"US Rejects EU Emissions Targets U.S. President George W. Bush's environmental adviser said the U.S. rejects the European Union's all-encompassing target on reduction of carbon emissions.
James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told reporters that the U.S. isn't against setting goals but prefers to focus them on specific sectors, such as reducing dependence on gasoline and cleaner coal. "The U.S. has different sets of targets," he said.
Germany, which holds the European Union and G8 presidencies, is proposing a so-called "two-degree" target, whereby global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50% below 1990 levels by 2050."
SFO Magazine
One might argue that CO2 is a better measure of the greenhouse issue than temperature. The later is hard to measure on a global scale, whilst CO2 is easily and accurately measured -- and diffuses universally throughout the atmosphere. It is also more critical than temperature. (My openion) Our economic focus is predictably late but just hopefully strong enough to make for a "better late than never" energy policy. Gasoline and coal seem like a credible focus. I would think that energy independence would be attractive even to Rush.
James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told reporters that the U.S. isn't against setting goals but prefers to focus them on specific sectors, such as reducing dependence on gasoline and cleaner coal. "The U.S. has different sets of targets," he said.
Germany, which holds the European Union and G8 presidencies, is proposing a so-called "two-degree" target, whereby global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50% below 1990 levels by 2050."
SFO Magazine
One might argue that CO2 is a better measure of the greenhouse issue than temperature. The later is hard to measure on a global scale, whilst CO2 is easily and accurately measured -- and diffuses universally throughout the atmosphere. It is also more critical than temperature. (My openion) Our economic focus is predictably late but just hopefully strong enough to make for a "better late than never" energy policy. Gasoline and coal seem like a credible focus. I would think that energy independence would be attractive even to Rush.
Comments