posted on September 28, 2007 09:24:45 AM new
Or "Another Repug ""OUCH"" !!!
LOL!
Bush Seeks New Image on Global Warming
Updated 11:36 AM ET September 28, 2007
By JOHN HEILPRIN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush called on the world's worst polluters Friday to come together to set a goal for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the climate to heat up. He didn't exempt his own country from the list.
"By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem, and by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it," Bush said in a speech that capped two days of talks at a White House-sponsored climate change conference. "We share a common responsibility: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing."
He said each nation should establish for itself what methods it will use to rein in the pollution problem without stunting economic growth.
The gathering drew representatives from 16 nations, including big producers from the developing world like China and India as well as the European Union and United Nations. Bush's emphasis is on using green technologies and other voluntary efforts to tackle global warming. The president said the reduction goal should be finalized by next summer, along with ways to measure progress toward it.
He also proposed the creation of an international fund to finance research into clean-energy technology, announcing that U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would coordinate the effort and would be in touch with other governments soon about moving forward.
"Each nation must decide for itself the right mix of tools and technology to achieve results that are measurable and environmentally effective," Bush said.
In his speech, Bush acknowledged that climate change is real and that human activity is a factor.
But he refuses to sign onto mandatory emission-reduction obligations, preferring to encourage the development of new technologies and other voluntary measures, and won't participate in any talks toward a global agreement that do not include energy guzzlers from the developing world.
As a result, many have suggested that the U.S.-brokered process is aimed at undermining broader talks sponsored by the United Nations, set to begin in Indonesia in December, to draw up a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. That U.N. treaty was rejected by the administration because, Bush said, it unfairly harmed the economies of rich nations like the United States while excluding poorer countries like China and India from obligations.
The U.N. negotiations emphasize mandatory controls.
At the same time, the fact that the United States was taking a role in the process, and a leading one, was heartening to some.
Until recently, said Emil Salim, an economist and member of the Indonesian president's council of advisers, Bush offered "no dialogue on the Kyoto Protocol whatsoever. This time, the members of the Kyoto Protocol are invited to discuss. So from that point of view, there is some improvement," he said in an interview. "But on the other hand, I think it has more to do with the domestic politics, because you have election."
Yvo de Boer, the top U.N. climate official, told the 16 nations participating in the White House-led meeting that "this relatively small group of countries holds a key to tackling a big part of the problem" but that their response can succeed only by "going well beyond present efforts," especially among rich, industrialized nations.
Bush said the United States is serious about global warming and is committed to making progress itself to slow its growth rate in carbon dioxide and other industrial warming gases as well as to seeing a global deal cut.
"By working together we will set wise and effective policies," he said. "I want to get the job done. We've identified a problem. Let's go solve it together."
Bush's two-day conference, ending Friday, followed a U.N. meeting Monday at which Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon tried to build support among 80 world leaders for reaching agreement at the planned December talks. Other participants at the State Department conference were from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Australia and South Africa.
The meeting Thursday also drew about 70 demonstrators from Greenpeace and other environmental groups outside the State Department, where dozens were arrested for refusing to leave the premises after two hours of protest. The activists labeled the conference a fraud for not backing mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases.
Bush's administration has seemed more sensitive of late to perceptions in other parts of the world that the U.S. government either does not take the phenomenon of global warming seriously _ or not seriously enough.
It circulated among reporters covering this conference a pocket-size handbook aimed at dispelling "myths" it said exist about the U.S. environmental policy, including the notion that Bush refuses to admit that climate change is real and that humans are a factor.
The manual also labels as myths the propositions that the United States is doing nothing to address climate change or that Bush's administration refuses to engage other nations on this issue.
___
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.""""\
\
\
posted on September 28, 2007 09:48:18 AM new
Some American's MIGHT feel differently IF ALL nations, not just the US were expected to be held to the same standards.
But liberals would LOVE to see our economy fail by demanding/requiring this while allowing other industrialized nations get away with totally polluting the world. [china/india/etc]
Just LOVE their constant double standards.
The US, along with this President, already has another plan of action in action. One that does work to reduce emissions....just without agreeing with the nutcases who don't have 'equal' expectations of ALL nations.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 28, 2007 09:51 AM ]
posted on September 28, 2007 09:52:47 AM new
linduh drools, """But liberals would LOVE to see our economy fail by demanding/requiring this while allowing other industrialized nations get away with totally polluting the world. [china/india/etc]"""
What an idiotic statement...you have lost it Too bad you have absolutely NO proof whatsoever but that has never stopped you from forming some half-assed idea...
Look at all your other posts where you've been proven wrong...even MISQUOTING your OWN OP !LOL!!!
posted on September 28, 2007 10:38:13 AM new
"But liberals would LOVE to see our economy fail by demanding/requiring this while allowing other industrialized nations get away with totally polluting the world. [china/india/etc]"
You have lost all credibility, if you ever had any in the first place, with a statement like that. To what purpose would liberals want our economy to fail? We live here too and would suffer as much as anyone else if this were to happen. Ridiculous statements like this one are why you can't be taken seriously.
posted on September 28, 2007 11:02:13 AM new
Not ridiculous at all.
I understand, CC, you just can't handle any one speaking the truth of what signing Kyoto has done to the nations that did support it. Nor can you even admit that canada FAILED in meeting their 'professed' Kyoto goals. They even went further in the opposite direction ....and their economy is NOT suffering either.
Economists KNOW what would have happened....liberals LIVE in DENIAL. You're a liberal in denial.
===================
"World's biggest polluters team up with Bush" - International Herald ...
posted on September 28, 2007 11:46:39 AM new
Linda--You said "liberals would LOVE to see the economy fail" That is a ridiculous statmement, no matter how you try to obfuscate by throwing out all kinds of information I was not addressing. My opinion has not changed.
posted on September 28, 2007 12:06:15 PM new
CC. I stand COMPLETELY behind what I said.
The liberal left rarely concerns itself with what the 'costs' are for any of their positions. They just like to implement the 'feels good' bills, no matter the consequences to our economy, the taxpayers.
The liberal left appears by all their negative articles to be hoping our economy would fail under this President...for no other reason than to make HIM look bad. Screw what a poor economy would mean to ALL Americans.
The liberal left supports most ALL that is NOT in Americas best interests.....like giving in to our AQ/terrorist enemies....making our Nation do what the International community demands it do. LOL LOL They even support human rights groups.....KNOWN to be the MOST INHUMANE nations in the world.
Imo, the liberals are more of a threat to Americas future well being than most any other threat we face. They'll destroy everything America has EVER stood for....and that includes our Constitution.
Imo, the NORMAL, rational DEMS do NOT agree with the radical liberals. But as it stands now the RADICAL/WACKO liberals sure are in control of the dem party. And that's a DARN shame.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 28, 2007 06:43:20 PM new
Ooops! ANOTHER LIE!!!! LOL!
The Whopper !
"""Linda_K
posted on July 21, 2007 04:58:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's another great example of why I gave up responding to her. She denies everything that is true....then mentions things that aren't true....""and then can't even admit her own actions.""
LOL!
They even went further in the opposite direction