Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, January 21, 2017

Washington (AFP) – The U.S. government on Tuesday formally pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent over 2005 levels within the next decade, ahead of a major climate conference later this year.

President Barack Obama made the same pledge during a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping  in November.

But this formal submission to the United Nations commits this and future administrations to the target.

“For decades, we’ve known why global average temperatures are rising,” said White House advisor Brian Deese, announcing the goal.

“It’s past time we heed these warnings. It’s past time for the world to take action.”

In December, the United Nations will hold the latest round of global climate talks in Paris.

The aim is to reach a global accord that would go some of the way toward limiting the rise in global temperatures.

Countries aim to limit average global temperatures to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels.

“With today’s submission of the U.S. target, countries accounting for more than half of total carbon pollution from the energy sector have submitted or announced what they will do in the post-2020 period to combat climate change,” said Deese.

Environmental groups gave the announcement a cautious welcome.

“This is a big commitment for the United States, but on its own the current offer clearly isn’t enough to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius,” said Jamie Henn of 350.org.

He urged the Obama administration to curb new fossil fuel development.

Oxfam said the announcement was “a critical step forward in transitioning to a clean energy economy.”

French foreign minister Laurent Fabius welcomed the announcement, saying it confirmed the United States and Obama’s engagement in the tackling climate change.

But the praise was not universal.

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell warned America’s international partners that the U.S. pledge could be reversed.

He said that even if Obama’s domestic measures to implement the deal “were fully implemented, the United States could not meet the targets laid out in this proposed new plan.”

“Our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal.”

The U.S. government formally pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent over 2005 levels within the next decade, ahead of a major climate conference later this year (AFP/David McNew)

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The National Memo

11 Responses to U.S. Renews Pledge To Cut Emissions 26 To 28 Percent By 2025

  1. Radical environmentalists know that human-caused global warming is a hoax. Temperature data shows no catastrophic warming trend, and archaeological evidence proves the planet has undergone periods of much more intense warming and cooling than our modern age has experienced.Jan 6, 2015

    According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell, the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every year.

    That’s three times larger than the entire U.S. federal budget deficit.
    So, has anyone stopped to ask . . . how much has the globe actually warmed?
    Well, we asked, and what we found was striking.

    According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).

    Hardly anything to panic about; however, that does mean the world is warmer, right?
    The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING!

    As can be seen in this chart, we haven’t seen any global warming for 17 years.

    Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.

    This is quite the opposite of what the global warming faction warned us.
    In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his global warming initiative, Al Gore made this striking prediction, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”

    Al Gore could not have been more wrong.

    However, despite this clear evidence that the temperatures are not increasing, the global warming hysteria only seems to be increasing.

    For example: President Obama himself tweeted on May 16, 2014: “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.

    Since then, it has become clear that this statistic was inaccurate.

    The Wall Street Journal went as far as to say, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” Forbes headlined “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97% Consensus’ Claims.”

    Come to find out, the study President Obama was citing was botched from the start.

    A host of other problems for the global warming crowd are emerging, such as . . .

    Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”

    Claude Allegre, the founding father of the man-made global warming ethos, recently renounced his position that man has caused warming.

    Proof is emerging that Al Gore and even President Obama have financially benefited from fueling the global warming hysteria (click here for an internal report on this).

    Google it!

    Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com

    • Joe T has an excellent point that the 97% of climate scientists is a hoax. The truth is that only 96.99% of climate scientists agree on climate change and the other 3.01% work for the coal industry.

    • Most of your “facts” are contradicted by the real facts.
      Forbes: the locus of genuine environmental concern in the world? How much does business misconduct cost? Forbes not likely to give an accurate answer there, and that’s something they at least theoretically know someth8ing about.
      Sorry, but right-wing crazy websites and magazines devoted to making tons of money aren’t a good place to gather scientific data.

      • WE could go nuts on U for your uneducated, silly, stupid, foolish, fatuous, idiotic, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, senseless, asinine, frivolous, vapid, childish, puerile, dumb, moronic, ditzy and daft posted comments on a public forum…but we won’t…..instead we will attempt to clarify same for you, in that, you are categorically lost in the weeds of confusion…again.

        We strive to illuminate the 47 % ignorant (uniformed) low info people (like U) to elucidate the subject regarding the very dysfunctional political atmosphere of chaos that the USA is experiencing with this current administration for cause…..in retrospect….

        Google what we post, it’s accurate, no spin doctor treatment or prevarications like Obama.

        Truth will always prevail…Veritas.

        • Gee, did you miss any insults in your reply?

          Funny, despite our disagreements, I thought you’re too smart to put your faith in those who brought us “there is absolutely no proof smoking causes cancer,” their most lethal, but by no means only, “accomplishment.” It’s the same people, often literally, striving to “illuminate” the ignorant. And yes, the scientists say it’s going to get hot, but probably not enough to illuminate people ;>).
          In any case, the truth will out, with or without Latin words to aid it.
          A pretty smart guy said: “the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way the smart money bets.”
          Science is not perfect, but I’m betting on the scientists over the financially and politically motivated. Sorry that offends you so strongly.

          • (This is third party attestation by NASA, et al; are they in error or just reporting false scientific info, for cause; etcetera?)

            (We post info, sans editing for cause. If it’s wrong, the entities reporting and/or making statements like NASA are responsible. NASA usually has highly qualified personnel. The opposing side says Global Warming is sacrosanct….time will tell and we submit this entire generations will have passed from this earth, without an answer to suit all parties.)
            to wit:
            Radical environmentalists know that human-caused global warming is a hoax. Temperature data shows no catastrophic warming trend, and archaeological evidence proves the planet has undergone periods of much more intense warming and cooling than our modern age has experienced.Jan 6, 2015. (notice said date 2015)

            According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell, the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every year.

            That’s three times larger than the entire U.S. federal budget deficit.

            So, has anyone stopped to ask . . . how much has the globe actually warmed?

            Well, we asked, and what we found was striking.

            According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).

            Hardly anything to panic about; however, that does mean the world is warmer, right?

            The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING!

            As can be seen in this chart, we haven’t seen any global warming for 17 years.

            Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.

            This is quite the opposite of what the global warming faction warned us.

            In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his global warming initiative, Al Gore made this striking prediction, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”

            Al Gore could not have been more wrong.

            However, despite this clear evidence that the temperatures are not increasing, the global warming hysteria only seems to be increasing.

            For example: President Obama himself tweeted on May 16, 2014: “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.

            Since then, it has become clear that this statistic was inaccurate.

            The Wall Street Journal went as far as to say, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” Forbes headlined “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97% Consensus’ Claims.”

            Come to find out, the study President Obama was citing was botched from the start.

            A host of other problems for the global warming crowd are emerging, such as . . .

            Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”

            Claude Allegre, the founding father of the man-made global warming ethos, recently renounced his position that man has caused warming.

            Proof is emerging that Al Gore and even President Obama have financially benefited from fueling the global warming hysteria (click here for an internal report on this).

            Google it!

            Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com

          • Pretty much everyone you cite except NASA falls comfortably into the political/financial motivation crowd, and I suspect you’re relying on someone’s interpretation of NASA’s data, or perhaps your own.
            Some alleged renouncement by someone you or your sources claim was the originator of the idea is as irrelevant as Christian’s false claims that Darwin renounced his theory on his deathbed: science relies on data, not politics, and not authority. Not only does this lack credibility, but your claim that the whole thing is a hoax by “radical environmentalists” is also a political/emotional claim lacking any evidence other than statements by you and the others who have already made up your minds and doubtless did the first you heard of the theory.

            I’ll still bet on the scientists over those you cite, with the exception noted.

          • NOT our interpretation or claim(s)…3rd party attestation only.

            Best regards, Joe T, et al

Leave a reply