Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues II

[sithgoblin]

US President George W Bush's plan to cap greenhouse gases by 2025 has been dismissed as "disastrous" and "Neanderthal" by some ministers at a climate change meeting in Paris.

Mr Bush has unveiled a plan to halt the growth of US emissions by 2025, which the US says is tougher than its previous goals.

But delegates at the ministerial-level meeting of major carbon emitters, including the US, Australia and the European Union (EU), were less than impressed.

Germany accused Mr Bush of turning back the clock to before last December's UN climate talks in Bali and even to before last July's G8 summit.

In a statement entitled "Bush's Neanderthal speech," German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said: "His speech showed not leadership but losership. We are glad that there are also other voices in the United States."

South Africa blasted Mr Bush's proposal as a disastrous retreat by the planet's number-one polluter and a slap to poor countries.

Mr Bush's speech on Wednesday came at a key time in efforts to craft a new UN treaty for slashing the heat-trapping fossil-fuel gases that scientists fear will ravage Earth's climate system.

The Bali talks yielded a two-year "roadmap" designed to culminate in a planetary deal that will tackle carbon emissions beyond 2013, after the present pledges in the Kyoto Protocol run out.

These negotiations have the delicate task of bridging the US on one side and the EU and developing countries on the other - and Mr Bush's critics said his speech had provocatively staked out old positions already blamed for prolonged stalemate.

Instead of setting a date for cutting US emissions, Mr Bush had merely outlined a year - 2025 - by which the emissions would peak, they said.

In addition, Mr Bush renewed his attack on Kyoto-style mandatory emissions caps and pressed big emerging countries to make concessions, saying they should not get "a free ride" in the next climate treaty.

"There is no way whatsoever that we can agree to what the US is proposing," South African Environment and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said, describing the Bush administration as "isolated."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto shrugged off what he called "hot-blooded reaction" to the Bush speech and compared what he said was the administration's record of setting goals and achieving them with those who sought "short-term political benefit" from rhetoric.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...18/2220481.htm

[Little Foot]

This is really getting ridiculous. Why the US presidential administration has to continually try to isolate itself from real debate and international opinion is beyond me. It is especially disturbing that Bush is trying to push forward a plan that is again against international favor on the subject. It was bad enough when I heard that the US was trying to lead discussions in the treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol (given that the US did not even participate in that agreement). But if the US wants to lead, maybe it should stop and listen to international opinion.
It's not nice when China ignores international opinion, and people in the US sure get cranky that we can't force China to change its mind. How must the rest of the world feel about the United States?
Sorry that this isn't really a direct response.

[Kelly]

We have a plan? Wow............................................... .....

[Little Foot]

Originally Posted by Kel

We have a plan? Wow............................................... .....

Ha! Good point.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Little Foot

This is really getting ridiculous. Why the US presidential administration has to continually try to isolate itself from real debate and international opinion is beyond me. It is especially disturbing that Bush is trying to push forward a plan that is again against international favor on the subject. It was bad enough when I heard that the US was trying to lead discussions in the treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol (given that the US did not even participate in that agreement). But if the US wants to lead, maybe it should stop and listen to international opinion.
It's not nice when China ignores international opinion, and people in the US sure get cranky that we can't force China to change its mind. How must the rest of the world feel about the United States?
Sorry that this isn't really a direct response.

While I do agree with you, to be fair to Bush, China must be included in the next climate agreement. To make specific exclusions for them like Kyoto did would be highly disasterous for the enviroment, especially since they are rapidly on road to become the #1 polluter by far.

In my opinion China is already the #1 polluter

[Kelly]

China and India....

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Kel

China and India....

Well I was basing it on my own experience. When I went to China it smelled so bad because of the pollution and the sky wasn't even blue somedays.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Well I was basing it on my own experience. When I went to China it smelled so bad because of the pollution and the sky wasn't even blue somedays.

This is exactly part of the reason why I support a boycott of the Olympics... the athletes are going to be exposed to this **** for over a month... and while the Chinese are exposed to it on a regular basis, many of these people who don't breathe smog on a regular basis are going to find themselves with breathing problems...

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

This is exactly part of the reason why I support a boycott of the Olympics... the athletes are going to be exposed to this **** for over a month... and while the Chinese are exposed to it on a regular basis, many of these people who don't breathe smog on a regular basis are going to find themselves with breathing problems...

From what I hear........they will shut down all industry during the olympics.....that should be interesting.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Well I was basing it on my own experience. When I went to China it smelled so bad because of the pollution and the sky wasn't even blue somedays.

True....I added India because I just heard a news story on this very subject, and China and India are the 2 fastest growing industrial nations that in some Geographers minds are still developing....you put those 2 things together and you have a massive amount of pollution coming from a concentrated area....

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by Kel

From what I hear........they will shut down all industry during the olympics.....that should be interesting.

Hmm... good idea, but that won't get rid of all the smog caused by people who burn coal in their homes for heat or cooking... not to mention it won't get rid of all the carbon emissions caused by motorists, or the carbon emissions still in the environment from when industry was up and running...

[Marx]

Originally Posted by Kel

We have a plan? Wow............................................... .....

I think the more shocking thing is that George W. Bush proposed it...

[Kelly]

And you think he thought that up by himself?........hell I'm a Texan, and I know better than that.....lol

[Marx]

Originally Posted by Kel

And you think he thought that up by himself?........hell I'm a Texan, and I know better than that.....lol

I didn't say that he created it Kel, I said that he proposed it.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by TheMarx

I didn't say that he created it Kel, I said that he proposed it.

*sighs*, goes and gets glasses.....

[Marx]

Originally Posted by Kel

*sighs*, goes and gets glasses.....

It's ok Kel, it is late!

[Kelly]

Nooooooooooo....*sighs*.....................I'm old.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

This is exactly part of the reason why I support a boycott of the Olympics... the athletes are going to be exposed to this **** for over a month... and while the Chinese are exposed to it on a regular basis, many of these people who don't breathe smog on a regular basis are going to find themselves with breathing problems...

Bush will never boycott of the Olympics, We owe China to much money for him to do that.

[The Senator]

Originally Posted by Superman

Bush will never boycott of the Olympics, We owe China to much money for him to do that.

Oh, of course he won't boycott the Olympics. Being one of the world's foremost violators of human rights himself, I can see why he wouldn't understand the problems facing those all throughout China, not to mention Tibet.

[Little Foot]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

While I do agree with you, to be fair to Bush, China must be included in the next climate agreement. To make specific exclusions for them like Kyoto did would be highly disasterous for the enviroment, especially since they are rapidly on road to become the #1 polluter by far.

In my opinion China is already the #1 polluter

To counter that argument, though, it is counterproductive for the US to refuse because China is not participating. I agree that China has to be top ten worldwide when it comes to volume of pollution, but that does not excuse the US, another top ten, from refusing to participate. At least pollution is cut back if the US cooperates. It's only increased if the US refuses because China refuses.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Superman

Bush will never boycott of the Olympics, We owe China to much money for him to do that.

But China would never do anything because we buy so much from them. If they ever decided to clamp down on US spending they would be so screwed economically.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Little Foot

To counter that argument, though, it is counterproductive for the US to refuse because China is not participating. I agree that China has to be top ten worldwide when it comes to volume of pollution, but that does not excuse the US, another top ten, from refusing to participate. At least pollution is cut back if the US cooperates. It's only increased if the US refuses because China refuses.

I never said that the United States should refuse to take part because China isn't participating. As a matter in fact I completely agree with you. But Bush is indeed right (he spouts a few things correctly every once and a rare moment) that the next agreement to replace Kyoto must include China which is far worse than the United States.

[Little Foot]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

I never said that the United States should refuse to take part because China isn't participating. As a matter in fact I completely agree with you. But Bush is indeed right (he spouts a few things correctly every once and a rare moment) that the next agreement to replace Kyoto must include China which is far worse than the United States.

My qualm isn't with you; I am merely concerned, since the last time the US took such a stance, we just didn't even participate. I'm merely worried that that could be the ultimate path we take, if the US tries a "hard-line" approach again. Sorry for misunderstanding you at first.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by jmanspice

Oh, of course he won't boycott the Olympics. Being one of the world's foremost violators of human rights himself, I can see why he wouldn't understand the problems facing those all throughout China, not to mention Tibet.

I know why I think he's a violator of human rights but I'd like to hear what you think he's done.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Little Foot

My qualm isn't with you; I am merely concerned, since the last time the US took such a stance, we just didn't even participate. I'm merely worried that that could be the ultimate path we take, if the US tries a "hard-line" approach again. Sorry for misunderstanding you at first.

While China was one of the concerns of the Kyoto Protocol that wasn't the main reason why the United States didn't participate in it. Economic factors were.

The fact is that Kyoto was just simply a bad treaty which could have been abused to punish the United States for various reasons and say that it's an enviromental issue especially since nations like Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and other nations that participate in it which have an anti-American foreign policies to the point of rediculousness and hilarity. It excluded China and India and had side notes for other countries as well. And Russia gets to make money off of it.

Not only that it wouldn't have been ratified regardless if Bush was in office or not. The Senate overwhelmingly (95-0) voted in a response to the treaty stating that the United States should not participate in it. That's why Clinton never submitted it for ratification because it would have been easily shot down in the Senate. Bush just simply said he didn't support it and wasn't going to turn it in to the Senate for ratification.

I feel that I should stress that I feel that Bush is a horrible President, especially in regards to the enviroment. I feel that we should impliment the ideals and the measures of the Kyoto Protocol despite my opposition to the treaty. But it really isn't Bush's fault on this one