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/
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
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
Bush's Global-Warming Plan
Bush's Global-Warming Plan
Too little, really late
If you're of a certain age - OK, if you can remember '70s television - then you probably remember the little old man character that comedian Tim Conway would play on The Carol Burnett Show.
It always took an interminable amount of time for the geezer to walk across the stage, bringing to mind just how long it has taken for President Bush to move forward on global warming.
For most of his first term, the president refused to acknowledge that human activity might be causing climate change. The subject was never deemed important enough for one of Bush's State of the Union speeches until the one last year.
Finally, Thursday, with nine months left in his presidency, Bush announced a plan to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. Not only does the plan come late, but experts say its goals would not be enough to stop global warming from hurting the planet.
Bush's plan wouldn't stabilize U.S. carbon dioxide emissions until the year 2025, with reductions occurring only after that date.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the worst effects of global warming - a massive rise in sea levels, maybe even the extinction of species worldwide - likely cannot be avoided unless the growth in emissions is stopped by 2015.
The IPCC, which with Al Gore was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, wants industrialized countries to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to 40 percent of what they were in the 1990s by 2015 and to 95 percent of 1990s levels by 2050.
"The science is clear on what is necessary to tackle global warming, and the Bush administration's plan doesn't come close in getting the job done," says PennEnvironment field organizer Adam Garber.
"Since Pennsylvania is the third-highest emitter of global- warming pollution, we need Gov. Rendell to introduce a state-level global-warming plan that follows the science," Garber said.
Perhaps the states should take more action. But the federal government can do better. In fact, the Senate has before it a plan that would stop the growth in greenhouse emissions by 2012 and cut them to 66 percent of 2005 levels by 2050.
It's a good sign that each of the remaining viable presidential candidates - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain - has promised to do more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Bush has expressed a justifiable caution against crippling American industry to fight global warming. Developing nations such as China and India don't want their economic growth stunted either. But it's time to pick up the pace.
source-http://www.philly.com/
Too little, really late
If you're of a certain age - OK, if you can remember '70s television - then you probably remember the little old man character that comedian Tim Conway would play on The Carol Burnett Show.
It always took an interminable amount of time for the geezer to walk across the stage, bringing to mind just how long it has taken for President Bush to move forward on global warming.
For most of his first term, the president refused to acknowledge that human activity might be causing climate change. The subject was never deemed important enough for one of Bush's State of the Union speeches until the one last year.
Finally, Thursday, with nine months left in his presidency, Bush announced a plan to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. Not only does the plan come late, but experts say its goals would not be enough to stop global warming from hurting the planet.
Bush's plan wouldn't stabilize U.S. carbon dioxide emissions until the year 2025, with reductions occurring only after that date.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the worst effects of global warming - a massive rise in sea levels, maybe even the extinction of species worldwide - likely cannot be avoided unless the growth in emissions is stopped by 2015.
The IPCC, which with Al Gore was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, wants industrialized countries to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to 40 percent of what they were in the 1990s by 2015 and to 95 percent of 1990s levels by 2050.
"The science is clear on what is necessary to tackle global warming, and the Bush administration's plan doesn't come close in getting the job done," says PennEnvironment field organizer Adam Garber.
"Since Pennsylvania is the third-highest emitter of global- warming pollution, we need Gov. Rendell to introduce a state-level global-warming plan that follows the science," Garber said.
Perhaps the states should take more action. But the federal government can do better. In fact, the Senate has before it a plan that would stop the growth in greenhouse emissions by 2012 and cut them to 66 percent of 2005 levels by 2050.
It's a good sign that each of the remaining viable presidential candidates - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain - has promised to do more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Bush has expressed a justifiable caution against crippling American industry to fight global warming. Developing nations such as China and India don't want their economic growth stunted either. But it's time to pick up the pace.
source-http://www.philly.com/
Evidence proves we cause global warming
Evidence proves we cause global warming
Keith Lockitch (Guest Column, 4/14) disputes the global warming "consensus" (his italics).
He offers no evidence to counter the findings of the great majority of experts on this topic, that "human carbon emissions are causing a planetary emergency."
The daily evidence of droughts, collapse of Arctic and Antarctic ice masses, the scarcity of food supplies leading to riots, the disappearance of species, the pollution of the ocean, and so on, convinces me that the planet is in danger. And there is no doubt that severe cutbacks in the use of carbon-based energy would cause untold suffering. But even if global warming is not happening, these cutbacks will probably occur because carbon-based energy, oil and its byproducts, will diminish due to an increasing demand for a non-renewable resource.
Lockitch's argument is typical of the Ayn Rand ideology, which celebrates the accomplishments of industrial civilization, without acknowledging their inevitable costs. Our way of life is simply destroying the planet, in the long run.
Water, the necessary and irreplaceable basis of life, is becoming increasingly scarce in many parts of the world. Desertification of large portions of the earth is reducing the capacity to grow food. Lokitch's last statement is telling: "what Earth Hour (turning off lights everywhere for one hour) represents is the renunciation of industrial civilization."
Ironically, he may be right. We may have to renounce our present form of civilization if life on Earth is to survive.
source-http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/
Keith Lockitch (Guest Column, 4/14) disputes the global warming "consensus" (his italics).
He offers no evidence to counter the findings of the great majority of experts on this topic, that "human carbon emissions are causing a planetary emergency."
The daily evidence of droughts, collapse of Arctic and Antarctic ice masses, the scarcity of food supplies leading to riots, the disappearance of species, the pollution of the ocean, and so on, convinces me that the planet is in danger. And there is no doubt that severe cutbacks in the use of carbon-based energy would cause untold suffering. But even if global warming is not happening, these cutbacks will probably occur because carbon-based energy, oil and its byproducts, will diminish due to an increasing demand for a non-renewable resource.
Lockitch's argument is typical of the Ayn Rand ideology, which celebrates the accomplishments of industrial civilization, without acknowledging their inevitable costs. Our way of life is simply destroying the planet, in the long run.
Water, the necessary and irreplaceable basis of life, is becoming increasingly scarce in many parts of the world. Desertification of large portions of the earth is reducing the capacity to grow food. Lokitch's last statement is telling: "what Earth Hour (turning off lights everywhere for one hour) represents is the renunciation of industrial civilization."
Ironically, he may be right. We may have to renounce our present form of civilization if life on Earth is to survive.
source-http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/
Friday, April 11, 2008
The Global Warming Debate Grows Up
The Global Warming Debate Grows Up
For two decades, the big challenge of global warming was getting people to realize that it existed. “Deniers” were once a force to be reckoned with, but through the hard work of the environmental movement, they’ve now been relegated to the ideological fringe. Even conservatives talk about investing in clean energy and the need to reduce our carbon emissions, with Republican presidential candidate John McCain saying global warming would be one of three key issues of his presidency. We’ve crossed item #1 off the to-do list, and now a new task looms large on the horizon, no less challenging than the first: everyone knows that global warming is real, so what do we do about it?
Environmentalists have long believed that a price for carbon is the obvious answer to this question; “just pop in the economic incentives and watch them work their magic,” as Monica Prasad put it in the New York Times. The idea is that penalizing dirty energy will give clean energy enough of a push to topple the reign of the carbon-emitters. But it’s not that simple. A growing number of environmental thinkers are taking a critical look at the true impacts of Kyoto, the fast pace of international development, and the slow pace of clean energy development and deployment, and they’re asking a question that shakes the foundations of conventional climate policy wisdom: is a carbon price ecologically irrelevant?
Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is part of this paradigm shift. In a recent Scientific American op-ed, he wrote:
A trading system might marginally influence the choices between coal and gas plants or provoke a bit more adoption of solar and wind power, but it will not lead to the necessary fundamental overhaul of energy systems.
The recent spike in oil prices is evidence that a price for carbon doesn’t deserve to be at the center of climate policy. Though prices have tripled since 9/11 — creating a de facto carbon price — we haven’t converted the American auto fleet to electric. There may have been a slight increase in the number of hybrids, but it’s nothing even close to a wedge.
In order for a carbon price to have an appreciable effect on clean energy technology, it would need to be so high that no politician would dream of supporting it. To make solar competitive with coal, we would need a carbon price $220; Congress is having a hard time passing something in the $7-$12 range. Breakthrough refers to this catch-22 as “the Gordian Knot.”
The second blow to the carbon price way is the realization that the IPCC underestimated both the emissions reductions challenge, and the technology gap between fossil fuels and clean energy. Just how big is that gap? Socolow and Pacala’s famous “stabilization wedges” illustrate the immensity of the chasm. Their list of wedges include ending all deforestation worldwide; doubling our nuclear power capacity (we haven’t built a single new plant in 30 years); and a 700-fold increase in solar power capacity. This is a small sampling of a list that comes out to 18 wedges in total, most of which represent massive engineering challenges. Socolow and Pacala assume 11 of these wedges to be “embedded in the baseline scenario,” meaning that if we continue business as usual, a big portion of the heavy lifting in terms of carbon emissions reductions will occur automatically. Environmentalists are confident that the “remaining” wedges will be easily achieved with a price for carbon, but this is complacency.
A small price incentive isn’t enough; we need a real technology policy. Among those of us who believe climate change is the biggest challenge mankind has ever faced, it’s still unclear how that policy will take shape. Will we disagree? You bet. There is plenty of room for nuance and interpretation. But the climate cold war is finally thawing, and it is time to begin an open, honest discussion about the best policy solutions
source-http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/
For two decades, the big challenge of global warming was getting people to realize that it existed. “Deniers” were once a force to be reckoned with, but through the hard work of the environmental movement, they’ve now been relegated to the ideological fringe. Even conservatives talk about investing in clean energy and the need to reduce our carbon emissions, with Republican presidential candidate John McCain saying global warming would be one of three key issues of his presidency. We’ve crossed item #1 off the to-do list, and now a new task looms large on the horizon, no less challenging than the first: everyone knows that global warming is real, so what do we do about it?
Environmentalists have long believed that a price for carbon is the obvious answer to this question; “just pop in the economic incentives and watch them work their magic,” as Monica Prasad put it in the New York Times. The idea is that penalizing dirty energy will give clean energy enough of a push to topple the reign of the carbon-emitters. But it’s not that simple. A growing number of environmental thinkers are taking a critical look at the true impacts of Kyoto, the fast pace of international development, and the slow pace of clean energy development and deployment, and they’re asking a question that shakes the foundations of conventional climate policy wisdom: is a carbon price ecologically irrelevant?
Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is part of this paradigm shift. In a recent Scientific American op-ed, he wrote:
A trading system might marginally influence the choices between coal and gas plants or provoke a bit more adoption of solar and wind power, but it will not lead to the necessary fundamental overhaul of energy systems.
The recent spike in oil prices is evidence that a price for carbon doesn’t deserve to be at the center of climate policy. Though prices have tripled since 9/11 — creating a de facto carbon price — we haven’t converted the American auto fleet to electric. There may have been a slight increase in the number of hybrids, but it’s nothing even close to a wedge.
In order for a carbon price to have an appreciable effect on clean energy technology, it would need to be so high that no politician would dream of supporting it. To make solar competitive with coal, we would need a carbon price $220; Congress is having a hard time passing something in the $7-$12 range. Breakthrough refers to this catch-22 as “the Gordian Knot.”
The second blow to the carbon price way is the realization that the IPCC underestimated both the emissions reductions challenge, and the technology gap between fossil fuels and clean energy. Just how big is that gap? Socolow and Pacala’s famous “stabilization wedges” illustrate the immensity of the chasm. Their list of wedges include ending all deforestation worldwide; doubling our nuclear power capacity (we haven’t built a single new plant in 30 years); and a 700-fold increase in solar power capacity. This is a small sampling of a list that comes out to 18 wedges in total, most of which represent massive engineering challenges. Socolow and Pacala assume 11 of these wedges to be “embedded in the baseline scenario,” meaning that if we continue business as usual, a big portion of the heavy lifting in terms of carbon emissions reductions will occur automatically. Environmentalists are confident that the “remaining” wedges will be easily achieved with a price for carbon, but this is complacency.
A small price incentive isn’t enough; we need a real technology policy. Among those of us who believe climate change is the biggest challenge mankind has ever faced, it’s still unclear how that policy will take shape. Will we disagree? You bet. There is plenty of room for nuance and interpretation. But the climate cold war is finally thawing, and it is time to begin an open, honest discussion about the best policy solutions
source-http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
