US Needs To Back G8 On Climate Changes

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Tuesday said the United States should join the Group of Eight in a call to cut global warming gas emissions in half by 2050. Edwards, speaking in the Texas state capital of Austin, said U.S. climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions should be cut by 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, according to a statement released by his campaign.

"Global warming is an emergency that requires immediate action from the world community," Edwards said. "Before the United States can rally the world to take action, we need to show leadership here at home. We should be leading the charge in this area, not turning our back on the world."

The former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee said he favors a cap-and-trade system of emissions credits and requiring developing nations to also aggressively cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Edwards has said previously he wants U.S. automakers to produce vehicles that average 40 miles per gallon by 2016.

So, Kudos to Edwards for pushing for change on this issue. With the G8 summit already passed for this year, what exactly did Bush to help the greenhouse effect? Not a thing... In fact this was said about the meeting on this issue:

"The president came to Germany with a simple message for the G8 leaders: not on my watch," Philip Clapp, president of the U.S.-based National Environmental Trust, told the Times."

In fact all he could give them was "the United States will seriously consider the goal".

But, this doesn't suprise me out of Bush, just another example of who's needs he "truly" looks out for...

Follow the "yellow" brick road and you will find Bush and his stance on issues.....

Saving The Planet: One Piece At A Time

I was doing my daily news search, when I came across this piece:

American Buys Slices Of South America

The Story? Multimillionaire Douglas Tompkins goal is to save the planet, by buying pieces of it. He owns over a million acres in Chile and Argentina. Of course, as with any news story there is always opposition. There are those in South America that believes the land should belong to foreigners and should be given back to it's government.

He insists that he will turn the land back over one day to be used as nature reserves or parks, but wants to hold on so they see what a private conservation can do.

As I read this, I decide to dig deeper, to find out how many other millionaires were taking part in a "project" like this.

Here are my findings:

Swedish millionaire to help Baltic Sea environment protection:

Bjorn Carlson has donated almost 63 million dollars to help protect the Baltic Sea environment.

Luciano Benetton also owns a vast amount of land in Argentina for environmental purposes.

Ok, that is all I can come up with at the moment. Does anyone else know of examples of this? While researching this, I did come across another article of extreme interest to me. The Title?

Cape Windbags

I'll just summarize the article here, although you can click on the title to read the whole thing. There are plans to build America's first offshore wind farm, located in Cape Cod. It would generate 75 percent of the electricity needs of Cape Cod and Massachusetts’ islands without producing any of Kennedy’s mercury, or greenhouse gas. Yet, the Kennedy's and other affluent families in the area are fighting it being built.

Why? From the looks of it, they simply don't want an "eyesore" in their backyard.

Here we have two very different examples of uses of money. There are some who are doing what they can to ensure resources for our future generations, but others who spend millions of dollars trying to stop the very thing that would benefit them greatly.

I had written a blog last month called A Looming Crisis? It focused on America's water usage compared to other countries. I often wonder how little we do to save our planet. If every person in America could buy half an acre (our population is estimated at 301,139,947 ) to set aside for conservation purposes, think of the effect that would have.

9,161,923 sq km is the amount of land we have in the United States. 1 sq km is equal to 247.1 acres. That equals 2,263,911,173.3 acres of land. Buying half an acre would save 150,569,973 acres. Yes, I realize that this is unrealistic, as I doubt there are that many acres for sale in the US. (and I haven't taken in account National Forests, etc) But when you look at the numbers, it doesn't seem like an impossible task, does it? Each of us doing our part to ensure that our future generations can continue to enjoy this planet of ours. Just think, the US is the Third largest Country by size.

Did you know that the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels?

I realize that most of us aren't millionaires and we don't have the capital to do what Tompkins is doing. But, what we can do is use our voice and what resources we do have to make a difference. Use our voice to let our government know that we want to see changes in our environmental laws. Changes that would benefit the world. Changes that would show the world that yes, we want to do our part in protecting this planet, in saving this planet....

The administration is so focused on creating governments that they think will be beneficial, they have forgotten the larger picture. Men will rule, men will fall, men will die. Our Earth, is our source of being. Without her resources, we will all perish and our future generations will have nothing. Use your voice to help our government RE-FOCUS their attention! Do your part in helping heal our planet.