Gore named an official Adviser on Environmental Policy for UK
Because America just won't heed the warnings
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Energy — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Reuters reports that "Britain wants tighter limits on greenhouse gases by Europe and other rich countries as a first step toward establishing a global carbon trading system to help reduce the cost of climate change."
The main argument of a British report published on Monday is that the benefits of determined worldwide steps to tackle global warming will massively outweigh the costs.
Said Tony Blair:
The report is clear: We are heading towards catastrophic tipping points in our climate unless we act...Creating cleaner energy whilst using less has to be the key.
To this -- or some -- end, British Finance Minister Gordon Brown today is taking on Al Gore as "an adviser to him on environmental issues."
Read on...
Reuters continues by blaming America because "U.S. President George W. Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol" [Fact check: The 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution, and its 95-0 passage, repudiated Kyoto and its hegemony with regard to the U.S. and, while the treaty was signed by the Clinton administration -- specifically, Ambassador Peter Burleigh, charge d'affaires at the U.S. mission -- the protocol has never had the votes in the Senate to be ratified, making Bush's "pullout" entirely superfluous.], and echoes Gore by warning:
If emissions continue to grow, the earth could warm by several more degrees, with severe consequences. Poor countries would be hit most as melting glaciers initially increase flood risk and then reduce water supplies -- eventually threatening one-sixth of the world's population.
In a related story, the NYT reports that Michael Palmer, the general manager of television stations WVII and WFVX, ABC and Fox affiliates in Bangor, Maine, has put a moratorium on any more global warming "news" stories, telling his staff that "when Bar Harbor is underwater, then we can do global warming stories...Until then, no more.”
From the Times:
Mr. Palmer laid out his policy in an e-mail message sent out during the summer. A copy was sent to The New York Times. Mr. Palmer did not respond to a phone message left with an employee of the stations nor to an e-mail message. But a former staff member confirmed the e-mail message that went out during the summer after the stations broadcast a live report from a movie theater in Maine where Al Gore’s movie on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was opening.Mr. Palmer began his e-mail message: “I was wondering where we should send the bill for the live shot Friday at the theater for the Al Gore commercial we aired.”
Palmer gave as his reasons for the moratorium:
- a) we do local news
- b) the issue evolved from hard science into hard politics
- c) despite what you may have heard from the mainstream media, this science is far from conclusive
Palmer added that he "placed global warming stories in the same category as ‘the killer African bee scare’ from the 1970s or, more recently, the Y2K scare when everyone’s computer was going to self-destruct.”
And, in other news, AlGore still just can't get anybody to listen to him about the very real threat of ManBearPig to the world's population.
« Winning The Battle on Drilling — Comments (7) | Oil plot revealed! — Comments (35) »
Gore named an official Adviser on Environmental Policy for UK 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
South Park Episode 145
_________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
There may be man-made global warming. Personally, I think there is. To deny it as a possibility is as silly as denying natural climate cycles.
It undermines important points:
1) regardless of the source, there is an effort to use global warming as a pretext for international centralized elite control...
2) even though international centralized elite control has never worked, and in fact has been a disaster wherever its been tried.
3) america produces more product per emission than anywhere
4) countries without sufficient internal structural power devolution will violate any agreements reached regardless
5) all that happens in this structural scenario is that the metrics will change in a way which robs the productive, without reducing emissions
6) the whole effort, even if successful, will not meaningfully change the climate
7) the majority of the problem could very well be natural climatic fluctuation - such as solar output - but the science is murky
7) if economic growth is drastically reduced at this point in history it will seriously destabilize major nation-states, as well as emerging nations - right when we need to get them stabilzed. The result will not be good for humanity or the earth
8) There will be no way for the elite to escape the consequences given the global delocalization, should nation-states destabilize. Paul Allen's little Ark belongs to me in such a scenario. All your arks are belong to us.
9) etc. We need to acknowledge that global warming could be happing. Elsewise, we loose our liberty.
is if it means Al Gore will spend more time in the UK and less on this side of the pond.
As I recall, overpopulation was the cause celeb a couple of decades ago. Well! Guess what, maybe the current cause celeb, GW, may solve the last one...
If emissions continue to grow, the earth could warm by several more degrees, with severe consequences. Poor countries would be hit most as melting glaciers initially increase flood risk and then reduce water supplies -- eventually threatening one-sixth of the world's population.
Reduce the world's population by one-sixth, especially those pesky, overbreeding "poor people" and life will be better for all.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
that the UK has a residency requirement for employees and it is strictly enforced..
The bad news: they can waive it.
But as noted above, it may keep him over there and out of our hair.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
is simply a what-if based on the premise that AGW is actually what is happening, and the second premise that we can in fact do somehting about changing climates.
Those are two huge *IF*s which have not been established at all.
Adapt or die; if you won't adapt, you die.
It makes one wonder what the Enviro-Lefties are really afraid of. If the flooding starts getting noticable, people will just move to higher ground. Or copy the Dutch and build dikes to keep the oceans out.
Let Europe have Algore for all I care. It's still pushing off its image as the "Progressive" paradise, at least until the hordes of Turks and Moors they've imported decide that it's time to start swinging their scymitars around.
Maybe the one-sixth of the world population that they're really concerned about are the wealthy Lefties such as those controlling the EU?
--
"Straight Talk Express"? My bum feet! -- Me, on Senator McCain and other "moderates"
the UK's general approach to global warming is silly and does little to address real issues.
The general solution to everything environmental related in the UK seems to be to tax people for stuff. Not spur innovation in alternative energies, not spur business growth in renewables, but instead to tax people for driving cars.
Or, even more ridiculous, to tax goods based on some imaginary 'true carbon cost'. Like Kiwis from New Zeland, for example, that might cause 50p. The UK's solution is to add some sort of ridiculous carbon tax to the Kiwi and make it like 2.50 in order to reflect the amount of 'carbon' it emits.
First off, kiwis don't emit carbon. Even if you're making some sort of ham-handed argument that the transport of the kiwis causes some sort of environmental disaster that's worth charging people an extra £2, how in the world does anyone really come up with these numbers?
Furthermore, the entire scheme targets only carbon emissions, and one can easily make some pretty solid environmental arguments that there is more at work in causing environmental issues than merely carbon emissions.
Taxing people is not the solution to global warming. It does generate more tax revenue, and Lord knows Gordon Browne loves that. Regardless of your views on global warming, the UK scheme is stupid and typical tax-and-spend.
At least Mr. Palmer is showing a little common sense. No doubt his peers in the drive-by media will make him pay for it too.
Man-made global warming is probably the greatest hoax of our time. What part of "natural climate change" do people not understand? Planet Earth has warmed and cooled many times in the several million years since God made it and people somehow belive that man is to blame for these most recent changes.
It reminds me of the "Bush Lied" crowd. They just keep saying the same old things over and over and over again. We can spend all day proving that the world is round and they will continue to insist that it's flat. This is getting very OLD.
On a similar note, it's interesting how they always play with words in an attempt to avoid debate. For example, they say "global warming" (which is hard to deny) when the real debate is over MAN-MADE global warming (which sounds more ridiculous - and correctly so). The same is true for "stem cell research" when what we're really talking about is EMBYONIC stem cells. And let's not forget leaving out the word "ILLEGAL" when discussing immigration.
*sigh*
www.scottbomb.com