« Stephen Jones: Keeping to an Independent Path | Main | Rep. Ben Rodefer Guest Blog on News that SunCal is Facing Foreclosure »
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Environment New Mexico & California: Sub-National Governments Pave the Path Forward After Copenhagen
Upon world leaders reaching a final accord in Copenhagen, Environment California Legislative Director Dan Jacobson and Environment New Mexico Environment Associate Kim McMurray issued the following statement:
“The Copenhagen Accord makes it clear that our work is far from over. Although world leaders have come together as never before to address the threat of global warming, even they have acknowledged that this agreement is not sufficient to protect the planet.
“Through their struggles to reach agreement, international leaders have shown that the diligent work of sub-national governments is vital to stopping global warming. Cities, states, and provinces across the world have been paving the way for real reductions in the pollution that causes global warming by passing and implementing meaningful policies for decades. States and cities in the U.S. and across the planet can and now must continue to move us forward even without a binding international agreement.
“Recent Environment America research found that actions led by American states are estimated to cut U.S. global warming pollution by 536 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent annually by 2020 – more pollution than is emitted by all but eight countries in the world, and equivalent to 7% of America’s total CO2 pollution in 2007.
“We applaud the steps taken in Copenhagen but we call on our national and international leaders to build upon the success in the states and commit to reducing global warming pollution to the levels scientists say is necessary. Toward that end Congress must pass a strong clean energy and climate bill this spring and global leaders must work quickly towards a fair, ambitious and binding deal in the months to come.”
December 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM in Climate, Energy, Environment | Permalink
Comments
Part 1
https://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/terence-corcoran-a-2-000-page-epic-of-science-and-skepticism-part-1.aspx
Part 2
https://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/21/terence-corcoran-a-2-000-page-epic-of-science-and-skepticism-part-2.aspx
Posted by: Williamn Nie | Dec 22, 2009 10:37:39 AM
The AP conducted an exhaustive review of the emails in question and found that nothing refutes the arguments that greenhouse gases are causing climate change: https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/
ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHPLC00
It's time to move on increase our efforts to combat this huge problem with the earth's climate.
Posted by: Jacob | Dec 22, 2009 10:50:41 AM
@Jacob, so 6 less reporters reviewed the emails than reviewed Palin's book...
I guess it's a matter of opinion. But when I read how the "Nature Trick" is performed. How Briffa's reconstruction was altered to create "unequivocal" warming. And how primary data was deleted and "value-added" data was kept, I smell something funny.
It has already been shown that temperature data in Australia and Russia was altered to create non-existent warming. McIntyre proved in 2007, and NASA was forced to issue a correction, that the US temperature has been declining since 1998. A recent Harvard study showed the temperature was 5-10 degrees warmer 125,000 years ago. In context, the AGW crowd says warming of 2 degrees will kill us all...yet our primitive ancestors survived when the temperature was 5-10 degrees warmer, and there were no carbon emissions at the time.
Meanwhile, ethanol production has led to food riots and starvation because of a doubling in world food prices. 20% of us in the US drink poisoned water. There is an island of trash in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas...and we are going to spend trillions of dollars to prevent a trace greenhouse gas from POSSIBLY raising the Earth's temperature to the level it was during the Medieval Warming Period. I guess I just don't get it. I am a denier.
Posted by: Williamn Nie | Dec 22, 2009 11:57:35 AM
I don't get how you conclude the massive data supporting this is thrown out because a few scientists overstated things because they are so convinced by other data that they are right.
Even if you don't agree with the vast majority of scientists on this, why would you want to keep using filthy energy that pollutes?
Posted by: Jacob | Dec 22, 2009 12:49:22 PM