Here you go scrappy 
If this isn't enough polilitical activity and affected policy!!!!!!! You clearly have a different agenda with your argument here.
politics of global warming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
energy Portal
The
politics of global warming looks at the current
political issues relating to global warming, as well as the historical rise of global warming as a
political issue.
Note: although this may include some discussion of the science involved, the details of the scientific issues are to be found elsewhere (see eg global warming). The primary focus is the
political aspect of the mitigation of global warming.
Contents [hide]
1
political sphere
1.1
United States: Federal government 1.2
United States: State and local governments 1.2.1 RGGI
1.3
Other governments 2 Positions of the Energy Industries
3 Environmental groups
4 Academia
5 Media
6 Timeline
7 References
8 External links
8.1 Environmental groups
8.2 Business
[edit]
political sphere
UNFCCC
European Union's European Climate Change Programme Developing countries
31st G8 summit
[edit]
United States: Federal governmentThe United States, although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol — though their one-time representative, Condoleezza Rice, remarked that the Protocol was "unacceptable" at the time it was presented to her. The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties he asserts are present in the climate change issue [2]. The US government continues to stress the alleged uncertainty of global warming, despite the increasing scientific consensus, and maintains the need for further research before any action is justified.
In October of 2003,
the Pentagon published a report titled An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall. The authors conclude by stating that "this report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."
In June 2005,
US State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the US stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor. [3]
In October 2003 and again in June 2005, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act failed a vote in the US Senate.[4].
In
January 2007, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would form a United States Congress subcommittee to examine global warming. [1] The US government announced that it was withdrawing funding from the lobby groups it had been supporting that aimed to disount the evidence for global warming.[citation needed]
Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "I'm hot to get something done. It's hard not to conclude that the politics of global warming has changed and a new consensus for action is emerging and it is a bipartisan consensus." [5]
See also Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate.
[edit]
United States: State and local governmentsHowever,
195 US cities representing more than 50 million Americans - have committed to reducing carbon emissions to 7% below 1990 levels. In 2005, California (the world's sixth largest economy) committed to reducing emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Measures to meet these targets include tighter automotive emissions standards, and requirements for renewable energy as a proportion of electricity production. The Union of Concerned Scientists has calculated that by 2020, drivers would save $26 billion per year if California’s automotive standards were implemented nationally.[6]On August 31, 2006, the California leaders of both
political parties agreed to terms in the
California Global Warming Solutions Act. When this legislation goes into effect it will limit the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and institute a mandatory emissions reporting system to monitor compliance. The legislation will also allow for market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions while safeguarding local communities. [7]
The bill was signed into law on September 27, 2006, by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who declared, "We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late... The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."On September 8, 2006, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed an executive order calling on the state to create initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 level by the year 2020 and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040.[8]
[edit] RGGI
Seven Northeastern US states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a state level emissions capping and trading program. It is believed that the state-level program will apply pressure on the federal government to support Kyoto Protocol.
Participating states[9]:
Beginning in 2009, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants will be capped by state:
Connecticut: 10.7 million tons
Delaware: 7.56 million tons
Maine: 5.95 million tons
New Hampshire: 8.6 million tons
New Jersey: 22.9 million tons
New York: 64.3 million tons
Vermont: 1.2 million tons
Observer states and regions: Pennsylvania, Maryland, District of Columbia, Eastern Canadian Provinces.
[edit] Other governments
Australia's current position is that it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, in particular because of concerns over a loss of competitiveness with the US, which rejects the treaty [10]. The Australian TV series 4 Corners screened a program titled Greenhouse Mafia which described how some business lobby groups have influenced the Australian government to prevent Australia from reducing greenhouse gas emissions [2]. Industries that have been able to successfully lobby Australian governments to not reduce emissions include coal, oil, cement, aluminium, mining and electricity industries [3]. Leaked minutes from a meeting between leaders of energy intensive industries and the Australian government describe how both groups are worried that mandatory renewable energy targets were working too well and were "market skewed" towards wind power [4]. Despite expectations, the Federal government failed to increase the Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets (MRET Scheme) to more than 2%. [11] Various Australian Labor Party state governments have announced that they will introduce an MRET Scheme of their own [12][13]. On 3 February 2007, the Australian government announced that it will not be pursuing mitigation of global warming, and instead will be adopting a policy of adaptation [5].
Russia signed the Kyoto Protocol in November 2004, after a deal with the European Union over WTO membership. Russia's ratification completed the requirements of the treaty to come into force, based on nations totaling 55% of world greenhouse gas emissions.
The UK government-commissioned Stern Review into the economic effects of climate change was published in October 2006. Tony Blair's assessment was that it showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous". He added, "We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto — we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further [than Kyoto]."[6]
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto Protocol a "socialist scheme".[7]
[edit] Positions of the Energy Industries
One of the biggest opponents of action on global warming has been the fossil fuels energy industry, and particularly the oil industry, such as ExxonMobil, which regularly publishes papers minimizing the threat of global warming. In 2005, it opposed a shareholders' resolution to explain the science behind its denial of global warming. In recent years, other companies have increasingly come to accept the existence and consequences of global warming; for example, the Chairman of BP, John Browne, declared a need for action in 2002. Lord Oxburgh, non-executive chairman of Shell, said in a speech at the 2005 Hay-on-Wye Festival: "We have 45 years, and if we start now, not in 10 or 15 years' time, we have a chance of hitting those targets. But we've got to start now. We have no time to lose."[14]
In January, 2007, Exxon appeared to begin distancing itself from lobby groups that deny the threat of global warming, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute MSNBC Reuters.
One sector of the energy industry that has no problem with the greenhouse gas arguments is the nuclear industry. Margret Thatcher was one of the first major
political figures to suggest that the nuclear power was a "green" solution. This was largely regarded with derision at the time but it is the ultimate goal of Tony Blair's solution to tomorrow's energy needs and probably explains his enthusiasm for CO2 emission controls.
Indeed as many countries move towards legally binding engagements to Kyoto targets, including fines for failing to achieve them, many governments may find this a convenient excuse for otherwise unpopular expansions of their nuclear programs.
This would be an ironic outcome for many who see highlighting the possible dangers of global warming as protecting the environment.
As pointed out on Counter Punch [15] the nuclear power industry is not slow to present itself as the "green" solution :
only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels in the next ten years is to bring on-line at least an additional 50 reactors. "Nuclear energy has been the largest single contributor to reduced air pollution in the world over the past 20 years," the NEI's Kyoto global warming book boasts.
Although Greenpeace point out that nuclear power is still responsible for about one third of the CO2 emissions as equivalent fossil fuels energy over the lifetime of an installation. [16]
[edit] Environmental groups
Thousands of protesters marched on the international day of action on 3 December 2005, which coincided with the first meeting of the Parties in Montreal. [17] The planned demonstrations were endorsed by the Assembly of Movements of the World Social Forum.[18]
Christian environmental groups are also increasingly active on climate change, for example What Would Jesus Drive? and The Evangelical Climate Initiative.
US Catholic Bishops also have recognized the urgency of addressing global warming in a 2001 statement from the US Congress of Catholic Bishops Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good
[edit] Academia
G8 science academies' statements [19]
[edit] Media
An Inconvenient Truth
Hell and High Water
Michael Crichton
The Day After Tomorrow
Are We Changing Planet Earth?
David Warren wrote in the Ottawa Citizen:
"Note that the IPCC report's conclusions were issued first, and the supporting research is now promised for several months from now. What does that tell you?" [20]
Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe:
"Global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers."
"American
politics has remained polarized. ... Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it." [21]
[edit] Timeline
1979: First World Climate Conference [22]
1987: Montreal Protocol on restricting ozone layer-damaging CFCs demonstrates the possibility of coordinated international action on global environmental issues
1988: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set up to coordinate scientific research, by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change".
1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, entering into force 21 March 1994
1996: European Union adopts target of a maximum 2°C rise in average global temperature
25 June 1997: U.S. Senate passes Byrd-Hagel Resolution rejecting Kyoto without more commitments from developing countries [23]
1997: Kyoto Protocol agreed
2001: George W. Bush withdraws from the Kyoto negotiations
16 February 2005: Kyoto Protocol comes into force (not including the US or Australia)
2005: first carbon emissions trading scheme (EU) and carbon tax (New Zealand) implemented
July 2005: 31st G8 summit has climate change on the agenda, but makes relatively little concrete progress
November/December 2005: United Nations Climate Change Conference; the first meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol, alongside the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11), to plan further measures for 2008-2012 and beyond.
July 19, 2006: In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed forming the Climate Action Board, a new, centralized authority under his direct control that would be responsible for implementing one of the nation's most far-reaching initiatives to curb global warming. California ranks 12th in the world in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, however its regulatory actions tend to have far-reaching effects throughout the U.S. [8]
30 October 2006: The Stern Review is published. It is the first comprehensive contribution to the global warming debate by an economist and its conclusions lead to the promise of urgent action by the UK government to further curb Europe's CO2 emissions and engage other countries to do so. It discusses the consequences of climate change, mitigation measures to prevent it, possible adaptation measures to deal with its consequences, and prospects for international cooperation.
[edit] References
^ Pelosi creates global warming committee, Associated Press, 1/18/07.
^ Transcript of Janine Cohen's report "The Greenhouse Mafia". 4 Corners (2006-02-13). Retrieved on 2007-01-21.
^ The Dirty
politics of Climate Change. Australia Institute (2006-02-20). Retrieved on 2007-01-21.
^ Minutes of a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group (LETAG) with the Australian Government (2006-05-06). Retrieved on 2007-01-21.
^ Australia 'must adapt' to global warming (ABC news article) (2007-02-03). Retrieved on 2007-02-03.
^ BBC News: Climate change fight 'can't wait'
^ Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals. The letter, posted on the federal Liberal party website, was apparently written by Harper in 2002, when he was leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance party. Harper's letter dismisses Kyoto as 'socialist scheme' (accessdate=2007-01-30).
^ [1]
Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap (2003), "Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy", Social Problems 50(3)
New York Times, 10 March 2005, "Evangelicals Put Climate Change High on Their Agenda: Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming"
[edit] External links
U. Colorado :
politics and Science [24]
UNFCCC
History of global warming
Global warming and media
Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming
George Monbiot, The Guardian, July 12, 2005, "Faced with this crisis: Instead of denying climate change is happening, the US now denies that we need proper regulation to stop it"
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 20 September 2005, "It would seem that I was wrong about big business: Corporations are ready to act on global warming but are thwarted by ministers who resist regulation in the name of the market"
John D. Sterman and Linda Booth Sweeney (undated) "Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter"
OpenDemocracy.net the
politics of climate change
Amanda Griscom Little, Grist Magazine, July 20, 2005, "The Revolution Will Be Localized"
Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich, Free Market Foundation, April 4, 2006, Weatherproofing African economies against climate change
the IwantCleanAir site California Global Warming Solutions Act Will Be Law
Senators sound alarm on climate - Christina Bellantoni, Washington Times - January 31, 2007
[edit] Environmental groups
http://www.panda.org/climate/ — the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
http://www.worldwatch.org/topics/energy/climate/ — Worldwatch Institute
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change — Greenpeace
Stop Climate Chaos - Coalition of UK charities
http://www.fightglobalwarming.com — Environmental Defense
CutCO2.org - Independent information source
[edit] Business
Carbon Disclosure Project [25], supported by over 150 institutional investors, aims for transparency on companies' greenhouse gas emissions
