Rice on Climate Change

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Seems it's not only the nut bag Libs who are discussing the climate change issue these days. It's interesting that Rice isn't calling the issue a HOAX.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/...QCPzRIro8E1vAI
Rice urges nations to find cleaner fuels By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged the world's biggest polluters Thursday to find ways to shift toward energy sources that reduce global warming, without harming their economies.
She made clear the U.S. preference for voluntary measures, determined by each nation, to help stabilize concentrations of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that are heating the atmosphere like a greenhouse.
"Let me emphasize that this is not a one-size-fits-all effort," Rice said at the start of a two-day climate meeting called by President Bush. "Though united by common goals and collective responsibilities, all nations should tackle climate change in the ways that they deem best."
Rice said the challenge of global climate change depends on working with businesses to develop cleaner-burning cars and other new technologies without starving national economies of the energy they need to grow.
"Managing the status quo is simply not an adequate response," she said. "We must cut the Gordian knot of fossil fuels, carbon emissions and economic activity. This current system is no longer sustainable, and we must transcend it entirely through a revolution in energy technology."
The United States has lined up with China, India and other major polluters in opposition to the mandatory cuts in Earth-warming greenhouse gases sought by the United Nations and European countries under the Kyoto Protocol. The meeting is an attempt to bridge the differences between industrialized and fast-developing nations, none of which wants to compromise economic growth.
About 70 demonstrators from Greenpeace and other environmental groups gathered Thursday outside the State Department, where dozens were arrested for refusing to leave the premise after two hours of protest. The activists called the conference a "fraud" for not encouraging mandatory cuts in greenhouse gasses.
"I'm here to protest the fact that we are having a climate conference when we should have been signing the Kyoto agreement," said Lauren Siegel, 23, from New York, N.Y., as she was loaded into a police van. "This is a diversion," she said of the conference.
Though the meeting includes Britain, France, Germany and other nations in the Kyoto accord, many European officials expressed concern that Bush's meeting would sidetrack the U.N. negotiations that have been the main forum for addressing global warming.
"We can't do this on the basis of talking about talking or setting goals to set goals," John Ashton, a special representative on climate change for the British foreign secretary, said in an interview. "We know that a voluntary approach to global warming is about as effective as a voluntary speed limit sign in the road. We don't just need an approach that works; we need an approach that works very quickly."
A White House statement said the meeting will emphasize creating more diplomatic processes to find a solution to global warming, rather than setting firm goals for reducing carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for heating up the atmosphere.
The nations summoned by Bush will seek agreement on how they might set their own strategies beyond 2012, when the U.N.-brokered Kyoto Protocol expires, but also could include "a long-term global goal," the statement says.
Despite the emphasis on bureaucracy, James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council of Environmental Quality, told participants: "This has to be about more than presentations."
Bush's meeting notably includes the fast-emerging economies whose exclusion from the group of industrialized nations participating in Kyoto has been cited by his administration as reasons for rejecting that international climate accord.
"This relatively small group of countries holds a key to tackling a big part of the problem," said Yvo de Boer, the top U.N. climate official.
Yet Bush also has competed for attention with the climate change summit that was held Monday in New York City at which U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned 80 world leaders that "the time for doubt has passed" and urged fast action to save future generations from potentially ruinous effects of global warming.
As they consider ways to curb greenhouse gases, developing nations do not want to give up ground toward industrializing — and meeting basic human needs.
"For a developing country, the main task is to reduce poverty," Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China's national development and reform commission, said Wednesday.
Mexico's environment minister agreed. "We have always to bear in mind that half our population is at the poverty line," said Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada. "We are also extremely concerned about the consequences, the adverse effects of climate change."

[Old Texan]

Rice and Bush are calling for sensible meetings and plans to deal with the environment. If the greenpeace nuts outside the door would shut up long enough to listen, they my understand that everyone can work together to better the environment.
Again part of what a lot of folks have been trying to emphasis, work together to make things happen. Don't spread lies and point fingers demanding all fossil fuel use end immediately.
It will be interesting to see if the biggest complainers can actually act civil enough to listen and participate. Many of them are to stubborn or stupid about dealing with what they claim is their "passionate" project.
I'd like to see the term "Global Warning" removed and focus on what the topic really is: Environmental Responsibility

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Rice and Bush are calling for sensible meetings and plans to deal with the environment. If the greenpeace nuts outside the door would shut up long enough to listen, they my understand that everyone can work together to better the environment.
Again part of what a lot of folks have been trying to emphasis, work together to make things happen. Don't spread lies and point fingers demanding all fossil fuel use end immediately.
It will be interesting to see if the biggest complainers can actually act civil enough to listen and participate. Many of them are to stubborn or stupid about dealing with what they claim is their "passionate" project.
I'd like to see the term "Global Warning" removed and focus on what the topic really is: Environmental Responsibility
"Let me emphasize that this is not a one-size-fits-all effort,"
"Though united by common goals and collective responsibilities, all nations should tackle climate change in the ways that they deem best."
Two very sensible comments by Rice

[never_fast_enuf]

I don't think anyone alive isn't for cleaner air.
A White House statement said the meeting will emphasize creating more diplomatic processes to find a solution to global warming, rather than setting firm goals for reducing carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for heating up the atmosphere.
I am all for continuing to explore global warming. Never said I wasn't. I am against knee jerk reactive debilitative measures aimed at solving a problem that at best, we know almost nothing about. AT WORST, A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.
I say we start with China first as far as pollution goes.

[centerhill condor]

the first thing we could do is build 70 nuclear power plants. That would be enough to do away with coal as an electric power source. Additionally, we would create literally thousands of high paying high skilled jobs with outstanding benefits for mankind.
$83 barrel oil is gonna make the world a different place for internal combustion. Renewable or CO2 neutral fuels are in the pipeline.
As an aside, for every $4 barrel increase in oil increases the value of Saudi reserves by $1trillion...a country with the population of Cali. The economics of energy are virtually incomprehensible.
Just a thought.
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I don't think anyone alive isn't for cleaner air.
A White House statement said the meeting will emphasize creating more diplomatic processes to find a solution to global warming, rather than setting firm goals for reducing carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for heating up the atmosphere.
I am all for continuing to explore global warming. Never said I wasn't. I am against knee jerk reactive debilitative measures aimed at solving a problem that at best, we know almost nothing about. AT WORST, A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.
Agreed. Damn, a new record. twice in one day.

[Old Texan]

the first thing we could do is build 70 nuclear power plants. That would be enough to do away with coal as an electric power source. Additionally, we would create literally thousands of high paying high skilled jobs with outstanding benefits for mankind.
$83 barrel oil is gonna make the world a different place for internal combustion. Renewable or CO2 neutral fuels are in the pipeline.
As an aside, for every $4 barrel increase in oil raises the value of Saudi reserves increase by $1trillion...a country with the population of Cali. The economics of energy are virtually incomprehensible.
Just a thought.
CC
70 Nuke plants? That would really spread the Greenpeace protestors awful thin........:devil:
Is there a power source those folks approve of?

[centerhill condor]

Is there a power source those folks approve of?
yea, hot air!
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

70 Nuke plants? That would really spread the Greenpeace protestors awful thin........:devil:
Is there a power source those folks approve of?
Not too many that's for sure.

[donzi5150]

I saw a story on FOX earlier today about the wind generators (wind mills) in California and how the tree huggers are complaining that it blocks the views of the trees.......when are these idiots going to understand that there is some sacrifice made with all energy sources? I hate seeing the solar panels on roofs but I don't complain.....I catch a lot of Red Fish along the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and I don't complain......they are just never satisfied:jawdrop: