US Opposes G8 Climate Proposals 845
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 (Score:4, Informative)
It's fragile, and about to break (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you care to provide a link to support the claims made by sumdumass, I will address them.
Re:It's fragile, and about to break (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Wow. Just - wow.
Re:It's fragile, and about to break (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's fragile, and about to break (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
This common refrain ("we won't reduce ours until they do so, too") is like two school-children arguing: "You first!" "Nu-uh, you first!"
Re:China, Brasil, India, Indonesia (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
No, actually, they don't.
If you follow this link [ucsusa.org] you'll see that the emission of the US is still WAY higher than China, even as China has a much larger number of inhabitants. (data is from '96, couldn't find more recent data using a quick google search and I'm too lazy to keep on looking).
The US isn't doing nearly enough, since the US is so wastefull compared to the rest of the developed world it should be relatively easy to cut down, 'we' already demonstrated it can be done. E.g. increase the gas prices through taxation so people will stop buying ridicious cars. (Contrary to popular belief US gas prices are insanely low).
Re:China, Brasil, India, Indonesia (Score:5, Informative)
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:
Of course, there is also Wikipedia:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, since they consequently lacked anything to domesticate, they stayed at the hunter-gatherer tribal state for the next 20 000 years and were eventually driven off their land and killed into near-extinction by foreign invaders and their domestication-originated diseases.
You could had
sanctions are inevitable (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:sanctions are inevitable (Score:4, Insightful)
USA seems to be saying to the world, "we don't care about the planet".
Re:sanctions are inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sanctions are inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one would let a trash-disposal company make money by dumping rubbish in their backyard
To paraphrase Stranger that Fiction -- "that depends entirely on the size of the backyard and, the quantity of the rubbish."
Albany NY gets a substantial amount of money by operating a landfill, right next to our western highway exit. The only complaint is that the air isn't clean enough, not that there's a landfill at all.
If your town has the land, try proposing "we can start a landfill an eliminate property tax increases for the next fifty years" at your next school budget meeting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This somehow remembers me some cute Maire Antoinette saying on pre-revolution days: "if there's no bread, let them eat cake!"
Please, remember how Marie Antoinette ended.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This somehow remembers me some cute Maire Antoinette saying on pre-revolution days: "if there's no bread, let them eat cake!"
Please, remember how Marie Antoinette ended.
Clever, but a non-sequitir. I imagine your +4 rating has more to do with your historical reference and playing to the anti-american-they'll-get-theirs-someday crowd then you actually having a point.
Trees are a renewable resourc
Re:Trees are renewable (Score:5, Informative)
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 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:Trees are renewable (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That idea is genius. We need more ideas like this. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think the government, or governments, can solve it without the private industry. Private industry is the only organizer of the masses and it must be utilized in every way on every level.
It must be cheaper to run a business in an environmentally friendly manner. It also must be cheapter to start a business that is dedicated to solving climate change.
I propose that we al
Re:sanctions are inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:sanctions are inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a good point. Australia exports a lot of steel. The mining, refining and production of steel is very energy intensive. If another country buys that steel, then on who's tally should the CO2 go?
Having said that, US, Australia, and others have a bloody long way to go in improving the energy efficiency and sustainability of their industries. I can certainly see a situation in a few years where countries/industry want to buy "green st
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, in a completely artificial statistic (GDP per ton of CO2). If you look at tons of CO2 per capita, the US pollutes more per person than China.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is it really fair to count CO2 per capita when comparing countries where one still has a significant percentage of their population that are still mostly subsidence farmers? And have the lifespan and quality of life that hasn't changed much for the last thousand years?
Many of the plants China is building today aren't much cleaner than what was built in the USA 40 years ago. They're going through their industrial revolution much as we did, though I believe that it'll be quicker
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Considering the enormous amount of goods imported every day from China to us here in the US..
I'd say where responsible for a good chunk of that too.
There is no need for a trade war. (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason we cannot compete is because we ignore our strengths. The USA should be the easiest/best/cheapest place on planet earth to start a small business, period. The USA should stop fearing growth, and change the laws so that growth is encouraged.
Pollution is not profitable for anyone. The solution, is simple, if we want a better market, we have to make it more free, and the only way to make it more free is to allow for increas
Re:sanctions are inevitable (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/economicim
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7850 [mackinac.org]
http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05907.cfm [cei.org]
Re:sanctions are inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing that makes me sad is people hate the U.S. or think we're a bunch of dimwits, but what they don't realize is that most of its citizens are economically enslaved and don't want things to be as they are, but they have no recourse. Voting is an illusion. Those in office come from families with wealth and power and are supported by those with wealth and power. And most of that takes generations to build, so it's an old boys club of old money that has a hegemony over the populace. If you aren't from
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All of them has a very healthy mix of the best from socialism and from capitalism. As a Norwegian, I should know, I made a fortune in the 70's and 80's on oil and computers and I'm now more or less retired here in Florida. Socialistic! LOL! You have no clue!
All the Scandinavian countries have a huge private business and some state run, but very few compared to what is owned by shareholders.
For your informati
Re:sanctions are inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The monopoly problem is usually "semi-solved" by having virtual providers. Switching gas companies doesn't mean getting a new pipe laid between your home and the competitors refinery, instead you keep using the local utility provider's pipelines and pay the competitor who are th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interlectual Property is not scarce (Score:4, Interesting)
You're joking, right??? The term this thread is searching for is 'non-rival' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) [wikipedia.org] ). Apples are rivalrous goods. If I eat an apple I reduce the amount of apple left for everyone else. Housing services (think 'house-months') are, too. If I live in a house for a month, I reduce the amount of housing left for everyone else for that month. A musical recording, or a piece of software, is non-rival. If I listen to (or copy) some country music it doesn't - regrettably - reduce the amount of country music left in the world for everyone else.
That is the difference, and is why intellectual property is fundamentally different. No free market can produce an optimal outcome for an economy containing non-rival goods (see my other post on the first theorem of welfare economics). With no IP protection there's too little incentive to generate IP. With IP protection people who might benefit from the IP but not by enough to pay the market price cannot make use of it, and this can add up to a lot of lost economic welfare (especially for those in poorer countries - consider AIDS drugs). There's a second-best maxima at some level of IP protection, but it isn't as much as the perfect economic choices (all IP which costs less to produce than the total benefits is produced, and anyone who can benefit from it uses it freely).
Re:sanctions are inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Other option: Not imposing trade tariffs.
Just trying to help.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dont expect the EU to shed too many tears about losing the USA as a market.
Re:sanctions are inevitable (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
God, I love anti-American Slashdotters. In your zeal to bash the U.S. (remember, it makes you intellectual and witty!), you conveniently leave out that if the U.S. disappeared, there wouldn't be anybody to buy the damn imports. Bye-bye, economies.
As for global warming, there is so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, your post is partly wrong, and partly misguided. The US is not the only country with wealth to buy imports. While an immediate cessation of US purchasing would be a blow to the global economy, it would survive. Anyway, what do you think is gonna happen as the US dollar (inevitably) devalues?
Finally, let's play spot the cliche!
1. God, I love anti-American Slashdotters.
2. there is so much contradict
Sarkozy already targeting China (Score:3, Informative)
The Bush administ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More like a big bang. Normally, if one country were to devote most of its production resources to intellectual "property", and the rest of the world were to copy that property without paying, that country would be screwed. When that country spends more on its military than most of the rest of the world combined, things are different.
Put another way, if Europe were to impose "environmental impact teriffs" on US go
Who says it would wreck the economy? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US Department of Energy under President Clinton (from HERE [doe.gov]):
[T]he introduction of such reduction would affect both consumers and businesses. Households would be faced with higher prices for energy and the need to adjust spending patterns. Nominal energy expenditures would rise, taking a larger share of the family budget for goods and service consumption and leaving less for savings. Higher prices for energy would cause consumers to try to reduce spending not only on energy, but on other goods as well. Thus, changes in energy prices would tend to disrupt both savings and spending streams. Energy services also represent a key input in the production of goods and services. As energy prices increase, the costs of production rise, placing upward pressure on the nominal prices of all intermediate goods and final goods and services in the economy, with widespread impacts on spending across many markets.
But in return we get a cleaner environment, less polution, and less dependence on foreign oil imports.
I agree with increasing efficiency standards with the goal of reducing energy imports. But efficiency alone won't do it. We also need to increase energy production as well. This means nuclear, solar, wind, as well as more coal and oil production with research in making them cleaner and more efficient.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, the current high gas prices are almost exclusively due to lack of refinery capacity, and the oil companies have a major disincentive in increasing it. You see, by investing money in refinery capacity and increasing supply they'd be expected to "reduce" prices. What idiot would spend mone
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are two reasons behind this, firstly the EU has this neat trick of expanding, so for example just taking in Romania and Bulgaria at the beginning of the year will boost the EU GDP in the region of 300 billion USD for 2007 year. That makes catch up tough for the USA even if the EU economy was
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And nothing has changed in the world since 1945, right? France was instrumental in securing USA as am independent country. I think that action is far more interesting and yet, Americans hate the French while you should be kissing their ass and thank them for USA.
Re:sanctions are inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
I heart Dinosaurs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I heart Dinosaurs (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
when will the US finally step up and take something other than short-term, economic driven decisions concerning the environment?
Investigation at DOI (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
When will Europe finally step up and admit they have failed badly [washingtonpost.com] WRT the Kyoto Protocol? (some countries have done great. But nowhere all or enough)
When will the world step up and bring China and India into the emission reduction mindset?
When will the rest of the world finally admit that the US is making significant efforts in emissions reductions, just not within the exact
Re:responsability (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The Rise of Selfishness (Score:3, Insightful)
Selfishness seems to have become the core value of America right now. The measure of all actions is self interest. Individuals and corporations are encouraged to act solely in their own self interest, for that, we are told is the best way to ensure the common interest. While there is some truth to this, overall it is dangerous delusion. We are all part of a larger civilization, and the fate of that civilization effects all of us.
Climate change is an issue that will effect all of us. And no matter
yes (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
Correction: The US Government.
Re:Error... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Error... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or the even larger majority who are basically conned into voting for whichever party based on misleading and one-sided campaign publicity (TV & radio adverts, billboards etc.).
It's funny how in almost all US elections for the past couple of decades, it is the party with the most campaign money behind it that gets into power.
Re:Error... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction: The companies who bought off the representatives of the U.S. government.
Dear rest of the world, (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Greenpeace... (Score:3, Interesting)
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?). Even if we come up with a huge breakthrough on the energy production front, and we manage to reduce emissions by that much, China and India will both be producing 5-10 times more emissions than they are today, and today China and India are producing almost as much as the US. They aren't covered by this agreement at all. So net result is, global warming still just as much of a problem and the developed world has no economy left, or wasted hundreds of billions converting over to clean power.
The problem with agreements like this is that you can't know, say the G8 (including US) signs this agreement, and now its 2048, and no one has made fusion work, wind power is still too costly, and too sporadic, wave power doesn't pan out, solar power is still only 15% efficient, nuclear power because of local regulations is not an option... And we have this global treaty that on Jan 1 2050 requires us to pay huge penalties or turn off half our economy.... There is not a good solution to the energy problem, and you don't commit yourself to something extremely detrimental to your economy, way of life, people in general hoping for a massive breakthrough. And that is exactly what this is hoping. We would need a seriously massive breakthrough on some renewable energy front (nuclear, solar, wind, whatever) to comply with this regulation. There is nothing that seems to be on the horizon which would allow us to comply. Hydrogen cars? Great but hydrogen takes energy to produce, so now we're burning more coal. Electric cars, same problem. The only solution is to go completely nuclear. But thanks to these same environmentalists, that is 100% impossible in the US. It will not happen.
The only other possibility is to start spending billions if not hundreds of billions buying up huge swathes of land to put up wind farms or solar panels, and then there is still huge amounts of regulation, law suits, all sorts of things that will happen with that. I wanted to take my house off the grid, but it is impossible for 99% of americans to pull this off, because solar panels to power even a modest home cost > 30k. Very few people have that money sitting around, and even if they did, they would be stupid to spend it on something that will at most save them 100-150/mo on their electric bill. 30+ year ROI is not considered a good investment anywhere.
Re:Greenpeace... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, remember. Emissions!=energy production. I could easily drop our emmissions by 50% and increase energy production. Nuclear power is our friend.
What Do They Disagree With? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I wouldn't sign anything that was an "Agreement to slow the rise in average temperatures this century to 2C". How can we possibly agree to that? Do we have some reason to believe that is withing the G8's power?
-Peter
The US knows everything (Score:5, Funny)
Clear and Present Danger (Score:3, Interesting)
There are some hints in the news here that the USA was sufficiently embarrassed by this leaked memorandum, that it had to mollify its position somewhat.
It happens that the governments of the UK and Germany happen to take global warming very seriously, and both want and need to deliver a deal. If the US refuse to compromise, then the allies of the USA will be in a very awkward position indeed. Chancellor Merkel and especially prime minister Blair will have closely associated themselves with a power that refuses to take action on an issue that they have themselves identified as a significant, even the most important, threat to the future of their own societies and economies. And as no nation on this planet produces even remotely as much CO2 per head of the population as Americans do, that makes the USA a de facto threat, instead of an ally.
The sad truth is that Merkel and Blair they have no reason to expect much in the way of concessions. So their best way out of this corner is to dismiss George W. Bush and his policies as an irrelevance, which they could do with some justification. Many US states have already taken serious steps to fight global warming, and as Tony Blair pointed out today, "I can't think that there's going to be many people running for presidential office next time round in the US who aren't going to have climate change in their program." Never mind the current president... and that's King Tony speaking!
Of course, even from the Bush administration's point of view, provoking such a situation seems rather counterproductive, and I would think that sanity will induce them to offer at least a compromise that people can attempt to interpret as a step forward. On the other hand, consistency or clear sense of purpose have never hallmarks of the Bush Jr. era.
You can't make money preventing global warming, (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that you cannot make real money preventing global warming. All you can do is to put yourself at an economic disadvantage.
However, there are mountians of govenment money to be made trying to correct the effects of it once it gets up and slaps people in the face.
So why try to stop it. Ride the tidal wave and make some real money in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The High Priest of Global Warming begs to differ. He even pays himself.
Reach agreement state by state? (Score:3, Interesting)
This might be a more practical approach than trying to reach any agreement with the current US administration, which would otherwise involve lots of foot-dragging and then finally a very watered down (and likely useless) agreement.
Also, if some states did sign up, it *might* shame the others into action? Or am I expecting too much?!
A dangerous rogue nation (Score:3, Interesting)
The U.S.A. is essentially an international criminal state on this issue,
and it's time that the rest of the world agreed to take some serious
punitive measures.
I think sanctions would be a good first step.
"No oil for you!"
('til you learn how to use it like a responsible adult.)
Carbon credits (Score:4, Funny)
Not my President (Score:3, Informative)
Man-made CO2 may NOT be the cause of global warmin (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hope for the future (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
A republic is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the list of things that will have the most impact on the environment that is way, way down the list in both terms of impact and return on investment as far as the environment goes.
I'm afraid you're flat wrong here.
The transportation and residential sectors combined make up more than half [doe.gov] of our greenhouse gas emissions. I'm not talking about the switch from a Tahoe to a Prius, but from a Tahoe to something like a Chevy Volt (sized for real-world use, of course). Given most people's driving patterns, that could cut our CO2 emissions from transportation by more than half. Similarly, I'm thinking about houses that are grid-neutral most of the time (think solar roofs, on-site windmil
Re:Get the religious people on side? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Group of Eight (G8) is an international forum for the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Together, these countries represent about 65% of the world economy.
The G8 is a group of the richest countries in the world and they get together to discuss matters between them. If they can't be arsed to cut emissions, what right do they have to impose them on other countries that aren't even in their little clique?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Link to the leaked document (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me that the best way for the rest of the world to react would be to stop negotiating with the US as a country and move to negotiating with the states. Some of them are as large as a reasonably sized country and act as such. California, for example, seems very ready to move on climate change.
The other states, some of which seem to have "rogue governments" that look very much like "axis of evil", can easily be ostracized. Sanctions can be implemented such as travel restrictions for their elected officials or freezing of funds in foreign bank accounts.
Of course military action cannot be ruled out but liberating Texas may be difficult.