Gore Tells Senate Committee We Need New Global Climate Treaty
And we're live from Union Station in Washington, DC! I just came from Dirksen Senate Office Building, where I was one of about 75 people who didn't get into today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing featuring Al Gore. Fortunately, Catherine Bowes, NWF program director for global warming, and several intrepid interns got to Dirksen at the crack of dawn and were able to get into the hearing.
Gore told the committee that America must retake its leadership role on climate action:
"In order to repower our economy, restore American economic and moral leadership in the world and regain control of our destiny, we must take bold action now," he said in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The Nobel laureate, who won an Oscar for his global-warming book turned documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," said Washington had to lead the world heading into global climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
If Congress "acts right away" to pass Obama's stimulus plan and "takes decisive action this year" to cap carbon emissions, the US delegation to the Danish capital will enjoy "renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective treaty," said the former vice president.
"And this treaty must be negotiated this year. Not next year. This year," he warned in the written remarks.
National Wildlife Federation President & CEO Larry Schweiger said today, "Other countries have begun to act – and they have waited long enough for the United States to step up and do our part. We have a moral obligation to lead on this crucial issue and an economic imperative to ensure that the world’s next generation of energy solutions carry a Made-in-America label."
Finally, there was one benefit to getting shut out of the hearing room. I was able to join the scrum of photojournalists camped outside Sen. Kerry's office waiting for Vice President Gore to emerge. Note that the hearing room is already full -- all those people waiting outside were doing so on the off chance they might get in. Talk about a hot ticket (no pun intended)!
Great quote by Schweiger, and so true.
Posted by: Kate | January 28, 2009 at 12:44 PM
I don't know if it will come to pass, but as I understand a carbon tax would be much more effective way to go than cap & trade program. Obama favors the cap & trade approach, but it seems that a carbon tax would work well and now it even has the backing of Exxon-Mobile. But is this idea even on the agenda to be included in part of a new global climate treaty?
Posted by: Kip | January 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Kip, David Roberts just had a good analysis of the cap-and-invest vs. carbon tax debate over at Gristmill ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/24/18333/1702
Posted by: Miles | January 28, 2009 at 01:34 PM
Please do not let the climate protection legislation get hijacked by the advocates of new nuclear plants. While operation of such plants is "carbon-free," any investment in new nuclear plants will actually RETARD climate protection. How? It has been demonstrated (by Amory Lovins and others) that the SAME investment in already-proven low-carbon energy-efficiency technologies would purchase far greater carbon-dioxide reduction, per delivered unit of useful energy -- and do it much faster, reliably, and safely too. Moreover, energy efficiency is a relatively low-tech strategy that the world could readily and gratefully copy. Everyone needs to recognize new nuclear investment as an OBSTACLE, not a genuine aid, to climate protection. For details, read the Lovins-Sheikh paper, "The Nuclear Illusion," at www.rmi.org --- preprint of the paper soon to be published in the Royal Academy of Science journal, AMBIO.
Posted by: Egan Oconnor | January 28, 2009 at 07:17 PM