massachusetts wednesday. stop short of declaring a national emergency, he hinted that such a move could be coming in the weeks ahead.e clear, climate change is an emergency and in the coming weeks i m going to the power i ve have as president to turn these words into formal official government actions of the appropriate proclamation, executive order that they president possesses. when it comes to fighting climate change, i will not take no for an answer. let s bring in also journal columnist chemist also come editorial board and editorial pay writer. so kim, first quick question, is there any chance the presidents climate agenda could come back legislatively and congress this year? it is possible for the reason it is stalled right now senator joe manchin saw this most recent inflation numbers part he has been trying to come to an agreement with them. but decided it would not be good economically to move just right now. he left open the possibility this was something tha
that will help with adaptation and make the world wealthier which makes mitigation of any claimant affects wealthier. when you mention these effects on the world poor, give us some examples how green policies are hurting average people. xo, actually there s not that many green policies except for us going in there and saying you should skip that whole fossil fuel stage that just comes across as incredibly hypocritical. europe is right now running out of energy because of the russian war. and so we go scouring for fossil fuels in the third world of africa in many places we also tell them they should not be using fossil fuels which is what exactly made us rich. look, you need a lot of energy to get out of poverty. that energy at least the next foreseeable couple of decades, mostly from fossil fuels. we need to recognize that saying
that necessary 50% within the next ten years, we don t have legislation in congress that would codify that and there is the continued construction of gas and oil pipe lines which is insistent with stabilizing warming below catastrophic levels. secondly, we re going to need to see the major polluters of the world all not only commit to these, you know, reductions, but to actually demonstrate that they re taking steps to meet their obligations. secondly, we need assistance for the developing world. they need to be provided with the resources that are necessary for them to leapfrog past the fossil fuel stage. we can t afford india and other developing countries to make the same mistake we made or we will blow past those targets. what worries me, michael, is that the leaders of some of the worlds biggest polluters won t be in scotland. does that hurt the push to get
talks began back in the early 90s, it was always made very clear that you had the industrialised world, which had started polluting soonest, added most carbon dioxide in the air, and at the main responsibility lay on the shoulders of those countries in europe, north america and so forth. and the poorest nations on earth had always said, look, if you want us to take this seriously, we need you to be cutting your emissions dramatically and you were going to have to help us. help us go green, leapfrog the fossil fuel stage of economic development, but also be able to be more resilient to resist the bigger storms, the more severe droughts and floods and sea level rise they are going to be hitting those countries hardest of all. so when people talk about the offer, this promise of $100 billion a year for these