Chairmen urge Bush not to gut G8 climate declaration.
Chairmen urge Bush not to gut G8 climate declaration.
In the wake of reports stating that the U.S. is trying to weaken the language of a G8 climate change declaration to be released at next month’s G8 summit, 15 House chairmen issued a letter today to President Bush urging him not to weaken the declaration.
The G8 Summit should be an opportunity to galvanize international support for addressing this looming threat, not an opportunity to prevent and undermine international action. The leaders of the world’s largest economies must let the rest of the world know that they are serious about addressing the threat posed by global warming and are committed to meaningful action to reduce global warming pollution. U.S. leadership is critical to tackling this global threat.
Read the full statement below.
May 18, 2007
Dear Mr. President:
We are deeply concerned about reports that the United States is seeking to weaken a proposed G-8 declaration regarding global climate change. We are writing to urge you to reverse course and strengthen the G-8 declaration. The United States must no longer delay action to address this major threat.
According to press reports, Administration officials are seeking to strike a pledge to limit the global temperature rise during this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, as well as an agreement to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.1
We have also learned that the Administration officials may be trying to delete sections of the declaration that call on the industrialized world to modify activities linked to recent warming and to delete one of the document’s opening phrases, which highlights the urgency of the necessary actions. This is a disappointing retreat after finally acknowledging the urgency of the issue just last month.
The scientific consensus tells us that it is too late to avoid some warming, but we may still have time to prevent dangerous warming. Preventing the global average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in comparison to pre-industrial levels must be a top priority. Scientific studies show that a 3.6 degree increase in global temperature could result in the extinction of nearly 30% of all living species, bleaching of much of the world’s coral, increased risk of the wider spread of diseases like malaria, more damage from floods and storms, and increased drought in already dry regions.2 To prevent this from occurring, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently suggested reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 85% below 2000 levels would be necessary.3
The G8 Summit should be an opportunity to galvanize international support for addressing this looming threat, not an opportunity to prevent and undermine international action. The leaders of the world’s largest economies must let the rest of the world know that they are serious about addressing the threat posed by global warming and are committed to meaningful action to reduce global warming pollution.
U.S. leadership is critical to tackling this global threat. Congress is now preparing to do its part. Support is growing for aggressive legislation to cap global warming pollution and cut it dramatically over the coming decades. But we need an Executive Branch that engages the rest of the world to solve this problem rather than stubbornly ignoring it.
Without strong leadership from our nation’s federal government, we will fall behind our economic competitors in the development of clean energy technologies and miss the economic opportunities to provide these technologies to world markets. We urge you to embrace these opportunities for economic growth and aggressive action, and to demonstrate America’s commitment to leading the fight against global warming by producing a strong G-8 declaration.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Of course Chimpy is going to gut the G-8 global warming statement.
Chimpy is owned by Big Oil and they are doing everything they can to stop any progress in fighting global warming.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:56 pmI heard a global warming expert on Amy Goodman this morning.
He said that we need to reduce carbon emissions by 90%.
And he said we have to replace the entire vehicle fleet by 2020 with new vehicles that do not run on fossil fuel.
I think we can do this, but not with Chimpy in office.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:59 pmIn before the climate skeptics.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pmChimpy only knows what he learned from ExxonMobil about global warming. And they told him to go have a shot and eat a pretzel.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:05 pm“Chairmen urge Bush not to gut G8 climate declaration”
Which means that’s exactly what he will do.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:06 pmYou guys just don’t know the rules!! George is THE DECIDER!! Quit trying to tell him what to do!! :)
May 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pmWhy are they urging? Why don’t they tell Bush to go fu*k himself? Is it because we give them lots of money? Why can’t they figure out that the money we loan them is borrowed from China? Why don’t they cut out the middle man and borrow their money directly from China?
May 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pmPersonally, at this point I’d be flabbergasted if the Bush/Cheney administration made any decision that wasn’t driven by short-term, selfish motives. Why, my dog Toby cares more about the future than those two Bozos!!
May 18th, 2007 at 4:16 pm“Why don’t they tell Bush to go fu*k himself?”
Because they’re still playing by the old rules, polite and diplomatic.
Chimpy threw those rules out 6 years ago.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:18 pmwhat good does it do to fight against terrorism if we’re just going to let ourselves be killed by global warming?
May 18th, 2007 at 4:24 pm“what good does it do to fight against terrorism if we’re just going to let ourselves be killed by global warming?” – Comment by Joel
Good question. A military think tank just released a report on the consequences of global warming to the military. It is frightening.
And they mentioned the rapid climate change portrayed last night on TV in “Day After Tomorrow”. The report calls it a “wild card” that, while low in probability, is catastrophically high in severity and should be planned for. The report writers are all recently retired 4 and 5 star admirals and generals.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pm> what good does it do to fight against terrorism if we’re just going
> to let ourselves be killed by global warming?
That’s a rational argument! Verboten!
May 18th, 2007 at 4:39 pmwhat good does it do to fight against terrorism if we’re just going to let ourselves be killed by global warming?
Comment by Joel
Making logical statements like this one will have the trolls flocking here calling themselves President Clinton and Mr. President. Then Patrick1 and michael and exley will show up and they’ll be spitting all over the place.
It’ll be fun!
May 18th, 2007 at 4:43 pm“Making logical statements like this one will have the trolls flocking here calling themselves President Clinton and Mr. President. Then Patrick1 and michael and exley will show up and they’ll be spitting all over the place.”
Then they’ll get naked and have a circle jerk, because we know these Repuke trolls are all closet cases who get a hardon thinking about their beloved Chimp.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:46 pmand have a circle jerk
Comment by Tom3
LMAO!!!!
May 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pmand have a circle jerk
Comment by Tom3
EEEEWWWWW!!!!
May 18th, 2007 at 5:12 pmThey have TERRIBLE taste in men.
Global Warming is a normal part of our earths natural environmental cycles. While it is exacerbated by hydrocarbons, and hydrocarbon saturation is a real problem that does need to be addressed, the issue is intentionally being used as a new pretext to take away what miniscule rights and freedoms have not already been stolen through the protection racket of synthetic terror. Our atmosphere would not be heating at nearly the rate it is if HAARP, chemtrails, and other clandestine technologies were not being deliberately used toward that end, and if nuclear proliferation, instead of being encouraged as some sort of “alternative” were severely curtailed and eliminated altogether as it must be for our safety. There are thousands of clean energy technologies which have deliberately been suppressed and remain unfunded in favor of oil and nuclear, as these are the existing sources most renumerative to vested interest regardless of their destructive environmental consequences. To the extent that the very wealthy and their minions believe that they themselves can avoid the consequences of hydrocarbon, nuclear, and other depridations and pollution, they will continue in their blind folly, eventually to their own destruction. The “he who dies with the most toys wins” mentality is willfully arrogant and ignorant of anything other than short term gain and long-term dominance.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:34 pmIf a few trillion were spent on a few dozen clean technologies, we could easily reverse the burden on our ecosystem, but vested interests fear any mass scale use of alternatives outside their own existing powergrid structure, as this would threaten both the financial profitability of their locked-in energy profit machines, and our national and human subservience to them.
If the waters do indeed rise and I believe they are and will continue to along with the array of other changes associated with the climate problem, may I welcome you all to join me in holding these bastard’s heads beneath the rising tides. See ya there!
May 18th, 2007 at 6:07 pmI’m from Texas, ya see… I like it warm, hehe…
May 18th, 2007 at 6:21 pm> NO NUKES
You forget to take your lithium.
> There are thousands of clean energy technologies which have
> deliberately been suppressed
Yeah, yeah. Zero point energy, orgone energy etc, etc. Blah.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:56 pm#17 – This is another tactic used by those who post the global warming skeptic line. Here’s their main points:
1. Make like you’re really in favor of alternative technology. You really do want to save the planet.
2. Attack corporations as if you’re really on the side of the little guy.
And if you think this guy really is on the right side, read his first sentence again:
“Global Warming is a normal part of our earths natural environmental cycles.”
BTW, is it me or is that one of the most ranting, headache-producing posts that one has ever made? I don’t even think unbolding the text would help.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:03 pmI’m from Texas, ya see… I like it warm, hehe…
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
“And I’m completely incapable of taking a serious problem seriously. I’m just here to muck sh*t up and annoy you all. That’s my function in life. And I’m proud of it.”
May 18th, 2007 at 9:04 pmThe tidal power available from our coastline amounts to about 11 million horsepower per mile of coastline. The pity is that we let it all go to waste. If it were harvested, the petrolium industry could fold up its tent and we could all breath.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:23 pmas i said some 7 years ago: god bush kills the world. and noone did anything.
May 26th, 2007 at 6:34 am… he, who kills the world, is a mass murderer, isn’t he? thank godness, they have death penality in the us for that!
May 26th, 2007 at 6:36 am