US Opposes G8 Climate Proposals

elrond writes "The US appears to have summarily rejected draft proposals for G8 members that would have agreed to tougher measures for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The BBC reports that leaked documents have indicated the positions of the various world powers, from the timetable-setting of Germany to the US's intractable stance. Red ink comments on the documents hint at the US's irritation: 'The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement. The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses 'multiple red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to ... We have tried to tread lightly but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position.'"

Please Remember

[by Anonymous Coward]

This world is fragile in our hands. [f8d.org]

It's fragile, and about to break

[Esteanil (710082)]

Unfortunately, the political will to make real changes seem to be lacking, not only in the US.

Ultimately, everyone's in favor of doing something to help our environment, but there's nearly always something they care more about, and very few people vote on the basis of a politician's stand on the environment.

And, perhaps more importantly. With democracy the way it is, politicians profit (get reelected) by looking no more than 4 years into the future. Any good they do which doesn't show significant results before the next election simply doesn't matter to the professional politician. Politics is a job, and securing your job is one of the greatest motivations for most people.

Making the drastic changes required to slow global warming significantly has a very high political cost - more unemployment as polluting businesses go out of business, and a great deal of money taken from other posts that will be obvious much earlier, and influence the next election a great deal.

We're all environmentalists, but when the interest rates start increasing, when your house falls in value, and you're in danger of losing your job... You don't vote for environmentalism, you vote for your own short term best interests.

And I fear that by the time the global climate becomes the immidiate problem for a majority of the population, it will be far too late to do anything effective to change it.

Re:It's fragile, and about to break

[ccmay (116316)]

Ultimately, everyone's in favor of doing something to help our environment, but there's nearly always something they care more about, and very few people vote on the basis of a politician's stand on the environment.

Put more succnictly, "Everybody wants to change the world. Nobody wants to help Mom wash the dishes." True in all times and all places.

-ccm

Re:It's fragile, and about to break

[schon (31600)]

Recently a Canadian university release a study on the GHG and the proxy measurements.

Translation: "I'm about to use the logical fallacy called 'appeal to authority'"

And no, I'm not going to find a link for this.

Translation: "I'm completely full of shit and I know it - I have just made a completely unfounded accusation about a global consipiracy, but I can't provide any corroborating information, nor will I give enough information for anyone else to find anyone to debunk my BS."

I first heard it on Paul Harvy and then it was talked about on a local talk show. And anyone who knows paul harvey, or has listened to him over the years, he doesn't make things up and he doesn't sugarcoat anything.

So you're claiming that Paul Harvey works for "A Canadian University"?

Because how else could he have authoritative knowledge, unless he was part of the research team that discovered this amazing conspiracy?

Or is he perhaps just repeating what someone else told him, and then can't be held accountable when this turns out to be complete bunk?

Re:It's fragile, and about to break

[schon (31600)]

I won't even look to see what the study said

How can anyone address the "study" when you won't provide a link?

I guess you don't know who paul Harvey is.

No, I do know who he is. This isn't about who he is, this is about your claims of who he is, and what he is able to do. You stated that the "study" (I am using quotes because you still refuse to provide any evidence that it even exists) was performed by a "Canadian University". Then you claimed that this was reported by Mr. Harvey. Then you said that Mr Harvey's statements are unimpeachable, and that what he says is the absolute truth.

The logical conclusion to those statements is that you believe Mr Harvey was one of the researchers who performed the "study" - otherwise, how else can his statements be completely true?

The news is this thing were people find out facts that are worthy to the public and reports them.

So you're saying that everything that has ever been reported by the news media is pure 100% FACT and they never present anything that could be considered untrue?!??!

Wow. Just - wow.

I bet you don't suggest any other news caster have to be on the research team when they report something about global warming that you like.

As I said, my statements were about your comments about Mr. Harvey possessing this god-like ability to know what is true and what isn't, merely by reading a news report.

we have as much faith to believe that as we do the original reports.

Faith doesn't enter into it. For all of the *actual* studies done, you can research them and find out for yourself.

Re:It's fragile, and about to break

[tukkayoot (528280)]

Many environmentalists simply want everyone to feel guilty for their own successful existence. Notice that they never criticize the smaller, poorer countries that are polluting. It's always the advanced, successful nations.

Maybe environmentalists voice the most concern about the practices of the more wealthy countries because they are the ones who are doing the majority of the polluting? And maybe because they are in a better position to make some sacrifices for the long term welfare of the planet, their own future citizenry and humanity in general?

Why assume a petty motivation on the part of environmentalists for their position when perfectly reasonable explanations for their stance exists? That's putting aside for the moment the question of whether they are ultimately right or wrong about the human impact on climate change, and if anything can be done -- if you believe, as many environmentalists do, that humans are probably contributing to climate change [wikipedia.org] and that we may be able to do something about it [wikipedia.org], then it seems obvious that plans for action would be most heavily focused on where most of the man-made pollution/carbon emissions are coming from.

Characterizing environmentalists as you have doesn't do anything to bolster the strength of your argument, any more than calling them "poopie-heads" would, at least not unless you're willing to offer some kind of evidence to back your claims.

Re:It's fragile, and about to break

[killjoe (766577)]

Wow, who modded this idiot up?

Re:It's fragile, and about to break

[nbauman (624611)]

I don't think I'm going to convince you, so for the benefit of Slashdotters I'll use your post as a lesson in logic and scientific validity.

But what I don't agree with is that we can do anything substantial to curb anything that is currently happening with the global warming.

Here's the issue: a question of fact. Do natural variations in the heat of the Sun cause more temperature variation than all the greenhouse gases humans have manufactured? OK, good question.

there is a good possibility that the sun has more to do then we expect.

Recently a Canadian university release a study on the GHG and the proxy measurements. It seem that most of the early global warming studies cherry picks information in order to make the case for a rising Co2 level in the early 20th century.

Well, nobody likes cherry-pickers.

And no, I'm not going to find a link for this. I first heard it on Paul Harvy and then it was talked about on a local talk show.

If you don't give me a link, I can't check your facts.
In contrast, I can give you a good link that explains why the arguments you make about CO2 and other criticisms are wrong -- last week's New Scientist http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ climate-change/ [newscientist.com] which explains everything you brought up. The reason that 3% is so important is because it makes the system 3% out of balance.

That's one of the reasons the global warming scientists are right and their critics are wrong -- the scientists cite sources, the critics don't. That's a good sign the scientists are right.

When you try to separate good science from pseudoscience, look for citations, folks. That's the lesson.

Re:China, Brasil, India, Indonesia

[Chas (5144)]

Per capita....

Great way to offset the reality.

US: 300 million
China: 1.5 BILLION

Translation, what China doesn't have on a per-capita basis, they make up for in sheer quantity.

What's more, the drive to modernize China will cause a per-capita increase.
Additionally, there are initiatives in the US already to reduce emissions. Sure, they may not move as quickly (the day before yesterday please!) as you'd like. But they ARE in progress.

Yet you want to excuse it because "Oh, they're a developing country!"

Essentially what you want is for us to wreck our economy around the same time China finishes building theirs.

Good idea! (NOT!)

Re:China, Brasil, India, Indonesia

[mindriot (96208)]

(data is from '96, couldn't find more recent data using a quick google search and I'm too lazy to keep on looking).

For some other sources, check this graphic [grida.no] for per-capita emissions in 2002. For the US, we have about 19.8 tons, while for China it's about 2.2 tons. Using the CIA World Factbook [cia.gov] for current population numbers, we get:

• For the US, a population of 301,139,947 [cia.gov], giving an annual CO2 output of 5,962,570,951 tons.
• For China, a population of 1,321,851,888 [cia.gov], giving an annual CO2 output of 2,908,074,154 tons.

Of course, there is also Wikipedia:

• For total CO2 emissions [wikipedia.org], we have 5,872,278,000 tons listed for the US, and 3,300,371,000 tons for China (numbers from 2002).
• Per capita in 2003 [wikipedia.org], we have the US listed with 19.8 metric tons of CO2 for 2003, and China with 3.2 tons. Leaders of the pack are the US Virgin Islands at 121.3 tons, followed by Qatar at 63.1.

sanctions are inevitable

[by Anonymous Coward]

surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods? Otherwise they are basically subsidising US industry, operating with far looser environmental standards. I'm sure the US will complain and 'retaliate', but I don't see any other option in the long term.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[by Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope so.
USA seems to be saying to the world, "we don't care about the planet".

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[malsdavis (542216)]

"USA seems to be saying to the world, "we don't care about the planet""

I think the current US administration made this position pretty clear a couple of years ago when they struck down a WTO proposal for "origin of timber" certification to reduce illegally logged timber coming from protected rainforests.

In that case there was absolutely no doubt that striking down the proposal would cause deforestation within the designated national parks of third world countries, but it was still struck down by the Bush's representative "in the name of free trade".

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[MrHanky (141717)]

For some people, the idea of "free trade" includes the right to know what one is buying. Evidently not so for Bush.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[wall0159 (881759)]

Yes. In fact, as Adam Smith described, one of the requirements for an ideal free-trade system is that the buyer knows what they're buying and makes an informed/logical choice. In practice, this rarely occurs, and is one reason why free-trade is an ideal that (like communism) sounds nice in theory but doesn't translate quite so well into practice.

No one would let a trash-disposal company make money by dumping rubbish in their backyard - it's interesting that many people feel that public commons, like air and water, are somehow different.

Re:Trees are renewable

[Rakshasa Taisab (244699)]

Did she get to eat cake?

Re:Trees are renewable

[Solandri (704621)]

Trees are almost irrelevant to climate change. They're part of closed carbon cycle.

Trees are vital to climate change. The are the primary means by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere (aside from oceanic sinks, which are believed to be full). They are only part of a closed carbon cycle if you burn them down and release their carbon into the atmosphere. Otherwise their carbon ends up in houses and furniture, and buried under the ground (where it can turn into oil and coal after a few million years). If you choose to define the carbon cycle as closed despite this, then all the fossil fuels we're burning right now are also a part of the closed cycle and hence irrelevant to climate change, because they originally came from trees millions of years ago which took that carbon out of the atmosphere.

Trees are the ultimate renewable resource because the more you harvest, the more area you have to replant them. It's not like, say, fish, where the more you harvest, the less there are to reproduce and replenish their stocks. The reason the world is losing forested area is because sustenance farmers are able to grow food and cash crops on cleared land, while harvesting trees is not as economically attractive. So they burn the trees down to clear land.

The real problem is the amount of fossil carbin the US has released (more than anyone else).

The U.S. only accounts for 24% of the world's carbon emissions. The U.S. also accounts for 28% of the world's economic production. In other words, the rest of the world is less efficient than the U.S. at producing value per ton of CO2 released [wikipedia.org]. Europe is by far more efficient and the U.S. should try to learn from them, but these attempts to paint the U.S. as the sole bogeyman are horribly misguided. If the U.S. were to disappear overnight, by the time the world economy grew back to the level it's at today, there would be more CO2 emissions than before the U.S. disappeared!

Also, trying to pin blame on a country by country basis makes no sense (aside from a policy perspective) because each nation has a different size and different population. On a per capita basis (CO2 emissions per person), the U.S. is not at the top [wikipedia.org], and there are several developed nations who are right up there with the U.S.

Finally, in terms of forest and protected forest, the U.S. has far more than all of Europe combined [unep-wcmc.org], nearly 1.7x as much in terms of area, and more than 3x as much per capita. In the above hypothetical scenario where the U.S. disappeared overnight, 7.6% of the world's forests and 9.6% of the world's protected forests would disappear as well.

What's needed to get us out of this mess is a systemic plan which address all aspects of the problem, not trying to single out sole nations for blame. If you do that, as we found out with Kyoto, the nation singled out will simply choose not to play ball. The developed nations need to set and meet energy efficiency goals (the U.S., Canada, and Australia especially). They also need to invest R&D money in non-carbon based energy sources. Environmentalists in these countries need to accept that nuclear is a much, much better option than spewing out millions of tons of carbon and other pollutants by burning fossil fuels. Developing nations need to restrict behaviors which are cheap in labor but expensive in carbon emissions (e.g. slash and burn). They will need economic and organizational aid from the developed world to help them establish economies which are not based on these behaviors.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[neoform (551705)]

Let the market regulate things. If we want environment-conscious products, make sure the pollution is more expensive.

I never understood this mentality..

Why do we have police? Because citizens, as good as we are, cannot be trusted to police ourselves without a ton of laws and police to make sure we do what we're supposed to.

Why should the market be any better? It's run by those same people who could not be trusted to maintain law biding composure.

The market is fueled by it's self which is why companies are able to sell people products they don't really want or need (diamonds?), while consumers have the choice in the end, they also manipulate the hell out of us and try to convince us that their products are really safe/healthy/environmental.. when they're not.

A perfect example would be "0 Trans Fats" vs "No Trans Fats" (yes, there's a difference). No transfats means just that; 0 means it could be "0.9g Transfats" but because of the current standards, they can truncate the number to become "0".

Who then is going to stop a company from lying about how environmentally friendly their products are if there is no actual regulation?

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[MrMr (219533)]

But it already is a down and dirty trade war:
Both the Clinton and the Bush administration have implicitly admitted that the US cannot compete in a free market system if the real cost of pollution costs would have to paid. Therefore allowing pollution for profit is just one of the weapons in a trade-war, just like for instance allowing copyright infringment for profit, or manipulating exchange rates to damage your opponents.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[Coryoth (254751)]

Both the Clinton and the Bush administration have implicitly admitted that the US cannot compete in a free market system if the real cost of pollution costs would have to paid.

Certainly that's relatively verifiable from a CO2 emissions basis. While not perfect (what data is?) this table [wikipedia.org] provides a rough analysis of GDP with respect to CO2 emissions. The US does not fare well in comparison to many European countries. On the other hand, the US is also far from the bottom, being streets ahead of China. The US is at the very least notably above the world average. Most of the worst offenders in terms of efficiency are former Soviet States that presumably are stuck with primitive industrial infrastructure, and not much of an economy. Given that table, however, there is plenty of other finger pointing that can go on. Canada, which likes to think well of itself, fares little better than the US.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[zippthorne (748122)]

OK, but how much of Switzerland's GDP depends on, for instance, Banking, an industry notoriously devoid of any inherent CO2 needs. The table needs some refinement, because a large industry of shifting signatures around is going to affect the GDP without increasing emissions and without necessarily increasing the real wealth either.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[MrMr (219533)]

Don't take it from the commies and the hippies; just read the official documents, or any lobby group manifest for that matter:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/economicimp acts/execsummary.html [doe.gov]

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7850 [mackinac.org]

http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05907.cfm [cei.org]

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[IdleTime (561841)]

"Socialist Europe"

ROFLMAO. Another American who has no idea what socialism means and no clue about Europe and the result is mindless drivel without foothold in reality, good job.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[chriss (26574)]

In a true free market capitalism world, someone would own the air, water etc. and you would have to pay them for the right to pollute. Some senators therefore proposed to privatize everything, so somebody would care if you destroy these things. I think we are in enough trouble already with patents and intellectual property to see that making everything "owned by someone" is not necessarily the best option. But this is what a real market version would look like. Today we have a world where a number of resources are provided "for free" instead of having a price, which is part of the problem.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[Telvin_3d (855514)]

The only problem with a pure free market is that it acts under the assumption that what makes the best business sense will be inherently good for everyone. Just because the average consumer want to pay less for goods in exchange for more environmental damage, that doesn't mean it is a good idea. The reason that we have (and need, unfortunately) governments is that often what the best choice for society at large is a poor choice for a give segment of that society. A dying environment is a bad thing for society. It may be fine for specific business or acceptable for some consumers, but that does not make it a good choice or outcome.

Who says it would wreck the economy?

[shmlco (594907)]

"... why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on..."

Who says it would wreck the economy? Automakers cried wolf in the same fashion in the 70's and 80's when rasied MPG requirements and imposed the environmental standards that required catalytic converters and cleaner fuels. "Oh," said they, "it will cause the collapse of the industry as we know it and cause irreparable harm to the US economy."

Didn't happen.

At worst cleaning up our act and imposing higher CAFE standards "might" impact corporate profits for a quarter or two. But in return we get a cleaner environment, less polution, and less dependence on foreign oil imports. Not to mention spawning new industries to provide those solutions and technologies.

And that's a bad thing... how?

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[Checkmait (1062974)]

I think that you yourself are being a little egotistical. While the EU is indeed a larger market, it has many of the same problems that the United States market has. I would like to point out that in the EU, you manufacture very little these days, as does the United States. On my visits to nations in the EU, I have found the label which says "Fabriqué en Chine" or "Hergestellt in China" or whatever language you choose on many many products.

As for our currency, while its value is decreasing slowly, you exaggerate. It is not "worth so little" today, and I will also point out that if the United States stops investment in the world, the resultant situation would not be pleasant.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[drix (4602)]

So, uhh, what was your point again? GP was saying that if the US fell off the face of the Earth tomorrow, the rest of the world would go chugging right along since the bulk of imports come from China and other developing nations. And (s)he is right. There wouldn't be as many Cisco routers, dot coms, investment banks, or bushels of corn to go around, but, well, bfd. We are mostly a service economy and services, while nice, aren't a deal breaker for most economies. I don't view trade sanctions as likely in the near future, but if we continue down our path while the rest of the world continues down another, it's certainly not out of the question.

As to your point about currency, you need to read up on international finance, my friend. China has us completely by the balls in terms of foreign reserves, and if the constant rumors about the teetering dollar ever spook them into switching even a small portion of that into gold or euros, a major, painful readjustment in the exchange rate would result, and it would not be pleasant for the American economy.

Re:sanctions are inevitable

[IdleTime (561841)]

Why is winning wars important to you?

I find it barbaric to measure a countrys worth based on wars they have won. I personally base a countrys worth on what they offer the citizens and how little crime, esp violent crime the country has, access to health care, access to higher education, How they punish their own citizens etc. And when it comes to all of those, USA is pretty far down on any lists. It looks more like a banana republic than a 1st world country and yes, I have lived and worked here for over a decade and I have lived and worked in several other countries too. If I wasn't white with a good education from a top 50 university working in a 6 figure job and living in a climatically great area, I would not have been here.

I'm not French either, but when you use the French revolution against them, it is too dumb to take seriously. USA has not exactly been stellar when it comes to winning wars alone in the past either and it certainly have had zero luck in Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly because your leaders have zero clue about how to handle them. You have basically been shown that the US military machine is a waste of money and it will not be able to achieve anything in the world we currently live in. So, continue to spend a good portion of your tax money on the military, err on the fat cats running the armament industry. USA is slowly becoming a 3rd world society with a 1st world economy/military.

Climate? What is that?

[by Anonymous Coward]

The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses 'multiple red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to

No kidding. Like is there really a climate? I don't recall Jesus ever talking about a climate and I'm damn sure he never mentioned anything about it changing. Perhaps these other G8 nations need to worry a little more about their salvation than some hippie environmentalist cause that is only supported by scientists. Get the support of a couple of preachers and then I'll listen.

I heart Dinosaurs

[letchhausen (95030)]

The overall position of the US at this time is that people and dinosaurs lived together in harmony and that soon George the idiot and all his money-grubbing pals will fly into the sky up to heaven. Global warming and the changing environment is a problem for those of us LEFT BEHIND to deal with. So as dubya says "What me worry?"

Re:I heart Dinosaurs

[dal20402 (895630)]

Parent is not a troll. It's an informative [tomdispatch.com] post.

There's not much political benefit to environmental stewardship when a considerable majority [cbsnews.com] of your supporters have no interest in empirical truth. Most Bush voters believe exactly what parent said: Jesus will come again and they will be swept into heaven before the environmental consequences of their actions cause them any harm.

God

[southern yank (1092881)]

That's exactly right. I read a Gore Vidal essay explaining how Regan was absolutely convinced that the biblical end of times would be within his lifetime. It's scary to think how such beliefs influence national policy. Vidal also proposed that no president should be elected who holds a literal view of the bible. I wonder how much the Christian Right influences Bush's environmental policy.

Why bother looking out for future generations if the leader of the free world believes we'll all be getting beamed up in a few years?

responsability

[bedonnant (958404)]

this news is sadly unsurprising.
when will the US finally step up and take something other than short-term, economic driven decisions concerning the environment?

Investigation at DOI

[ushering05401 (1086795)]

Here's a related bit of news that may make you feel better.

An investigation at the Department of the Interior (Manages US wildlands) has resulted in numerous resignations and may result in real domestic reform.

Accusations from leading scientists include:
Elimination of data regarding imperiled species in resource rich areas
Rubber stamping of logging permits on public lands without due process
Improper contact between dept administrators and corporate interests including the allowance of corporate influence on impact assessments

All of the allegations center around administrators who were placed by the Bush administration. Several highly placed scientists have left for the private sector and there may be an expose published. The elimination of data was egregious. Apparently data was not only removed from official reports, but other data was *actually* changed and whistleblowers were railroaded out.

Bet you five bucks this becomes a campaign issue if Gore decides to run.

Re:responsability

[smallpaul (65919)]

Make it simple. Everyone...reduce your individual countries emissions by x% in y years. No breaks, no 'trading', no excuses. X%.

So you're saying that in a country where nobody has cars, nobody would be allowed to BUY cars, but in a country where everyone drives Hummers it would be sufficient for everyone to "downsize" to an Expedition.

Quite the opposite: the only fair thing is for every human being should have a "carbon budget" and they should either live within their budget or buy budget space from someone else.

yes

[wizardforce (1005805)]

surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods?

the world is more like a single civilization these days, any sanctions brought by europe would have far reaching consequences for the world economy. while I do think that the only way to get the top C02 producers' attention is to hit their wallet, I dont think sanctions are it. mainly because sanctions interrupt the global economy not just america's. but hey if there is a way, I hope they do it- I am sick of politicians and industry putting their own monetary goals ahead of life on Earth- something must be done.

Error...

[derEikopf (624124)]

The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement.

Correction: The US Government.

Re:Error...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Correction, The USA is a democracy, ruled by the people. So the US goverment is the US and represents the US's views.

Re:Error...

[nova_ostrich (774466)]

It's a republic, actually. Ruled by elected representatives of the people. Democracy is just the word those representatives use to make the people of the US feel warm and fuzzy.

Personally, I've rarely encountered a candidate for major public office that represents my views. I believe that there's a decent-sized minority similar to myself that simply can't quite overpower (in votes) the majority that focuses on whatever the two major candidates have decided are important issues today.

Re:Error...

[thelandp (632129)]

Disagree. Speaking as a member of the "Rest of the World", I think it's important to make a distinction between the American people, and the current American government:

We don't hate the American people (though the tourists can be a bit loud sometimes, they still mean well.)
But we hate the American government with a passion.

The distinction happens because the democratic process sometimes doesn't run as smoothly as one would hope - that can happen to any country.

Re:Error...

[SeaFox (739806)]

Correction: The US Government.

Correction: The companies who bought off the representatives of the U.S. government.

Dear rest of the world,

[Flying pig (925874)]

We're really sorry about the climate change thing. Still, we never did want to go to Bangladesh and, let's face it, that big lagoon where London used to be is quite attractive.

We don't suppose you can spare some rice and some oil, by any chance? Only the desert now stretches from the West Coast to Chicago and we have a bit of a food problem. And the Canadians have built a big fence along the border and won't let us in as none of us want to mow their lawns or harvest their oranges.

We can offer plenty of stuff in exchange. How about some strategic nuclear missiles? Or some fighter aircraft? We've got plenty of them. Unfortunately, turns out they don't work too well if you want to invade another country and make people grow food for you.

Not just about the climate.

[Fuzzums (250400)]

The thing is not inly if "greenhouse gasses" affect the climate. It's also about outrageous and irresponsible use of resources. It's about pollution.

You don't pollute your own house, so stop polluting this world.
Although I don't live in your house and couldn't care less about what you do there, I and about 6 billion people live in this world so let's keep it clean.

The US knows everything

[SQLz (564901)]

I mean, why don't they listen to the USA. Our position is that since the earth is only 3000 years old, there isn't enough long term data to determine if climage change is even being caused by humans. Not only that, why would God let the planet get too hot? It just doesn't make any sense.

Carbon credits

[furball (2853)]

Don't worry. I'm selling carbon credits. Just pay me and continue on what you were doing.

Re:Hope for the future

[julesh (229690)]

it is the usa, a republic, not a democracy

Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

(source for both defs, dictionary.com)

The difference is what, precisely? Other than that "republic" is a more precise term than "democracy" which is somewhat vague about the exact mechanism, nothing relevant.

Re:Greenpeace...

[nagora (177841)]

Does it single the US out in any way? Does it put broader or more strenuous penalties on the US?

As the single biggest waster of energy in the world and a country where average miles per gallon figures are actually dropping, I would hope that a bigger stick would be applied to the US.

Do you hassle all your neighbours equally, or just the ones who are letting their dog shit on your lawn?

Even if we come up with a huge breakthrough on the energy production front,

How about just improving the efficency of your economy to the same level that other people have?

China and India will both be producing 5-10 times more emissions than they are today

Gothcha, two wrongs make a right.

They aren't covered by this agreement at all.

Oh, I thought you said you didn't know the specifics of the agreement.

global warming still just as much of a problem and the developed world has no economy left,

Hey, crazy thought, but couldn't you just not buy all that crap China is producing? I mean, if you're that worried about their economy overtaking yours maybe you should stop paying them to do it? Plus, since they're a totally corrupt and evil country, you'd even be acting ethically. Just a thought. We could all make a small start by not sending any teams to the Chinese Olympics.

TWW

Re:Greenpeace...

[Ironsides (739422)]

Further, if the G8 did reduce emissions by 50% by 2050 (below 1990 levels... um... ok, so we reduce our energy consumption by 50% and don't completely destroy our economy how?).

Hey, remember. Emissions!=energy production. I could easily drop our emmissions by 50% and increase energy production. Nuclear power is our friend.

Re:Get the religious people on side?

[MemoryDragon (544441)]

The funny thing is, that Christianity has been perverted to a big degree, I dont know where those groups derive their believe from, it cannot be in the words written down.

Lets sum those words up, there was a guy 2000 years ago, he went into confrontation against people who had strict religious rules, he sided with hookers poor people etc, and called the rich ones being not his people. He went into opposition against things which would make the life miserable for ordinary people, and he was in his core message not really a very capitalistic guy (some people nowadays probably would call him communistic, I just would say he puts the people in the core of his message not the money)
He also was absolutely opposed to any war or violence whatsover even dismissing defense as valid form of violence.

Now lets face it, if a guy with such a message would go out into the crowds nowadays, how long do you think his life expectancy would be. Probably three years as well, the killer, probably some corporate sponsored guy, or a religious zealot, who wants to the defend the words of jesus (and does in fact do totally the opposite). Jesus probably would go in total confrontation with any right wing cristian groups like he did with the jewis zealots in the past, and probably would call them severe names out of anger, he also would go into opposition with lots of governments including our own, and generally our society of self righteousness while we bring lots of misery onto the rest of the planet.
I dont think the message he would bring us would be very comforting for us!