Oct. 31, 2006 - 20:38 MST

A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

We are amid a dilemma that can have disastrous results no matter which way things go. Outlined a bit today in this morning's Rocky Mountain News an article by Thomas Wagner of the Associated Press Quoted here in full:

Britain issues dire warning on global greenhouse gases

LONDON -- "Raising the stakes in the global warming dispute with the United States and China, Britain issued a sweeping report Monday Warning that the Earth faces a calamity on the scale of world wars and the Great Depression unless urgent action is taken."

"The British government also said former Vice President Al Gore has agreed to provide advice on climate change -- a clear indication of Prime Minister Tony Blair's growing dissatisfaction with U.S. environmental policy."

"The 700 page report argues that environmentalism and economic growth can go hand in hand in the battle against global warming."

"It also says that if no action is taken, rising sea levels, heavier floods and more intense droughts could displace 200 million people by the middle of the century."

"The report said unabated climate change eventually would cost the equivalent of between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product each year."

"The report by Sir Nicholas Stern, a senior government economist, represents a huge contrast to the U.S. government's wait-and-see policies."

"Blair called for "bold and decisive action" to cut carbon emissions and stem the worst of the temperature rise."

"Stern said acting now to cut greenhouse gas emissions would cost about 1 percent of global GDP each year."

"The benefits of strong early action considerably outweigh the costs," he said. "We can grow and be green."

"Blair, Stern and Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who commissioned the report, emphasized that the battle against global warming can succeed only with the cooperation of major countries such as the United States and China."

"President Bush kept the United States -- by far the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming -- out of the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, saying the pact would harm the U.S. economy."

"Blair, Bush's top ally in the Iraq war, has indicated that U.S. policies on climate change are unacceptable."

"Kristen A. Hellmer, deputy director for communiciations at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said Bush "has long recognized that climate change is a serious issue, and he has committed the U.S. to advancing and investing in the new technologies to help address this problem."

"The U.S. she said, "is well on track to meet the president's goal to reduce greenhouse gas intensity of our economy 18 percent by 2012."

"Gore's office said that in his unpaid role as an adviser, he would offer Britain's Treasury his thoughts on developments in climate change science, new technologies for cutting emissions and ways of making the needed changes happen quickly."

"At a news conference, Stern said U.S. cooperation is vital in fighting global warming, and Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said she would advise the Bush administration that climate change is an "urgent issue that has to be tackled."

"But Blair and the report also said that no matter what Britain, the U.S. and Japan do, the battle cannot succeed without deciding when and how to control greenhouse gas emissions by such fast-industrializing giants as China and India."

+++++++++++++++++++++

There is a box in the article that is interesting too, also quoted in full:

GETTING DIRTIER

Percentage change in greenhouse gases, 1990 to 2004, among the nations whose emissions increased:

## Turkey 72.0 percent

## Spain 49.0 percent

## Portugal 41.0 percent

## Canada 26.6 percent

## Greece 26.6 percent

## Australia 25.1 percent

## Ireland 23.1 percent

## New Zealand 21.3 percent

##Lichtenstein 18.5 percent

## U.S. 15.8 percent"

++++++++++++++++++++

No figures quoted on China and India in that box. Interesting.

I wonder about that quote from Kristen Helmer, "The U.S. she said, "is well on track to meet the president's goal to reduce greenhouse gas intensity of our economy 18 percent by 2012." Anybody have an idea of whether she is trying to add apples and cabbages ? ? ? ?

"It appears that each political side of this question has assembled a group of high falutin' scientists who say what that party wants to hear - - - or am I wrong ?

I do know that even now, in the middle of the day from Denver it is hard to see the mountains due to the smog and pollution. I remember, on the way home from third shift work, back in 1990, cresting the hill on I-25 above 88th Avenue and looking across the Denver basin and almost regurgitating at the sight of the pollution blanketing the town knowing I was going down into it to my residence. And all this has been happening when industry has all but fled the area, but autos have been multiplying faster than rabbits.

Several years ago when we lived on the east side of Denver, near Alameda Avenue and Monaco Parkway, rush hour traffic would kick up my allergies due to the heavy traffic on both arteries. This is here, I can imagine what it is in cities that have many factories and towns heavily into petroleum refining.

Mr. Bush might have been wise to keep us out of the Kyoto treaty -- from what I hear from sources I consider reliable, those who signed the agreement have not cut back their emissions.

But somehow, our world scientists and experts better get it together and quit that damnable tomcat fighting and come up with a sensible solution. Isn't that why the world has scientists and experts ?

The way it seems to me is that now we are between A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .