We hoped that Michael Steele, the new Chairman of the Republican Party, would push Republican leaders in Washington to rethink their antagonistic approach to global warming legislation. Sadly, instead of following the lead of Republicans like Governor Crist and Governor Schwarzenegger, Chairman Steele is following Rush Limbaugh, Senator McConnell and their friends down the wrong path. For the future of this country and the future of his party, he should stop making nonsensical statements like this:"We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process."
Photo and quote from Talking Points Memo.
1 comments:
Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen.
Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gases emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way.
“Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress.
Post a Comment