<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Other Bush Legacy:  Carbon Emissions Soar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:22:27 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: hippie with a pistol</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-2318</link>
		<dc:creator>hippie with a pistol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:38:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-2318</guid>
		<description>You don&#039;t mean the quote I started with from CP&#039;s second sentence in the thread?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You don&#8217;t mean the quote I started with from CP&#8217;s second sentence in the thread?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hippie with a pistol</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-2317</link>
		<dc:creator>hippie with a pistol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:28:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-2317</guid>
		<description>EPA Emissions Report 2006.  Very detailed.  I think there is a trends appendix with summaries.  Required annually to be provided by Kyoto and Annex I countries.  It&#039;s in my post buy not clear?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EPA Emissions Report 2006.  Very detailed.  I think there is a trends appendix with summaries.  Required annually to be provided by Kyoto and Annex I countries.  It&#8217;s in my post buy not clear?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kari</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-2284</link>
		<dc:creator>Kari</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:56:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-2284</guid>
		<description>hippie with a pistol,

Could you please cite your info/quotation?  

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hippie with a pistol,</p>
<p>Could you please cite your info/quotation?  </p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hippie with a pistol</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-2238</link>
		<dc:creator>hippie with a pistol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:37:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-2238</guid>
		<description>should read:

Total growth of GHG emission rates in the US 2001 to 2004 (latest data from 2006 report) was less than 1%/yr.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>should read:</p>
<p>Total growth of GHG emission rates in the US 2001 to 2004 (latest data from 2006 report) was less than 1%/yr.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-563</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-563</guid>
		<description>Carl, you bring up an extremely relevant point.  Individual behavior matters.  

That said, check out these websites to make your individual behavior consistent with your climate change convictions:

Minimize your Carbon Footprint: http://www.carbonfootprint.com/Minimise_cfp.html

Climate Future Group&#039;s Solutions for Businesses, Individuals and with Technology:  http://www.climatefuture.org/menu/do/index.htm

However, speaking more generally, the answer is, in short, behind three words: lifestyle and efficiency, the key being technology.  

In social and technological development, humanity has reached an irreversible crux in how we function.  We rely on computers, the Internet and mass communication, and I am not challenging that.  I am not suggesting that we shut down the very foundation of modern-day progress.

What I am suggesting is that we rework how taxing our progress is on the environment, and that means, in the case of computers, improving energy efficiency (to start).  In the European Union over the past several years, countries (like Denmark) have progressed without negative impact on their economies or the environment.  This is the example we must follow.

The beauty of technology is that used correctly, it bridges the gap between the desired outcome and lifestyle compromises.  There are multiple potential sources of electricity, for example solar power or wind power, and we do need to start implementing them.  That’s why states and cities across the country have begun adopting renewable portfolio standards.  Alternatives exist and we need to start to pursue them fervently.

Ultimately, I advocate that the market decide the best strategies.  Unfortunately, the United States has allowed little room for a market to do that.  We have no cap-and-trade scheme like the EU and we under-fund research and development into clean energy technologies.  

While I am sympathetic to your concern, the response is, as always, more complicated.  But the sooner we act, the more time we have to resolve these seeming paradoxes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carl, you bring up an extremely relevant point.  Individual behavior matters.  </p>
<p>That said, check out these websites to make your individual behavior consistent with your climate change convictions:</p>
<p>Minimize your Carbon Footprint: <a href="http://www.carbonfootprint.com/Minimise_cfp.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.carbonfootprint.com/Minimise_cfp.html</a></p>
<p>Climate Future Group&#8217;s Solutions for Businesses, Individuals and with Technology:  <a href="http://www.climatefuture.org/menu/do/index.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatefuture.org/menu/do/index.htm</a></p>
<p>However, speaking more generally, the answer is, in short, behind three words: lifestyle and efficiency, the key being technology.  </p>
<p>In social and technological development, humanity has reached an irreversible crux in how we function.  We rely on computers, the Internet and mass communication, and I am not challenging that.  I am not suggesting that we shut down the very foundation of modern-day progress.</p>
<p>What I am suggesting is that we rework how taxing our progress is on the environment, and that means, in the case of computers, improving energy efficiency (to start).  In the European Union over the past several years, countries (like Denmark) have progressed without negative impact on their economies or the environment.  This is the example we must follow.</p>
<p>The beauty of technology is that used correctly, it bridges the gap between the desired outcome and lifestyle compromises.  There are multiple potential sources of electricity, for example solar power or wind power, and we do need to start implementing them.  That’s why states and cities across the country have begun adopting renewable portfolio standards.  Alternatives exist and we need to start to pursue them fervently.</p>
<p>Ultimately, I advocate that the market decide the best strategies.  Unfortunately, the United States has allowed little room for a market to do that.  We have no cap-and-trade scheme like the EU and we under-fund research and development into clean energy technologies.  </p>
<p>While I am sympathetic to your concern, the response is, as always, more complicated.  But the sooner we act, the more time we have to resolve these seeming paradoxes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-495</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:46:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-495</guid>
		<description>I advocate the government setting the emissions targets and letting the free market decide the best strategies for meeting the targets.  Thanks for asking!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I advocate the government setting the emissions targets and letting the free market decide the best strategies for meeting the targets.  Thanks for asking!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-494</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-494</guid>
		<description>If you want to decrease carbon dioxide emissions, how about starting by turning your Web server off? Or do you just advocate that OTHERS should do all the cutting back?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you want to decrease carbon dioxide emissions, how about starting by turning your Web server off? Or do you just advocate that OTHERS should do all the cutting back?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Think Progress &#187; Bush&#8217;s Carbon Legacy.</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-447</link>
		<dc:creator>Think Progress &#187; Bush&#8217;s Carbon Legacy.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2006/12/07/the-other-bush-legacy-carbon-emissions-soar/#comment-447</guid>
		<description>[...] &#8220;In 2000, carbon dioxide emissions were rising less than 1% annually. Today they are rising more than 2.5% annually.&#8221; More on Climate Progress. &#160;  1:54 pm &#124; Comment&#160;(0) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8220;In 2000, carbon dioxide emissions were rising less than 1% annually. Today they are rising more than 2.5% annually.&#8221; More on Climate Progress. &nbsp;  1:54 pm | Comment&nbsp;(0) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
