Accounting and Accountability
Meanwhile, reports the Post:
Bush's senior environmental adviser, James L. Connaughton, told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, that the country does not have to regulate such pollutants because it is on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent relative to the gross domestic product by 2012.This is the old GHG emissions intensity canard, which masks the fact that in absolute terms, emissions are still on track to increase, whereas scientists say we have to reduce emissions by a full 70 percent if we hope to pull back from the brink of a destabilized global climate. In other words, we're going the wrong direction.

2 Comments:
I would gladly write letters to my senators, congressmen, other powers that be, to get the ball rolling with GHG emissions reductions legislation, but I need to have my facts straight. What scientists are saying 70% reduction must take place? What models are they working from, how are they getting their predictions, and where can I get more information? The public is not getting enough information to be mobilized to action. Maybe they don't want to know, they'd rather just watch "Top Model" and leave their heads in the sand.
The best place I can think to start is Al Gore's new film (and book). For a concise synthesis of the science (complete with great visual aids), it's hard to beat. If you want more, try Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers. Good luck. And thanks for the note.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main