| Home > Community Forum > Christian Aid: Climate change a 'deadly threat' /Action Opportunity « Previous Entry | Next Entry » |
May 16, 2006
Christian Aid: Climate change a 'deadly threat' /Action Opportunity
by Faithful Progressive
The scale of the threat of global warming was set forth in a recent report from the group Christian Aid. c/o BBC News: Climate change a 'deadly threat'
The Christian Aid charity has warned that 184 million people in Africa alone could die as a result of climate change before the end of the century.
Climate-induced floods, famine, drought and conflict could reverse recent gains in reducing poverty, it says. Its report says rich nations must aid poorer ones to adopt non-fossil-fuel energy sources such as solar power.
The report comes as almost 190 states gather in Bonn, Germany, to discuss climate change.
The Christian Aid report, entitled The Climate of Poverty: Facts, Fears and Hopes, says rich countries must end their dependence on fossil fuels and aid poorer nations to switch to wind, solar and wave energies. "Climate change is taking place and will inevitably continue," the report says.
"Poor people will take the brunt, so we are calling on rich countries to help them adjust as the seas rise, the deserts expand, and floods and hurricanes become more frequent and intense."
The author of the report, John McGhie, said that for $50bn (£26bn) the whole of sub-Saharan Africa could be turned into a solar-generated economy.
"And $50bn is exactly the same amount as actually the continent would have to pay on extra fuel bills from oil," he said.
Take action c/o ELCA Advocacy:
The House Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, meanwhile, takes an important first step by calling for “a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases.” Although Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning - by far the largest share of any country. In order for the United States to take a leading role in addressing climate change, Congress must pass legislation that places mandatory caps on U.S. emissions. This Wednesday, there will be a vote to strike this provision from the bill. Urge your Members of Congress to vote against striking the climate provision from the Interior and Environment bill.
Tell Congress to Protect Our Water and Reduce Greenhouse Gases!
Key Votes Expected on Interior Bill This Week
Posted by Faithful Progressive at May 16, 2006 01:57 PM
Comments
Market-based? That is the first error. The market will not limit itself.
"The poor" should also include the poor people in this and other rich nations. Indeed, we'd all do better if more solar and other environmentally friendly sources of power were utilized.
I've been a big advocate of solar power and other alternate energy sources for many years. I would LOVE to have enough PV solar panels so I could provide my own power.
In countries like India (where deforestation is a big problem), solar power and devices like solar ovens would be a huge positive change in the lives of the ordinary people- and even more so in the lives of the poor. Solar power could be a huge source of income for desert countries where there are limited natural resources! They could export their power to the countries that don't have as much sun days.
Let's put a big positive spin on this (and a true spin!). It could be a big selling point!
Posted by: Bob Bowers at May 16, 2006 03:48 PM
The market will limit itself if the penalties for not are severe enough.
Solar energy is a great thing, but its only one piece of a big puzzle. Other renewable resources like wind, tidal, and biomass are critical, as is further discussion on the merits of nuclear-fission based power and hydroelectric power, and further research into nuclear fusion based power.
Posted by: john g at May 16, 2006 04:15 PM
If only people like Sen. Ted Kennedy weren't standing in the way of our progress...
Posted by: The Joker at May 17, 2006 10:32 PM
Sen. Ted Kennedy??????????????
You have me confused. I wasn't aware that he had anything to do with energy policy.
Now, Bush standing in the way- I would completely agree with that!
Posted by: Bob Bowers at May 18, 2006 12:43 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12066651/from/ET/
I wish Mitt Romney would get out of the way of our progress also...
Posted by: The Joker at May 18, 2006 03:10 PM
Sigh. You're right. I must admit that I've never liked or accepted Kennedy, and I've found that some of the things he stood for were dangerous to liberty. What he did was just plain wrong, and hurtful to the people on the island.
It sounds like a case of the elites wrecking the lives of the average person for their own greed.
However, I must also say that the regulatory requirements that were complained about are necessary, and I would say in some cases (especially dealing with big developers) need to be made tougher.
They find ways around the rules so they can put up huge developments, and then run when these developments have big problems (like being built on a flood plain- a common occurance here in Florida!)
They also have ways to get around doing a archaeological survey, and bulldoze a lot of valuable (and even vital) sites.
All in the name of profit!
Posted by: Bob Bowers at May 19, 2006 04:27 PM
Yeah, when Blaming Clinton gets old we can always Blame Kennedy!
Posted by: Tenoch at May 20, 2006 10:08 PM
It's not a matter of "blaming" Kennedy. I went to the site referenced, and unless they lied outright, Kennedy did something totally wrong.
It seems to be a case of "not in my back yard"- except the man was claiming the whole area as his back yard.
Posted by: Bob Bowers at May 21, 2006 04:36 PM
Jeff -- I saw AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH With Al Gore yesterday, and the audience clapped at the end! It was only released fully Friday, and as expected, when confronted by a reporter on his weekend plans & would it include this movie, Bush sneered before saying, "I don't think so." The sneer/smirk is more indicative than the words and what we're all up against here, but I'd like to see this confronted in ALL levels of the campaigns already underway & in the Fall. The evidence is overwhelming.
Posted by: Arden at June 5, 2006 04:16 PM
