U.S. rejects EU-Asia emissions reduction

BERLIN - The United States rejects the European Union's all-encompassing target on reduction of carbon emissions, President Bush's environmental adviser said Tuesday.

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the United States is not against setting goals but prefers to focus them on specific sectors, such as reducing dependence on gasoline and cleaner coal. "The U.S. has different sets of targets," he said.

Germany, which holds the European Union and G-8 presidencies, is proposing a so-called "two-degree" target, whereby global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 2 degrees Celsius — the equivalent of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Connaughton, who is on a one-week bipartisan trip to Europe with members of the House of Representatives, said the U.S. favors "setting targets in the context of national circumstances."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) urged international cooperation in tackling climate change at a meeting Tuesday with Chancellor Angela Merkel, who plans to push President Bush at next week's Group of Eight summit for action to fight global warming.

Pelosi, who opposes Bush on environmental policy, hailed Merkel's "extraordinary leadership" in fighting climate change and agreed "that these solutions must be multilateral."

"We are trying to preserve the planet, which many in our country, including I, believe is God's creation, and we have a responsibility to preserve it," Pelosi said, speaking alongside the German leader after a meeting at the chancellery.

The California Democrat said faith-based organizations could play a role in battling climate change. The United States needed "the spirit of science to show us the way and faith-based organizations to help mobilize to preserve the planet," Pelosi said.

Merkel, who will host the summit of leaders from the G-8 in Heiligendamm, was diplomatic as she met with Pelosi and her bipartisan congressional delegation. The German leader said she was delighted there was "a bipartisan movement in the U.S. Congress that pays great importance to the issue of energy."

Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel has been more blunt, voicing regret after he met Pelosi on Monday at the difficulty of achieving "concrete results" with the Bush administration.

"I think that what we could achieve is at least a mandate for negotiations — a clear mandate — for the climate conference" later this year in Bali, Indonesia, which is set to consider future action against global warming, Gabriel told ARD television.

"The United States is rejecting that as well, so far," he said, but "if we could achieve that, then I think Heiligendamm would have achieved a breakthrough."

The U.S. refused to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol limiting emissions because developing countries were not included. Rising economic giants, China and India, are exempt, and the treaty says nothing about post-2012 cuts.

Bush has argued that Kyoto would harm the U.S. economy and unfairly excludes developing countries such as China and India from obligations.

Pelosi has disagreed with that decision on Kyoto, but has said she wants to work with the Bush administration rather than provoke it. On the way to Europe, her delegation stopped in Greenland and saw the effects of global warming firsthand, she said.

Are these people really that ignorant to think that we could bring down the temperature of the earth? Even the most radical junk science only seeks to reduce the rise in temperature. To actually bring down the temperature ofthe earth is ludicrous.

Why does no one factor in all the scientists who have proof that CO2 has NEVER been a determining factor in global temperature?

I just want to know at what temperature the Earth SHOULD be. What’s the magic number that will stop ice from melting, the seas from rising, and species from going extinct? And exactly how will they guarantee that they are not interrupting the Natural Cycle and causing over-population of certain species (assuming that they can actually change the Earth’s temperature, which as you pointed out, is absurd).

Evidence suggests that since the temperatures in our “entire solar system” are rising and sun spot activity (associated with solar output) is at a near 600 year high; that maybe, just possibly, global climate change might be due to solar output more so than any man-made influence. Hence, Pelosi has drafted a “solar output reduction bill” which will congressionally mandate the sun reduce its output by 5% over the next 10 years, or at least as long as she’s in office.

What ever happened to the coming ice age? Acid rain? The little cuddly baby seals? The extinction of the polar bear? Our dying forests? The Ozone hole? Environmentalsim is great entertainment, maybe next thing we'll know Ben and Jerry’s will try to stop cows from belching!?

http://www.newconsumer.com/news/item/ben_jerrys_battle_against_belching/

http://www.slashgear.com/ben-jerry%E2%80%99s-fight-to-minimize-deadly-gas-295471.php

I for one will save the planet by taking my hard earned money and giving it ot Al Gore! I’m sure he knows better what to do with my cash than I do, since after all he’ll save the planet with “Carbon Offsets”. The amzing thing about this racket, and it is a fraudulent racket, is that we have politicians who have jumped on board and are selling this nonsense to the public and the public does not seem to be diswayed from every new scam that pops up.

If China and India are going to continue to grow at anything approaching their current rate, they will, by themselves, emit 50% of the 1990 levels well before 2050. There will, literally, be nothing left for the rest of the World under this formula.

BTW, the Caribou population actually increased after the Alyeska pipeline was built, the key argument against the pipeline being the damage to the habitat of the Caribou. But who cares about minor details like that? Just scream no to ANWR drilling louder and your voice will be heard by the media. Then some Democratic politician from Massachusetts (A state known for its clean bays and fresh air) will make loud public statements concerning the arctic wilderness (as if he ever took his fat alcoholic rear there) and score some cheap points saving the planet. In the meantime the cost for gas at the pump goes up; people in Alaska, including the native tribes, all support the development of new fields since it means money in their pockets. But wanting to make money is an evil thing, especially when viewed through the eyes of those who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00052

Not my state, not my jobs, not my environment, but man does he have a big mouth with $hit that isn’t his! Take note (Those affected), AK voted against the ban in ANWR development.

I have a great idea. If I were Kennedy I’d invite Gore to sit in front of a panel on global warming and let him advertise his carbon offsets for hours. There he can sit and talk to me about the planet and its "fever".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeliHWR6vz0

Environmentalism is 100% marketing. There is no product. They sell an abstract idea for which the far left wants you to be mandated to pay!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.