Even after IPCC report, Bush still refuses emission limits

[Guest guest]

Even after IPCC report, Bush still refuses emission limits

 

U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, a member of the Bush

administration, spoke in measured tones Feb. 3 about global climate

change and did not urge needed specific limits on the emission of

carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases that contribute to it. This is

the President's stance even after a report, released by the UN-

endorsed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Paris

Feb. 2, blamed humans for much of the warming over the past 50 years.

 

David Milliband, the IPCC's environment secretary, described the

report as a blow for " climate change deniers " and said it showed the

urgent need for international political action.

 

" The report confirms our concerns that the window of opportunity to

avoid dangerous climate change is closing more quickly than

previously thought, " said Milliband. " It is another nail in the

coffin of the climate change deniers and represents the most

authoritative picture to date, showing that the debate over the

science of climate change is well and truly over. What's now urgently

needed is the international political commitment to take action to

avoid dangerous climate change. This has been absent so far. "

 

Bodman agreed that " it's really got to be a global discussion, " but

he also stated, " We are a small contributor when you look at the rest

of the world. "

 

Are you kidding? The United States is responsible for one-quarter of

the world's emissions of carbon dioxide and uses one-quarter of the

world's crude oil. Bodman reiterated the administration's opposition

to mandatory caps on the emission of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas

produced naturally and by coal-fired power plants and petroleum-

fuelled vehicles, among other sources. Bodman said a unilateral US

program to cut emissions might hurt the economy and send business

overseas. It " might " hurt the economy now, but if we don`t reduce

emissions and stop global temperatures from rising even more, what

will the cost be then?

 

If we continue as we are, by 2050, the probability of dangerous

climate change is over 90 percent. This would have implications for

economies, human health, agriculture, as well as politics and

security. For example, it is predicted the magnitude and frequency of

extreme weather events will increase, and floods will likely be more

frequent and severe in many areas. Subsequently rising ocean levels

would inundate Florida, most of Louisiana and much of the East Coast,

creating an increase in tropical diseases such as malaria, and

creating the need to construct new coastal defenses to protect cities

against rising sea levels. The cost of taking action to cope with sea-

level rise will run into the billions.

 

Without big reductions in emissions, the midrange projections of most

scenarios envision a rise of 4 degrees or so in this century, four

times the warming in the last 100 years. That could, among other

effects, produce a disruptive mix of intensified flooding and

withering droughts in the world's prime agricultural regions. Crop

yields may drop sharply as drought conditions, exacerbated by more

frequent forest fires, make farming ever more difficult. And then

there's the cost of environmental refugees when agriculture fails in

some of the poorest and most densely populated parts of the world.

 

There was a glimpse of this on Aug. 3 last year on a European resort

beach in Granadilla (one of Spain's Canary Islands in the

Mediterranean) when a boat came from the sea. Out of it fell pitiful

figures - exhausted, terrified, dehydrated, starving. They were

African migrants who, out of desperation, had risked the long voyage

from the African coast to the Canaries; for the Canaries are part of

Europe, a place of hope and opportunity. What did the tourists do?

They did the decent thing. They rushed to the aid of fellow men and

women.

 

Now increase this by the hundreds of thousands, maybe the millions…

not just a boatload, but a whole country- or region-load… and isn`t

the U.S. also a place of hope and opportunity? This will happen as

climate change takes hold this century. Sir Crispin Tickell,

Britain's former ambassador to the UN, who is one of the most far-

sighted of environmental commentators, pointed out as long ago as

1990 that global warming is likely to create environmental refugees

in the hundreds of millions. What kind of harm will this do to our

economy?

 

New Englanders might be more motivated to demand action sooner when

they realize that a " different " New England means depleted drinking

water supplies as reservoirs and aquifers are deprived of spring melt

from watershed snow pack, not to mention a crippled ski industry. In

fact, what would a dramatic climate change do to the tourist

industry? The traditional summer 'sun, sand and sea' holiday is the

single largest flow of tourists across the globe, accounting for one-

sixth of all tourist trips in 2000. This large group of tourists,

totaling about 100 million people per year, spend billions of dollars

annually. Any climate-induced change in these flows of tourists and

money would have very large implications for the destinations

involved.

 

Not all politicians believe a mandatory cut in emissions would hurt

the economy. Rep Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts and

member of a committee that deals with energy, commerce and natural

resources, took issue with Energy Secretary Bodman's remarks by

making a connection with Groundhog Day.

 

" It sounds like the Bush administration, having seen the very real

shadow of scientific evidence of global warming, has chosen to go

back into its hole of denial by saying that it will not support

measures to reduce global warming and its disastrous effects on our

economy and environment, " Markey said in a statement.

 

More than four dozen scientists, economists, engineers and

entrepreneurs interviewed by The New York Times a few months ago said

that unless the search for abundant non-polluting energy sources and

systems became far more aggressive, the world would probably face

dangerous warming and international strife as nations with growing

energy demands compete for increasingly inadequate resources.

 

But there are some good resources out there. A report

titled " American Energy - A Renewable Path to Energy Security " by the

Center for American Progress and the Worldwatch Institute envisions a

clean and efficient energy system which would decrease our dependence

on foreign oil, increase domestic security, shrink trade deficits,

revitalize rural communities, create hundreds of thousands of new

jobs, and curb the emissions that cause global warming.

 

The study cites dynamic growth in renewable energy sectors that

should be utilized to " turn abundant domestic sources -- including

solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass and ocean energy -- into

transportation fuels, electricity, and heat. " This growth is " driving

down costs and spurring rapid advances in technologies " and opening

up the possibility of a decentralized and diversified energy market.

The study features policy proposals that would help realize this

possibility by " jumpstarting the new energy industries while

minimizing the cost to American taxpayers " and reversing outdated

policies which subsidize fossil fuels. With nine out of 10 voters

supportive of plans to encourage alternative energy, the time for

reform is now.

 

Bush's stance on global warming has evolved over his presidency, from

open skepticism to acceptance that human activities accelerate

change. He briefly mentioned the issue in last week's State of the

Union address, saying solutions to the problem lie in technological

advances and the use of renewable fuels like ethanol. This is good,

but not enough, as most environmentalists and scientists are urging

mandatory limits on the carbon emissions. Last month, a panel of top

corporate leaders, including those from electric companies, urged

that same kind of federal regulation. You can demand the same by

writing the media and your government representatives. Use the

following website to contact your elected leadership right now:

http://www.congress.org.

 

----------

 

There is now absolutely no doubt. The IPCC has presented its report,

and nearly all scientists are in agreement. Global warming is real

and humans are the cause. So it's time to wake up and do something

about the Climate Change Crises happening as you read this… Start

living your life with PURPOSE - People United Rightly Protecting Our

Sacred Earth… Begin with signing our petition to Congress

making " Climate Change, Global Warming and Saving the Planet " this

country's top priority:

 

Global Warming Petition

(http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/890510358)

 

To find out more about PURPOSE and to learn how you can help save the

planet, visit any or all of these websites:

 

PURPOSE Website

(http://FreedomExpress.net/PURPOSE)

 

PURPOSE on MySpace

(http://www.myspace.com/committedpurpose)

 

PURPOSE MySpace Group

(http://groups.myspace.com/LiveWithPURPOSE)

 

PURPOSE Discussion Group

(CommittedPURPOSE/)

 

Earth Warrior living with PURPOSE

(http://360./committedpurpose)

 

Books and DVDs for PURPOSE

(http://astore.amazon.com/freedomexpres-20)

 

PURPOSE Gift Shop

(http://www.cafepress.com/freedomexpress/2008299)