When Richard Nixon first visited China back in 1972, his journey seemed far longer than the seven thousand miles that actually separate Washington from Beijing. He was bridging the gap between two worlds separated for a generation.
President Nixon understood that such a moment demanded a dramatic signal to drive home a new diplomatic reality. To do that, he chose a simple gesture, but one laden with meaning. Zhou Enlai, China's premier, had nursed a grudge ever since Secretary of State John Foster Dulles refused to shake his hand back in 1954. And so, when Nixon walked out onto the tarmac in Beijing, he took several steps toward Zhou with his hand obviously, unmistakably outstretched. The message was clear -- and powerful -- and it marked a watershed in US China relations.
Our two nations have just met again at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the most important forum in our bilateral relationship. Only this time, it's not just our geopolitics that are changing -- but the earth itself. Global climate change poses a real and present danger of environmental destruction and human dislocation on a scale we've never seen.
America and China must change the world again. But this time a handshake alone won't get the job done: nothing less than a complete and collaborative transformation of the global energy economy will be enough.
Between our peoples, especially on the subject of climate change, there is still mistrust and misunderstanding: too many Americans are convinced that China won't lift a finger to fight climate change, or that China will hurt us economically if we do. Similarly, too many in China fear that the United States is merely attempting to smother China's economic rise. And too many in the world believe that neither country will take credible and necessary action.
I believe all the doubters are wrong -- but it's up to us to craft a partnership with China that proves them wrong. What's needed are simple gestures, backed by strong actions and concrete decisions, to move forward in a new direction.
And make no mistake, unless we act dramatically -- and act fast -- science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Just the basics: In the industrial era, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen from 280 to 385 parts per million. Scientists have drawn a red line at 450ppm -- which represents a warming of 2 degrees Celsius. Anything beyond that presents an unacceptable risk. But unless we take dramatic action -- now -- we are actually headed to 1,000 ppm by century's end. And today, over 40% of those emissions belong to the United States and China.
Undeniably, all of us must do more to meet it. But China and America -- the world's largest emitter today and history's largest cumulative emitter -- have a special responsibility. 192 nations will gather this December in Copenhagen to hammer out a new global climate treaty. Two will set the tone and define what is possible. The crucial question is: can America and China forge a partnership capable of acting boldly enough to prevent a climate catastrophe? Science tells us, the answer had better be "yes."
The good news is that the potential is there. In May, I visited China and met with political and military leaders, energy executives, scientists, students, and environmentalists to gauge China's seriousness and build momentum toward a deal this December. What I found was a country that had undergone a sea change. Today, Chinese investment in renewable capacity is second in the world only to Germany. They have tripled their wind capacity goals in the last two years. In the last three years, China has improved its energy intensity by 10%. China has publicly announced its intention to become the world's number one producer of electric cars. Leaders who weren't even willing to entertain this discussion ten years ago are now equally unequivocal -- only this time, they're arguing that China grasps the urgency and is ready to be a "positive, constructive" player in international climate talks.
It's an impressive turnaround, but aspirational statements alone are no substitute for legal commitments on the international stage. China needs to understand that we will not enter into a global treaty without a meaningful commitment from China to be part of the solution.
Ultimately, our climate diplomacy depends on building a framework that is flexible enough to accommodate individual countries' wants and needs, but firm enough to bring all of us on board and hold all nations accountable. That is the challenge we face: one that will be made easier as people everywhere begin to realize that in the twenty-first century, the challenge of developing clean energy sources isn't a brake on economic growth -- it is the engine.
When we look back on these upcoming years, I want to be able to tell a story in which America's climate partnership with China becomes the clear beginning of a new era: where Americans embrace clean energy -- where a 21st-century grid supports cutting-edge energy technology that modernizes America and creates millions of new jobs -- where billions of Indians and Chinese are lifted out of poverty and see clean energy as an opportunity for development -- and where diplomacy warms up, but the planet doesn't, because the world's two largest emitters came together to take responsibility and deliver change.
Those are the stakes, and this can be our world. But it won't happen by accident. When Nixon visited China, he quoted some writings from China's leader: "Time passes. Ten thousand years are too long. Seize the day, seize the hour." We made real progress at this week's meetings, but we don't have ten thousand years to fix climate change -- we don't even have ten years. If we want to create the US-China climate partnership the world needs, China needs, and America needs, we have to seize the day. We have to seize the hour. We have to act, because otherwise the debate of the 1950's over 'who lost China' will be a twenty first century debate over 'who lost the Earth?'
Here in New Zealand the biggest problem for us with this ' world Kyoto/Copenhagen emmissions control/ exchange program ' is that our dairy cows are emmitting too much methane/carbon ( by belching and farting ) !!!
These schemes are a worldwide con trick and the Emissions Unit would soon default to a currency....probably the Euro....since it would all be controlled off European computers.
Then, as the price of carbon goes up, the Financiers will make a fortune trading Carbon Credits.
The world was on a warming cycle since about 1700 - and has been cooling more steeply, since 1998.
There is no CO2 threat, but best allround to just clean the place up and plant more trees.
If this is about cap and trade it is a joke. We can cap and trade our way into another recession if we like; it will have no impact on the enormous amounts of methane coming from earth's cities, from the already melting permafrost or CO2 from China, India, Asia, and all the rest of the developing world. Cap and Trade is an exercise in political correctness, tilting at windmill's, nothing more.
If you were really serious about climate change you would push for solar and wind energy, you would push for research and manufacturing small point of use generation units for the U.S. and the rest of the developing world .... instead we get large centralized power stations which have been proven to waste... we would be selling small point of use generators to china as fast as we could make them.. but we are not.. why is that senator? could it be that there is not the opportunity for as much graft and corruption there?? it's much easier for a government to pick the pockets of a public dependant of it for energy than one that makes it's own energy..
Thanks for sharing your "insight."
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:32 AM
To: Butler, Keith (Mayor's Office)
Subject: Idea to save the county millions$$
Good Day
I bring good news in this time of budget cuts...
What would you say If I gave you an Idea that will save the county and cities within it millions per year, you dont have to invent anything, or fire anyone, just implement said idea.
In a nut shell, each light post costs over $10.00 to burn each night, granted they are on for security reasons. But the thing is they dont need to burn all night long to provide said security if you changed the Dawn sensor for a Motion sensor that overlap each light pole. that way when Mrs. Alvarez walks her pooch at night, the light pole would turn on 50 Ft ahead of her, remain on for a few minutes, as she walks on, the lighs ahead will come on automatically and after 12 minutes or so they would turn off thus saving the county and city millions!!!
What do you think? Bad Idead? Good Idead? Needs work. There it is just think about it a moment.
Mr. Martinez
Lighting costs
Approximate amount each city spends on street lighting in a year:
Four examples of waste in Small cities on the state of Alabama
• Florence: $590,000 There are 3,438 street lights in Florence
• Muscle Shoals: $372,000
• Tuscumbia: $185,000
• Sheffield: $207,000
Residential areas are restricted to 100-watt bulbs. Only in high-traffic areas, do lights have a higher wattage, between 250 and 400.
For residential streets, 175-watt mercury or 100-watt, high-pressure sodium lights are used. 400-watt, high-pressure sodium lights along major boulevards,20% light the rest is heat.
Metal Halide lamps are more efficient than their parent, the mercury vapor arc lamp. They can be as much as 50% efficient in turning electricity into light. The other 50% is given of as heat.
I say lets get motion sensors installed on those street lights, save a ton of money. Burn less carbon fuel. Reduce light pollution. Reduce… Oh never mind it’s not worth a mouse fart.
Since Gore, IPCC and others are sponsored by that same Rockefeller Syndicate, this has nothing to do with climate change (formerly known as global warming), it has everything to do with global depopulation. Here is the MAN addressing some UN meeting and you should listen carefully to his words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8 . And this dear MAN also runs the "Laboratory of the Populations" out of Rock. U. in NY.
Late last year, the IPCC held a meeting in Europe. Daimler donated 21 of the Hydrogen 7 BMW's to ferry the delegates back and forth. This UN contingent was riding on the very TECHNOLOGY that restores the ENVIRONMENT perfectly. Break the hydrogen atom off the water molecule, flow the hydrogen gas against a fuel cell membrane with oxygen on the other side causes an electrical spark as the water molecule reforms. Do this a gazillion times on a fuel cell membrane creates an electrical current that runs electric motors that runs your transportation. But that man Rockefeller (Exxon) is not about to let the hydrogen fuel cell gas pumps on to their gas station lots.
So Mr. Keery, grab Gore and read a book and then you might realize that you have been CONNED!
But the huge methane reserve you hear about are from hydrofracking shale to force it to release captive gas. This will not help, and is incredibly damaging environmentally.
BioFuels, particularly BioChar, can convert all our organic wastes into energy, fuels and carbon negative fertilizer.
Add rooftop solar to that, at 3 cents per KWH, and we can provide all the energy and fuels we need, cleanly, cheaply, safely forever.
"Even with their gargantuan effort, the oil company still felt slighted in the version of the climate bill that passed the House last month (coal and agriculture got far more free permits to pollute than the oil company). Perhaps they at least got a consolation prize? Maybe an "I Spent $15 Million on Lobbying and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt" tee, or something?"
"Because that's how much the oil giant shelled out--$14.9 million over the last six months. As Bloomberg points out, that's a solid 23% more than the $12.1 million clean energy companies spent all told. Altogether, oil and gas companies spent $82.2 million on Washington lobbyists, dwarfing the wind, solar, and biofuel companies that nonetheless spent more than ever before."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/09/lobbyblog_n_228657.html