molson_golden2002 Posted January 20, 2007 Posted January 20, 2007 Don't know the details, maybe these companies just want to cash in on it while they can, or maybe they see this as real. Of more interest to me is the Democratic Congress's move on energy independence, if they accomplish something large there, they will have made progress no matter what else they do. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...icle2169176.ece Big business joins greens to pressure Bush on climate By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles Published: 20 January 2007 An unprecedented coalition of blue-chip US companies and environmental lobby groups will urge President Bush next week to get serious about global warming, calling for caps on carbon dioxide emissions that would cut greenhouse gases by 10-30 per cent over 15 years. The group, called the US Climate Action Partnership, will unveil the details of its plan on the eve of President Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday. The companies involved include some of the old-fashioned pollution-generating industries normally associated with anti-environmental policies and politicians - the chemical giant DuPont, the bulldozer company Caterpillar, the aluminium producer Alcoa and the US subsidiary of BP. They, and environmental lobby groups such as Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council, said yesterday they will call for "swift federal action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and speeding the adoption of climate-friendly technology". The initiative was the latest of several indications of a big shift in US attitudes on global warming. The two-week-old new Democrat-led Congress has already generated a flurry of bills offering emissions-reduction targets. Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker, is setting up a dedicated climate change committee in the House of Representatives with the power to recommend legislation. Ms Pelosi has also promised a legislative package on energy independence, to be delivered by Indepedence Day on 4 July. Her enthusiasm is mirrored in the Senate by Barbara Boxer, the incoming chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who has called the fight against global warming her number-one priority. The change in attitudes goes beyond the political arena. The star feature of the Detroit Auto Show last week was a plug-in hybrid vehicle being developed from General Motors. The age of global warming denial, meanwhile, also appears to be drawing to a close. Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, has cut its funding to groups who argue global warming is a hoax, and is now working to develop strategies it can accept for emissions reduction. That's a huge change from just a few months ago, when Exxon Mobil's chief executive, Lee Raymond, arguably the world's most prominent global warming sceptic, was still at the helm, and the Senate Energy Committee was headed by the Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, who made it his business to dismiss scientific opinion on climate change as a conspiracy. The biggest hold-out against radical policy change is probably the Bush White House. Aides to the President have indicated his State of the Union speech will include some provisions on energy, notably championing the use of ethanol-based fuels. The administration remains opposed, however, to any mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. The White House is likely to come under increasing pressure to do something, however. One possible route has already been taken by Mr Bush's fellow Republican, California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed a 25 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases in his state by the year 2020. The Schwarzenegger plan does not operate on a rigid system of emissions caps, but rather offers incentives to companies who move faster than their competitors, who can "trade" their margin of emissions reduction with companies lagging behind. The "cap and trade" system contrasts with a bill championed by Senator Boxer, to mandate a reduction in emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
molson_golden2002 Posted January 20, 2007 Author Posted January 20, 2007 So you're saying CorporationsGood? I wasn't saying that, but yes they are good things generally. Nothing is all good or all bad, I suppose
GG Posted January 21, 2007 Posted January 21, 2007 Your penchant for missing the real points is as limitless as your inanity. The main reason that the corporations are taking this position is that they want regulatory clarity before they spend billions on new equipment. Notice they didn't say that they will stop producing carbon dioxide, but will embrace regulation that allows for carbon emissions trading. Of course reading between the lines hasn't been your strong suit to date, so why stop, now? Right?
bobblehead Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 Global warming is a load of crap, and Jesus will soon take me away from all these liberals in Hollywood trying to gay me.
RkFast Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 NOWHERE in that article does it state that "Corporations have accepted Global Warming as fact" Nowhere.
molson_golden2002 Posted January 22, 2007 Author Posted January 22, 2007 NOWHERE in that article does it state that "Corporations have accepted Global Warming as fact" Nowhere. No, they are just urging Bush to get serious about be they think its a fraud
stuckincincy Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 Don't know the details, maybe these companies just want to cash in on it while they can, or maybe they see this as real. Of more interest to me is the Democratic Congress's move on energy independence, if they accomplish something large there, they will have made progress no matter what else they do. Here's your chance to do good. Stop buying all those Chinese electronics, clothing, appliances, toys etc. They are major polluters, including their heavy usage of greenhouse-gas forming coal (you may have noticed their seemingly non-stop run of mine deaths) and their dearth of environmental regulation and control on their industries. And their voracious appetite for soy to feed them is being played out in the continuing destruction of the Amazon rain forest to grow that soy for their masses of poverty-level workers As well as the fact that they freeze the value of their currency to keep export prices low. As well as the obscene trade deficit that began to exponentiate in 1993 under Bill's watch and continues to date. As to the Democrats and energy independence - see the leaders of the opposition to ANWAR drilling, and off-shore drilling off the California and Florida coasts. And the Hyannisport crowd's objection to the possibilities of windmills off the Mass. coast - can't block that picturesque view... And don't forget the Clinton administration's declaration of off-limits, the vast US reserves of low-sulfur coal in the western states - the payoff to James Ryiadi and the Lippo Group (large miners of Indonesian low-sulfur coal) for those campaign contributions. I note that while Clinton got his expected strokes for signing that Kyoto treaty, he was smart enough not to present it to the Senate...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 23, 2007 Author Posted January 23, 2007 As to the Democrats and energy independence - see the leaders of the opposition to ANWAR drilling, and off-shore drilling off the California and Florida coasts. And the Hyannisport crowd's objection to the possibilities of windmills off the Mass. coast - can't block that picturesque view... And don't forget the Clinton administration's declaration of off-limits, the vast US reserves of low-sulfur coal in the western states - the payoff to James Ryiadi and the Lippo Group (large miners of Indonesian low-sulfur coal) for those campaign contributions. I think they should drill ANWAR but it would hardley solve our problems. It's touted as a solution when it isn't. Same with off shore drilling. What needs to happen is the investing of massive amounts of government money to finace research and development of alternative energy. Conservation efforts are also needed. For the amount of money wasted on the Iraq fiasco [perhaps $2 trillion by the time all accounts are settled] we could have been along way towards finding our future.
RayFinkle Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 no such thing as global warming, nope, no such thing, urban legend.
Wacka Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 I think they should drill ANWAR but it would hardley solve our problems. It's touted as a solution when it isn't. Same with off shore drilling. What needs to happen is the investing of massive amounts of government money to finace research and development of alternative energy. Conservation efforts are also needed. For the amount of money wasted on the Iraq fiasco [perhaps $2 trillion by the time all accounts are settled] we could have been along way towards finding our future. Typical liberal reply- throw governemt (our) money at it.
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 Typical liberal reply- throw governemt (our) money at it. yet throwing $30BN at Iraq seems to be no issue at all. If our government is going to throw our money around, the least they could do is use it in such a way as to make life sustainable for more Americans and to make us more independent of other unsavory nations for our energy. Instead we are using that money to remain as dependent as ever, damage our reputation in the world and lay the groundwork for a civil war in a sovereign nation. I'm sorry if your concern for our tax dollars seems a little disingenous to me in light of this.
Alaska Darin Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 yet throwing $30BN at Iraq seems to be no issue at all. If our government is going to throw our money around, the least they could do is use it in such a way as to make life sustainable for more Americans and to make us more independent of other unsavory nations for our energy. Instead we are using that money to remain as dependent as ever, damage our reputation in the world and lay the groundwork for a civil war in a sovereign nation. I'm sorry if your concern for our tax dollars seems a little disingenous to me in light of this. Remember, Republicans are fiscally conservative...
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 Remember, Republicans are fiscally conservative... LOL.
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 yet throwing $30BN at Iraq seems to be no issue at all. If our government is going to throw our money around, the least they could do is use it in such a way as to make life sustainable for more Americans and to make us more independent of other unsavory nations for our energy. Instead we are using that money to remain as dependent as ever, damage our reputation in the world and lay the groundwork for a civil war in a sovereign nation. I'm sorry if your concern for our tax dollars seems a little disingenous to me in light of this. "My waste of tax money is better than your waste of tax money!"
woolley Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 Hats off to all the people getting paid to declare their total knowledge about the whys for and the causes of global warming. People have to feed their families. Now...basic science types like myself believe in things like "control groups"...I'm not a highly paid phD who chicken littles governments and foundations into mega grants, but there is a control group, it's called Mars, and here you go. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...w_011206-1.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars...age_031208.html The atmosphere on Mars is a thin layer of CO2, completely dissimilar to Earth's atmosphere, and is not capable of trapping any heat. Greenhouse gas theories about earth global warming have everything to do with the trapping of heat. So if Martian surface temperature is rising, it is because of direct solar radiation, without the ricochet effect of bouncing of the surface and being trapped by the atmosphere. It is generally agreed that solar radiation is measurable higher today than it was 30 years ago. How does that effect global temperatures? Nobody knows. It is generally agreed that solar sunspot activity is higher today, and recently, than it has been in previous generations. The thing about the sun is we can't control it, and for that reason, I think researchers are loathe to nominate the sun as the prime culprit for global warming. Because if it is, there is *nothing* we can do about it. That and the money. -Woolley
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 "My waste of tax money is better than your waste of tax money!" I guess that depends on what you view as a waste of tax money. I think there are right and really wrong ways to do these things. No doubt greed, kickbacks, corruption and incompetence mean the wrong way usually gets chosen. I'd be the first to admit that. My point was more that one side is claiming to be fiscally conservative when it's anything but. You know, LessGovernment™except for more of the kind we like. At least among their many lies the Dems aren't using this one so much, and so successfully.
RkFast Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 "My waste of tax money is better than your waste of tax money!" HEY!!! Tom!!! Where ya been??!!??
Recommended Posts