From the AP:
President Bush, seeking to blunt international criticism of the U.S. record on climate change, on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global emissions goal for reducing greenhouse gases.
Bush called for the first in a series of meetings to begin this fall, bringing together countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries.
The president outlined his proposal in a speech ahead of next week's summit in Germany of leading industrialized nations, where global warming is to be a major topic and Bush will be on the spot.
3 comments:
Considering the rather unfortunate actions (and lack of action) for the past 6 years plus does anyone really expect anything more than a politically correct response to his politically correct (but likely less than genuine proposal)?
The same thing might be said of Al Gore given his luke-warm (at best) consideration of how nuclear energy can contribute to reducing green house gas emissions.
Or of Harry Reid who opposes Yucca Mountain tooth and nail (why not use Yucca as a national interim repository from which to recycle all that spent fuel?).
Or of Hillary Clinton who with one side of her face says that nuclear was be an open option and then with the other (to ingratiate herself with the Riverkeeper anti-nukes) do everything in her power to go against IPEC.
These people are politicians. And there is far more posturing about climate change among politicians such as Nita Lowey, Chuck Rangel, Mark Green, etc. - all Democrats who actively OPPOSE nuclear power - than Republicans.
It's easy to criticize Bush. But he is the FIRST president in a very long time to openly and actively support nuclear energy.
All other political considerations aside... the article was a bit off-topic for this blog. No real nuclear content.
We Support Lee did a much better job on this topic, suggesting that an enhanced US willingness to counter climate change could perhaps be linked to reversing the German phase-out.
Post a Comment