Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show 1 Posted 2 days, 16 hours ago
What to make of the new climate poll 38 Posted 3 days, 1 hour ago
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’? 7 Posted 3 days, 9 hours ago
I propose establishing an aggressive economy wide cap and trade program to reverse emissions growth starting in 2010. After that, we will progress to more rapid reductions and end at 65 percent below 2000 emissions by the year 2050.
That's by far the most aggressive proposal for reducing CO2 emissions I've heard from any major politician.
More on the speech later.
(You can listen to an mp3 of the speech here.)
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
ffletcher Posted 4:45 pm
26 Jun 2006
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:54 pm
26 Jun 2006
(And, of course, to boost his approval ratings on the left.)
www.grist.org
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:24 pm
26 Jun 2006
You are both correct. Starting in 2010 is a meaningless idea. Sigh. If we have about 10 years to make a difference, and we don't "start" for four years (ha! who wants to bet the deadline would be missed), than we are getting ready to jump into the quicksand (gee, we have plenty of time to get out!).
patrick
Permalink
Ana Unruh Cohen Posted 2:04 am
27 Jun 2006
I think both formulations aim to hold steady our greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, which is pretty ambitious thing to do in the next 4 years given our emissions have been increasing each year for the past few decades.
These bills are important for more than just symbolic reasons. Laws often start out years before as symbolic bills that are gradually refined and/or accepted when the time is right.
Permalink