Read the whole article. GE is a fortune 500 company that is finally stepping forward to take responsible stewardship of our world and are getting slammed by the profit minded conservatives who are only interested in profit.
Backlash at GE Immelt and his company have become the unlikely darlings of the environmental movement, attracting jeers from conservatives. Fortune Magazine
By Marc Gunther, FORTUNE senior writer
February 1, 2006: 5:50 AM EST
NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - If you run a big, highly-visible company in America, you can't please everyone, no matter what you do.
Just ask Jeff Immelt, the chairman and CEO of General Electric.
In the last year or so, Immelt and GE have become the unlikely darlings of the environmental movement. GE promotes solar and wind power and it agreed, at long last, to clean up toxic chemicals that it dumped into the Hudson River years ago. The company has also pledged to curb its emissions of greenhouse gases, aligning itself with those who argue that the problem of global warming is real, important and caused by man-made emissions.
Immelt's new mantra? Green is green.
So now, along with cheers from the tree-huggers, Immelt is attracting jeers from conservatives who say he has gone too far. A political activist named Steven Milloy, who runs a small mutual fund called the Free Enterprise Action Fund (FEAF), has filed a shareholder resolution asking GE to justify its policy on global warming.
Milloy says the $150-billion-a-year industrial giant is paving the way for government regulation of greenhouse gases that will slow growth and damage the economy: "They are going to harm their business, and other businesses."
If you're Immelt, you can't win this argument.
[ send green star]
American space programme's leading climate scientist has accused the
White House of trying to gag him after he called last month for urgent
cuts in the emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming,
writes Ned Temko
James Hansen, director of Nasa's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, is reported in today's New York Times as
saying that officials at Nasa headquarters ordered staff to review his
forthcoming lectures, papers and media interviews. He said he intended
to ignore the restrictions.
Acosta, Nasa's deputy assistant administrator for public affairs,
denied that there had been any specific effort to silence Hansen.
'That's not the way we operate here at Nasa,' he was quoted as saying.
Acosta said Hansen was subject to the same restrictions as other Nasa
employees who might be seen as representing official agency policy. He
said scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that
policy statements could be made only by official spokesmen.
United States has refused to sign the Kyoto agreement on limiting
greenhouse gas emissions. Bush administration officials have instead
emphasised the need to develop and disseminate new, cleaner
technologies as a way of curbing emissions.
Hansen, 63, a
physicist who has been at Nasa for nearly 30 years, is in charge of
efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard
Institute in Manhattan.
Since 1988, he has been issuing public
warnings about the long-term threat of emissions from burning coal, oil
and other fossil fuels.
He fell out of favour with the Bush
administration after a speech on the eve of the 2004 presidential
election in which he claimed government scientists were being muzzled
and announced he planned to vote for the Democratic party challenger,
Senator John Kerry.
Hansen was quoted in the New York Times as
saying that nothing in his career had equalled the pressure that has
been brought on him since December. 'He's not trying to create a war
over this,' said Larry Travis, Hansen's deputy, 'but [he] feels very
strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal scientists - to
inform the public.
Let us hope that this will be the start of a long line of men of conscience.Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change
Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee 'Tipping Point' When It Is Too Late to Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 29, 2006; Page A01
Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.
This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.
There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.
The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."
"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."
[ send green star]
31. Climate Change
Climate change is real and it's footprint on humanity will increase as time goes on. It is a far greater threat to our security than human terrorists. Just as the Bush administration used fear of terrorists to garner support, progressives can use climate change as a call to action among voters.
WELL PETER, HERE IS A PRETTY GOOD ARTICLE TO KICK OFF YOUR SCARE CAMPAIGN.
Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'
Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again.
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
Published: 16 January 2006
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE IS PUTTING A FACE ON THESE ENVIROMENTAL TERRORISTS THAT WE CAN HATE AND BOMB. THEY ARE NOT SOME POOR BASTARD IN ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD. THEY ARE THE PEOPLE SITTING IN THE NEXT PEW , LIVING DOWN THE STREET, DRIVING THEIR suv, OR MAYBE EVEN SITTING HIS SORRY BUTT IN THE RECLINER IN YOUR LIVING ROOM.
We are way too busy with our "Culture of Life", promoting more life on the rock that is stressed to support what is already here.
[ send green star]