Pelosi, global warming, CO2, Europe and politics (Update) Posted by: McQ
on Tuesday, May 29, 2007
After visiting a melting Greenland (say, how did it get it's name?) the globe trotting Speaker of the House went to Germany:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 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.
Ah yes ... "God's creation". And, interestingly, it is acting like it. But Nancy is absolutely determined to change that.
And she's not the only one:
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.
Of course, as these "experts" have now agreed, it's all about CO2 emissions we humans put out there. But as British blogger Tim Worstall points out, perhaps it shouldn't be Europe demanding the US change in this case:
In fact, we need a 60% cut in emissions by 2050, so we're told. This is something like 1.3% per year.
Do you think it might be a wise idea to copy what they're doing?
Well, maybe. But that would mean admitting we're doing our part without it being dictated by some outside treaty or body, and that will never fly. And besides, it would also include an admission that the US is doing better than Europe in that department. And that too is a "no-no".
UPDATE: BTW, don't let anyone try to convince you it is only the intransigent old US of A who is holding out:
INDIA says it will reject proposals to limit greenhouse gas emissions at a summit meeting of the world's leading economies next month because stricter limits would slow its booming economy.
“Legally mandated measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are likely to have significant adverse impacts on GDP growth of developing countries, including India,” environment ministry secretary Pradipto Ghosh said.
“This in turn will have serious implications for our poverty alleviation programs,” he said.
“Legal mandates on greenhouse gas mitigation in any form will impact our growth, and this is not the path we wish to pursue.”
Poland and the Czech Republic said Friday they would appeal an EU decision sharply cutting their carbon dioxide emission quotas for 2008-2012 for industries with high energy consumption.
The two former members of the Soviet bloc, now both in the EU, decided to follow their fellow EU member Slovakia, which announced in February it would appeal to the European Court of Justice against the ruling.
After visiting a melting Greenland (say, how did it get it’s name?)
Well, since you asked…
It is well known that Greenland may have had a kinder climate during the Medieval Warming Period, it is also well known that according to the Saga of Erik the Red, Greenland was so named – as Scott beat me to it – as a marketing ploy.
He called the land which he had found Greenland, because, quoth he, "people will be attracted thither, if the land has a good name."
If Speaker Peolsi supports Kyoto, all she has to do is to take it up with Majority Leader Reid, who can attempt to get his Senate Majority (which is so deeply, deeply concerned about global warming) to ratify it.
Of course....that’s the dirty little secret the Dems don’t like to publicize
Strangely, I was always under the impression that the priesthood was the second oldest; though, to be fair, politicians and priests often seem to have the same modus operandi especially in The Age of the Goreacle.