Skip to main content

President Bush Proposes Climate Talks

By Eric McErlain
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.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
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)?
May 31, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Anonymous said…
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.
June 1, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Joffan said…
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.
June 1, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more