| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| US says carbon shift is boost to Copenhagen |
| 2009-12-09 |
| [Al Arabiya Latest] The United States said it had seized the climate initiative with a regulatory shift that labels greenhouse gases a dangerous pollutant, as a landmark conference entered a second day Tuesday. The shift by the Environmental Protection Agency was announced on the opening day of a 192-nation meeting in Copenhagen aimed at drawing up a global pact to tackle climate change amid warnings of environmental catastrophe. The U.S. move "means that we arrive at the climate talks in Copenhagen with a clear demonstration of our commitment to facing this global challenge," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said. Jackson signed orders declaring six greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, including carbon dioxide, to be pollutants that are subject to government regulation. The decision sidestepped a divided Congress and was greeted with outrage by Republicans and some U.S. business leaders. But delegates to the talks in Copenhagen said it would lend momentum to the 12-day conference. "It will only help to persuade delegates and observers from other countries that the U.S. is seriously using all the tools it has," said David Doniger, policy director of the National Resources Defense Council's climate center. "The administration has the task of persuading other countries that it is seriously tackling this issue at a time when the legislation is still working its way through Congress," he said in the Danish capital. France's climate ambassador Brice Lalonde said: "This gives additional credibility to the U.S. commitment." The impact on humanity of man-made drought, flood, storms and rising seas was spelt out Monday at the start of the meeting, which will climax with a summit attended by more than 110 leaders including U.S. President Barack Obama. "For the next two weeks, Copenhagen will be Hopenhagen," Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen said. "By the end, we must be able to deliver back to the world what was granted us here today: hope for a better future," he said. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #8 "All of us exhale CO2 when we breathe." Don't worry: Inhaling is still ok, only exhaling is not. Water vapor has a much bigger influence on climate. Stand by |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2009-12-09 19:54 |
| #7 JFM: Do the people signing up for this movement volunteer to go first? Or is it one of those "Everyone else needs to do this while we don't" movements, as usual? |
| Posted by: Charles 2009-12-09 16:42 |
| #6 All of us exhale CO2 when we breathe. So is the EPA going to regulate the breathing by animals? In fact there is a movement for voluntary extinction of mankind. Notice that doesn't necessarily mean that individual deaths are voluntary. |
| Posted by: JFM 2009-12-09 11:42 |
| #5 All of us exhale CO2 when we breathe. So is the EPA going to regulate the breathing by animals? What a bunch of morons. Plant a tree and get over this tree-hugger B.S. In the end it the administration fall back position if cap and trade doesn't pass-just have the EPA regulate the environoment. BO promised the most transparent administration; it does seem that most people are on to this administrations slight of hand. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-12-09 08:23 |
| #4 Crazyfool is right, CO2 is a fertilizer. CO2 gas enrichment is a common strategy for supercharging growth in your "closet garden". Plants BREATHE the stuff! They take in CO2 and release pure Oxygen. It's part of the circle of life. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2009-12-09 05:17 |
| #3 The impact on humanity of man-made drought, flood, Which of course will happen everywhere simultaneously. Trash peddled to morons. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-12-09 04:03 |
| #2 Well, CF, it's easier for them to pass this regulation than it is for them to stop emitting it. I'm waiting for them to go after dihydrogen minoxide next. That crap's in everything!! |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-12-09 00:48 |
| #1 So in other words the EPA labeled CO2 (aka Plant Food) a 'dangerous pollutant' purely due to POLITICAL reasons and not scientific reasons. Why am I not suprised? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-12-09 00:27 |