MAY 31, 2007
Bush urges action on global warming
US President George W Bush said today he would urge key industrialised nations at a summit next week to join a new global framework for fighting climate change after the Kyoto Protocol lapses.
“The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012,†he said in a speech laying out his agenda for the June 6 to 8 G8 summit in Germany.
“My proposal is this: by the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases in consultation with major greenhouse gas-producing nations, including fast-growing India and China, and industry leaders, for the next 18 months.
“It’s important to assure that we get results,†he said. Mr Bush has made the initiative a key goal of his talks next week with leaders from Europe, where critics have accused Washington of dragging its feet on climate change.
The US president said he would push G8 leaders to boost investment in research and development of environment-friendly technologies and help poor countries acquire such cutting-edge science.
“We’re also going to work to conclude talks with other nations on eliminating tariffs and other barriers to clean energy technologies and services by the end of this year,†he said.
“We’ll help the world’s poorest nations reduce emissions by giving them government-developed technologies at low cost or in some case no cost at all.â€
The US proposal risks worsening a row with Germany, the current G8 president, which is seeking a strong resolution on fighting climate change at the summit and wants to bring as many nations as possible to the table.
The US, the world’s number one emitter of greenhouse gases, has refused to ratify the protocol and abide by the Kyoto process.
China and India’s status as developing nations exempts them from mandatory targets on greenhouse gas output, though they are fast becoming big emitters of greenhouse gases as they burn oil, gas and coal to power their economies.
The US administration has cited this as a reason for not submitting the Kyoto protocol for Senate ratification.
Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
"China and India’s status as developing nations exempts them from mandatory targets on greenhouse gas output, though they are fast becoming big emitters of greenhouse gases as they burn oil, gas and coal to power their economies. ...The US administration has cited this as a reason for not submitting the Kyoto protocol for Senate ratification."
Well, that is a good reason. But, allow me to offer yet another.
Even if every targeted nation fully complied with Kyoto, the effect on the climate would be basically nothing --- zero, nada. When asked "What if all developed nations would comly with the emission requirements (of Kyoto)", Tom Wigley of the National Center for Science Research (Al Gore's favorite scientist) responded that, at best, the earth's temperature would lower 7/100 of a degree Celsius in 50 years.
And how much would that 7/100 of a degree (or even less, if any) cost the US? According to economists at Wharton, Kyoto would cost the US at least $300 billion annually ----that is at least 15 trillion over 50 years.
But, even though such efforts and money spent would have a near-zero effect on the climate, for many it makes them feel good to be doing something. And feeling good is what is really important.
Meanwhile, other better uses for our money and resources to help fight real problems in the US and the world will go unmet due to fighting this imaginary problem.
Hammer, until scientists can prove, to a reasonable scientific certainty, the accuracy or truth of this theory of GW induced by CO2 increases by man, then you can quote politicians, movie stars, corporate gurus, etc. from sun up to sun down, and it ain't going to mean a thing to me. Such still doesn't prove the theory ---belief is not proof. IF it were, then according to the belief of many children, Santa Claus would be real.
So, there is no need to stalk me throughout the board, on other threads that have nothing to do with this topic. Please spare the rest of the board from this GW torture . IF I want to answer you, and continue my participation in this thread, I will --- on my own timetable. There is no need for the childish taunts.
Well, that is a good reason. But, allow me to offer yet another.
Even if every targeted nation fully complied with Kyoto, the effect on the climate would be basically nothing --- zero, nada. When asked "What if all developed nations would comly with the emission requirements (of Kyoto)", Tom Wigley of the National Center for Science Research (Al Gore's favorite scientist) responded that, at best, the earth's temperature would lower 7/100 of a degree Celsius in 50 years.
And how much would that 7/100 of a degree (or even less, if any) cost the US? According to economists at Wharton, Kyoto would cost the US at least $300 billion annually ----that is at least 15 trillion over 50 years.
But, even though such efforts and money spent would have a near-zero effect on the climate, for many it makes them feel good to be doing something. And feeling good is what is really important.
Meanwhile, other better uses for our money and resources to help fight real problems in the US and the world will go unmet due to fighting this imaginary problem.
Hammer, until scientists can prove, to a reasonable scientific certainty, the accuracy or truth of this theory of GW induced by CO2 increases by man, then you can quote politicians, movie stars, corporate gurus, etc. from sun up to sun down, and it ain't going to mean a thing to me. Such still doesn't prove the theory ---belief is not proof. IF it were, then according to the belief of many children, Santa Claus would be real.
So, there is no need to stalk me throughout the board, on other threads that have nothing to do with this topic. Please spare the rest of the board from this GW torture . IF I want to answer you, and continue my participation in this thread, I will --- on my own timetable. There is no need for the childish taunts.
Last edited by Po Monkey Lounger on Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
You appear to be confused between the SCIENCE of GW and the POLITICS of Kyoto...I dont care if the US ratifies Kyoto or not, ditto for China, Brazil, etc...The goal is reducing carbon emissions not the POLITICAL VEHICLE used to git r done...GWB seems to be taking a step in the right direction in terms of gitting r done although it is certainly possible his statement is nothign more than a diversion, a stalling tactic...Doesnt matter that much what the feds do since the states are moving forward without them...But in terms of our discussions on this thread, your right wing, Repukecan political leader has undermined your arguments...
You also appear to be confused between the CO2 induced temperature increases that are already locked into the system and the temperature increases that will result from CO2 emissions from this point forward...Your quote regards future emissions, not emissions that have already occurred...As the result of CO2 emissions from 1750 to present, we have a 3-10 degree increase in temperatures locked in no matter what we do about future emissions (unless we figure out ways to suck the existing CO2 out of the air)...
I again instruct you to look at CO2 and not temperature...Temperature is but one SYMPTOM of the underlying CAUSE...That cause is the change in chemical composition of Earth's air from about 250 PPM of CO2 pre 1750 to a proejcted 450 PPM by 2050 for business as usual CO2 emissions...
Your basic premise that Mankind cannot effect somethign as big as climate ignores the realities of acid rain, mercury and extinction to name just a few definitive cases wherein Man's actions have affected very large natural processes. Not to mention the very high likelihood that the cancer, autism and other epidemics have been induced by Man...
Got a book for you to read if you are up to it...Deep Economy by Bill McKibben...Dont take this as an endorsement of all of his thoughts but it will certainly give you "food for thought" (no pun intended)...
As for childish taunts, you reap what you sow Sport. If you are gonna give it, you darn sure better be prepared to take it.
You also appear to be confused between the CO2 induced temperature increases that are already locked into the system and the temperature increases that will result from CO2 emissions from this point forward...Your quote regards future emissions, not emissions that have already occurred...As the result of CO2 emissions from 1750 to present, we have a 3-10 degree increase in temperatures locked in no matter what we do about future emissions (unless we figure out ways to suck the existing CO2 out of the air)...
I again instruct you to look at CO2 and not temperature...Temperature is but one SYMPTOM of the underlying CAUSE...That cause is the change in chemical composition of Earth's air from about 250 PPM of CO2 pre 1750 to a proejcted 450 PPM by 2050 for business as usual CO2 emissions...
Your basic premise that Mankind cannot effect somethign as big as climate ignores the realities of acid rain, mercury and extinction to name just a few definitive cases wherein Man's actions have affected very large natural processes. Not to mention the very high likelihood that the cancer, autism and other epidemics have been induced by Man...
Got a book for you to read if you are up to it...Deep Economy by Bill McKibben...Dont take this as an endorsement of all of his thoughts but it will certainly give you "food for thought" (no pun intended)...
As for childish taunts, you reap what you sow Sport. If you are gonna give it, you darn sure better be prepared to take it.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
"You also appear to be confused between the CO2 induced temperature increases that are already locked into the system and the temperature increases that will result from CO2 emissions from this point forward...Your quote regards future emissions, not emissions that have already occurred...As the result of CO2 emissions from 1750 to present, we have a 3-10 degree increase in temperatures locked in no matter what we do about future emissions (unless we figure out ways to suck the existing CO2 out of the air)... "
I must say that a 3-10 degree range of average global temps is a pretty big range. Consider first the inherent errors in trying to calculate a true average global temp --- the accuracy of such, to the extent it can be done, would depend upon the number and locations of temperature readings across the globe ---- many areas have experienced decreases in average temperature during the relevant time frames in question. Then consider the realization that the science is apparently not there to predict anything narrower than a worldwide 7 degree temp range --this is huge considering, by most attempted calculations, the average global temp has only risen a very small amount since the last ice age.
Now consider that there is no scientific proof of the theory that any such average global temperature increases have anything to do with CO2 levels ---- to the contrary, the charts I have seen do not reflect such a relationship. Consider further how small a part of the total greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere is made up of CO2. Hammer is talking about dire consequences based upon a projected (not proven) increase in CO2 levels of about 200 parts per million (.0002). Consider further that man could only possibly control a small part of the total CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere.
And when you consider all of this, you should come to two realizations: (1) the projected increases in CO2, even if true, will have no discernable impact on our climate; and (2) that even if it did, such is out of the control of man --there is nothing man can do to stop it. And these two conclusions are based upon the assumptions that the CO2 caused climate change theory is correct. If it is wrong, which there is much evidence to suggest exactly that, then there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
For better or worse, and to the applause of many sick of this thread, I am going to rest my case on this one, as I find myself now repeating many of the same arguments as have previously been made. I will just have to agree to disagree with those who disagree with me. You've apparently thrown out all the evidence you have in support of these theories and dire predictions, and I just have not seen anything convincing to-date from a standpoint of sceince, logic, and reason. Yes, there are a lot of emotional arguments, feelings, beliefs, politics, etc. But, such does not prove anything.
Fun topic. Just tired of the debate.
I must say that a 3-10 degree range of average global temps is a pretty big range. Consider first the inherent errors in trying to calculate a true average global temp --- the accuracy of such, to the extent it can be done, would depend upon the number and locations of temperature readings across the globe ---- many areas have experienced decreases in average temperature during the relevant time frames in question. Then consider the realization that the science is apparently not there to predict anything narrower than a worldwide 7 degree temp range --this is huge considering, by most attempted calculations, the average global temp has only risen a very small amount since the last ice age.
Now consider that there is no scientific proof of the theory that any such average global temperature increases have anything to do with CO2 levels ---- to the contrary, the charts I have seen do not reflect such a relationship. Consider further how small a part of the total greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere is made up of CO2. Hammer is talking about dire consequences based upon a projected (not proven) increase in CO2 levels of about 200 parts per million (.0002). Consider further that man could only possibly control a small part of the total CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere.
And when you consider all of this, you should come to two realizations: (1) the projected increases in CO2, even if true, will have no discernable impact on our climate; and (2) that even if it did, such is out of the control of man --there is nothing man can do to stop it. And these two conclusions are based upon the assumptions that the CO2 caused climate change theory is correct. If it is wrong, which there is much evidence to suggest exactly that, then there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
For better or worse, and to the applause of many sick of this thread, I am going to rest my case on this one, as I find myself now repeating many of the same arguments as have previously been made. I will just have to agree to disagree with those who disagree with me. You've apparently thrown out all the evidence you have in support of these theories and dire predictions, and I just have not seen anything convincing to-date from a standpoint of sceince, logic, and reason. Yes, there are a lot of emotional arguments, feelings, beliefs, politics, etc. But, such does not prove anything.
Fun topic. Just tired of the debate.
HEY PML:
Look at all the state governments that arent as smart as you are.
Funny that the Kyoto Protocol was introduced in 1992 and yet 15 years later you cant refer me to a single scientific study that debunks the so called "myth of global warming" as you call it....
Incidentally, its 98 degrees on June 12, we are at less than 50% of our normal rainfall for the year and 10% of all Alzheimer's patients in the US are younger than 55 years old. But dont worry- everything is under control.
If that wasnt enough, did yall know that the Tasmanian Devil is about to go extinct? Tasmania is not exactly a rapidly growing area so the rodent is not losing critical habitat to asphalt and concrete. Nope, the cause of the species decline is CANCER. CANCER has been around a long time and so has the Tasmanian Devil so why is cancer all the sudden about to wipe out the little devils?
More circumstantial evidence illustrating how out of whack things are. It is fundamental. Too much CO2 in the air causes all sorts of problems many of which will take decades, maybe centuries to figure out.
But I'm just being egotistical. Mankind could never affect anything as big as the chemical composition of the Earth's air according to PML. Isnt that right PML? Just like mankind couldnt put a whole in the ozone layer. Or cause mass extinctions across 7 continents. Or develop WMDs that can kill billions of humans and other mammals in a matter of days.
Read em and weep PML. When are you gonna step up, repent of the misinformation you have doggedly clung to and admit you are wrong about GW?
Regional Initiatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional initiatives can be more efficient than programs at the state level, as they encompass a broader geographic area, eliminate duplication of work, and create more uniform regulatory environments. Over the past few years, a number of regional initiatives have begun developing systems to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, increase renewable energy generation, track renewable energy credits, and research and establish baselines for carbon sequestration.
Western Regional Climate Action Initiative
On February 26, 2007, Governors Napolitano of Arizona, Schwarzenegger of California, Richardson of New Mexico, Kulongoski of Oregon, and Gregoire of Washington signed an agreement establishing the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, a joint effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change. Under the agreement, the five states will jointly set a regional emissions target within six months, and by August 2008 will establish a market-based system – such as a cap-and-trade program covering multiple economic sectors – to aid in meeting the target. The states will also set up an emissions registry and tracking system. On May 21, 2007, Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. announced that Utah will become the sixth state to join the WRCAI.
On April 24, 2007, Premier Gordon Campbell announced that the Canadian Province of British Columbia (not shown above) will become the first jurisdiction outside of the United States to join the Initiative.
The initiative builds on work already undertaken individually by the participating states, as well as two existing regional agreements (see below): the Southwest Climate Change Initiative of 2006, which includes Arizona and New Mexico, and the West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative of 2003, which includes California, Oregon, and Washington.
Press Release
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
On December 20, 2005, the governors of seven Northeastern states announced the creation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The governors of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to implement the first mandatory U.S. cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide. RGGI sets a cap on emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants, and allows sources to trade emissions allowances. The program will begin by capping emissions at current levels in 2009, and then reducing emissions 10% by 2019.
On January 18, 2007, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing his state to join RGGI, making Massachusetts the eighth state to participate. In his State of the State address on January 30, Governor Donald Carcieri announced that Rhode Island would also be joining RGGI.
On April 6, 2006, Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. signed into law the Healthy Air Act. The bill required the Governor to include the state in RGGI by June 30, 2007. Maryland became the 10th official participating state in April 2007 with Governor Martin O'Malley's signing of the RGGI Memorandum of Understanding.
Western Governors’ Association (WGA): Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative
On June 22, 2004, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) unanimously resolved to examine the feasibility and actions required to reach a goal of 30,000 megawatts of clean energy by 2015 and a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency by 2020. The Governors will also examine what is needed to meet the West's generation and transmission needs over the next 25 years. The resolution cites the need to protect against energy shortages and price spikes, accommodate the population's growing energy needs, position the Western energy system to respond to environmental challenges, and take advantage of new technologies that will lower the cost of renewable energy and of controlling emissions from the fossil fuel resource base. According to the resolution, the project will stress "incentive-based, non-mandatory approaches," and it will also consider federal programs that could assist in reaching the goal.
The WGA has created the Clean and Diversified Energy Advisory Committee to oversee task forces to facilitate planning for the energy technologies necessary to meet this goal. Government officials, businesses, and non-profits (including the Pew Center) are working together on these task forces. Visit the Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative site for more information.
West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative
In 2003, the Governors of the three West Coast states – California, Oregon, and Washington – announced an initiative to coordinate their states’ policies to combat global warming. Staff from the three states collaborated to produce a set of recommendations on strategies that the states can pursue cooperatively and individually. This report, released in November 2004, can be found here:
West Coast Governers' Global Warming Initiative documents.
Powering the Plains
Powering the Plains is an effort of state officials, industry participants, agriculture representatives and renewable energy advocacy groups working on energy and agriculture initiatives that address climate change while promoting regional economic development. Participants in the process hail from North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Canadian Province of Manitoba. Powering the Plains addresses energy and agricultural issues through the development of an integrated energy strategy, policy recommendations, and demonstration projects. Visit the Powering the Plains site for more information.
The Honorable Jon Nelson, a legislator from North Dakota, gave a presentation on Powering the Plains at the Pew Center’s State-Federal Workshop. See the presentation here, in the Events section.
New England Governors: Climate Change Action Plan (NEG-ECP)
The New England Governors' (NEG) Conference is a forum for the Governors of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine to work together to respond to regional issues. These states are also party to the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG-ECP) to address regional, cross-boundary issues. In 2001, the NEG-ECP developed the Climate Change Action Plan, a comprehensive and coordinated regional plan for reducing greenhouse gases that includes a goal of achieving 1990 emission levels by 2010 and 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. The states and provinces of the NEG-ECP are developing a variety of programs and policies, including RGGI, to meet their commitments. The 2001 Climate Change Action Plan of the New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers can be viewed here (pdf).
Southwest Climate Change Initiative
Concerned about the potential impacts of climate change in the region, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson signed an agreement to create the Southwest Climate Change Initiative on February 28, 2006. The two states will collaborate through their respective Climate Change Advisory Groups, to identify options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting climate change mitigation, energy efficient technologies and clean energy sources. The Governors expect that these actions to address climate change will also spur economic growth. Under the Southwest Climate Change Initiative, Arizona and New Mexico will also advocate for regional and national climate policies.
Look at all the state governments that arent as smart as you are.
Funny that the Kyoto Protocol was introduced in 1992 and yet 15 years later you cant refer me to a single scientific study that debunks the so called "myth of global warming" as you call it....
Incidentally, its 98 degrees on June 12, we are at less than 50% of our normal rainfall for the year and 10% of all Alzheimer's patients in the US are younger than 55 years old. But dont worry- everything is under control.
If that wasnt enough, did yall know that the Tasmanian Devil is about to go extinct? Tasmania is not exactly a rapidly growing area so the rodent is not losing critical habitat to asphalt and concrete. Nope, the cause of the species decline is CANCER. CANCER has been around a long time and so has the Tasmanian Devil so why is cancer all the sudden about to wipe out the little devils?
More circumstantial evidence illustrating how out of whack things are. It is fundamental. Too much CO2 in the air causes all sorts of problems many of which will take decades, maybe centuries to figure out.
But I'm just being egotistical. Mankind could never affect anything as big as the chemical composition of the Earth's air according to PML. Isnt that right PML? Just like mankind couldnt put a whole in the ozone layer. Or cause mass extinctions across 7 continents. Or develop WMDs that can kill billions of humans and other mammals in a matter of days.
Read em and weep PML. When are you gonna step up, repent of the misinformation you have doggedly clung to and admit you are wrong about GW?
Regional Initiatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional initiatives can be more efficient than programs at the state level, as they encompass a broader geographic area, eliminate duplication of work, and create more uniform regulatory environments. Over the past few years, a number of regional initiatives have begun developing systems to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, increase renewable energy generation, track renewable energy credits, and research and establish baselines for carbon sequestration.
Western Regional Climate Action Initiative
On February 26, 2007, Governors Napolitano of Arizona, Schwarzenegger of California, Richardson of New Mexico, Kulongoski of Oregon, and Gregoire of Washington signed an agreement establishing the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, a joint effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change. Under the agreement, the five states will jointly set a regional emissions target within six months, and by August 2008 will establish a market-based system – such as a cap-and-trade program covering multiple economic sectors – to aid in meeting the target. The states will also set up an emissions registry and tracking system. On May 21, 2007, Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. announced that Utah will become the sixth state to join the WRCAI.
On April 24, 2007, Premier Gordon Campbell announced that the Canadian Province of British Columbia (not shown above) will become the first jurisdiction outside of the United States to join the Initiative.
The initiative builds on work already undertaken individually by the participating states, as well as two existing regional agreements (see below): the Southwest Climate Change Initiative of 2006, which includes Arizona and New Mexico, and the West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative of 2003, which includes California, Oregon, and Washington.
Press Release
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
On December 20, 2005, the governors of seven Northeastern states announced the creation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The governors of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to implement the first mandatory U.S. cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide. RGGI sets a cap on emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants, and allows sources to trade emissions allowances. The program will begin by capping emissions at current levels in 2009, and then reducing emissions 10% by 2019.
On January 18, 2007, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing his state to join RGGI, making Massachusetts the eighth state to participate. In his State of the State address on January 30, Governor Donald Carcieri announced that Rhode Island would also be joining RGGI.
On April 6, 2006, Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. signed into law the Healthy Air Act. The bill required the Governor to include the state in RGGI by June 30, 2007. Maryland became the 10th official participating state in April 2007 with Governor Martin O'Malley's signing of the RGGI Memorandum of Understanding.
Western Governors’ Association (WGA): Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative
On June 22, 2004, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) unanimously resolved to examine the feasibility and actions required to reach a goal of 30,000 megawatts of clean energy by 2015 and a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency by 2020. The Governors will also examine what is needed to meet the West's generation and transmission needs over the next 25 years. The resolution cites the need to protect against energy shortages and price spikes, accommodate the population's growing energy needs, position the Western energy system to respond to environmental challenges, and take advantage of new technologies that will lower the cost of renewable energy and of controlling emissions from the fossil fuel resource base. According to the resolution, the project will stress "incentive-based, non-mandatory approaches," and it will also consider federal programs that could assist in reaching the goal.
The WGA has created the Clean and Diversified Energy Advisory Committee to oversee task forces to facilitate planning for the energy technologies necessary to meet this goal. Government officials, businesses, and non-profits (including the Pew Center) are working together on these task forces. Visit the Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative site for more information.
West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative
In 2003, the Governors of the three West Coast states – California, Oregon, and Washington – announced an initiative to coordinate their states’ policies to combat global warming. Staff from the three states collaborated to produce a set of recommendations on strategies that the states can pursue cooperatively and individually. This report, released in November 2004, can be found here:
West Coast Governers' Global Warming Initiative documents.
Powering the Plains
Powering the Plains is an effort of state officials, industry participants, agriculture representatives and renewable energy advocacy groups working on energy and agriculture initiatives that address climate change while promoting regional economic development. Participants in the process hail from North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Canadian Province of Manitoba. Powering the Plains addresses energy and agricultural issues through the development of an integrated energy strategy, policy recommendations, and demonstration projects. Visit the Powering the Plains site for more information.
The Honorable Jon Nelson, a legislator from North Dakota, gave a presentation on Powering the Plains at the Pew Center’s State-Federal Workshop. See the presentation here, in the Events section.
New England Governors: Climate Change Action Plan (NEG-ECP)
The New England Governors' (NEG) Conference is a forum for the Governors of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine to work together to respond to regional issues. These states are also party to the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG-ECP) to address regional, cross-boundary issues. In 2001, the NEG-ECP developed the Climate Change Action Plan, a comprehensive and coordinated regional plan for reducing greenhouse gases that includes a goal of achieving 1990 emission levels by 2010 and 10% below 1990 levels by 2020. The states and provinces of the NEG-ECP are developing a variety of programs and policies, including RGGI, to meet their commitments. The 2001 Climate Change Action Plan of the New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers can be viewed here (pdf).
Southwest Climate Change Initiative
Concerned about the potential impacts of climate change in the region, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson signed an agreement to create the Southwest Climate Change Initiative on February 28, 2006. The two states will collaborate through their respective Climate Change Advisory Groups, to identify options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting climate change mitigation, energy efficient technologies and clean energy sources. The Governors expect that these actions to address climate change will also spur economic growth. Under the Southwest Climate Change Initiative, Arizona and New Mexico will also advocate for regional and national climate policies.
-
Greenhead22
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 19203
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Mississippi/Louisiana/Arkansas
Sadly Tip101 we are just getting started on this issue...There has been a 1 degree Farenheit rise in temps over the last 100 years...No matter what else happens in terms of reducing emissions, sucking CO2 out of the air, etc, there will be another 1-2 degree rise based on water temps in the oceans...Based on current emission profiles in the US, China and India, you can ring up 3-10 degree increase by 2100...
But dont worry about it...trust the Great PML....Its all a natural phenomena and there is nothing we can do about it no matter what 5000+ scientists, presidents, prime ministers, religious leaders, CEOs, Governors and others say...It's all a CON pulled on the leaders of the world by the Great Snakeoil Salesman Al Gore, one of the master salesmen of our time.
But dont worry about it...trust the Great PML....Its all a natural phenomena and there is nothing we can do about it no matter what 5000+ scientists, presidents, prime ministers, religious leaders, CEOs, Governors and others say...It's all a CON pulled on the leaders of the world by the Great Snakeoil Salesman Al Gore, one of the master salesmen of our time.
-
JJ McGuire
- Veteran
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:26 am
- Location: Chester Springs, PA
- Contact:
Hammer wrote:Incidentally, its 98 degrees on June 12.
You need to move.
During the period of most significant greenhouse gas buildup over the past century, i.e., 1930 and onward, Chaska's mean annual temperature has cooled by 3.09 degrees Fahrenheit. Not much global warming here!
JJ
Never ask a man what kind of dog he has. If he has a Lab he'll tell you, if he does not you don't want to shame him by asking.
Never ask a man what kind of dog he has. If he has a Lab he'll tell you, if he does not you don't want to shame him by asking.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
I dont know about Chaska, MN but average annual GLOBAL temperatures is what I am referring to...Incidentally, 2006 was the hottest year on record in many places throughout the US...Unless something changes real quick, you can add Jackson, MS to the list in 2007...
Regading duck hunting, specifically in teh South Delta, how many red and white oaks do you think will make acorns this year? How about dryland corn and bean crops? What are ducks gonna eat if they even migrate this far south?
But dont worry about it...My daddy and grand daddy were just making it all up with their stories of ducks blackening the skies...The hunting in Stuttgart is as good now as it ever was...The Atlantic Flyway never really existed anyway...I mean, how could Mankind affect somethign like the Atlantic Flyway...DU and DW are full of chit...Mankind could never eliminate ducks by messing up duck nesting habitat...It's all a money scam concocted by the environmentalists and the Great Snakeoil Salesman Al Gore (who couldnt sell water to a man dying of thirst in the Mojave desert).
Glad to see that you are now concerned about the right of poor countries to develop. Guess you been buying U2 records and joining the Bono fan club.
Regading duck hunting, specifically in teh South Delta, how many red and white oaks do you think will make acorns this year? How about dryland corn and bean crops? What are ducks gonna eat if they even migrate this far south?
But dont worry about it...My daddy and grand daddy were just making it all up with their stories of ducks blackening the skies...The hunting in Stuttgart is as good now as it ever was...The Atlantic Flyway never really existed anyway...I mean, how could Mankind affect somethign like the Atlantic Flyway...DU and DW are full of chit...Mankind could never eliminate ducks by messing up duck nesting habitat...It's all a money scam concocted by the environmentalists and the Great Snakeoil Salesman Al Gore (who couldnt sell water to a man dying of thirst in the Mojave desert).
Glad to see that you are now concerned about the right of poor countries to develop. Guess you been buying U2 records and joining the Bono fan club.
PER MY COMMENTS ABOVE, THE BIG MONEY IS GETTING INTO THE GAME
GHG resolutions get highest votes at GM, ExxonMobil
New York, 7 June: Shareholder activists are winning record levels of support for resolutions that would force US companies to take action on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Owners of General Motors and ExxonMobil shares provided the highest-ever vote tallies favouring action on climate change during recent annual meetings.
On Tuesday, General Motors stockholders representing 25.7% of the company's shares voted in favour of a resolution asking the board of directors to adopt quantitative goals for reducing greenhouse gases. They sought a report on GM plans by 30 September.
While GM has cut GHGs in manufacturing, "automobile companies are facing increasing consumer and regulatory pressure to reduce GHG emissions from the use of their vehicles," warned the resolution, saying GM lags behind European and Japanese peers.
This was the highest vote that GM shareholders have delivered on a GHG resolution, said Miranda Anderson, senior consultant for Ceres, a Boston-based environmental and investor organisation. Since 1998, GM resolutions have gained 3-7% approval, and those sought only disclosure, not goals, she noted.
"If a resolution receives a quarter of shareholder votes, that's enough to make management stop and think about what steps it needs to take," she said.
Anderson credited proponents for making "a strong business case" about risk, and for gaining support of two major proxy advisory firms – Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Proxy Governance – who advised 'mainstream' clients to back the resolution, not just socially responsible investors.
GM did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
On 30 May, ExxonMobil stockholders backed a resolution by 31% of shares, asking the board to set quantitative GHG goals in operations and products. Supporters represented $121 billion of shares, and included several state pension funds, said Ceres spokesman Peyton Fleming. The proponents gained support of proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass, Lewis & Co.
But investors only voted 7% of shares to block re-appointment of board member Michael Boskin, who chairs ExxonMobil's public issues committee. His opponents say Boskin has refused to meet with shareholders on climate change five times.
ExxonMobil spokesman Gantt Walton said the Board Affairs Committee will review the vote "to consider what, if any, further actions are appropriate".
Updated 07 June 2007
GHG resolutions get highest votes at GM, ExxonMobil
New York, 7 June: Shareholder activists are winning record levels of support for resolutions that would force US companies to take action on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Owners of General Motors and ExxonMobil shares provided the highest-ever vote tallies favouring action on climate change during recent annual meetings.
On Tuesday, General Motors stockholders representing 25.7% of the company's shares voted in favour of a resolution asking the board of directors to adopt quantitative goals for reducing greenhouse gases. They sought a report on GM plans by 30 September.
While GM has cut GHGs in manufacturing, "automobile companies are facing increasing consumer and regulatory pressure to reduce GHG emissions from the use of their vehicles," warned the resolution, saying GM lags behind European and Japanese peers.
This was the highest vote that GM shareholders have delivered on a GHG resolution, said Miranda Anderson, senior consultant for Ceres, a Boston-based environmental and investor organisation. Since 1998, GM resolutions have gained 3-7% approval, and those sought only disclosure, not goals, she noted.
"If a resolution receives a quarter of shareholder votes, that's enough to make management stop and think about what steps it needs to take," she said.
Anderson credited proponents for making "a strong business case" about risk, and for gaining support of two major proxy advisory firms – Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Proxy Governance – who advised 'mainstream' clients to back the resolution, not just socially responsible investors.
GM did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
On 30 May, ExxonMobil stockholders backed a resolution by 31% of shares, asking the board to set quantitative GHG goals in operations and products. Supporters represented $121 billion of shares, and included several state pension funds, said Ceres spokesman Peyton Fleming. The proponents gained support of proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass, Lewis & Co.
But investors only voted 7% of shares to block re-appointment of board member Michael Boskin, who chairs ExxonMobil's public issues committee. His opponents say Boskin has refused to meet with shareholders on climate change five times.
ExxonMobil spokesman Gantt Walton said the Board Affairs Committee will review the vote "to consider what, if any, further actions are appropriate".
Updated 07 June 2007
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 4 guests