As the Wall Street Journal reports today (subscription req’d), President Bush is calling on major greenhouse gas producing nations to establish a global carbon emission goal by next year.
The sponsors of this blog probably won’t agree with everything I think, but here’s my take.
First, I’m not one to criticize a leader moving in the right direction, so I refuse to join in taking shots at the President’s proposal. Sure, we’ve still got a long way to go, but I think it is a sign of leadership by the President.
Here’s the bonus – and I’d like to see other conservatives continue to push in this direction substantively – he’s also trying to get China and India to cut these emissions. Folks, we won’t reach our goals if we pull a Kyoto and permit them to emit, status quo.
Folks, there’s been a lot of momentum on the R side of the aisle when it comes to climate change. I often say that conservatives move along a “skeptics slope” on this issue – most start as non-believers but gradually move toward the position that dealing with climate change makes good economic, national security and energy security sense. I think President Bush is gradually moving down this slope, and I hope our 2008 candidates will pick up the pace. It happens to be good politics, too, but that’s for another day.
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 31st, 2007 at 3:17 pm and is filed under Climate Change, Politics/Government . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Just a tactical move a week before the G8 summit to confuse the issue.
.
“Aspirational” goals from the US while the Europeans are talking concrete goals and real actions.
.
I see BS with as much sincerity as his Jackson Square speech.
.
Simple example of REAL CONCRETE EU actions. One cannot get a building permit in Germany unless R-49 walls are specified. All new homes and buildings in Germany will be ultra efficient (less Russian natural gas needed). National strategic defense coupled reduced carbon emissions. Any added cost to build is recovered over the life of the building with reduced utility bills.
.
The economic disruption is a red herring. So the US has to live in 2007 with the GNP of 2004 (worst case) ?
.
Meanwhile the EU and Japan develop the industries of the future while we protect Detroit’s right to build Hummers and Expeditions. Germany is producing half the world’s solar PV, Denmark is very strong in wind turbines, Japan is leading in hybrids and nuclear power, etc.
.
Quite frankly, reducing oil use and carbon emissions is good economics *AND* good strategic defense.
.
A lesson that GWB has yet to learn.
.
After all, Saudi oil $ fund the Sunni militants that kill 80% of US dead in Iraq. Iran $ helps pay for the other 20% killed by Shia militants.
.
BTW: I will speaking at the ASPO-USA conference in Houston this October 19th on using electrified rail (Urban and inter-city) to reduce US oil consumption. Trade 20 BTUs of diesel or gasoline for 1 BTU of electricity.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
As expected, Bush was just throwing dust in the air to confuse the issue. He has no intention of actually doing ANYTHING except talk (and a minimum of that) for his last 18 months in office.
Perhaps our next president.
US rejects German G8 climate goal
Washington says it will not agree to a deal on slashing greenhouse gas emissions at the G8 summit in Germany.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6725801.stm
June 6th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Alan, I read in TRAINS magazine that electric will be making a return due to the cost of diesel fuel similar to the use of electric in the 1970s when the availability of fuel was in question. The problem is the need for cantenary lines to supply the juice.
It occurs to me that most engines could be adapted to either use cantenary lines or start up their engines for their power, so an ongoing effort to provide cantenary would be effective without system interruptions. Is that possible ?
June 7th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
It occurs to me that most engines could be adapted to either use cantenary lines or start up their engines for their power, so an ongoing effort to provide cantenary would be effective without system interruptions. Is that possible ?
I have talked with the Chief Engineer of Brookville Equipment (the last small US locomotive maker) about this. In most cases, the operating voltage of the motors would be to be changed by rewinding or replacement (an on-board transformer would still be needed) but existing locos could be adapted to mixed operations.
A nice map of “what could have been”.
http://www.trains.com/ctr/objects/images/railroad_electrification_1970s.gif
They did miss the Katy RR plan to electrify from Dallas to Houston and Mexican plans.
Best Hopes,
Alan