Treasury Secretary Nominee Says Failure To Ratify Kyoto Undermines U.S. Competitiveness
Treasury Secretary Nominee Says Failure To Ratify Kyoto Undermines U.S. Competitiveness
President Bush’s new nominee for Treasury Secretary, Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry M. Paulson Jr., not only endorses the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse emissions, but argues that the United States’ failure to enact Kyoto undermines the competitiveness of U.S. companies. Here’s a statement from the Nature Conservancy, where Paulson serves as chairman of the board:
The Kyoto Protocol is a key first step to help slow the onslaught of global warming and benefit conservation efforts…Until the United States passes its own limits on global warming emissions, innovative companies based here will lose out on opportunities to sell reduced emission credits to companies complying with the Kyoto Protocol overseas. Additionally, without enacting our own emission limits, U.S. companies will lose ground to their competitors in Europe, Canada, Japan, and other countries participating in the Protocol who are developing clean technologies.
Goldman Sachs, under Paulson’s leadership, argued that the danger from global warming is imminent and requires “urgent” action by government to reduce emissions:
[C]limate change is one of the most significant environmental challenges of the 21st century and is linked to other important issues such as economic growth and development… Goldman Sachs is very concerned by the threat to our natural environment, to humans and to the economy presented by climate change and believes that it requires the urgent attention of and action by governments, business, consumers and civil society to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
As a result, Paulson’s nomination is strongly opposed by a coalition right-wing groups seeking to cast doubt on climate science, such as the National Center for Public Policy Research, describing Paulson as “diametrically opposed to the positions of [the Bush] Administration.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
96 Responses to “Treasury Secretary Nominee Says Failure To Ratify Kyoto Undermines U.S. Competitiveness”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
Archives
Here’s a great way to protest bushy. Still peaceful but it DOES sat it ALL!
Click the following link:
PROTEST BUSH
May 30th, 2006 at 9:31 amI bet Bush pulls the nomination!
May 30th, 2006 at 9:32 amBye bye Mr. Paulson.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:34 amAnother member of the reality-based community. Growing by leaps and bounds.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:44 amWhomever the pukes put in the treasury secretaries job will hit the road with loads of data showing the economy is BOOMING.
Here is something about the Bush economy they wont tell you:
From 2000 to 2005 total debt increased 12.7 trillion. Rise in income increased 2.1 trillion. For each dollar added to income, 6 dollars was added to debt.
Naw, they wont tell you that the Bush economy is nothing but a smokescreen. They wont tell you that unemployment is actually 8% and that the very nice figure of 4.8% was arrived at by dropping thousands from the roles of the unemployed.
No, they wont tell you the truth, all they will tell you are the same old lies, over and over again. The MSM will continue to feed you the same old and tired bull shit, and you will continue to dine at the pile.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:48 amAnd Bush NOMINATED this guy? Did Bush bump his head to knock a bit of sense into it? Is Bush trying to distract us from something deeper and darker (perhaps what may come from the FBI raid on William J. Jefferson?) Is this nomination going to turn out something like the Harriet Miers nomination, where someone who is worse by leaps and bounds will be the next nomination?
When Bush does something that actually seems good for the country, a red flag goes up in my book. Bad men don’t do good things - that isn’t how they work. (There was no intention there of rhyming.)
May 30th, 2006 at 9:57 amHe will never be confirmed. To realistic!
May 30th, 2006 at 9:58 amYeah, but what a Repug says and what a Rupug does is two completely different things.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:59 amwow, they’re not nominating a completely brainwashed idiot. I imagine he’ll get tossed aside for another partisan lemming
May 30th, 2006 at 10:06 amOn the other hand, he sat on both the chairman and CEO jobs at G-S, a practice that was supposed to be on the way out with all the corporate scandals of 4 years ago.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:10 amOn another thread you discount a global warming naysayer because he does not have the credentials to address global warming neither does this guy or Algore for that matter. So who cares what he or Al have to say. I guess hypocracy only matters when it comes from the right as opposed to the Demoncraps.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:12 amahh yes, ever more of the nation’s leadership is willing to shed the pre-Katrina mentality
May 30th, 2006 at 10:17 amBy the way, it’s the Nature Conservancy, not “Conservatory.” Great group, too.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:17 amPlease correct: it’s the Nature Conservancy, not Conservatory
May 30th, 2006 at 10:17 amoops hypocrisy
May 30th, 2006 at 10:18 amOn another thread you discount a global warming naysayer because he does not have the credentials to address global warming neither does this guy or Algore for that matter. So who cares what he or Al have to say. I guess hypocracy only matters when it comes from the right as opposed to the Demoncraps.
Smarter trolls, please.
Oh, wait … — that’s an oxymoron.
Well, how about at least semi-literate trolls, please.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:22 amHe will never be confirmed. To realistic!
Exactly. Wall Street lives in the real world, not Bush’s fantasy world. His views reflect how things really are, not this dream Bush swears by. For that reason, he’ll be bounced….
May 30th, 2006 at 10:23 amTroll,
The main point here is that he opposes the Bush Regime’s views on Global Warming - not that he is an expert on it.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:23 amDon’t forget that Wall Street is one of the four core Bush constituencies (Big Debt, Big Oil, Big Defense, and Religious Fanatics). They are not monolithic, just willing to conspire.
Wall Street didn’t get the bone Bush wanted to throw them - privatized Social Security. This will appease them a bit, perhaps.
I think pointing out the fault lines between these folks is a wise move. Don’t think that this guy will be allowed to act on his environmental instincts, though. Idological orthodoxy will be rigidly imposed, as always.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:26 amHey Troll, here is what the scientific community has concluded about global warming:
http://www.sciencemag.org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 306/ 5702/ 1686
928 articles in scientific journals over the past decade and NOT ONE has evidence against human activity as the cause behind climate change. Leave it to the FUX NUTWORK and the energy companies to try to propagandize a serious threat.
I personally cannot believe that King George would nominate to someone literate on climate issues. Did he let Laura suggest a replacement for Snowball, the deficit monger? Did he fall off his bike again and hit his head?
May 30th, 2006 at 10:28 amBush probably looked into his soul and didn’t notice the guy has a brain as well.
Soul good.
Brain bad.
Bush no like. Bush decider. Bad brain, bad.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:29 amThe US will remain stupid until it is not competitive in any engineering or science related field. The technology exists to create much more efficient engines (not just cars but motors in everything), but we now lag behind China and Brazil. The US is a 3rd world country in the creation and usage of more energy efficient products and renewable sources. Manufacturing from the US is almost irrelevant to world trade. Finance, drugs and chemicals are the primary source of export for non-farm goods. Even the new dreamliner from Boeing is made mostly overseas now.
We will continue to dumb down until we are completely non-competitive. Computers, software and engineering have been offshored by most large companies. I worked for a fortune 100 high tech company that was more than happy to send engineering to Europe and production to S.E. Asia.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:33 amThe main point here is that he opposes the Bush Regime’s views on Global Warming - not that he is an expert on it.
Comment by unbelievable — May 30, 2006 @ 10:23 am
If he is not an expert on it who care what he thinks?
May 30th, 2006 at 10:34 amBig oil will destroy America’s ability to compete in most fields where efficiency and engineering are required for solutions in making products. We are putting a bullet through our head with thinking like this. The status quo will leave the US far behind other nations that are moving ahead with more efficient energy sources and don’t need to have a big ass military to protect their interests.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:37 amPaulson will be for it before he was against it - the cardinal sin of flip-flopping liberals.
Although, I really used to get a kick out of Paulson’s laid back run for the Presidency using The Smothers Brothers Show as a Springboard.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:37 amPaul O’Neil, Bush’s first Sec Treas. pushed doing something about climate when he was at Alcoa and even tried when he was in the Administration.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:41 amAs a result, Paulson’s nomination is strongly opposed by a coalition right-wing groups seeking to cast doubt on climate science, such as the National Center for Public Policy Research, describing Paulson as “diametrically opposed to the positions of [the Bush] Administration.â€
Gee, whatever happened to “Bush has the right to appoint anyone he wants to his cabinet.”
Will the right-wing base now be labelled as “obstructionist”?
Just askin’.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:42 amIf he is not an expert on it who care what he thinks?
Comment by troll — May 30, 2006 @ 10:34 am
Well, considering he will be, in part, a visible representative of a Regime that opposes responsible action on Global Warming - especially upon the ‘megas’, well, apparently these people:
As a result, Paulson’s nomination is strongly opposed by a coalition right-wing groups seeking to cast doubt on climate science, such as the National Center for Public Policy Research, describing Paulson as “diametrically opposed to the positions of [the Bush] Administration.â€
May 30th, 2006 at 10:45 amHow much do you want to bet that the Bush junta — yet again — didn’t bother to check out Paulson’s past statements?
May 30th, 2006 at 10:47 amCan it be that Bush didn’t look through Paulsen’s scrapbooks and realize that besides his stand on global warming he’s also Paul Newman’s favorite economist?
Impending rightwing howls becoming a death wish? Encroaching turmoil at the ramparts?
I can hear it now.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:53 amIf he is not an expert on it who care what he thinks?
Comment by troll — May 30, 2006 @ 10:34 am
So are you saying that only experts on this subject should be listened to? That would rule out Bush and his entire administration. So then you advocate using the over 900 scientic papers writeen by experts on the field as the sole source of information on the subject?
May 30th, 2006 at 10:54 amThat’s Paulson, with an ‘O.’
May 30th, 2006 at 10:55 amI can’t believe the Bush Administration nominated this guy. I, for one, fully support him.
This should be interesting.
And remember, don’t feed the trolls!
PS: Everything about climate change science that you might want to know, in gory scientific detail: RealClimate index.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:59 amI didn’t see it in the above comments, but is anyone else troubled by the “opportunities to sell reduced emission credits to companies complying with the Kyoto Protocol overseas” statement? It would be great if we complied with Kyoto, but if there only reason to do so is monetary, it goes against the treaty. We shouldn’t look at ratifying as a way to make money, but a way to ensure that the earth will be liveable in 50 years.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:08 am““diametrically opposed to the positions of [the Bush] Administration.†”
This alone makes the man qualified.
Sanity must reign.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:11 amWe shouldn’t look at ratifying as a way to make money, but a way to ensure that the earth will be liveable in 50 years.
Comment by Joseph — May 30, 2006 @ 11:08 am
Agreed. But in some cases, some motives have to be tolerated to get the end result… We are after all, a Capitalistic Nation. Sure, I’d rather they all have philanthropic motivation for doing this - but in lieu of that, I’ll tolerate a bit of self-interest to get them on board.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:15 amYou fail to see the point which is the hypocrisy exhibited.
On a different note. I do agree the evidence suggest a warming trend, I am curious however, given that this is normal in the history of Earth, how is that it can be concluded absolutely that man and womankind is the cause of this particular phenomenon?
If it is demonstated to be a fact is it not the case then that Kyoto would make it profitable for underdeveloped countried to become polluters thus exacerbating the problem?
May 30th, 2006 at 11:17 amAnd remember, don’t feed the trolls!
Comment by BCC — May 30, 2006 @ 10:59 am
In other words “the cult must remain strong so don’t listen or talk to anyone who has another opinion.”
May 30th, 2006 at 11:20 amDoes too much cocain cloud Bush’s judgement?
Is this a legitimate question?
I wonder…. you decide….
.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:23 amTroll:If he is not an expert on it who care what he thinks?
Bush cares. That’s why he invites Michael Crichton to the White House.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:26 amI am curious however, given that this is normal in the history of Earth, how is that it can be concluded absolutely that man and womankind is the cause of this particular phenomenon?
Here we go again. “The Scientific Case for Human-Induced Global Warming”:
http://www.heatisonline.org/ contentserver/ objecthandlers/ index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
May 30th, 2006 at 11:28 amImpending rightwing howls becoming a death wish? Encroaching turmoil at the ramparts?
May 30th, 2006 at 11:28 amJiggs, kind of like the Harriet Meyers fiasco?
I think he’s probably a better candidate than her, but regardless of the ‘howls & turmoil’, it’s a way to keep the headlines, eh?
How about if we have Bill Frist burn a gay man wrapped in a Flag?
Will that satisfy the NeoCrooks?
How about if Tony Snow lit the match?
Maybe we should burn every Republican’t campaign sign this Fall
if they have an American Flag on them!
C’mon people, let’s get creative and show them our wrath!
And the first sentence of the study the president commissioned to look at the issue:
“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in EarthÂ’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.”
http://www.heatisonline.org/ contentserver/ objecthandlers/ index.cfm?id=3713&method=full
May 30th, 2006 at 11:32 amYou fail to see the point which is the hypocrisy exhibited.
No, because there is no hypocrisy from TP. You’re not seeing the point of the thread. That someone who contradicts Bush’s statements is up for a position in his Regime (which believes in towing the party lines), and that big business is objecting to him solely on this position. No one is declaring him to be an expert.
The real hypocrisy is in the neo-cons saying to give people a fair up or down vote, but then bashing candidates who do not meet their criteria (them getting richer) so that there can be no fairness of any sort.
On a different note. I do agree the evidence suggest a warming trend, I am curious however, given that this is normal in the history of Earth, how is that it can be concluded absolutely that man and womankind is the cause of this particular phenomenon?
Go check out the 600,000 year old ice cores they extracted from Antartica. Those cannot be biased. And they show that global warming, a natural cycle, is relatively consistent - until now when the CO2 is excessively high in comparison.
Also, just think about it. Think about what happens to the emissions of machinery… It’s not that complicated if you just look at the world we live in - which pollutes. Basic cause (a lot of machines that pollute) and action (rapid and extreme Global Warming).
If it is demonstated to be a fact is it not the case then that Kyoto would make it profitable for underdeveloped countried to become polluters thus exacerbating the problem?
Comment by troll — May 30, 2006 @ 11:17 am
No. The opposite.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:34 amBush/Republican logic….The people of Earth must be uncomfortably cold..so..let’s help the Earth to warm as fast as possible and profit from it.
.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:38 am#44
They don’t beleive the earth is older than 10,000 years, more poppycock from those damn liberals… lol
May 30th, 2006 at 11:51 am[…] Secretary-Designate Henry Paulson, Jr., the chair of Goldman Sachs, also has sane things to say about global warming: The Kyoto Protocol is a key first step to help slow the onslaught of global warming and benefit conservation efforts…Until the United States passes its own limits on global warming emissions, innovative companies based here will lose out on opportunities to sell reduced emission credits to companies complying with the Kyoto Protocol overseas. Additionally, without enacting our own emission limits, U.S. companies will lose ground to their competitors in Europe, Canada, Japan, and other countries participating in the Protocol who are developing clean technologies. […]
May 30th, 2006 at 11:56 amI’m concerned about Paulson because he’s a Wall Street big wig who favors the Kyoto Protocol, not because he’s concerned about the environment, but because it could make money. This administration is putting Paulson out there saying, here’s a guy who doesn’t agree with GWB on everything, look how reasonable we’re being here. I say bullshit.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:58 amThey don’t beleive the earth is older than 10,000 years, more poppycock from those damn liberals… lol
Comment by DenverDem — May 30, 2006 @ 11:51 am
Doesn’t it depend on which version of the Bible they are following? :)
I saw somewhere recently that some Archbishop added up all the ‘begats’ in his the Bible, and determined that the Earth was “created” on something like August 14, 4004 BCE at 9:00 a.m.
Why would a perfect god create an earth to look billions of years old then? What craziness people will believe…
May 30th, 2006 at 12:01 pmFrom the NYT story:
“Associates say he prefers bird watching in Central Park to golf.”
Watching, not SHOOTING them!
May 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pmI saw somewhere recently that some Archbishop added up all the ‘begats’ in his the Bible, and determined that the Earth was “created†on something like August 14, 4004 BCE at 9:00 a.m.
Comment by unbelievable — May 30, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
You’re just a bit behind the times; that was Bishop Ussher (1581-1656) in 1650. The time of 9:00 am was not part of Ussher’s calculations. And the date was October 23.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:26 pmFunny, I was wondering why Bush fudged his last few global climate statements, saying it doesn’t matter whether it’s manmade or natural, it needs to be addressed.
Obviously, it’s manmade, but even Bush’s small concession that it exists made me think he has some kind of minor epiphany.
Maybe this guy convinced him?
Or, more likely, Bush still doesn’t believe it but will go along with it to hire this guy.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:57 pmYou’re just a bit behind the times; that was Bishop Ussher (1581-1656) in 1650. The time of 9:00 am was not part of Ussher’s calculations. And the date was October 23.
Comment by Frankly, my dear, … — May 30, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
I read about a different zealot then. It said August. Have known of about the gist of it for sometime, just hadn’t seen that specifics of information before. Didn’t really think anyone would split hairs over it, as it is inane whether August or October, as the earth is factually billions of years old.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:02 pmAll this illustrates is the moral bankruptcy of the mainstream environmental movement. Just like Bush and his pronouncements about AIDS, poverty, education, etc. etc. etc., this guy can make any statements he wants, actions are what matters. Over the last 30 years the corporate leader neocons have taken over many of the supposedly progressive organs of civil society, ie. Public Broadcasting, higher education, etc., and turned them to their selfish economic purposes. If you’re not a millionaire and you think any of these folks are on your side you’re an idiot.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:14 pmGore said virtually the same when Kyoto went into effect in 2005:
Gore says Bush’s rejection of Kyoto puts the U.S. economy “at risk by encouraging delusionary business decisions.”
“Businesses lulled into a false sense that there is no problem are going to find themselves facing much tougher competition in the global marketplace from competitors who have adapted to the emerging reality that the world begins to embrace tomorrow,” Gore told reporters.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2005/2005-02-16-10.asp
May 30th, 2006 at 1:33 pmDesperate troll,
Both Gore and Paulson know much much more about the global economy than you ever will. Get over it. :)
May 30th, 2006 at 1:41 pmThere is a huge difference between somebody who has an opposing view (Tundra, squeegeboo) and a troll (mighty aphrodite, I-RIGHT-I). The fact that you have chosen to go by the screen name of “troll” shows that you don’t know the difference. If you want to have an opposing view and want to have a discussion, change your screen name and don’t act like a troll.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:50 pmThis nomination seems headed for a Harriet Miers-esqe conclusion. But hey, Hank is still a Bush “Pioneer”.
http://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
The dirt on Henry Paulson:
Right now on LCL
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
May 30th, 2006 at 2:17 pmThe latest on more U.S. troops in Iraq and the Paulson nomination. Give us your opinion:
Only on SSA
Wait, how can we even be talking about this so-called global warming when so many other critically important things are happening in the world. Take a gander at cnn.com, where you’ll see that the lead story is, to paraphrase: “Missing White Girl Still Missing”
Now that’s newsy, in the same way that Colbert is truthy.
May 30th, 2006 at 2:23 pmmarmoset,
Here is the headline from the missing white girl still missing story.
Yeah, I am frustrated that this is still being covered after a year, moreso than the real news out there.
The headline should read:
Has anybody even said that in the news yet. My daughter asked if she could go to Cabo San Lucas with her boyfriends family when she was 17, I told her flat out no way.
It went like this:
“Can I go to Mexico.”
“No!”
“But dad, I will be with his family.”
“No!”
“We aren’t going to be partying.”
” No!”
“Dad you suck.”
“At least I will still be a dad.”
May 30th, 2006 at 3:20 pmLet’s see here. Goldman Sachs Natural Resources Fund holdings:
BP PLC
EXXON MOBIL CORP.
CHEVRON CORP.
CONOCOPHILLIPS
SCHLUMBERGER LTD.
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP.
ENCANA CORP.
HALLIBURTON CO.
VALERO ENERGY CORP.
SUNCOR ENERGY INC.
All of the companies liberals love to hate. Bueno Arbusto!!! But look who’s in there, Al Gore’s favorite evil oil company, Occidental. Oh that’s right, Occidental isn’t evil since he owns butt loads of Occidental and helped them take over Elk Hills in Cali. What a dick.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:24 pm#44,
Basic cause (a lot of machines that pollute) and action (rapid and extreme Global Warming).
Rapid and extreme? Who says that? That’s not what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are saying:
“No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.”
May 30th, 2006 at 3:31 pm#44, you’ve been listening to Al Gore exaggerate the facts on global warming again? And you took it hook, line and sinker.
Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations”
May 30th, 2006 at 3:36 pm#34 As you’re doing right now.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:41 pmRapid and extreme? Who says that? That’s not what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are saying:
Comment by BearManPig — May 30, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
First things first. Here is the link you failed to provide: Climate Change 2001 - Working Group I: The Scientific Basis”
Second, right above your quote, that same report reads:
Based on the few very long tide gauge records, the average rate of sea level rise has been larger during the 20th century than the 19th century.
And a little below that, it reads:
The estimated rate of sea level rise from anthropogenic climate change from 1910 to 1990 (from modelling studies of thermal expansion, glaciers and ice sheets) ranges from 0.3 to 0.8 mm/yr. It is very likely that 20th century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise, through thermal expansion of sea water and widespread loss of land ice.
Although the rate has not experienced a significant acceleration (you do understand the difference betweeen rate/speed and acceleration, don’t you?), fact remains that global warming is a reality, and human human activity is largely to blame.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:54 pm#44, you’ve been listening to Al Gore exaggerate the facts on global warming again? And you took it hook, line and sinker.
Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentationsâ€
Comment by BearManPig — May 30, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
BMP’s from the Coulter School of Environmentalism: “God gave it to us to rape as we see fit.”
What an ostrich.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:05 pm#67 thanks for supporting my point that the affects global warming are not rapid and extreme. When is .8mm really that large on a global scale? It’s not. And the supporting data is from “very few” data points? Hmmm…no wonder there are so many skeptics.
But that doesn’t keep Al Gore for exaggerating the facts and suppressing data.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:20 pm[…] Hat tip over to Think Progress for this one. Seems Henry M Paulson Jr, the apparent heir to Treasury Secretary Snow, disagrees with Bush about global warming, particularly the Kyoto Treaty. As per the Nature Conservancy which Paulson served as chairman: Until the United States passes its own limits on global warming emissions, innovative companies based here will lose out on opportunities to sell reduced emission credits to companies complying with the Kyoto Protocol overseas. […]
May 30th, 2006 at 4:25 pmKnowing Bush, Inc I suspect the nomination will be pulled. It’s interesting that anyone involved with th Nature Conservency is even thought about.
I’m a Canadian resident, and in January we elected a “Conservative Party” prime minister. One of his first priorities is to scrap Canada’s agreement to comply with Kyoto. The new prime minister, Stephen Harper, is from Alberta, Canada’s oil patch.
So, birds of a feather, Eh?
Let’s hope the Bush administration fails in some way to pull the nomination. They fail on many things, maybe Cheney will be asleep.
FYI…I’m a dual US/Canadian citizen. Born in the US but live in Canada now. What has happened to the land of my birth?
Sincerely,
May 30th, 2006 at 4:32 pmRichard Mallory
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
thanks for supporting my point that the affects global warming are not rapid and extreme.
Comment by BearManPig — May 30, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
I think you meant “effects” -and I did no such thing.
You are welcome, nevertherless.
When is .8mm really that large on a global scale? It’s not.
I don’t know what your idea of extreme is, but 0.8mm in sea level rise per year is a lot. You do realise the huge amount of water needed to rise the sea level that much per year, don’t you?
And the supporting data is from “very few†data points? Hmmm…no wonder there are so many skeptics.
So, you quote something out of the report that supports your opinion and -not only ignore the rest. but now decide to ridicule it.
If you are going to cite a document to support your statements, you cannot pick and choose.
But that doesn’t keep Al Gore for exaggerating the facts and suppressing data.
There is concensus in the scientific community that global warming is a reality.
But we all know reality has a well-known liberal bias.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:32 pmIf you disagree with Al Gore you are a shill and a whore for big oil:
“There’s really not a debate. The debate’s over. The scientific community has reached as strong a consensus as you will ever find in science. There are a few oil companies and coal companies that spend millions of dollars a year to put these pseudo-scientists out there predending there is a debate. It’s exactly the same thing that the tobacco companies did after the Surgeon General warned us about the linkage between smoking and lung cancer.”
May 30th, 2006 at 4:33 pmMy opinion? Global warming is a reality, agreed. But not rapid and extreme. Unless you think YOUR QUOTE of .3mm - .8mm is rapid and extreme.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:38 pmGood news with this nomination and Kyoto Protocol. A new day has come to this country to change its behaviour!
May 30th, 2006 at 5:02 pm#72, OK Bearmanpig - put your money where your mouth is - move to Mauritius and see how that .8mm per year works out for you.
May 30th, 2006 at 5:34 pmIf Bush wants the guy, he’s gotta be bad. Here’s what the media isn’t saying about him: In the Nixon administration, Paulson was John Ehrlichman’s assistant in 1972-73. He was one of the Plumbers. He’s being brought into the administration to fix the leaks. He’s an expert in the art of cover up. Hopefully, he’ll be there when Bush is impeached.
May 30th, 2006 at 5:53 pmhttp://blog.radioleft.com/ blog/ _archives/ 2006/ 5/ 30/ 1994063.html
Unless you think YOUR QUOTE of .3mm - .8mm is rapid and extreme.
Comment by BearManPig — May 30, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
1.- You quoted the article first. I merely pointed out other information you decided to ignore.
2.- Again, I don’t know what your idea of extreme is. Here is a basic math exercise for you.
The Earth’s ocean area is: 361.254×10e+6 km2
Given the 0.8mm rise in global ocean level, how much water has been added to the ocean in the last year? Is that amount negligible?
May 30th, 2006 at 6:26 pmThe Corporatists/Fascists are attempting to steal Gore’s thunder a bit, it seems.
“See, we aren’t ALL ostriches!”
Could it be they are just inept in general and fail to vett everyone( or anyone for that matter)?
Or is it a ploy to get an Alito-type candidate through?
Regardless, he’ll have tough time getting confirmed, it being a very nasty election year and all.
May 30th, 2006 at 7:49 pmGiven the 0.8mm rise in global ocean level
Well, why not use the lower number of 0.3mm? What the hell, let’s use the high number. That’s what Al Gore “The Exaggerator” would do. 0.8mm/year increases the volume of the ocean by…ready?
0.0000018% over 80 plus years. So you increase it by another millimeter for the last 15 years. Since you’re exaggerating the numbers, why not?
Wow, GS, that is significant!!!!!
Although, we really don’t know since we have “very few” data points.
Now why the hell isn’t it getting any warmer in Homer, AK?
May 30th, 2006 at 8:49 pmI currently have access to primary literature on climate, and how anyone with access to this information can deny change is happening, or that the effects are becoming more pronounced every year, is just plain ignoring the observed facts. The evidence of the anthropomorphic cause of this increase in warming is also solid.
I also did the math, and in order to raise the ocean level worldwide by 0.8mm is about 7.608 x 10e15 gallons. written out that is 7,608,000,000,000,000. I think that is a significant amount of water.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:05 pmDetroit just had a Memorial Day heat wave that hospitalized dozens… 90 degrees in MAY!
May 30th, 2006 at 9:23 pm[…] According to the new nominee for Treasury Secretary, Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry M. Paulson Jr., America’s failure to enact the Kyoto protocol will hurt the country’s long-term competitiveness in the global economy: Climate change is one of the most significant environmental challenges of the 21st century and is linked to other important issues such as economic growth and development … Goldman Sachs is very concerned by the threat to our natural environment, to humans and to the economy presented by climate change and believes that it requires the urgent attention of and action by governments, business, consumers and civil society to curb greenhouse gas emissions. […]
May 30th, 2006 at 10:25 pmDear various anti- science trolls: How can you be so brainwashed without brains? Does not compute. Any of you get out of third grade? If you have a BRAIN, you can read the science. You don’t have to be some “expert.” With a brain, read and understand. Without a brain, you can’t. You without brains need to stop talking and start reading. If you can. Read= understand. Talking all the time = not understand. Morons. Fortunately, since I teach college, I never have to deal with idiots like you live.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:26 pmEveryone is wondering why Paulson took the job of Treasury Secretary. Already he is too good to stoop to Bush’s pandering BS policy decisions on Kyoto.
Plus Bush gets the optics of picking a Wall Street guy, just like Clinton did. Hmmm little Bushie. Trying to save yourself by copying Clinton because your own gig has proven to be a big fat failure? This is no Texas guy you picked Bushie. This is a New York City Investment Banker. Eat it you Republicanos.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:50 pmYour headline says “Treasury Secretary Says Failure to Ratify Kyoto…” But I’ve looked all over I can find nowhere where Henry Paulson “says” such a thing. You link to a statement from the Nature Conservancy where he not only does not say anything, his name isn’t even mentioned. How does the Treasury Secretary play into the global warming debate?
TNC sees its mission, publicized in its quarterly magazine, Nature Conservancy, as “conserving plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.” To accomplish this goal, TNC purchases private lands and thereafter either maintains ownership of the property or sells it, at greatly inflated rates, to the federal government or a state government. TNC claims that as of September 2003 it had “protected,” in this manner, 15 million acres in the United States and an additional 102 million acres worldwide. Most of this land was purchased and then resold to the government at prices far exceeding market value. Typical was TNC’s approach to 14,200 acres of swampland in Georgia. After acquiring the land, valued at around $7 million, in 2002, TNC proceeded to sell it to the state of Georgia for $20 million. This modus operandi has prompted TNC to dub itself “Nature’s real estate agent.” Its ultimate objective is to decrease private property ownership and maximize the nationalization of property.
As noted above, The Nature Conservancy does maintain ownership of some of its purchased land. Today TNC manages the world’s largest private nature preserve system, consisting of some 1,177,000 acres on 1,340 preserves that TNC owns or has under conservation easement.
In November 2004, TNC joined forces with the Sierra Club to oppose an Oregon ballot measure that would have provided compensation to property owners whose land was devalued by regulations prohibiting development—regulations endorsed by TNC. In August 2005 TNC President Steven McCormick acknowledged, in an interview with The Boston Globe, that his organization saw a greatly expanded role for the federal government as essential to its cause. “Regulation and buying land alone probably won’t be sufficient for conservation to take hold on a really large scale,” said McCormick.
TNC has identified 5 major “conservation initiatives” on its agenda:
(a) The Global Marine Initiative “links innovative land and sea conservation strategies to improve survival of our coasts and oceans.”
(b) The Sustainable Waters Program “helps protect freshwater ecosystems by advancing water policies and conservation approaches so that human needs for water can be met while sustaining healthy freshwater ecosystems.”
(c) The Global Climate Change Initiative seeks to develop “achievable solutions to slow the rate of global warming and finding viable options for the Earth’s natural diversity, human communities and economic investments to survive its inevitable impacts.”
(d) The Global Fire Initiative “develops solutions that allow fire to play a role in places where it benefits nature, and keep fire out of places where it is destructive.”
(e) The Invasive Species Initiative “aims to abate the threat to Earth’s diversity posed by invasive non-native plants, animals, and diseases through a combination of prevention, early detection, eradication, restoration, research and outreach.”
TNC warns that global warming — which it views largely as a consequence of industrial activity in capitalist countries like the United States — presents a major threat to the environment and to the survival of human and animal life. “Research shows that the world has now become hotter than at any time during the past 1,000 years. … Evidence is mounting almost daily of the dangers posed by global warming.” In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which battered the Gulf Coast in the summer of 2005, TNC lamented the purportedly “growing number of severe weather events linked to global change.”
TNC demands immediate action to address the allegedly looming global warming crisis. An avid supporter of the Kyoto protocol (which was defeated in the Senate in 2003 because of the burdensome regulatory costs it would have imposed on American industries, most notably in the energy and manufacturing sectors), TNC now lobbies on behalf of the Climate Stewardship Act, a slightly diluted version of the Kyoto treaty, proposed by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.
TNC has long demanded that the U.S. military establish “buffer zones” around those of its bases that are surrounded by “critical wildlife habitat.” “Encroaching development can create conflicts between training activities and local residents,” TNC explains. “In addition, development reduces habitat for key species.”
Between 2001 and 2004, TNC received more than 1,200 grants from scores of charitable foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Bank of America Charitable Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the ChevronTexaco Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Prospect Hill Foundation, the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Simons Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, and the Turner Foundation.
Additional TNC revenues are derived from the organization’s annual membership fees, which range from $25 to $50 per person. TNC is also a popular destination for the contributions of affluent donors—64 percent of its funding comes from individuals—including celebrities like David Letterman and actor/activist Paul Newman.
Moreover, TNC has benefited from the patronage of the federal government. Contrary to the anti-Bush rhetoric of TNC and most other environmentalist groups, such federal munificence has greatly expanded under the Bush administration. Whereas in 1999 TNC collected just over $19 million from federal agencies like the EPA and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Transportation, in 2004 its share of the federal dole had spiked to nearly $39 million.
Corporations, too, have given generously to TNC. In 2002, the Capital Research Center named TNC as one of the top ten nonprofit recipients of corporate contributions, taking in nearly $1.5 million in corporate donations. As of 2003, TNC had more than 1,900 corporate sponsors.
In the summer of 2003, the Washington Post ran a series of investigative articles spotlighting one particular TNC fundraising program. “Under the program,” explained the Post, “the charity buys raw land, attaches some development restrictions and then resells the properties to supporters at greatly reduced prices. Buyers give the Conservancy cash payments for roughly the amount of the discount, a sum that is then written off the buyers’ federal income taxes.” In one of several cases detailed by the Post, TNC helped a trustee purchase a 146-acre parcel of land in Kentucky for the purpose of building a horse farm and two houses. TNC acquired the property, valued at $368,000, under a conservation easement prohibiting industrial development, and then resold the land to the trustee for $252,000, who then made up the remaining cost with a charitable donation to TNC—a $130,000 tax-deduction. In response to the revelations, the IRS conduct an exhaustive audit of TNC in 2004 and ruled to disallow inappropriate tax deductible donations to charitable organizations in exchange for real estate.
The Post further noted that TNC had sold its logo to be used for consumer items manufactured by corporations whose directors, including executives from General Motors and other companies traditionally impugned as polluters by TNC, sat on TNC’s advisory governing board and leadership council. The paper also reported that TNC had extended a $1.55 million home loan to its President, Steven McCormick, at a discounted interest rate, which it misreported. (McCormick repaid the loan in full following the disclosure.)
Perhaps most damagingly for TNC’s reputation, the Post reported that the organization, even as it professed its commitment to “saving the last great places on Earth,” had drilled for oil and natural gas on a wildlife preserve in Texas City, Texas, a breeding ground for an endangered species of grouse. TNC had been awarded the land from the Mobil oil company with the understanding that it would safeguard the property. Following the embarrassing disclosure, TNC hastily announced its suspension of what it called “resource extraction activities.”
May 31st, 2006 at 3:27 am#78 Well, we know now that you don’t understand what the percentiles mean or its implications. A little exercise to help visualize one of the many problems generated by the increase of the level of the sea: the volume of water in the world is a constant. Water doesn’t come from Outer Space, nor generates from nowhere. Well, but now, to the exercise:
Take a map of the whole world. Measure the surface of all the rivers, lakes and the like. Also, the one of the ice caps. Then, compare its surface to the one of the seas and oceans. The percentage of rivers, etc. compared to the one of the seas and oceans is very little, isn’t? Well, we haven’t considered the depth of the rivers and the like and oceans and the like, but we know very well that oceans and seas are far deeper. So there is an even biggest share of water in oceans and the like than in rivers and the like.
Well, oceans and the like are salty water repositories. And the rivers and the like are the sweet water repositories. So, one of the most evident problems of Global Warming is the losing of sweet water mass to salty water mass. A lot of billions of gallons. That means less sweet water for humans, crops, cattle and industry.
If you can’t see a problem in the rise of the sea level, maybe you will find it in the decay of sweet water available.
But I don’t have any faith. You are undeterred by facts.
May 31st, 2006 at 8:27 am[…] It looks as though Bush has come up with another crappy nominee for his cabinet. Treasury Secretary Nominee Says Failure To Ratify Kyoto Undermines U.S. Competitiveness […]
May 31st, 2006 at 9:59 amIf he is not an expert on it who care what he thinks?
Comment by troll — May 30, 2006 @ 10:34 am
——————————————————
So, then, care to detail why we should caer what you have to say?
May 31st, 2006 at 10:05 amyou people are all brainwashed idiots
June 1st, 2006 at 2:48 pm[…] Think Progress » Treasury Secretary Nominee Says Failure To Ratify Kyoto Undermines U.S. Competitiveness […]
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:36 pmAs the European countries that signed on to the Kyoto Accord fail to meet their goals by large margins, as Canada cannot meet the required emission cuts and backs away from the Kyoto Accord, as the most competitive countries in the world today, China and India, are excused from the Kyoto Accord limits and continue to increase their emissions, Mr. Henry M. Paulson Jr “endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse emissions and argument that the United States’ failure to enact Kyoto undermines the competitiveness of U.S. companies” surely ranks as one of the most ignorant or wacky, if not the most the stupid economic statements of recent time. Every economic study shows that the costs to American industries and our economy would be disasterous unless we spent billions of dollars buying carbon credits from bankrupt countries like Russia and underdeveloped nations through a scheme that could rival the Iraq OIl for Food program in corruptness. If Mr Paulson’s business judgment calls for crippling the American economy he is the wrong man for the job.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:35 pmGore’s ilk on Kyoto…
One argument by warming skeptics is that the Kyoto Protocol would 1. do nothing to stop warming and 2. would utterly obliterate the US economy.
To answer point 1, Kyoto alone would not do enough, but it would be a good s……
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:40 pmEvery economic study shows that the costs to American industries and our economy would be disasterous unless we spent billions of dollars buying carbon credits from bankrupt countries like Russia and underdeveloped nations through a scheme that could rival the Iraq OIl for Food program in corruptness. If Mr Paulson’s business judgment calls for crippling the American economy he is the wrong man for the job.
Comment by Patrick — June 2, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Facts please Paddy old sock, show me the studies. You can’t because they are not there, however funnily, the Business Council of Australia has conducted their economic study to realise that indeed Australia can easily meet our Kyoto obligations (if Australia were to ratify) and still grow our economy at the current rate Australia is enjoying now. Unfortunately you are suffering the delusion that you are an economist if you can make the sweeping statement “every economic study … disasterous for America” in all honesty.
June 4th, 2006 at 11:51 amWow that’s a little weird. I agree with a lot of the people that have already blogged. Bush must have taken a smart pill or something, but it also worries me because it seems like bush is trying to make every party happy by doing things that sound left, but are really right in the long run. This guy that bush has nominated seems to want to help the environment, but only if it helps the economy too. He was saying that he wanted the U.S to start our own limits on global warming emissions so that we can also start selling reduced emission credits. I don’t really understand what that all means, but it kind of sounds like this guy just wants the business part of global warming instead of really carring about the environment. Do others feel the same way?
June 4th, 2006 at 2:57 pmPaulson got the job and will take the job of US Treasury Secretary because it is believed that he can facilitate the orderly decline of the dollar. Folks we have over leveraged ourselves with two conflicts in the mildle east and the Bush (and the House of Representatives) doesn’t believe in taxing at the rate of spending. We have and continue to borrow from the Chinese and Japanese. This is erroding the value of the US currency. Pualson believes since he has connections to Asia that another Black day on Wallstreet can be averted. Bush believes this too and knows it is a likely problem in the near future. He just doesn’t know whether the cork is going to get pulled on his watch or the next. Secondly, the Treasury Secretary can’t do jack about the Kyoto Protocol. Thirdly, it is not a surprise that business leaders see the Kyoto Protocols as something that is necessary to compete globally. Look at Dow’s CEO, Andrew Liveris comments (Chemical & Engineering News, 5/29/06 or recent Congressional Hearings) about energy policy. Business leaders want to a coherent plan from the government for extending the supply of carbon based fuels and moving to alternative sources of energy. They are concerned how they are going to make a buck in the future.
The real questions here is when we will crushed coal power plants be eliminated globally, when will the first nuclear power plant on US soil in 30 years break ground, and how fast can we ramp up solar? All of these things require your utility bills to go up . . to all you capitalists out there that means a planned economy. To all of you Republicans that means the “market” isn’t going to take care of energy needs in an orderly fashion unless you think a global depression is orderly.
June 4th, 2006 at 5:34 pm[…] 2. Addressing the problem is not a zero sum game. It’s not the case that all efforts to address global warming will harm the economy. The Apollo Alliance has a plan to address that problem of global warming that would create an estimated 3 million jobs. Bush’s nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, said that the failure to ratify Kyoto was a blow to U.S. competitiveness. […]
June 11th, 2006 at 10:09 am[…] Gore clearly means that the serious scientific debate about the human contribution to global warming is over. This or that Exxon Mobile scientist doubts the human contribution; and the selectively skeptical pundit and pseudo-libertarian think-tanker doomsays about the financial costs of dealing with it. Neither of these is a serious position. For the scientific question, see here (thanks to Think Progress for the link); the the economic question, see here and here. So Will is guilty–again on this topic–of suggesting serious controversy where there isn’t any. For a discussion of that, see here, here, here, here, here, and finally, here. […]
June 11th, 2006 at 11:27 am