※ 引述《simmon989 (勁舞飛揚)》之銘言： : 標題:歐巴馬昭告世界 美國將領導對抗氣候變遷 : 新聞來源:http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/090127/19/1dlv2.html : （法新社華盛頓26日電） : 美國總統歐巴馬在著手實施國內新政策以廢除前任布希政府的全球暖化政策同時，今天 : 誓言領導全世界，以因應氣候變遷問題。 : 另一方面，國務卿希拉蕊．柯林頓（HillaryClinton）已遴選1名京都議定書的資深談判 : 代表，作為她的氣候變遷特使。 : 歐巴馬說，「我們將向全世界表明，美國願意出而領導」，這顯然是指責前總統布希不願 : 掌管全球行動以對抗氣候變遷。 : 歐巴馬說：「為保護我們的氣候和集體安全，我們必須糾合出一個真正的全球聯盟。」 : 歐巴馬已簽署備亡錄，期能激勵美國掙扎求生的汽車業設計出新的省油汽車，以減少美國 : 經濟對能源生產國的依賴。 : 他說：「華府行事慢半拍的日子過去了。」 : 他說，「我的政府不會否認事實，我們會以事實為依據」，這顯然是針對布希政府官員被 : 指意識型態凌駕科學之上而言。 : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : 美國任命氣候變化問題特使 : http://big5.home.news.cn/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/world/2009-01/27/ : content_10724555.htm : 新華網華盛頓１月２６日電（記者任海軍） : 美國國務卿希拉里．克林頓２６日任命氣候變化專家托德．斯特恩為美國氣候變化問題特 : 使。斯特恩還將擔任奧巴馬政府的國際氣候政策首席顧問以及首席氣候談判代表。 : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : 在宣布這項任命時，希拉里．克林頓說，氣候變化危機的緊迫性不容忽視，有關氣候 : 變化的一些科學結論和科學事實也不容否認，在總統奧巴馬的領導下，美國將帶頭應對氣 : 候變化。 : 斯特恩則指出，否認、耽擱、爭論應該停止了，到了美國坐到氣候變化談判桌前的正 : 確位置的時候了。 : 斯特恩曾于１９９３年至１９９８年擔任美國時任總統比爾．克林頓的顧問，多次參 : 加與《京都議定書》有關的談判。 : 美國前總統布什２００１年上臺伊始，即宣布美國退出旨在控制全球溫室氣體排放的 : 《京都議定書》，美國目前是唯一沒有批准《京都議定書》的主要發達國家。布什政府最 : 初否認全球氣候在變暖，繼而又否認全球氣候變暖是人類活動造成的。對于國際上的氣候 : 變化談判，布什政府也消極應對，其政策不僅在國際上受到指責，在國內也面臨巨大壓力 : 。 : 分析人士認為，美國現任總統奧巴馬可望在氣候變化問題上採取更積極務實的政策， : 以緩解國內外的壓力。 環境問題和經濟問題，歐巴馬政府對兩項問題要取得平衡，下面文章是在說明此項情形 ，大家慢慢看吧！謝謝。 Energy, economy create balancing act for Obama 資料來源： http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/01/30/obama.climate.change/index.html CNN) -- Environmentalists are encouraged by President Barack Obama's focus this week on renewable energy and stricter emissions standards, although some economists are skeptical he can pull the country out of the recession while cleaning up the planet. President Barack Obama with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Obama must strike a careful balance between stimulating the economy in the coming months and investing in the long-term future of the environment, said Raj Chetty, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. "If you spend money too quickly, you lose site of the long-term vision," Chetty told CNN. "If you focus too much on the long term, you may not act on spending money." Framing his remarks with an eye on the recession, the president on Monday announced a plan for "a new energy economy that will build millions of jobs." Obama proposes to put 460,000 Americans to work through clean energy investments, increasing fuel efficiency in vehicles and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By 2025, the Obama administration hopes one-fourth of the nation's energy will come from renewable sources. Over the long term, the president hopes to create millions of new jobs by investing $150 billion in taxpayer money to help private companies develop new sources of clean energy, such as wind, solar and geothermal power. It's about time, say scientists who often clashed with former President George W. Bush on environmental policy. "By repowering our nation with clean energy, we will create millions of jobs that can't be sent overseas. By harnessing the energy of the sun and wind, we can refuel our nation and end our addiction to oil," said Wesley Warren, director of programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Environmental scholars, however, say the changes Obama seeks are not easy. "These technologies are not new. They have been around for 10 to 15 years," said Bill Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment at Duke University. "Government can push new policies, but it has to prove to be economically competitive or else it will not happen." "It is going to require massive investments," said Joseph Romm, former acting assistant secretary of energy under the Clinton administration and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "The only question is, are we going to be the leader and export our technologies or a follower and continue importing our resources?" Some economists question whether spending government money on new energy technologies is the best way to stimulate the economy in the short term. Opponents of Obama's proposals say renewable energy would be expensive, take up large amounts of land, and might not even be able to generate sufficient energy given the aging infrastructure of the nation's electric grid. "If the private sector will not invest in these technologies, it will not be efficient," said Alan Reynolds, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "Creating jobs by switching from one form of energy to another is a bad idea," he added. "You don't need subsidies for anything that is free. Getting a $7,000 rebate on a $100,000 plug-in electrical hybrid that gets its power from a coal plant doesn't make a lot of sense." Several events in Washington this week underscored the Obama administration's commitment to environmental issues. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday named a special envoy to pursue global agreements combating global warming. On Wednesday, former Vice President Al Gore urged Congress to approve Obama's stimulus package and said the United States needs to join international talks on a climate-change treaty. "For years our efforts to address the climate crisis have been undermined by the idea that we must chose between our planet and our way of life, between our moral duty and economic well-being these are false choices," Gore told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "In fact, the solutions to the climate crisis are the same solutions that will address our economic and national crisis as well." Obama may have science on his side. By overwhelming consensus, scientists agree that our warming planet poses a greater global threat with every passing day. The replacement of current technology with energy generated from natural resources, such as sunlight and wind, could help reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency. "Frankly the science is screaming at us," said Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at Wednesday's hearing. "Carbon dioxide emissions grew at a rate of four times faster in the Bush administration than they did in the 1990s." Even so, experts agree the faltering economy will complicate any discussion about investment in clean energy. "The country is running two deficits," said David Orr, a professor of environmental studies and politics at Oberlin College, "the economy in the short term, which will take one to five years to figure out [and] the environment in the long term, which if we don't do anything about it will see catastrophic effects." --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.134.51.75