Clinton calls Bush "flat wrong" in Montreal on climate vs. economy.

[NNadir]

MONTREAL - Former President Clinton told a global audience of diplomats, environmentalists and others Friday that the Bush administration is "flat wrong" in claiming that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to fight global warming would damage the U.S. economy.

With a "serious disciplined effort" to develop energy-saving technology, he said, "we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets in a way that would strengthen and not weaken our economies."

Clinton, a champion of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing emissions-controls agreement opposed by the Bush administration, spoke in the final hours of a two-week U.N. climate conference at which Washington has come under heavy criticism for its stand.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051209/ap_on_sc/climate_change_clinton_12;_ylt=AkPxcalBihLrkzIy0s9toZJrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

One would think - I certainly think - that global climate change represented a historic opportunity for the economic boost that always comes with investing in infrastructure. (This of course was very true was Clinton was President.)

Probably though, it is much too late.

Still, it is nice to see the tradition of ex-Presidents pulling punches on their successors suspended in this time of crisis. Someone has to speak the truth. This is no time for the nicety of tradition. Clinton still has the international stature to say that not all Americans are in fact Bushbots. It needs to be said as it is obvious that we are now a renegade, lawless and completely corrupt nation.

[CatBoreal]

1. At least they can't claim Clinton...

...is cheap electioneering.

TWITS!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1976568

[geckosfeet]

2. How dare he provide reasoned, literate and articulate analysis

of an issue that affects the entire world population. This is not the way of the United Corporation of Bush Co.

[DBoon]

3. but Bush wants to sell off our infrastructure

investment means tying up his rich buddie's money in things that everyone benefits from. They can't have that!

[Gman]

4. Bushco could have blasted Clinton... you know they wanted to so badly

but they didn't:

"Canadian officials said the U.S. delegation was displeased with the last-minute scheduling of the Clinton speech. But U.S. delegation chief Paula Dobriansky issued a statement saying events like Clinton's appearance 'are useful opportunities to hear a wide range of views on global climate change.'"

They also know when NOT to pick a fight.

[rfkrfk]

5. if complying with Kyoto 'strengthens economy', why is no one doing

that?

{Canada is way over their target,
the EU is close to their target, but not thru
any effort to reduce emissions.}

[NNadir]

6. The old systems will have to be replaced with newer equipment.

The old systems work but release Greenhouse gases. We know how to make systems that minimize greehouse gases, and we even know how to do that cheaply, having demonstrated these systems over many decades. Necessarily the replacement of the older systems will require human work and human investment.

Newer systems provide for construction and manufacturing jobs.

An important distinction must be made. Suppose one buys $200 billion dollars worth of war and war equipment. At the end of the day, this money provides nothing for the manufacturing infrastructure or the creation of wealth - more likely in fact it demands diversion of the existing infrastructure to replace that destroyed by war. Thus $200 billion dollars worth of war impoverishes everyone by $400 million, if the destroyed infrastructure (think Iraq) needs replacement.

On the other hand, $200 million dollars invested in building say, 100 nuclear power plants would create a demand for 800,000 worker-years of work, and at the end, one would have nuclear power plants that could provide energy for many decades and thus access to wealth. Moreover these jobs would support other jobs and the economy would so be enriched.

Likewise, new mass transit equipment, planned cities, etc, etc.

It is also obvious that events like the hurricanes, droughts, etc, etc act very much in the same way as war does. These are destructive forces, not a constructive forces.

It is really very simple and very obvious.

Why do people not do this simple and obvious thing? Because there this is a time ruled by conservativism, which is basically the idea that nothing should be tried for the first time. Actually we need to look both forward and backward, to review our experience with what works and what doesn't work. This will require flexibility, liberality, commitment, courage and open minds. These things are politically in very short supply.

The solution to global climate change necessarily involves a complete change in infrastructure. It is building, not destroying.

[rfkrfk]

7. those ideas are not free of cost

of course, that does necessarily mean that those things should
not be done, with that said,

I think that Bill Clinton is doing the
enviornmental movement a disservice,
by implying that compliance with
Kyoto will be cheap and/or easy,
it will not be.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. That's not quite what was going on

Clinton has an optimistic, "big picture" attitude: money spent and effort expended today can yield great value tomorrow. Bush's philosophy has always been that a dollar invested is a dollar lost. It is a profoundly pessimistic stance, but if Bush is privy to some of the unvarnished data concerning the Peak Oil economic phenomenon, then his pessimism and apocalyptism could well be justified.

Clinton, not being an oilman, probably takes a roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-to-work approach.

Of course, many of the enivronmentalists will dislike whatever Clinton proposes, just because he's Clinton. But his projects have had a long track record of success, with only a few notable (i.e., NAFTA) failures. If it takes Bill Clinton to get George Bush to do something responsible, I'm all for it.

The problems we face are of such gravity that I'm willing to overlook a lot of political baggage. But people like Bush are unable to try something new -- or even marginally effective. That kind of baggage won't just slow us down, it could kill us.

--p!

[rfkrfk]

9. global warming, is a tricky, difficult issue

involving,
national enacting laws,
self interest, somebody else - go first,
tax somebody else,
nobody is keeping their promise,
tax the poor, airline fuel is uncontrolled,
the poor in Africa don't deserve to have electricity,
Russia gets free money for doing nothing,

I could go on and on.
sorry, I just don't think it is helpful to say something
like 'fightinhg global warming strengthens the economy',
when that is not at all clear.

Ciao

[NNadir]

11. I don't think he said anywhere "cheap or easy." He said "wise."

I certainly didn't understand "cheap or easy."

No investment is "cheap or easy." All involve risks and problems. However he is right in the sense that making this investment it will be good for the economy.

In France they produce essentially no greenhouse gases to produce electricity, electricity being the 4th largest export in the 5th largest economy in the world. Therefore we know that this is technologically possible. This result was obtained with a barely noticable investment over a period of less than 20 years. It didn't break the bank.

[Bru]

10. One example...

"Boosting U.S. wind energy installations to approximately eight times today's levels could create 150,000 manufacturing jobs nationwide, with most jobs being added in the 20 states that have lost the most over the past three years, according to a report released today by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP)."

From: http://www.awea.org/news/news041013man.html .

Despite potential bias from the source, it reflects the common sense view that manufacturing wind turbines requires a lot of jobs. I believe wind turbines are Germany's second more prevalent steel products, though I can't find the source off-hand.

[philb]

12. Bush threatened sanctions on U.N. if Clinton was allowed to speak

on global warming

[NNadir]

13. When was this? Do you have a link?

[Truth__Seeker]

14. Fighting til their last breath....

Unfortunately, theirs could be ours as well.

<http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/15314/index.html>

[NNadir]

15. Thanks. That is unbelievable. Imagine threatening the whole world

for as little as speech.

If history continues to exist, this will go down as one of the most incredibly sick governments ever to have had control of the United States.

There is no limit to their venality, none.