of the world that we complete the Doha negotiations for the WTO. We spent some time discussing that as well.
And then finally we talked about our mutual desire to have a rational, practical approach to international climate, the international climate issue, global warming. How can you possibly have an international agreement that's effective unless countries like China and India are not (sic) full participants. And that's why I assured him this major economies meeting that is taking place in Paris, I assured him I meant what I said in my speech in the Rose Garden, and that hopefully by the time we get to G8 there's a serious effort by all major economies to become active participants in a effective strategy to deal with this issue.
So we had a great discussion. Really appreciate you coming. And Mr. President, the podium is yours.
PRESIDENT LEE: (As translated.) Thank you very much, Mr. President. First of all, thank you for inviting me and my wife to this beautiful place called Camp David. I would like to extend my thanks to President Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush for their invitation, and I was warmly welcomed by the American people. If I were to have known I was going to get this warm hospitality, I should have come earlier. (Laughter.)
Again, I would like to extend my most sincere gratitude to you, Mr. President. And also we had a very productive discussion. We had a very open and frank discussion, and I believe that today's meeting was very constructive, and I'm very thankful for having this meeting, Mr. President.
The Korea-U.S. alliance was pivotal in ensuring peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula, but also that of northeast Asia. Now, as the international situation as well as the economic and security situation change dramatically, our alliance is also called upon to undergo new changes. And so in order to effectively respond to the need for change, President Bush and I agreed to develop our alliance into an alliance based on freedom and democracy, human rights and the principle of market economy -- otherwise known as the 21st century strategic alliance, something that will contribute to global peace and security as well.
Furthermore, we both agreed to -- based on such mutual understanding and common ideas, to discuss specific ways to realize our vision for this strategic alliance. So we'll discuss this when President Bush visits Korea later on this year.
Just a while ago President Bush mentioned as for the U.S. forces in Korea, he decided to maintain the current troop levels in Korea. Is that right, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, that's an accurate statement.
PRESIDENT LEE: Both of us reaffirmed once again that under no circumstances would we allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons. Also, we agreed to work together closely within the six-party talks so that North Korea can fully and completely give up all their nuclear weapons programs as soon as possible.
Korea and the United States do not harbor any hostile intent towards North Korea. We both agreed to work together to help North Korea escape international isolation and to improve the lives of the North Korean people. President Bush supported our policy towards North Korea, including our denuclearization ''opening-3000'' policy, and also said that the United States will continue to dialogue -- seek ways to promote dialogue in exchange with North Korea.
Both President Bush and I agreed that the passage of the KORUS FTA will benefit not only our two economies, but also act as a catalyst to substantially improve exchange and cooperation in all areas between our two countries. And so we agreed to work closely together for the speedy ratification of the KORUS FTA. And Mr. President, he agreed to work very closely and to convince the United States Congress to pass the KORUS FTA by the end of this year. I would like to thank him for that.
Among the achievements of my visit to the United States -- there were a lot of difficulties for Koreans to visit the United States; most of all the difficulty they faced was due to the difficulty in getting visas to enter the United States. However, the Republic of Korea has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to take part in the visa waiver program, and we agreed to implement this by the end of this year. Once that happens our cultural exchanges, as well as our economic exchange and the exchange in many areas will expand, and I have high hopes for that.
At the same time, President Bush and I agreed to expand exchange programs for our youth and students, which will ensure a brighter future for our bilateral ties.
We reaffirmed that nuclear nonproliferation and the promotion of democracy and human rights are all a vital component in making our world a better, safer place. In this regard, in order to ensure sustainable development, we agreed to work closely on the issues of climate change and energy securities, matters which are very serious and concerns us all.
During the summit meeting today I was very heartened to hear that the United States and President Bush personally had a very strong interest in fighting global warming and climate change. That's a very important decision and I hope that the United States -- and I have confidence that the United States will take a leading role in this issue, and I have confidence Mr. President Bush will do that as well.
I invited President Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush to visit Korea this summer. And I'm pleased to note that President Bush agreed and readily accepted to come visit Korea with Mrs. Bush.
Once again, today's meeting was an opportunity for us to reaffirm our mutual trust, and we agreed to work together to solve issues not only of the Peninsula, but to work closely and cooperate with issues of global concern.
I'm very happy with the results of today's meeting. And we will work very closely together to see the complete dismantlement of the nuclear weapons program of North Korea, and we will work closely within the six-party talks framework. And we must see the satisfactory conclusion, which will lead to helping the North Korean people lead better lives, with dignity.
Once again, Mr. President, I'm very happy to have met you, Mr. President, as well as Mrs. Laura Bush, and thank you for the warm hospitality extended to me and my delegation by the people of America. We will work closely together with a future-oriented mind. And I promise you I will do my very best, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir. Thank you. We'll do two questions a side, starting with Deb.
Q I have the same question for both of you.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I warned him that this was going to happen. (Laughter.)
Q Well, at least it's not two questions.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, I know -- (laughter.)
Q First to President Bush, isn't scaling back demands about what North Korea has to declare giving in to a country that has repeatedly demonstrated that it can't be trusted? Former U.N. Ambassador Bolton has called it a complete collapse in the deal. And your critics are saying that you're selling out to get an agreement. Why is it not?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Look, we're going to make a judgment as to whether North Korea has met its obligations to account for its nuclear program and activities, as well as meet its obligations to disable its reactor. In other words, we'll see. The burden of proof is there. We've laid out -- they've made some promises, and we'll make a judgment as to whether they met those promises. And then we and our partners will take a look at North Korea's full declaration to determine whether or not the activities they promised they could do could be verified. And then we'll make a judgment of our own as to whether or not -- you know, about our own obligations.
You know, there's all kinds of rumors about what is happening and what's not happening. Obviously I'm not going to accept a deal that doesn't advance the interests of the region. The whole objective of the six-party talks and framework is to get them to disclose their weapons programs, is to get them to dismantle their plutonium processing, is to get them to talk about activities, nuclear activities. And we'll make a judgment as to whether or not they do that. But somehow people are precluding -- you know, jumping ahead of the game. They have yet to make a full declaration. Why don't we just wait and see what they say before people go out there and start giving their opinions about whether or not this is a good deal or a bad deal.
But one thing is for certain: The most effective way to deal with this issue is to do so with parties like China and Japan and Korea joining the United States and South Korea with a common voice. The whole object of this exercise is to convince the leader of North Korea to give up his nuclear weapons ambitions. That's the whole object.
And so we have yet to come to the stage where he has made a full declaration. And so we'll wait and see what he says, and then we'll make a decision about our obligations, depending upon whether or not we're convinced that there is a solid and full declaration, and whether or not there's a way to verify whether or not he's going to do what he says he's going to do.
PRESIDENT LEE: As for the declaration of North Korea, that is a very important process. I believe if North Korea's declaration is not satisfactory or if the verification is not satisfactory, we could probably have a temporary achievement, but in the long term, that will cause a lot more serious problems. I believe President Bush shares this thought with me.
Mr. President Bush explained just now the declaration, the verification process, has not begun. We are still waiting for North Korea to declare their full program. They should not get away with this temporary measure. The United States is not dealing with North Korea alone; there are other parties to the six-party talks, and they must all agree to North Korea's declaration. So in that regard North Korea's declaration of their nuclear weapons program should be complete and correct, and verification -- I'm not sure how long that is going to take, but North Korea must faithfully cooperate with verification process.
All the parties of the six-party talks are with one mind that the verification process must be full and complete and satisfactory. I think it's inappropriate and unconstructive for us to have too many doubts before the process even begins. The process is beginning. We should have trust in the process, and I will watch this process and cooperate fully.
Q (As translated.) I have a question for President Lee. Korea and the United States have made many achievements through the summit meeting, especially North Korean nuclear issue and the strengthening of the alliance. As for North Korean nuclear issue, Mr. President Lee suggested setting up a permanent liaison office in both Seoul and Pyongyang. What are some of the follow-up effects, if you do have any follow-up actions? And do you have any thoughts of proposing a meeting with Chairman Kim at an earlier date?
PRESIDENT LEE: The process is not something that we discussed between ourselves during the summit meeting. In fact, when I was staying in Washington, D.C., I had an interview with one of the newspapers there, and it came up. Of course it was not a sudden suggestion. I did have a meeting among my staff and related ministries, and I talked about this in detail before I came to the United States.
We have a new administration in Korea, and we haven't yet to begun dialogue with the North Koreans. Inter-Korean dialogue -- there is a need for us to have dialogue all the time. Up until now we had dialogues whenever the need arose, and then it would stop. However, dialogue should be based on genuine cooperation and sincerity. And so with this in mind, I thought that it would be helpful to set up a permanent liaison office in both Seoul and Pyongyang.
As for the summit meeting between myself and Chairman Kim, I will agree to it when the need is real. And I already said publicly that I am willing to meet with him -- not just once, but many times -- but if the meeting will yield substantial and real results. I believe only when that is possible I am ready to meet with him and have sincere dialogue, because that will help to bring about peace and stability of the Peninsula.
So basically, I do hold that thought, but I'm not suggesting to have a meeting with Chairman Kim anytime soon. If the need arises, again, I'm ready to meet with him.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Steven Lee.
Q Thank you very much, Mr. President. If I could follow up a little bit on North Korea. The North Koreans agreed last year to make their disclosure. We're now in April and we've yet to see this disclosure. There are continued negotiations, a new round next week. Are you concerned that, given this record, they're not prepared to make this full disclosure, that they're stalling the process somehow? And if so, a question for both of you, how do you respond to that?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes. Of course, I mean, they may be trying to stall. One thing about a non-transparent society where there's not a lot of free press, for example, or a lot of opposition voices, it's hard to tell what's going on. Now, he has made declarations, and he's testing the relationship. He's wondering whether or not the five of us will stay unified. And the only thing I know to do is to continue pressing forward within the six-party framework.
The decision -- we've made our decision. ''We,'' the five of us, have made our decision and that is, there's a way forward. And obviously we hope he chooses to honor his commitments in a verifiable way. But when you're dealing with a society in which it's hard to get information out of, you just have to wait and see whether they're sincere or not. Unlike our society, of course, where there's all kinds of people in the administration talking and sharing information with you -- some of it authorized, some of it's not -- it doesn't happen that way in North Korea. It's a closed society. It's a society in which the will of one person decides the course of the future.
And again, we're very hopeful. We talked about our mutual desire to keep the six-party framework in place, to deal with a lot of issues. The first one of course is with North Korea. And it's -- I can just tell you, Steven Lee, it's much more effective to have more than one voice speaking on this issue than to be the sole voice speaking on the issue. And so if there ever is going to be a breakthrough, it's through the six-party framework.
And, look, I'm hopeful. We'll see. This has been a -- I've been at this for quite a while, and there's been moments where it looks like the process is going to go very smoothly and everybody is going to honor their commitments, and then for one reason or another, there's a -- there was a setback. But the key thing is, is that we haven't abandoned the efforts to solve this problem peacefully and diplomatically.
PRESIDENT LEE: Thank you. If you correctly understand North Korea, and if you do understand North Korean society, you'll probably get a better picture why we are seeing some delay in the process at the moment. If North Korea wasn't like that, then we would have the seen the resolvement of this issue already. We need persistent patience, ladies and gentlemen. And we need time in order to have complete resolution of this issue.
However, it's difficult to convince North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons program, but it's not impossible. It is not impossible. I believe that. So in order to resolve this issue, I believe that the six-party talks is the most effective way and mechanism to resolve this issue, like the President mentioned. And right now we're in the stages of waiting for their declaration, and then we can move on to the verification process.
So I think it's up to you to make the atmosphere so that North Korea can faithfully abide by their promise and make the right declaration; that once North Korea does so, it is also in their interest to make the correct decision to give a full and complete declaration. And it will also help the North Korean people improve the quality of their life, and that is the best strategic choice that they can make.
Q (As translated.) I have a question for President Bush. The United States has a divergent alliance with countries like the United Kingdom, Japan. In your opinion, President Bush, what kind of alliance do you have with the Republic of Korea? And during your summit meeting today, I believe you agreed to upgrade the Korea-U.S. alliance. In order to upgrade the alliance, what kind of new movement will you take on -- for instance, the transfer of wartime operational control? And what will you do, President Bush -- do you have any intention to meet with both President Lee and Chairman Kim in order to resolve this issue?
PRESIDENT BUSH: No. As to the latter point, no I don't. I think the President described the relationship as a good one -- a 21st century strategic alliance -- that makes sense to me. So what does that mean? Well, it means we work in ways to deal with 21st century problems, such as proliferation of nuclear materials; such as working to make sure our children are educated with the tools necessary to be productive citizens; such as having a recognition that in the 21st century, a free and fair trading system will be necessary for prosperity. And that's why it's going to be very important for our Congress to ratify the free trade agreement with Korea.
It's going to be very important a 21st century alliance recognizes that China is a opportunity for both nations to engage in a constructive way. We have our problems with China, of course, whether it be human rights or how the Chinese leadership deals with the Dalai Lama or with Burma -- a variety of issues. On the other hand, you can either have a constructive relationship -- we can work constructively with China -- or we can have a destructive relationship. I've chosen to have a constructive relationship.
And so the step one is to anticipate the issues confronting our peoples in the 21st century, and step two is to develop a practical way to deal with those issues. And that's exactly what our conversation revolved around. And I'm confident that this meeting has strengthened our relationship, and I'm confident that the American people understand how important this relationship is to our own prosperity and our own security.
source-http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2008/04/20/news/local/news01.txt
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
