Yeah, you heard it right; we have a new “issue.”
Today, Al Gore is going to the White House to be part of a ceremony honoring this year’s American Nobel laureates. I hope he remembers to bring along a copy of his Academy-award winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth. President Bush does not agree with Gore’s climate warnings and it may be because he has not had a chance to see the movie yet what with being so busy with Vice President Cheney studying aerial photographs of Iran.
Last month, Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, describing climate change as “the defining challenge of our age,” said of the UN’s Synthesis Report: “Today the world’s scientists have spoken clearly and in one voice.” As reported by Elisabeth Rosenthal in The New York Times. Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in green house gases had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster.
Politics it is. Daniel J. Weiss, the director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress Action fund, believes that after immigration, reducing oil dependence and global warming is the second most important issue among Independent voters and among Democrats, it is the fourth most important issue. And virtually all Democratic contenders support a reduction by at least 80 percent from 1990 levels in carbon emissions by 2050 and research and development on alternative fuel sources.
PBS’ NewsHour with Ray Suarez points out that Chris Dodd is the only presidential candidate who has an energy plan with a courageous corporate carbon tax; Governor Bill Richardson wants the nation to generatw 50 percent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2040. Suarez says that presidential hopefuls Giuliani, Hunter, Paul, Tancredo and Thompson have yet to indicate whether they support any kind of government action to address global warming. Huckabee and Romney say they are willing to consider a cap on carbon gas emissions. In contrast, says Suarez, McCain is the lead author of a Senate proposal to reduce carbon emissions by 65 percent by 2050.
And the politics? On the same day that the UN panel released its report, frontrunner John Edwards accused the oil and gas industry of deploying hundreds of lobbyists to Washington to resist efforts to free the nation from its dependence on fossil fuels.
And while Hillary Clinton is now calling for the creation of a $50 billion strategic energy fund, coupled with tougher fuel efficiency standards financed in part by $20 billion in “green vehicle bonds” and cutting greenhouse gases by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 and cutting oil imports by two-thirds by 2030, California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring said “Clinton has a “record of opposing renewable energy, especially ethanol and has voted for and against a measure….she continues to change her positions,” Associated Press (11/17/06).
“It’s extremely clear and is very explicit that the cost of inaction will be huge compared to the cost of action,” said Jeffrey D. Sachs, head of Columbia University’s Earth Institute. “We can’t afford to wait for some perfect accord to replace Kyoto, for some grand agreement. We can’t afford to spend years bickering about it. We need to start acting now.”
Three Western governors, Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA), Jon Huntsman (UT) and Brian Schweitzer (MO) have created regional agreements to cap greenhouse gases and intend to lobby Congress to act.
There is no such thing as a “little” cancer or “minor” surgery. Making climate change a political football is wrong. The politics of climate change is about the future of our children and grandchildren.
Post A Comment