Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: xrtoronto on August 02, 2006, 12:10:10 PM
-
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; A03
Twenty-two of the world's largest cities announced yesterday that they will work together to limit their contributions to global warming in an effort led by former president Bill Clinton.
The Clinton Climate Initiative -- which will create an international consortium to bargain for cheaper energy-efficient products and share ideas on cutting greenhouse gas pollution -- includes Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and New York as well as Cairo, Delhi, London and Mexico City. While the group is not setting specific targets for reducing emissions, Clinton said he is confident the effort will both cut pollution and create jobs in the cities that contribute most to higher temperatures.
"It no longer makes sense for us to debate whether or not the Earth is warming at an alarming rate, and it doesn't make sense for us to sit back and wait for others to act," Clinton said, speaking at a Los Angeles news conference with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D) and London and San Francisco city leaders. "The fate of the planet that our children and grandchildren will inherit is in our hands, and it is our responsibility to do something about this crisis."
The endeavor comes on the heels of Monday's announcement by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) that he will work with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to trade carbon dioxide emissions and share clean-energy technology.
It is unclear how much Clinton's initiative can achieve in the absence of broader mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. The 40 cities he is targeting account for 15 to 20 percent of the world's emissions, according to Clinton aide Ira Magaziner. City officials can cut their governments' energy use and govern local building codes and land use, but they do not regulate the automobiles or power plants that account for much of a city's carbon dioxide emissions.
Climate experts said the effort could help but by itself it will not achieve the major reductions needed to curb global warming. Drew Shindell, an atmospheric physicist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said emissions must be cut in half by mid-century to keep Earth's temperature from reaching dangerous levels. "They can make progress, but it will be quite limited, I would think," Shindell said.
But London Mayor Ken Livingstone -- who spoke at the news conference and whose city charges a daily fee to drive cars downtown during peak traffic times -- said cities are already "at the center of developing the technologies and innovative new practices that provide hope that we can radically reduce carbon emissions."
The Clinton Foundation will focus on providing technical assistance and bargaining power to the participating cities, all with area populations of 3 million or more, employing the same model it has used to lower the price of AIDS medicine for poorer countries.
In a telephone interview Monday, Clinton -- who was criticized by some environmentalists for not moving aggressively enough as president to curb greenhouse gases -- said he cared about climate change before but feels "a greater sense of urgency" about the problem now in light of the mounting scientific evidence.
"The thing that's different is the combination of a new sense of urgency about the problem and a sense of optimism that dealing with the problem can produce economic prosperity," he said.
President Bush has promoted voluntary measures to curb greenhouse gases, such as promoting cleaner technologies, but has consistently opposed mandatory targets.
"The administration welcomes and encourages all levels of government to find ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions," Kristen Hellmer of the White House Council on Environmental Quality said of Clinton's initiative.
The Clinton Foundation plans to help major cities measure their emissions and track their reductions, as well as share information about energy-efficient building design and street lighting. Smaller cities such as Baltimore and the District cannot formally join the initiative, but they will be able to buy energy-efficient products at the same low negotiated prices as larger cities, which D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said he would welcome.
c&p (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101327_pf.html)
Toronto joins Clinton's climate change battle
CBC News
Toronto is among 22 cities around the world joining former U.S. president Bill Clinton in the battle against climate change.
The Clinton Climate Initiative is aimed at increasing energy efficiency in everything from street lights to building materials and promoting clean-burning fuels and energy conservation.
The initiative brings together Clinton and his presidential foundation with the Large Cities Climate Leadership Group — an alliance of cities that have pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
One of the aims of the group is to create a purchasing consortium to buy energy saving products. The group would also gather experts to help cities lower greenhouse gas emissions.
"This is a very, very serious problem, but also a phenomenal opportunity," Clinton said Tuesday at the University of California, Los Angeles, where he signed the pact.
Urban areas are responsible for over 75 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the world, according to the Clinton Foundation website.
The alliance cites a number of ways cities can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become more energy efficient. These include using:
More energy efficient traffic and street lights.
More energy efficient lighting, windows, heating and ventilation systems in buildings.
Cleaner electric generation systems.
Hybrid technologies for city buses, garbage trucks and other vehicles.
c&p (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/08/02/clinton-cities.html)
-
Clinton could contribute significantly to reducing the amount of hot air in the world if he'd just keep his mouth shut.
-
It's the kind of thing Bill would be great at: A non-effective look good win win consortium.
If temperatures rise: It's because people faught your eforts (regardless of root cause).
If temperatures drop: It's because of your efforts
If temperatures stay the same: It's because of your efforts.
You don't really have to do anything to be successful.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Clinton could contribute significantly to reducing the amount of hot air in the world if he'd just keep his mouth shut.
beat me to it
-
Originally posted by Mini D
It's the kind of thing Bill would be great at: A non-effective look good win win consortium.
If temperatures rise: It's because people faught your eforts (regardless of root cause).
If temperatures drop: It's because of your efforts
If temperatures stay the same: It's because of your efforts.
You don't really have to do anything to be successful.
He's still chasing his legacy...It's called Carterism.
-
Well, Toronto and the GTA is known to be one of the two highest polluting areas in Norht America (the other being Texas) and I'm glad we have taken the initiative to attempt to reduce these harmful emmisions.
I have not studied this in any depth, so I can't really say how much this is contributing to global warming, but I believe it is a good move to try to reduce the pollution.
I'm glad these other big cities have joined in the attempt to clean things up:Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and New York as well as Cairo, Delhi, London and Mexico City:aok
-
Those who still refuse to belive in global warming and that pollution is bad must atleast belive that efforts can be made to clean the air locally in the cities.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Those who still refuse to belive in global warming and that pollution is bad must atleast belive that efforts can be made to clean the air locally in the cities.
I don't know anyone that doesn't agree that pollution control is a good thing, and I don't know anyone who doesn't think Global Warming is happening. I do know many that argue that man-made emissions and pollution are not the primary reason for global warming, but indeed do contribute. We also believe that with or without manmade emissions Global Warming would still occur... It's arrogance to think that humans are the PRIMARY source for global warming, considering how complicated and unknown Mother Nature is....
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Those who still refuse to belive in global warming and that pollution is bad must atleast belive that efforts can be made to clean the air locally in the cities.
While I'm not yet convinced that the earth isnt just experiencing a natural warming trend, the reduction of pollution is always a good thing.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
While I'm not yet convinced that the earth isnt just experiencing a natural warming trend, the reduction of pollution is always a good thing.
One can ofcourse never be 100% sure. The earths temps has gone up and down before.
All that co2 and other bad stuff has to go somewere and with those gigantic reductions in rainforrests etc some of the natural filters and CO2 scrubbing systems are going away fast. That beeing said the ocean is not going anywere and that i belive is the biggest CO2 eater of them all.
-
Isn't he stealing ALgore's thunder here?
-
if everyone would just set their AC's to 70 deg and open their windows we can cool down this runaway global warming.
come on people do your part.
-
Originally posted by john9001
if everyone would just set their AC's to 70 deg and open their windows we can cool down this runaway global warming.
come on people do your part.
Its 70 deg. here for a high today, and no AC running. :D
-
"It no longer makes any sense for us to debate whether or not the Earth is warming at an alarming rate..."
That attitude is disturbing. He's made his mind up, like so many on that side of the argument over global warming, so further debate is unnecessary.
I have no problem with attempts to clear up air pollution, or any other type for that matter. My problem is with closed-minded movers and shakers.
-
sooo... what do we do if the tempreture drops a degree or two in 10 years signaling a cooling trend?
How do we fix a cooling trend?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sooo... what do we do if the tempreture drops a degree or two in 10 years signaling a cooling trend?
How do we fix a cooling trend?
lazs
Get a heavier jacket. ;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Isn't he stealing ALgore's thunder here?
Dunno if it's Al's or Captain Planet's .
-
Aren't they the same thing?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Isn't he stealing ALgore's thunder here?
I INVENTAD GLOBUL WARMING!!! I'M THUPER THERIAL!!!
-
so no one is worried about global cooling? what a bunch of short sighted neocons!
lazs
-
as soon as china is where the US was in the 70's, I'll worry about doing more ..
-
Originally posted by john9001
if everyone would just set their AC's to 70 deg and open their windows we can cool down this runaway global warming.
come on people do your part.
When you set your a AC at 70 and then open you windows, if the temperature rose to the point where the AC kicked on.... then that would be good for... what?
-
Well you enviro-nuts go sue mother nature...because the recent eruptions from various volcanoes output vastly more greenhouse gases then we have since we became industrialized.
Please. I want to see someone sue a volcanoe.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
When you set your a AC at 70 and then open you windows, if the temperature rose to the point where the AC kicked on.... then that would be good for... what?
sorry , i should have used the sarcastic smilie :rolleyes:
-
ok so I am preventing the next iceage by driving my Escalade?
someone else has already saved the whales...
nobody plays whack-a -mole with the seals anymore ..
tuna hasn't tasted the same since they took flipper out of the net...
here in florida they banned putting in boatdocks for a year to "save the manattees" (wtf?)(this is true )
we will either die from--- mad cow disease -SARS - birdflue- or missles from North korea or Iran well before the...
thermonuclear reaction that is our own sun causes it expand and raise the temp. of the earth far beyond what "global warming" freaks are hoping for.
and to think I survived the "alar" on apples to deal with this?
and while you treehugging freaks are sitting around drinking coffee at starbucks for 4 bucks a 12 OUNCE serving quit your *****ing about gas being 3 dollars a GALLON!
If you had let us build nuclear powerplants there would be a lot less "green house gasses" being released into the atmosphere.. and more power instead of blackouts and brownouts... of course if we were allowed to drill for oil we wouldnt be so dependant on other countries for oil either now would we.. .
the difference between a "developer" and an "enviormentalist" is the "developer " wants to build a house in the woods.. the "eviornmentalist" already has a house in the woods!
kubaya ah this m****f***er
ps .. just in a weird mood .. sorry to clog a serious discussion thread
-
Originally posted by FBplmmr
ok so I am preventing the next iceage by driving my Escalade?
someone else has already saved the whales...
nobody plays whack-a -mole with the seals anymore ..
tuna hasn't tasted the same since they took flipper out of the net...
here in florida they banned putting in boatdocks for a year to "save the manattees" (wtf?)(this is true )
we will either die from--- mad cow disease -SARS - birdflue- or missles from North korea or Iran well before the...
thermonuclear reaction that is our own sun causes it expand and raise the temp. of the earth far beyond what "global warming" freaks are hoping for.
and to think I survived the "alar" on apples to deal with this?
and while you treehugging freaks are sitting around drinking coffee at starbucks for 4 bucks a 12 OUNCE serving quit your *****ing about gas being 3 dollars a GALLON!
If you had let us build nuclear powerplants there would be a lot less "green house gasses" being released into the atmosphere.. and more power instead of blackouts and brownouts... of course if we were allowed to drill for oil we wouldnt be so dependant on other countries for oil either now would we.. .
the difference between a "developer" and an "enviormentalist" is the "developer " wants to build a house in the woods.. the "eviornmentalist" already has a house in the woods!
kubaya ah this m****f***er
ps .. just in a weird mood .. sorry to clog a serious discussion thread
:rofl
-
that is funny :)
-
funny and... on the mark..
Most "zero growth" types allready live where they want to live. They don't want regulations for themselves... they want to regulate everyone else.
The "I got mine so now is the time to stop the madness" syndrome.
they don't want someone to build a home and block their view.
lazs
-
"Oh Jeffrey...isn't the view from this mountain of the unspoilt wilderness below simply breathtaking?"
"Yes, Pamela...aren't you glad we've bought our own little share of this bit of heaven?"
"Oh yes, my love! I think the 8,000 square foot multi-story log-cabin will fit in quite nicely here...if we can acquire the neighboring acreage to prevent someone else from desecrating the pristine scene around us."
"Of course, we'll have to put up a fence constructed of environmentally-friendly materials to prevent the local wildlife from devastating the zinias in our beautifully manicured lawn...but we must all do what we can to preserve the essence of the wild."
-
Shickins,
Right on target. A beautiful example of the NIMBY "green" crowd.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
Thanks Mav...I do what I can. :D
Regards, Shuckins
P.S. "Shickens?" :huh
-
I`d be willing to bet that Willy is still getting some under the table off of this. :)
-
Shuckins, oops :o
-
I returned an icecube to the wild today; I'm trying to do my part along with Bill.