posted 09-06-2002 10:34 AM            

Powell Jeered at Development Summit
Johannesburg Accord Passes; Activists Say U.S. Watered It Down

key paragraph:

"The United States is taking action to meet environmental challenges, including global climate change, not just rhetoric," Powell said as the protesters erupted in more boos and the police removed about a dozen. "We are committed to a multibillion-dollar program to develop and deploy advanced technologies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions."

So where are those intrepid reporters of the American "free" press asking questions as to just what this MITIGATION program is? They probably couldn't get the clearance of their handlers.

Could this multi-billions dollar commitment be the whitening of our skies with atmospheric aerosols? It certainly isn't through a reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases.

Don't bother to ask about the health consequences.

But it does seem to me that you are allowed to ask just where that money is going...it is your tax dollars.

Of the people, by the people, for the people.

posted 09-06-2002 10:48 AM            

"In one country in this region, Zimbabwe, the lack of respect for human rights and rule of law has [helped] push millions of people toward the brink of starvation." Boooooo!

"In the face of famine, several governments in Southern Africa have prevented critical U.S. food assistance from being distributed to the hungry by rejecting biotech corn." Hisssssss!

The big story coming out of this week's World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg seems to be that Colin Powell was booed. This is being chalked up by some as one more global U.S. embarrassment, but the closer we inspect this event the more it looks like Colin Powell's finest hour. As the quotes above suggest, he was booed for telling the truth.

And contrary to predictions that the U.S. would be isolated at the conference, its outcome looks to be a remarkable American success. A delegation led by Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky negotiated a document that even we could actually sign and that might do the world some good. As an added benefit, the spectacle further highlighted the moral bankruptcy of the anti-globalization left. A Secretary of State who gets booed by the supporters of Zimbabwean thug Robert Mugabe and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez must be doing something right.

All the more so because the usual suspects -- including the European Commission and some EU member states -- had hoped to use the conference as a forum to bash America and the market economy. A number of Powell hecklers got their $1,000 plane tickets by way of EU travel grants for "non-governmental organizations."

The first smart U.S. decision was to keep President Bush away, showing he'd learned from his father's embarrassment at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Then the U.S. delegation, with notable support from Australia, quietly bypassed the Europeans and worked out deals with developing countries, virtually all of whom have no interest in forgoing economic growth in order to assuage First World guilt. Ignored, for example, were European suggestions for targets on the amount of energy produced by "renewable" sources that even rich countries can't afford.

Instead the final document stresses the importance of "affordable" energy, as well as trade and honest governance as engines of economic growth -- themes the Bush Administration raised at the U.N.'s Monterrey summit in March and in Doha last November. Where First World commitments were made, they are concrete and achievable, such as a 2015 target date for getting clean water and sanitation systems to at least half of the 2.4 billion people who now lack them. Contrast this with the airy ambition of such dreams as the Kyoto global warming pact, which have the effect of making greens feel good about themselves in the comfort of Hamburg but do nothing for poor Africans who die of malaria and cholera.

Small wonder the world's self-styled environmentalists were less than pleased. "We should never have such shameful summits again," said Richard Navarro of Friends of the Earth. "The reaction to Colin Powell's speech is a very accurate reflection of the anger of non-governmental organizations at the role played by the United States at this conference," said Remi Parmentier of Greenpeace.

So much for complaints about the "lack of U.S. leadership." What really upsets these folks is the fact that the U.S. was leading, only in a pro-growth, pro-trade direction they don't like. Clean water may not make great fodder for Greenpeace's alarmist fund-raising letters to aging liberals in Hollywood. But it will make a difference in the lives of millions of the world's poor. Colin Powell should hope he gets booed like this every year.

posted 09-06-2002 05:09 PM            

Well isn't that special.

After all these years is it that diffult for you to comprehend that, maybe, just maybe, there is a definite link between ChemTrails and the now acknowledged rapid heating of the planet?

And do you think that the most powerful government, of the largest consuming and polluting country, on earth would just sit by and watch this happen?

Or do you think that they would invest billions of dollars on mitigation programs?

And just what are those programs?

Where is the ROI?

Who ran the cost benefits analysis?

posted 09-08-2002 06:35 PM            

I believe that one of these days we're going to have brand new types of cars that are going to make us less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil, and we'll be more better at cleaning our air.
-- Imagine how "more better" we will be. Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Apr. 15, 2002

Imagine how less dependent America will be on foreign sources of energy, and how more easy it'll be to clean up our air.
-- Imagine just how "more easy" it will be. Washington, D.C., Feb. 25, 2002

One of these days, this little lady right here is going to be driving an automobile with a hybrid engine in it, and a fuel cell in it. And it's going to work. And I hope I'm around to see it, too.
-- Hybrid cars already exist today Dubya - see them while you're still around, Washington, D.C., Feb. 25, 2002

FIREFIGHTER ED HALL: "Mr. President, it really is an honor to meet you, but you don't have to drill for oil in the Arctic."
DUBYA: "Yeah, then we'll run out of energy."
-- How Dubya reacted to an impassioned message to spare the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil development, a project which is in no way intended to serve as America's sole energy source, and a message made by a firefighter who served in the World Trade Center cleanup operation, Jan. 2002

Because if the economies of the world come back, we might be in a tight again, in which case we're going to be wondering where was the energy policy that the President was arguing for back in the year 2001.
-- Dubya will be wondering about himself along with us if the world economy comes back, town hall meeting, Orlando, Florida, Dec. 4, 2001

And we need to modernize the infrastructure that develops energy from point A to point B, from plant to consumer. We need to get after it.
-- Infrastructure given animate chracteristics, and usual ambiguous use of "it", remarks to the National Association of Manufacturers, Oct. 31, 2001

But even more efficient, however, is the transference of heat and cool as a result of circulating water below the -- it's called thermal heating and cooling -- okay
-- Demonstrating his command of basic home heating, Crawford, Texas, Aug. 25. 2001

We want to reduce greenhouse gases. Ours is a large economy. We used to generate more wealth than we are today. And as a result, we do contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
-- Press conference with Tony Blair, London, July 19, 2001

Natural gas needs to move in our hemisphere. It needs to move easily across our borders to find markets, to be able to ease the pressures of reduced supply all around the country.
-- Characterizing natural gas as having a human sense of purpose, Department of Energy, June 28, 2001

We also need to conserve more, and conservation comes as a result of new technologies.
-- to John King, CNN interview, Apr. 25, 2001

It would be helpful if we opened up ANWR. I think it's a mistake not to. And I would urge you all to travel up there and take a look at it and you can make the determination as to how beautiful that country is.
-- Dubya making his case for oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Mar. 29, 2001

And we need a full affront on an energy crisis that is real in California and looms for other parts of our country if we don't move quickly.
-- Presidential press conference, Mar. 29, 2001

There are some monuments where the land is so widespread, they just encompass as much as possible. And the integral part of the - the precious part, so to speak, I guess all land is precious - but the part that the people uniformly would not want to spoil, will not be despoiled. But there are parts of the monument lands where we can explore without affecting the overall environment.
-- President Dubya, Mar. 13, 2001

The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants.
-- Interview with the New York Times, Jan. 14, 2001

I've been talking to Vicente Fox, the new president of Mexico... I know him... to have gas and oil sent to U.S.... so we'll not depend on foreign oil.
-- on the first Presidential debate, Oct. 3, 2000

Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods.
-- Austin, Texas, Dec. 20, 2000

It was just inebriating what Midland [Oil Company] was all about then.
-- From a 1994 interview, as quoted in First Son, by Bill Minutaglio

In terms of the CO2 issue... we will not do anything that harms our economy. Because, first things first, are the people who live in America.
-- Dubya Bush explaining who owns the rights to the Earth's environment