We have already seen that British Conservatives "get" global warming -- both the danger of inaction and the economic opportunity of a "green revolution."
Now the right wing cheese-eating surrender monkeys are also putting their American political counterparts to shame. As Nature reports about the new conservative French president:
Sarkozy made the greening of France a major plank of his election campaign this year. He has since created a superministry for ecology, biodiversity and sustainable development, with responsibility for the powerful sectors of transport, energy and construction -- a first in France, where ecology was previously off the political radar.
Yet it seems inconceivable a U.S. conservative politician could take such action, or agree to the following remarkable proposals now under active consideration in France:
- All newly built homes to produce more energy than they consume by 2020. Renovate all existing buildings to save energy. Ban incandescent light bulbs by 2010. Reduce greenhouse-gas emission by 20% by 2020.
- Increase renewable energy from 9% to 20-25% of total energy consumption by 2020.
- Bring transport emissions back to 1990 levels. Reduce vehicle speed limits by 10 kilometres per hour. Taxes and incentives to favour clean cars. Shift half of haulage by road to rail and water within 15 years. Develop rail and public transport.
- Reduce air pollutants quantitatively.
- Create a national network of "green" corridors and nature reserves.
- Increase organic farming from 2% to 6% of total acreage production by 2010 and to 20% by 2020.
- Ecological groups to be stakeholders, like trade unions, in government negotiations.
- Create a body to review planting of genetically modified crops on a case-by-case basis.
We must join the climate fight soon, lest some French satricial TV show label us "Freedom-Fry-eating polar-bear killers."
Tip o' the hat to Earl Killian for pointing this story out to me.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets
Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 10:13 am
09 Oct 2007
Hopefully she won't treat us to the sight of her pear shaped bod in a Wicked Weasel micro-bikini.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Karen Street Posted 3:03 pm
09 Oct 2007
Indeed, how is it 9% today?
Replacing nuclear with wind means replacing nuclear with wind + inefficient natural gas backup, increasing GHG emissions. If the increase comes from biofuels, there will be environmental consequences in that time frame, including possibly increasing GHG emissions -- cutting down tropical forests to produce biofuels may not reduce GHG emissions.
So they will be replacing ??? with hydro? Building new hydro rather than just nuclear?
Please provide more details.
A Musing Environment
Karen Street
Permalink
KenG Posted 3:13 pm
09 Oct 2007
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:38 pm
09 Oct 2007
I agree that if the increase comes from liquid biofuels, there will be environmental consequences, including possibly increasing GHG emissions. But the tide of public opinion in France, as well as in the EU in general, is turning against biofuels. Politicians pander much less to the idea that biofuels are the answer to energy independence; and even the European Commission maintains (though nobody believes them) that the EU's biofuel support policies have NOTHING to do with boosting farm incomes. The main justification has been GHG-reduction benefits, and those are now being questioned. As in the USA, there is a momentum behind biofuels that will keep the juggernaut moving forward for another year, but I predict that political support will start slipping away very quickly.
As for the rest of France's policies, there is already considerable support for what the French call "agriculture raisonnable", which is not quite organic, but on the road to it. Meanwhile, long over-due enforcement of speed limits has already saved lives on the road and, I assume (though I haven't seen the figures), improved fuel economy. Then there is the astounding success of the Velib' urban bicycle networks in Paris and Lyon, ...
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:35 pm
09 Oct 2007
Anyone else for voting him off the island?
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 10:04 pm
09 Oct 2007
John: more people would pay attention to what you say if you take the high road. If that sounds condescending, I don't mean it to. Consider it a "word to the wise".
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:32 pm
09 Oct 2007
Then again, there may be some kind of development going on within French borders, which is dangerously restricting wildlife to unviable islands, rather as natural gas development in the US state of Wyoming is adversely affecting some birds and mammals. But I do not know enough about European wildlife to guess what that might be about.
As for the Gristmill island, and Bart's proposal:
I think I would not vote to ostracize our dear Brother John. If juvenility and stupidity are justifications for axing, then I should have been axed long ago; so I am feeling fearfully for my own neck here.
The sexism is indeed nasty, and not to be encouraged. But after all, it is only a couple of steps beyond what the MSM are prepared to subject Hillary to, as indeed they already have done. Nor did poor Segolene Royal escape such comments as, "Her hair always seems dirty."
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:01 am
10 Oct 2007
The comparison is valid.
Segolene Royale was touted for more than a year as the Liberal answer to all Frances problems.
Much mention was made by all parties of how "sexy" she was.
A famous picture of her in a bikini was floated by all major press organs for day after day.
I therefore (humorously) make an analogy between Hillary and Segolene, as Segolene was defeated by a more serious Conservative candidate -- Conservative in the sense of hard nosed.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:03 am
10 Oct 2007
I would really watch what you write about me. Your misinterpretation of my words -- meant satirically -- could be grounds for a lawsuit -- and that goes for any Grist counter-poster who labels me or misrepresents my statements.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:47 am
10 Oct 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:56 am
10 Oct 2007
the satire continues
I have video records of the trial right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf2p964uHDs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnBlknT2DA0
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:00 am
10 Oct 2007
Permalink
Steve Erickson Posted 4:05 am
10 Oct 2007
Steve E.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:36 am
10 Oct 2007
"You'd best read up on the relevant laws."
libel
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/7613C25C-8E5D-47A ...
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink