On Sep 6, 4:14 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > No mention on the above site about whether global warming is man-made.
>
> It doesn't make much sense to ask for recommendations on greenhouse
> gas reductions, carbon sequestration etc... without her at least
> seeing some potential benefit in doing these things.
>
> You are right, I don't see an explicit statement that CO2 is
> responsible for the warming, but that the warming is bad for Alaska
> and that lower carbon emissions are desirable is definitely in there.
>
> > >http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/cc-ak.htm
>
> > This is not really her site. It's probably not easy for a governer to
> > impose her opinions on the whole state government when they are
> > contrary to scientific consensus.
>
> While it isn't her site, it was brought into existence as a result of
> her executive order and said order also contains a list of who's on
> the commission. I presume she was perfectly free not to create a sub-
> comission on climate change. Though I may be wrong there, maybe the
> legislature forced her hand?
>
> I have certainly noticed that the language used by Democrats on
> climate change tends to be more doom laden and anti big business,
> while Republicans are less keen on damning words and blaming CO2 for
> everything. But, when looking at policy actions in terms of the
> overall effect on greenhouse gas emissions, I see that there's a wide
> range of opinions in both parties (eg on CAFE or gasoline taxes) and
> that overall the nuances in emphasis largely cancel each other out.
>
> Talking about concrete action: The main climate related concrete
> actions Palin's been involved with so far have been to push through a
> nat gas pipeline plan and hit oil companies with taxes. Nancy Pelosi
> should be happy with that. After all, Nancy Pelosi managed to make
> this statement:
>
> http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/08/25/fuel-for-debate-...
>
> “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil
> fuels"
>
> Which just goes to show that it's amazingly easy to appear to be
> saying something you don't really believe in. We'll see what kind of
> "clarification" Palin comes up with for the one sentence you quoted.
Pelosi obviously just misspoke. The obvious clarification is that she
meant that natural gas is an alternative to fossil fuels that produce
more carbon per unit energy. There is no vast left wing conspiracy to
deny that natural gas is a fossil fuel.
Senator Barry Goldwater famously said that the cruise missile was just
another ballistic missile. The Pelosi gaffe is in the same category.
Not sure how to clarify: "I'm not one though who would attribute it to
being man-made." I guess she could say that her personal opinion has
little impact on her efforts as governor.
But, for now, Palin seems to have been banned from giving interviews
by the Mccain campaign people, so hell may freeze over before she has
to clarify this.
The web pages you turned up are interesting. I am not sure that GW
Bush is on record as saying that climate change is not man-made, but
the high levels of his government seems to be at war with the idea
that climate change is man-made. Seems just the opposite with Palin.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
