Arnold: Environment, Economy Can Coexist

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says world policymakers do not have to choose between a clean environment and economic growth.

Schwarzengger said "we've proved that over and over again in California."

Interviewed by ABC television from the Copenhagen conference, the Austrian-born former film star said he thinks world leaders may be risking setbacks by pushing so aggressively for an accommodation on curbs to heat-trapping emissions.

Schwarzenegger said that people worried about climate change should pay more attention to companies, universities and "ordinary folks" and not put so much emphasis on a multinational consensus.

Speaking at the conference later, Schwarzenegger offered up his own state as a model for investment in green technologies and suggested holding another U.N. summit geared toward states, provinces and regions instead of nations. Schwarzenegger offered to host such a summit.

He also said during the television interview that poor nations have a right to demand that the richer countries help them to meet tougher pollution standards.

Negotiations on a global climate deal at the U.N. summit in Copenhagen hit a snag Monday when developing countries suspended talks amid deep distrust of the promises by industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The negotiations later resumed but deep divisions remain between rich and poor countries over emission targets and financing for developing countries to deal with global warming.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged rich and poor countries to and raise their climate targets to salvage the faltering talks before world leaders arrive later this week.

[P0STING_AWAY]

by Unclemercer December 15, 2009 1:00 PM EST
Arnold is irrelevant, and old. The bright new star of Republican governors is Sarah Palin. She understands the environment, the economy, and how they must intertwine and work for humanity.
========================================================================
Your words indicate that you and Sarah have much in common.
I do not care what the Democrats say ....
STUPID -IS- THE NEW COOL .....

[Unclemercer]

Arnold is irrelevant, and old. The bright new star of Republican governors is Sarah Palin. She understands the environment, the economy, and how they must intertwine and work for humanity.

[RedWings_ninety_one]

Where I live has probably the biggest temperature swing in the US. 90's in the summer and negitaves in the winter. If you ask me, the negatives really point to the fact that global warming is occuring. So basically we don't have that problem. The only problem is our economy in shambles. Michigan has one of the worst economic situations in the US thanks to former Gov. Engler who spent a ton of the states money just before his term ended, then he fled either the state or the country, I don't remember which. Now Jennifer Grandholm is left to deal with decisions like how much the state will have to cut from the budgets of schools to make ends meet in the state. Thanks to having to make those cuts, several schools in the state have had to close perminately. Being a teacher is no longer a very economically safe job in Michigan. Neither is a job in Law enforcement. There is a town in the north of the lower peninsula that has 6 officers for the whole town. They had to enlist the help of the state troopers for routine patrols.

[dangyankee69]

Arnold is not an enviromentalist, but he is showing some signs of being a European style greenie. Isn't that just what the Republican party needs? If the GOP could put together an articulate conservation strategy that clearly expressed "wise-use" and "sustainable developement" there might be the possibility that folks would have a reason to look at the GOP. The Democratic party has been coopted by the enviromentalists and has taken positions on things like stewardship of our national forests that have cost us billions in fire suppression and lost revenue.

Most Americans see the importance of maintaining balance with regard to enviromental policy, and the general sense is that neither party is very balanced. The GOP is all about raping the Alaskan wilderness to get oil reserves, and the Democrats are all about putting the 'rights' of habitat and nature above the rights of individuals. One or the other has to pull towards the middle a bit and the party that does will gather significant electoral benefits.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Lost Revenue"?

That implies that revenue was possessed then was taken. The revenue was not lost at all, the fire suppression is going to happen anyway.

Who lost this revenue, did you? just because someone has not deforested areas and sold the "lungs" of America doesn't mean that revenue was lost.

The anti- environmentalists won't be satisfied until the country is a desert, and every last bit of our forest has been harvested for the profits of a few.

Now they talk about "wise use", whereas had they been wise from the beginning, we wouldn't even need to be debating this, and we wouldn't be so cynical about their claims that they can now manage to do that which they have never before been willing or able to do.

Anyone who has children should instinctively understand that nature and habitat are indeed more important than individual rights, because if some individual feels the need to deforest areas, it is the children who will suffer.

What you describe as pull toward the middle is actually a shift to the far right, who continue their arrogant assumptions that their "individual rights" include the right to destroy what should be left for future generations.

Even a little shift in that direction is anti-humane, and anti-future, it is like the nazis saying "if we cannot kill all the Hebrews, Gypsies, and other non aryans, we should at least be allowed to kill a few".