Even if President Bush’s new proposal to set global emission goals is a smoke screen, it puts the administration on record in acknowledging the need to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions and wanting to be part of a global solution. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair noted, that’s "a big step forward."
Bush said today that he wants 15 major nations — which, unlike the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, would include China and India — to agree to emission-reduction targets by the end of next year. "The United States takes this issue seriously," he said.
But environmental groups are understandably skeptical, given the administration track record of foot-dragging. "This is a transparent effort to divert attention from the president’s refusal to accept any emissions-reductions proposals at next week’s G-8 summit," said National Environmental Trust president Philip Clapp.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
31 Comments
Yea right! NOT!
He wants to wave a magic wand and pretend that means something. Nothing more.
Ben!
State your sources on the magic wand and is it peer reviewed! :D
‘Climate change: Stop harming and start helping, Oxfam tells G8 summit’http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/blogs/pressoffice/2007/05/climate_change_stop_harming_an.html“G8 countries must act to keep global warming below 2° Celsius and pledge their share of $50 bln to help poorest cope with impact….Human-induced climate change is already causing harm to the world’s poorest people, who are the least responsible for emissions and least able to adapt to climatic shocks….The report estimates the share that each country should contribute towards financing adaptation….* United States, responsible for meeting nearly 44% of developing country adaptation costs;”
That’s 44% of $50 billion per year. See link for more, and a detailed PDF report.
The Prez can start reducing emissions by closing his mouth. Thats a start. The less we hear from him the better we will all be. Someone should hand him an etch-a-sketch….that will keep him entertained for a few months. Then make him write everything down on recycled paper, this will give the country a fighting chance. Be sure give him crayons, due to his inability to handle sharp objects.
Bush’s single interest is the “war of conquest” and everything else is a diversion from that genocide.
I’m not sure I buy into the global warming issue, but I sure as hell want off the OPEC tit. E85 is a freakin straw man. We need better alternatives.
What will be harmed by turning off (or WAY down) the fossil fuel spigot?
The Borg’s new mantra:
You will be “financially adapted.”
A libertarian over at the Constitution Society said there are two types of people in the world: those who believe what Bush says and those who see what Bush does.
Bush SAYS he wants energy independence, then invades Iraq and takes millions of gallons of oil off the market so that market for oil is sure to appreciate.
He SAYS he wants fuel efficient cars but immediately ends funding for proven technologies (hybrid and electric cars) while starting a completely new technology–hydrogen fuel cells–that won’t be workable for decades.
Oh, and guess what else? The hydrogen will come from oil. Big surprise, eh?
You are either a dumbsh*t who continue to believe the crap that streams endless from the Liar-in-Chief OR you are part of the “reality based community” who can see what Bush does and the effects those actions have had.
“Top NASA official questions Global Warming”
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1
“”Top NASA official questions Global Warming”"
HA!! Suck it, cosmo and all the rest.
Fleetwood,Griffin’s lead scientist at NASA was immediately interviewed by NPR after Griffin’s comments and said he “nearly fell out of his chair” when he heard the boss.
IN FACT, the scientist had just completed a NASA report on GW that contradicts the boss’ s statements:
NPR: “Has he (Griffin) read your report?”
Scientist: “Apparently not…I will see to it that he does.”
I’ll bet we’ll be hearing more about Griffin soon…watch for his resignation in the next couple of weeks, Fleetwood.
You can want in one hand and shit in the other, guess which one fills up first? Bush talks a lot about oil addictions and need to reduce consumption but he never does anything serious about it.
Of course he questions Global Warming.
He was appointed by Bush. Sheesh.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html
“Nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate, Michael Griffin began his duties as the 11th Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on April 14, 2005.”
He was also a director of the billion dollar boondoggle the reich-wing loves: the STAR WARS missile defense system.
Surprise, surprise.
By the way, Fleetwood, NASA chief Griffin didn’t ACTUALLY QUESTION WHETHER GW EXISTS OR IS IN PART HUMAN-CAUSED. He questioned the need to do anything about it.
Read the whole interview:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499
I heard the interview first-hand. He did indeed acknowledge that GW exists.
MICHAEL GRIFFIN: THE NEXT BUSH APPOINTEE TO RESIGN.
How fast do you think, Cap’n? A week?
There’s also the logical contradiction between Bush’s statement that “The United States takes this issue seriously,” and his NASA chief’s statement.
Which one is full of sh*t, Fleettwood?
Bush or Griffin?
Now that Bush and even a stooge like Michael Griffin acknowledge that GW exists, that pretty much leaves Fleetwood, Nathan the ID guy, and Republican as the only GW deniers left, right?
Take heart, guys. There are still holocaust deniers too.
say it with me now:
“I’M AWARE THAT GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS”
(Michael Griffin and George Bush, 5/31/07)
“Ooooh-now Bush wants to do something about admissions!”He must have figure out how to make money off of this.
NASA administrator Michael Griffin: “To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate,…”
That’s Lindzen’s BS argument.Human civilization, and all life on Earth has adapted to it’s pre-industrial climate. Sea ports, water supplies, farm land… a very long list.
Human-triggered GW that causes sea levels to significantly rise, droughts, etc will NOT be a “optimal” climate.
Air-Car Ready for Mass Production”When you use a manual push mower, you’re cutting down on pollution and the only thing in danger of running out of gas is you!”Grey LivingstonMake a DifferenceJoin the solution. Reduce your carbon emissions.» Count Me In18 SecondsJoin others changing bulbs and the world.» Sign Me Up By Bob Ewing
The world’s first commercial compressed air-powered vehicle is rolling towards the production line. The Air Car, developed by ex-Formula One engineer Guy Nègre, will be built by India’s largest automaker, Tata Motors.
The Air Car uses compressed air to push its engine’s pistons. It is anticipated that approximately 6000 Air Cars will be cruising the streets of India by 2008. If the manufacturers have no surprises up their exhaust pipes the car will be practical and reasonably priced. The CityCat model will clock out at 68 mph with a driving range of 125 miles.
Refueling is simple and will only take a few minutes. That is, if you live nearby a gas station with custom air compressor units. The cost of a fill up is approximately $2.00. If a driver doesn’t have access to a compressor station, they will be able to plug into the electrical grid and use the car’s built-in compressor to refill the tank in about 4 hours.
The compressed air technology is basically just a way of storing electrical energy without the need for costly, heavy, and occasionally toxic batteries. So, in a sense, this is an electric car. It just doesn’t have an electric motor.
But don’t let anyone tell you this is an “emissions free” vehicle. Sure, the only thing coming out of the tailpipe is air. But, chances are, fossil fuels were burned to create the electricity. In India, that mostly means coal. But the carbon emissions per mile of these things still far outdoes any gasoline car on the market.
Unfortunately, the streets of North America may never see the Air Car, though; it’s light-weight, glued-together fiberglass construction might not do so well in our crash tests. However, that does not mean the Air car is confined to the sub-continent. Nègre has signed deals to bring its design to 12 more countries, including Germany, Israel and South Africa.
And this isn’t the last we’ll hear of the technology. The folks making the Air Car are already working on a hybrid version that would use an on-board, gasoline-powered compressor to refill the air tanks when they run low. Negre says that technology could easily squeeze a cross country trip out of one tank of gasoline.
A variety of videos (of varying quality) on this technology can be found on YouTube, or after the jump.—–
Paul F. Rosell and fleettwood,
Thank you for proving my point
(emphasis added)’NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming’http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499“I’m aware that global warming exists. …I’m also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that MUCH of that is MANMADE. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can’t say.”
Rosell, fleettwood, et al,
For you,’Research Finds That Earth’s Climate is Approaching ‘Dangerous’ Point’http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/danger_point.html
Bush is on record as being against “nation building” too, don’t mean nuthin.
DEAD BLOG.
Guess that ends that.
What’s the big deal here? GWB has said several things that turned out to be ‘mistruths’ (in other words a lie). What makes you think GWB is telling the truth now about global warming?
Some reactions from media, etc.Rupert Cornwell’s “what Bush really meant” are great.
‘Bush’s Climate-Change Feint’http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/01/BL2007060101230.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
A VERY informative read,
‘Bush’s Global Warming Foot-Dragging’http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/060107.html“George W. Bush snared front-page attention for his supposed shift on global warming, but the President’s tepid “aspirational goals” – and comments from his NASA chief that a hotter planet might actually be beneficial – continue to reflect Bush’s long-held doubts about the urgency of the problem.”More at link.
Re the Mills report quoted by Bush in my 11:39 PM post,
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/net-energy-studies.html“The latest analysis shows that the total electricity used by office and network equipment is… about two percent of the total electricity use in the U.S….The Mills report claimed that electricity use associated just with the Internet totaled about eight percent of all U.S. electricity use in 1998 and that it would grow to half of all electricity use in the next two decades.”
Oh no! Cosmos has turned to the Uni-bomber philosophy! He hates technology!
Thar she blows! ROFL!
Bush quoted the bogus report “The Internet Begins with Coal”, which exaggerated Internet electricity usage by a factor of about eight.
So Republank thinks(sic) that means that I “hate technology”? He’s irrational.
HiI can’t be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don’t have anything to say recently.Bye—–
Hi all!Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!Bye—–
HelloYour site is very cognitive. I think you will have good future.:)