PDA

View Full Version : Schwarzenegger: There's no doubt about the science... Global Warming...


Taco John
07-04-2005, 02:51 AM
The Governator is the first conservative I've seen actually admit that there might be some legitimacy to the science.



Arnold Schwarzenegger: It's not a time for talk. It's a time for action

The Terminator: There's no doubt about the science. Now we must all gear our economies to take on global warming


Arnold: I don't know how apparent it is to people in Britain, but California has long been a leader in environmental protection. We have never taken for granted the clean air, clean water and natural beauty that make our state such a desirable place to live, to work, and to raise our families. That žs why, when I became Governor of California, I announced a bold agenda to continue and strengthen our commitment to meeting the many environmental challenges we face.

During the past 18 months, we created the 25 million-acre Sierra Nevada Conservancy, the largest conservancy in the nation; we opened the path to the Hydrogen Highway, which will encourage the building of hydrogen fuelling stations and the use of hydrogen-fuelled vehicles; we sponsored the first Ocean Protection Act in the nation to protect and restore our ocean resources; and we secured permanent funding to reduce emissions from dirty engines and equipment.

In addition, with our Green Building Initiative, we have put the biggest user of electricity in California - the state government itself - on an energy diet. By requiring new state buildings to use the latest environmentally friendly and energy efficient design and construction methods, we will reduce electricity and water use by more than 20 per cent in our state-owned facilities.

Now it is time for Californians to seriously address the issue of climate change and its potential to create havoc with our environment and economy. The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate. And we know the time for action is now.

I launched our effort when California hosted the United Nations World Environment Day Conference in San Francisco last month, where leaders from around the world gathered to discuss our shared responsibility for protecting the earth. It was there that I signed an executive order to establish clear and ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our state: by the year 2010 our goal is to reduce our emissions to less than those we produced in 2000; by 2020 our goal is to make our emissions lower than 1990 levels; and by 2050 our goal is to reduce overall emissions to a full 80 per cent below those we produced in 1990.

Greenhouse gases are emitted from every sector of the economy, and these pollutants blanket the globe, trapping heat and creating the "greenhouse" effect, often referred to as global warming. Global warming threatens California's water supply, public health, agriculture, coastlines and forests - our entire economy and way of life. We have no choice but to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In order to achieve our goals, we are implementing California's landmark greenhouse gas law, which requires lower-emitting vehicles to be sold in our state, starting in 2009. We are accelerating the timetable to get more energy from renewable resources, such as wind, solar, geo-thermal and bio-mass conversion to 20 per cent by 2010 and 33 per cent by 2020. We have implemented the world's most stringent appliance and building efficiency standards. We are aggressively pursuing with the legislature my proposal to have one million solar-powered homes and buildings in California to save energy and reduce pollution. We are greening the state's fleet of government vehicles, to be the most fuel-efficient in the world.

These steps are great for the environment and great for our economy, too. Many people have falsely assumed that you have to choose between protecting the environment and protecting the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In California, we will do both.

That is why I am travelling around the state and my administration is holding a series of conservation summits for businesses around California, spreading the word that pollution reduction is good.

Pollution reduction has long been a money saver for businesses. It lowers operating costs, raises profits and creates new and expanded markets for environmental technology.

Many private businesses in California are cutting greenhouse gas emissions by simply improving efficiency. Others are also implementing cutting-edge hydrogen fuel technologies, installing advanced solar power systems and constructing environmentally friendly buildings.

And best of all, many California companies are participating in the public and private partnerships that are being formed with the state and some of our leading universities and research centres to find innovative means to create a cleaner and healthier environment.

All of these environmental technologies will allow us to conserve energy, cut pollution, protect our natural resources and create jobs for Californians. We must all accept the challenge to protect our environment. In California, I am pleased that we are once again providing leadership in this critical area. We understand that in this world in which we live, our actions sometimes have unintended consequences for our land, air and water. As John Muir, an immigrant from your islands who launched America's conservation movement here in California, once said: "When one tugs at a single thing in nature he finds it attached to the rest of the world." I ask citizens and governments everywhere to do their part by conserving energy, reducing the use of fossil fuels, reducing waste and taking every opportunity to work together for a cleaner, healthier tomorrow. It is not enough for us to be just caretakers of the world that we have been given, we must leave it a better place for future generations.

This is our duty to those who share this world with us and to those who follow us.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is Governor of California



http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article296377.ece

Taco John
07-04-2005, 03:54 AM
Interesting


The president ruled out committing the United States at Gleneagles to a legally binding agreement on global warming along the lines of the 1997 Kyoto protocol, which Washington has refused to ratify.

"If this (the agreement expected at Gleneagles) looks like Kyoto, the answer is 'no,'" Bush said. "The Kyoto treaty would have wrecked our economy, if I can be blunt."

However, he described climate change as "a significant, long-term issue that we've got to deal with" and acknowledged that human activity was "to some extent" to blame for the problem.

Scientists have warned that the world's climate could warm by more than two degrees by the end of the century because of greenhouse gases from activities like burning fossil fuels.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04434274.htm

Taco John
07-04-2005, 03:58 AM
I'm not so sure humans can change climate with pollution. I'm not ready to wreck the economy over it. I wouldn't mind seeing us take precautions. Not so much for climate, but for waste in general. I'm more concerned about how pollution of our water and food and air supply than I am about anything to do with climate change.

Patriot 21
07-04-2005, 05:42 AM
I'm more concerned about how pollution of our water and food and air supply than I am about anything to do with climate change.

Signed,

Taco Yogi

Brock
07-04-2005, 12:57 PM
Arnold isn't a conservative.

mlyonsd
07-04-2005, 01:31 PM
What we do here at home will eventually be almost pointless. China is staged to replace us as the largest polluter. As our manufacturers continue to close factories here and open them there the trend will just continue at a faster pace.

If you want to slow down global warming you can't have the discussion without including China. To put the burden solely on our industry is unfair IMO.

Metrolike
07-04-2005, 02:08 PM
I think it's time we nuke China. They are nothing but trouble and it might be too late in a decade or two.

BCD
07-04-2005, 02:21 PM
This is ****ing stoopid. Earth is evolving. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the northern hemisphere go through an extreme cold spell some 15,000 years ago? Dinosaurs had millions of years on this planet, I suppose modern man only gets a few thousand...

Cochise
07-05-2005, 08:59 AM
I know when I want to know what is going on in the scientific community, I think of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Ari Chi3fs
07-05-2005, 10:02 AM
I can just hear Arnold now... "When is this Governor Movie going to be OVER!!! Its been 9 months on the set, already! When do I get to blow things up?"

beavis
07-05-2005, 11:07 AM
Arnold isn't a conservative.
He's every bit the conservative jAZ is.

Pitt Gorilla
07-05-2005, 02:36 PM
I can just hear Arnold now... "When is this Governor Movie going to be OVER!!! Its been 9 months on the set, already! When do I get to blow things up?"
At least cite Conan if you're going to rip him off. :shake:

penchief
07-05-2005, 03:57 PM
This is ****ing stoopid. Earth is evolving. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the northern hemisphere go through an extreme cold spell some 15,000 years ago? Dinosaurs had millions of years on this planet, I suppose modern man only gets a few thousand...

If that's the case then why does anything matter? Including right-wing values.

Logical
07-05-2005, 04:54 PM
I'm not so sure humans can change climate with pollution. I'm not ready to wreck the economy over it. I wouldn't mind seeing us take precautions. Not so much for climate, but for waste in general. I'm more concerned about how pollution of our water and food and air supply than I am about anything to do with climate change.

This seems like a reasonable way to view it. I am not so sure I agree with Arnold that what he is proposing will not hurt the economy, but the important thing is to do it in a way that does not devastate the economy. I don't actually doubt the science, but I do doubt the rash conclusions and forecasts being made by many scientists. Changes over 100 years are but a blip in the eco system history of the world, yes they can be measured but deternining there significance and forecasting an outcome is not nearly as reliable.

Calcountry
07-05-2005, 05:58 PM
Back in the 70's they said we were going to run out of oil soon.

tiptap
07-06-2005, 06:42 AM
Back in the 70's they said we were going to run out of oil soon.

The 70's oil statement had to do with production of oil IN THE US. And the prediction was that production would peak in the early 70's and fall from then on. And except for the addition of Pudhoe bay and then only for 5 years this prediction had been correct. It was based upon discovery and recovery data from the industry. It was this prediction that was scoffed at. It has turned out to be true. Oil production in the US has been falling since the 70's.
The same analysis of world production, not just the US production, puts the peak production of oil between NOW and 2015.

We have had several discussions about Global Warming. The question is do you think the heat trapping capacity of the atmosphere goes up with the increase in carbon dioxide. In controlled enviroments it is a certainity. We see correlation between temperatures and carbon dioxide levels from geological and glacial evidence.

I don't know if this is necessarily bad. The same evidence points to the notion we are in an ice age but ice ages are characterized by long periods (100,000 to million of years) of heavy glacier creation separated by short (10,000 years) of warmer periods with glacial reduction like now. The scientific community was looking for substantiation of the climate returning to glacial period based upon the fall in temperatures over the last 1000 years when they saw the quite recent rise in temperatures over the whole of the 20th century. The search for explanation was the measured carbon dioxide level rise in the atmosphere.